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

Removing Children From Marital Home

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — MurrayBacon @ 8:28 pm Wed 20th May 2009

Removing Children From Marital Home (Shared Parenting)

When you consider this issue, starting from children’s needs, I believe that most married couples who might separate, are in the situation that their mental health and parenting skills aren’t so good that both could make a valid claim for sole custody.

Therefore, they would have to either arrange closely cooperating shared care, to be allowed to separate, or seriously risk having the children removed from them by CYFs.

Conversely, almost all of the happily married couples could separate, with either of them being fully capable of sole care of their children, as they are both in good mental health. (Would any of these people want to do this to their children or themself – NO!)

Children have been observed to select who they will model themselves on, this is not just set by who spends the most time with the child. In cases where both parents have poor parenting skills, but the children have significant ongoing contact with either family friends or wider family, the children may tend to model on these other adults. All of these relationships may be quite important to the children. Tearing up these relationships, at the whim of one parent (or familycaught “judge”) may be quite damaging.

Going back to the couple considering separating, if they were evaluated for parenting skills and mental health prior to separation and advised which of them could be allowed sole custody, many of these separations would NOT go ahead.

To obtain a dissolution of marriage, when there are dependant children, the parents must show a satisfactory plan for the care of the children. Presently, there is no real checking of this plan, by anyone but the other partner to the marriage. Besides, this is only required for a formal dissolution.

The critical incident, in terms of child protection – is the removal of the children from the marital home, not the dissolution of the marriage. At present, no approval is required, for one parent to unilaterally abduct the children from the marital home.

Much familycaught tactical advantage is gained by this ethical breach.

Most of the problems around the care of children after separation, escalate from the wrongs done when children are removed from the marital home, unilaterally by one parent.

Such situations should be handled by returning the children, until an agreed plan had been submitted to the familycaught, for the care of the children after the separation. Part of this plan should include a mental health and parenting skills evaluation of both parents, to check that both have the skills and resources to meet their responsibilities in the plan they are submitting to the familycaught.

Certainly, the “professionals” that the familycaught presently use for reporting on children’s relationships between parents and children, don’t seem to report on such issues as personality disorders. How could these reports be of any value, if they don’t report on an equal basis on both parents?

I have never yet seen personality disorders even mentioned in a psychological report, let alone assessed in relation to parenting needs of the children. Therefore, for my suggestion to be workable, the present psychologists would need to be replaced by ones who can assess and competently report on personality disorders and their impacts on the parenting needs of the children.

Wikipedia on Personality Disorder

Another problem is that ICD-10 (international) and DSMIV (USA) set the level for formal diagnosis at quite a severe level, whereas lower levels also cause parenting problems for the children, especially in a sole parent situation. These are solvable issues.

Warning parents about these issues before any damage is done, would greatly facilitate honest and constructive negotiation. I believe that this would much reduce the stress on children and parents, at access handovers. Honest negotiations would leave both separated and together families with more money in their pocket, to support the best possible upbringing for their children.

The only thing that gives, I couldn’t care less about!

Lets protect our children AND
get value for money from familycaught! MurrayBacon.


  1. Totally agree with all of what you have said Murray, on what needs to be done for the children caught up in a seperation of a family,Its a shame the Government don’t see it that way thou.

    What happens to the children when a sole parrent has full custody, and the way a childs demeanour changes, They emulate the others who are now in their lives full time , And its not all that great for the paying parrent to see all their CHILD SUPPORT not working for their children,It is not helping them at all, quite the opposite.

    Personality Disorder, Yes you watch our child change into the young person you did’nt want them to grow into.

    But, the IRD and the Current Government, Don’t see it that way, They see it as to much work, And why fix it when they make so much money out of it,An a EXTREME FORTUNE from destroyed families, Take this CURRENT RECESSION we are in, People are lossing their jobs or getting pay cuts,This is causing a major stress on many families and every day a new family joins us.

