- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Fri 8th June 2012

Would Someone Please Wakeup The Driver?

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 8:42 am

Efficacy of ban on abusive men questioned – Radio NZ News

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says the Government could go further than stopping abusive parents from having more babies, by banning abusive men from living or working with children.
Ms Bennett says the proposal is being discussed as part of the Government’s white paper on vulnerable children that is still being developed.
Cabinet is also considering allowing judges to direct parents convicted for the murder of a child, or serious child abuse, not to have any more children, and if they do, they will be removed at birth.
Ms Bennett told Nine to Noon she is considering the proposals as part of the Government’s obligation to stand up for children who have been hideously abused.
She says the proposals are still in the discussion stage.
Minister’s idea adds little – doctor
But Auckland Hospital paediatrician Simon Rowley says Ms Bennett’s latest proposal to curb child abuse will not be any more effective than the systems which are already in place.
Dr Rowley says abusive men are already stopped from being around children, as mothers are told they must not have the man around or their child will be taken away.
Auckland Council for Civil Liberties president Barry Wilson says the minister is essentially singling out people deemed to be undesirable and saying they should not have children.
Taking children away from their parents would do nothing to address the root causes of violent offending, he says.
And the Law Society says the Government’s idea of banning abusive men from living or working with children is practically impossible.
Chair of the society’s family law section Garry Collin says there is nothing in the family law provisions that would enable courts to give what could effectively be life-long parole conditions.
Among reactions from politicians, United Future and the Maori Party have concerns about proposals to give courts the power to order some people not to have children.
Ms Bennett said on Wednesday the Government is looking at enabling courts to direct parents who have abused or killed a child not to have children, or they will be removed at birth.
United Future leader Peter Dunne says it is difficult to see a situation where such heavy-handed intervention would be necessary.
Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell says the proposals don’t sit well with him.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei says the Government will struggle to get support.
Former Green MP Sue Bradford told Morning Report the state should not interfere with a woman’s right to have children.
She said the state already has the power to remove children from danger.
Other comment
Prime Minister John Key says Cabinet has never discussed the potential for child abusers to be sterilised, an idea he would not personally support.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie told Morning Report he supports the idea as dysfunctional parents should not have reproductive rights.
He said the Government has to act in the best interests of children.

Copyright © 2012, Radio New Zealand
___________________________________________________________

Dr Rowley says abusive men are already stopped from being around children, as mothers are told they must not have the man around or their child will be taken away.
Chair of the society’s family law section Garry Collin says there is nothing in the family law provisions that would enable courts to give what could effectively be life-long parole conditions.

So, what is really happening in NZ?
One says we are already doing it, the other says there is nothing in the law to allow this?

Ms Bennett said on Wednesday the Government is looking at enabling courts to direct parents who have abused or killed a child not to have children, or they will be removed at birth.
Prime Minister John Key says Cabinet has never discussed the potential for child abusers to be sterilised, an idea he would not personally support.

We are already doing both of these in practice, so are we debating stopping doing this?

Former Green MP Sue Bradford told Morning Report the state should not interfere with a woman’s right to have children.
She said the state already has the power to remove children from danger.

Allowing hazardous parents to keep on having more children when they will just be removed immediately on birth, surely this is a cruel thing to do and we should aim at a more humane resolution of this problem?

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie told Morning Report he supports the idea as dysfunctional parents should not have reproductive rights.

This seemed to me the only sensible quote in the whole article. For a country that spends almost $30 billions on social supports, but in total less than $30 million per year on policy analysis, then we must be completely crazy.

I apologise for the title of this article, as the issue isn’t waking up the driver – there is noone in the driving seat!

I wasn’t referring to successive Prime Ministers control or abuse of social policy, I am referring to the publics’ absence from following the debate through to sensible conclusions……

18 Responses to “Would Someone Please Wakeup The Driver?”

  1. Skeptic says:

    The vast amount of abuse of children in NZ is carried out by women alone. That fact is well documented. Yet notice that aside from discussion about enforced eugenics, there is nothing in this posting said about dealing with the underlying issue of female violence being prevented from occuring in the first place. Instead the focus has been switched to violent males. The taboo against discussing the development of sociopathic female psychology needs to be broken. There should be a long overdue discussion on that topic – a discussion that isn’t hijacked by feminists who will wrongly shift responsibility onto males.

