As White Ribbon invest their energy and our money in a bigoted social campaign against ‘male domestic violence’ the news this week has served up a chilling slice of reality, about life in New Zealand.

On Sunday, as fate would have it, the alleged attempted murder of a Hamilton man was captured by an in-store CCTV camera, as the offender ran a car into her partner, backed up, and as he lay injured on the footpath outside of a suburban shop, ran into the man a second time.

While the 43 year old victim recovers in hospital we understand that a 44 year old women will make a second court appearance today, on a charge of attempted murder.

Although it is unclear from the vague reports in mainstream media a New Zealand news site did quote the Police as follows.

Mr Patterson said despite the arrest enquiries were continuing and investigators still wanted to hear from anyone who witnessed Sunday’s incidents who hadn’t yet already spoken to Police and asked them to ring the Hamilton Central Police station on 07 858 6200.

Another case that attracted some interest on this site was the unattended-bath drowning of a 15 month old child in wellington – discussed here in this earlier Multi-tasking manslaughter post – this is now followed up in some detail by Stuff journalist Phil Kitchen.

– The baby’s father told police in a formal witness statement that the mother repeatedly left another baby unattended in an upstairs bath.

– The mother had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, was known to Child, Youth and Family, and had left her children unattended in a car as she shopped.

– Another witness said the mother twice threatened to make the father of the baby “regret it” if he left her again.

Questions are raised as to whether evidence known to the Police but withheld from the jury on the basis that it was not relevant to the woman’s state of mind at the time of the death, should have been given to the jury, or at the very least to the court, allowing its relevance to be challenged by the defence.

A second issue is raised as to the effectiveness of CYFS and the manner in which they dealt with this family. Surely, now that this case has resulted in the death of a child, the circumstances require some form of investigation into CYFS proceedures to ensure the safety of other vulnerable children, in the hands of unfit, unwell, or incapable mothers.

A third issue is the continued supression of the defendant’s name which affects not only our ability to review proceedures, obtain accountability and remediation for other people’s failures, and provide at the very least, the possibility that this circumstance will not repeat itself, in the same or some other form.

If there is one clear message in both these cases, it is the constraints limiting men from securing any form of help, when having to deal with a woman’s mental health, addiction or violence, which place either themselves or children in danger. It is a natural consequence that children become endangered, or further endangered, when fathers are forced from their homes due to the un-remediated behaviour of out-of-control women.

This from the NZ Herald on the victim of the hit and run;

The friend said the couple had been in a volatile on-and-off relationship for about four years.

The friend said the man sought help for the woman’s behaviour in the past without success.

This from Stuff News on the death of a 15 month old baby;

But in a 33-page statement – which the jury did not see – the baby’s father said she repeatedly left another child aged about 2 unattended in a bath.

“I’m amazed she got off,” he told The Dominion Post.

His statement reveals numerous examples of difficulties his former partner had with parenting skills, and their rocky relationship.

This is not a recent development, it is a trend that started in the 1970’s and has since developed through its own unhealthy upbringing within the medical profession and alongside the railing of feminist idealogues who have invaded government structures.

It is the same unhealthy ethos engaged in by our Family Courts; that it is simply easier, more economical and acceptable in our current social climate, to remove any male who threatens disclosure or questions feminist ideals, and leave children in the care of dangerous and ineffective mothers, without the necessary support to ensure the safety and well being of children.

[The question I’m asking right now – did Police mislead the coroner?]