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

Law Commission report about laws on parenthood

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 2:54 pm Fri 22nd April 2005

Press release by Hon Marian Hobbs:

Parenthood report tackles complex issues

A Law Commission report tackles complex questions about laws on parenthood, the Minister responsible for the Law Commission, Marian Hobbs, said today after the tabling of the report in Parliament.

The report, New Issues in Legal Parenthood, is a comprehensive review of the laws on parenthood.

“It is important that these laws are reviewed periodically to ensure they keep pace with technology and social change,” the minister added.

Some of the issues dealt with in the report originated from policy work on the Care of Children Act 2004 and Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004.

Those acts raised the profile of the importance of children having clear rules about who are their parents and who has legal responsibility for them.

“The report grapples with some difficult issues,” Marian Hobbs said. “For example, should the Courts have the power to force a child or adult to provide a bodily sample for the purpose of parentage testing using DNA profiling? Should children have more than two legal parents? These are complex questions and will require a considered response from the government.”

Because recommendations in the report propose amendments to various acts, several ministries will be directly involved in preparing the government response to the Law Commission’s report. That response is required to be presented to Parliament in October 2005.

END of the Minister’s Press Release.

Download the report here:
NZLC R88 New Issues in Legal Parenthood [1,240KB pdf]

A few excerpts from the report:

2.7 In fathers’ groups where the men were legal parents but had grievances about their inability to continue effective parenting upon separation, genetics was very important and they considered the fact of a genetic link should elevate their status above that of a step-parent. Another view held by others representing fathers’ interests, however, was that social parenthood and not genetic parenthood should determine parental .financial liability.


4.15 However, a distinction between a man in an ongoing relationship with the mother and a man not in such a relationship should be continued. It would be both unreliable and unsatisfactory to enable a father to be named in the birth details on the word of either the mother or any man who claims to have had sexual relations with her around the time the child was conceived.


4.17 There is now much discussion of wrongly attributed paternity in the Western world and there are frequent estimates in the media of the numbers of children whose legal fathers are not their genetic fathers. Alleged rates range from 1 per cent to over 30 per cent, with 9 or 10 per cent being commonly cited. The speculation has been heightened by high profile cases of paternity fraud, which have been reported in the media in recent years. However, hard data to back up claims as to what the rate is are much harder to come by.90 There is no New Zealand research on this matter.


4.23 Some of those representing fathers’ groups suggested that there should be mandatory
genetic testing at birth for every child as this would allow men to accurately establish whether they fathered the child as the mother alleged. Should the tests disprove paternity, the man in question could then make an informed decision as to whether to support the child.


  1. The anti-clarke strikes again. Yet another blow in her anti-child, anti-family, anti-parent social re-engineering agenda. Wake up Aunty Helen: you and your funny boys and funny girls are on the way out.

    Social policy like this simply shows how impoverished your life is. When you have managed to conceive and bear a child you may perchance grow up and realise that it is you and no-one else that is killing New Zealand.

    This law commission report is a debacle. That you can even consider making a sperm donor a “father” just says that you are listening to too many homosexuals. Scientifically, homosexuality occurs in almost every population at slightly less than 2% of the population. It is, by its very nature a self-defeating prophecy because there can be no progeny from homosexual relationships.

    The parents and children you are choosing to afflict with your childhood issues will respond with their votes this year. With a little push from people who realise what is really happening, we will see you gone.

    Comment by Sparx — Tue 26th April 2005 @ 2:39 pm

  2. Some interesting reading on DNA testing issues. Looks good for everyone. Some mention of the financial strain that Child Support places on fathers. TRUE THAT. Also a focus on getting more fathers names on birth certificates. A fairer Child Support Act 1991 would certainly help no?

    Comment by Mark Lloyd — Tue 26th April 2005 @ 2:40 pm

  3. Yes Sparx,
    What strikes me as particularly odious is that Hobbs (who I last saw gracing the front cover of the New Zealand Herald promoting a sex-fetish shop in K Rd) seems to want a quid each way.
    On the one hand she’s apparently unconcerned about the rising tide of kids born without a registered father. Yet as you point out wants sperm donors to be able to be registered as Dads. Given her background and sexual orientation it’s not hard to believe this is simply another part of her gay rights agenda.

    Comment by Stephen — Wed 27th April 2005 @ 11:08 am

  4. Strikes me, Stephen,
    that a big part of this report is simply intended to legitimise funny-boys as fathers and funny-girls as mothers by their donation of sperm or eggs. Again, we are pandering to the 2% minority who, in real life, cannot reproduce: “a self-defeating prophecy”.

    The report does make some comments about child support and DNA testing, but nothing of real significance. Again, I must believe this report is being driven by Anti-Clarke directives and that it’s underlying thrust is anti-child, anti-parent and anti-family.

    It is a great pity that the Anti-Clarke cannot rise above her own personal issues and work for the greater good of New Zealand as a whole – instead of just the 2% funny-people minority.

    Vote for a positive change: throw out the neo-facist, socio-communist funny-boys and funny-girls this year!

    Comment by Sparx — Wed 27th April 2005 @ 3:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar