Punishment or Child Protection?
Severe sanctions considered for abusive parents
NewstalkZB | 12:39pm Wed 06 Jun 2012
Forced sterilisation is off the table, but the Government is considering severe sanctions for people who have babies after committing serious crimes such as murder or abuse of children.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has been forced to defend herself after last week appearing to tell a media outlet Cabinet was considering sterilisation of women in such situations.
Today she says that’s not the case, but says as part of a White Paper on vulnerable children, all other options are being considered.
“Perhaps there are measures like saying quite clearly, if you do have future children, you will not be in a position where you are able to raise them on your own, or there could be a court sanction, for example, or a legislative change that means they cannot live or work within that,” she says.
Paula Bennett is stressing that no decisions have yet been made.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I apologise for the challenging nature of this material.
Our society must face up to all of the choices available and at times this may be very uncomfortable.
I seem to recall that compulsory sterilisation cases had previously been published on the familycaught$ website.
I looked again after reading of Paula Bennett’s comments, but the judgements seem to have been removed. Maybe it was just because I looked again, during dinner time?
Anyway, just to give you the essence of the situation, I put below a shortened extract, in case you didn’t see it on familycaught$ website a few years ago.
Many young people forget that simply partaking of a few glasses of wine ($20), while unknowingly being pregnant, might end up being child abuse. This may have long term costs for Government, in the $many hundreds of thousands, to say nothing of the human suffering and wasted opportunities. Although there is still debate about how much alcohol consumption is needed to damage a foetus, it is generally accepted that the only safe (for the foetus) consumption while pregnant is none at all, especially during the first 3 months.
Wikipedia Foetal Alcohol Syndrome
It appears to me that calling the sterilisation child protection, rather than punishment, might alter the impression conveyed?
______________________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE FAMILY COURT FAM-2002-054-000818
AT PALMERSTON NORTH
BETWEEN B
Applicant
AND A
Subject Person
Hearing: 12 March 2004
Appearances: C na Nagara for Applicant
R Walker – Counsel to Assist
M Wall for Subject Person
Judgment: 15 March 2004
RESERVED JUDGEMENT OF JUDGE G A FRASER
Application:
[1] A is a 29 year old single woman who is 12 weeks pregnant. Her father Mr B
is A’s Welfare Guardian under the Protection Personal & Property Act 1988 (‘the
Act’). He was appointed Welfare Guardian on 28 May 2003.
[2] B has sought directions from the Court pursuant to s 18(6) of the Act, for the
sterilisation of A and the aborting of the 12 week old unborn child.
[3] A suffers from an disorder called Trisomy 8. Trisomy 8 is an unbalanced
chromosome or rearrangement resulting in a ‘derivative chromosome 1’ in which
there is a very small amount of chromosome 1 material missing from the long arm of
chromosome 8. This is a rare congenital disorder with few previous recordings. It’s
common clinical features include infants born at term with early feeding difficulties
and jaundice, mild mental retardation, delayed development, hypertelorism, broad
nasal bridge, prominent filtren, thin downturned upper lip, mild micrognathia and
retrognathia, low set ears, short little finger, camptodactyly, clinodactyly and
bermatoglyphic abnormalities. In A’s case it has resulted in learning difficulties and
some subtle differences from normal.
[20] He also indicates the risk of the unborn child having inherited the genetic
disorder that A’s has. He maintains that if A’s disorder creates special needs for her
and the baby inherited the same disorder then A would have a much more
demanding baby, needing specialist assistance. He said A could not look after a
normal baby and the demands of a child with this disorder would make it literally
impossible for her to care for the child. He also expressed concerns that A was in
complete denial in relation to her disability and limitations and that she would not
cooperate with agencies or people support. He saw no future for the child of a
mother with her social and intellectual deficits.
[21] B acknowledged that sterilisation was an extreme intervention but considered
this to be a necessary one off intervention that would avoid the situation arising
again. He also maintained that sterilisation would avoid the difficulties that A has
had managing her menstrual periods.
