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


Filed under: Child Support,General,Law & Courts,Men's Health — Downunder @ 1:16 pm Wed 6th June 2007


Is KiwiSaver good for young men? That’s what their website says. In short I see many young men being bitterly disappointed down the line after separation when the ex and her lawyer through the assessment of future child support lay claim to KiwiSaver funds. Many are going to find it is not a retirement fund, once you have a child it will be an easy target. Just another investment for the girls. Don’t forget to get your kiwisaver claim into the nearest family court when you separate – Just being cynical – don’t think so.


  1. Am waiting on Peter Dunne to provide written answers to questions around Kiwi Savaer and Child Support.

    Its only comming up to 3 weeks since I sent the questions.

    Bevan my analysis of the limited information available is that there are some serious questions that need answering around this scheme in relation to

    Matrimonial Property and Child Support and how the FC and IRD view the scheme.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 6th June 2007 @ 1:57 pm

  2. With the changes to the social security act there is an indication that kiwisaver will need to be spent in cases of hardship, ie unemployment, but you can bet your bottom dollar it won’t apply to the DPB.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 6th June 2007 @ 4:49 pm

  3. Rest assured: Kiwisaver will be fodder for the ex. Like all super funds, you can avoid this by ceasing ALL contributions the day you meet your partner, and don’t in any way involve the fund-to-date in matrimonial property. Start a seperate fund whilst with your partner if you must save for retirement, so that only those savings you amass whilst with your partner can be deemed to be a product of the relationship.

    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Wed 6th June 2007 @ 9:56 pm

  4. In similar subject
    Feckless Fathers will be refused Morgages

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 8:01 am

  5. If you need a comparison look at ACC as an insurer — A low income earner on minimum ACC, less Tax and any child support gets less than a sickness beneficiary.
    It doesn’t appear to be a reasonable assumption that someone recovering from an accident is going to recover faster when placed under that sort of financial pressure. In that respect ACC is not working for the client it is just another MMP (male minimisation project.) You can see why families can’t stay together and why men leave the country. Once they have been successfully separated from the family they are a financial target for the Government. You could just see Helen Clark fawning over some fellow’s coffin because he couldn’t pay his power bill. Would it be overly cynical, or just an astute observation to call this insincere bitch the heartless soul of misanthropic mania. Sorry I can’t be more polite about it she gives me severe nausea.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 9:55 am

  6. You could just see Helen Clark fawning over some fellow’s coffin because he couldn’t pay his power bill.

    A similar thought crossed my mind. The bodies of homeless men are routinely recovered from parks and scrubland with no such hoopla.

    Comment by Rob Case — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 10:40 am

  7. Sorry for the question in this post as my question it is not fully relivant to the discussion.
    Does anyone know or has access o any case law that can stop IRD from changing the living allowance allocated down to single person when you are married and have financial support of another child as well.

    Comment by SNMP — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 8:02 pm

  8. [email protected]

    If Jim can’t help you then you are probably – like the rest of us – screwed by the system.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 9:29 pm

  9. Since all other retirement schemes are paid out to the female I can’t see why KiwiSaver wouldn’t be any different. It is definitely another fund to pay women to shut fathers out of children’s lives.

    Comment by Dave — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 12:54 am

  10. What we will see happening is IRD raiding kiwisaver as soon as a mother goes on the DPB. They will have istant access and take the money in advance on the basis of future child support.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 10:14 am

  11. Government, I think through Trevor Mallard made a declaration that they did not beleive that the Kiwisaver will be vulnerable as accessible before any benefit is granted.

    This sets up an establishment of inconsistency for the governments contribution to wealth, what constitutes wealth before it is calculated when assessing benefit entitlement.

    Surely the issue is less what the government will do but what the mens movement will do to be certain that certain conditions are met to protect men from the exploitation (which we agree for factual eveidence) that is set to occur if current practices and principles are followed?

    My question is, acknowledging James’ 3 week wait for answers from the good Dr what pressure from the moveemnt can be brought to bare to be certain that the Kiwisaver is an entitlement for every Kiwi and is not filteres in the small print to historical abuse?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 11:46 am

  12. Well Bevan that is one way to make sure some men pay what they should towards their kids upbringing perhaps, instead of thinking $10-13 a week covers it !!!!!!Someone has to pay to put a roof over the kids head and food on the table – yep seems its usually the mums that are left with that job as well as bringing them up and making all the decisions…

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 9:13 pm

  13. Hi Sharon,
    Before getting shrill and self righteous about the loads placed on Moms, I think there’s something you should very carefully consider.
    Since women currently have ALL the power and control in deciding whether a child is born or not and enormous power to own children thanks to the toxic mix of DPB plus ability to lay DV false accusations with impunity plus the Stalinesque
    feminist ‘family'(Kangaroo) ‘court’ disenfranchising kids of their dads by the hundreds of thousands it follows that women in the vast majority of cases OWN kids. I haven’t even started on how the kindergarten and primary school system puts the shits up potentially great male teachers with overblown feminist inspired paedophilia hysteria.
    It follows then that if women OWN kids, why should men pay for them?

    To see this argument being put forward by a growing number of young men who’ve seen their elder males being thus financially and emotionally raped by the western feminist system and turned their collective backs on women because of their need to protect and thrive rather than live under oppression go here.
    It’s a natural step for any oppressed group to take – remove yourself from the oppressor, organise, raise awareness, come back into relationship on your terms. To many of us it’s like watching black Americans or Black South Africans all over again.
    Take a deep breath though going there, these guys don’t mince words. It’s the price being paid for countless concessions made to feminism.
    Now the pain is so great for men that their finally fighting back.
    They’ve hit rock bottom and the denial that they’re in pain is ending, to be replaced with an anger I reckon you’d better get used to.
    One more thing Sharon –
    I deliberately paid as little child ‘support’ as I could. After all I was being systemically alienated from my son by a system of feminist abuse.
    I’d do the same again in a heartbeat, and having been around the men’s movement for many years I know there are vast numbers of good men who’d do similar.

    Comment by Stephen — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 10:59 pm

  14. Men who cannot recognise that they are worth more to their children than the money, do their children no favours in life, as do women who think that they are entitled to the money because they have the child. Hardly what I would call healthy parenting, or good law no matter who’s side you’re on.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 10:00 am

  15. Sharon,

    can you please reply to Bevan’s first point. “Women currently have all the power and control deciding whether a child is born or not” I ask you to consider the word equality as you consider his point and then ask you to provide the answer looking at any inequality and how it should be answered.

