Boy of 9 in mother’s care found Drunk
This story needs a lot more facts to be uncovered to determine the full culpability of the mother but I am appalled at what I read. The boy’s father is NOT impressed and I note that all of the children are in the mothers care.
Here is the problem with cases like this….. In order to bring the real story to the NZ public any news media have a problem with what it can reveal due to restrictions. Media will instead focus on alcohol and children rather than why a child is in the care of a mother, who appears to be incompetent in parenting, rather than the father. In the video it is apparent that the race of the boy is Polynesian and this group is particularly vulnerable to the public disease of alcohol abuse which leads to relationship abuse.
Stories like this one are happening daily and only by luck of social media did we pick this one up.
Favouring mothers as the main care giver of children based on their gender is a social experiment gone VERY wrong but I won’t see this change in my life time. I will just sit back and see the carnage in the news and the fruitless chit chat around how to fix the problem without society ever understanding where the problem actually lies.
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
Good find Mr T.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 8th January 2014 @ 6:54 pm
Yes, nice find. The mother probably has a job, that’s why she’ll be considered a good parent, IMO. Priorities change as governments change.
Comment by Julie — Wed 8th January 2014 @ 9:23 pm
Note that news coverage of this vaguely referred to “adults” or “an adult” who fed the boy with alcohol, when the culprit was a female whom the boy called an aunt. When a female does wrong our media play this down or cover it up, but if it had been a male who fed the boy alcohol the offender’s gender would have been highlighted and probably headlined.
Far from acknowledging any inadequacy of the boy’s care in a sole-parent situation, the police spokesperson referred to a ‘stable and caring home life’ and talked about CYFS providing ‘any support the family may need’. Well if the child had been in a sole-father situation CYFS would be in there already removing the boy from his father and returning him to mother on the grounds of inadequate supervision, then probably threatening the mother to remove the child to state care should she dare to allow the child any further contact with his father.
This boy’s home life is not a family but only a fractured part of a family, encouraged by a feminist-saturated state that pays and encourages parents, mainly mothers, to rip apart their children’s families but does not pay or assist parents to keep families together, and indeed provides little or no encouragement of any kind to protect children from the major traumatic abuse of wrecking their family unit.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 8:38 am
I smell a rat already as this story develops. We now have Area Commander Inspector Greg Nicholls stating that the mother is extremely distressed about the childs ordeal. He mentions this twice and goes on to show his displeasure at the video being posted on line.
The NZ Police Force is well indoctrinated with feminist dogma and Greg Nicholls illustrates well that fact.
We all well know what he would be saying had the boy been in dads care. Once Helen Clark politicised the Police i knew fathers were going to have big problems with their behaviour. Of course mum is distraught, she has been caught red handed with leaving her boy with some slug she knew. I would bet £1000 that dad was shut out long ago as an option for child care.
There are two great misconceptions that are hard to get people to accept
1. Mothers are naturally good carers of children and put their childs needs ahead of their own.
: there is NO evidence to support the above and no evidence that child caring is an inate characteristic. Fact is that many mothers can’t make the distinction between themselves and their children. They conflate the two and therefore it puts them at war with the separated father.
2. Bald tyres make a car more liable to lose traction on the road.
:fact is, tread is only on tyres to displace water. A bald tyre grips the dry road better and thats why racing cars never have treads unless its raining
.
Only a good education and a thinking mind can eliminate misconceptions and you wont find them in the family court.
Comment by Beyan — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 1:31 pm
For sure there are good and bad parents of both genders. The courts need accept this and give priority to placing a child with whichever parent is best for that childs future. However, as we all know the courts are heavily biased towards women and almost always side with the MOTHER. Cases like the one above prove that placing a child with its mother by default isn’t always in the childs best interest and can actually cause significant harm to that child
Comment by bazzer81 — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 4:33 pm
Hamilton police area commander Inspector Greg Nicholls yesterday said he was grateful the man who shot the video had got in touch. But he said it would have been in the boy’s best interests if Mr Goudie had provided the footage to police or Child Youth and Family (CYF).
READ: “so we can cover up this disgusting ACT which exposes mothers in bad light rather than further victimise the child by publishing the footage”.
