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

More CYFS Stupidity

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 4:48 pm Sat 4th April 2009

Two boys aged 11 and 13 made a list of young girls (ages not reported) and sexual acts they wanted to carry out on those girls. The boys’ mother discovered the list and handed it to CYFS in 2006. CYFS sat on their hands and did nothing until it came to light that 28 of the girls on the list had been sexually assaulted or “targeted” (actions not reported). CYFS then leapt into action by calling a community meeting, presumably embarrassing everyone involved. The police are now investigating and the boys are being called “sexual predators”.

To be fair to the initial social worker, (s)he may have been keen to avoid blowing some childish nonsense out of proportion and blighting these boys’ lives with reputations as weirdos. But where was some common sense? Why didn’t the CYFS social worker immediately confront the boys, educate them about the impropriety and gravity of their thinking and warn them of the dire consequences if they acted on any of their fantasies? Advice to the boys’ mother and a phone call to their teachers urging discretion but encouraging careful supervision for a while would also have been appropriate.

And what about the boys’ father(s)? Had he been expelled from the family by the mum who decided after bringing children into the world with him that she would be “happier” with only his money? Did the CYFS social worker think to inform the father and to seek his input into the situation? Most fathers would handle a situation like this effectively, providing some father-son discussion and perhaps punishment or a threat to desist from such behaviour. Oh, I forgot, then he would be a controlling, threatening male whose behaviour would traumatize the boys. Better to do nothing, let the boys carry on their delinquent behaviour until they actually committed crimes and ruined thier own lives. That’s much less traumatic and won’t model control through violence so that must be much better for them, huh?

The case sounds very much like one involving a fatherless family. I guess the mother felt out of her depth in understanding or managing their sexual development that was very much in need of adult male guidance. The mistake she made was thinking that CYFS, the large agency that we pay to deal with child-related difficulties, would act sensibly to solve the problem.

Why is that such an unrealistic expectation? Because CYFS and the laws empowering it are so infected with false feminist ideology. When the underlying beliefs are wrong, the solutions will rarely be adequate. For example, CYFS has for many years, long before Bradford’s lunacy, imposed on us its own “zero tolerance” policy against smacking, threatening parents or actually removing children when parents used physical punishment. Also, CYFS routinely threaten mothers with removal of their children if they don’t end their relationships with men whom CYFS don’t like. Maleness and traditional male methods of disciplining children are defined as bad, regardless of poor research backing for these positions. With such mentality indoctrinated into CYFS workers’ beliefs, no wonder they don’t think of involving a father in dealing with teenage boys’ problems.

Again to be fair, the CYFS social worker probably had to prioritize his or her activities because there was nowhere near enough time to do everything that might be sensible to do. This is a problem of hopelessly unrealistic expectations placed on such services. But instead of reducing the scope of state control, governments constantly expand it. Feminist ideology has again been central in this foolishness. How much more unnecessary work is now coming to CYFS from busybodies reporting their neighbours for smacking or use of other force for discipline? Remember, we will continue to get the stupidity that we don’t vote against.

1 Comment »

  1. Please enlighten me: After a dispute I have with my wife she thought wise to call an agency to prescribe me an anger management course. Then disaster occured. Within 2 weeks i was out of the home served with a protection orders, she was shepherded to womens refuge from which citadel she served me with a protection order. I learned that she was a recipient of a threat to remove the children from her ( I have got physical evidence for this) unless she served me wit a protection order, an order the family court was more than happy to make. My wife today refuses to talk to me and refuses to associate with any shared friend that stills associate with me.

    I have always thought the womens refuge made the threat and now i have Cyfs to consider

    I believe this woman if she contacted Cyfs is because she had dealing with them earlier on( May be she served her husband wit a protection orde under threat) and she just continues to be their client for life. Today my wife does absolutely nothing withought telling these agencies of her next action. I asked to see my daughter at the kindy during a week day, my wife called first her lawyer(womens refuge appointed and… may be Cyfs as i undersand now) if it is ok. The lawyer told her sure. So I understamnd she is no longer a free person but a slave of some agency (womens’ refuge cyfs?)

    That explains the behaviour of the woman calling cyfs about her boy.
    This is slavery nz style.

    Comment by tren Christchurch — Sun 5th April 2009 @ 5:55 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