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

What is the otherside doing?

Filed under: General — Julie @ 5:37 pm Thu 13th July 2006

I am hearing too many stories from women recently telling me that they are in trouble. Now, why would that be? Afterall, they have more rights than the men.

Counsellors and the talk in childcare centres, kindergardens, schools and womens groups and centres is such; “The dad can pick you son up from school, kindy etc and you cannot do anything about it, at present”

So what are these women being told to do.

“Get hold of a lawyer and make yourself the “Custodian.”

So now we have a freak-out situation. All women MUST stop dads from being able to take the child away from the day-to-day care of the mums.

In many mum’s horror they are being pestered to say the male has been at least somewhat scary. So that orders can be put on him.

I complained about this to the FC board 2 weeks ago.

Oh, how much both mums and dads working together would make a difference. But then, what would I know?

Another point to consider is that IRD has community workers hunting down groups to discuss how women can get child support as well as getting them out to work. It’s a package afterall.


  1. and what a package at the min… get 8g’s tax free at the minimum.. per year..
    don’t even need a pay rise..

    Comment by starr — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 5:43 pm

  2. Dear Starr,

    I wish so much that you could listen to these women. Do you think we (as females) have it all. No, we are losers also in all this. I know it sucks to get ripped off financially but life is not all about money. Don’t worry, I also now what it is like to lose your children.

    We are both victims to this system. So we get the kids and the money. How many of us are apologising for being so stupid years later, after all the harm has been done. Yet how many of us are too embarrassed to say sorry in fear that you will never accept our apologies.

    But then, why should you? Afterall look what we have done.

    I, nor you can change things for either of us. But we can change things for the day after today and the next and the next ……

    Comment by julie — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 5:55 pm

  3. Wake-up!!!

    NZ Law and Social Policy has been damaging the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY** for generations.

    Of couse Women will be affected – They have been the stool pigeon for NZ Govt for all that time.

    Now some are waking-up

    Is it not so when a Child loses its DAD it also loses its GrandMa-Aunties etc. and all the Paternal Family?

    Are 1/2 of them not Female?

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 6:10 pm

  4. i was being sarcastic.. but you are right in that. we do lose out both financially and “parentally” if there is such a word. How many times has a seperated parent gotten depressed thinking about their children speprated from them whether the kid even realises there is a parent waiting for them etc.. so yeah you are quite correct.

    And i think this forum and its members may just make the difference.. whether it comes timely or not.. how much damage has been sustained and how much more will happen until then is horrific to think about.

    and yeah ,, we do not measure it in money.. but to think you get ripped off and not have any access to your children with all those PO’s in place..

    the point i am making is the parents even if one is willing do not keep their fights to themselves, they drag the kids into it… which is not right.
    hence my strong stand on ethics.

    Comment by starr — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 6:17 pm

  5. Hi Starr,

    Fear, anger and ethics. Hmmm, what sort of combination is this, I wonder.

    And we are all just the pawns trying to get on with our own lives, from birth to death.


    Yes you are so right. Somewhere between your staunchness, stubbon-ness
    and long term wisdom, our softness, no wisdom and flakeyness we will find a middle ground.

    Comment by julie — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 6:57 pm

  6. the combination is>> fear of loss of children resulting in anger from a total lack of ethics…

    Comment by starr — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 7:06 pm

  7. fear from being excluded from your child who you have brought into this world.. fear from being a part of their lives, fear from them missing on a big part of their lives… fear on what this situation has become.. a SNAFU.. which we happen to be leaving for them… intentinally or not.. we the current generation are responsible.. and anger at being stymied at every step taken to improve the situation.. all arising from a total abandonement of ethics… nuff said.

    Comment by starr — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 7:19 pm

  8. Hi Starr,

    Ah, yes. I agree.

    Fear versus ethics. Talk about a challenge.

    Now add your children. Fear of loss of children and ethics.

    Does it not make you wonder …. ?

    With both sides in fear of loss of children and each working against the other, is not ethics out the door. I mean, do you trust the otherside to use ethics? They are also in fear of the same thing, are they not?

    Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that because our FC system favors one side more than the other.

    I was thinking today, that really the FC is not about the children. By doing what they are doing for the women at the moment, they are not interested in what’s best for the children but what’s best for the parent having day-to-day care at the moment. And by granting them custody, it will just give more power for one parent over the other.

    Comment by julie — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 7:25 pm

  9. agreed.. but there would be no fear of loss of children if both parties worked ethicallyBehaving ethically takes away fear and anger. Leaves you setting a good example for your kids who will only respect you in the end and neither of you lose them at all. But as you said in the past… ethics go out the door… because one party will want to gain from the loss of the other …vindictiveness… hence the current situation

    Comment by starr — Thu 13th July 2006 @ 8:17 pm

  10. Dear Star,

    Funny how a good night sleep can make you see things in a better light.

    I intend to spend some time finding out what is going on here in NZ at these women centres and why are we making a big deal of legally making the ‘day-to-day’ parent custodian and guardian. Or what ever the case may be.
    I personally have no legal documentation to say I am the day-to-day carer nor do I see the need for it as my boys a teenagers but I can understand mothers with younger children feeling worried. Most mothers have not even gone to the FC.

    I wonder if this is a ploy to stack the statistical use of the FC to save it? Sounds outrageous, I know but people will use tactics to gain support if they feel their job is threatened.

    Another thought is that, women and men will be working ethically once the FC and all this family violence is put in place. I find very few people that agree with CYFS. My imagination keeps me day-dreaming of a time when parents are not at all threatened by these systems. Men nor women. I also think that the media attention is showing women that the system is stacked against the man and that they do not need to use the system for it also creates many of their fears.

    Comment by julie — Fri 14th July 2006 @ 8:55 am

  11. Julie says:

    By doing what they are doing for the women at the moment, they are not interested in what’s best for the children but what’s best for the parent having day-to-day care at the moment.

    I think they are most interested in what is best for FC lawyers, FC psychos, Women’s refuge workers, cousellors etc, etc.

    If separating parents behaved ethically, and were not motivated by the quite reasonable fear that they are likely to be treated unfairly by the system, the gravy train would roll to a halt, or at least slow significantly.

    Comment by JohnP — Fri 14th July 2006 @ 12:02 pm

  12. you said it John… if systems in place did not encourage unethical behaviour, the fears, the loss, the anger etc would not be in place.. nor the deep depression the losing paremnt suffers.

    After all what are fears… just fears itself.. it has not happened therefore judgenment should not be made based on fears.. but we know in reality, the FC acts on fears alone… and ignore actuals.

    Comment by starr — Fri 14th July 2006 @ 1:56 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