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

Please any advise

Filed under: General — sonnyking @ 12:50 pm Thu 5th November 2009

We have done all we can to try and prevent the outcome of which is probably going to happen in the next couple of months.

Can the FC uplift a child from the day to day carer, who is agreeable with the uplift, and put the child in a foster home when the other parent, who has interim custody and access disagrees. The parent (father) with interim custody has never been given day to day care and has never been given a valid reason as to why, except for being accused of causing problems by having a custody application in the FC because the day to day carer is abusing the child.

Reading the CYFAct  following the S19 they have not followed procedures and have slipped under and through the sections.

Other than publishing in the National papers and going to the High Court, which we are in the process of doing, what else can be done?


  1. The situation sounds very confusing. First the court has no authority to “Uplift” a child. To be put in a foster home or involve CYF is the worst possible option for both parents and most of all the child. It is to be avoided at all costs. I suggest you join one of the “Hidden” Groups where more personal matters can be discussed or visit for advice.

    For straight family court matters the best group is at or for purely CYF matters

    You have to Join both and they are moderated!

    Comment by Alastair — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 3:36 pm

  2. This is not the right place to discuss these issues. Everything you say hear can (and may) appear in affidavits and be used against you in FC. Find a mentor or Mckenzie Friend who can answer your questions and help you away from this group.
    Union of Fathers

    Comment by [email protected] — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 4:50 pm

  3. Hi Allan

    I have discussed this many times in this forum and I am the father’s partner a woman.
    I have openly spoke of who the C4C is and the Judge regarding this case which is now 8 years +.
    My step-daughter is 17 in 45 days and has already been through the same since she was 6.
    Her brother now 11 has been subjected to the abuse since he was 5.
    Nothing here can damage the child any further than what the FC has already done with their constant litigation of disbelief, because they feel there may be some weight to the mother’s continually plea of alienation.
    We have had a McKenzie friend several years ago, prior to that 2 lawyers and 10’s of thousands out of pocket.
    We have been going it alone since then and I have already contacted John Keys & Simon Power. Prior to this I have corresponded with other ministers.

    All I wanted was some answers.

    Comment by sonnyking — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 8:05 pm

  4. I feel for you.
    The FC does not apply the law to its own decisions. I’ve been witness to that. I know the system does not work. Unfortunately the MPs will not act. I’ve tried and failed to get their attention to the issues of this kangaroo court.
    The media don’t appear to want to report on FC issues.
    All I can say is;

    keep calm (yes; easy to say),


    and since we all know that FC affidavits aren’t worth anything…LIE.

    They don’t seem to care if the wool is being pulled over their eyes even when actual evidence is presented proving that.
    Nor do they care about inappropriate action by L4C, it’s own admin staff, or their own judges.

    I have zero confidence in the FC, but it’s not going to change until more radical activity starts happening… I’m not advocating any; but won’t be surprised to see it.

    Comment by noconfidence — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 8:42 pm

  5. Yep, Family Court Judges encourage perjury by ignoring blatant examples presented in their corrupt Courts.
    Ignore the Family Court regardless of the stakes and render it irrelevant. It’s an absolute scam and not worth the attention of honest people.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 8:52 pm

  6. Thanks for your replies. I will still try the papers and the FC know of this and they also know that we are heading to the High Court.
    I have no problem with opening the closed FC doors after seeing all my kids suffer needlessly, that’s my step kids and my own.

    Comment by sonnyking — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 9:04 pm

  7. The corrupt Family Court has destroyed my four New Zealand born children.
    Justice is coming!

    Comment by dad4justice — Thu 5th November 2009 @ 9:45 pm

  8. Hi Alastair,
    I sent you an E-Mail regarding your suggestions, I will link into the other sites.

    Comment by sonnyking — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 12:26 pm

  9. You know what’s so extremely aggravating about the whole situation, is that I couldn’t do anything to change these women’s minds. They had a set agenda, and as far as they were concerned I was nobody because I am the father’s partner, the ‘step mum’.
    I had to sit and listen to these three so called ‘do-gooders’, two had never even met my partner’s son and the other, a C4C, that has broken so many promises to the child.

    They sat there thinking they were superior, high and mighty, especially the C4C, and spoke to my partner, step-daughter, son and I as though we had no intelligence between us.

    I am a teacher and teach children everyday, children are the most precious thing on Earth and to see this so-called ‘mother’ deny to her own daughter that she didn’t do anything was literally horrible.

    These women will never change, they obviously hate men, they may or may not have a good reason.

    In my opinion, these men hating women need to be banned from any type of public/social service, especially where there is children involved. These women will be acting on their own experiences or perceptions of reality and are dangerous. Saying that they are professionals and that their experiences do not influence their actions is absurd.

    I love my children, I love my man, and I would lay down my life for them. This may sound strong but that is the way I was brought up.

    Comment by sonnyking — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 12:59 pm

  10. What?

    How dare you allow them to win! Yes, this is sarcasm.

    They can only destroy you or your children if you allow that to happen. And if you allow that to happen then you might need a lesson in what it was like for the generations before you in your own bloodline.

    I’ll tell you this. The very women that were able to have the chance to destroy my family are dying of breast cancer, have failed in their own families and marriages and are much more miserable than I am.

    Did I have justice? I didn’t need justice. I just had to survive what was put before me so that I gave my best in a great bloodline.

    Dad4justice, you as a link in a family tree is all the justice you need. IMHO. Everything you do to give a little more to make a better world is just a gift from yourself.

    But don’t worry, I know too well what it is like. It is just that I am further down the track that I preach to you.

    Warm regards, NO! Not warm regards.

    Love, another survivor. 😀

    Comment by julie — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 8:57 pm

  11. To SickofNZ,

    Can you please e-mail me for I got a returned e-mail on one of the addresses I used and I can’t remember what article your other e-mail addresses were on. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

    [email protected]

    Comment by julie — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 9:06 pm

  12. Sure Julie, I’ve added your email address to my contacts list and will contact you before the weekend is over unless I hear from you before that.
    I placed my email contact details on the original soMENi (status of MEN index) thread. Search: soMENi
    One of my email addresses was mistyped by me. Sorry for any confusion.
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 9:32 pm

  13. Sorry SickofNZ. I have been remembering so much stuff for exams that I have been going blank on everything else. 😀 Thanks for understanding.

    Comment by julie — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 9:54 pm

  14. I have to laugh at the way we are both apologising to each other. To work with you is going to be good fun.;)

    I hope you are getting to know many of the men in this also. It is a good crowd.

    Comment by julie — Sat 7th November 2009 @ 8:44 am

  15. If the answer to the principal question is yes: and the matter is under CYF – then the jurisdiction as far as I am aware is a family group conference. One of these should have been arranged at the earliest point of intervention and there should have been no compromise of any parties’ position.

    If there has not been a conference – what is your location?

    Has there been a conference?

    The Court has the power to convene a conference – and surely this is the place to enter first. This means that your case starts in the Court and supercedes any authority provisional to the police. I don’t understand why this hasn’t happened?

    22 Persons entitled to attend family group conference

    (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following persons are entitled to attend a family group conference convened under this Part:

    (b) every person who is–
    (i) a parent or guardian of, or a person having the care of, that child or young person; or
    (ii) a member of the family, whanau, or family group of the child or young person,–
    unless the care and protection co-ordinator convening the conference is of the opinion that that person’s attendance would not be in the interests of the child or young person, or would be undesirable for any other reason:

    28 Functions of family group conference

    The functions of a family group conference convened under this Part are as follows:
    (a) to consider, in relation to the child or young person in respect of whom the conference was convened, such matters relating to the care or protection of that child or young person as the conference thinks fit:
    (b) where the conference considers that the child or young person in respect of whom it was convened is in need of care or protection, to make such decisions or recommendations, and to formulate such plans, in relation to that child or young person as the conference considers necessary or desirable, having regard to the principles set out in sections 5, 6, and 13:
    (c) to review from time to time–
    (i) the decisions and recommendations made, and the plans formulated, by that conference:
    (ii) the implementation of any such decisions, recommendations, and plans.


