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

NZ Centre for Political Research

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:06 pm Wed 2nd September 2015

The NZCPR is Dr Muriel Newman’s organization and web site. She has many good thinkers providing opinion pieces. Dr Newman is we believe the only NZ politician who tried to introduce a bill into parliament for a presumption of shared care by both parents after separation; the Labour government’s feminists voted it down because it would threaten women’s DPB entitlement.

We don’t agree with everything Dr Newman and her writers say. However, she has this week written a piece on feminism and sole parenthood that is worth a read.

Here is a response to her article by one of MoMA’s team:

Today Michael Te Kouarehu Kereopa was named as the man charged with murdering 6-month old Gracie McSorley. He was said to be in a ‘brief relationship’ with Gracie’s mother at the time he allegedly murdered this baby. The DPB results in numerous children being exposed to mummy’s one-night- stand guests or other ‘brief relationships’. This damages them emotionally because they keep losing male adult attachment figures, and it places them at high risk of physical and/or sexual abuse. A large proportion of child homicides, serious injuries and sexual assaults are caused by mummies’ boyfriends; a relatively low proportion by children’s own father. The safest environment for children by a long margin is a family with both biological parents.

Where was Gracie’s father? If he had been involved significantly in Gracie’s life he may have provided a strong protective role that prevented this tragedy. But fathers are considered so irrelevant in our feminist era that media have not even mentioned there was one. It’s possible that Gracie’s mother was one of the many women who claim not to know who the father is and don’t nominate one for the birth certificate; that’s all irrelevant for getting the DPB anyway.

Why did Gracies mother leave the baby with this ‘brief relationshp’ man whose character she must not have known, instead of asking Gracie’s father to care for her? Did the DPB help to wreck this child’s family unit as it does so many, or did the DPB encourage this woman to be careless about possible pregnancy, or to plan from the outset to deprive Gracie of a two-parent family? Or did the DPB merely incentivize her to deprive Gracie of a significant relationship with her father because that might reduce her benefit and/or so-called ‘child support’?

So many questions, but all the answers point in the same direction. All the reports, hot air and moving the deck chairs will count for little regarding protecting our children better unless the elephant in the room, sole parenthood, is addressed.


  1. The father either has no care and protection issues or,
    Has care and protection issues.

    If the father applies for access via the Family Court he will;

    Spend $300.00 per hour plus GST for the opportunity to apply to have a sensible relationship with his children.

    Potentially be fucked around with access by the mother and or the new boyfriend after an access order is directed by the court and the family court will likely and normally do nothing.

    The father will give up

    The legally aided mother and her legal aid jockey lawyer will ensure that the children remain with mummy’s new boyfriend which is most common and carries on and on – especially in the Porirua Family Court.

    What do we think is wrong with this picture in terms of child abuse and the stastics around this?

    Any Ideas?

    In my situation Counsel for the children was Peter Harrison of Harrison Byrne and counsel for the mother (legal aid here) was Kathleen Byrne of Harrison Byrne.

    Any problems with that do we think after 23 hearings?

    That’s 23 with the same counsel for the children Peter Harrison who’s Parlimentary
    Submission re The Benefit of Counsel For The Children seems to suggest that early appointment of this skilled and independent professional will reduce the number of hearings. (Perhaps peter budgeted for 50 hearings)

    Low lights of this case

    CYPS report 2008; the children have been subjected to emotional and psychological abuse by the mother.

    23 access visits cancelled by the mother in one year.

    Counsel for the children has never denied drafting letters from the children and mothers GP, has her send them to him so that he can attach them to a submission suggesting that overnight access be put on hold.

    My 8 year old son walking in on the dead body hanging in the mother’s garage.

    So we must see that with these matters going before the court and carrying on and on with seemingly nothing being done but support the mother and admonish the father for bringing these issues to the court as the perpetrator of CONFLICT (the conflict created and measured by not agreeing that a dead body hanging in the children’s garage is good for the children) we can see that there is no hope for our society.

