- 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.

Sat 31st May 2014

Child Neglect – The Bomb in the Brain

As a country, NZ does need to address the protection of several hundreds of thousands of children. Their happiness is seriously being disadvantaged, their ability to manage and organise their lives is compromised and their ability to take up education is being wasted by missing the opportunity to have a proper developing upbringing.

YouTube Documentaries:
The Bomb in the Brain Part 1 – The True Roots of Human Violence
The Bomb in the Brain Part 2 – The Freedomain Radio Interview with Dr Felitti
The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 – The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse
The Bomb in the Brain Part 4 – The Death of Reason – The Effects of Child Abuse
The Bomb in the Brain Part 5 – A Postscript and Prescription

Brainwave Trust Aotearoa

NZ MSD website doesn’t seem to have any material that satisfactorily covers emotional neglect of children, especially in terms of diagnosis and what treatment should be given. No wonder that their social workers bumble around and get it right only a small amount of the time, they don’t know what they are doing.

Interestingly, Stefan Molyneux’s series about roots of violence seems to cover emotional neglect of babies incidentally, more effectively than anything on the MSD website.

You can whip school teachers as much as you like, but if the parents have failed to develop children through the first 1 to 3 years of life, no amount of schoolteaching can ever make up the damage done by neglect. See Brainwave Trust button above.

The most powerful resource available to protect and develop these children, is their own fathers. Why then does the familycaught$ act so spectacularly to deny and destroy the relationship between these children and their fathers? They are just relationship vandals and thieves.

If the father’s time and care is worth so much to the children’s life chances, why does the Child [and Spousal] Support Act pressure fathers to give priority to handing over cash to the mothers, when it is the father’s time that is so much more valuable to the child?

At times, Parliament seems to be a bunch of easily led idiots?

Another situation which illustrates the critical nature of babies early development, is the effects of institutionalisation of babies in orphanages:
Georgette Mulheir: The tragedy of orphanages TEDSalon London Spring 2012 · 10:41 · Filmed May 2012

57 Responses to “Child Neglect – The Bomb in the Brain”

  1. andrew says:

    Ye Gods; so much sense in such a small article. Particularly in regard to the relative ineffectiveness of teachers without the basic groundwork from home.

  2. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear andrew, your statement is much more true than the general wisdom gives it credit for.

    I have seen neglected children, (from financially rich but time poor families) go on to squander large amounts of value given to them, as they could not see the consequences of their actions. Very weak executive decisionmaking capacity.

    It would sound easy to cure, but surprisingly, these people often take a decade or two to pull their lives together. Even then, they never get to enjoy the world, the way securely brought up children take simply for granted.

  3. TP says:

    I had a court appointed psychologist say to me that none of my notifications to cyfs, had been upheld, as if I had lied to cyfs.

    Gee I wonder if cyfs could have been the ones lying, no, surely not. (Taking off sarcasm filter now).

    In fact I know cyfs where lying, and backed my ex wife when she lied. The value placed on fathers at the msd is low, at least thats the opinion of the lawyers, counsellors, and people who had been through court that I know, dozens and dozens of them, and not one said otherwise.

    I had a cyfs fabricate complete lies about what happened when my son was physically abused by his mother.

    Some changes in the msd need to happen and the pressure from websites such as this and others in the public domain will bring about change.

    Change did come in the civil rights movement, and positive change came in the women’s rights movement, so, too, it will come for the men’s movement too.

    Too late for my son and I,, but everyone who has been a solider in that war, for children being able to be parented by both parents deserves a medal. The generations to come will benefit if we struggle on instead of accepting it with our motuhs sewn shut.

  4. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear TP, sorry to hear about your family depending on competent service from CYFs.

    I have met a few stable, honest, reliable social workers. They stand out.

    If you look at most CYFs social workers, they are untrained and the the ones with training were uneducated, so are in an even poorer position to serve and protect children.

    Look further back, very few had satisfactory or happy childhoods, which leaves them at much increased risk of psychotic listening and hearing problems, which you unkindly refer to as lying. Disproportionately, they have been adopted and abused. This leads to empathy and sympathy more than understanding exactly what the issues are about, well enough to be able to help clients situations.

    Perhaps you enjoyed the fairly rare luxury of a happy childhood? Well you just can’t go around projecting your understanding of honesty and integrity onto people who can’t reliably tell truth from daydreams from horror nightmares.

    Quite apart from social worker’s personal upbringing problems, the CYFs management style has an insidious way of turning even honest employees into pathological liars. Supervisors are unclear in their delegations to lower staff members. When lower staff members negotiate something with a client, some of the time the supervisor or their supervisor will overrule the agreement made. This leaves the lower staff member looking like a liar in front of the customer. After a while, sorting these messes out quickly becomes impossible and the staff member sees no point in even trying to maintain an image of integrity. They then just lie whenever this appears useful, at work and in their private lives.

    Would you admire people, who go out to try to help parents and children in impossible situations, when it would be wiser to prevent incapable parents from having children and help poorer parents with parenting to protect their children?

    Dear TP, you could be trying to help social workers to recover from the hazards of their childhood and employment, but you are just sniping at them and being negative. They really need your help and everyone else’s too. You went into their offices for what you could gain from them, when you should have been wanting to help them….. Have you thought about “shouting” them, to put them out of their misery and save children from them?

    All sharpness aside, please contact Graeme Axford or myself and lets see if we can make the most constructive outcome…..

    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

  5. TP says:

    Murray

    You are the one projecting, and making assumptions.

    The social workers said they where with me at a place, where I never was, and said things I never did, which would not have been possible not being there on the date they mention other any other time.

    That’s hardly selective hearing, just fabrication.

    And, you’re the one sniping.

    I’ve read a few of your other bizarre posts. It sounds like you’re trying to hurt the cause of the men’s movement by making unreasonable and inflammatory posts, which make the site look bad.

    I’m not going to take the bait thanks Murray.

    And to the people doing a good job here and elsewhere, keep doing it!

    I am also sure there are good social workers at cyfs, I have met one, I’ve also met several who were incompetent and one who lied.

    Talk to panic Murray, these advocates have told me many horror stories and say that cyfs frequently lies. In the end, you can believe whatever you want, it makes no different to me.

    I’ll get through this and get a great result for my child who I’m fortunate enough to have a wonderful relationship with.

  6. Dads fof Justice says:

    Hi Tp

    Don’t listen to Murray. He’s often on here ranting and trying to wind people up.

    I see he doesn’t address child youth and family making something up that didn’t actually happen, instead tries to be smug and cite some study that doesn’t have bearing on your actual experience.

    Murray has too much time on his hands and needs to use it more productively.

    The most telling and shameful thing is Murray, instead of being empathetic with you, which is the most human and humane approaches, tries to chide you and act as if he is possessed of some great and secret wisdom. Its just an ego trip for a sad person with nothing better to do.

    Glad to hear that your relationship with your child is good, that’s the most important thing.

    Unfortunately there is a lot of trolling here, and Murray is one of the worst culprits.

  7. JohnPotter says:

    Dear “Dads for Justice”, personal attacks on other contributors are against the rules here at MENZ. You are welcome to disagree with him, but you must support your arguments with facts rather than ad hominem.

    If anyone is trolling it is you; I can see that your comment came from the same computer as the one TP used to make the previous comment you are pretending to reply to.

    Please mend your ways, or your comments will be moderated in future.

  8. MurrayBacon says:

    I talk to myself too! When it gets really bad, I am forced to seek help. But the help I get is never what I think I need, do you have that problem too?

    Sorry about the sympathy, thought you got too much at work? Funny place to ask for sympathy. Anyway, you are good at giving stimulation to yourself, so I guess it is all taken care of?

    Taking the piss out of me about being a troll, so what if I lived under a motorway bridge for a few years? That was years and years ago, at least 4. It just isn’t relevant now, IMO.

    I am trying to persuade fathers (and any mothers cut out of their children’s lives) that they are an important and necessary force in their children’s lives, when relationship vandals are trying to cut them out. I am trying to persuade them not to give up, in the face of being lied to that their children don’t need them at all.

    I will complain to John about you calling me ad hominem. I know I am a bit neanderthal, but ad hominem is too much.

    The Care of Children Act makes both parents joint guardians, in most situations. The CYFS Act also requires that family, including the father, be notified when decisions are to be made. Too many CYFS social workers and familycaught$ judges fail to honour this clause, because in their personal value systems fathers just aren’t necessary or useful (and they make sure that this becomes true for the unfortunate child):

    8Parents and others to be informed of decisions
    (1)Where any person takes any action, or makes any decision, under this Act that significantly affects any child or young person, that person shall ensure that, wherever practicable, the following persons are informed, as soon as practicable, of that action or decision and of the reasons for it:
    (a)every person who is a parent or guardian of, or a person having the care of, the child or young person:
    (b)the child or young person.
    (2)It is not necessary to inform a child or young person of any action or decision if—
    (a)that child or young person is incapable of understanding it; or
    (b)it is plainly not in the child’s or young person’s interests to be so informed.
    (3)The information required by subsection (1) to be given to any person shall be given—
    (a)orally and, where practicable, in writing; and
    (b)where practicable, in a manner and in language that the person understands.

  9. Downunder says:

    We don’t mind you talking to the voice Murray – just don’t lose the argument!

  10. Downunder says:

    … or voices if you’re multi-tasking.

  11. TP says:

    Go [smile to] yourself John (adjusted by Murray to meet minimum ladylike standards)

  12. TP says:

    Oh and you need to actually study the definition of ad hominem, as you’re using it the wrong context.

    I criticized both the argument itself and the charter of the person making it and did not conflate the two.

    I won’t be back its absurd here, just a bunch of rabid monkeys taking swipes at each other and invalidating the good work that needs to be done.

    With all its shortcoming the family court is making more progress than you are with the mens movement, its a real shame.

  13. MurrayBacon says:

    I am hearing lots of voices and some of them are sane, thank Dog. I am losing something, I don’t think it is the argument?
    (I apologise for #12 and #13, neglected childhood and charm school, it seems.)

  14. MurrayBacon says:

    Too troo

    With all its shortcoming the family court is making more progress than you are with the men’s movement, its a real shame.

    Here is a worthwhile challenge, can we lift up the teamwork and performance of the men’s movement?

  15. MurrayBacon says:

    I guess that Dads fof Justice/TP’s comments show clearly how painful and destructive an emotionally neglected and abused childhood can be. Even decades later, they carry deep scars and their relationship ability is damaged by the emotional bagage that makes up their pathological life. They can’t even get themself down to 1 person.

    So, when any of you get an opportunity to help a social worker, please be proactive and help show these people how to live a good life and what happiness is.

  16. MurrayBacon says:

    In the CDC document, Nurturing is listed last, despite it having the largest overall social impact. Emotional neglect is when there has been a marked lack of Nurturing, due to lack of caregiver skills, usually related to mental health condition. These cases are often less noticeable that physical abuse, but the damage runs deeper and is far harder to cure. This lack of good nurturing affects far more children, than come to notice for physical abuse, many hundreds of thousands of children in NZ:

    Safe, Stable, and Nurturing Relationships/
    Environments (SSNRs) are Important for Preventing Child Maltreatment
    Young children experience their world through their relationships with parents
    and other caregivers. SSNRs between children and their caregivers provide a
    buffer against the effects of potential stressors such as CM and are fundamental to
    healthy brain development. They also shape the development of children’s physical,
    emotional, social, behavioral, and intellectual capacities, which ultimately affect their
    health as adults. As a result, promoting SSNRs can have a positive impact on a broad
    range of health problems and on the development of skills that will help children
    reach their full potential.
    Safety, stability, and nurturing are three critical qualities of relationships that make a
    difference for children as they grow and develop. They can be defined as follows:
    ■ Safety: The extent to which a child is free from fear and secure from physical or
    psychological harm within their social and physical environment.
    ■ Stability: The degree of predictability and consistency in a child’s social,
    emotional, and physical environment.
    ■ Nurturing: The extent to which a parent or caregiver is available and able to
    sensitively and consistently respond to and meet the needs of their child.
    SSNRs are important to promote. There is reason to believe SSNRs can help to:
    ■ Reduce the occurrence of CM and other adverse childhood experiences
    ■ Reduce the negative effects of CM and other adverse childhood experiences
    ■ Influence many physical, cognitive, emotional outcomes throughout a child’s life
    ■ Reduce health disparities
    ■ Have a cumulative impact on health

    For more information on the importance of SSNRs:
    CDC Essentials for Childhood: Steps To Create Safe, Stable and Nurturing Relationships

  17. Daniel says:

    I see there’s a story in the paper about a Southland woman who has been given her baby back just a few months after cutting its throat.
    While I freely admit to not knowing the exact details of the case I wonder whether msd/cyfs would have been so generous if the father had done it? Read the story and try to substitute the psychobabble and the descriptions of the obscure syndromes with words like deadbeat horrific manipulative etc I think that would be pretty close.

  18. Phil Watts says:

    Hi all,

    some food for thought:

    I wonder if those who have spent a long time involved in the injustice system get unwittingly brainwashed and sucked into speaking their jargon. I believe this is exactly what they want. They win if you play their game.

    It is arrogant for anyone to presume you know better how to bring up children. No harm = no foul. No victim = no crime. No evidence = no crime.

    Just because a female says it happens is the best reason to disbelieve her as most females are narcissists as they have been brought up in a matriarchal society in the western world ever since chivalry was invented by feminists in the dark ages brainwashing men into thinking woman are deserving of more rights than expendable men.

    If all us dads refused to engage the corrupt system it would collapse.

    As soon as we get sucked into thinking we know better than the parents how to bring up children, then we are guilty of the sin of arrogance. Successive governments since theLabour Party’s Rogernomics have removed all children’s and parents rights using the ‘we know better’ arrogance of how to bring up children and their ambiguous definitions of ‘domestic violence’ to mean that anything can be domestic violence and all is required is a female to complain about a male and his life is fucked.

    The Domestic Violence Act and Care of Children Acts are so ambiguous that they have been designed to allow Judges to only apply them against males in order to disenfranchise us and set women and men against the ‘accused’ men and thus divide and conquer and retain power over us tax and freedom slaves. Those that do not toe the party line get attacked by the system.

    Most people are cowards or they do not wish to speak out as they do not want to jeopardise their jobs.

    Those you do not speak out against are those who have power over you. If you do not speak out and defend your rights and your children’s rights to 50/50 care then you will soon lose the ability to fight for your rights.

  19. MurrayBacon says:

    Reunited: Meeting of mum who cut her baby’s throat
    Daniel, stories such as the one you have highlighted are important, but we mustn’t lose sight that lower level harm, to huge numbers of children is doing NZ far more harm.

    The story you highlighted is dramatic and unusual. However, small amounts of damage to huge numbers of children, day by day, year by year, end up being far worse overall, than a few dramatic cases.

    I take Phil’s point about Acts being ambiguous, but I would argue that in secret caught$, they don’t follow legislation in any serious sense anyway.

    So ambiguity isn’t the guts of the problem!

  20. Allan Harvey says:

    This mother is under constant supervision and is not allowed to be alone with any child.
    That seems to me to be appropriately cautious and also child focused on the need for significant adults like mother and father both to be involved with the child.
    Although I don’t know this case from what I have gathered there are cultural issues that need consideration for the child as well as protection from the parents poor mental health.

  21. Daniel says:

    My point is that a man wouldn’t get the same leeway in the same situation. Cyfs to their credit appear to have been reluctant to play the game but were able to be persuaded it seems.
    Cultural issues? I believe the father is NZ euro, the mother is Asian, that is no excuse for cutting a baby’s throat – I don’t think that is a tradition in any culture that I am aware of. Men and women could be seen as having different cultures and the benefit of the doubt is all one way where this is concerned.

  22. Daniel says:

    Murray you are right that secret courts have no incentive to reach sensible decisions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say and would make it hard for family court/IRD reviewers to justify their decisions in many cases. Don’t hold your breath.

  23. Allan Harvey says:

    Sorry Daniel but I beg to differ. If Father had been primary care giver for a young child while his partner worked and that was what was wished by both them then I think CYFS would have no problems with this. I have several cases I work with where CYFS support fathers in parenting roles even though there has been negative history.
    As I said I don’t know any details from this case but certainly I view different cultures as an important consideration for the best care of children to involve both cultures actively.

  24. MurrayBacon says:

    Daniel, I see your point that mother’s may be treated a bit more softly, but it seems that the mother drew blood, but certainly did not kill or seriously injure the baby.

    My point is that looking over all of NZ, the silent injuries suffered by 2 or 300,000 children amount to more serious social damage, than a few dramatic assaults.

    Media and familycaught$ dramatise a few drops of blood, but turn a blind and ignorant eye to emotional damage to a large fraction of ALL of NZ’s children. Emotional neglect occurs when babies and toddlers are cared for my mothers and fathers who are depressed or have other impairments to responding appropriately and frequently to their baby’s needs.

