Cheap Trick or Courtesy – Families Commission
The Families Commission cancelled a meeting with a group of loudmouthed, somewhat poor, self-opinionated fathers.
Having taken the decision about one week prior, they notified these fathers, as they tried to walk into the Families Commission building in Wellington.
If we look at the constructiveness of the Families Commission action, we can see that if they had given earlier notice of their desire to stand up, they would have saved these somewhat poor fathers the costs of travel and taking time off work.
A different word from constructiveness is courtesy!
It looks like the story of a father travelling at his own cost, with theatre tickets in his pocket, to pick up his children for a weekend. The children are not available, he is told. The theatre tickets are not a total loss, as one can still be used – but the father is obliged to wait for pickup, just in case they arrive late – even the last theatre ticket is wasted too.
My own experience.
Many other men’s experiences.
The work to earn these theatre tickets also included income tax and [spousal and] child support. Much more than just the cost of the ticket itself.
Whenever such wasted resources situations come to the notice of familycaught “judges”, they tut tut tut and proceed to do absolutely nothing about it. There is one published judgement, where the judge did take positive action, to apply consequences to encourage the custodial parent [oops – we aren’t meant to say that after Care Of Children Act 2004 – but these words do reflect what goes on in the dated dusty minds of these “judges”] to act constructively.
Actions speak louder than words!
The Families Commission Chief Executive has said that Jim Bagnall’s leaflets are damaging to young adults. As these leaflets haven’t even reached printers yet, I cannot see how Paul Curry is in a position to form a reliable judgement. How could a leaflet, truthful or even wrong, damage young adults?
From TVNZ/NZPA website:
Curry said the leaflet was anti-family and an attack on the well-being of young men in their formative years, with claims about society problems stemming from homes without fathers.
“The leaflet itself, we weren’t worried about – it was the tactic of handing it to boys outside schools,” he said.
“We don’t believe in targeting young boys with negative attitudes.”
The Families Commission has shown clearly how well it understands getting its facts right, before making judgement!
It has also shown clearly its approach to building working relationships.
Paul Curry, the Chief Executive claimed on National Radio 23rd July 2009, that he understands what these fathers were complaining about. I am not sure whether he is deliberately lying or simply self-deluded. Either way, I cannot see that this incident shows him up as a person fit to spend Government salary on?
Paul Curry could learn, if he listened to his own criticisms…
The Families Commission (as judged from it’s publications) is interested in middle NZ parenting. It doesn’t seem to show any research interest in the darker margins, where parenting skills are patchy, mothers and fathers both frustrated with their lives/relationships and children are sometimes injured or killed. Personality disorders breed personality disorders.
The Families Commission publishes coffee table books, easy to read with no content that is politically hard to digest. It carefully casts its glance, where politicians are happy to go and aren’t subject to risk.
This looks like just a political sop, to a 3% party, now down to even less. $5 million a year – for what value, to whom?
If the Families Commission will not aim higher, then it might be a good place to start with lots and lots of Government spending cuts. I am sure that even CYFs could make better use of this money. There is a need for a Families Commission, but one that delivers value, for those that need it the most.
The fathers need to get their act together too. Just one read of “How to Win Friends and Influence People” might do wonders for their relationship building skills. Hell, this book is now over 100 years old. There are even copies in NZ libraries.
When will they get around to reading it?
Cheers,
MurrayBacon the frenzied conflicted deranged axe-murderer.
The matter is straight forward in my view and there is a considerable breach of the Act. I intend to file for a judicial review unless the Commission revises its decision to meet with the fatehrs and reimburse costs already expended.
It seems to me that I have won the Wellington City Council matter, so I may have allocated time in surplus.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
17 Freedom of association
Everyone has the right to freedom of association.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 25th July 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Hang about Murray, I feel your description of them as “a group of loudmouthed, somewhat poor, self-opinionated fathers. ” is hardly accurate. They are an articulate group, of proffessional me who I believe presented a real threat with their well reasoned and researched arguments, to the families commissions prejudices.
One any way is` on this site, he may comment.
Comment by alastair — Sat 25th July 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Attending the Wellington meeting/protest was Craig Jackson and Kerry Bevin. Protesting outside was Benjamin Easton and Richard Lay and Bernard O’Shaughnessy.
