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

Mother Hazard Father Hazard

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — MurrayBacon @ 8:43 pm Tue 10th May 2011

Several recent posts have discussed mother hazard / father hazard, for risk of injury or murder.

I have pointed out that international abductors presently run about 85% mother / 15% father. Unfortunately, as “judges” tend to publicize cases involving father abductors, the public are being seriously mislead, to believe that the main hazard comes from fathers. As a result, fathers are not as cautious as they would be, if the were honestly informed! Similarly, mothers can get the familycaught to be unduly restrictive on fathers access to their own children. Thus, the misleading images presented to the public, contribute to the number of abductions being larger, than if the public knew the truth.

Australian abduction experience is similar too, as indicated in Robyn Bowles book Taken in Contempt.

This website gives a list of international abductions from news reports, again more than 85% mother abductors:
This website draws attention to Greek caughts legitimising abductions by greek citizens, in defiance of its signing of Hague Convention. I am not sure if NZ is any better than Greece, in this regard?

For carefully conducted research on child abuse and also being willing to listen to the what the data says!!!:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families has recently released:
Child Maltreatment 2009

So, when the honest research shows fathers typically to be significantly lower risk parents, why do our caughts work so hard to place children into higher risk situations?

I am guessing it is the following list of reasons:
1. conflict of interest – they make more money by placing child with less financial parent and trying to
incite the more financial parent to appeal
2. self image as “hero” supporting the “weaker” parent!!!!
If one parent gets “legal help” from lawyers and “judges”, are they really in the weaker position?
I suggest that these heroical delusions place these people in the category of the
psychiatricly dangerously impaired, as well as legally incontinent.

It is important that the exact level of generalised risk is well understood, both by decision-makers (eg “judges” and social workers) and also by the public.

However, it is even more important that in each individual situation, decisions are made on the facts of that situation, not on general risks, let alone misunderstood or deliberately misunderstood general risks (AKA prejudice or corruption). The judicial oath essentially reinforces this. The failure of the familycaught to do this, reduces that caught to being a producer of high cost negative value pieces of paper, in other words, they are just relationship vandals.

I applaud those who try to draw the truth about these risks to the attention of the wider public.

It is equally important to draw the attention of the public to examples where familycaught and CYFs have wrongly assessed risk and made wrongful decisions, based on their careful misunderstanding of the true risks.

It is only when we can look at the real risks honestly, that we will give our children the best protection and best quality of upbringing.

Through all of the deception, it is only when the public can discern the truth, that we can best act to protect our children.

Cheers, MurrayBacon.


  1. It is equally important to draw the attention of the public to examples where familycaught and CYFs have wrongly assessed risk and made wrongful decisions, based on their careful misunderstanding of the true risks.

    Murray, I respectfully suggest the public couldn’t care less. NZ caregivers have been killing kids for years, yet Child Youth and Female Services are still given the tacit go ahead to manage the cull by a totally apathetic public. If the death of Nia Glassie wasn’t sufficient to awaken and sensitize the NZ public for the need to remove CYFS as the state sponsored “protector”; then sadly nothing will. Those of us who “do care” and have attempted to raise awareness of the collusion between CYFS and the Family Court to misdirect the public with their litany of blatant lies, have been ignored or branded as loonies for years. It’s not until an “innocent” member of Joe public becomes another victim of the state sponsored mill of deception that they finally realize we were indeed right after all. All too late; as it is for all the dead kids and for those about to die.

    Comment by Bruce S — Wed 11th May 2011 @ 4:39 pm

  2. Father reunited with his kidnapped son after EIGHTEEN YEARS

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 8th February 2014 @ 11:20 am

  3. Murray #2: Thanks for that story. Oh yes, aren’t the ‘authorities’ so forgiving when it comes to a female offender! They are quite happy to drop their charges against this child-abusing, law-flouting mother but they ‘would insist she have one sit down’ with Dad and the three children! Oh, so rough! Yeah, there we have it, how the US Femily Court treats women who breach its orders. Compare that to how it treats men who do the same thing!

    This woman is worse than a paedophile sex offender. She has deliberately deprived her children of their father’s love and input throughout their upbringing. Every single day she did that she was abusing them. Their emotional scars will never heal, their developmental losses will never be made up. Ah but the authorities don’t mind when the abuser is a woman.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 8th February 2014 @ 1:44 pm

  4. Dear Man X Norton, the USA does prosecute and jail women for child abductions. New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, Australia and UK would do well to see that prosecution and jail are workable deterrents, much more so than lifting non removal orders to allow mothers to travel, over the father’s objection!

    judges in the latter countries follow the Tender Years Doctrine so unthinkingly, so without judgement, that they refuse to consider that in almost all cases the father could care perfectly adequately for the children, if custody was reversed. (Of course, the concept of custody and non-custodial was removed when the Care of Children Act 2004 was passed by Parliament. Nonetheless, these now superceded concepts aid in understanding “judge’s” (apart from Peter Boshier) behaviour.!!!!!)

    USA experience and a tiny bit of experience with reversal of custody has shown that it is non-damaging to children and also that the impacts of imposing accountability on abductors, reduce the future hazards for the children and all other children too.

    Denial of accountability and punishment for mothers, greatly increases the ongoing abduction hazard for all children. The familycaught$ are acting and refusing to act, to greatly increase the hazards that NZ children are exposed to, to maximise their paramount financial interests.

    NZ children have a legal right to be protected from abduction, within NZ or international, given by Parliament. If fathers don’t fight vigorously to protect this right, then it slips silently and secretly, quickly away.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 8th February 2014 @ 3:05 pm

  5. ‘Stolen’ daughter returns home (after father abduction) NZ Herald

    8:46 AM Sunday May 17, 2015
    The joyful tears shed by a Texas woman and her long-missing daughter after they returned to Houston from Mexico on Saturday signalled the end of an eight-year cross-border custody case that had mistakenly sent another girl to the US against her will.

    Houston resident Dorotea Garcia and 13-year-old Alondra Diaz arrived at Bush Intercontinental Airport on Saturday morning after a judge in the Mexican state of Michoacan on Friday returned the girl to Garcia following DNA tests that showed they are mother and daughter.

    An emotional Garcia told reporters later Saturday that the return of her daughter was a beautiful moment.

    “What I had been wishing for so many years. Finally I can touch her. She is with me and I am grateful to God,” Garcia said in Spanish as she stood in front of her suburban Houston home and embraced her daughter.

    Diaz, a native-born US citizen, was taken to Mexico in 2007 by her father, Reynaldo Diaz, without her mother’s consent after the couple divorced. Alondra Diaz’s whereabouts hadn’t been known until recently.
    Diaz, who would ask her father where her mother was, said she was grateful that her mother didn’t stop looking for her.

    “It’s wonderful that a mother would do so much,” she said in Spanish.


    The media spotlight prompted Reynaldo Diaz to deliver the real Alondra Diaz to family members who then presented her to authorities, saying she was prepared to go live with her mother. The judge waited for DNA confirmation in Alondra Diaz’s case.


    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 26th May 2015 @ 10:45 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