Comment by Beyan — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 4:50 pm
For example, here’s today’s story on NZ Newswire. It goes to some lengths to avoid any mention or clue regarding the (probably female) gender of the person who fed this child alcohol even though a previous article already made reference to this, albeit a fleeting reference deep in that previous article.
And our Labour male-denigration party is seizing the opportunity to portray itself as giving a damn about boys, in denial of its track record of child-abusing policies through family wrecking. Watch this space; when these hypocrites realize the offender in this case was a female they are likely to go quiet or perhaps even to start making excuses for her. Why are they not demanding that the boy’s mother be held accountable for her failings in this matter?
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 6:50 pm
I love watching a story like this unfold. The politics are intriguing as interested parties try to skirt around the real problem. Mum was stupid enough to go on camera screaming her innocence but anyone who had seen the video would know that this little kid was not new to alcohol and the local kids knew him and were familiar with his behaviour.
A politician with balls would hop on a podium and yell out ‘THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO KIDS WHOSE FATHERS ARE SHUT OUT OF THEIR LIFE”. Unfortunately we don’t have any of these. Who amongst us has the time and energy to track down the father and once we establish the truth of the matter take the issue further ourselves?
A message for those in child care”¦”¦ ‘You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.’
Comment by triassic — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 7:30 pm
There are a lot of well articulated responses to this article, but I wonder what can be done, more than simply writing on a blog. What about protests, what is happening there, if there are any then I would like to be part of them.
The botherings were a start, but what is happening now. Have we given up, I haven’t.
Bobby Sands went on a hunger strike, ThÃÂch Quảng ÄÂức immolated himself.
I’m not saying men should die, we need living fathers, but action needs to be taken. The civil rights movement is an example.
Even the Occupy movement brought attention to the present problems, the 1% and the 99% are now part of the lexicon, that’s a start.
How about Occupy Family Court?
There are creative people who read this site and creative solutions that will help to move this to the only possible and correct conclusion, which will happen, and that is change for the better, and children having their rights and needs recognized,upheld and met.
Its easy to feel worn down, its easily to be demoralized by the David and Goliath battle of a parent the family court system, its human to want to give up, but there is hope and there is strength and it can be done.
Its been done in the past, even the womens movement was successful, then mens movement will be too in redressing the imbalance and the dogma that exists now.
Any protests announce them and I’ll be there.
Comment by Childrens Rights Upheld — Thu 9th January 2014 @ 11:07 pm
When you said creative solutions it brought to mind this article I saw the other day. This is quite an amazing story that can only now be told.
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002635482/stealing-j-edgar-hoovers-secrets.html?smid=tw-nytimes
Comment by Downunder — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 6:12 am
Dear Children’s Rights Upheld, most men want problems fixed, before they arrive. After the damage is done, very few men are willing to put much effort to help men coming behind them. (I am not sure, but it seems they assume their male children can have sex change operations, or will suicide anyway, or they don’t care for them?)
The men who want to do something, anything, often find reasons to squabble and argue and put each other down. Talk, talk, very very little action, less still cooperation. Development of working teamwork takes knowledge of each other, thus often takes some time to develop.
Anyway, I am hoping to get a group of men to share their familycaught$ experiences, in ways that can be useful for younger men. Examples in the positive and negative. Of course, this involves self representation and also McKenzie friend. More useful is sharing of parenting experiences, under separated parenting and alienated parenting. These are areas outside the experience of the majority of parents. (All of these were things that Men’s Centre North Shore used to foster.)
If you would like to pitch into such activities, please give me a telephone call.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 10:31 am
Murray, your response to Children’s Rights Upheld is right on the button. Men find it easy to support each other around adversity, eg. war or sport but; around a man wounded and bleeding from emotional damage? NEVER!! The thinking is that if he was a REAL MAN he would never have allowed himself to get damaged. It takes great courage and security in ones sexuality to have compassion and show love toward another man. Women on the other hand have no problem in showing love for each other and offering support, both emotionally and otherwise, without experiencing any threat to their sexuality.
The biggest hindrance to the Men’s Movement in my opinion is the attitude still held by many men that empathy, warmth and kindness toward male victims is just not masculine. This attitude is divisive, destructive and continues to stifle co-operation toward turning the tide in the feminist onslaught of the family.
Alice Cooper wrote….”Only Woman Bleed”…. yea right! Men just hemorrhage!
Comment by triassic — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 4:11 pm
That’s absolute bullshit triassic.
You can offer support, love, what ever you want to call it, and as soon as the problem is solved, men will walk away and get go on with their life.
That’s the way men are.
They get together when ‘they see there is a problem’.
There is also confusion about the difference between sympathy and empathy. (Women show/have sympathy, men have empathy)
Comment by Downunder — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 4:28 pm
… men have empathy (when necessary) that’s how we teach out children.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 4:32 pm
Downunder, Empathy comes from an understanding of the emotions and is usually used as a verb in that the empathetic person can help in a practicable way. Sympathy is a feeling of sorrow without understanding the emotions and is usually used as an adjective. You can only feel sorrow.
Your statement
is the big problem. Men don’t “solve the problem” they just bury it and move on. Men in Western Culture are full of unresolved issues of which a lot derive from their mothers who failed to let their boys grow up and instead hold onto them emotionally far to long. These men go on to look for partners who will nurse them through life. Having a partner as a nurse brings about all sorts of complications including deep resentment at his inability to survive without her on his own. He doesn’t have mates whom he can rely on emotionally so he clings on to his partner for survival. If you work amongst men you will find this scenario in abundance. Have you ever attended a course with Essentially Men run by Rex McCann? Courses like this one help to liberate men and set them free to love women without having them as nurse maids.
Comment by triassic — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 6:52 pm
You absolute girl. Go and get a real dictionary and grow up.
Empathy is a noun, demonstrating the ability to project one’s self into understanding a situation.
Sympathy is a noun, meaning simultaneously affected by the same feeling.
That’s why you used the word practicable instead of practical.
The way men are is not a problem. You are making it a problem, believing that there is a problem where one doesn’t exist.
A troublesome woman is not a problem, just a pain in the arse.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 7:17 pm
WOW….what a reaction! I thought I would check out your past posts and see if I could determine if you are a troll.
I notice that you get very bitchy when someone says something you don’t like or you feel might be challenging your opinion. I also note that you tend to have right wing ideals and you are of the opinion that one particular gender is always right and the other wrong…..am I right in saying you are Marilyn Waring? One thing you need to be sure of Marilyn, not all people fit into a pigeon hole that you devise and most people in this world are reasonable and respectful regardless of their gender. Your attempt at putting this site at war will not be successful.
Comment by triassic — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 7:52 pm
a troll
Yeah right.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 8:05 pm
If you are indeed a bloke look up Marilyn Waring’s work to view someone as ignorant of the opposite sex as you appear to be.
Comment by triassic — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 8:45 pm
Dear triassic, I am not sure if you have been around for a long time, or not? but the responses above unfortunately illustrate my observation of men’s bitching and infighting. The points are on side issues, but are used to distract from putting something together to assist younger men.
Please axe-cuse me making a critical comment, but most of the distractions scatter about black and white, when the important issues are shades of grey and often coloured too.
Macho is a bit of an issue, but men trying to sniff around women is much more the sharper conflict of interest, the taker of strength. Its not just a men’s problem, I have seen plenty of this weakness on both sides of the fence.
By comparison, cooperation is boring, it takes listening, which isn’t a strong suit for separated men, like myself. I guess that is why we are separated, that and the beatings?
While we talk, while we delay, some of our children are thinking through if they want to see tomorrow’s sunrise, or not? They probably haven’t talked it through with us, maybe we didn’t give them the time, the space, or maybe we just couldn’t spend our time with them.
I know one father who had to face his daughter’s suicide, after he had been denied contact for 6 years. They were back in contact for a while and then he got the real life news, of her final decision.
People who play manipulative games with other people’s lives, may end up wearing blood.
If any of you guys want to be proactive, get in touch. I can offer benzodiazepines if you are anxious about cooperating or being close to men……. If you are a bit PTSD then 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine is worth considering too, according to David Nutt.
One example of sharing stories, but it isn’t in enough detail to offer direct and useful help.
It is better to have insurance and not need it, than need it and not have it.
It is safer to offer help, than to need it.
The talkers seem to me to be wandering around like lost prisoners, but I cannot see a jail, it is just in their heads.
Much safer to do something, than to talk. MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 10th January 2014 @ 9:09 pm
@triassic
Why wouldn’t any bloke react to someone who is redefining words, especially words like empathy. That’s exactly what feminists do to further their cause and you want to help them along their way. No apology for defending the essence of men.
Someone stands up to your wishy-washy gender bending rubbish and it’s an attempt to put this site to war.
No apology for having a male opinion or for suggesting that you are talking like a girl.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 11th January 2014 @ 7:22 am
Some of the comments on this page have become very off-topic, so discussion is in imminent danger of being ended.
Generalisations about men and women having particular characteristics are not useful or accurate – men do have tendencies towards certain behaviours and attitudes, but nothing is exclusive. All supposedly gendered attributes will appear as an overlapping bell curve if properly researched.
I have participated in many support groups where men show compassion and support other men who are emotionally damaged. If we create a safe environment it will happen. We could certainly learn to do this more effectively.
Downunder is definitely not female. Suggesting that Triassic is “talking like a girl” is similarly unlikely to help anyone “understand men’s experience”.
Essentially Men is a valuable resource which I would heartily recommend to MENZ readers, but participants are not representative of NZ men in general, in my observation.
MurrayBacon should expect to hear a loud knocking on his door just before dawn if he makes comments which appear to offer ecstasy or other restricted drugs online. Don’t keep them in the kitchen cupboard!
Comment by JohnPotter — Sat 11th January 2014 @ 8:42 am
Someone is paying attention on this blog
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/A-drunk-9-year-old-kid-started-a-uproar-in-New-Zealand.html#9jHIvJjKehAT5xZD.99
Link:
Comment by Downunder — Sat 11th January 2014 @ 9:15 am
Here’s a similar story that refers to ‘Hood Rats’ being congregations of children into intimidating gangs.
Story here
Comment by Downunder — Sat 11th January 2014 @ 3:39 pm
To think the Police are so shocked what they have seen. As if they have never seen it before.
The truth is the Police and the minister is upset it turned up on YouTube and the world stage. Lots of pressure from the cops to the guy who uploaded it to take it down.
Comment by Lukenz — Sat 11th January 2014 @ 10:02 pm
Here is a good follow up, the media tracked down the boys father and …
Story on Stuff.co.nz
Comment by Downunder — Sun 12th January 2014 @ 7:19 am
and this
There would be a council for child in this case who has sat on their arse and let this mother alienate the father and they are getting paid for this!
At least people get to see what goes on in the Family Court when things like this happen but at what cost to the child.
Name and shame this dirt bag lawyer.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 12th January 2014 @ 7:35 am
As well as familycaught$ screwing the family and making it difficult, to impossible for the father to offer any protection to the child, don’t forget that child [and spousal] support have also been working away, to make it more difficult for the father to protect his child.
In the end, another important question is, are child [and spousal] support serving children or disserving children?
There is a claim that if we only consider cash, that child [and spousal] support are serving children.
An accountant’s approach to serving and protecting children is as irrelevant and dangerous to children, as the familycaught$ approach.
Maybe decisions about the care and financing of children’s growing up, need to be based on the parent’s situation and child’s needs, rather than rote “solutions” that are more problem than solution?
There is a law that says just that, which will be passed in 2004.
I look forward to that law coming into effect!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 12th January 2014 @ 8:45 am
#27
where do you live? I never had a council represent my child. or do you mean counsel?
Comment by triassic — Sun 12th January 2014 @ 9:49 am
There is no counsel for child, just a nasty mother.
link
Comment by Downunder — Sun 12th January 2014 @ 3:52 pm
Even if he takes it all the way to court in the coming years with the slow system, she will make up a whole bunch of stuff, untested and normally untrue and the the family court will still decide to leave him in her care, no matter what, as there has been no contact and he is alienated and has no relationship with his son.
