Looking at possible remedies for the Family Court
The current focus of the Family Court is on ‘best interest of the child’. This, I would say, is something that is very difficult to determine. Also it ignores the presence of the parents, both mother and father and since the mother invariably ends up with the child, this makes the Family Court appear to be anti-father.
One possible remedy for this is to have the Family Court focus on the parent-child relationship. For every child in question there would be two parent-child relationships, one with the mother and one with the father. At the start of family court proceedings, if mediation fails, and it looks like the court will have to make a decision, these relationships would be assessed by a psychologist. The aim of the family court then would be to preserve parent-child relationships, while at the same time attempt to resolve disputes. Lawyers would be instructed to remove all references in affidavits that attack the spouses parent-child relationship. Parents would be given firmer instructions than at present about denigrating the other parent in front of the children. It is inevitable in most family court disputes that there are feelings surrounding marital separation to deal with and these often overflow into the area of parent-child relationships. The family court should emphasize and educate about the need to keep these separate, maybe providing parents with workshops run by organizations such as ParentLine.
Benefits of the parent-child focus:
The court would be required to recognize the importance of the parent. This is especially beneficial to fathers, who, with the current focus on the child, tend to miss out, and feel that the court is anti-father. Getting on side with the father means that, the chances of material and emotional support from both parents and not just the ‘custodial’ parent is more likely. It also makes the chances of shared parenting work better. Ultimately it has got to be better for the child if both parent-child relationships are preserved, not to mention being better for the father and mother.
Features:
The parent-child focus would require the parents to work on having the (negative) marital issues that separate them be countered by the (positive) parent-child relationships that draw them together (or at least draw them to their children). Parents have to learn to separate their relationship with the ex-spouse from that which they have with their children. The family court is a large enough institution to create the culture for this to happen.
The parent-child focus would require some complex assessments and psychological involvement in order to guide the court. It would be hoped that time currently spent on time-wasting adversarial contests could instead be used for this task and that parents would learn to be better parents as a result of the process.
Trouble is that assumes that the court appointed psychologists will do a reasonable job and that complex assements are needed.
By far the majority of the time they are not.
It seems to me that much of the involvement of psychologists is about them needing to make things appear complicated in order to justify their appointment and need!
The starting point of not needing any involvement and assuming both parents are capable of parenting their children and should have equal care would be much more workable.
The psychologists (and lawyers and counsellors) will in many cases tend to stand up and say ‘every case is different we need to examine every case individually’. But then as a collective group they claimed $37million of tax payer funds for doing just that last year, so they would say that wouldn’t they!
Comment by Ken — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 9:50 am
I put this idea forward in the hope of finding a way to distract the court from the adversarial type proceedings that occur too frequently and to help fathers feel more involved.
Families only need the court if they can’t work it out for themselves. If it has reached the court, chances are it is already ‘complicated’. My idea is for the judge to be focused on the parent-child relationship rather than ‘best interests of the child’. How does the judge know what is in the best interests of the child? Parents need to be involved in this, so the judge, lawyers and participants should be focused on the parent-child relationships and trying to create preserve/develop them. From this focus, hopefully decisions will come (from the parents) that are in the ‘best interests of the child’ and the child becomes the responsibility of the parents and not the state (through DPB and CSA). Energy put into the parents, including educational programmes if need be, will be rewarded at a later date by more parental involvement and less state involvement, and that $37 million dollar bill can be slashed. We do not undertake a course or get a certificate to become a parent and it can be a difficult and demanding task. My feeling is that when people find themselves in need of the family court, then maybe they would benefit from some extra parenting skills which if they had in the first place, might have prevented them from needing the court.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 10:17 am
Hi Zeal
Comment 2:- “they would benefit from some extra parenting skills which if they had in the first place, might have prevented them from needing the court.”
not sure exactly what you may be referring to here but its not the lack of parenting skills that land things in court but adversarial plus vindictive approach of ” i’ll make sure he/she suffers” approach.
seperating strong feeling towards the ex and doing “whats best for the child” becomes mixed in the courtroom as lawyers instead of helping constructively tend to encourage adversarial approaches.
Personally FC should be scrapped and an institution that solely has the approach to help and guide both parents towards determining and coming up with whats best for the child approach should be taken. An institution that will discourage adversarial approaches and help control or keep vindictivness out of matters when in discussion regarding care of children. An institution encouraging both parents participation equally in all matters.
Comment by starr — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Starr,
That sounds very similar to what I’m suggesting here.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 12:26 pm
The only possible solution is political.Change the law.Get rid of the current disaster and level the playing field focused on creating the best outcomes for children.
Presumptive equal parenting takes away the current power that one party holds over the other.
Parents can enter into negotiated agreements if they choose to do so, but cannot be forced to do so.
Equal parental rights and equal parental responsibilities are the only way to protect the rights of the child to be parented by both parents.
There is no need for a Family Court what is needed is a whole new non adversial approach.
Problem is that the industry of misery that an adverserial Family Law system creates dont like the idea of loosing the huge income stream.(See Aussie example)
This is not a complex problem,but the political will to change the system is lacking. Vested interest groups that make a lot of money fear the loss of the income stream.
Regards
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Starr
I couldn’t agree with you more, but the reality is that many couples cannot work it out between themselves. I know some that have separated and agreed on custody and access issues without any court involvement. That is the ideal situation. It would also be ideal if no one ever stole anything, but the reality is that they do.
The FC as it is is the best place to start. Change the system from within rather than wipe it out and start again.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Zeal,
The reason couples cannot work it out is because one parent (custodial parent so called) has power (control of other parents parenting time with child) because the “law” allows an unequal starting point. Shared parenting (as negotiated between parents based on the childs need is the best solution).This needs to be enshrined prescriptevley in Law
Prescriptive equal parenting removes that power.
System Change cannot achieve the best outcomes for the children as the system is conflict based and built on a winner and looser.
Family Law in this country cannot produce the best outcomes for kids untill the adverserial system (AKA FC) is replaced by a non adverserial system that has a level playing field.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Easy said, but if we want to replace it then we need to discuss what we replace it with. Otherwise it is all just hot air. On top of what you said previously, what would you replace the FC with, specifically? What would you call it? Who would staff it? Would it be run by the Justice system or Health or Relationship Services? It’s good to have opinions but it is too easy to burn things down without having any idea what you are going to replace it with.
I am listening.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 3:47 pm
I agree with most of what has been said. From what I have heard (and I would like to get clarity ) is that one person applies to the court for cutody of the children. This can be male or female because they have not sorted it out themselves or do not trust the other or want revenge. Then a socail worker visits the two homes, speaking with the parents and asks questions and takes notes of what each wants. From these notes a decision is made whether there seems to be any danger for the children and if so a psychologist report is asked for. This along with affidavits from the other parties (family and close friends, work boss etc) is all put forward and the 2 free mediation sessions start. If no agreement can be made then the judge becomes the mediator and if still no agreement is made court proceedings start.
But if orders such as “DV” or such are obtained then the court will bring in supervision oders.
Many people do not even go through the courts but still play games. Having laws that promote equal rights to parenting will help some stop playing games but it will also have others using whatever means to get thier own way. It is only human nature to use anything to get what you want if you are really determined to get it.
Comment by julie — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Zeal,
Thats already in the arena. The point is that the minature is irrealavent, a red herring.
The key is the enshrined protection in law of equal parental rights and responsibilities.
Without that its just tinkering.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Julie,
Dont have the time to reply in detail.Its not about promoting equal parenting its about creating a new paradigm where that is the norm.
Look at homosexual law reform for a model.Or anti smoking social engineering.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Julie,
That’s pretty much the experience that I had with the FC but without the social workers, and we had several mediations with the judge over a period of years but no hearing. The fact that the process was slow meant that we eventually sorted it out for ourselves.
I don’t think the process should be sped up, but I do think that the focus should change to a parent-child one. yes, sure, people will still play games, but so long as the pitch they play on includes an inviolable connection between the parent and the child, then that is better than what we have got. I think that the court needs to have a much better excuse than they do for separation orders between a father and a child (eg protection order). What needs to be protected is the relationship between the parent (father) and the child. This needs to be of paramount importance. If this is protected then it diminishes the chance of the child becoming a state dependent or having a ‘fatherless’ upbringing.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Zeal
I disagree with your comment 6.
If the adversarial approach were not encouraged by lawyers than yes leave in the FC if you so require. however we know for certain lawyers encourage adversarial approaches to their benefit… hence a room involving lawyers dealing with any family matter should be removed to prevent/ discourage such actions for the benefit of the child.
Comment by starr — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 6:37 pm
starr, I disagree
I said the FC is the best place to start. Not everything that lawyers do is adversarial. There is contract law, wills, property and the list goes on. If FC lawyers are adversarial it is because in the court they act as agents for the parents and if the parents are adversarial then the lawyers reflect that. Somehow the FC has to be changed to dampen that effect and promote positive relationships between parent and child even if the relationship between the parents has gone to s**t. I think that parents will invariably have to be allowed to let off some steam at each other, but this can be done without harming parent-child relationships except in so far as a child sees daddy hurting mummy or vice versa. I do not envy FC lawyers. Most of what they have to deal with is human anger.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 6:52 pm
27 lawyers , couple dozen judges, couple of bias psychologists , nut doctors , lying social workers and five years later no access to my sad daughters as I wait for the cops to come again and twist the knife of deceit in further – that is the prejudice family court . The family court is a gravy train of bullshit so the leaches can suck blood money from all the misery . Fact . End of story !!!!
Comment by Peter Burns — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 7:17 pm
I don’t even know if this is the way to go. What I am meaning is that maybe the way to go is bigger than just the FC and father’s rights. Maybe we should take it right across the board.
Men have nothing compared to women in this country regarding policy, research (from women’s studies in University level, women’s refuge and and much more) I think we should combine with all groups for the rights of males. I think we should start with the fact that males are suffering. That cannot be argued with by any political group, commision or charitable group or any other person. I think we should make the decision that women and men in parliament are just band-aiding problems that come to them and that male’s rights are suffering because no-one is considering them and that we need to have a commission for males. We need to acknowledge thier suffering as parents and youth and criminals etc and we need to address these problems. We need to have solutions to these problems and these solutions will aid the DV and FC and youth problems of society. I know CYFS will back us up because they are forever telling thier male workers and caregivers to have a third person when working with girls and I know family groups especailly the religious one’s will back this up and I know the male homosexuals are eager to have a say.
One of my bosses (male) died a month ago and while I was reminising with his wife (my friend) she was telling of a time when her daughter stood her ground and she had smacked her but her daughter did not flinch.
This is what he said to her (and he was a man who fought in the war and did all the right things a great male would do)
“Serves you right mother, know you know you have to find another way around her.” Now is that not the wise words one would expect from a wise man.
Conclusion; You need to find another way around the feminism.
What did the Maori’s do? Well they got real smart and came back with their education. They played the game. Now you just wait and see. They are not stupid to the western way anymore. And the world is watching them. They are making a stand for the minority against what the English did over 150 years ago.
What did the women do? The same bloody thing. Well I can go on and on regarding history but that is then and ………
Comment by julie — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 7:24 pm
Peter,
So let’s do something about it.
I notice no one accompanied what-his-name with the pram to parliament with his 1000 signatures.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Damn. when I spoke of this wise man’s word I mispelled the first word. What he said was, ““Serves you right mother, NOW you know you have to find another way around her.”
Comment by julie — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 7:30 pm
still disagree with you Zeal..
In talking to majority parents- custodial and liable, the common the situation is this:
Parents approach lawyers with the intention of not getting alienated from their child etc.. their initial intention would generally be for equal access for both parents.
However the moment they talk to a lawyer.. the lawyer encourages them by providing
“Options” in a very suggestive to go for full custody with advantages highlighted. — at the same time highlighting some imagined form of abuse by making judgements there and then without knowing actual backgrounds. First in-wins situation… and esp if that first in is a female.
Its from there the situation escalates via greed of one parent VS the security of access to the child of the other parent. An atmosphere of insecurity and underhandedness has already been established at the lawyers offices which only concludes in FC rooms. So no I still disagree with you strongly.
Comment by starr — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 8:23 pm
.
Zeal,
The whole system of English Law is adverserial. Family law is based on that adverserial system.
You got this round the wrong way. Lawyers are trained to be adversial by the system. They dont have another approach, its outside their square. Parents go to lawyers seeking “help” Lawyer responds how she is trained – conflict via litigation.e must be a winner and a looser (and a big fat cheque)
I dont eny them either I never wanted to drive a lexus. LOL. Unfortunately they are, as the changes in Aussie have shown, the biggest opponents of mediated solutions as to them its a bloody good living and they dont want it threatened!
Law Change in Parliament has made the differnce (as I think Julie is trying to say – expressed as the how to do it)
Zeal,
Most of the anger is created by the system and the sole custody, winner an looser model. FC lawyers are a main part of the system.
This is not a gender issue, its a child and parents right issue. Making it a gender issue works for no-one least of all the kids.
Regards
Scrap
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 10:22 pm
Yes, Starr, I agree there is a tendency for lawyers to be adversarial. I remember my first contact with my lawyer and he was quite aggressive, and the wording of the letter was quite strong, but I did nothing to stop him, which I did have the power to do. It’s just that in that initial situation, I felt adversarial and wanted to pull a few punches. So, anyway, the lawyers get into the practice of making it adversarial and the whole proceedings, including those that apply to the children are coloured by this adversarial atmosphere. The lawyers play a part but I don’t think you can blame them entirely. They do, at the end of the day, represent the parent.
How do we encourage both parents and lawyers to be less adversarial? I think that should be the judge’s job with help maybe from the counsel for the child and court psychologists. Any affidavit that is full of adversarial material should get rejected or that parent’s case given less weight. The judge is in the position to get the parties to focus on the parent-child stuff and to help lead the parents to finding a solution. The judge doesn’t WANT to have to make a decision on behalf of the parents, but if the parents don’t get their act together, then they are FORCED to.
When I was in the FC system, having a hearing was considered a last resort, and eventually, we sorted things out without the need for one, although a few court orders were made out, none of which apply to the actual current care situation.
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Starr,
when you say this:
I think you are referring to the same parent-child thing that I’m trying to get my head round.
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Julie, I agree with you that men have to get smarter. I don’t agree with all the indicators of men’s suffering that people like Farrell have suggested. Shorter life span does not equate to greater suffering or powerlessness. Over representation in jails is a reflection of male character rather than where they are on the pecking order. Women still get paid less on the average for the same work. Women are over-represented in jobs such as cleaning, menial factory work etc etc. For every woman that is a prime minister there are 10 far more powerful men who are prime ministers or presidents. Men are physically stronger than women and outstrip them in every field of endeavour from the Olympics (with the exception of synchronized swimming maybe!) to business, exploration, science, technology. Men take more risks, including life and limb, which is why men don’t live as long on the average. Men climb Mt Everest, walk to the South Pole, circumnavigate the planet. Men are more dynamic, more creative. In all cultures men are a privileged group. The Chinese kill female infants, the Indians cherish male children over female, and so on.
NZ is a rugby nation. Rugby is associated with staunch. If you are in pain, you don’t admit it to your mates, let alone your doctor, other wise you might miss out on a test game. Men are much less likely to report illness in themselves than women are and in my father’s generation, a man wouldn’t go to the doctor unless dragged there by the wife. Undiagnosed illness means earlier chance of death.
Men have not been switched on to their bodies. I am sure this is changing in the new generation and your boys will take more care of themselves. My father recently had to go to a beauty parlour to remove decades of pussy blackheads and what have you on his face. It got the point where it became dangerous to his health. He hadn’t maintained proper facial hygiene.
The smart male will find a way to look after his body while at the same time retain masculinity. Men have to find a way to be staunch and tough while at the same time caring and careful. I think that the main problems facing men are the self-limitations brought upon themselves by their definitions of masculinity. This reduces male options for how they behave and how they cope.
As for the crime stats, men have got to find ways to deal with emotions, especially anger. The methods we have in our society for dealing with this emotion are extremely limited and from my experience in anger management workshops, these methods seem to encourage it to be repressed rather than expressed. Anger can be expressed constructively. It doesn’t have to be seen as a negative emotion. This anger characteristic is what alienates men from their children. I know because I have experienced it myself. The intensity of my rage was matched by the intensity of my sense of loss, but the two emotions got in the way of each other and prevented any kind of resolution happening and prevented me from seeing my children.
You may know about Rob Moodie’s protest over male influence in the court system. He has taken to wearing a skirt in public to protest the male dominated/influenced court system in NZ. This guy is a high profile lawyer working on a very public case: the Berryman’s vs the Army, over a bridge that collapsed and killed someone. This doesn’t support the notion that the court system is a feminazi stronghold. If it was, the lawyers would all be wearing skirts, and Rob Moodie would be protesting in a men’s suit.
I repeat that I think the FC is seen to be feminist because the concept of ‘best interest of the child’ leads the court to attach the child to the mother almost exclusively. In orangutans, males have nothing whatsoever to do with rearing infants, however some monkeys are monogamous and have equal share. It seems obvious that human men are not like orangutans and want to play an important part in upbringing. I know I did because I chose to sacrifice a career in order to be the main caregiver. There is no absolute. If men want to have no part, then society will adjust accordingly. If men, like me, do want to play an important part in child rearing, then society needs to cater for that.
I think that women are more important than men at child birth, but that diminishes gradually until at age five when I think that father and mother can be measured equally as potential caregivers and on the same basis: how much time they are prepared to give to the child(ren), how well they are able to support them materially and emotionally, but most importantly, the quality of the parent-child relationship. The latter involves quite complex stuff, but I think that the more the court explores the parent-child relationship the more of an eye opener it would be for the parents and the greater likelihood of them finding their own solution (in the best interests of the child) without the need for court orders. I would prefer more money to be spent on psychologists and less on lawyers.
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Psychologists are like you , that is their opinion means nothing to heartbroken fathers !!!!
Comment by Peter Burns — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 7:06 pm
New Zeal,
I enjoyed reading your comment 23. Thanks for writing it. I will come back.
Comment by julie — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 8:23 pm
Zeal,
You obviously dont read much academic research.
According to your own position, those who die in the sudan from famine suffer no graeter hardship that someone who eats a staeak every day and the famine has nothing to do with any powerlessness on their part.
If overrepresentation in jails is a reflection of the male character then it makes perfect sense that womens salary reflects womens character. Both are absurd positions.
As to what women get paid plenty of analysis has been conducted that shows this is a myth.
It has to do with life choices and skills, not gender.
.
Tell that to the men who have had the privilige to die to protect women. Women have held graeter privilige because they bear children. Thats why a number of cultures do such things as send the men first into the crocodile infested river when crossing so that they take the hit, not the women.
Thats basic anthropology 101. Yoyr argument is not supported by fact.
You can repeat as many times as you like I Think… It does not change reality. A monkey is not a man, your back to apples and oranges.
Gender confusion by Kaftan Bob, has been his publicity technique for a long time.You fail to provide any evidence of a male dominated justice system.
Who is PM, Who is the Govenor General, Who is the head of the supreme court…. Hardly male domination!
You may think the moon is made of green cheese. Your claim that women are more important is as equally flawed as claiming men are more important.
You are trying to reduce to a gender issue what is in reality a parent and childs rights issue.Your reduction of parents to potential cregivers sums up your repeated anti Parent and child position.
YEAH RIGHT. Spend more money on social scientists. Put in plain english social science has no quanitative basis and is no better than employing a witch-doctor.
I suspect your majors were womans studies and social psychology they are the only ones who produce the absurd post modern position you keep espousing.
Regards
Scrap
P.S Dont forget to moisturise.
Comment by Scrap_the_CSA — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 9:27 pm
New Zeal,
The methods we have in our society for dealing with men’s issues are not working because we are not giving them the attention we need to.
This is the suffering side I am talking about. We have spent so much of our resources on women that we can tell you why a woman killed her 5 children. I am not suggesting that post natal depression is not real but for almost every action a female does, we CAN justify it.
But if we were to ask why men do certains things we go back to actions as if we were living in yester-year.
And not just that but we label the men that do the actions as negative people in society. Now experts know that there are just as many justifications for the men but it is not in our daily vocaburlary as women’s justifications.
Yes men’s issues are suffering because we spend most of our resources elsewhere like protecting women from men.
I am not going to go back into all the areas as I had in previous posts but just look at sexual abuse. It hadn’t even been considered sexual abuse that long ago for an older female to have sex with an underage boy.
I understand what you are saying about the younger generation of males and masculinity. My sons know about nail cuticles and eyebrows and all sorts.
They don’t want to be tough and ruggered although they do fight and they play hard at rugby. (One is a musician so he is not into rugby yet he has a stubborn streak and is not one to back down from a fight) It is not about fighting but about them having equal rights as females their age do.
It is about us understanding males as intricately as we do females through lots of research and a men’s studies at University level. And supporting them to be what they are. Males.
Then things will change. Then they will become OK within themselves and then their environments will change and then …..
Comment by julie — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Scrap,
I echo every word you posted to Kent/Zeal.
You rock brother!
Kent,
Cherry picking issues Men’s issues to support your paticular brand of tired gynocentric pro – feminist dogma.
Disappointing, but I can work around you.
Julie,
I’m glad you seem to be seeing through Kent’s feminist frontman anthologizing.
It’s ironic and encouraging seeing how much more pro-male than him your last post reads.
Go sista!
Comment by Stephen — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 12:09 am
Oh dear,
We’re back into Oh-woe-is-me-poor-suffering-men mode (referring to Scrap and Stephen). You see the glass half empty, I see it half full. If the system is unfair on men, then, in my mind, I have already changed it.
Julie,
In reference to post natal depression being a girl excuse for behaviour, for boys we have a host of similar labels such as ADHD and conduct disorder which are used as excuses for violent and acting out behaviour. Chemistry is blamed and they are put on Ritalin. Men’s behaviour is studied as much as women’s.
Men tend to solve their problems in private. If someone floated the idea of such a ministry in parliament, that is the kind of response you would get, most parliamentarians are men, after all. I would predict that to create a ministry of men’s affairs would be interpreted by most men as a cop out and a waste of time. There are already too many ministries and too many govt employees. What has the Families Commission achieved? Can anyone tell me? What would a ministry of men’s affairs achieve?
I agree with you. Peter Ellis should never have been jailed. I felt that at the time. And a male teacher should be able to feel perfectly comfortable in a room by himself with a 10 year old pupil under the right circumstances. An airline should not need to feel the need to place unaccompanied minors next to women rather than men.
For these things to happen men need to quit being so narrow minded, confrontational and adversarial, like Scrap and Stephen are being in this thread, and learn how to be conciliatory and open minded. With their kind of attitude I am not surprised that society ‘condemns’ men or at least ‘condemns’ them as individual men. I certainly don’t feel as though society is down on men, but then I don’t go round phantasmorizing about some alien feminist-ghost-agenda infiltrating the minds and bodies of men and women everywhere. You guys watch too many late night movies. Sheeezz.
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 9:13 am
New Zeal
I will again tell you that your opinion means nothing to the majority of people affected by injustice on this site . Why dont you ask your feminazi mates if they know if anyone has asked why government do not actually collect any statistics on how many people make false allegations of domestic abuse in the family courts and how it is actually possible to effectively evaluate any safe guards which are said to be in place to protect parents from false allegations of abuse in the family courts if they do not collect this informnation ?
Comment by Peter Burns — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 10:13 am
Peter,
I empathise with anyone like you who perceives themselves to have suffered injustice.
What do you think we should do about it?
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 10:31 am
Kent,
I believe you misconstrue.
My glass is more than half full now I don’t live in feminz.
Gone are the days of living under the yoke of the gynocracy and working till lunchtime each day to pay my taxes to fund misandry there.
You can make a virtue of that if you like. You’re welcome to it.
I only pay 5% tax, aren’t working with feminist ballbusters, safely hug kids daily, get called Teacher as an honorific term, experience Confucian elder status in public life and I’m about to set off on my lowrider for a 5 day cruise of Korean beaches and temple strewn inland vallies before playing rock and roll in a club next Saturday.
It doesn’t get much sweeter.
Have a good day bro’.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 1:25 pm
I repeat this is not a gender issue. Its about parents and childs rights.
Scrap is being is analytical and challenging.Seeking root cause so it can be eliminated.
Improvement can only come when the root cause/causes are eliminated.
Your appraoch, as is the approach of many others, is flawed becuase it is expressing a sympton, not the cause.
This is classically shown by the current proposals over solving family violence issues esposed by the Chief Family Court spin doctor.
This stems from mistaking a symptom, as casual. The symptom is a result of the cause, not the cause itself.
You are exprssing symptoms as the problem statement and not seeking to remove cuase but rather to mitigate against the symptoms.A method that will never remove the cause and will not deliver a quality solution.
This will not remove the problem.
You need to learn the Havard process of negotiation then you will understand the difference between personal relationships in negotiating and the process of negotiation.
The concept of a feminist ghost would make a great horror movie.I can see it now “Revenge of the Dead Dyke” LOL
Politics is agendas and to say that the feminist agenda or the homosexual agenda or the new right agenda … is a ghost does not wash. Hell even Rosemary McLeod sees both and you couldnot get a more trendy lefty columist.
As to stephen I suspect he sees things as they are and has asked why, he also sees things that could easily be and asks why not.
Back to “Revenge of the Dead Dykes and Surfer Dykes must Die” lol. If only I had the time to watch late night movies!
I will admit however that I watch a 30 minute sociological commentary every night. Its called the Simpsons. In the words of Bart “dont have a cow man”.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by ScraP_The_CSA — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 1:47 pm
And Scrap says:
It’s my turn to say “yeah right”.
I apologise for getting terse, but I was getting annoyed at the repeated aspersions to some feminist agenda in society.
Let’s focus on the child-parent thing: It seems that there is general agreement that this is important and should be supported in FC proceedings.
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 2:26 pm
New Zeal,
It is not that men don’t want a commission for males that has put it out of mind but the fact that women’s issues has been in the limelight for so long and they still continue to prove it no better than what it was when they first started regarding men. They still show that men are violent to them and that it just increases and increases. How do men stand and fight for their rights with this going on. Most men have been supportive to women feeling safe in their homes so they have sat back and waited for it to get better.
But it has not got better and has turned against the men. All men as you reminded me of the airpalne situation and the fear of men regarding being a school teacher. And yes, the Peter Ellis case.
Many charity groups know the men are finding it hard to get funding and those that work with men and women know it is hard to get funding for the men in their own groups.
It is funny that you don’t hear what I hear. I hear agreement by almost everyone. And many women. Women are sad for their brothers. We know things are unfair.
To be honest with you, your challenging Scrap and Stephen about open mindedness is funny. You don’t seem to be open minded either.
Comment by julie — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Maybe I’m not. I probably should have a break from posting.
I strongly reject the paranoia about feminazi corruption which infests many of the posters here. That frame of mind creates closure. By letting it get to me I have probably become close minded myself.
I started this thread in the hope of creating an open honest positive discussion about how to move forward into the future and recreate the Family Court, either by wiping it and starting over, or by reworking what is there.
I guess I shouldn’t have included that post on men because that has proven to be too controversial and has destroyed that original intent. So now we are back to the gender issue.
I am not aware of the situation regarding funding so that is new to me. I don’t think that the men’s movement is focused enough yet to deserve any. Take that as a challenge and demonstrate to me, Scrap, Stephen and others, that men should be given more funding. You need to do this without blaming everything on feminazis, or denigrating any current stakeholders in society such as lawyers and psychologists. Otherwise you simply do not have a reasonable argument and you are undermining the very institutions from which you expect support.
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 3:02 pm
New Zeal,
I tell you what I get to see.
Firstly Scrap works very hard along with Mark (who I have met and I am sure you will like) to help many people men and women regarding the Child Support Act. They, in their spare time because they are hands on fathers and work mental full time jobs, listen and deal with these people and Inland Revenue all the time and have been doing this for 6 years. On top of that they keep up to date with all changes and write to parties like submissions to goverment, get up early in the morning to catch planes to represent their clients on TV against polititions and lawyers, travel from one end of the North Island to the other, attend meetings and did I mention they help women also. Yes.
The men’s group (North Shore) runs like sponsership in that they take a male or a female right through court preceedings etc. The men’s group is well known to be in the courts with the person as support.
On top of this they keep up with all the changes, write letters and even travel to men’s homes in the middle of the night to support them in case they self harm or harm someone else. Many of them travel to people’s homes just to give advice and go over court proceedings.
They are rare people in society and yet they also have made a political party, protest and go to most charity meetings.
Stephen and Intrepid are more focused on the international scale working with other groups, writing letters and keeping NZ in touch with the world and the world in touch with NZ. They also belong to other groups.
There are others that you haven’t met up with yet but I won’t explain what they do because I would be writing to fill up the space this post and comments take up.
There is a whole network behind the scenes. There is alot yet for you to see.
Can you please explain what that means. I think maybe that is where you might need to start.
New Zeal, don’t give up. You just show yourself as a person who needs to work it out. You check up on everything and you have alot to offer. From my perspective you are all right. I am just sitting back saying, “Yes, I see that and Oh, yes that is true also.”
And you are very clever and knowledgable. Sometimes that can be a barrier in itself.
Comment by julie — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 7:57 pm
I get the strong feeling from many of the posters that they blame the problems men face with the feminist movement. Sure, there are currently some feminists in parliament right now, but it has been an uphill battle for them and they have to make serious compromises with ‘non-feminists’ on a daily basis. But to think that the family court, men included, has been hypnotized into some feminist agenda I find quite ridiculous. In this thread I have put forward another reason for why women might be getting preferential treatment in the courts, but no one wants to have a bar of it, since they are all so obsessed with the idea that the courts set out to be anti-male. They give the impression that when the judge gets up each morning, a little feminist jingle plays in his head along the lines of “screw the males, pour gifts on the females”.