    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 7th November 2009 @ 4:50 pm

  16. I love my children, I love my man, and I would lay down my life for them. This may sound strong but that is the way I was brought up.

    I guess it does sound strong but I can think of many words to praise the way you are.

    You know what’s so extremely aggravating about the whole situation, is that I couldn’t do anything to change these women’s minds. They had a set agenda, and as far as they were concerned I was nobody because I am the father’s partner, the ’step mum’.

    You have figured it out!

    I too know they have an agenda and that the father is always seen as the bad guy when it comes to a mother and father in a custody battle. You are being treated the way you are because you are on the father’s side.

    They had already taken one side before they even met you for they are brainwashed to do so under feminist ideology. It would be the same as taking on the Vatican of the Catholic Church but in this situation you are taking on the head (feminism) of the government.

    IMO, you just have to keep going and do your best to stay strong. Oh, and of course do your best to stay sane. 😀


    It is good to have you here.

    Comment by julie — Mon 9th November 2009 @ 8:54 am

  17. Thank-you for the support Julie and yes I will stay sane.

    Hi Benjamin,

    We have already attended a FGC that was ordered by the FC after the C4C suggested to the Judge.
    She used continual conflict, the litigation in Court of the day to day carer issues.

    There wasn’t agreement as the mother wanted the child gone, she deems him as a problem or issue, and of course the father wanted day to day care.

    He was told by C4C that he either agrees for the child to be placed in foster care or looses the child completely.
    He has done nothing to the child except love him.

    Firstly, the only reason the father has applied for custody is because the child is being continually abused and that is just a small amount of what he has been subjected to. He has only ever attended 2.5 years of mainstream schooling since he was 5. The mother has kept him out of school, yes the MOE has knowledge of this.
    The same thing happened to the daughter, except for the exclusion of school which became her sanctuary.

    Putting aside everything, the child, 11 years, knows what is going to happen, his mother lied to him, we told him the truth, because he demanded to know, saying that he had a right to know what mum had done.
    He is scared, to put it bluntly, about being sent away, his mother wasn’t going to tell him what was going to happen. The C4C doesn’t voluntarily communicate with him. Last time she spoke to him, she told him the case was closed and that she wouldn’t talk to him, that was October 19 2009. Last time she lied was November 2008, telling him she would get him moved to his father’s home where he was safe, then tell the FC and judge what he told her his mum had done, so he want be hurt.
    He’s still waiting, crying to us, why hasn’t his C4C done what she said and why did she promise that she wouldn’t let his mum hurt him again, all the while he is still being abused.
    This he told CYF October 2009.

    When you say yes to the initial question, where does that fall with regard to S6 Child’s views Care of Children Act 2004, he’s been asking to live here for 6 years.
    Also where does S29 (3)(a) come in, as we have been more than willing to perform our duties as parents and have done so with 3 previous children, my 2 and my partner’s daughter who has lived with her father since June 2002.

    My E-mail address is [email protected]

    Comment by sonnyking — Mon 9th November 2009 @ 10:27 am

  18. I still cannot see the controversy. The matter identified is that the C4 C is misreading the circumstance, yet I am not sure of the C4C’s reasons to contest the day to day care order for the father.

    There are two ways to approach the problem from the information you have provided. Both of these force a proactive condition rather than that of respondent.

    The first part is to come up with a plan of how the day to day care family (foster or otherwise) could/can provide care to meet the necessities of every party in the wider family. This is to say create your own best set of rules for whoever the primary care giver could be. Be generous to the care giver, recognizing that in difficult circumstances stability is the most important component rather than high ideals and concentrated principles. Principles are wonderful but only work effectively when the people expressing them have learned to be stable.

    Then consider once this is worked out what the C4C role should be. This is a good time then to contact the C4C, about how you see the future looking and asking the C4C how they can help or what their advice is. This makes the C4C the respondent and not the applicant.