    THE RECESSION, For this Government it is a WINNER, The longer the Government drags things on the better it gets for them, Makes you wonder why we have a Minister for Families in Parliament, Families are being destroyed by it all and the children from a seperated family suffer and grow into the adults that is not of our liking or ways, The future they would have had if the FORMULA had worked, We have been denied as a parent,Denied our children,Denied or families to be a parent because of a FORMULA that works for them and not the family.

    It is OUTDATED and BIAS against any family it is suppose ot protect, Thousands have now been put into a situation they now never thought would happen to them or their family, The Government is busy wipping out MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from FINES which is now money the Government no longer has in it’s vaults, There are families out there now strugling to move forward without a job and threat of the family being seperated, And the unknown future their family has.

    The children and the young adults who we are responsible for, Are suffering from the ability to get genuine support from their family or the other parrent And they can get no genuine support from their Government, Because the FORMULA does not work.

    If the FORMULA worked, Families would work, EVEN custody of the children would be a great start after both parents have been psychologicaly reviewed, 50/50 for both parents so as to be a parrent and get the chance to raise their children, And if a parrent chooses not to raise or support their children, Well there is a FORMULA for them to.
    How does the FORMULA work if 2 children born to two different families and both children are the same age,And their family income is different,why does each child require a total different amount of money so as to raise him/her into a adult.

    The IRD will be busy, And the cash will be rolling in and none of it will help the families the Government took it from, It might come back to us in the form of a dole cheque, Payed to either ourselfs or our children.
    Remodel the Formula and the PERSONALITY DISORDERS will cease, Remodel the laws that STOP a family being a family.

    Comment by Mark J — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 3:14 pm

  2. Dear Mark J,

    thanks for your comments.

    I am trying to focus on fitness to parent and point out that to do a good job as a single parent, takes a higher level of parenting skills than the minimum necessary to parent in a working marriage.

    More to the point, that many separations involve one or two parents who are weaker than is acceptable – if they were to sole parent.

    Frequently, it is the parent with personality disorder, who breaks up the marriage. (This is where the children could get these problems, when they are being parented only by the disordered parent and have minimal and censored contact with the mentally healthy parent – as so often happens at present.) If they were forewarned that this would result in the children’s custody going to the better parent, most would compromise and avoid the split. (It all sounds rather old-fashioned, doesn’t it!!!)

    By focusing on protecting the children, by checking on parenting skills, shared parenting suddenly becomes workable and attractive, if the couple really want to separate.

    I am trying to focus on making small positive changes to the present system, but ones that would clarify likely outcomes and assist both parents to make better quality decisions. This is the only way to protect the children.

    Coincidentally, most of the “legal-work” would no longer be required, thus avoiding saddling families with wasted debt.

    Do you think these ideas are workable?
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 8:36 pm

  3. I agree with the concept Murray, but I just wonder whether, when you speak of removing the children from the marital home, you mean that specifically and exclusively, or whether the term also includes the disestablishment of the family home by the removal of one of the parents, usually the father, where the other parent and the children remain in what was the marital home?

    Also, the setting up of a process by which each parent is to be evaluated for suitability as a custodial parent at separation is an excellent concept, but would, as you suggest, be fraught with fish hooks. For a start, the ‘authority’, for want of a better word, would have to be demonstrably independent of preconceived notions of motherhood vs fatherhood, and would need to focus exclusively on parenthood. I would question whether such an authority could be established within the parameters of the practice of existing legislation. Closely following that, as again, you suggest, is the emotion and feeling at the very delicate and sensitive time surrounding the separation process, which also gets in the way.

    But there is much merit in tossing ideas such as this around, testing and seeking other thoughts.

    Comment by glenn — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 9:12 pm

  4. Dear Glenn, you bring up an important exception. I am focussing on protecting a child’s relationships with family, especially parents.