You praise the activities that these guys do in the community but basically I find their attitude in this respect to be an insult to the intelligence of the society we live in. You can’t ask me to respect what they do if they show little respect for institutions that are a fundamental part of our society, such as the court, psychological services etc etc. If you want to make political change you have to acknowledge/understand the strengths of your opponents and not just take cheap pot shots at them.
My view is this: The feminist movement enabled women to take great strides. In so doing they simply left men behind in certain respects, while almost catching up with them in others. Meanwhile men have done very little. I view feminism as something that emboldened women and not something that debased men.
There are two types of people: those who take responsibility for what happens to them and act in a manner to overcome obstacles and those who blame everything on someone else and expect someone else to solve their problems for them. There is too much of the latter happening on this blog. I spend a lot of time on many forums and I have not encountered anything like the oh-woe-is-me attitude that goes on here.
I am spending time on this blog because I want to make something of the 4 years I spent in and out of the family court, which were some of the most emotionally intense of my life. I reckon I have felt many of the things that posters on this forum still feel and to the same intensity. The feelings are valid but the conclusions that come from them aren’t necessarily valid and much of what is said is not going to lead anywhere useful.
I think that Starr and I basically agree that the focus in the FC should be on the parent-child relationship. Anyone prepared to disagree with this?
I am preparing myself for writing a book entitled: The Molecular Family. I want to exert political influence but not through policy or law. I believe that the current FC can be improved by changing the focus/guidelines of FC proceedings. My reasoning is outlined in this thread.
Maybe I have already come to the conclusions that I will reach in the book and just have to assemble the right words in the right order to make it fall into place.
I could say more:
Men are different from women. Physically men have a higher pain threshold. They can take more physical suffering. Men have thicker skin and a more efficient adrenal system meaning that they can act faster and they can get heat to body extremities more efficiently. This means that there is not a level playing field, and men, who are the powerbrokers in society will always lean over backwards for women, who are physically weaker than men. In order to achieve the magical state of equality that the likes of Farrel yearn for we need to change human biology and that will take more than one generation. If you are strong and powerful you will, if you are a nice person, treat weaker individuals with more care. That is why (patriarchial) society gives a woman who kills her five children 10 years in a psychiatric institution rather than life in a penitentiary. If men were less powerful than women, then the roles would be reversed and men would be getting all the privelages.
Because not all men are nice, many women suffer the consequences of male power so the refuges fill up with beaten women and the jails fill up with male women beaters. Many men do not know how to use the power that is given to them by their biology and social standing.
If men were less powerful than women, then the roles would be reversed and men would be getting all the privileges. As far as I am concerned posters here have got the wrong end of the stick: society pours favours on women because it is a patriarchial society, not because it is feminazi driven. Because they have the wrong end of the stick they are getting nowhere with ‘the system’.
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 9:23 pm
New Zeal – you write your book mate and don’t to forget to include the fact our feminazi government has twice voted against treating mothers and fathers as equal parents at the United Nations level . The Ministry of Justice cannot help but be influenced by this sick idealism . It is little wonder the family court grows behind a veil of secrecy that allows it to do whatever it likes in an unaccountable way .The feminazis don’t want happy well – adjusted children as they proved that they will not acknowledge the strength the bond between parent and child , also if it my belief they couldn’t careless about the family as it is a sad country for children and many parents at the moment .
in solidarity to all parents shafted by a gender bias government !!!!! Got to go write my book after I have watched the All Blacks hopefully kick arse .
4 the kids =dad4justice
Comment by Peter Burns — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Holy shit!
Thanks Kent.
I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
Thanks for being my online therapist.
It’s so true.
I didn’t see it, but now you’ve made scales drop from my eyes!
All those western men locked up in prison are really more empowered than western women, and all those western women working in less stressful occupations and living longer are really less powerful than western men.
And feminists haven’t infiltrated the nz family court and made it biased in favour of women
And nz judges haven’t been swayed by feminist pressure.
And if only I was nicer and bent over more for western women not so many of them would shaft me………………………………………………………………….And the sky is made of lollipops, and we all go to heaven in a peagreen boat, and………….
Oh Please,
pass me the bucket again folks.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 11:33 pm
New Zeal,
Yes, they do and no, they don’t. One of the first posts I wrote was that I was a feminist because I beleived in equality between the 2 genders.
The replies I got back told me that it is not females as such but the radical feminists, the one’s that blantantly blame men for women’s problems. Now I know some women that work in fields that would put them in a position to act this way and I hate to tell you but there are such females. They will tell you, “all men lie and no man can be trusted.” That just hit me like a ton of bricks because I see these women working with women’s partners. You can’t tell me that their own belief does not affect the way they treat these men.
Anyhow, let’s just look at their justification. They see women that are victims to men’s abuse (psychological, emotional and physical) come from all walks whether it be a lawyer, judge, man on the street, rich, poor, etc.
If you ask what happened meaning you want the details of the whole incident (what did she do, what did he do, what did she say, what did he say) you will get shot down because, “look what he did. You have no right to justify what he did.”
From the outside looking in, I would think we need to work at the relationship but we don’t. On average a woman goes back 9 times before she 100% leaves the relationship.
With that being the case, shouldn’t we get the male involved.
But we don’t. So we end up with women who work in this field even more bitter for now it seems the man has manipulated the female to return to him so he can abuse her more. No one is considering that women crave for their men and that it is human nature for them to want to be loved by this man.
So at the moment we have new charities starting up to stop domestic violence and women are sitting around tables working out how they can protect women. (and the innocent children)
The whole scenario has created a huge empire spending billions of dollars of tax payers money and major corporations donations to protect women from men.
Tell me, do you think the FC can stand against this empire, all the governments and major corporations backing it up? Is any judge going to put his career on the line to speak up?
