Lindsay Mitchell in the Herald
Lindsay Mitchell makes important observations about the consequences of our DPB system. However, she claims that
The DPB has made fathering and fleeing commonplace and accepted. Before the DPB men were jailed for not supporting their families. Draconian, possibly.
and makes no mention of the more frequent impact of the DPB in helping mothers to break up their families for their own selfish reasons.
I have written to the Herald and others may wish to do so also. Letters can be sent via http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/feedback/letters/index.cfm
Here is my letter:
Dear Editor
Lindsay Mitchell is correct in drawing our attention to the ever-increasing social damage caused by our DPB system, and the importance of both parents in raising children to be the best adults possible. However, she takes a cheap and unbalanced shot at men by stating that the “DPB has made fathering and fleeing commonplace and accepted”. In fact, research shows that families are now broken up by women’s decisions much more often than by men. The no-fault DPB has made women’s ejection of men from their homes and families commonplace and accepted. The reasons are usually to do with women wanting “independence” or new, more exciting relationships and lives, rather than escaping from domestic violence as is often cited in justification of the DPB. And those ejected men are then required to reimburse the government as much as possible for its foolish facilitation of family wrecking. For many men it’s like paying for their own execution.
DPB is an incentive for divorce. To Get It you need to justify a certain percentage of custody. To get a 100% custody you need a protection order at least for the duration of the DPB application. To get a protection order you make a call to Women’s Refuge. Women’s refuge lauches their onslaught: a lawyer for the woman, is hired, with an open public purse, which writes a high impact affidavit that reaches a family court judge. A family court judge has no choice but cover her(is) ass. A without notice 3 month temporary protection order is made. The protection order is brought to the man. The man is evicted from his house. The man is told to attend a violence course if he does not he will be sent to jail. Up the repressive state system has not yet seen the man or talked to him. The onus is on the man to make contact with the system by hiring a lawyer if he wants to see his children or dismiss the protection order. Of course that is just a trap. The protection order is not going to be dismissed but he has to spend his moneys on lawyers to see his children etc etc etc.
Women, here is a good advice:
Go ahead, target a DPB. It is the solution for all your worries. Are you worrying your man is going to loose his job? Seek a DPB, your salary is guaranteed and secured for life. You do not know how to do it? Contact Women’s Refuge, They are the man. The family court and police work for them. More of you will make sure Women’s refuge will get more funding from the government.
But just one thing. Do not complain about the increase of violence in the streets from marauding youths, raised without fathers. The triangle of violence in new Zealand is: Family Court, Womens’ Refuge and Cyfs. The epicenter of this active volcano: DVA: The Domestic Violence Act
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 8:36 am
In this system, the following statements have been observed all over the western world:
– foolish men respond by killing their wives and sometimes their children.
– wise foolish men respond by killing judges, lawyers, and police ( We will be seeing more of this as there are no avenues for men to vent their frustration, seek justice, you cannot seek justice in a court of injustice that is the FC)
– cowards men resign
– more cowardly men let the system eat them.
– wise coward men… well wise coward men fight with abnegation and courage.
PERSEVERE MAN!
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 8:52 am
Good letter Hans. It would get a lot of nods if it is posted, in the editorials. IMO.
Comment by julie — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Hans, you show that when you separate accountability from the decision-making, the situation is fraught with risk, for at least one party, often more.
Unfortunately, there is truth, that too many men impregnated and scarpered. Even this detail isn’t always as straightforward as it seems to some commentators.
However, so many decisions in our society seem to respond to men who are being forced out of their children’s lives, as if they were scarpering!
Similarly, when Parliament debated the of-right DPB, concern was expressed that some women might take advantage of it. No. no, it will only be used by women in relationships who are wanting to escape domestic Violence and serious abuse.
Experience and statistics have shown that not only is this pious hope far misplaced, but we now see tens of thousands of lives created in response to this piece of legislation. Often they are born into hazardous family?? units.
The warnings were exactly on the mark.
It is a generation past time, to look back and evaluate [competently!?] what we have done to our society.
More important than the evaluation, is to actively respond [constructively] to the outcome of the evaluation.
In addressing these issues, we need to take into account the damage done, when anybody vandalises a child’s relationship with a parent, even if it is done by one of the parents.
The Care Of Children Act 2004 now addresses these issues, with ink?
When our caughts eventually address this issue, our children will be better protected!
Unfortunately, neither is adoption as straightforward as what some people had hoped.
Funny isn’t it, honesty does seem to be the one value that has survived the tests of time, from Hamurabi to the present?
Thanks, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 2nd October 2009 @ 9:04 am