Murray’s claim on Wellington protesting is likely directed at me, where I doubt he has met Richard or Bernard. There after he would be laying claim against Kerry. Kerry is poor. Craig could not be identified as poor or loud mouthed. Kerry is the leader of a political party and an ex-school teacher. He recently came down to Wellington and stayed with me, where he was interviewed by the BBC on Republicanism. I was fortunate enough to have been invited into that interview. Kerry advised me this time around that the interview had been successfully aired with positive feedback in respect to his progressive thinking and expression. Being interviewed by the BBC and having that interview aired is no small feat for someone who could be labeled loudmouthed or otherwise self opinionated.
The comment was not necessarily about those in Wellington but those others who were invited to attend. That leaves Dr Vivian Roberts and Hans Laven. Roger Payne from Christchurch was also invited but I doubt Murray knows Roger. I doubt that either Vivian or Hans are that broke for their ability to earn that an airplane ticket would cripple them. I doubt they are loud mouthed or perversely self opinionated.
Murray infers the Commission is middle of the road and that father’s would better be served with courtesy in order to action their intentions. In my view, if we are to action our intentions it is not best with the Families Commission. This is because fatherhood would be accommodated in the coffee table publications. The better result is that our views are too extreme for the Commission. So we have to continue protest. While it is that the BBC and other mainstream organisations continue to mitigate a perversion of western societies for the direct and overt application of feminist jurisprudence, even on these ground root supportive sites, dads will continue to struggle.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 10:04 am
My apologies – by “somewhat poor” I only referred to the Families Commission receiving $5 million per year Government funding. I doubt any of the fathers is receiving that much, most are funding the Government!
The Families Commission has backed away from discussing men’s suicide, at meeting number 5.
To back away at such a late stage looks likes a publicity stunt, rather than something to do with critical values.
Paul Curry has said he will only consider further meetings “when these fathers show that they are helping fathers to be better fathers!”.
This contains a strong implication that these fathers presently are not good fathers. This seems quite a personal comment about the members of the delegation. I wasn’t aware that Paul Curry knew these men’s private lives intimately enough, to competently evaluate their parenting skills and accomplishments?
The fathers delegation arrived to discuss men’s suicide. This is a topic, behind which lie over 5000 dead men, through the 30 years of familycaught operation (taken as an excess over women’s suicides).
With the men’s delegation on his doorstep, Paul Curry refuses to meet them, as he considers that they are not good fathers or are not helping other people to be good fathers, when this isn’t the issue at hand!
Surely 7000 dead men could be better fathers, if their hearts still beat?
It doesn’t take Government funding to work that out. Maybe Government funding is a barrier to understanding these issues?
While the Families Commission turns a dull or senseless eye to the issue of men’s suicide, the initiative lies with the men.
I know that Jack Gielen is active in helping individual men away from their suicide demons, I know that Jim Bagnall does the same too. I know of several women who help and many other men too.
Jack is also active in communicating the issues around men’s suicide to the public. He recently spoke in a panel discussion on a Matamata TV Station.
Doing is much more important than endless introductory (Government funded) talks.
I have EMAILed Radio NZ in the wake of their reporting, pointing out that parental suicide after sudden and wrongful removal of children impacts onto women too.
The completed suicide rate for women in this situation appears to be quite similar to that for men – about 0.1 to 0.3% within 12 months. Thus, debating whether this is a men’s or women’s problem, is wasting time that should be put into doing something constructive. It is a parental problem. It leaves a hole for the children, that is very hard to fill up. Some of these children left behind by suicide, find that suicide becomes the way that they can escape their pain.
Certainly the number of women’s suicides in this situation is smaller than the number of men (about 350 in the same time period), but both should be taken seriously.
Surely 350 dead women could be better mothers, if their hearts still beat?
Its a Parental issue!!!!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Hans anyway had bought non refundable plane tickets, plus cancelled all work. It is a cheap shot to say “He can afford it” The same can equally be said of Viv Rob.
These are proffessional gentlemen.
Have you ever noticed though how people shy away from hearing things they really should listen to because it doesent fit their philosophies or preconceptions. Another name is prejudice!