Every human being is affected by this. It has huge media attention and even they are not daring enough to go against it. Women are growing up with this and even politions cannot challenge it.
And all this came about from the feminist movement. And it continues to grow and grow.
If all these big organisations and big players can’t fight it, what hope does a men’s community group have. So they get angry and protest.
In the meantime women’s rights give women a top class prison, free everything. You just have to know where to find it but the best place to start is those that deal with Domestic Violence. I am waiting for women to get free government homes out of this because there will come a day when ACC will have to pay out for women’s suffering. You wait and see.
Comment by julie — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 8:27 am
Well, there are two sides to the argument.
Feminism started in the 60’s. Long before that men were ‘suffering’ as you put it. Men on average lived shorter life spans because they got killed in wars, voyages of exploration, and as a result of work. Tens of thousands of men were killed in one day in the Somme in WWI, tens of thousands of men died digging the Panama Canal before the war. A whole generation of men were wiped out in Russia during WWII. You can’t tell me that was a feminist conspiracy. Men in history have always been over represented in jails and they always will, because men, unlike Stephen and others, will continue to be men and continue to charactarize what it is to be masculine.
Although what you describe is new in terms of detail (the family court has only been round for a short while) the essence remains the same: women get preferential treatment because they are the weaker sex. This would have been the same in the court of Henry VIII, the hut of the village chief of the Moorambooga tribe in Tanzania, the ranch of the Irish settler in wild wild west america. It’s a biological/social reality of being human: women and children always go first.
You and the other men on this site who support the feminazi notion are pushing a barrowload up a very steep hill.
Yes, I agree that there are a minority of feminists who have driven such things as the Peter Ellis imprisonment. That was not the family court, that was a bunch of counsellors in Chch. The outcry from that has been sufficient to ensure that women too can be tried for paedophilia. These extremist women are driven by experiences they have had with similarly extremist men who abuse the power that they have by abusing women. A male abusing a female can do a hell of a lot more damage than vice versa. Yes, women do need to be protected from men.
I live in the same society as you. I have been through the FC and involved in community work and counselling and I do not see any damaging feminist influence. I do see feminism leading to lots of social progress, some of which I think is going too far, rights for criminals for instance, which is higher on my radar than reforming the FC.
Anyway, there are other views out there, Julie, the feminazi one isn’t the only one.
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 10:39 am
Julie,
If you want confirmation of the view that I am arguing you might find it here in an article on the recent ‘girls first’ policy in an Auckland bar:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10393648
A quote from it:
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 12:19 pm
I can see how you think that but I think it has more support than any of us realise.
The Family Court is making changes to suit families of today. They are promoting counselling first, mediation second and the law society is asking for the mediation not to be with a judge, compulsory. They are opening up the court cases to the public except for the Domestic Violence.
The Domestic Violence, women’s refuge and cyfs are all working together as that is how they network.
This is still pressure from a female side when it comes to court cases. There does not need to be proof from accusations from any of these parties or anyone they represent because they are the so called experts.
Once again, would a judge put his career on the line just in case he got it wrong. If he gets it wrong for the man there is no consequence. If he gets it wrong for the female or child there is major consequence.
More than that came from that case. Much of the process was wrong and the way the prosecutor and judge allowed bits and pieces of evidence. And more that I can’t remember.
Comment by julie — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 12:36 pm
New Zeal,
I read the article. I am a bit confused because I am unsure if it is the fact that they didn’t accept first in line but allowed the women in…
Yes, I can understand how that would upset males.
I guess that really does put you at 50/50 equality. And that is fair enough because if women want everything else they have to be prepared to take the rest. They cannot pick and choose.
That’s exactly how many people do it. I still think everyone (male or female) should give up a seat for an elderly person or a pregnant person but I don’t think a male should have to give up a seat for a woman just because she is a woman.
But, I do understand why they did that. I took my son out of an all boys school for the same reason. (Although I have since realised he will get a better education from the boy’s school and is going back next year)
Or is it this part?
because you do hear of it. They do give the impression they would believe a female over a guy.
Comment by julie — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Kent,
you appear to conflate women’s being physical weaker with all forms of weakness. That’s sooooooooooooooooooo 19th Century chivalrous.
I’ll bet there are certain women who’d loooooooooooooooooooooooove that.
To me the greatest irony is that whilst you try to come accross as all woman friendly it so freakin’ unbeleivably patronising towards women.
Oh! they’re so weak we must protect them, for we are big chestbeating males are we not? And they are such frail dainty things are they not? LOL! Holy shit! Where’s that bucket again folks!!
I’m surprise Julie and Chrissy haven’t bitten your nuts off over that one bro!
I see you’ve made a monumental historical gaffe to.
You’ve completely overlooked like many feminism 101 triggermouths I’ve come accross that pre-feminism (1st wave suffragettes) women protested beacuse they didn’t have the vote BUT NOR WERE THEY CONSCRIPTED TO PROTECT THE TERRITORY.
Hello!
Let’s read that back again eh?
That’s right.
That’s the huge bit the feminists have ALWAYS been conspicuously quiet about.
So tfor aeons the social contract between the sexes was women risked dying in childbirth, men risked dying protecting the progenes territory. Then came technology (clinical childbirth) and politics (women’s vote) to empower women.
The trouble was that none of the feminists from the git-go ever advocated that males got emancipated from male only burden (conscription and wageslavery).
To this day most apparently still worship the ‘ideal’ of the provider/protector -Rich man/warrior. They claim to want equality yet scratch the surface and bottom line is most seem to want to be kept by a man who’s really little more than a disposable mealticket/bodyguard.
All these supposedly independent women around yet finding a woman who’ll marry down is most often like trying to find ice in a desert.
So right from the start the feminist movement (unwittingly or otherwise)in effect sought to set up a system of female privelige.
This misandric legacy has morphed over time and IMO it’s vestiges are still around today which cause so many of our brothers angst.
I think men like you who put women up on a pedestal as deserving of special treatment because they patronisingly see women as weaker sell thier brothers down the river.
That’s one reason you get so much flack from myself and other blokes posting here IMO.
Comment by Stephen — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 7:50 pm
Stephen,
I am personally not interested in biting New Zeal’s nuts off for 3 reasons.
1. This is a men’s site and I am sure you have seen enough of that.
2. I don’t have anything to prove.
3. He will figure it out for himself the hard way.
Comment by julie — Sun 30th July 2006 @ 9:35 pm
Stephen,
I agree with that.
I would say that the privilege existed in the first place. Female prisons have always been gentler, men have opened the door for women, excused them from military combat, etc. This privilege existed before feminism, and feminism only had to take advantage of it. It doesn’t mean that feminism created the privilege. To balance it out men had their own privileges such as ownership and status and as I keep saying, while women have moved with feminism, men have stood still.
In my dealings with the family court this is what I was faced with, coming from my father, father-in-law, and the judge who all belonged to the same male paternalistic generation with dependent wives whom they have done childbirth/wageslave transaction with all their lives. This is half a dozen years ago now. With time the patriarchial sensibilities will die off and be replaced by newer ones which will be more amenable to the kinds of things you want out of the system Stephen, such as judging males and females equally on the basis of ability to rear children and ensuring that the parent-child relationship is kept. While you are arguing black and blue on this blog, new people are coming into the FC on a daily basis and changing it.
Stephen, men and women are different. I think that most men would agree with me when I repeat the French:
“vive la difference!!”
In general women are physically weaker. That is not pedestal patronising, that is objective fact. In return men tend to be weak in other areas, such as maybe emotional expression. One of the magnificent beauties of life is how the two forces of male and female interact with one another. In China they have turned this into a religious art form with yin and yang penetrating every part of the physical world.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 8:41 am
Julie and Stephen,
Please note that just because I parrot the patriarchial position of my forebears on some of these posts, that I haven’t moved on from it. On one hand you think that the privileged position of women has come about because of the influence of feminism. On the other I argue that it is a left over from our patriarchial past. There is no doubt truth in both positions.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 9:37 am
Hi New Zeal,
I have no problem with you and I liked your comment 48.
But I don’t want to play anymore so I am taking my blanky and going home.
Comment by julie — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 10:19 am
Fair enough. This thread has gone way off course anyway.
I like your responses too, and I have enjoyed this discussion.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 11:02 am
Kent,
Conflate, conflate, conflate. Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep. distract, distract, avoid the issue.
You say –
I see. So having something as huge as the vote is merely an extension of having a door opened for you. It had nothing to do with feminist agitation, chaining themselves to railings, throwing themselves under carriages, demonstrating in the streets.
Gosh, I must remember to take advantage of the fact that youngsters have started to step aside and let me pass on the footpath because of my age these days. Who knows what privelige I might be able to extract!
LOL!
Again you conflate. This time from preexisting privelige (door opening, to an ENTIRELY NEW PRIVILEGE namely the vote.
That make no sense IMO. It’s a debased argument which rationalises and in certain circumstances can be a recipe for disaster.
By the way, I dropped in on your POCAS front page. A good initiative.
Julie,
Sorry for the repulsive imagery.
Comment by Stephen — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 1:13 pm
Wow I can’t believe you guys have debated so long.
I feel the answers are simple.
Anyone entering the judiciary for any reason expects justice. That is to say that rules and laws are upheld. However, the secrecy of the Family Court, the extremely broad descretionary powers of judges, the desire of lawyers to line thier pockets by encouraging adversial approaches, the reliance of often ‘warped’ psychologist reports and the dismal response of the system to investigate complaints and initiate improvements all add to this injust system which simply does not put the interests of children first and is rapidly adding to huge problems in our society.
Scrap the Family Court and simply have one district Court, as current name suppression laws can protect those who’s identities need to remain private.
In the mean time, legislation needs to be modified to ensure that both parents are treated equally (current anti-descrimination laws already opperate effectively in most other arenas), and that rules of evidence protect parties and children from false alegations. Parties making false allegations (especially where protection orders and the ‘use’ of the refuge system is involved) and committing perjury should be dealt with using current laws. We all know that perjury is common place in the Family Court, but how many people have actually been prosecuted?
The crazy thing is that we already have a judicial system in this country with strict rules and laws, which can have a person caught stealing a car stereo through the system within days in a just, non-descriminatory and efficient way, yet our children and fragmenting families must wait years and pay tens of thousands of dollars and all too often there are following out-cries of injustice, corruption and harm to our children.
Simply put, if the Family Court can not opperate under the same rules as the rest of the judiciary, then it should be scapped.
This is my opinion.
Comment by Wayne — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Good opinion, Wayne
It cannot because it does not. Most of the things that the Family Court rules over are not clear cut. There are few clear cut laws for marital separation and no clear cut laws for who should have the children. The kind of simplicity you are looking for might lead to a law which states that the mother should always have the children, end of story.
Another example: there is no clear cut law for a protection order. No doubt there are times when a protection order is required. There are laws for assault and harrassment so does the court wait for these laws to be transgressed before taking action? In the court, it might take months for someone to be convicted, meanwhile they might have easy access to the mother to continue with their behaviour. It was for the immediate safety of children that the FC was given its powers, since, if anyone has been through marital separation involving children, the emotions evoked are extremely intense.
In my experience with the FC at no time did I find myself dealing with clear cut laws that a court could deal with decisively.
This happens in any court.
I empathise with your thoughts, Wayne, but there is no easy solution to any problem. If you have specific concerns, then the idea is to find a way to deal with them that helps to solve them.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Thanks, Stephen.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Zeal,
Your statement is nonsensical and defies logic.
Identifying root cause where complex interrelationships exist can only begin afterr the problem is correctly defined.
You are talking about mitigating symptoms, not removing cause. You are talking about symptoms becuse you dont understand the problem. Worse than that you give up because a solution may be difficult.
Despite evidence to the contary,you cant think outside your square.
Why do we have an adverserial family (f)law system.
Begin to understand the adverserial system and you might begin to understand the problem.
Its not too difficult.
Regards
Scrap
Read some Demming.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 6:45 pm