    The Media use violence to sell newspapers. familycaught$ address extreme violence, because media dramatise it and familycaught$ are protecting themselves, rather than children.

    It is easy for me to say children need to be protected from emotional neglect by their caregivers, but as emotional neglect cannot be seen in a photograph of child and caregiver, or even an x-ray photograph, then how can we protect the child? It may be obvious years later, but we want to prevent damage before it occurs, not just criticise (or prosecute) after the damage is done.

    The consequences of emotional neglect show up in psychopaths and ASP Disorder people, doing crimes. It shows up as disorganised children walking into school at 5 years, but being unable to learn satisfactorily. These issues cost us many $10 billions each year.

    Well trained observers, watching an inadequate caregiver, may detect that the caregiver is emotionally neglecting the baby. The caregiver might be ok while being watched and then later neglect the baby when they are not being watched.

    We have a difficult problem, to protect babies and toddlers from emotional neglect!

    Research shows the caregiver characteristics that generally lead to serious emotional neglect. They are depression, even at levels well below formal DSM5 or ICD10 diagnosis level and several other mental health conditions.

    I am not trying to raise stigma about mental health issues. I am trying to address how we can protect all children’s right to a happy childhood, to be able to take up education given to them and to be able to work as an adult and have good adult relationships. To protect children, we need to understand how parent’s mental health difficulties might impact onto the child? With this understanding, we can choose to offer support to parents, we might remove the child from the parents home, we might persuade two families to live together, to protect the children from the poorer set of parents……

    If children are growing up in a household with two (or more) adults, who commit to a long term caring relationship, then the child is much better protected from any mental health issues that the caregiver may have. The baby is able to learn from both parents and the problems of the parents are much less likely to restrict the development of the child.

    If parents separate in a way that the children are not seeing both parents daily, then the children are NOW at risk if the main caregiver has poor mental health. In this situation, the separation has greatly increased the risk to the children. This is why it is critically important that parenting plans be within limits set by the mental health of the individual parents. This is why unilateral removal of children should be seen as child endangerment, not as a legal strategy to gain control (but usually at the cost of the children’s welfare).

    The familycaught$ doesn’t usually set limits on parenting plans, based on parent’s mental health, as there is just too much paramount financial interest in using the children as bargaining chips.

  25. Man X Norton says:

    Seriously Allan Harvey, you are claiming that a few months after a father cut a baby’s throat in an attempt to murder it, CYFS would accept that father again being present in the baby’s house and looking after that baby? No way! CYFS would never go along with it in the case of a male perpetrator but instead would bully the mother if she so much as expressed a wish for that outcome, threatening to remove the baby from her if she allowed the man anywhere near the child. Parents vs CYFS will then drag on in the Family Court for years while CYFS’ rules remain the default. That’s what CYFS do and I have seen numerous examples of exactly that in situations where the man’s previous behaviour was a lot less dangerous, a lot less harmful and/or his violence a lot less certain than this woman’s was. The CYFS office you speak of is mythical and I bet you can’t come up with one example in which it has allowed a man to live with a child a few months after he inflicted serious injuries in an attempt to kill that child.

    The issue of whether it’s a good idea to give the child back to this mother is a separate one. It may well be that the standard risk-averse back-protection behaviour by enforcers such as CYFS is not in the best interests of many targeted children. The risks (actually, certain damage) to a child’s development and future through ripping parents away will often outweigh the risk of tragedy should those parents remain.

    But compared with any similar male, this woman has been given a pussy pass of unbelievable proportions. Your claim that she will be under constant supervision and not allowed to be alone with the child seems as unrealistic as your portrayal of CYFS as defender of errant fathers’ family role. The article states that the family was permitted to return home together, that is, father, mother and baby. No way in hell will mother be constantly supervised when with the baby. Maybe for a week or so! What does constant supervision mean anyway? Will she and the baby join her husband when he goes to the toilet? Really, this pussy pass was given in the full knowledge that ‘constant supervision’ is a pipe dream in any real household. That’s why any similarly violent father would be lucky to be allowed 90 minute fortnightly meetings with the child at a female-run supervision centre that he has to pay for (where female staff are paid to keep eagle eyes on him, providing supervision that is much closer to ‘constant’ but never totally so) and even that wouldn’t happen for a few years after the attempted murder.

    Again, maybe supervision is not that important now that the mother is not currently a violent lunatic. Similarly, a father who seriously injured a child in attempting to murder him/her but whose causal drinking/drugging/gang involvement/depression/insanity has currently been ameliorated should perhaps also be able to live again with the child. But would that happen? When that big winged pig flies past your window.

  26. Man X Norton says:

    Murray Bacon in #25 wrote:

    Daniel, I see your point that mother’s may be treated a bit more softly, but it seems that the mother drew blood, but certainly did not kill or seriously injure the baby.

    In your reading of the article you usefully linked you must have missed the part that said

    Their daughter was flown to Starship hospital in Auckland for life-saving surgery. Her trachea was severed, an artery cut and a nerve on one side of the voice box also cut.

    If that’s not serious injury, what is? And the emotional impact for the child from that experience at the hands of its mother will be massive, not to mention the impact of the woman’s ongoing impairment due to depressive and psychotic traits. The child may well develop Borderline Personality Disorder. Yet when it comes to situations in which a man so much as raises his voice towards a woman while their child sleeps in another room, we hear CYFS and feminist propagandists claim that child will be emotionally harmed at some subconscious level by that man’s ‘violence’ so he should be prevented from living with the child.

    We have come to expect from our Courts and government departments, when it comes to women’s violence, the kind of excuses and empathy shown by authorities towards this woman. But it’s very strange that even expert male contributors to a men’s movement site would show such minimization when it comes to a woman’s violent behaviour and concerning the state-sponsored pussy pass she has been given.

  27. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Man X Norton, I do take your point. I hadn’t read the article to the end!

    However, my point is that if 15% of NZ schoolchildren are having learning difficulties that are very difficult to treat, up from 5% 20 years earlier, then we have a major social problem. These problems flow through to employment outcomes, crime and adult wellbeing….

    I suggest that we are giving too much attention to a small number of dramatic cases and failing to address huge numbers of children seriously impacted by lack of satisfactory parenting.

    The familycaught$ is focussing on protecting children from a “perceived” threat of death and in so doing, making the problems of several hundred thousand children worse, by denying them access to their fathers.

  28. Man X Norton says:

    Yes, I agree with your general thesis, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore such ridiculous favouritism toward violent females compared with males.

  29. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Man X Norton, public welfare can only be enhanced, by setting a similar standard for all people and by being proportionately sensitive to all hazards, exactly as you say.

    I agree with Allan, that CYFs are almost certainly going to work hard to see that that woman is never left alone with a young baby, at any time in the future. Her access would always be supervised. The only exception might be if she manipulated an individual “women are earth-mothers” social worker or other supervisor and was left alone with a baby. This is similar to applying supervised access to a man, for the same reason, where this restriction would be applied for the future, unless the man or woman could show major changes that indicated safety (which would be very hard to prove).

    I suggest that the prejudice that you are referring to, is “without evidence” familycaught$ applying supervised access, as part of a criminal legal strategy for power and control of access.

    Such “without evidence” POs can be left in place for years and where the father refuses supervised access, the end result is that by acting in a non-proportional manner – the familycaught$ is an agent for widespread serious social harm.

    Is this the fault of familycaught$, or the fault of the father, or the fault of the mother?

    All I would say, they should be carrying responsibility for their actions in a mature and professional way.

    Perhaps the father could claim his decision was based on pride, which is a poor excuse. Or perhaps that familycaught$ devalued him and said he was of no value to the children. He is a fool if he listens to what familycaught$ says, as they are thieves first and manipulators second, neither of which should be listened to by a good parent.

    The mother isn’t showing care for children by using perjury and dishonesty. Such an attitude suggests she is poorly placed to care for children away from the father and that this situation should not be allowed to occur. The criminal aspect suggests she needs a period of time in jail, with the children safely cared for somewhere else.

    The familycaught$ has no excuse at all and they should be “shouted” at, to protect children.

    Either way, it is the children that wear the most harm done by “without evidence” DV POs. Subsequently, the harm is shared with society, costs and damages of crime, hospital costs, educational expenditure wasted, poor employment performance, unsatisfactory adult relationships – it even comes back onto women too.

    For any action to proceed Without evidence, implies without wisdom. This approach guarantees a non-proportional response by the familycaught$, to the situation before it. Any judge who would take part in these rituals, is more dangerous than just worthless.

  30. Man X Norton says:

    Murray (#30): As I previously wrote, the idea that this mother’s proximity to the baby will be constantly monitored when the two live in the family home with the father being the only other occupant, is patently ridiculous.

    Aside from that, the case shows the sexist definitions of supervised contact. For men it’s 90 minutes a fortnight being watched closely by women paid for the purpose, while for women it’s having the child live with her at home full time on the promise that someone will be somewhere nearby most of the time.

  31. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Man X Norton, I have only seen one similar case. CYFs offered to the parents that if the mother took a job and the father stayed home with the child, they could continue to care for the baby. The father started to make arrangements, which was quite difficult for him, as he owned his own business. The mother refused to take a job and after several discussions with CYFs not making any progress, CYFs said we will not return the baby to your care. I assume that the baby was placed for adoption, as had occurred with her earlier children. (It is dangerous to generalise from a single case.)

    So, in that situation, CYFs were very careful to make sure that the child was not left alone in the mother’s care, at all.

    Your accusation includes two parts, the system and how it is implemented.

    The system is legislation and social policy eg benefits and pensions. There are some glaring inequalities built into access to benefits, pension much more accessible for women due to differential life expectancy, which partly balances men’s better access to employment in that age range? National’s new parental leave policy seems to build in fresh prejudices for the mother at the possible cost of the father. Child Support legislation is quite unfair against NCPs and is implemented even worse still.

    CYFs and familycaught$ are run by people, many of whom run on very negative stereotypes of men. There is some truth in these stereotypes, especially historically, but many of these people build their stereotypes into the way that they work with fresh cases, to make these things come true. (The same argument can be made against many customers entering familycaught$ too.)

    One example is CYFs refusing to contact fathers and involve them in decisions being made about children. Then they publicly complain about fathers not being involved!

    In essence, these prejudices are culture and familycaught$ and CYFs have a culture that is steeped into their staff, from the day that they start work. Part of this is PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and vicarious traumatisation. They claim to be professionals and deny that their decision making capability is compromised by the emotions evoked by horrible stories that they hear.

    It doesn’t matter whether the story was true or not, if the listener believes that it might be true, they are easily traumatised. They know some of the stories are true…. if not which ones…..

    By denying their emotional response, they deny themselves the opportunity to try to recover their balance and sanity.

    By chance, I spoke with an ex-social worker, who had left the service a few years earlier. She told me how she would maltreat her husband at home. She would snap out of it, but a few weeks later she would realise that she was doing it again. Again, she would snap out. She also noticed that each time, she had got to a worse state before she woke up to what she was doing. By now a few years had gone by. She decided to get out of social work and looked around for alternative work. She then became aware of the prejudices that she and other people working in familycaught$ were showing, both in work performance and how they talked of their home lives.

    She couldn’t get anything that paid as well, up front. However, after finding that the effects of work on her home life were persisting, she decided to just get out at whatever pay she could get. She said that she never regretted the change, her family life was worth far more than the money involved.

    Culture is a workplace safety issue. Police and Fire Service are now constructively addressing surviving the stresses of their work. CYFs and familycaught$, although too well funded, are still in the we need more money, we are professionals mode and the carnage continues, of customers and their own staff. (Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff?)

    We can only protect children, by looking honestly and fairly at the hazards that are risking the proper development of the children. Prejudice in decision making contributes very little to making life better for children or parents and where prejudice displaces competent decision making, it is just destructive.

    In familycaught$, prejudice often results in selecting from an artificially restricted list of options. This is destructive.

  32. Man X Norton says:

    So, in that situation, CYFs were very careful to make sure that the child was not left alone in the mother’s care, at all.

    No, not really. CYFS tried to get circumstances in place that would not leave the mother at home alone with the child for long periods during the day. But even then, when she came home from work it’s totally unrealistic that she would never be alone in a room or even in the house with the child. As I wrote earlier, what happens when the man goes to the toilet? What happens when the man answers the telephone or the door, or has to attend to somebody trying to break into his car outside, or in numerous other situations that will provide opportunities for the mother to be alone with the child and to harm it if she pleases. And after looking after the child all day the father is going to be strongly inclined to take opportunities to have a break.

    And again, CYFS would never entertain such facades of supervision when it comes to a male accused.

    And again again, it may well be that such arrangements are a desirable thing with respect the child’s welfare overall, but that’s not the point.

  33. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Man X Norton, I can’t give much more detail as I only saw things from a distance. The arrangement with CYFs provided for random inspections, to check that the baby was not left alone with the mother. The main protection was the mother being out of the house for most of the day. As far as I could tell, it was working ok, but for the mother’s refusal to get work.

    I accept your comment about going to the toilet. However, I am sure that the father would be careful to not go to the toilet, if the mother was around and in any way agitated. This did work ok for a short period of time, but was scuttled by the mother’s refusal to make it work. He knew that he could get help with a phone call, if it was ever needed in an emergency. I don’t think there ever was an emergency problem.

    In this instance, I am not able to fault CYFs approach. From what I have heard others say, when a father can get a foot in the door, CYFs may be quite reasonable for fathers? From what I have seen, I think the biggest problem is refusing to inform fathers in the first place, thus effectively freezing them out of their children’s lives.

    familycaught$ are rigid and predetermined, rather than evidence based, leading them to do much harm.

    I believe that our legislation is mostly ok, it does need very careful looking through and sorting out.

    The major problems lie in implementation, by familycaught$ and CYFs staff. Private agendas substitute for skills at gathering correct information and making decisions based on evidence.

    If you would like to show me examples, privately, I would be interested to see…. Details are best not discussed publicly.

  34. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Man X Norton, I watched the programme on 3rd Degree, about the mother cutting her child’s throat.

    Although the subject material was horrific, as you told me, the material was sensitively and well presented. The psychiatrist looked as though he was finding it difficult to maintain his composure and contain his own feelings.

    It is really important that the public and fathers in particular, have a realistic understanding of the impact of childhood neglect and abuse on parenting skills.

    Being better informed, would allow parents to make safer and more secure decisions about how they wish to allocate their lifetime. If we know our own limits and we also give young parents more support, then these horrific situations might be much less frequent and parents may have happier lives. It is hard to live within our limitations, if we don’t know clearly what they are. Finding them out, when being charged, is far too late.

    However, these difficult situations do occur and keep occurring, so we do need to have a workable system for protecting children.

    In years gone by, large families gave almost all children significant experience of caring for children, older and younger. This naturally gave most children a fairly full and realistic understanding of the practicalities and needs of babies and children. They could also see where their own feelings and temperament fitted in with the requirements of parenting.

    Forewarned is forearmed. This knowledge and experience could be arranged through schools. Taking care of children can have a significant contraceptive effect. In a large minority of cases, it might lead to fathers being at home with children, without a baby’s throat being cut. Fathers need to be prepared for this, or in these cases they need to look for a better qualified wife, if they do want to work fulltime.

    I believe that we should strive harder to be proactive in protecting children. In essence this is what CYFs are trying to do, in not allowing dangerous parents to ever care for babies and small children, who cannot protect themselves. At present, CYFs only proactively address violently dangerous, they are not addressing protecting children from parents who fail to respond sufficiently and appropriately emotionally to their babies. They do the small task fairly well and completely ignore the huge and most important task?

    Yesterday TVNZ 7# had viewers comments about CYFs and they were not kind. These related to a programme the night before about poor liaison about problems with foster children. Foster parents complained that CYFs claimed to not know what types of abuse the children had suffered.

    It sounded to me that this was an evil manipulative technique, to get foster parents to take seriously damaged children. But it backfired terribly on the foster children, when foster parents gave up when they realised the extent of the problems that they faced. They also commented that in the end, they had to put the safety of their own children, visitors and the wife too, before caring for the foster child.

    I was surprised (horrified) how casual CYFs were in responding to questions from TVNZ 7# about their performance in responding to requests for help. How can they manage their own performance, if they try to sweep issues under the carpet? Much more media enquiry is needed, to protect children.

    I am suggesting that attempting to retrospectively protect children is doomed to painful and expensive failure. This failure makes leaky buildings look like a small issue.

    Effective protection of children needs to be proactive.

    CYFs presented themselves as only being fit for ground meat in burgers, due to managerial irrelevance.

  35. MurrayBacon says:

    Fathers play such an important role. Let’s not keep mum about dads by Yvonne Roberts

    ‘My father had a profound influence on me,” Spike Milligan used to say. “He was a lunatic.” Fatherhood has spent a long time anchored in the dark ages, refusing to budge no matter how many tributes from doting daughters or portraits of the Beckham brood entwined with dad are published.
    Many fathers want to spend more time with their children, but can’t for economic reasons. Fairer pay for women would help.