    If you have a problem with the C4C at this stage then it is time to consider whether or not the C4C is right for this group of people. It is quite likely that the C4C may be out of touch with the particular group of individuals. The plan then becomes the focus and if the C4C has not responded reasonably then it is likely time to make an approach to the Court looking for an order.

    Think about this and then email me back on line. If this is difficult or has complications then it would be good for me to read the FC judgment — but first — just deal with the principal matter for the Court — how the plan would or should work.

    [email protected]

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 9th November 2009 @ 3:44 pm

  19. I spent hours reading the following article today that seems to explain the predicament of us pawns, both male and female, fathers and mothers. It is very interesting reading indeed.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 9th November 2009 @ 10:01 pm

  20. C4C is lengthening the process to ensure her monnies are paid by the ministry of justice. Could you please name her here so that other could know how to handle her.

    Comment by tren Christchurch — Tue 10th November 2009 @ 8:19 am

  21. I am a fan of Nice find. 😉

    Comment by julie — Tue 10th November 2009 @ 8:41 am

  22. Hi.
    I agree with Allan. Not a good place to discuss this particular issue.

    Comment by Paul — Tue 10th November 2009 @ 2:38 pm

  23. I hope it is not the sinister Adrienne Edwards or sly Tanya Cook. Both these Cantab C4C maggots should be in a prison cell.

    Comment by dad4justice — Tue 10th November 2009 @ 6:16 pm

  24. Dear Sonnyking,

    Should you wish advice and possibilities of further recourse, we are available to provide same.

    Kindest Regards

    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09) 271 3020

    Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 10th November 2009 @ 6:23 pm

  25. In answer to your question Tren, C4C is Christina Cook in Whangarei.
    My partner and I should have listened to my step-daughter when she first spoke to C4C. She left the office, then 12 yrs, saying that she didn’t trust C4C and that she was on ‘Mum’s side’. We told her there were no sides and she commented ‘yes there was, because C4C kept telling me that mum didn’t do the things she did, so she’s on mum’s side’.

    How well children read adults.
    Maybe FC need to realize this.

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 8:29 am

  26. Benjamin the reason C4C is against the day to day care for the father is simple.
    The FC and her believe that my partner has told the kids to say they have been abused by their mother for the last 7 years or so.
    They have no proof, because there is no truth to this.
    The mother continues with the alienation plea, and this has put doubt in the Courts mind, this is even after the very first pysch report said that both children would be better off with the father, that was 2002, before I was part of this. Now, according to the mother I have contributed to the poisoning of the children against her. In 2005 the FC even laid blame on the daughter saying that she was alienating her brother, because the daughter refused to have anything to do with her mother after her mother’s continued abuse towards her, and also my son, during an access birthday party where my son, who is 2 years younger, was present with the daughter , the daughter protected my son and herself.
    We have fought to prove there is no alienation and done so, yet the FC still lean to the mother’s plea.
    My partner has stood there saying that he’ll take a lie detection test.

    The FC also lean to the mother because she has developed this mind set in the FC that the son has something wrong with him, and she lays herself before them asking the FC to assist her with this so-called uncontrollable child.
    She literally craves the attention that she receives when she takes the son to all of the institutes.

    He is a sweet normal kid that has been subjected to things that an adult would even find hard to deal with.
    One thing we can be thank-full, is that he has become a strong kid to survive what he has been subjected to, by the mother, by the continually litigation of the FC and of the constant stress he is under through it all.

    Yes we have put forward many times a ‘plan’ for the son, including access with his mother, even with a IEP, strategy plan for his education which has been minimal.

    Just recently Judge Druce asked for a proposal for the son.
    This was when the C4C dropped the s19 into the Judge’s lap.

    My partner has done what the C4C has asked, only for it to backfire for the son. We told the son to trust his C4C.

    We have now realised not to trust her and taken steps you have mentioned.

    I will talk to my partner and E-Mail you.

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 9:34 am

  27. Thank-you Paul,

    I will talk to my partner and make contact with you.

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 9:38 am

  28. Can someone please tell me why?

    All that has been said is known to the FC.