[22] A gave evidence to the Court. She had also filed a brief affidavit. In her
affidavit she acknowledged her pregnancy and maintained it was a dream come true.
She said that she wanted to have a baby for some time because she loved children
and that she had looked after children and had worked in childcare. She said that she
had worked in three or four childcare centres and had looked after babies at Kohanga
Reo.
[23] She said she wished to have more children with the father of this child.
Mental State Examination:
[26] He referred to A’s long term memory being very poor and fragmented. He
also referred to her short term memory as being very poor and that it was difficult for
A to focus her attention during the interview. He said that her thought process was
clear and coherent and she did not have any formal thought disorder. He reported:
‘She is thinking at a very concrete level and her abstract thinking is very
poor. She was very short tempered and at times irritable, and she found it
very hard to cope with the stress of the assessment’.
‘”¦She cannot reason rationally. She did not display any psychotic
symptoms during the interview’.
Opinion:
[27] Doctor D described her as follows:
‘Her abstract thinking is poorly developed and as a result most of her
thinking is at a concrete level. She finds it really hard to analyse the
situation and look at likely alternatives, and then base her decision on those
observations looking at consequences of the actions. She does not have that
abstract level of thinking which is important for rational manipulation of
information to reach a decision.
“¦It is also very difficult for her to understand the consequences of her
actions and her decisions; most of her decisions may not be based on rational
reasoning. She has been involved in sexual relationships and though she has
been informed of the high chances of getting Trisomy 8 children, she still is
not willing to use any contraception.
A has no concept of money either and she does not have the ability to
manage her financial affairs. She cannot do simple calculations and relies
totally on other people. She in this state is highly vulnerable to financial
abuse by others.
It is my opinion that A totally lacks capacity to manage her own financial
affairs, and if she is left on her own she will have no money to look after
herself.
In my opinion A partially lacks the capacity to make and communicate
decisions regarding her personal care. She can make fairly simple decisions
like eating when she is hungry, but she does not have the ability to make any
decisions which require abstract thinking. She will find it extremely difficult
to plan her personal life by looking at different options available to her and
making a choice based on rational grounds. She therefore will benefit from
a welfare guardian’.
[32] In conclusion his opinion was as follows:
‘Because of her intellectual disability she functions at a very concrete level
and she finds it very hard to analyse and look at different options available
and look at benefits or otherwise of different options and reach a rational
conclusion. She does not have abstract level of thinking needed to make a
rational decision. She gets stuck with whatever comes in her mind and she
wants that without thinking of any consequences for that decision. As a
result she may end up with decisions that are not based on logic and
rationale.
“¦ I believe A totally lacks the capacity to properly look after herself. She
cannot make rational decisions for anything more complex than basic
survival decisions. This has been detailed in my previous report with respect
to PPPR.
A has stopped using cannabis and has stopped drinking alcohol “¦”¦.
“¦ She however has no concept danger and has very poor abstract thinking.
That does make her quite unpredictable. With regard to her ability to
progress through her pregnancy, it is my opinion that given a very supportive
environment from people involved in her care, I would not see any major
problems in her psychological ability to progress through her pregnancy.
However, if she is not provided with that supportive environment she has
very low frustration tolerance and she can become very angry, irritable and
can make decisions which could make herself and the unborn baby at risk.
This could be sheer carelessness from her side and lack of appreciation and
danger and lack of proper judgment.
A in the past has found it extremely hard to look after herself. She has very
low frustration tolerance and minor things can irritate her and can make her
extremely angry. It is my opinion that A will not be able to look after her
baby at birth. She will find it extremely hard to cope with the demands of a
newborn baby puts on a mother. She could cope with seeing her child for a
short period of time but will not be able to cope with that child 24 hours a
day. That would in my opinion affect her mental health and that would put
the child also at risk of emotional abuse.
A does want to keep her baby and she wants to look after her baby after
birth. She believes that she has all the capabilities to do that. I believe it
will be extremely hard for the baby to be separated from her and she has
high chances of decompensation at that stage if the baby had to be removed
from her a birth. This will be a major stressor for her and she will find it
extremely hard to cope with.