  2. John Brett says:

    There is no-one in the driving seat.
    Government intervention is not the solution- it is the problem.
    I remember an old scheme which:
    1 Forbade sex unless man and women were married
    2 Required that marriage to be a formal comittment, witnessed by formal witnesses, and open to public view, with the right for anyone to object if they knew any good reason.
    3 Then required that couple to be responsible for the up-bringing of any children. Since women were likely to be fully occupied with maintaining the home and caring for the children, there were strict constraints on the man to support his WIFE and children.
    This avoided the social problems of parentless children becoming a burden on the rest of society, (that we now have in abundance) and ensured that children become educated in socially acceptable ways of living- (problens that we also have in abundance)
    4 It was customary for young women to show prospective partners that they had the required attributes and abilities to be wives and mothers, and for young men to show prospective partners that they had the required attributes to protect and support their wives and families.
    Perhaps Paula Bennet might consider this old, but tested scheme as a basis for future Government policy, since all the other hare-brained schmes have clearly failed.

  3. Ford says:

    someone posted a link a couple weeks ago about the new laws being introduced in the uk where the fathers can be banned from the home for up to 28 days and how nz would more than likely follow suit..looks like nz is doing just that

  4. golfa says:

    Murray, just because there is “nothing in the law”, it’s never stopped Family Court Judges before ! There is a thread on here about some FC Judges taking away a parent’s Guardianship. The Law doesn’t allow for a Judge to do that off his own bat. Hasn’t stopped them from doing it though.

  5. Ford says:

    #4..im so pleased im almost done with the system and its child law shit..then the fuckwits have no more holds over me..on paper im back to be a single man with no dependants…hooray..fuck the system

  6. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#5

    I know that feeling to well of been ‘done with the system’…And I vowed upon my blood that once I had finished of been financially raped by Gestapo feminist state called N.Z…..I would escape forever from this feminist cesspit…

    Any decent young kiwi men that are reading this website…My sincere advice to all of you…

    Is this,please under no circumstances get married..Don’t marry or get into a serious relationship with a Kiwi woman here in Feminist N.Z…You will be destroyed if the relationship turns belly up, especially if you become a Father

    And that is the worst mistake you could ever make in your whole life is to become a decent and loving Father in the Gestapo feminist state of N.Z

    Kind regards… John Dutchie…. Free at long last

  7. Ford says:

    #6..on one hand you have some of the system telling you to man up and be a responsible father to your kids and do the right thing then there is the another part of the system that does its utmost to make that as impossible a task as it can..hows that for mind twisting psycological abuse

  8. Kelvin says:

    A sick joke really? What about cases like that in which justice Phillipa Cunningham discharged a father (who had admitted to sexually assaulting his 4 year old daughter) without conviction on the basis that he was a “well known comedian who made people laugh”!!!!
    That sick bastard was allowed to return home and live under the same roof as his daughter! Compare that to fathers who, because they are no longer in a relationship with their childrens mother is all too often refused all but the most minimal contact with those children. NZ ‘justice’ system is a joke….

  9. Ford says:

    #8…its a legal system not a justice system

  10. Down Under says:

    Every legal system needs legal persons upon which it imposes rights and duties so one has to conclude that it is a failed legal system not a functional one.

  11. JS says:

    #4. I am the parent who had his guardianship suspended. And I fought for my rights in the high court and won. If you look around in this site you’ll find someone else has reported the judgement and if you are resourceful, you can find that judgment publicly available on the internet along with many many other cases. Not sure if it supposed to be, but not my issue.

    I was lucky to have the financial resources to go to the high court. But I shouldn’t have had to. What concerns me is that I could be considered a ‘dysfunctional parent’, because of comments made by the same family court judge that exceeded his legal jurisdiction.

    “Family First national director Bob McCoskrie told Morning Report he supports the idea as dysfunctional parents should not have reproductive rights.”

    So, in a potential future, my reproductive rights are now in question. Sounds like 1984 to you? It does to me.

    We are talking about the state making decisions based on opinions, and maybe facts. Usually the opinions are enough though.

    I think more resources should be spent on bringing to JUSTICE the people who make false accusations that feed these opinions. I’ve now had a 2nd false allegation made against me. It’s enough to make me want to leave the country, BUT… I love my kids. My kids live here, ans so do I. No politician, family court judge, mentally sick ex is going to rule me. I have them all and I am still standing.
    When my kids are grown up I suspect they will fly far away from here. When that happens so will I.

    What dysfunctional parent would want to go through what I have and still be there for his children? I think I should be awarded a war medal !

  12. Ford says:

    #11..its an abusive system alright..no question

  13. Ford says:

    noone cares about pnes kids..they only care about the money

  14. MurrayBacon says:

    Skeptik noted that the majority of child abuse in NZ is carried out by mother alone. The public are misinformed and distracted, by entertainment media highlighting extreme violence situations and completely ignoring the majority of child abuse, where you can’t take dramatic photos, but where in many cases emotional neglect leaves scars that take a hundred times longer to heal than broken bones and bruises.