  36. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Downunder, the assumption of the mother as the primary attachment figure has rarely been checked.
    (This comment has been copied in from the Post: Make verbal abuse of kids ‘an offence’.)
    Women’s groups, including familycaught$, have pushed the accountant’s rule, that attachment must be proportional to the number of hours spent with the children, as this assumption will advantage them!

    Accountant – knows the price of everything and the value of nuffink.

    On the basis that most children were cared for by a mother and the rest were abnormal in some way (victims of disease, horse and car accidents, crime or desertion), the remainder of children were not considered seriously by researchers. The latter group were seen more as pollutants of research on healthy families, so by ignoring them in early research, you would be more likely to gather worthwhile results.

    Attachment research has moved on from the early days, it is now 70 years old. However, many researchers have not thrown off the shackles of early assumptions. I don’t believe that John Bowlby ever intended his early work to bed these assumptions in so heavily.

    A NZ psychologist Glen L. Harding wrote a Master’s thesis Infant Attachment to the Father in 1974 on relative strength of mother and father attachment, at 12 months.

    Fathers have been ignored in the experimental study of infant attachments. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) using interview data report the early formation of multiple attachments and comment on the importance of the father. By eighteen months of age seventy-five per cent of their sample showed attachment to their fathers and in four per cent the father was the sole object of attachment. Both Bowlby (1971 p. 362 on) and Ainsworth (1963 p. 102) while concentrating on the mother-child relation-ship allow that there may be other objects of attachment. The survival value of multiple attachments is apparent. As Howells (1969) points out, “the child is fortunate in the insurance of two parents, where one can substitute for the other”.
    From their data Schaffer and Emerson (1964) conclude that the intensity of attachment and the objects chosen are determined by the quality of interaction rather than the availability of the object. Ainsworth and Wittig (1969) made similar comments when speaking of variables affecting attachment to the mother. However in her study on Ganda children Ainsworth (1963) reported a positive relationship between the amount of time the mother spent with the child and attachment shown to the mother.
    The experiment reported in this thesis was designed to yield data on the father as an object of infant attachment.

    Associations shown between attachment reported by the father and behaviour in the M-M group are interesting. From these negative correlations it appears that infants reported to be low in attachment to their fathers show relatively high scores on crying when the mother departs and high scores on physical contact when she returns. This would suggest that the infant with a single strong attachment to the mother is more disrupted by separation from the mother than an infant with multiple strong attachments.

    Time spent with the infant has been suggested as a variable affecting attachment (Ainsworth, 1963). Conflicting opinions have been expressed as to its importance (Schaffer and Emerson, 1964; Ainsworth and Wittig, 1969). In the present study hours of contact reported by the mother bore no significant relationships to questionnaire measures of attachment reported by either parent. However positive relationships were found between hours of contact reported by the father and attachment reported by both parents. It is possible that hours spent by a father with his child may hold greater significance in terms of deliberate interaction with the child than hours spent perforce by the mother in day to day caretaking.

    – – – – – – – – –

    CONCLUSIONS
    It has been demonstrated that in a strange situation, changes in infant behaviour which occur in the presence and absence of the mother also occur in the presence and absence of the father. The presence of either parent compensates to a large degree for the absence of the other. Reactions to separation from either parent in this strange situation for the most part parallel those reported by other workers. Among the separation reactions which occurred, crying and escape behaviours emerged as the most useful indices of attachment to the parents.

    If attachment is operationally defined in this way then it is clear that infants at one year of age have formed attachments to the father which are comparable to the maternal attachments reported by other workers.

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Curiously, that thesis hasn’t been referenced in any other psychology papers, as far as I can detect.

    In my opinion, a large number of fathers seriously underestimate the value to the children, of the relationship with them.

    In part, this may be out of respect for the mother’s role, in perhaps providing most of the hours of care.

    In part, society doesn’t sufficiently respect the value of caring for children. I can only support complaints made about this by women.

    More critically, the familycaught$ dangerously undermines fathers, in their value to the children. This serious derangement on their part corrupts not just the decisions that they make, but also has a negative impact onto the quality of decisions made by both mothers and fathers whom they uneducate.

    Father’s lack of awareness of their critical role in the upbringing of children, unwittingly leads many of them to tolerate situations where the children are being seriously disadvantaged, by the time restrictions placed by jealous, hazardously under skilled mothers.

    The important issue is that sensible, constructive, safe decisions can only be made using an accurate and fair assessment of the value of all of a child’s relationships.

    In my opinion, we should respect the children’s relationship with the other parent, respect its difference from the relationship with ourself – to do anything else is just relationship vandalism – it adds nothing but heartbreak to the world.

  37. Downunder says:

    @Murray – attachment is a huge subject.

    Yes, I agree men don’t always recognise the significance of attachment and their value, but they are often facing conflicting circumstances that a mother is not.

    A mother who has little or no attachment to a child may be spending much more time with a child but a father who is spending much less time can be facing multi conflicts and pressures to resist that bond because they cannot cope with or simply cannot facilitate adding that to their environment.

    I think sometimes there is an element of self preservation in there.

    I also think there are times when a child fails to bond with either parent and then there is a question as to whether they will ever bond with an adult, (perhaps sometimes a grandparent or an uncle/auntie, perhaps a number of people of a superficial basis)

    Then it gets complicated further as children grow up by influences that cause them to reject a parent. Sibling rivalry that is not dealt with by one parent but is not allowed in the presence of the other parent causes conflicting environments.

    Currently:
    1. there are too many feminist myths floating around
    2. fathers face too much negative interference in child relationships
    3. they face negative social stigma
    4. they are often conflicted in what they can offer

    But there is no doubt they have an important and viable place in attachment theory – it just doen’t fit the feminist social model.

  38. MurrayBacon says:

    #39 Downunder – spot on. Add to your list, if the mother is having difficulty handling the children, but has only poor work prospects, then that adds to the pressures against the father providing more care for the children.

    The most important point that I am trying to make, is that division of marriage work into pure outside work and pure housework is ok for the children, if the mother is of at least average skills caring for children.

    If the mother is depressed or or had a difficult childhood herself, then she is likely to need a lot of support, especially after giving birth.

    If such support isn’t made available, or if it is offered and rejected, then there is a large risk of marital breakup, when that is the most hazardous thing that could happen for the children. Presently, at this point, the person who could help the children has lost all control of the situation!

    Recipe for disaster for the children.

    Attachment isn’t the end all and be all of issues about caring for children. If all attachment relationships are broken without warning, then this can make huge problems for very young children. They aren’t very young for long!

    Attachment has been blown out of all proportion, by people who present it as meaning that 3 year old children shouldn’t spend overnights with fathers, or 4 years old, or 5 years old. Maybe the problem is the mother’s, not the children – funny coincidence that overnights seem to be such an important issue for child support payment calculations? What is really going on?

    Children need role models, people who can illustrate and talk about the world of work, wider family and give solid discipline – should it be needed. For children older than 2 years, these other issues should be the more important factors for almost all children.

  39. MurrayBacon says:

    Our culture values male pleasure more than female pleasure.
    The point is we need to establish culture that works well for men and boys, not just moan about what other people are saying.

  40. MurrayBacon says:

    Mum, not dad, more likely to neglect kids JESSICA STRUTT The West Australian

    The news media are starting to pick up on the statistics that have been published through the last 20 or 30 years.

    Blame doesn’t solve problems, just knowing our limits and staying within these limits, by obtaining sufficient support.

  41. MurrayBacon says:

    Responsibility – Although Merepeka Raukawa-Tait (in NZ Herald) doesn’t actually use the word “responsibility”, her article does discuss responsibility for properly bringing up and developing children.

    Merepeka Raukawa-Tait: Train parents to understand their job

    At present, the DPB solo parent’s benefit is available as of right, even when the sole parent lacks the motivation or skills to be able to safely parent a child.

    If children are our most precious resource, then we would only allow parents with the necessary skills to care for children?

    As babies are the most vulnerable and cannot write letters of complaint to CYFs, we must only allow competent parents to care for them alone.

    Women are not competent caregivers by right of birth, (as poor beleaguered familycaught$ assumes).

    Parenting skills start to develop from birth, when the caregiver responds to the baby’s communications, smiles, laughs. Neglect to respond appropriately, then fails to develop the skills to read bodylanguage, which is pretty fundamental to good parenting.