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 10:00 am

  29. Because they are a secret court and putting the truth outside of their walls will get them cross and thus.. you could be held in contempt…

    Comment by noconfidence — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 11:15 am

  30. Thank-you for the reply Nonconfidence.

    The FC can’t put me in contempt as they have no contact with me and the C4C has told me time and time again that I have no say in the matter as I am not a party to these proceedings.

    The only contact I’ve had with the FC is when they questioned me for 6 hours in 2005, but that was only because I said yes to being questioned in the hope it would strengthen the case for the kids, as my partner is self represented.

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 11:52 am

  31. The powers of the Court certainly do extend to being able to charge you with contempt of Court for publishing details of a case. Ask Tasman MP Nick Smith and he is a parlimentarian which normally offers very significant protection and Freedom of speech. Not being a party to the proceedings is no protection at all.

    Comment by [email protected] — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 12:14 pm

  32. for those with short memories or new to the FC.

    A story from 2003 and 2004

    Nick Smith’s conviction for contempt of court has brought fresh scrutiny to the secrecy surrounding the Family Court. Vulnerable children must be protected. But if justice is not seen to be done, can we have confidence in the court’s decisions?

    see the full article at;;jsessionid=74F68CBD25CC14230348E7680D814F8D

    Comment by [email protected] — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 12:18 pm

  33. That’s a tough situation and I haven’t seen it before at this depth. The abuse is important and if it was physical, sexual or emotional. If emotional I would alienate it from the circumstances and let it lie dormant. As it is contentious for the court you have to take it as given and not necessary to argument because it detracts or downgrades the discussions which are supposed to be for the benefit of the child.

    The case law to research is whether or not alienation is cause for removal of a child, but immediately: go to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

    1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 12:56 pm

  34. I do not agree with Allan,

    we are hiding from the damage and perpetuating the very thing we complain about embracing this culture of fear and of being victim.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 1:12 pm

  35. Ben,
    You more than most know the vengence of the Court. Maybe they can’t get blood out of a stone but others of us do have some resources they can and will squeeze.

    Comment by [email protected] — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 3:57 pm

  36. But I used to have resources Allan – and a job and a good reputation – but I disengaged from the system to take it to task. So you do not have anything that I did not once have. I also had a marriage and a guarantee of association with my son and daughter. You compound my frustration challenging in me on my commitment where that commitment from which you would wish to protect has already been sacrificed.

    When I read your posts discouraging others from considering what I say and the approaches on the system I make, I wither at the thought that the resistance within the fathers collective is as difficult to get over as the opposition of inherent gender discrimination in the court system. I wither that the obvious examples of gender discrimination about which we complain are left for someone like me to challenge without the body of the movement taking to the task.

    Single women and lesbian couples being permitted by law to extract a father from the child’s life and coordinate their happy parenting existence is morally reprehensible and the only group capable of mounting a challenge against it is the father’s movement. Well I have done this — alone alienated by my own kind.

    Male assaults female is an abrogation of gender neutral language yet still the father’s movement hasn’t the courage to mount an assault on such out of touch legislation in a gender equal market or legislative environment. How many women’s refuges? How many men’s refuges? How much money goes to protect women against how much money to protect men? Why does s36 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 provide funding for all groups exclusive of men? Why does a male have to apply to the Court for DNA testing to find out if his son/s and or daughter/s are of him? Why are men so high on the suicide list? Why are we behind in the education stakes? Why aren’t there as many men in the education field of younger children as women?

    Is fear of losing income the principal reason why men or women should not post their concerns and questions on this site: and who said blood cannot be taken out of a stone if the stone is human: It implies my sacrifices are discretional rather than being plausible arguments that hold form in the balance of probability or beyond reasonable doubt. I miss my son and daughter’s contact Allan, daily, by the minute and by the second and you infer that my loss does not warrant reasonable consideration.

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 6:53 pm

  37. Benjamin, my partner and I have been discussing your postings and will contact you via E-Mail.

    My partner’s E-Mail is [email protected].