If A goes for a termination of pregnancy it will a major stressor once again
and she will need a lot of support for some time after that. She will be prone
to angry outbursts. I however believe that the chances of her
decompensating with this will be a lot less than when her child is born and
then separated from her.
Apart from A’s ability to look after a normal child the matter would get
further complicated if the child is also born with disabilities. I have read the
report from the geneticist who has indicated that there is a high chance of A
having a baby with the same disorder. Of course if that happens then it will
be extremely difficult for A to look after a baby who also has special needs’.
The Law:
[36] The Court is grateful to My Brother Judge Inglis for the Decision In re H
[1993] NZFLR 225. In that Decision His Honour Judge Inglis reviewed the various
overseas authorities in relation to issues relevant to sterilisation and termination in
situations where the parties lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves.
[37] In the present case the Court is not required to make a decision concerning
capacity, given that that has been previously determined by His Honour Judge
Callinicos in his Decision of 28 May 2003.
[38] In re H, Judge Inglis proposed a three step procedure, summarised as follows:
1. Determine the least restrictive intervention possible in the life
of the disabled person having regard to the degree of disability
(s 8).
2. s 18(3), describes a prescription as to how the welfare guardian
is to exercise the powers conferred by the Court:
(3) In exercising those powers, the first and paramount
consideration shall be the promotion and protection of the
welfare and best interests of the person for whom the welfare
guardian is acting”¦
3. The welfare guardians decision should have the same affect as
it would have had if it had been made or done by the person for
whom the welfare guardian is acting and that person had had
full capacity to make or do it. (s 19(1)).
[39] In exercising the powers referred to in Step 3 there is a governance by steps 1
and 2.
[40] In re B (a minor) [1988] AC 199 (HL) the Court with respect to issues of
sterilisation was dealing with a party who had no capacity to understand how she
became pregnant, what was happening to her and her complete inability to parent her
unborn child.
[41] The Lord Chancellor at p 204 in that Decision said:
‘To talk of the ‘basic right’ to reproduce of an individual who is not capable
of knowing the casual connection between intercourse and childbirth, the
nature of pregnancy, what is involved in delivery, unable to form maternal
instincts or to care for a child appears to me wholly to part company with
reality’.
[42] The House of Lords referred to the need to sterilise as ‘extreme’, ‘a last
resort’ and ‘the grave affect on the quality of the minor’s life if pregnant’ and ‘an
unmitigated disaster’.
[43] Lord Oliver of Alymerton In re B (a Minor) (at p 212) added:
‘”¦ this case is not about sterilisation for social purposes; it is not about
eugenics, it is not about the convenience of those whose task it is to care for
the ward or the anxieties of their families; and it involves no general
principle of public policy. It is about what is in the best interests of this
unfortunate young woman and how best she can be given the protection
which is essential to her future wellbeing so that she may lead as full a life as
her intellectual capacity allows. That is and must be the paramount
consideration’.
The Law and the Facts/Conclusion:
Abortion:
[52] In this case it is clear that A is suffering from intellectual disability.
[53] Doctor D has concluded that A totally lacks the capacity to properly look
after herself. She cannot make rational decisions for anything more complex than
basic survival decisions.
[54] The psychiatric evidence demonstrates that A would not be able to cope with
a child 24 hours a day. It refers to the impact on her mental health and the risks of
emotional abuse to the child in the event that she had permanent care of the child.
[55] Clearly any termination of the child will be a major stress for A. The Court
in no way underplays the significance of that for her but that must be weighed
against the clear psychiatric evidence that any decompensation associated with
termination will be a lot less than if A carries the child to term and then the child is
separated from her.
Conclusion:
[77] In summary given that the same principles are to be applied with respect to
the making of personal orders under Section 10 the Court’s directions are now made
pursuant to Section 10 (1)(f).
[78] Medical procedures are sanctioned pursuant to Section 10(1)(f) for
sterilisation and termination of the unborn child and personal orders are made
accordingly.
[79] The order is not to be suspended pending the determination of an appeal. The
issue of time is critical with respect to termination and any delay would defeat the
effect of the decision made.