    It is no fault of a father or mother, if they were neglected by their parents at birth. They probably don’t even know, apart from their difficulties to develop secure adult relationships.. Why blame them?

    The point is to make sure that they are not left out of their depth, thus letting their children suffer.

  42. MurrayBacon says:

    OXFAM suggests NZ needs to address tax avoidance, so that families on low wages are not overtaxed

    Kiwi kids: How we can save them: Lucy Lawless interview: Patrick Kelly’s dream is that he’ll wake up
    ……..
    SOCIAL DISINTEGRATION

    LL: So the issue is money?

    PK: Money is only part of the issue. It’s also about social disintegration. For example, our own evidence at Starship would suggest that the rate of shaken baby syndrome in Pacific islanders is no higher than the general population in the first year of life, whereas it is in Maori. And I have wondered if that is because many urban Pacific Island babies are still much more in the bosom of their extended family.

    LL: There’s always someone to pass the baby off to?

    PK: Well, exactly. If you’ve got 13 people living in the house, six of whom are female and many of whom have extensive experience with childcare, then you’ve got an insurance policy for when you lose it in the middle of the night. Whereas if you are a young Maori urban mother, cut off from your tribal roots and family, who’s flatting somewhere with a whole bunch of unrelated people who are abusing drugs and alcohol, and you lose it in the night, you don’t have much of a support network.

    But it’s important to note that the same stresses and factors can be seen in every ethnic group, and it’s not just the people we usually perceive as “at risk”. Being an upper-middle-class Pakeha with a tertiary degree doesn’t prepare you for parenthood or ensure that you won’t lose your temper with a crying baby in the middle of the night.
    ……………………….
    LL: In fact you deal with kids much younger than 13, don’t you?

    PK: Our work is roughly 50/50 split between various forms of sexual assault, which nowadays tend to be largely in teenagers, and physical abuse and neglect, which tends to be largely in much younger kids. The seriously abused kids are the ones who end up in Starship. For them the mortality rate is quite high, 10 to 20 per cent. The children most likely to die are the ones who come in with head injuries from being shaken or slammed, or abdominal injuries from being stomped or punched.

    LL: Are the impulses behind that similar to a shaken baby situation – the frustration with a child being … well, a child?

    PK: The factors are complex. In that situation, the person who injured the child typically doesn’t volunteer exactly what they did or why, but when that information comes out it’s often about a child who was crying or a toddler who was demanding – just doing what babies or toddlers normally do – with an adult who for some reason cannot cope or doesn’t want to.

    Sometimes it’s where the adult, particularly the male, doesn’t have any biological relationship to the kid, so this is a child whose behaviour he has no particular motivation to tolerate. But not infrequently it’s the child’s own parents … In a lot of cases it’s fairly ordinary people who just crack under the pressure. They shake that baby, often with the intention, not of hurting them, but of shutting them up.

    LL: And even one shake can do it?

    PK: If it’s violent enough, one shake can do it. Violent to and fro movements cause subdural bleeding. The immediate outcome is that the baby is concussed, so she might stop crying, which is exactly what the caregiver was wanting. But they may not realise the only reason is that they’ve essentially knocked her out. Even if it never happens again, that child could still have some long-term neurological problems as a consequence of that event
    …………………
    Dr Kelly suggests it’s been 20 years of missed opportunities. He says a commitment to research the interventions that worked (and didn’t) in 1994 might have meant a lot fewer referrals in 2014.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
    mcb comment: Dr. Kelly is dead right, however NZ has a very poor record of failing to perform literature searches and even when they have been performed, then failing to heed the research anyway. The major blockage, is refusal to listen to research, refusal to listen – full stop.

  43. MurrayBacon says:

    For all of the blaming of poverty, I suggest that parental mental health and parenting skills should be the exact targets. (Certainly poverty is part of the equation, but not the main factor.)
    Kiwi kids worse off than those living in India’s slums – author NZ Herald
    ‘Tick for Kids’ to tackle child poverty NZ Herald
    [If a father cannot have a good working relationship with his children, then his children cannot benefit from the relationship. More importantly, they cannot be protected by his good mental health, if the relationship is blocked. If the father is denied a working relationship, then his level of skill cannot protect his children. Such relationship vandalism is only ever carried out by parents with poor parenting skills, thus you can be confident that their children will suffer by the lack of relationship with the other parent.]

  44. MurrayBacon says:

    Setting The Agenda for Child Protection?
    The Glenn Inquiry promised to focus on abuse of children, but the focus was diverted to women victims of violence.

    Feminists use shame as a powerful distractor and manipulate the agenda away from protecting children.
    Most men are easily shamed by:
    All Men Are Rapists
    All Men are Murderers

    When men are ashamed, they try to defend themselves. Many listeners hear the hurt and the defensiveness and just assume that the defensiveness shows that they are guilty! Often it is more important to leave a baseless accusation alone and put the focus onto the important issue, as you see it.

    Camille Paglia suggested that men are the most creative minority group the world has ever known.

    There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.
    If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.
    Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.
    A woman simply is, but a man must become.
    It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal.
    It is woman’s destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance. Nor to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors.
    I reaffirm and celebrate woman’s ancient mystery and glamour. I see the mother as an overwhelming force who condemns men to lifelong sexual anxiety, from which they escape through rationalism and physical achievement.
    When anything goes, it’s women who lose.
    Teenage boys, goaded by their surging hormones run in packs like the primal horde. They have only a brief season of exhilarating liberty between control by their mothers and control by their wives.
    In the theory of gender I began from zero. There is no masculine power or privilege I did not covet. But slowly, step by step, decade by decade, I was forced to acknowledge that even a woman of abnormal will cannot escape her hormonal identity.”
    I say the law should be blind to race, gender and sexual orientation, just as it claims to be blind to wealth and power. There should be no specially protected groups of any kind, except for children, the severely disabled and the elderly, whose physical frailty demands society’s care.
    Now that virtually every career is an option for ambitious girls, it can no longer be considered regressive or reactionary to reintroduce discussion of marriage and motherhood to primary education. We certainly do not want to return to the simplistic duality of home economics classes for girls and wood shop for boys.
    Men know they are sexual exiles. They wander the earth seeking satisfaction, craving and despising, never content. There is nothing in that anguished motion for women to envy.
    Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman’s attention.

    Sure, men do the most violence in our society. So what?
    Is the violence carried out by a few men, good reason to deny many children time with their own fathers?
    (Before answering this question, consider the effects discussed above, on children of being in solo mother, married parents, solo father and parent/stepparent households.)

    Women
    do the most failure to respond appropriately to babies
    do the most emotional neglect of children
    almost certainly do the most sexual abuse of children.

    The three drivers listed above are not satisfactorily discussed in our society, as excuses are made for women’s performances.

    Back to the undermining of focus onto the most important issues, should women be ashamed too?

    Looking through the Wikipedia article on child development

    The names of the developers of major theories about child development are:

    Urie Bronfenbrenner
    Jean Piaget
    Lev Vygotsky
    John Bowlby
    Erik Erikson
    John B. Watson
    Sigmund Freud

    Counting the women and the men, leaves it quite clear that women might pop out many children, but they are not so observant and sensitive, as to be able to establish even one major development in this important field. Thus, we need to be careful about leaving children in the care of women, for more than a few hours at a time.

    However, as the scale of the social consequences of poor parenting is changing from huge but able to have a blind eye turned, to huge and unable to be hidden, we are being forced to face that women are not always loving little earth mothers, at all.

    Government forecasts of Departmental expenditure showed Corrections ie prisons as becoming the most expensive department in the future. This is clearly totally unsustainable and these problems must now be faced.
    The Glenn Inquiry promised to focus on abuse and violence of children and adults. It promised to break the intergenerational cycle of abuse.
    The report delivered has focused on violence to women and empowering women, by removing parental accountability to the fathers of their children, using without-evidence POs.

