MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
15 Comments »
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.
Probably one of the most biased commentaries I ahve ever read! Am I surprised? Absolutely not. Such studies can draw whatever assumptions the researchers set out to achieve. Don’t waste your time reading it!
Comment by Non custodial Dad — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 11:10 am
Dear Non Custodial Dad, you discourage men and women from reading these papers, written by 3 women, funded by University of Auckland ie taxpayers. (This leaves them as a form of beneficiary…)
If men fail to understand the issues raised by these 3 women and fail to answer them in public, then the familycaught$ will become even more dangerous for fathers and children.
If we want sensible outcomes, then we have to fight for “rights” and even for natural justice.
Now, while the National Government has its mind on familycaught$, is the very time that we should be raising these issues in the public debate and making sure that fathers are heard, alongside mothers too.
Your advice would leave fathers and children seriously and more seriously disadvantaged in the future. The quality of our children’s upbringing is worth pushing for.
Lets aim for a practical and sensible public debate and fair outcomes being forced onto familycaught$.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 12:15 pm
Murry, I agree – it was my first reaction as I started to read this heavily slanted article – to ignore it, as more of the same old diatribe rolled out by women.
There is a desperate need to publicly identify the serious imbalances in the current systems and the serious disconnect between the two – family court and child support. IN FACT ITS TIME SOME POLITICIANS WERE EXPOSED IF THEY CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CURRENT DISCRIMINATORY PROCESSES. – IE…. they need to be put on the spot with direct questions about this issue to see where they stand.
My experience has demonstrated there is NO consideration or connection between child support enforcement and family court financial settlements and any positive actions a father has taken, and neither is there any consideration taken by child support review people, as to the problems a mother has created in deliberately preventing that father from having peaceful, quality, uninterrupted time with his kids, and the costs he has endured just trying to get that.
Ie if you as a mother deliberately make a father pay $$$$ dearly in court to see his kids, or behave badly, then dont expect much in the way of child support in the future. Do we see this approach – no we do not.!!!!!
It is this deliberate prevention by mothers in allowing fathers to see their children, and the continued bad behavior of rotten mothers – alienating fathers at every turn which is the primary cause of most conflict . I have been down every path the system offered when this has happened to me, and I never once got any assistance – NO CYFS, NO POLICE and NO COURT help at any turn, doing the right thing – so I have asked myself many times , where and how do fathers react when they also come up against a brick wall with NO HELP At all from the very services we all expect to go to in times of trouble? We know how they react. They have little or no other choice. And this is a fact – my circumstances can offer direct proof of lack of help given to dads in distress. _ NIL. Zero.
While we have a no fault divorce process, the door is certainly wide open currently allowing every disgruntled mother, and every female child support review person – every opportunity to get back at the fathers and men using the children and heavy handed support payment decisions – Every option a mother wants to use to be the bitch she wants to be, is presently allowed – with no consequence in NZ family court if she does – and she will of course do so, because its open season, get back time on fathers, dads and men.
Add to this the governments and legal professions refusal to deal with these issues at any level ( together with the huge discrimination in every processes, and the active attempts to label all men as violent, and aggressive at separation – even when there is no evidence to suggest he was ever like that when the parents were together) and you can see why many men, fathers are lead down a path where the ONLY option is to get angry and act aggressively – there is no other option left. And NO person would react otherwise in the circumstances.
I have seen this first hand – having done everything the family court system asked of me and my new family – we have spent a fortune, and have seen absolutely nothing positive come from anything the system does – or more importantly – does NOT DO for fathers and good dads.
So if a person like me, who had the financial means to do all the system asked of him, a person of calm non violent character with no history of violence, mental issues, alcoholism, or abuse of any kind – cannot get a positive result, cannot get peaceful quality time with this child, and some active assistance from the current system to enforce that, then how can any father with less resources of a few character flaws, ever succeed of walk away with a positive result – they cannot and they never will. In fact they will take the ONLY option left open to them, and that is to react, get very angry and to react violently.
Until the system deals wit the deliberate use of children to leverage Child Support payments, and the deliberate with holding of access to children to leverage Family court financial settlements, and not until they actively put in place penalties for the bad behaviour of mothers who deliberately alienate children with serious consequences if they do, and the government actively removes all of the currently discriminatory processes which men have to endure, only then will you see a reduction in mens reactions to the currently very biased and unfair system.
Hornet
Comment by hornet — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 1:23 pm
Yes Hornet,
You’ve just described very well what I discovered 25 years ago.
So the system you speak of has been rotten a long time too.
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 1:48 pm
Here’s the first line from the ‘research’ which in blatant misandric (male hating) fashion characterizes men as violent right from the title itself – HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM
“in this article, we investigate the state’s role in the reproduction of relations of male
dominance between separated parents through custody law”.
Nowhere in their ‘research’ do they ask any men their experience of family law in NZ.
These hateful ideologues are in cloud cuckoo land.
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 1:55 pm
Absolutely agree Murray. Just looking at the full title
The twisted sisters are at it again. Supposedly a document based on scientific analysis it starts out to demonise men right from the beginning in the title. The title suggests…
As you point out Non custodial Dad, the study is a means to an end. The 21 subjects interviewed – (yes that is 21) – for the study came from advertisements in free local papers and “snowballing” friends that they told and joined the study group although it is unclear how many of the subjects actually responded to the advertisement.
But what is the means to an end, what’s between the lines here.
Here is just one very important point to illustrate the benefit of reading this rubbish.
Page 242
It is the joint parenting contract that has become “indelible” rather than the marriage contract.
Here we are seeing a redefining of marriage and a separation of marriage and (not reproduction) but responsibility for children in the form of a contract. This is where you could start writing a book in terms of what is in this “contact” and what equity you have in said contract.
Come down to page 246,
Several women in OUR study petitioned the family court, but did so largely (plenty of fuzzy logic here) as a tactic of resistance to men’s dominating power. Faced with fathers who were unsafe or who were pushing for increased contact in situations where this undermined THEIR child’s best interests, mothers in OUR study turned to the courts in an attempt to limit the capacity of the fathers concerned to reshape the conditions under which they mothered and their children were parented.
What is being illustrated here is a shift from the Best Interests of the Child principle being moved from a legal justification for a decision of the court to position of ownership within the parenting contract.
What is clearly illustrated (by these so called academics taking 21 vulnerable families as justification) is the intent to redefine the concepts of our social structure, the law relating to marriage and reproduction and even the application of civil law as we are presently familiar with it. It won’t be decided by democracy, parliament or through legislation but by a few twisted minds in a secret court.
Comment by Down Under — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 3:00 pm
There is little doubt in my mind that this is a reaction from the “twisted sisters” (Love that term!) to an increasing amount of of self representation in the family court going against them. This is one of the good points in the family court reforms, It keeps lawyers out of the family court. I ponder whether it is a reaction to respondents of protection orders defending these orders and having them struck down.
For once I am looking forward to Nigel Latta tomorrow night (8:30 TV1).
Comment by Gwahir — Sun 23rd September 2012 @ 3:21 pm
So Sceptic – so 25 years later – why are fathers, dads, good men still being persecuted and treated this way??? Something is seriously wrong here – my firm belief from this experience – is most dads, dont have the time, or the money, to challenge the allegations, or dispute the injustices – so they stick like mud forever – and so in most cases its easier to roll over and walk away from it all.
Add to that the lawyers for child – who do nothing more than sit on the fence and as they have told me directly – are only there to ensure process is carried out correctly – while actively watching there clients be harmed – and fathers are in a perpetual no win situation – each new Father – yes we are victims here – will then line up in the current system for the same unjust treatment.
Only when fathers who have been through this crap – can band together and take the system to court charging it with actively assisting child abuse and being deliberately discriminatory towards fathers – will we see a positive change.
At the moment the bleeding hearts get all the attention – while NO ONE addresses the cause of the conflict. It would be interesting to see – the drop off in domestic violence if the state actually put in place penalties and consequences if a mother actively stopped a child from seeing the father, using them to leverage property and every other issues concerning the childs life. Id put money on it you would see an immediate decline.
Ive said it before on this board, – but my daughter has two family court psychological reports detailing the harm – severe psychological stress she has suffered at the hands of the mother – witnessed by and addressed directly with the lawyer for child by me – asking them to intervene and help protect their client – and they did NOTHING – stating – Im only here to ensure process is carried out – and her in lies the big problem I have with any person charged with having responsibility in the family court – surely their first duty should be to protect the child – sadly NOT it seems.
The family court has done nothing to date, in fact what was an impartial independent report requested by the family court – (that I had to initiate because lawyer for child refused to do his job as per justice department guidelines which state he was supposed to action the request) And the mother who was causing the concerns fought the request tooth and nail, because her and her maggot lawyer knew the what the outcome would be – identifying her bad behaviour.
NO once I got these reports – and for the first time in a long time, finally thought I had something positive from the family court system.
NO we were kicked into touch again when I find out that this invasive, independent report – which included home visit observations of my life and personal interviews of me and my wife and child – and the child in question and the ex – is all up for contest and challenge by the party identified as causing the harm – I could not believe it.
Whats the fkn point of having an independent report if its up for challenge by the perpetrator of all the concerns.