    That is if you agree that we should sort out the problem.


    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:13 am

  16. Sorry that’s Stephen’s point, Bevan gets to the same place but in a different way!

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:15 am

  17. Bevan,
    There are men and women who have been given a raw deal when it comes to seeing their kids, I don’t think that will ever change. It is not just men who get don’t get a fair deal in court either, I have been there initiated by myself due to the way my ex was (or should I say not caring or being responsible) for our daughter when he did have her. He did not even bother at any stage to engage in the court process, lied thru his teeth but was dealt with extremely leniantly by the judge. I always believed that the non-custodial parent should have every opportunity to make a good relationship with their kids, but I can tell you after experiencing what I have and seen how irresponsible my ex was and still is at times, I am not so sure that just because someone is a biological parent that they will contribute much of any benefit to their kids. My ex has had every chance to build a relationship with our child and he wrecked all that a couple yrs ago himself. NO ONE OWNS A CHILD!! What a ridiculous statement. Two parents contribute to making that child so both parents should be responsible for them. If you have doubts about wanting kids or not wanting to be responsible for them then I suggest you men use condoms more often and be responsible for your actions. It is not the childs fault so why should they be punished for it. Mums , and some dads!, (it is whoever is left with the kids) not just women who have the biggest load, that is a fact so YOU better get used to that. The other parent should be responsible for half of all costs for any children they have had , why should they not, the child is from both parents not just one!!!! Perhaps some mums would be a little more understanding and feel more like co-operating with access related issues if they had more assistance financially and emotionally.
    That is so sad to hear you deliberately deprived your own child because of the obvious lack of muturity
    on both parents part. The only person you are really hurting is your son. We all get angry but how you deal with that anger is the important thing, arguing in front of your kids and becoming violent is not going to solve anything at all. As for being in pain how much pain do you think women have to endure losing the family unit and and in somecases are left with nothing to bring up their kids with , not even a home for them. We all have pain when separation occurs not just you men.
    As for Kiwisaver if there is some money that should go to a child to help with their upbringing then I say good.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:25 am

  18. Sharon,

    You really are wasting your time, and providing we men with an easy opportunity to present our case.

    We’ve stopped listening to you and your “poor little me” stories.

    Your rights are all we’ve heard about for 40 years.
    Your health is all that gets talked about.
    Your safety and security is all that matters.
    Your inability to do wrong, and our infinite capacity for evil is the default position taken by media, “education”, legislation and politicians.

    Our sympathies have run dry after all of this. You’re on your own now.

    Comment by Rob Case — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:25 am

  19. This string is likely to expand if history plays its devoluting practice into yet another exchange in expensive stupidity. This is why we have courts. This is why we have CYFS. This is why the system is as it is. The participants do not pay attention to the primary principles and allow their emotions to dictate the terms of exchange and dialogue. Why? No point and it shatters every opportunity to get to the places that the participants demand they are scholars. Which inthe end is the protection of children as Bevan articulately points out in the “how”.

    Sharon I asked yo a question in order to substantiate the intelligence of progressive dialogue. Please explain equality against childbirth.

    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:32 am

  20. Rob,And you are wasting your time as we women are fed up with irresponsible men who will not take responsibilty for their children. We are indeed sick of some men whinging about how they have a right to see their kids and when given the opportunity do not even take it.
    Ben,As for answering the question about us women having total control..crap!! Why is it that men seem to have the notion that protection if solely the womens responsibility!!! Can you not communicate that you do not wish to have a child and use protection!!! We all know their are mistakes and nothing is 100% reliable, but ultimately both those taking part in making the baby are responsible. Really if you do not wish to participate and provide financially for your kids then perhaps you should think about how to avoid having them in the first place instead of continually blaming the women once they are here.
    Yes I do think more mens health issues should be addressed in some areas. And yes SOME men need to be heard regarding access etc but they also need to take action the right way just as some women have to, not by behaving violently, being abusive, bullying, and intimidating.
    I think both men and women need to work on the issues of their kids etc together, for the kids sakes, I don’t blame ALL men for the actions of some immature idiots at all. Tis a shame some of you have such a bad attitude , and what sounds like pure hatred towards those who are in the end bringing up your children, those who you once loved and made love to to have those children. You need to get over it and grow up and show the kids they are the important ones.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:49 am

  21. Yes Benajamin,
    I’m still waiting for Sharon’s answer to my question.
    All I’m getting is more shrill self righteous stuff. No empathy for men, let alone the millions of kids in the anglosphere disenfranchised of their dads.

    So I’ll present my question again –

    Since women currently have ALL the power and control in deciding whether a child is born or not and enormous power to own children thanks to the toxic mix of DPB plus ability to lay DV false accusations with impunity plus the Stalinesque
    feminist ‘family’(Kangaroo) ‘court’ disenfranchising kids of their dads by the hundreds of thousands it follows that women in the vast majority of cases OWN kids. I haven’t even started on how the kindergarten and primary school system puts the shits up potentially great male teachers with overblown feminist inspired paedophilia hysteria.
    It follows then that if women OWN kids, why should men pay for them?

    Comment by Stephen — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 11:55 am

  22. Sharon,

    While answering Stephen’s question, you may like to consider that this is a Masculist site, devoted to men’s issues. Constructive engagement in reaching solutions are welcome from anyone.
    Rehashing tired old arguments where men are at fault and women are heroic sufferers are better suited to feminist web-sites.

    Comment by Rob Case — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 12:13 pm

  23. Yes I have answered that, sure babies come from women cos we are physically capable of having them, and men have the sperm do they not!!!!!!! Perhaps you should think before you deposit!!
    If you have sex then you should of realised by now that a child can be produced as a result!!, so that mumbo jumbo crap about blaming women all the time for having them is truely wearing thin. Thank god women who chose to take the path of having and loving and providing for a child on their own can actually have that choice now without having to endure the anger and denial of responsibility financially or otherwise, from their male partner when things don’t turn out the way one they thought it would.
    Like I said children are NOT owned by anyone and there lies one of the main problems I think with some men thinking they are, makes one feel very sorry for some of the kids out there with parents who think that way. Sad very sad indeed.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 12:20 pm

  24. Well I don’t see any constructive engagement that is solving any issues coming from you lot!!. And I can comment as I see fit really.
    A masculist site..hmmm I think we are all well aware of what kind of site this is!!! You seem to be the ones rehashing YOUR old issues and seems you are the ones blaming women, I am not blaming all men as I have said, only those who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and continue to bleat on about how hard done by THEY are when asked to contribute financially!! Wanting some assistance financially or otherwise for children that have come into the world by the actions of two parents , really is not a big ask !!!not at all. Sounds very reasonble to me.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 12:35 pm

  25. You didn’t answer the question you just went off into another tirade. Please answer the question so I can effectively reply. Compare equality to childbirth. From that point we can begin a dialogue that removes the necessity for angry demands.