    But is this a solution?
    Both NZ and international statistics (NIS-4 USA) show clearly that children in solo mother households are more likely to be violent as adults and to be career criminals. Statistics show that children from repartnered households are intermediate between solo mother parented households and married parents of the child households. Children in solo father households are close to married households, in the risks of antisocial outcomes for the children. Anti-social parents are much more likely to develop anti-social children.
    The recommendations from the Family Violence Death Review Committee/Glenn Inquiry would reduce accountability of mothers to fathers and will put more children into solo mother type households, increasing these hazards.
    The statistics show that proper parental involvement by the father, greatly reduces risks for children (ie answers the intergenerational cycle) and also reduces the costs and risks imposed onto wider society. Mothers may not want to be held accountable to fathers or to society, but it is only through proper accountability, that children can receive the best from both of their parents. As a society, we have tried for a long time to be soft on solo mothers and we are now paying a huge social and financial cost, for suspending this accountability. In the end, we should not leave children in the care of parents who lack the skills and motivation to parent well. In all professions, incompetents cannot see this themselves. Standards must be set and judged by people who do have these skills. It is society’s duty to make sure that children are not left in the care of parents who lack the basic skills.
    Although NZ legislation protects father’s right to be involved in the decisions about the development of their children, these are given scant respect by CYFs, Police or Family Court. The result is two hundred thousand children, left largely in the sole care of mothers or incompetent parent couples and hugely at risk of child neglect. Not just risk of neglect, but actual neglect on a huge scale, in particular emotional neglect. This is high risk for developing low empathy, poor impulse control, violent children, both girls and boys. This shows up in the poor performance of a large segment of school entrants, who are needing intensive remedial reading and social skills programmes, often individually.
    As a society, we would benefit from following existing legislation and actually protecting children’s right to a good relationship with fathers and all of their wider family, this is an important part of healthy development. This may not work well for the very few, where extreme violence occurs, but will greatly improve outcomes for the vast majority. It is the wider, lower level problems that holds our society back, fills our prisons and hospitals.
    Good quality parenting also gives the best path to break the intergenerational cycle of abuse and violence. Good parenting does require proper accountability both ways between parents and honest good faith negotiation between parents. Good parenting involves giving children the best development that both parents can provide and where mothers lack a skill, letting fathers care more for their children.
    Many fathers need to put in more time with their children, to save them from mothers lacking some parenting skills.
    All of our children need the parenting of both parents, to develop well and be happy citizens. More often than we care to admit, fathers should be putting in much more time with children, to protect their own children from the limitations in the mother’s skills.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Obtaining Protection Orders, by perjury, to exclude the father, is the most dangerous path we could possibly follow.

    Christine Bristol’s loss of her children to murder suicide by their father, is consistent with her making a perjured rape allegation, leading to a murderous over-reaction by her husband, due to him perceiving that the courts would be likely to react disproportionately and seeing no hope for himself as a parent. The wrong, unnecessary and cruel outcome is there for all to see. We need to learn from our experiences and act more responsibly for our children.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Presently, many fathers are restricted in their development of parenting skills, by wrongly being denied time with their children.

    If men are concerned about the quality of upbringing that their children are receiving, then don’t be baited by feminists into discussing male violence and a few deaths per year.

    Set your own agenda – by what you see as important. If you want to focus onto the quality of your children’s upbringing, then discuss this in public and why it is important. Demand accountability.

    The organisations that protect poor parents from accountability, must be swept away into the rubbish and be replaced by organisations that properly demand competent accountability by both parents, for their performance.

  45. MurrayBacon says:

    Back to the notion that whenever possible, children take the best from both parents:

    Jamie Ford teaches mental toughness to some of the country’s top athletes, business people and broadcasters. A former Salvation Army officer, he has faced enormous personal trauma but believes how we think determines how we feel and act

    1. Where did you learn about mental toughness? I was working as a social worker in alcohol and drug rehabilitation for the Salvation Army and Presbyterian Services and came across work by (American psychologist) Albert Ellis. He made the connection early on between how we think and our emotions and our actions. That was long before scientific research but cognitive psychology now clearly demonstrates he was right.
    …….
    4. How do you cope with that now? Now I’m more easily able to identify what I can control and what I couldn’t control. I do what I can and don’t upset myself about what I couldn’t do. ……..

    5. What was your childhood like? I thought I was having a fantastic childhood and I suppose most of us do. You don’t have anything to compare it with. Now I would say there was quite a lot of unhappiness and not a lot of emotional nurture. I was 15 when my father died very suddenly at the age of 49. My mum’s concept was that, “It’s better not to talk about it!” We didn’t talk about Dad, how we missed him and his great sense of humour, how much we loved him, how vital he was to us kids as the source of emotional nurture in our home. So we were alone in our great sadness and grief over his absence from every aspect of our lives. I clearly remember one of my sisters getting up from the dinner table and going to her room in tears when something occurred during dinner that reminded her of Dad, but we didn’t talk about it.
    ……..
    7. Can you teach mental toughness to children? Children are actually very good at understanding that problems or adversity is temporary — they get hurt, ask an adult to kiss it better and they’re off again. But learning to compartmentalise their problems so it doesn’t spill over into all of life is harder. Practical examples help. Use a mandarin and get the child to refer to it as “everything that is going wrong”. Then get them to peel it, take out one segment and label that with the name of the one thing that’s gone wrong. Pull out the other segments and label them with things that are going okay. Segment by segment we can show them that even if one part of life is a bit off the rails at the moment, most things are fine.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________
    Please do not take mother versus father or male versus female directly out of this single example. The children took the best from their mother and the best from their father, while they had access to him. The father’s death obviously cut off the children’s access.

    I hope this well illustrates why children’s access to both parents should be maintained through separation, certainly not relationship vandalised to promote mafioso wealth plunder out of the family.

  46. MurrayBacon says:

    A baby needs to be given a large amount of relevant stimulation almost every day. The odd day of no stimulation will not kill, but will do material damage. Just because a baby doesn’t show bruises or broken bones, doesn’t prove that it is being given appropriate stimulation, to properly develop its brain.

    These Bulgaria or Ukraine or Romanian examples don’t prove that NZ is safe for babies. Many NZ babies and children are growing up in homes which better meet adult needs, a few calories and a lot of alcohol, but don’t meet the children’s needs to develop as capable citizens. Parental depression, substance addictions or other mental health issues are huge hazards for babies, who cannot protect themselves from parents who look lazy and are not taking good care of their children. We must act long before the children are jailed for violence!

    Bulgaria’s Abandoned Children (Full length)

    Liquor store attack: Teens identified

  47. MurrayBacon says:

    If fathers wish to have a better chance to defend their children’s relationship with them, they do need to be able to speak knowledgeably, quickly and eloquently about child development. Then, there is a small chance that they might be listened to in familycaught$.

    Maybe a big investment of time, for a rather small chance of being heard?
    How much do you value the quality of your children’s upbringing?

    If you fail to try, then you may be giving away a lot of quality in your children’s upbringing, just because you were not prepared to face up to the legal worker’s paramount financial interest, by speaking for your children’s proper needs.

    My hero Evgeny Orlov successfully cross examined a s133 psychologist and led her to admit that her recommendation for refusing shared care was based on her “professional opinion” only and had no scientific basis in her own systematic observations or her reading of peer reviewed published research. To do this does require a moderate knowledge about child development.

    This does take some time, so the only answer is – Be Prepared.

    This knowledge should not be too difficult for fathers to acquire, as all of the developers of current child development theory were men. Not a single woman has ever developed a major theory about child development, that has survived rigorous challenge.

    One free example of child development training:

    The Clinical Psychology of Children and Young People
    by Professor Matthias Schwannauer, Dr Stella Chan, Dr Emily Taylor, D Clin Psych, Dr Joanne Williams
    University of Edinburgh
    course provided through Coursera

    Welcome and Overview Help

    Welcome to The Clinical Psychology of Children and Young People!

    About this Course
    In this exciting new course we will introduce you to a variety of theories of child and adolescent development and developmental psychopathology. You will learn about a range of mental health difficulties that children and adolescents can experience and we will explore some of the developmental factors that influence children’s mental health. We have an international community of over 45,000 students from over 220 countries so this course provides us with a fantastic opportunity to learn about child and adolescent clinical psychology together. The course is structured around 5 weeks. Each week focuses on a specific set of topics that guide you from a basic introduction to children’s development to a critical and reflective consideration of developmental psychopathology and the implications this has for working with children in clinical practice.

    The Course at a Glance
    Week 1: Introduces you to children’s development and examines key influences on development. We then begin to consider theories of developmental psychopathology and discuss mental health difficulties experienced by children, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
    Week 2: Focuses on the important concepts of risk and resilience and how they are associated with mental health during childhood. We will review trends in resilience research and consider how early adversity affects children in different ways depending on their resilience.
    Week 3: Introduces you to research on emotional attachments and explores how emotional attachments to caregivers play an important role in the development of mental health.
    Week 4: Explores adolescence and considers key developmental processes and mental health that affect young people in this phase of development.
    Week 5: Reflects on developmental psychopathology theories and their implications for clinical practice with children and young people.