    John pointed out the old social contracts, which have been derided but which have stood the tests of time. Also: This avoided the social problems of parentless children becoming a burden on the rest of society, (that we now have in abundance) and ensured that children become educated in socially acceptable ways of living- (problems that we also have in abundance)

    Ford pointed out the hypocrisy in the abusive selfish treatment of fathers and JS too.

    In NZ we desperately need well informed social debate to lead to sensible policies that will last one or two decades, but we can’t even start when the public seem to be unaware of what is going on. When Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers make uninformed comments, then I wonder if there is any hope at all?

    I have been heartened by the vigorous public debate and public pressure to protect the education system from larger class sizes. Government is trying to hold teachers accountable for children who cannot learn or who will not learn. I am pretty sure that most of the accountability for these issues lies with parents. Probably the largest damage is done by the worst 5% of parents, during the first 2 years of children’s lives. Daycare versus care by own parents is a large issue here. Then the Government wants to hold teachers accountable for the consequences!!!!

    I do believe that we need much more attention to accountability in NZ, starting with parents, “judges” and other professions too.
    MurrayBacon.

  15. Bruce S says:

    Murray I admire your absolute passion and belief that positive outcomes for children (first) and their parents are indeed possible. This, despite the existence of overwhelming evidence of near complete ignorance and a provable unwillingness of our legislators and their bureaucratic pets to ever consider putting kids first.

    As you point out; pressure from angry parents overturned a government “edict” that would mandate larger class sizes. If only we could enlighten these same parents to the more sinister “social and legislative” mandates being stealthily foisted upon all New Zealand families.

    I would like to provide you with some more encouraging news; or at least what I call research that delivers hope. You state that “Probably the largest damage is done by the worst 5% of parents, during the first 2 years of children’s lives”. So let’s assume the parents have not killed or rendered the child senseless. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore (neuroscientist and Royal Society University Research Fellow) published a “readable” paper on the 6 May 2012 which focuses on the development of the adolescent brain. One of her comments in that paper went like this:

    “The idea that the brain is somehow fixed in early childhood, which was an idea that was very strongly believed up until fairly recently, is completely wrong. There’s no evidence that the brain is somehow set and can’t change after early childhood.”

    If this has whetted your appetite for detail(s); then the entire paper can be accessed here – http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-adolescent-brain

  16. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Bruce, thank you very much for the link. Sarah-Jayne is an amazing lady. I do take your point about the plasticity of the brain throughout life. Although we are getting slowly better at harnessing this capability, nonetheless people helping children and adults recover from childhood emotional abuse all note that recovery is very long and drawn out (often too slow for their children to be safely left in their care). There was a thought that if children couldn’t remember abuse as babies, then it didn’t matter. This is now known to be very wrong. On the contrary, babies and toddlers are very vulnerable to emotional neglect and this can easily occur, despite best intentions, when the caregiver(s) are depressed, or have other mental illnesses. As depression is quite common in young parents, this gives our society a problem which if not addressed constructively, creates huge long term social costs, eg need for $billions of prisons and hospitals.

    The scary thing is that the present diagnosis of mental illnesses is based on adult functioning, ie self care. The level of mental illness which will cause problems for children, especially when in sole care of a single adult, is much lower. At this lower level of mental illness, that would endanger their children, if left for long periods in sole care, about 50% of young parents have problems This is why we need to check much more proactively, on the mental health of young parents, especially when children are in their sole care for more than say 24 hours at a time.

    This is why separation is often very problematic for children. After separation, they are in sole care of one parent for longer periods of time. Yet, separation usually occurs when mental health issues are at a low point, thus maximising the hazards for the children. We should be checking on mental health much more carefully, before parenting plans are accepted. Shared care is much more protective for children than 80% / 20% as favoured by familycaught$, when they are servings the mother’s need for unearned income.

    Having seen familycaught$ operations for too long, it becomes obvious that if consumers protected themselves, it could be done with far better outcomes for consumers. I have watched abuses and I have watched people who have taken care of their own interests and successfully protected their children from the damage that the familycaught$ so often achieves. Mental illness leaves consumers unduly vulnerable to familycaught$ asset stripping. This is why I see familycaught$ as a mental hospital, but one in which no treatment is given, just separating people from their wealth. Incidentally in doing so, the children are often or usually put into the most hazardous care arrangements available, resulting in huge long term social costs. Life can easily be so much better than this.