Thats what a disgrace the system currently is. If I had been identified as the person harming the kid, I wonder how quickly the system would have taken to action penalties against me as the father.??????
Hornet.
Comment by hornet — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 12:00 pm
These articles are focused on discrediting the one thing our opposition fears the most – equal parents and shared parenting. They have much to fear, shared parenting has been introduced in Australia and is close in UK. Our opposition is fighting for their lives. Their emotive, one sided (tax payer funded) articles are proof of this.
But if we are not politically effective they can still succeed.
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 1:21 pm
Well said. Lawyer fro child interviewed my children and the children aired their view to her. The view was that they wanted more contact with me but that was on the proviso that it only included one more night in my care. It may be a coincidence but that still keeps my contact time with them under the threshold of shared care. There is NOT an even playing field. I have deliberately kept all access and custody issues out of the children’s domain as i do not want them to be concerned about the machinations occuring behind the scenes. rightly or wrongly i have determined that this is acting in their intrests. Unfortunately this disadvantages me in that i am not in the cildren’s ear telling them all about the “boogey man”. I concur with hornet’s previous thinking. The only way this can be changed is enormous political or legal pressure on government and i fear that we are too fragmented as a group to make that happen. I welcome any thoughts other posters have-guess i am feeling beaten down.
Comment by Shafted — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 1:23 pm
Shafted – for what its worth – My wife and I made a pact to never burden the child with ADULT issues – and we never have – sadly as you have indicated – that has not been the case with the mother – detailing all and everything to the child – which painted me as a bad father.
I too had direct requests by daughter for more time – but we were stone walled because it would have taken our total time over the CHILD SUPPORT threshold . This position was defended like her life depended on it, and was ably support by lawyer for child who refused point blank to allow additional time. We were only asking for an additional night per week.
And here’s the kicker – there was NO reason why we should not have been granted additional time – I was home working with my wife and we were available to have the child more often, we even went to the extreme measures of purchasing a home beside the childs school so we could be nearer to her – but we were REFUSED point blank any more time, other than two nights per week.
I did not care about the child support payment requirement – even offering to keep paying the maximums so long as I could have more time – and even with that on the table we were refused.
I asked lawyer for child directly and in person visiting her office – if she would support such a request if I went to court and she said she would not. No reasoning, just simply she would not support it. We were dismayed. There was absolutely NO REASON we should not have been given more time if NOT EQUAL TIME.
My new wife and I were the stable relationship, we were the ones who offered the child a solid home, with balance and everything else which one would determine to be beneficial to the child – and the system refused us that time – time we will never get back.
So we sold the home and retrenched because it was clear there was no point making such a huge move if the system refused us additional time. And it did. Totally unjustified.
So even with a psychological report detailing what my wife and I were like as people and as parents – with NO CRITICISM of us whatsoever – but detailing the SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM The mother had caused the kid – we were refused.
Not that people is one fkd up system which needs redressing, and any politician who defends this system in its current form, needs to be sent packing – but the evidence and the numbers need to be massed together into a SINGLE COMPLAINT with multiple fathers so effected – even historical evidence.
And lets not forget there are mothers married to good fathers who have been similarly exposed to this sham system – mothers who have married effected fathers who will happily stand up and detail what they think as well. Good mothers who are horrified that some women get away with the way they behave – and the system supports them. I spoke with one just recently who has told be she would support the cause.
That is what you are up against at every turn.
Comment by hornet — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 2:43 pm
Hornet,
Thanks for your comments. Yes. It is those of us who will not allow the children to be the meat in the sandwich in some macabre battle that are the losers. I have always put the childrens’ well being before mine yet am disadvantaged as a result of that. When i spoke to lawyer for child (a solid 5 minutes) i advised her of the children’s desires and mother’s brain washing activities. The latter was not acknowledged in any way shape or form and it was like i did not even exist. Mum took the children to see lawyer for child, MUM hosted her in the home, yet i got the 5 minute phone call.
Go figure
Comment by Shafted — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 4:13 pm
The problem with Child Support is the system and the interpretation of the Child Support Act. I agree with alot of the comments from Non Custodial parents that the system gives woman far too much power to manipulate access to children. Why is a Dad a ‘bad Dad’ when they are divorced or separated but whilst still in the relationship it was not an issue?
I would like to share my experience with child support and CSA. I am a female that battled CSA for basic support, we are talking $10 per month for my daughter. I never denied access, in fact encouraged it, always encouraged my daughter to make an effort for Fathers Day, Christmas and Birthday presents. As far as I was concerned, the breakdown of our relationship was not a breakdown in there relationship. He chose not to be a present parent or father and was absent for most of her life. I rang CSA on numerous occasions to follow up child support as periods of up to 18 months would pass with no payments. I was told ‘we have no record of his current address’, ‘he has not advised his current employer’. I would once again provide these details for their records. I got to the stage when I was so over CSA that I agreed to a voluntary agreement with my ex. He had a liability of $10k with CSA which I agreed to uplift as I believed at the time we would be better off without CSA and he gave me his word that he would met his obligations to his daughter. I cancelled my child support application with CSA and discovered a week later that $800 had been uplifted from his account and was with CSA for processing to my account. The $800 was sent back to him, our voluntary agreement lasted 2 weeks in which time he reneged on our agreement. I had no re-course for the $800 as I had cancelled the support, the $10k was wiped and had never received regular payments through the system as CSA were not active in pursuing my ex. I came to the stage when enough was enough and told my ex, we were done, wanted no contact from him ever again and no longer went out of my way to actively encourage my daughter to have a relationship with him.
So I read all these comments from you guys and get where you are coming from and agree that women wield power with children which is wrong and how helpless and impossible the system makes your situation. Joint custody and access should automatically be granted to both parents and application made to revoke this through the courts with proof that contact is detrimental to the safety and well being of the child.
So my situation as a female mirrors yours albeit it from a different view point.
FOOTNOTE:
My daughter is now 22 years old and her father has been in contact with her and called me recently to tell me what a lovely girl she was. I just thought ‘what a d***head’… seriously’!
Comment by bunny — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 5:23 pm
Hi bunny,
The difficulty with Child Support here in NZ is that you need to be quite a legal beagle to work with the CS Act. There are ways to forgive liability and still have recourse to it back again via the Family Court but you have to do it correctly.
Unfortunately what you say about your ex is totally revealed in your “dickhead” comment. What a bunny.
Attitudes like this make difficulties for children. We all have only one mum and one dad. Neither are dickheads, both are important in children’s lives. The best parent after separation is almost always BOTH parents!!
I think it is great your daughter’s father appreciates her for the young woman she is. Treasure that no matter what has gone on before.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 10:54 pm
Bunny (#13): Sorry to hear about your situation. It sounds like you tried hard to promote the relationship between your daughter and her father, and if he made and immediately reneged on a voluntary agreement with you after you helped him wipe CS penatlties etc, then I support your decision to discontinue contact with him. From your description, you then stopped activley encouraging your daughter’s relationship with him but you didn’t prevent her from participating in any relationship that may have been available, and I support that position.
I would however make a couple of points. You stated that the CS amount you sought was $10 per month, but that he had a ‘liability’ of $10K for CS. That would be 83 years’ worth. Even if penalties made up a large proportion of that amount, it still doesn’t add up. It sounds like the IRD were pursuing your child’s father for much larger amounts, and in that case I’m more understanding that he made himself scarce and tried to avoid it. The amount that the CSA charges non-custodial parents (NCPs) (read: mainly fathers) is out of proportion to (half the) reasonable costs for raising children. If the Act were more reasonable, for example took into account the NCP’s expenditure in seeing children and during the time he looks after them, then a lot fewer NCPs would try to hide from it. From your description it seems that it may have made little difference to your ex who seemed to have little motivation to participate in his daughter’s life. However, it’s possible that in his case, as in many others, the unreasonable so-called ‘child support’ amount extorted by the IRD was a major factor in damaging the contact and relationship between him and his daughter. In this way, like other aspects of family law (e.g. the DVA), our so-called ‘child support’ regime is a child-abusing regime.
Secondly, parents agree to have children on the basis of a long-term contract, either formal through marriage or informal through verbal agreement, to raise the children as a family. If one parent then abandons that contract by breaking up the family unit it should not be assumed that the other parent is obliged to continue to provide a role related to that contract on some basis that he never agreed to, e.g. as a lesser, somewhat token parent every 2nd weekend, as a convenient money machine, as an ongoing contributor to the other partner’s lifestyle through the so-called ‘child support’ rort, or as a reimburser to the government for its family-wrecking DPB system. Although we are fed a lot of manipulative slogans about needing to remain obliged to our children regardless of what we agreed to when producing them, there is justification I think for NCPs simply to walk away from roles imposed upon them without their agreement. If children’s needs and rights are seen to provide a moral imperative for abandoned partners to maintain their contribution, then what happened to any moral imperative to protect children’s family units in the first place? Our current system encourages fathers to be easily abandoned in favour of the variable, self-serving wishes of mothers, then conveniently exploits fathers’ strong instincts to love and protect their children. The longer men roll over and cooperate with this, the more it will happen.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 29th September 2012 @ 10:46 am