G A Fraser
FAMILY COURT JUDGE
Signed at …………… am on 16 March 2004
Solicitors:
Broadway Legal Chambers, PO Box 146, Palmerston North
Fitzherbert Rowe, Private Bag 11016, Palmerston North
Martin Wall, P O Box 12-048, Palmerston North
Babies are a powerful instrument of exploitation and abuse of men, and for that reason our feminist dictatorship will never sterilise women.
Similarly, our feminist ruling class and collaborators will never give women right to see own grandchildren, for the same reason. If she can see her grandchildren, then her son would not suffer so much after divorce.
The goal of feminism is punishment of men, not helping women. IZ
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 9:42 am
People can change! This is especially true when the environment changes. We DON’T need removal at birth. To gain a fuller understanding see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10734741 and By REBECCA PALMER – The Dominion Post | Monday, 02 March 2009
More new babies taken from mothers
Dozens of newborns are being taken from their mothers every year because of fears for their safety.
Child, Youth and Family took 66 at-risk babies less than a month old into its care last year and 15 of them were taken the day they were born.
In more than half of the cases, older brothers and sisters were already in care, figures provided to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act show.
The number of custody orders involving newborns has more than doubled in the past five years. In the 2003-04 year, 32 were taken into state care.
The practice is far from new, I only looked back as far as 2009.
The overall feeling I have gained is Paula Bennetts goal is Compulsory Sterilisation.
My concern an unborn baby is at its most vulnerable while in the womb. Not only from surrounding violence, Drugs, Alcohol, and even 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Surrounding physiological circumstances affect it.and even the mothers psychological state.
These babies, already damaged, are then passed on to unsuspecting foster parents.
It is for this reason I believe ANY mother can request non permanent contraception funded by WINZ. This compromise allows the woman should her circumstances change to again bear children.
Comment by Gwaihir — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 11:10 am
compulsory sterilisation is a good idea but what about the ones that get preggy just to get the dpb..need to sort them out too
Comment by Ford — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 11:59 am
According to the Hon Ms Bennett, 148 babies in NZ were removed from their mothers at birth in the last year.
While in some of these cases we might support the action because (e.g.) the mother is severely intellectually disabled, maintains a raging addiction that would almost certainly see her soon neglecting or harming the baby, or has repeatedly harmed or allowed harm to occur to previous children perhaps due to mental or personality disorder. However, in my experience many cases are highly questionable. Often it appears that the inevitable harm caused by ripping a neonate away from its biological mother will be far out of proportion to a small risk that the mother will harm that baby. For example, I recall a case in which a child (who had been well cared for by its mother) was killed by a male partner of the mother. The mother discontinued the relationship after the child’s death and the man was duly convicted. The mother’s next baby was seized at birth on the claim that the mother had been unable to protect the earlier child. In my opinion it was unreasonable to assess this woman at such a risk as would justify this state violence. I suspect she displeased CYFS or police by initially failing to believe their accusations against her partner or perhaps failing to cooperate with their enquiries. The subsequent baby abduction seemed more to be a punishment against her than any risk prevention measure.
Bennett’s plan appeared to be motivated by a wish to punish ‘abusers’ rather than to help children. I haven’t heard her acknowledge the harm caused by ripping babies from their mothers, or the need to balance this harm against any risk if babies stay with mothers. Seizing babies at birth is often a lazy response when in many cases it would be more humane and helpful for the child if the state provided close support and supervision to help the biological parents to succeed. Seizing babies often seems to be based mainly on CYFS’ wish to protect itself from potential criticism, and at times it seems to be based heavily on individual social workers’ dislike for particular parents who may have stood up them rather than on any good risk assessment.
The manner in which baby abductions occur is ugly. CYFS don’t want to give any warning that might stimulate the parent(s) to hide away when they give birth, so no opportunity is given for the parent(s) to enter into any agreement that might provide safety. It’s dishonest, cloak-and-dagger stuff. The parent(s) go into labour and suddenly aggressive ‘social workers’ stride in and seize the new baby, supported by police and showing little or no compassion or support. The betrayal, grief and anger typically experienced by the parent(s) will often end up harming others or costing society when the parent(s) eventually react with antisocial or self-destructive responses.