    I am not presenting any original ideas. I am just suggesting that we actually follow existing legislation, instead of twisting it to serve interests that were never intended by Parliament to be “paramount”.

    Please excuse me being a bit pedantic, I try to avoid placing children’s interests as “paramount” or first. Maybe in talking to people with limited world knowledge, I might speak in that way, because they see only their own interests and are unable to see the children’s interests and the other party’s interests. In situations where a parent endangers children, yes, then I see a child’s right to a satisfactory childhood as being far above a parent’s right to child support money or to have custody of their children.

    In general, I believe strongly in respecting properly every party’s interests. There is no need to put anyone first. To do so leads easily to serious abuses, which in the longer run damage everyone who is involved. It seems to me that some people (lazy people, idiots and thieves in my book), say they do this, as it sounds as though they have the high ground and are above reproach or accountability. In a situation where accountability is dangerously weak, then people who claim to put children’s interests first, or women’s, or men’s, need to be watched and checked on very carefully.

    If consumers can put aside their pride and petty differences, they would be better placed to work together to protect their family’s interests from legal workers.

    If parents with mental illness can put aside their pride, they would be better placed to work cooperatively in parenting. If their children could receive regular parenting type contact from say 4 or 5 adults, then their children could be more often be safely left in their care.

  17. JS says:

    There’s alot of good sense in what you say Murray.
    I have experienced anxiety as a result of my ex-wife’s behaviour in our marriage and subsequently when her friend made false allegations to cyfs of a sexual abuse nature, and also after she assaulted me and my daughter, then tried to get a protection order against me. Now this last week I hear that another malicious call has been made to cyfs and of course lawyers are getting excited by the prospect of making more money from another sh1tstorm.
    In all of this my anxiety has fortunately been managed. I’ve had support from family and friends and some pills :)0
    But the family court and its abusive nature makes matters way worse for people like me who have strived to be a good parent for my children.
    If the system that is deciding what’s best for the children is exacerbating mental health issues then its obviously not working correctly!

  18. MurrayBacon says:

    I am pointing out that NZ has spent a huge amount of money on social welfare, but very very little on investigating the probable outcomes, before the policy was put into action. As if this isn’t bad enough, we then don’t monitor how policies are working in practice, so that if they are having perverse effects, these can be sorted out. This is like driving a car with the windscreen blacked out! For one example: DV Act impacts onto men’s suicides by MCB

    Although National has seen fit to reduce funding to Families Commission, our spending on social policy analysis is very low, dangerously low. Although Families Commission can be validly criticised for the depth of their research, reducing funding will exacerbate this problem, not help to solve it! Their work has been mainly descriptive, rather than inferential and predictive. To raise the level of their studies, would involve probably an increase in spending by a factor of x5.

    Apart from insufficient spending on social policy, the policy analysts are grouped into too few organisations. This may be economically efficient, but given the complexity and subtleness of the issues under investigation, we need social policy analysts to have several employment options, so that the employers have less levers to manipulate the policy analysts. As well as Government employers, NZ has a dire need for truly independent think tanks. For example

    Universities are under significant Government control…..
    Victoria University Institute for Policy Studies

    Massey University Centre for Policy Evaluation

    Maxim Institute

    The Family Centre

    NZ Centre for Political research

    For your entertainment:
    We think we cannot afford more social policy evaluation, but in reality we are wasting $billions on failed and socially destructive policies, that we cannot afford to NOT spend more on policy analysis!!!
    Building Social Policy Evaluation Capacity MSD

    We must put aside preconceptions and look widely at all available options. Instead of feeding sacred cows, we should be milking them, or turning them into exportable saleable hamburgers…..

    We see similar tight spending by NZers, on their political parties. If NZers desire to maintain democracy, as individuals we must be prepared to financially support our political parties, even the dumb ones. At present, our political parties are funded mainly by tax dodgers?, so where will that take us?

    As JS notes above #17, familycaught$ stresses (and I suggest drives some completely insane), many parents. Judge Boshier has suggested that more psychiatric help for litigants is the answer. I suggest “judges” should do their job competently and with integrity, would be a good place to start. If we want judges to do their job properly, then given their obvious diversion to self interest over public service, then their pay systems must reward competent, honest good practice and disincentivise featherbedding, wrongful judgements to give legal workers more income and all of the rest of the tricks. This is quite easily done, ask any 2nd or 3rd year business studies student!

    I am trying to setup some small groups of people, to look into several areas of social policy, to argue together more than to agree, but at least to bring out the issues and clarify the available options. Later to lobby political parties, in the same way that Family First does. Anyone interested, please telephone me (09) 638 7275.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar