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

Power and Powerlessness

Filed under: General — Julie @ 9:47 am Wed 7th June 2006

I see, like others, the effect the mens coalition is making on our country at the moment. Even Good Morning NZ has shown a part of the media’s coverage. But the time Good Morning has spent is about a book and once again it is stated that most parents sort it out without having problems or going to court.

What people are not talking about is part of the core problem and is what our society needs to recognise. It is POWER and POWERLESSNESS.

Considering most of these parents that do not go to court but are part of the statistics that work it out amicably, one would find that parent (a) blackmails parent (b) who basically will almost do anything to see their children. In one moment parent (b) can lose shared parenting or even access.

Now, I am aware that I am going out on a limb, but think it about. It makes common sense to see things this way. In most couples in working relationships, you will see one parent has more power than the other in alot of situations. But in these relationships parents are supposed to negotiate their different thoughts and feelings. Yet they still argue, they still clash now and then. Or one parent accepts the others ways and rarely you will see them make a stand. Either way there is power.

In most broken relationships I see one parent less powerful than the other. The children still become the pawns in the middle. And this is in all walks of life.

For me, I can remember that if CYFS asked me to jump, I would ask, “How high?” And they were the only party I would do that with because the had my children.

But by doing this I empowered CYFS even more. And this is what I see happening to seperated parents with children. I don’t think in most cases the parents even see this as I do. But it exists. How many stories do we hear of one parent being powerless to the other parent’s actions. And then we hear the stories where parent (b) won’t give power to parent (a) and then the power struggle begins and the lawyers start to proceed by finding statutes that can give power to their client and take power from the other parent. Both parents have their strengths and weaknesses on show for a judge to decide their’s and their children’s future.

This is where, I feel we have to draw the line. To enable one parent to have power over another is just asking for trouble for the children. The power will come back and bite the parent who holds it. And this consequence will affect the children.

The parent that is powerless becomes a mess inside and on the outside their life reflects what is going on inside. This also affects the children. If it is the best interest of the children, we should be considering, then it is in their interst to have both parents with equal power. And the equal power has to be given from the government. It has to be the law of the land.

It is absolutely wrong for a parent to be blackmailed by another parent. One parent should not have power over another. That is manipulation in the worst form.


  1. Julie,

    You are onto it.

    Presumptive **HandsOnEqualParent** from conception breaks the power broking and gives Kids “Equal” doses of their Biological-Mum, DAD and Grands.

    With good Law, Social Policy and councelling, ONLY able to step in where there were obvious descrepencies yet are still legally bound to apply **HandsOnEqualParenting** from Conception without Due process to cause anything else etc.

    Great post Girl.

    We are all learning and thanks to those who support the BOTHERING of those who damage our Biological-FAMILIES we are hitting the MEDIA almost every day

    YO! – Onward – Stay Strong – The Kids are worth it – JimBWarrior

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 7th June 2006 @ 2:09 pm

  2. I was thinking that we should put an argument forward saying something like;
    If most parents work out custody amicably then why do we have so many parents paying and receiving child support through Inland Revenue.
    The figures do not match.

    Comment by julie — Wed 7th June 2006 @ 3:07 pm

  3. Hi Julie, sometimes I think your posts are a bit out in left field but with this ome you have hit the nail on the head.

    It is exactly about power and powerlessness, and about how harmful it is for children to see one of their parents, sponsored by state laws and institutions, gain way too much power at the expense of the other.

    For the same reason it was not so good in the old days either when dads often had way more power than mums.

    State institutions and laws need to support equal power between parents.

    Comment by PaulM — Wed 7th June 2006 @ 3:30 pm

  4. Powerless to love & nurture our own children because of prejudice and corruption shown by a bias court that is committed to ignoring wrongful behaviour from a powerful female custodial parent. This makes it hard for non-custodial parents to see it as a court of justice – as they witness the children suffer from the vile PAS .This is when the vulnerable – delicate children are brainwashed by the custodial parent as happened in my case when a maternal family & a underhanded judicial gravy train tried to totally poison my girls against me.

    Comment by Peter Burns — Wed 7th June 2006 @ 7:50 pm

  5. Great thread!
    Julie you are on to it.
    I would like to add that once a power differential becomes obvious, the weaker parent is forced to make life changing decisions; should I walk away and hope that my children come looking for me later, in which case he will join the statistics as an “absent” parent, or should I risk all that I worked for in making a life my children, and fight for reasonable contact with them, even if it is fortnightly babysitting?
    The quantity of contact between the weaker parent and his/her children is directly related to the depth of that parents pockets, and the strength of that parent to fight on against all odds. This should be seen by any judge as the manifestation of that parent’s love for his/her child, but is instead seen as a character flaw, as in my case, the judge described me as “obsessed” with my only child.

    Comment by Wayne — Thu 8th June 2006 @ 10:41 am

  6. Perfectly put Julie. I can relate to the point about when asked to jump you said to cyfs ‘how high’. I followed such a path with my daughter’s mother early on in the piece thinking (mistakenly of course) that if I started to do what she asked surely I’d get to see my daughter a bit more. It seems obvious now with the hindsight, yet at the time thought it was the only course I could follow.

    Comment by Ken — Thu 8th June 2006 @ 7:40 pm

  7. Wayne, that judge is worse than shameful in his lack if understanding of normal, healthy attachment between a parent and child.

    His ignorance and lack of compassion are exactly why major decisions affecting families should not be left to people with legal skills, they should be given instead to people with first rate people skills.

    Comment by PaulM — Thu 8th June 2006 @ 7:40 pm

  8. Ken,
    The strange thing is that after jumping for 9 years, I stopped and gave up to feeling I was wasting my life. I mean it started in my 20’s and they should have been great years for me.
    When I left the town, CYFS started chasing me. I then got to call some shots. I refused to jump anymore.
    So, I got my kids back. I guess they had no power over me anymore.
    I see others doing the same and winning but it is not something I could ever advice other people to do because it is such an important situation. And it doesn’t always work.

    Comment by julie — Thu 8th June 2006 @ 7:52 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