CYFS interventions often include threats to remove children from a mother unless she abandons all relationship with the child’s father or another male partner whom CYFS don’t like. Increases in this sort of state bullying will almost certainly result from, and will probably be the main effect of, Bennett’s current plan. Such state violence will swell the huge ranks of NZ’s STOLEN GENERATION, children forcibly separated from their fathers and children having their family units stolen from them under misguided feminist law.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 1:13 pm
“Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says the Government could go further than stopping abusive parents from having more babies, by banning abusive men from living or working with children.”
Ms Bennett says the proposal is being discussed as part of the Government’s white paper on vulnerable children that is still being developed.
Cabinet is also considering allowing judges to direct parents convicted for the murder of a child, or serious child abuse, not to have any more children, and if they do, they will be removed at birth.
Comment by Vman — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 10:35 pm
Well put Hans, and the babies removed at birth are in general more suitable for the CYF operated defacto adoption scheme aka as Home for life!
Comment by Gwaihir — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 10:42 pm
Dear Hans, you highlight NZ’s stolen generations and the manner of CYFs interactions with parents, which breeds distrust on a large scale. Who would want to trust or work with any party (CYFs or familycaught$) who deals with people in this manner? As you mentioned, I too have also had several people describe to me bullying and devious manipulation by outright lies by CYFs. (My ex-wife is a social worker and this was my greatest difficulty with her. I came to the conclusion that CYFs has a culture of manipulation and lying.)
Dear Ivan, it isn’t possible to gauge the numbers of forced sterilisations per year, from published judgements. I would make a very rough guess of 50 – 100 per year. If this was to be seen as punishment, then it would seem to be punishing women generally much more than men? The present NZ Government isn’t considering forced sterilisations as a new policy, it has been done for decades, I don’t know how many.
Dear Gwaihir, in general where there is life, there is hope and people can be eventually be taught any skill. Unfortunately, in the case of parents who injure or kill their own children, we are talking of a very very small group of parents, many of whom cannot in practice be helped sufficiently so that children could be safely left in their care.
We are not discussing the broad group of parents, but the one in 100,000 at the end of the spectrum, with the lowest level of parenting skill, possibly a moderate level of psychosis and poor impulse control. Children left in their care will be unsatisfied with their responding and in the child’s frustration, they will become demanding. This is likely to antagonise the parent and on odd occasion, the parent may lash out in their frustration. Small children are easily killed in this type of situation. I am not wanting to put down these parents. When you hear their stories and their experiences, it is little wonder that there are difficulties. They are not responsible for the experiences of their childhood. It is easy to say “snap out of it”, but the experiences of neglect go much deeper and affect the way we are put together as a person. As a society, we should protect their children from incompetent parents.
Each year in NZ, about 30 mothers and 20 fathers will kill a child.
Although it is possible to observe parenting interactions and skills with children, very low probability occurrences, such as extreme violent responses are almost impossible to measure in a short time observation. Even observing for a month day and night continuously could fail to pickup a hint of violence. The only method which can properly measure these risks, is by carefully looking at the complete record of a person’s behaviour.
You have seen lots of banks in your lifetime. You have heard about bank robberies, but have you ever seen one? Maybe you have seen a bank that was once robbed, but you still haven’t actually seen a bank robbery. Child murders and murderers are like this. Nonetheless, bank robberies occur often enough to be a problem. You could sit outside a bank for a year, waiting to see a robbery and likely still never see a robbery (it would be quicker to do the robbery yourself!).
If the organisation (eg CYFs) isn’t very good at keeping records and CYFs has developed this reputation, then they cannot measure the risk of violence and will usually underestimate the risk.
If good quality complete records are not held, for example due to the person moving around widely and frequently so that pieces of their files are in many different Government offices, through several countries, then it is very easy to dangerously underestimate these hazardous parents. This is one of the reasons that dangerous people tend to be very mobile.