    The DV Act while ostensibly being about protecting relationships, on an everyday basis is functioning as a method of breaking the child’s relationships. This is especially so when the relationship cutting is done on the basis of accusations unbacked by any evidence at all!

    Following the discussion about protecting children’s relationships, you wouldn’t use a DV Act to breakup relationships – without any evidence at all!!! That Act should be worked correctly in the familycaught and actions only taken on the basis of evidence and only to the degree that the evidence shows IS appropriate.

    I hope that I have answered your question?
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by Devils Advocaat — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 10:36 pm

  5. Yes Murray,

    The DV Act should restrict its activities to its brief. Matters of protecting childhood relationships should be more properly dealt with elsewhere, unless violence has been or is an issue, and involves the child. Where such violence is solely between parents, the relationship of the child and each of the parents may not be affected necessarily (Of course it could be). And so your observation that it is used as a misguided method of severing those child/parent relationships is correct, and the practise is flawed both in law and in principle. However, the burden of proof in Family Law falls pathetically short of what it is in Criminal Law.
    Nevertheless, the way that families are being criminalised, that burden may have to catch up. ( I say that Tongue-in- cheek). {It might make a TUI billboard ad.}

    The old adages (from the Magna Carta I think) “Innocent until proven guilty” and “Who asserts, must affirm” have sadly been booted out the door when dealing with Family Law.

    I reckon, if those maxims aren’t upheld, then it aint Law. But it hasn’t got us anywhere – YET….

    Comment by glenn — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 11:03 pm

  6. Murray – I think you are inviting more State control and interference in our FAMILIES – Simple Preferencial **Equal Parenting** Enshined deep with World-Wide FAMILY Law and Social policy would see the majority of Children at less risk – Add opertunities to Law and Social Policy you invite further damage to the Childrens relationships with BOTH sides of their FAMILY – Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 11:15 pm

  7. Dear Jim, you are right, if we really want to improve the protection that we provide for all young children, we will have to regularly monitor the upbringing of all young children.

    There will be a problem with ensuring that the Government parenting skills assessors are up to the job. It will feel like an invasion of privacy, but how else can we protect our children?

    Orwellian but necessary.

    My own ex-wife was a CYFs social worker. When she thought that it suited her, she abducted our two children from being settled in my care. She knew that she could take advantage of the familycaught “judges” lack of competence/prejudice and that she could benefit from the abductions.

    She didn’t have a particularly happy childhood. This is a prime cause of personality disorders and defects.

    How then could such a social worker be relied upon to make decisions about removing children from their parent’s care!!!!?????

    This is why CYFs has such severe ongoing problems with protecting children in their care, from being killed by caregivers chosen by CYFs.

    As a country, we must ensure that CYFs have the resources to recruit suitable people to be social workers and then provides suitable training too.

    This will cost taxpayers money, but will save hugely on victim support costs and the costs of running prisons.

    If anyone has doubts about the story that I have told, please EMAIL me for the painful details.

    Best regards, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 10:05 pm

  8. The problem with separation and to a greater degree Theft by CYF, and enforced by law under the DVA act is the total removal of one parent (Usually the father) from their lives and relationships. A further trauma children suffer is the removal from their community, i.e. friends, sports teams, clubs, grandparents, aunts uncles family friends. They are suddenly isolated and looked after by an emotionally bereft caregiver or arguably insane parent. Research has suggested that separation +/- 6 months both parents can exhibit diagnosable mental conditions.

    All in all a wonderful case AGAINST removing one parent from childrens lives.

    Comment by Alastair — Mon 25th May 2009 @ 8:58 am

    Paul Nixon puts the case for what CYFs do. I agree it can work the way that he suggests, but I am far from persuaded it always works in that way.
    On the other side, parents with mental health conditions are not always aware of their own limitations and may be unwilling to accept them anyway. Such lacks of understanding fuel great pain in broken up families….

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 14th July 2018 @ 2:29 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