Its like pushing shite uphill 🙂
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Mon 13th January 2014 @ 9:07 am
Such a pessimistic view but SO correct. Boshier, in defending the courts attitude toward fathers, stated that just a small number of men apply for joint care. What he failed to mention is the reality known to both lawyers and fathers that there is such a small chance of success that only a fool would attempt it. Unfortunately I was one of those and paid a massive price in both the wallet and health. One must treat the court session as a Monty Python skit. If you want to be in one of their skits be prepared to have your arms and legs cut off.
Comment by triassic — Mon 13th January 2014 @ 9:26 am
Dominic and others,
Kids are worth doing some shit shoveling for.
Get some support, turn your situation into bulldozer pushing shit uphill.
Get an experienced McKenzie Friend to help you in court and more like a front end loader carrying shit uphill.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 13th January 2014 @ 1:20 pm
It i$ true that non-custodial parent$ (mainly fathers) have only a small chance in familycaught$ to gain? or take full custody.
The familycaught$ marketing is all about manipulation.
So, who manipulate$ who?
Often women are the better manipulator, when comparing the parents.
The legal worker$ are often manipulating the parents, to help them to open up their wallet$ and unprotect their wallet$.
$ometime$ only one of the legal-worker$ will use dishone$ty, to mi$repre$ent the $ituation, to raise fear, uncertainty and darkne$$ level$.
$ometime$ two of the legal-worker$ will use dishone$ty, to mi$repre$ent the $ituation, to raise fear, uncertainty and darkne$$ level$.
$ometime$ all three of the legal-worker$ will use dishone$ty, to mi$repre$ent the $ituation, to raise fear, uncertainty and darkne$$ level$.
It only need$ one of the legal-worker$ to use manipulation, for the de$irable re$ult$ to be achieved….
Mi$repre$entation might be not passing on to the party, a letter offering to settle from the other parent.
Mi$repre$entation might be $ugge$ting that the outcome$ for the children are more hazardou$ than they really are.
In e$$ence, it only take$ one of the legal worker$ to significantly raise Fear, Uncertainty and Darkness, to get one or both parent$ to open up their wallet to pillage.
Once once of the parent$ ha$ been reduced to terror, their de$perate behaviour will often wind up matching fear in the other parent.
The caught$ process can easily be delayed to find the optimum time, when the fears are fully developed and the wallet$ fully opened.
Then the familycaught$ process is like $tealing lollie$ from young children (but legal if all of the ethical breaches and di$hone$ty is ignored).
A little time for the financial transfers to be completed, before the parties have woken up to what has really gone on and then the damage is achieved……
And, it i$ all for the children…….
The joke is that it only work$ becau$e parent$ are thinking about their children and not remembering that hou$ing their children co$t$ and feeding their children co$t$ and educating their children co$t$ and giving culture to their children co$t$ and helping their children to form a family co$t$…..
The Family Court Rules are based on requiring good faith negotiations between parents.
The Care of Children Act 2004 is based on facilitating good faith negotiations between parents.
It take$ the most greedy, cultureless, cowardly, bullying and spineless people in our society, to corrupt what is basically a reasonable set of ignorable rules and laws.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 13th January 2014 @ 1:22 pm
Allan Harvey, I will never ever give up on my kids, but after I changed lawyers and was given proper, non suck my wallet to death advice , I have completely changed tack and sorting my relationship property first , instead of last as previously advised, then going in for the kids after that pile of smoulding Mt Vesuvius is sorted out first ! I have spoken to you a while ago Alan and you were more than helpful, just a shame that the whole process drags out like watching paint dry.
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Mon 13th January 2014 @ 4:23 pm
Totally back up Allan’s point of view. Yes the family court is frequently biased, yes over the year’s many Dad’s have been unfairly treated. But if you are being obstructed from a life with your children using the family court is the ONLY way you will get a change. The key thing to do is ‘use the system’ not ‘let the system use you’. Once you start using the system it can work. I’ve been involved for 10 years firstly my own case and as an assitant to others. It was Allan Harvey’s mentoring and sage advice who showed me the way. Using the system rather than being used by it has helped a dozen local guys get their cases sorted in a few months.
Comment by Ken — Mon 13th January 2014 @ 7:02 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11186335
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Tue 14th January 2014 @ 2:30 pm