This then results in CYFs tending to find everyone as being dangerous (except themselves of course!). This blind spot about their own degree of danger, results in them being completely unable to reduce the degree of danger to children in their care!!! This is why every year, about 5 child deaths are reported in CYFs care and a further similar number aren’t reported either. Generally, children are at more hazard of unnatural death in CYFs care, than with their own parents.
If we hope to be able to tell who might be dangerous and who can be relied upon to safely care for children, then we either need access to the complete files (which even CYFs cannot do), or need to observe this parent for a very long time, in a wide range of situations, some of them challenging.
If we don’t go to this level of trouble, then neither will we be able to tell which parent is safe with children and which ones have a risk of injuring or killing. It is very easy for us to end up advocating for a parent, who might be moderately dangerous.
Although it is relatively easy to teach any skill, it is much more difficult and time consuming to defuse violent people’s triggers, so that they can be relied upon to respond in nonviolent ways to frustrations, aggravations and deprivations. Unfortunately, some unskilled parents don’t have good work skills and are likely to be frustrated by their inability to obtain material possessions, throughout their lives. These ongoing frustrations leave them as always having a moderate risk of violence to their children, that is extremely difficult to reduce.
I have known some social workers who were sensitive and very astute. Unfortunately, many of them are what you get when CYFs offers relatively uncompetitive wages. It is little wonder that these social workers are almost completely ineffective at detecting dangerous parents. When incompetent people are trying to measure hazard, their failures lead them to measuring everyone but themselves as being dangerous. Many give the impression of having had neglected childhoods themselves, which might explain their lack of sensitivity and willingness to bully?
As a country, we should be putting skilled people into CYFs, so that they can competently do the job expected of them.
This should go for parents too!
As a country, we should be putting skilled people into being parents, so that they can competently do the job expected of them. We shouldn’t put people in out of their depth.
The converse, is we should be taking children away from parents who have a level of hazard that is too great, so that all parents are working within their competent level of skills.
A hundred years ago, we could live with a hundred children a year dead at the hands of their parents. Mostly, they were smothered to death with blankets by their mothers and the children’s dead bodies did not offend our sensibilities. Now we expect and hope to protect children better.
Accordingly we now expect a higher level of skill and restraint from children’s parents, but we don’t actually test for parenting skills, or for triggers to violence????? Of course not, we don’t take it seriously. We test for driving skills instead! Why then do we jail parents who kill their children? Why do we test airline pilots and not parents? If we had a rule that after a plane crash, we would quietly bury all the deceased at the crash site, then we wouldn’t need to test airline pilots!
I have only knowingly met one child manslaughterer. She was not bright and her legal aid legal worker persuaded her to plead guilty. I don’t know any of the details, but I was left with a nagging doubt that she was not competently defended. She was blissfully unaware of this. Her legal worker was less competent than she was as a mother. Should we protect the public from incompetent legal-workers? Of course not, they knead the dough! We just don’t take it seriously, he is probably a “judge” now anyway.
If CYFs ever did make a mistake, there is familycaught$ as cheque$ and bank balance$, to sort out any remaining problem$.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 7th June 2012 @ 10:44 pm
Put simply- the Government is not the solution- it is the problem.
Government policies largely created the problem of child abuse (by encouraging and often mandating)child raising in unfavourable circumstances.
Government threats of intervention will further aggravate existing problems.
A plausible policy would be for people to sieze back the power and insist on raising children in loving two parent families- (note I did not say that “The government should…”)
I see evidence that this is happening-
1
Comment by John Brett — Fri 8th June 2012 @ 8:48 am
I see evidence that this is happening:
1 Young women are clear that they do not associate with the old man-hating feminism.
2 Young men are avoiding entering marriage and parenting relationships with uncommitted women (see the popularity of respectable brothels!!)