    Benjamin Easton

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 12:54 pm

  26. Equality, childbirth… are two different issues!.
    Is like me saying to you compare equality and sperm!!!!.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 1:02 pm

  27. Sharon,

    Why does the idea of equal parental rights and responsibilities scare you so much?

    The current system is all based on transferring income to the Non Custodial Parent and is primarially spousal maintenance.

    If you want parents to be responsible then you need to accept their right to be equal parents or you are just in it for the money and not the kids.



    P.S. I happen to agree that the CS Tax fails children. But I do not agree that the blame lies with non custodial fathers for not paying.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 1:25 pm

  28. Sharon,

    You’ve asserted outright that men’s Kiwisaver’s accounts be available for raiding by government for the purposes of child support.

    You have then justified this on an assumption that some men don’t “live up to their responsibilities”.

    At no point have you conceded that men may object to paying child support because the manner in which it is implemented is manifestly unjust. I cannot speak from personal experience, but I have heard many men relate the most unbelievable stories of being reduced to poverty by unrealistic payment orders. Other men are unable to be a presence at all in their children’s lives because support orders have forced them to other locale’s in order to get higher paying jobs to meet CS payments. Some are encumbered in this way even though they aren’t actually the father and everyone knows it! Bureaucratic errors (which are inevitable and numerous) are not adequately redressed.
    There is a long list of men being routinely denied natural justice.

    And now, a man may be robbed of his retirement by the same people who perpetrate all of the above.

    Just saying “Good Job!” because you have personal knowledge of an unfair situation, in front of men who you know nothing about, is disrespectful at the very least. Try and look beyond your immediate concerns and consider what type of society emerges from systemic denial of justice. History is full of examples.

    Comment by Rob Case — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 1:50 pm

  29. Scrap, um where did I say that it scares me, have you not read what I have been saying, I am all in favour of equal parental rights but to be a proper guardian for your child you must be responsible entirely that includes financially does it not? that is part of the equality…or should be. I have spoken to (and have friends) that are single dads or dads who are divorced who do all they possibly can to contribute in any way they can including financially, to the benefit of their kids and I applaud them holeheartedly, good on you guys who do the right thing and take an interest and do realise that it takes two parents to contribute!!! As for the rest who refuse to acknowledge that financially they are responsible, well I feel sorry for the children involved that they are not given every opportunity they deserve in life. Just because someone has problems obtaining contact for whatever reasons, is not a reason to severe monetary support or refuse to pay it, they are two different issues and should be approached as such and dealt with accordingly. How is not paying your CS going to effect your child, they will miss out on something perhaps they dearly need. I know not all parents use that money for their kids so I am all in favour of some other form of payment like clothing vouchers that can only be used to purchase childrens clothes or something like that!! Bring it on!! I do not care if I get cash or not, I only want my child to have all she needs as do many many parents. Choosing to only see your kids every second weekend does not quite cover it!! that is a mere pittance in relation to overall costs of bringing up a child , and some men seem to think that by doing that they are doing all they have to…sorry not so.
    I take my share of the responsibility for our child very seriously indeed and resent any implication that I do not.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 1:55 pm

  30. Rob,
    Yes I do think that payment should be collected in any way possible if someone refuses to support their child by not paying their CS, you bet I do. I am not aiming at anyone personally so do not take it personally ok, and I am not being disrespectful at all.
    And as for comments about how hard done by some men are and how poor they become because they have to pay…how rich do you think a mother is who has to house, feed clothe and school her kids is anyway..there are many women totally struggling to buy food each week to feed their kids or keep them warm! How exactly is that fair!!!!!!Seems you are only looking at one side to me. It cost money to raise kids, both parents should pay something regardless.
    There are many women out there also who are routinely being denied the chance to provide just everyday needs for their kids and one of the biggest reasons it seems is because their ex partners pay nothing at all or pay so little towards their childrens upbringing it is just pathetic.
    How exactly do you think CS should be collected and administered then??love to hear that!!!!

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 2:14 pm

  31. How exactly do you think CS should be collected and administered then??love to hear that!!!!

    That’s easy.

    Change the law so that when a relationship involving children breaks down, the father by default gets the house and responsibility for the care of the children, and the mother must find alternative accommodation and work to meet CS payments.
    Only in exceptional circumstances – such as the ones you describe – should this arrangement not be followed.
    Women being thus exposed to men’s experience, and men to women’s, I don’t doubt that a more equitable treatment of CS would be arrived at.

    Comment by Rob Case — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 2:51 pm

  32. Yes I do think that payment should be collected in any way possible if someone refuses to support their child by not paying their CS, you bet I do.

    And should we ensure it is spent appropriately in every way possible, and if it isn’t should that mother loose the child the money or both.
    Both parents should pay something regardless.

    Should both parents decide how that money is spent or should one just pay and shut up while the other spends.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 2:57 pm

  33. Sharon,

    In a welfare state their is no impact on children as the state will provide the DPB to the custodial parent.The state provides health care, free education etc.

    The state provides numerous payments to single parents so I strongly dispute your claim that children do not recieve the support required if no CS Tax is obtained.

    For CS collection and admin see : Look at the Donkin Method.

    Its a summary but am happy to discuss. Essentially its a Costs Shared, Time Acknowledged System.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 3:12 pm

  34. Not so Sharon,

    Sperm/semen is not legislated into a legal affect as a preferential condition. So at the first point of reply there can be no comparison.

    Childbirth and the demand of equality are directly related as there is a presumption of equality around your own claim that no one owns the child.

    Legally, as I am advised rather than have fully researched the state owns all children through a contract of birht as endorsed by the mothers’ name automatically on every birth certificate. This makes comprehensive sense to the difficulties that are exposed where the State does not make claim in the Care of Children Act over parents but isolates their administrative power to guardianship.