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 8:57 pm

  38. I do not and my partner does not fear what some think may happen, as we are sick of the injustices and for something to change so that these kids don’t suffer needlessly, there must be action.

    I have read the posts off and on here, only since early 2008, yet the stories have the similar theme of injustices to the children as their welfare is far from paramount, of course, the father also has no right in the Family Court.

    My partner just said to say, he would stand there fighting for his son’s right to any extent.

    Look I’m female, and sick to death of these so-called feminist do-gooders. They break apart families and ruin children’s lives.

    Action must be taken.

    Comment by sonnyking — Wed 11th November 2009 @ 9:12 pm

  39. I wish Ben well but I feel morally obliged to give my opinion here. I would not recommend that you invite Ben to become involved in your situation. His previous behaviour has shown that he cannot be trusted to respect your rights, confidences or interests. His success rate is very low in the various missions he has become involved in, for reasons that are obvious when his statements and approaches are scrutinized. Of course, make your own decision but please mark my words.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 11:47 am

  40. Hans,

    Your mail is not only incorrect as it is uninformed but it is also unnecessarily unkind. If you wish to argue the point of my protesting performance in respect of court proceedings or other general activities I am willing and more than happy to do this.

    However, the information is already established on this website with the proceedings from the Bank of New Zealand. I suggest you read how the Bank of New Zealand openly abrogated its responsibilities to international marketing codes. Additionally as you are in reasonably frequent correspondence and dialogue with Craig Jackson, a fellow psychologist and who supports my efforts in Wellington, I request you make an inquiry on what we have achieved for my activity.

    Further to this I would like to advise you that the only reason I ran the proceedings against the BNZ and the HRC and the Advertising Standards Authority was for a request from Craig to consider the advertisement New Zealand’s Biggest Morning Tea. He also asked other people, you included, to run with this complaint. I was the only person to respond. I have done so at considerable cost of my time incredibly limited income and outright abrogation of my personal and social life. I have had no positive feed back from you to date in respect of anything I have done — so I cannot be surprised that you would attack me without research or accurate information. However, as you are one of the openly professional contributors who comment on this site I do take exception that your influence could be used to interfere with support for others who find themselves caught in uncompromising court and CYFS circumstances.

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 1:35 pm

  41. Ben,

    You know I have tried to understand where you come from, to encourage you to work with others and to strategise for bigger picture issues. Clearly I have failed which is sad given the huge energy and intellighence you bring.

    I found Han’s comments more than fair. Others can make their own minds up and that is their right. It is my own experience that much of what your do causes disharmony, is threatening to others, justifies violence and vexatious litigation. That is not good for children and does not serve fathers or men’s issues.

    From what I understand your “of a coalition” is now of one person (yourself) maybe two individuals. Unfortunately many other groups spend far too much time repairing bridges and healing wounds that you are all to ready to destroy and harm.

    With a heavy heart,

    Comment by [email protected] — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 2:53 pm

  42. This simply means to me Allan that you are only prepared to engage controversy at the level of your own capacity and not at a level required of a public being seriously damaged. I take note that I remember the suicide figures — and that they are particularly high for men who go through the Family Court and separations. I do not see how any damage I could be alleged to cause can in any way compete with these statistics and I am challenging the reasons why they are caused. It means directly that your rejection of my efforts is a burden for everyone where the energy is directly and accurately centred: and I repeat as I said to Hans, I am happy to defend my actions with facts and their success.

    For example — the Biggest Morning Tea ad was not rerun, even though we heard it was planned and then canned subject to the proceedings. Does the injunction of propaganda and the application of gross (and held by Justice Randerson as would be unlawful) gendered discrimination not matter to the Union of Fathers — and if it does, why is it so hard to give me credit for it?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 4:04 pm

  43. More division in the non existant kiwi Mens Rights Movement.
    No wonder men are shafted by the Family Court.
    Get your shit together. Haha joke of the century!!
    Batman v Boshier.
    Justice will win.
    F4J all the way!