    Approaches to Teaching and Learning
    Each week you will view a series of videos with associated readings. You will have opportunities to assess your own learning through short quizzes and tasks to engage you with the learning materials. You will also have opportunities to contribute to discussion forums and learn collaboratively with your fellow students and teaching assistants. This course is presented in English language. Whilst students may wish to contribute to the Discussion Forum in other languages, tutors will only contribute to and moderate English-language Discussion threads. The aim of our teaching is to allow you to engage with psychological research and theory and reflect on the implications of this for clinical practice with children and young people. You will receive a certificate upon successful completion of the course tasks and grading requirements. For details, refer to the Grading and Logistics section.

    We hope you enjoy the next five weeks studying with us!

    Matthias, Emily, Stella and Jo

  48. MurrayBacon says:

    It just happens that present discussion in the Clinical Psychology of Children and Young People course is about the relative roles of caregivers for children:

    Again, many thanks for your many contributions on the topics of this week. Some of the key themes seem to circle around the assumed universality of the attachment concept and its cultural specificity or bias, especially in respect to ‘other’ primary or even secondary caregivers, such as fathers and other family members. We also picked up on some of the problems of the measurement of attachment within research and clinical settings and the feedback you gave on completing two of the most prominent self report measures for attachment.

    You can find a clip of a brief discussion of these topics here.

    Next week we will turn to the developmental and clinical psychology of adolescence and we hope you join us in the discussions of this crucial and bewildering developmental stage and age.

    with best wishes from the Applied Child Development Team at Edinburgh

    Emily Taylor, Jo Williams, Stella Chan and Matthias Schwannauer

    So, fathers – don’t give in too easily.
    When needed, fight sensibly to protect your children from mothers and familycaught$.

  49. MurrayBacon says:

    Misery in Motherhood ie postnatal depression article from Scientific American

    A deep despair mars the first year of motherhood for as many as one in five women. Without treatment, postpartum depression can weaken critical bonds between a mother and her child.
    [Fathers show depression almost as often as women, so both sexes of parents may need help, often both. Too often we give help if it is asked for. Thus we end up failing to help many parents who do need assistance with depression and the like. Proactive support for young, inexperienced parents is a very sensible investment into giving children good quality upbringing. And it is a great benefit for the parents themselves. mcb]

  50. MurrayBacon says:

    Family Guy from Scientific American

    Move over, “mommy brain.” Men go through their own biological changes after a baby is born. But dads are programmed to challenge their kids, not coddle them By Emily Anthes

  51. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear rc, the nanny is cruel to the toddler, but not quite injurious.

    The nanny does attend to the child, even if nowhere near as well as she should.

    The jumping fairly gently on the girl’s torso probably came fairly close to breaking ribs, but not quite. Very high risk, but not actual death, this time.

    So what? Ten days later, the bruising has probably healed. Maybe 6 months later, the emotional scars are largely gone, depending on what else has happened through that same period of time…..

    But, for about 1000 babies each year in NZ, the caregiver is failing to respond appropriately to the child’s needs, especially in terms of emotional responding. The caregiver may be distracted, bored, depressed, seeking drugs more than caring, psychotic due to abuse and PTSD…..

  52. MurrayBacon says:

    Emotional health in childhood ‘is the key to future happiness’
    LSE study says money, success and good grades are less important

    by Jamie Doward

    Lord Richard Layard, who is emeritus professor of economics at the LSE.Photograph: Linda Nylind/Observer
    Mick Jagger famously couldn’t get it, but now economists think they know what’s required to get some satisfaction.
    After investigating the factors in a person’s life that can best predict whether they will lead satisfied lives, a team headed by one of the UK’s foremost “happiness” experts, Professor Richard Layard, has come up with an answer that may prove controversial.
    Layard and his colleagues at the Wellbeing research programme at theLondon School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performanceconclude that a child’s emotional health is far more important to their satisfaction levels as an adult than other factors, such as if they achieve academic success when young, or wealth when older. The authors explain that evaluating the quality of a child’s emotional health is based on analysing a range of internal factors in a person’s early life, including whether they endured unhappiness, sleeplessness, eating disorders, bedwetting, fearfulness or tiredness.
    The academics claim that their study, What Predicts a Successful Life? A Life-course Model of Well-being, published in the latest edition of theEconomic Journal, offers “a completely new perspective on which factors contribute most to a satisfying life”. The study claims to challenge “the basic assumption of educational policy in recent years – that academic achievement matters more than anything else”. This claim appears to be an implicit criticism of former education secretary Michael Gove, who instructed schools not to focus on “peripheral” issues such as children’s moral, social and cultural development in favour of academic excellence. Gove’s successor, Nicky Morgan, has pledged to reverse this approach.
    Layard and his team analysed data from about 9,000 people who were born over a three-week period in 1970 and then tracked by the British Cohort Survey, a study that asks them to complete an extensive questionnaire about their lives every five to seven years. They were also asked to rate their satisfaction at key periods through their lives. The team then examined factors including their income, educational achievement, employment, whether they had been in trouble with the law, whether they were single, as well as their physical and emotional health – to gauge how significant these were in determining satisfaction. In addition, a range of factors that affect a child’s development – for example, intellectual performance, family socio-economic background and emotional health were also examined.
    Many people have assumed income is the most important factor in an adult’s life satisfaction. But the academics say their data makes clear this is far less important than emotional health – both in a child and in an adult. “Income only explains about 1% of the variation in life satisfaction among people in the UK – one sixth of the fraction explained by emotional health,” they note. Or, to put it another way, money really cannot buy you happiness.
    The findings are controversial. As one of Layard’s colleagues, Andew E Clark, notes in an accompanying paper, the suggestion that “education and income are among the least important determinants of adult success, as measured by life satisfaction … risks provoking outrage among some.”
    But the economics of happiness or wellbeing is now a growing and respected discipline within economics that is starting to influence politicians.
    David Cameron has stated: “It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money and it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB – general well-being.”
    The findings raise questions about the extent to which intervening in a child’s life will pay dividends later on.
    “Child interventions can produce massive savings to public finances but these are often at a much later date,” the authors note. They conclude: “By far the most important predictor of adult life-satisfaction is emotional health, both in childhood and subsequently. We find that the intellectual performance of a child is the least important childhood predictor of life-satisfaction as an adult.”

  53. MurrayBacon says:

    The Consequence of Father Removal
    Filed under: General — Ministry of Men’s Affairs @ 2:49 pm

  54. MurrayBacon says:

    Protecting Our Children From Abuse and Neglect by American Psychological Association:

    Caring Adults: What A Child Needs Most
    Children depend on many adults as they grow up. Parents, relatives, teachers and child care workers all provide children with love, support and guidance.
    No one wants to see children grow up with fear, anger or neglect. But no one is born knowing how to care for children. Sometimes we make mistakes that hurt them.
    Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a relative or a caregiver, you can make a difference and help the children you love grow up in a caring, loving environment. Adults don’t have to be perfect, just willing to listen, learn, grow and change.
    . . . . . . .
    What Is Child Abuse?
    This is an example of physical child abuse.
    Teresa had just changed 18-month-old Dale’s dirty diaper when he had another messy diaper; this made Teresa angry. She thought that putting him in hot water would punish him for the dirty diaper. When she put him in the tub, he cried loudly. Teresa slapped him to stop the crying and didn’t notice the scald marks until after the bath was over.
    Examples of Physical Child Abuse
    Shaking or shoving Slapping or hitting Beating with a belt, shoe or other object Burning a child with matches or cigarettes Scalding a child with water that is too hot
    . . . . . . . . .
    Examples of Child Neglect
    Not meeting a child’s need for food, clothing, shelter or safety
    Leaving a child unwatched Leaving a child in an unsafe place
    Not seeking necessary medical attention for a child
    Not having a child attend school
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    The APA document extracted above, focusses mainly on toddlers and older.
    It mentions: Not meeting a child’s need for food, clothing, shelter or safety.
    But it fails to mention the very foundation of civilised humans – the need for emotional responding to a baby, from day 0 to day 500 and onwards.
    Without 1 or 2 responsive parents, the child’s development needs are not being met and many areas in the brain fail to develop fully. The result is a child, that even with huge remedial inputs after reaching school age, will never obtain full human intimate responses, will never develop full executive function and will only obtain very limited enjoyment of life.
    At present there is no way to diagnose from the baby that it is not being properly developed, until the damage is severe and extremely difficult to resolve.
    The only way to protect children, is by making sure that their caregivers are competent at responding, ie have the skills and are not distracted by financial deprivation, or seeking addictive drugs, or unable to respond due to depression.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

« »

Powered by WordPress