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

The Consequence of Father Removal

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 2:49 pm Fri 13th September 2013

“Of course she loved the child”, and that’s why she tried to deprive her daughter of the father’s love and protection. And now “I’ve lost everything”. Poor thing.

Actually, it’s unusual for a woman to be held accountable for failing to stop someone else from offending. Unlike the case for men who are still legally held to blame for their female partners’ offending. (This is being further entrenched by another anti-male initiative from the jonkey government, making partners financially liable for their partners’ benefit fraud.)

And it may well be somewhat unjust for Ms Warrick-Deaves to be given much culpability for whoever (presumably her new boyfriend or girlfriend) actually murdered the child. After all, child protection agencies have long spread anti-male propaganda and treated fathers’ concerns with contempt. They don’t inform the public, and they probably try to deny, that children are many times safer in households including their biological fathers. They have promoted the idea that women and children are generally victims of men’s malevolence and that children are safer with women. These messages will have encouraged a sense of self-justification and self-entitlement in Ms Warrick-Deaves that led to this tragedy. Those agencies and the misandrist zealots employed by them should be in the stand. We can’t expect child-protection agencies always to make the right call and it’s important to support them in taking some risks for the greater good even though that will result in a few tragedies. But when their error arises from adherence to faulty ideology and a habit of gender discrimination, that’s when they need to be held accountable for the results.

Sydney mum says she loved her dead child
AAPSeptember 13, 2013, 12:23 pm
A mother who let her two-year-old daughter die has told a Sydney court “of course” she loved the child.
Donna Deaves, whose two-year-old daughter, Tanilla Warrick-Deaves, died from a number of injuries in August 2011, told the Supreme Court in Sydney on Thursday she was sorry for her daughter’s death.
“Of course I’m sorry,” Deaves, who seemed belligerent at times during her sentence hearing, said.
“I’ve lost everything.”
Deaves has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her daughter on the grounds of criminal negligence.
A co-accused, who can’t be named for legal reasons, will stand trial for murder at a later date.
Tanilla’s father, Adrian Warrick, told the court that because his daughter could no longer speak for herself, he would do it for her.
“I am her voice,” Mr Warrick told the packed court room in a choked voice.
“I am Tanilla Warrick-Deaves.”
The “smiling”, “always happy” toddler died after she was found with a number of injuries in a NSW house in August 2011.
Mr Warrick described how he came to Australia at the age of seven after being separated from his family in Colombia.
Tanilla was everything to him as a result, he said.
But after he broke up with Deaves, she constantly rebuffed his attempts to see the little girl.
After eventually spending time with Tanilla, he said he begged the Department of Community Services (DOCS) not to let her go back to Deaves.
“(I told them) ‘She’s my blood, help her’,” he said.
“But no, she was allowed to go back to her mother.”
“…I never saw Tanilla until the day we buried her.
“That’s how I got my baby girl back – dead.”
Mr Warrick implored Justice Stephen Rothman to consider his daughter’s short life.
“It breaks my heart to sit here today knowing the people who should have cared for and protected her did neither,” he said.
“She was let down by so many people.”
Tanilla’s stepmother Brooke Bowen said the toddler “seemed like the happiest girl in the world” when she was with them.
“The only time I saw her upset was when she was taken back by her mother,” her stepmother said.
“That was the last time I ever saw her.”
The sentence hearing continues.

11 Responses to “The Consequence of Father Removal”

  1. Downunder says:

    Actually, it’s unusual for a woman to be held accountable for failing to stop someone else from offending. Unlike the case for men who are still legally held to blame for their female partners’ offending. (This is being further entrenched by another anti-male initiative from the jonkey government, making partners financially liable for their partners’ benefit fraud.

    Knowing that you are a stickler for detail Hans I do think that it should be partner’s in both cases above; although there are many men each man would supossedly not have more than one partner.

  2. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Murray (#2 and #3): Thanks for those background articles. Interesting that police initially saw no reason to bother Ms Deaves the mother about this matter! What’s the bet that it took pressure from the biological father before the police overcame their usual ‘woman good, man bad’ mentality.

    And wow, the child protection service had received 33 reports of concern for this child’s welfare, more than one for every month of the child’s life, yet didn’t protect the child against her mother or the mother’s boyfriend! I guess a good number of them came from the concerned father. I can imagine the scenario: “Oh my god, here comes that guy again making allegations against his ex. He really is harassing her. We had better go and investigate his parenting and the safety of this child in his care. A man who abuses his partner with these constant complaints is probably abusing his child too.”

  3. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Thanks Downunder (#1) for considering grammar; such vigilance is valuable in my opinion. However, in this case I don’t agree that your correction is correct. The sentence refers to offending by partners of men, i.e. men’s partners’ offending. Many men generally don’t have one partner. (Interesting idea though; while it’s illegal to be married to more than one person at a time, it’s not illegal to have more than one partner at a time. So if a woman had 5 partners each of whom could be judged to be in a marriage-like relationship with her, could she then separate from them all at once and get half of each partner’s assets? Now that would be an efficient way of feminist wealth building, huh? She could get through a batch of men every two years or so. On second thoughts, this is probably happening already.)

  4. Downunder says:

    @Moma I would point out that ‘their’ also influences the sentence as it is possessive in itself. Also offending is plural and fraud is singular. I leave you to have another think about it.

  5. To ‘MOMA’. You fail to recognise the seriousness of the potential of one man to have many partners. If the man has say 5 partners, and they all leave, do they each get half of the property and assets? Will the law require the man to go into debt by the equivalent of 3 halves of the property value, so that the 5 women each have 50%?

  6. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Good point A Whole lot of RRRRs (#7). Yes, I think your calculation will be correct under the new discipline of feminist mathematics.

    I note that when either men or women have multiple partners the new system of mathematics comes out with similar results! That is, women profit. The Family Court seems to utilize this form of mathematics, generally bending over backwards either to protect or to enhance women’s wealth depending on the circumstances of relationship property.

  7. Kirannjiharr says:

    Hey guys
    can anyone advice on this:
    if responding to court applications where they giove a timeline of say 20 days.. is the 20 days 20 working days or 20 calendar days?

  8. golfa says:

    #9 Calendar. Supposedly. I say that because it depends on who files documents late. They Court will exert their rules on some and ignore them for others. Count yourself as the “some” and regard everyone else (like Lawyers, your ex, Court Appointed Psychologists etc0 as the “others”.

  9. Man X Norton says:

    I noticed the following sentence in the article:

    But after he broke up with Deaves, she constantly rebuffed his attempts to see the little girl.

    The likelihood statistically though is that Deaves broke up with him. She may have demanded that he move out. Separations are often described in ways that imply both parties were responsible (e.g. “After the couple separated”, “They broke up”) or, as in this case, that the male left the female, whereas we know that around 80% of separations are initiated by the female.

    Similarly misleading language is used to imply that separated fathers abandon their children when in most cases a father is squeezed out of children’s lives by their mother using weapons ranging from false criminal allegations to protection orders to making contact so risky or unpleasant for the father that his mental health can no longer endure it.

Leave a Reply

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