    If the State was to give away its power it would be in this claim of listing the rights, powers and responsibilities of the parent as against the guardian. The question to ask (and I appreciate this is not your area of experience) is this not true?

    Additionally this argument is accountable where the guarantee of guardianship through all legislation is orchestrated in favour of the mother as legally bound to the birth certificate. To change this it appears to me redetermines the economic construction of this country if not all western democracies but that is not the point that we can debate for your answer.

    Yet we can return to your assumption that nonone owns the child and this paradym requires equal responsibility to each parent. The bulk of discussion aimed against you by other contributers isolates your view for not accepting this point: a point which in your own time you seemingly champion. This implies to me that there are core principles that are missing from the train of logic you have applied.

    I cannot deal with those because they belong to you but ask you to return to this issue of more general regard. Equality. You say equality has nothing to do with it excluding women from having to be equal in childbirth because men cannot bare children. Yet you point to men having an equal responsibility. Why? Surely you mean an equitable responsibility? That is, what you put in is what you get back.

    men – the men who are on this website complaining at least say that teh provisions in society do not allowe this and that legislation like the Child Support Act interfere with any such form of equity. Men are taxed because of this presumption that women having children has no baring to either affect or disaffect the legal condition. You don’t answer this. You just have a go at the men for being men and demand that these men are not doing enough and should be doing more to “support women”.

    Men here are saying society in regard to children is unbalanced. You for your reply agree yet reject and refuse to recognise that the fundamental principle of their complaint is the principle that you champion.

    What I am saying is that you haven’t thought it through. I appreciate you may not agree with me, and accept that you do not think that the word “equality” has anything to do with the argument at all, so will ask you a different question.

    Given that you do not perceive that that equality or a lack of men to be equal with women in regards to childbirth do you accept that more women are on the DPB than men, and why then is this the case?


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 3:55 pm

  35. Scrap, what planet are you living on…free health and education, not in this country!! you are way off on this one! Have you actually tried to take a sick child (over the age of 6yrs)to the dr on the weekend, not a cheap thing to do my any means, and there is no such thing now days as free education, there are expenses that are mandatory for a child to attend. I imagine many schools have admin fees that has to be paid per family, and not just the one my child attends…gawd if only they were free, might ease the burden somewhat for sure! And not all parents who do have day to day care are on the DPB!!! they work full time too!! they still should receive some support from the other parent though. So I totally dispute what you are saying too!

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 4:18 pm

  36. Sharon you are thinking about yourself when you reply and not the problem. You are expanding again in an emotive fashion giving yourself the justification of legislation and its complexity. The more passionate you are the more likely others are likely to side with you avoiding the uncomfortable details. Does it cost to bring up children? Duh – come on get out of it – of course it does – no one here is disputing this fact. What is in issue is how do we navigate a relationship split so that the principle of child rearing does not take the priority away from equal parent contact. This means that the money does not come first. The relationships are the primary condition to protect and therafter you do the numbers. The “state” doesn’t care and you are being challenged for endorsing this behaviour. You are looking principally at the money as the fundamental functionality of parenting and your challengers are saying – wake up for the childrens’ sake.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 4:27 pm

  37. Ben,
    I have no idea what the figures are on how many men and how many women are actually receiving the DPB so enlighten me please! I would only say that there are PROBABLY more women on it. I do know that in discussion groups that I have been in with men and women present it was evident that men often choose NOT to have day to day care of their children for one reason or another, mostly it seemed so their social life could continue the way it always had,and because they were sometimes involved in other relationships where there were children as well.
    I do not think that the children should automatically be put into the care of either parent as a right but perhaps many cases need to be looked at individually if both parents do not agree.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 4:32 pm

  38. No I am not thinking of me but of the children I see who walk to school with no shoes and have had no breakfast before school etc etc etc. I am not saying that is always the fault of the non-custodial parent, I only know of cases I have heard about where perhaps of the other parent was contributing what they should then perhaps more kids would not have to endure those circumstances. I am not saying the money comes first only that it is part of the responsibility of each parent not just one parent…money is only part of it but an important part also. There should be equal parental contact but lets face it it is not always possible when one parent has chosen to relocate themselves miles away so the equal care/contact can be effected, just is not an option. Children need stability among other things. In many cases equal contact just can’t happen, sad but true. I think it would be wonderful for both parents to share in all decisions where their children are concerned, if only!!!!

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 4:44 pm

  39. Sharon, since you (rightly) discern that having children is a joint responsibility, do you likewise agree raising them is a joint responsibility, and financial support likewise a joint responsibility? Are you fully committed to 50/50 shared parenting? And equal financial contribution? And committed to this whether or not father and mother cohabitate?

    Comment by Al.D.Rado — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 5:36 pm

  40. # 39
    I asked the same Q in another thread. The reply was avoided CAREFULLY. it is funny how sher keeps saying ‘i am not thinking of me”… when all her arguments point otherwise.

    oh by the way Sharon.. which discussion groups are you in when you say “men often choose NOT to have day to day care ” ?? the feminist ones which delude you?? or ones which deal with family as a whole??

    i can show you that overall majority men would like equal share which they are often denied by due biased process that automatically award custody to the female. it is apparent you are pulling facts out of an empty drum and making sounds rather than producing facts to support your argument.

    Comment by starr — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 7:29 pm

  41. Sharon,

    You asked for a model, it was given to you. You now rant on about going to the doctor at the weekend. And exclaim that some mothers work full time.

    Whats wrong with the model Sharon?

    If its not suitable for parents tell me why?

    This model fits the equal parental contact you espouse perfectly.



    P.S. You say – I think it would be wonderful for both parents to share in all decisions where their children are concerned, if only!!!!

    I do and so does my sons mum.I’m not the only one, there are a lot more us than you think.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 8:25 pm

  42. Yes Rado I do agree that raising children is a joint responsibility, and yes I do agree with 50/50 custody if that is what everyone is happy with. If one partner does not want 50/50 custody as it seems a lot don’t, then it just doesn’t happen does it. Perhaps those partners should be forced to have their kids half the time, then they would know exactly what it takes to raise a child. And there would not be so much pressure financially or otherwise for one parent.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 8:56 pm

  43. Sounds like we all want the same thing then Sharon.

    Only I’d rather see the whole CS business sorted out, and responsive to what parents want, before giving the current beast sharper teeth.