    Comment by dad4justice — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 5:48 pm

  44. I agree Peter,

    I don’t wish to argue nor do I want to be ridiculed – but regardless of either the most important thing is to keep working ‘hard’ at what we respectively do.

    kind regards,

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 8:33 pm

  45. I have just googled info regarding the Biggest Morning Tea Ad and is it my understanding that the Ad depicted the adult that caused the violence as male?

    If this is the case, then in my opinion the ad is certainly gender bias.

    My partner was dished out physical abuse from his ex wife and it is the mother that has and still is emotionally and physically abusing the children.

    If there is an ad for domestic violence with the message to stop the cycle. There must be a balance of abusers of both genders because that is what is, reality.

    How many men suffer in silence, like my partner did, because they’re are too embarrassed to admit that their wife beats them up?

    There is and has been violence to women from men and there is and has been violence to men from women.

    There is and has been violence to children from both women and men.

    The sad part is, the violence to children from women is hidden more than the violence from men.
    This makes the men look as though they are the abusers.
    Because of our society, on a global scale, we do not expect the abuser to be the women so we question it.
    This brings doubt which then fuels the women to become even more vigilant with her terrible criminal acts.

    Comment by sonnyking — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 9:59 pm

  46. Just viewed the article on the Beehive website and distinctly remember the picture of the cake and figurines.

    I also remember it invoked quite a discussion.

    Comment by sonnyking — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 10:41 pm


    Compare the two documents. This is what is up for review.

    The ad was of four white adult males on top of a look alike bithday cake whacking four children. One of them from behind while the child was playing with a toy – saying ‘break the cycle’. Yeah right.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 10:30 am

  48. Thanks Benjamin,

    Will have a read, I had already located the one from the

    Comment by sonnyking — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 12:39 pm

  49. I have written to ministers, MPs, and to the creators of the duluth model (used in psychology). All said that the female attacking male argument was INSIGNIFICANT due to the numbers. I did get lucky with the duluth model as they confirmed that it is a gender biased model, and should thus be used only for situations of man assaults woman.
    The fact that these organizations consider a minority (ie: men) insignificant is disgusting in itself.. which is why I have ‘noconfidence’ in New Zealand’s government and justice systems.

    Comment by noconfidence — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 3:16 pm

  50. I wonder what the MPs know that the authors of the following study don’t?
    … which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

    If there is anything INSIGNIFICANT, it is their intelligence.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 5:00 pm

  51. HRC fold (at long last)…

    Change is coming!!!

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 6:59 pm

  52. This is clearly demonstrated in the Pauls – news violent females database. A november update is now available.

    Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 9:14 pm

  53. The reference:- REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS is an american link and doesn’t hold in NZ. This must be correct both Sue Bradford and Heather Henare told me so 🙂

    Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 9:16 pm

  54. My wife committed many serious violent crimes that were never included in any statistics in New Zealand anywhere and I’m sure that is not unique.
    It doesn’t hold in New Zealand because some head-feminists say so?…. pft. They’re just part of the problem. They choose to ignore any data that upsets their own agenda.
    As I said earlier, If there is anything INSIGNIFICANT, it is their intelligence.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 13th November 2009 @ 9:31 pm

  55. thats an interesting point.. How can I find out whether my ex’s assault is counted in the stats ? Stupidly I did not want her charged at the time as I didn’t want things to get worse. Unfortunately, she did, tried to slap a protection order on me, she failed as she had no grounds (and there were witnesses)

    Comment by noconfidence — Sat 14th November 2009 @ 10:41 am

  56. noconfidence says: How can I find out whether my ex’s assault is counted in the stats ? Stupidly I did not want her charged at the time

    I’d probably start by asking if statistics are kept for situations such as you experienced, where no one was charged with any crime. You might not need to look much further than that.

    My ex-wife is owed at least 2,000+ charges of threatening to kill, at least 3 separate charges of attempting to kill, 1 or 2 charges of stupefying/poisoning plus much, much more. NONE of her crimes were recorded for statistical purposes except in the memories of my children and me.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 14th November 2009 @ 11:20 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