Women tend to make more self harm attempts than men, but men are more often successful – and spectacular.
Comment by alastair — Sun 26th July 2009 @ 11:14 pm
“He can afford it”
That statemnet reeks of what I have heard my ex say to me, whenever she cancels or “changes her mind” when I have already paid for tickets etc etc.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 8:53 am
Why is it that such a blatant act by this guys ex to undermine and sabotage his relationship with his children just seems to fall on deaf ears…??
I have been in the system now for 5 years, my ex is hiding behind “high parental conflict” as a reason for me to not have equal time with our son..
Yet she has broken many agreement’s reached both in private and court appointed to allow me access to my son yet she can still maintain high conflict ???
I have only last week sat in front of a judge who agreed with her (the ex) that as she maintains the high conflict ground they ordered that all change overs are to be at a neutral location his school, which is in Parnell where his mother is also a teacher. I forget to mention that my ex also served a 2 year non tress pass notice on me from her home 2 days after I got married. So please someone tell me how this is deemed neutral territory ??
The courts where also aware that I live and work on Waiheke with no car in Auckland and now expect me to somehow collect him and drop him at school, as this is just impossible I have now lost access to my boy who is as devastated as I am, given that I am allowed 2 phone calls a week which are either consistently missed or I hear her in the background lip syncing his calls I feel at a complete loss… I am now faced with a possible bill from a court appointed councillor who wishes to talk to my son about how he will cope without seeing his dad..
My sons lawyer has reported back to the court on 2 occasions that Otis clearly wishes to spend more time with his father and stepmother, and if he could he would phone me every day, and in fact he wishes to relocate to Waiheke and attend school here..Yet his mother claims high conflict, this seems to be backed by a one JULIA TOLMIE who wrote an affidavit indicating that my ex and her had recently taken a holiday together in Samoa, my son had displayed behaviour on this trip which in her opinion was attributed to me…Please how the ** can this be taken seriously the boy is on holiday and I am no where in sight yet I get blamed for his supposed behaviour
After 5 years and having spent 50-60k on lawyers I am feeling at a loss can someone give me a little inspiration ???
I apologise for raving but like this guy I am at a loss ??
Comment by James C — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Over 7 years here buddy, similar stories… sorry, no inspiration here. I have found that it doesn’t matter what you say, what your child says, what your childs lawyer says, it is only the mothers word that counts.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Dear James,
when people try to admit “evidence” by affidavit, that is counter-factual or opinion made by a person lacking qualifications sufficient and relevant to the issue, then your remedy lies in requiring this person to be available at the hearing, for you to crossexamine. I hope that you can tear her to pieces…..
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Hello Murray
Juia Tolmie is a professor at Akl University who speciales in “Battered Wife Syndrome” I am of the strong feeling that she has been coaching my ex for 5 years.
Comment by James C — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 5:51 pm
It sounds to me like your ex is having difficulty accepting the new woman in your life and is reacting badly but abusing your child in the process. Unfortunately she will gain the support of the Femily Court and you won’t, despite any facts. You have the defective Y chromosome and she doesn’t. I’m appalled that such a nasty bitch is teaching other MEN’s children.
It is my experience that mothers routinely lie to gain power and control over children in custody matters. Judges and lawyers are all aware of the perjuries that result in state approved child abuse. It is a form of abuse to deny any child to have safe contact with his father and yet the wankers will do that to your boy if his mummy feels sad. It is inconsequential that mummy might be behaving childishly, abusively or acting out of a twisted sense of revenge. What matters is keeping the two X chromosomes happy. Sadly, your son will grow up under the umbrella of mummy’s protection, only to be regarded as a second class citizen in a few years time. It’s an impossible situation for a Dad to be in.
My ex is psychotic and had tried to kill my children countless times during my 17yr relationship with her yet it still took almost three years to win custody. I lived in fear for my children’s lives for that long before the bastards gave up on the two X chromosomes and noticed my children instead. It’s not a Family Court at all! It does nothing for children or fathers. It’s a mother’s court, nothing else!
I wish you luck.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 6:17 pm
nah, it sounds like your ex is just another child and father abuser. She couldn’t care less about your new lady, she only cares about stopping you and your son from having a relationship.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 9:49 pm