    Comment by Rob Case — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 9:05 pm

  44. Yes I think we all do and sometimes I think it is made to be a far more complicated issue than what it needs to be. After all we are all meant to be concerned solely with what is best for the kids but sometimes it seems the kids are forgotten about completely. As they get older they voice their own opinion and are entitled to do so and must be listened to. Yes CS does need to be sorted, there needs to be a better system which eventually leads to the kids benefitting, from imput and financial help from both parents.
    ‘The welfare of the child is paramount’

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 9:14 pm

  45. The last comment is one of agreement. The string around Kiwisaver has concluded at this point with there being a general consensus where the extremes of the argument (in parts) have been negotiated again. This indicates that something is still amiss. What could that be? The children’s interests allegedly paramount but are they? If this string is anything to go by the answer is a categoric no. So why is that? Surely our society recognises that the children’s interests are paramount?

    If the answer is no and the question is why then there is some factor of considerable inconsistency in between. There are two factors. 1 is the extreme of gender discrimination where we conveniently overlook that some discriminations exist, as deemed necessary in a free and democratic society. Because we call these legal we are not prepared as “that society” to look at the negative impact they have on the groups who are marginalised. In the case of this website it is primarily fathers and children. We complain about the damage but our society rejects looking at the problem because it implies that we will have to completely unpick eveything. Scraps and others provide a solution as the most logical conclusion if indeed we are to maintain this discrimination: individually as from a legal perspective to mitigate the complications I completely agree. A presumption of equal shared paretning is the finest answer. [Yet] a group – women who have championed against the previous primary discrimination agaisnt them don’t like that idea as functionaly as naturally they have more to protect which are the tamariki (children) born of their bodies. They wish not to see their young damaged by entering and being protected as exposed to the adverse conditions of their opinion. Society empathises with this group as we know from the naturality of the term “women and children”. So the bias is protected in the subjective of the case by case basis. Women refuse to relinquish this part of equality when it comes to the raising and conditions of existence for children. This brings about the second factor which is money. Money rules. Children are not paramount: money is paramount.

    So (again subjectively SCRAP) the question for those of us who complain about the answer of “no” has to move from that of “why” to that of “how”. And at the moment we have protesters or challengers to the system. This constructs antipathy in one form or another – or for another marginalised group from NZ (Maori) the principle of divide and rule. It has been used to great effect and the numbers of men who would stand up against the system rather than trying to unify against a justifiable discrimination (as it is presently comprehended) on both sides are minimal and depleeting. So what is the answer to how? Ge tobjective. Learn what the grounds of constitution are test them and then show no compromise. The bottom line has been drawn – which is the law and stick to it.

    I appreciate this is yet another sermon, but if you check out my justifications rather than keeping the eyes ears and mouth controlled to ones own sense of senses then its only ever going to be a sermon that shifts the woods from the trees.

    Check out s.6 NZ Bora 1990 with s.6 of the CYFS act. The child’s best interests are paramount. Separating parents do not need orders. In order best to provide for the children through and after a separation, everyone needs support and the entire community needs to be working to a plan. Orders in the end should be used to protect us rather than to provide us with what we need.

    blah blah blah.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 10:48 am

  46. to add more to Bens stuff… children is a;ways paramount to all parents however the system is set in a way which plays one parent against the other. It highly discriminates one over the opther esp. genderwise hence all it tends to do is encourage to distract parents from their original aim of keeping children paramount to not getting screwed over by the other parent while keeping the goal of children first.. in such a climate, childrens paramountcy is pushed aside by the system itself rather than parents as it forces parents to squabble because of due process in place rather than work amicavbly to provide.

    Comment by starr — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 3:21 pm

  47. In short yes,

    more immediately to deal with the problem from a perspective of challenging it your observation is the objective condition and this is the problem. This discrimination that entitles the separating parents to battle over the care of children with or without the split of assets is an exploitation to compound the negative condition. The people who stabilise the system are fully aware of this function (and if not they are simple idiots) yet cannot remove the frame with any ease from a massive judicial structure to incorporate common social sense. This transfer would require reestablishing communities; this reestablishment is sensitive not only from the perspective of cost but because the social model if to be put in place requires input from tangata whenua (Maori) and the models of social protocols or conventions are radically different between the cultural parties to the Treaty of Waitangi. So a distinct problem facing the Westminister model is how to develop and protect families without giving away their authority. Continuing to excercise authority in the manner practiced, however, no matter how complex or destabilising the alternative of consultation may seem does not excuse exploiting separating families so further damaging already fractured children. This difficulty before the acting administration is really quite tough and if you expand these conditions over to an (if) incoming National led government we’re likely even further from having to investigate the principles of unity for the nation.

    So again you come to a place of “how”. To let down the defences to accept that in this modern day realm of equality that women will have to relinquish their presumption of primary care giver is hard enough, let alone to accept that in this nation because of legislation you have to do this using principles which are primarily culturally alien you can begin to navigate the problem.

    Like with any problem the first thing that has to be done is to recognise it exists. Objectively you are only going to identify this by using the laws that are written: exploring these we come back to the construction of legislation and its governing principles, taking us to the Bill of Rights and if to be conclusive fully embrassing the taong (treasures) to which we must stand to our ends in order to best protect which is children and we arrive at wehter or not this national treasure has or is being protected and we arrive back at the problem – which is the answer back at the beginning: NO.

    Putting heads into the sand doesn’t cut it when it comes to protecting our young. Pretending we are protecting our young and exploiting those protections while they are being falsely applied is worse. The question here then becomes if the reader base accepts that there is a problem. Does NZ with its present laws protect its children as their interest being the paramount consideration. The answer again is no.

    For example: check out s.17 of the NZ BORA 1990, which is the right of association. Check out s.16 (1) of the Domestic Violence Act including any child of the application in any successful protection order. This is a breach of association. It is inconsistent with s.17. If this is so under legal interpretation there must be a report under s.7 of the BORA on such an inconsistency and with the DVA as with other legislation there isn’t. I have a letter from Margaret Wilson telling me that at the time Paul East the then Attorney General did not consider that the DVA was inconsistent with the BORA. Not just by s.17 is it inconsistent, where living without violence courses are a demand on any upheld application for a protection order the legislation reads word for word with the Crimes of Torture Act. The state is using peoples (generally fathers)association with their children as reason for them to change their behaviour. This might be OK if the body of law makers had followed all the practices to legitimise this action but when you look into it as I have and pursue – not a show – the politicians performance to due process in this area of citizenship protection has been appaling. So we come back to “how”.