    There are several Judges who have had involvement with this file.
    Some might look long and hard at their motives and performance as might;

    Joe Leach Psycologist; who assessed that the children had not bonded with their mother and the mother with them. Then three months later assessed that mother had bonded with the children (with no professional intervention)Then 18 months later assessed that the mother had not bonded with the son.

    Peter Harrison – the list is as long as your invoice pile is high.

    If they want father’s to fuck off then integrity is useful, perhaps they might just say “fuck off dad” which is something that we have perhaps already heard from the children’s mother and understand.

    What of the Court Coodinator what is her role in appointments of third party professionals (so called)?

    The best thing to perpetuate business for these people is to discourage ok father, repel the “rough around he edges father” (rather than assist, educate and encourage this chap)and give mummy’s new boyfriend a level of access with the children that the natural father could only dream of. Mummy’s new boyfriend’s commitment to the children ? Banging mummy.

    We still hear drivel like
    Where were the parents?
    How come this kid has gone off the rails?
    Where is the father?
    Why isn’t he involved with these children -its terrible.

    Look to the NZ Family Court, cause dad gave up, shattered and broke and he has not been helped, supported or encouraged but admonished, accused and threatned.


    Comment by paul simonds — Thu 3rd September 2015 @ 12:57 am

  2. Dear MoMa, beautifully said.

    Equality of opportunity isn’t just a catchcry for having a good sound, when applied to parent’s opportunities to exercise parenthood. It is the only way to get the best from the two parents and ensure that this is available to the children.

    Any “positive discrimination” enforces a non-level playing field, that is detracting from the children’s lives (whether we choose to turn a blind eye to it or not!).

    Any barriers to access, are immediately barriers to quality and quantity of relationship (whether we care to turn a blind eye or not).

    It is curious that the familycaught$ has blindly and stupidly gone along with not applying accountability to the actions of parents. Each time it has refused to apply accountability, it has put one of the parent’s desires ahead of the welfare of the children, causing some degree of loss for the children. Over time, these losses accumulate onto the children, like dripping water wearing right through a stone. While the children are suffering, the familycaught$ are profiting and putting their paramount interests first over the children.

    Would it be that they don’t apply accountability to parents, because they don’t wish to have any form of accountability applied to their own services? Or would it be that they lack the skills of observation and values, to be able to apply accountability? Or are they just profiting by turning a blind eye, to the children’s welfare and safety?

    The legislation is only a small problem. In a few cases, the legislation puts expectations onto CYFs workers and familycaught$ workers, that no human could reliably get right. Such as guessing the facts in evidence-less DV cases. More often, there is evidence, but it is ignored, this is a serious people problem.

    The big problem is the quality of the people in familycaught$ and CYFs who should be responsible for applying the legislation. Until we directly face our societal failure in the ways that these organisations are managed, our children’s lives will not have an acceptable opportunity to improve.

    For the people who cannot see the link between child neglect and poor child outcomes, please have a look at the collection of materials about child neglect – from a more child focussed perspective.
    Child Neglect – The Bomb in the Brain at MENZ Issues
    Child Neglect – minutes or months?

    While young men aren’t able to competently argue child development and child protection issues, they are not well placed to protect their own children from poor quality and dangerous familycaught$ decisions.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 3rd September 2015 @ 9:47 am

  3. #1. Paul simmonds….. Mate had similar experience….. This is not by accident…. It’s deliberate to remove fathers from children… may like my story…

    Nz ombudsman now 2.5 years refusing to take my complaint…. Instead govt have been hard out trying to destroy me and my credibility so they can destroy my complaint….that is the tactic of corruption of power….as a nation we must first get admissions by those in charge that we have a problem!!!!!!! Currently their reaction is to destroy anyone who complains… any means they have available…….entrapment for one using one of their agent provocateurs……who I caught out!!!!!!!

    Comment by Hornet — Fri 4th September 2015 @ 7:57 am

  4. In no less than three countries I’ve experienced teenage lassies attempting to order around a middle aged gent (me) – is this a thing now?

    Comment by Peadar — Fri 4th September 2015 @ 12:09 pm

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.

Skip to toolbar