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

Children at risk from stepdads

Filed under: General — Jono @ 4:53 pm Sun 8th May 2011

Allowing the biological father to raise a child “virtually guarantees the child won’t die”, but substitute the father for another man and you risk harm to the child.

Taking under-five child homicide deaths from 1991-2000 fathers and mothers are almost neck and neck but defacto relationships are almost half that again (possibly due to no real bonding).

I find it interesting that there is no mention of step-mums.

Link to Stuff story


  1. Dear Jono, thank you for your posts and comments. I enjoy reading them and learn a lot.

    It is interesting that the Government financially incentivises the breakup of families, the reduction of children’s access to their biological fathers and the reduction of accountability of mothers to fathers (“child and spousal support” forced to be paid irrespective of behaviour and performance)- after breakup. The knowledge that this applies after breakup also reduces accountability of caregivers to family earners even in marriage. In the shadow of the familycaught! It is scary how the familycaught seems to create the very “problems” which incentivise it, against the public interest, especially children’s interest.

    The Crimes Act makes it a crime to assist or encourage the breaking of laws, does this apply to increasing the danger of death and injury to children?

    The “Child and Spousal Support Act” further incentivises women to have one child per man, no more, to as many men as possible. In fact this variation of family type, offers the mother the highest financial incentive and the children the highest danger of the most serious injuries! Certainly low quality legislation.

    So, it looks as if our Government is hellbent on endangering our children, through disastrously thought out legislation and improperly managed caughts.

    We need to make protection of our children, from destructive Government interference, a major election issue.

    CYFs permanent placement of children by forced adoptions may save the Government a hundred million dollars a year. I’m guessing it will only save in the hundreds of thousands a year, in practice.

    However, in terms of damage to children and long term financial settlements, I am scared that we are saving up a huge amount of social damage and long term financial liabilities. This policy has slipped through, without most of the public being aware of what is happening.

    It is based on a deliberately poor understanding of Attachment Theory and no competent research to show that the policy could ever be successful for the children.

    I have been told that it was also meant to create a flow of children for adoption, by people unable to have them themselves. I know it is not Personal Computer to say this! At first I didn’t believe that, but as I have seen it in practice, I am beginning to wonder if this was a factor in the passing of this legislation (CYFs Act).

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 8th May 2011 @ 9:56 pm

  2. I saw part of this progamme called GENIUS last night on PRIME.
    One participant stated that “Men like to solve problems- so they CREATE problems to solve! EG to justify a Congestion Tax (in London) they create congestion with one-way streets, and road works, so they can justify the congestion charge.”
    This opened my eyes! Isn’t this what the Family Court does! Create problems which it can look good “solving”?

    Comment by John Brett — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 3:47 pm

  3. Hi John, a good analogy; except that the family court doesn’t actually solve anything. An “eye-scan” analysis of the community we’ve become would indicate the role of the family court is far from focused on solutions and family unity. I would venture to suggest their role is to pretend to deliver justice by the application of questionable legislation, cheating children of their right to a family with two parents in the process. They serve a contingent role whereby they endorse the gouging of “revenue” payments, by supposedly recalcitrant fathers (in the main), simply as a means to keep the corrupt social services bureaucracy sufficiently well funded to maintain the process. Therefore, the real role of the family court is to ensure there are sufficient hamsters on the treadmill to keep the wheels of petty officialdom turning. If that’s problem solving, then I guess that’s a success story well worth reporting….. Sadly, we only see its success stories manifest in more dead baby headlines.

    Comment by Bruce S — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 5:56 pm

  4. Well said Bruce. Perhaps I should have put “Solve” in quotes.
    The “welbeing of the children” allows the FC to break families, by pretending that fathers are the problem, and thereby removing fathers to ensure future business.

    Comment by John Brett — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 7:06 pm

  5. Interesting the link produces a “Page not found”..

    So the story has been pulled.

    Comment by 2c Worth — Wed 11th May 2011 @ 11:53 am

  6. Very interesting to see that the story has been pulled.

    Comment by Vman — Fri 13th May 2011 @ 8:50 pm

  7. “Stuff” articles often don’t last long. It’s better to find the Herald version of the story because they tend to remain available for many years.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 13th May 2011 @ 10:03 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