    The first thing that needs to happen is for parliament to recognise that that citizenship will not tolerate such inefficiencies because politicians are paid to work without corruption and without such bias. Both are clear and easy to identify. How this is achieved is for that citizenship to get itself into a crowd. How you would do this from what I have written is to write the same asking if you have no association with your son or daughter howe this is possible under your and your sons and daughters protection of s.17 of the Bill of Rights and where in your case it has proved that having such a removal is a justifiable limitation. Watch the House of Cards fall over.

    It won’t fallover if the politicians apply themselves to the rules that govern them, but so far (and the Greens at the moment most specifically included) don’t look like they are going to attempt to navigate the depths of parliamentary corruption.

    Try it.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 4:09 pm

  48. Sharon,
    Here it is.
    All the evidence you’ll ever need that nz women have ALL the reporductive rights and men have none….

    the number of abortions has increased slightly, Statistics New Zealand said today.

    A total of 17,930 abortions were induced in 2006, a rise of 2.3 per cent or 400 more than in the previous year.

    This follows decreases of 3.7 per cent between 2004 and 2005, and 1.6 percent between 2003 and 2004.

    The abortion rate was 20.0 abortions per 1000 women, up from 19.7 in 2006. Women aged 20 to 24 had the highest rate of 37 abortions per 1000 women.

    The average age of a woman having an abortion was 25.

    That’s a full 2% of women having abortions.
    Holy shit!
    Take a look around you people. Every 50th woman you see is a terminator…

    Ah yes, the gentler sex!

    Comment by Stephen — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 12:13 pm

  49. This region in legal term is only superceded for the present debate over stem cell research. When I say “in legal terms” I mean for the fundamental principle of right to life. An advance for any who would distract the debate into capital punishment should be considered secondary where the legislation from this country at least is principled down to the demad of protection of children through an acceptance of discrimination against those humans as subject to their provional necessities. This is to say that protection of our young for our decisions over them is of greater fundamental principle than the preservation of life of and between adults.

    There is a “coherent” principle in this that should be fully exercised before any exemption could be entertained. If the cohesive principle is implimented as retrospective law then there is no evidence that such a consideration has been applied. I believe it is fair to recommend that any law that governs the taking of life of an individual deserves to be consolidated not only by the set of laws permitting the act but also for any legislation accorded that could later affect or disaffect such an accord. This means that when the Bill of Rights came into play abortion would and should be subject to that act. That was in 1990. It protected the right to life. I am not familiar with the various justifications that exist to entitle abortion. In general I have tried to stay away from this research, not least from its emotive conditions as to enter the debate is an affair in comprehension and emotive demand that, like for its condition in history, encompasses just about everything, yet for the alignment of the legislation that I have researched there is no possibility that my arguments can escape its scrutiny.

    In this missive and as a direct response to Stephen’s position I will keep my submission to the surface comprehensions of NZ legislation yet advise that the depth in this as consistent or inconsistent with other global circumstantial practices and protocols won’t scrape the surface. And those are the conditions about which I only have some light comprehension.

    So this reply is brief and to teh points that have not been actively navigated when entitling women the freedom of choice to expel a life force from their bodies.

    (1) It is inconsistent with the preamble and the body text in the UNited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2) It is directly inconsistent with the Domestic Violence Act which under its rules override every other law. (3) It is directly inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights.

    So the point here where I have some sympathy for Sharon as humble and honest in her last reply is what are the defences against these pieces of legislation. Surely if the debate is to be picked up again, these are the points that need to be navigated by those who advocate in the forums that condone such violence.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 12:45 pm

  50. Sharon also shared this little gem of wisdom with us back in comment 23:

    If you have sex then you should of realised by now that a child can be produced as a result!!,

    ie if you’re careless in sex, then expect to pay child support.

    Except that’s only true for men.

    A woman can be equally careless and:
    i) rush off to an abortion clinic
    ii) abandon the baby to social services
    iii) arrange to have the baby adopted
    iv) raise the baby on her own, paying for all with her own money and exclude the father (wealthier women can, and do, do this)
    v) raise the baby with contributions from the father

    So women can be careless in sex, and if a pregnancy occurs she has all sorts of options, but men only get one – go along with the women’s decision.

    Comment by Rob Case — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 1:00 pm

  51. Stephen
    Interesting you should raise these statistics at a time when we have rampant inflation. If you look at the effect of war, there are three significant affects. An inflated economy, low birth rate, and a surging economy with low return to workers. We have all the trade marks of a country at war, and in effect we are. It is not a conventional war though, or even a civil war, but what I like to call “the quiet war”; One that is going on around us without us even knowing. As you point out Stephen it is the women doing the killing not the men going off to war, it is just a different battlefield, and it is in our own back yard. Follow the money – it always tells a story. Who paid for the abortion? Who profited from it? When you look at the after affect, we are like the country that lost – not the victors. And all for sake of a few silly bitches and an economic historian!

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 2:00 pm

  52. But that is defeatist Bevan in a state condition that you independently have recognised as unconstitutional. The provision of a constitutional government cannot be established within such a legal condition. The powers that are unanimously reconise that the method to overhaul the impropriety is to hold a revolution, yet the revolution they aim to hold is a progression of the fundamental principles in which resides the founding doctrines from which your “quiet war” has evolved. We have already had one “quiet revolution” in NZ, yet there was no directional change to circumnavigate the basic principles that commanded its necessity in the first place.

    This is to say that there are no “bitches”. There does not need for there to be any bitches, for if there are there are combatants – or opponents. In a condition of authority that has no constitution the purpose surely is to create the grounds for the replacement foundations on which to be built. You won’t get this by championing in republicanism as it already exists as an alien condition to those assurances that already established by the populace or condition of previous agreement.

    The energy by which to replace the faulted conditions is to prepare the constitution and not first to demand what it should look like.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 2:35 pm

  53. Sharon do you think it’s ok for a woman to go off the pill without telling her husband and purposely get pregnant then after she’s had the child, walks out on him.After that she can destroy his life for the next 19 years when all she wanted after all was a free sperm donor and a “mug” to supply her with a free food ticket.