3 Women are becoming aare that they actually need to attract men into marriage
4 Less “Men jokes on the Internet
5 More media attention to the issues of ‘Man Draught’ birth rate decline, etc
Or maybe Iam just seeing what I want to see
Comment by John Brett — Fri 8th June 2012 @ 8:53 am
#5..i can already see alot of manipulating bitches taking advantage of that if it comes into law..i can see them rubbing their hands together in anticipation of some pathetic idea of a victory over their male partner
Comment by Ford — Fri 8th June 2012 @ 9:11 am
#5..shouldnt that be ‘Social Development for Women Minister Paula Bennett’…she’ll stop women having more babies by banning men from womens lives then give the poor victims a special benefit
Comment by Ford — Fri 8th June 2012 @ 11:01 am
My example of baby manslaughter was only used because it was recent! I now have over 300 records in Violent females – and these are only the ones that got caught!
I currently am amassing names, branches, etc of Social workers. The very way I obtain my sample leads me to believe it is only of front line staff. Disappointingly over 60% of that list are not registered. We can reasonably extrapolate Unqualified and unsupervised! I am also attempting to gain names of Foster Parents. Not enough information YET to see amy trends!
It is going to be published data which will upset CYF and the Fems.
Feel free to post any data to me, full confidentiality is assured.
Comment by Gwaihir — Fri 8th June 2012 @ 3:39 pm
When a woman has a child and prevents that child from growing up in a family with both parents, or when she chooses to have a child with a loser who will have little part in that child’s life, she is severely abusing that child. Three quarters of children born in NZ to women under 25 years old are Samoan. Young couples who would make the best parents are burdened with mortgages and excessive tax while too many children are born to women who are living from welfare. In Europe and the West the effects of WW1, the 1918 H1N1 pandenic that targeted and killed 40-50 million people aged 22-40 years old, WW2, the execution of 65 million people in the Soviet Union after 1917, multicultural invasions from the third world and the feminist gender war, the European race now has a replacement rate of 1.3 for every two and in five generations time, the European race will be less than 1% of the population.
Comment by Doug — Sun 10th June 2012 @ 8:26 pm
#13..the odds of scoring an asian girlfreind are looking pretty bloody good then..and good riddance to european females
Comment by Ford — Sun 10th June 2012 @ 9:01 pm
Ford, Feminism has been a cruel hoax against women and European females are dupes from feminist brainwashing (as an aside, I am finding that childless career women typically have ego problems and are huge bores while family women seem a lot happier). Note that feminism does not exist in the third world. The people who are behind feminism already own the third world and they don’t need to destroy those people any more. They had half the Chineese people addicted to opium and destroyed them that way but feminism is just as demoralising. The Rockefeller Foundation has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Western feminism since the 1960’s. Ask yourself why
Comment by Doug — Mon 11th June 2012 @ 8:19 am
Dear Doug, the most important part of your post is that feminism is a hoax. Feminism is not a pro-women movement, but anti-men.
We see in court cases where a judge ruins a man and women who depend on him, like his mom, 2nd wife, sister etc. The winner is a woman who hates that man. Feminism would ruin 1 man even if it means ruining 2 women.
But, feminism does not only transfer wealth from men to women, it is not cost neutral. It costs a lot. It decreases productivity of men and therefore all women loose, because all women depend on exploitation of men.
If all men disappear women can survive until the supermarket shelves are empty. Women consume more than produce, so they depend on exploitation of men to cover that difference.
We have cases of stranded soldiers and sailors on Pacific islands who survived many years without women, by making fish hooks from animal bones etc. But, even the smartest women can’t survive without men. IZ
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Tue 12th June 2012 @ 1:06 am
hows this for a cypfs mess up
http://tinyurl.com/7wcdvld
Comment by Ford — Tue 10th July 2012 @ 1:46 pm
Thank You Ford. We (Cyfstalk) already have records of many similar cases. I will add it. Unfortunately being historic, further details cannot be recorded.
Comment by Gwaihir — Tue 10th July 2012 @ 3:56 pm
is this another cypfs phopar?
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=157207
Comment by Ford — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 3:50 pm
Knowing CYF’s infinite powers and nosiness CYFSTALK finds this tytpe of explanation incredulous. I suggest we remember Coral Burrows! Similar excuses.
Comment by Gwahir — Thu 15th November 2012 @ 7:34 pm