    Comment by caz — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 9:06 pm

  54. Cas,
    Of course I do not think it’s ok to be so deceitful, why would I. Just as I do not think it’s ok for a man to walk out on a woman who has had the child(ren) he said he wanted…only to turn around and decide he wants to move on after the baby arrived or after the children have been around a few years. Even so it is not the child’s fault so why should the child have to suffer and miss out because one parent decides they do not want anything to do with him/her regardless of the circumstances around conception.
    Perhaps if someone was that absolutely certain that they did not want any children then a more reliable method of birth control(perhaps vasectomy- which can be reversed later if one changes one’s mind)should be used to make sure that a case such as the one you mention does not occur. In any case it still is not the child’s fault so they should not have to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. ‘Accidents’ do and will happen and I am sure there are many children bought into the world ‘unexpectedly’ but I can’t imagine someone being so cold hearted that they then choose not to love them and not want them..yep that happens to sadly. We as adults still need to be responsible for OUR children.

    Comment by Sharon — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 10:00 pm

  55. Sharon are you not aware that if a married man wants to have a vasectomy,he cannot do that without his wife’s consent.And I do know what it’s like to bring up children by myself.I brought up my own three with no support what so ever from my ex-husband.I did get the DPB but in those days it was just enough to get by on and that was all.I have three children and for my youngest child I received $1-25 a week.That child now is a married man and he is supporting his wife’s son from a previous marriage.His wife did not take her ex-husband to the cleaners.

    Comment by caz — Tue 3rd July 2007 @ 6:54 pm

  56. Is there someone here who could answer this question?
    When my husband’s ex-wife walked out on him,taking almost everything he had,she also got half of his superannuation fund.When he retires in a few years time,is she also entitled to the rest of that fund by claiming it as child support?
    I’m really concerned about him right now.He’s been working today from 5am this morning until 3pm and at 7pm he had to go back to work, to work all night,and he has just been diagnosed as having cancer.When he told the greedy one about the cancer,she said she’d pray for him,then a few days later he got the letter from the IRD telling him that he has to pay more child support.
    I know now what she was praying for.

    Comment by caz — Fri 6th July 2007 @ 8:23 pm

  57. Hi Caz,

    The ex sure sounds like a bitch.

    Maybe someone else can answer your question as I don’t know but nothing would suprise me. It is sickening what goes on here in NZ.

    I am a bit concerned for your sanity also in this. You have alot going on. And so does your husband. How are you coping with all this?

    Comment by julie — Fri 6th July 2007 @ 10:52 pm

  58. There must be a systems failure in Johns site – these comments are not feeding back to my email. I don’t want to sound arbitrary or uncaring considering the individual situation cas and her husband face, but if we don’t get a little crass about it then nothing changes. Cas, your husbands situation is not unusual or unexpected given the operation of our current social structure, and administration. Collectively women are killing men for money, if not by act then by ommission, and in some cases in total ignorance, or misplaced faith. You might feel isolated and alone Cas, but you are far from the only women in this situation, who is watching the gradual destruction of someone they care for. Do you just accept you should be in this position and are you going to do something about it.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sat 7th July 2007 @ 10:44 am

  59. Hi Julie
    The ex is more than a bitch.I can think of a few more words to describe her,but they would be unprintable here.
    The saddest thing is,she’s turning her 11 year old daughter into a replica of herself.But that’s not my problem,she’s not my child.
    I’m coping ok. I’ve got a wonderful husband.I was once married to such a swine and his ex didn’t know just how lucky she was.But as her lawyer said,”she didn’t want him but she didn’t want anyone else to have him either” and that is what this is all about.

    Comment by caz — Sat 7th July 2007 @ 4:43 pm

  60. Hi Bevan
    I do not accept that I should be in this position and I am trying to do something about it.
    We just found out that the ex went to the IRD two weeks ago and since then, I have written to the leaders of all the major political parties in this country. I’ve had no replies yet which is hardly surprising.I read on the internet that the highest rate of suicide in this country is men aged 25-44 and I am trying to find out if there is a link somewhere here because men are feeling so totally disallusioned.If I can get facts and figures,I will write to Annette Beautrais who is in charge of the suicide prevention programe in Chistchurch.Because this country needs to be named and shamed.
    We have been to a lawyer. That’s just a start.I’m going to keep on and on and on,until someone listens to me.

    Comment by caz — Sat 7th July 2007 @ 5:04 pm

  61. What part of NZ do you live in Caz.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 4:19 pm

  62. Cas

    The saddest thing is,she’s turning her 11 year old daughter into a replica of herself.But that’s not my problem,she’s not my child.

    I have seen women still grieving for a lost child 20 years after the fact. What you are telling me here is that your husband is loosing his child through a slow painful process of alienation, and he is just going to have to accept that, no pain, no grief, not my problem. And this little 11 year old girl is loosing her father, the first man she ever loved, and you don’t care about that…..I have to ask you Cas, is that about as callous as the women you’re complaining about.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 4:30 pm

  63. Bevan,

    I am sorry for jumping in on your challenge to Caz but i think sometimes it is a good idea to notice when you have someone who is fighting from your corner and be apprecative rather than expecting them to do things men’s way as they see fit on each subject. I personally don’t think it is fair caz be responisble of how 2 parents raise their child. That is like asking the step father to be challenging the real father. If real fathers want to have exclusive 50/50 rights to decisions for their children without the step father taking over then they must allow for women to do the same. Caz is NOT the mother here. And nor should she be expected to be.

    Caz, i think you do well to distance yourself from your husbands and his ex wifes personal issues. Otherwise it can backfire on you. What you are doing is fighting the system to help your husband and that IMO is to be commended.

    And from where I sit, this husband of yours is lucky to have you also as you say you are lucky to have him.

    Comment by julie — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 6:17 pm

  64. But then my opinion is only from my own life experiences and what I have seen.

    Comment by julie — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 6:20 pm

  65. You missed the boat Julie 100%. Both you are treating this guy like an emotional void. His 11 year old daughter is dying. She will never be the person he knew again. This man is just meant to cope with this and you don’t have to worry about it. You expect him to just get over it and smile his way through life because thats what you want. I don’t call that someone in my corner.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 6:29 pm

  66. Bevan,

    Ooops, for missing the boat.

    Comment by julie — Sun 8th July 2007 @ 7:10 pm

  67. Bevan,

    you separate yourself from your challenge yet your challenge is extreme. In the earlier post you asked Cas what she would do about it. She has written to politicians and she is involved in getting a lawyer. She is doing everything legal possible. If you think she should be doing something else then tell her from a male perspective. Otherwise your energy is wasted and you are losing the focus of where you want it to be if you want it to be anything more than an ordinary bitch.

    If you want it to be anything more than an ordinary bitch then you have every instrument available to you that anyone could want. The practical is probably that you won’t want to apply it – but as I said in my post before the last your choices are limited.

    If Cas isn’t doing enough, tell her what she can do and how you would support her. If you don’t have any ideas then find out if others have those ideas. If her dilemma is not important enough for you or she is so ostracised from your observations of fact and purpose please explain why, I am interested in your specifics.

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 9th July 2007 @ 12:52 pm

  68. You don’t like women very much do you Bevan.
    Maybe you should sort out your own problems instead of putting the blame onto others.
    My husband put up wth sheer hell in his last marriage and for once in his life,he is now happy.His daughter was poisoned by her mother and aunty and if that wasn’t enough,she tried to get him to sign a contract through her lawyer saying he would have no further contact with the child.But she still wanted money.
    Perhaps I could give you her phone number.I hear she’s getting pretty desperate.But don’t forget to put the pill in her water.

    Comment by caz — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 8:44 am

  69. Why did you say that Caz?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 11:21 am

  70. If I have a dislike for someone it is not based on their gender, and I don’t dislike women – wrong assumption. There is a gender political situation in NZ, which impacts negatively on men and on children and occassionly on women. I go back to what you said.
    The saddest thing is,she’s turning her 11 year old daughter into a replica of herself.But that’s not my problem,she’s not my child.

    I will put it to you this way – If this child wasn’t being taught to hate her father you wouldn’t have a problem. There is not a huge gap here between this women and a muslim training a child to be a suicide bomber. Our society would turn this child into a walking hate machine, with a tax funded parade of hog snorting trough suckers, who believe what a women thinks is law. What you are suffering from is the state protectionism of women. Unequall application of the law. You are experiencing it second hand by virtue of your relationship.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 12:38 pm

  71. So what can she do about it?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 1:19 pm

  72. What women are so good at doing when they don’t like something. They talked themselves up to a froth crying mcp etc, and now they are complaining about what they got, for their trouble.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 1:54 pm

  73. I don’t know what mcp might mean. Yet I am asking you something different where the abrasive demand from your comments are as much contributory to Caz’ stupid response about serial rape gets us all nowhere other than in a region of judgeable hostility. The whole demand from the menz movement is to establish mediation and conciliation before anyone gets into exploitation as is practiced and established by our bureaucrats. If those for whom we must be sympathetic given that their case as you point out directly expunges positivity by relationships with children, you feather your own nest of social expulsion. While I appreciate the debates are generaly better held at the North Shore Men’s Centre than on line, letter by letter emotion by excrutiating emotion there should be no absense of collectivity to the common cause. Our group activity or collective direction as I am aware at the moment is focused on Viv Roberts and Julie and the submissions before the Families Commission. There are individual efforts going on presently of which Paul Catton’s is by far the most likely to achieve. Mine before the Ombudsman taking the HRC and the MSD to a constitutional task as inconsistent with due process and the Treaty of Waitangi may by many be seen as the longest shot in history, but never the less it is pointed directly at the demand by the citizenship that it is being treated unfairly by the bureaucracy. You know all this. You say you have been there and done that and I believe it establishes quite reasonably the function of your hostility that we are so often (every time) disempowered from purpose by those significant forces that would marginalise us to the depth of their hateful extremes: But that’s no excuse Bevan. Caz – quite clearly responded with acid venom and it was unrequired given the same reason I challenge of you – but – what can she actually do? If there aren’t programmes out there to cope with this alienation so as to directly challenge its disempowerment who should she challenge. There are some programmes out there but they are very few and underorganised to deal with the specifics of alienation: so who is responsible? CYFS! Ruth Dyson – If you any want to focus yourselves on where to hit hardest hit CYFS. UNder s.7 of the Act there is provision to challenge alienation. In my court proceedings I cross examined a senior social worker managing in the call centre on thhis point. Her answers to my question? THE PROBLEM IS TOO BIG! I can quote this reply directly from the court papers and eventaually for my ongoing challenge intend so to do – but the point is Bevan is that our ground is best centred on CYFS. It is they who are supposed to be protecting Caz. Not the Family Court at all. Focus on CYFS for failing to protect children from the discrimination and bias of the Family Court and you will win. That is who fathers are to protect. Their children. Cfyfs are the protectors of children and they are not doing their job. They are stealing children instead. There is already an army of people ready to challenge CYFS and have done so more effectively than the present menz initiatives – we can work together. Bob Mc Crusky will work with the fathers groups as long as there is a common cause – which is the children.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 2:33 pm

  74. Yes just what am I supposed to do about it.I am caught in the middle of all this hate.
    My children are grown up,one of them is dead.How the hell would Bevan know how women feel when they have lost a child.
    We have been to a lawyer,and alarm bells have started ringing.He said he didn’t deal in child support cases,since then I have found out that he does.He knew what we were going there for so why did he see us?.Then he told us that my husband’s ex had a nice little house up on the hill.How did he know that? He was very interested in where we were living and we have just had a letter from her today, yet she didn’t have our new address.I didn’t want her knowing it cos when I went to Auckland last year, she said there might be a surprise waiting for me when I came home,and I worried all the time about my cats.
    Then we have Bevan who just does not understand.

    Comment by caz — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 7:28 pm

  75. Caz,

    This does happen. This is a men’s site so you have to put up with men’s frustrations. You have been through ALOT and now you are going through alot more.

    Bevan is a cool guy. OK, MAN. If you saw him face to face things would be different. IMO. He would listen to your story and empathise with you.

    Bitch all you need. I have been through similar myself in a town and they are sooooooo clicky it is not funny. And besides towns DON’T have good lawyers. Lawyers that are good leave for the city where the money is.

    Comment by julie — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 8:18 pm

  76. Perhaps we should go to a woman lawyer.
    She may be more interested in us,not in our address

    Comment by caz — Wed 11th July 2007 @ 12:06 am

  77. Caz, what is it exactly that you are trying to achieve with a lawyer?

    I am aware that some males represent themsleves in the FC and there is information/steps available that you can use. It seems to be better than a lawyer and a hell of a lot cheaper. lol

    Comment by julie — Wed 11th July 2007 @ 9:30 am

  78. CYFS have the responsibility to disaffect parental alienation syndrome. That is who you should ring.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 11th July 2007 @ 11:18 am

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