Plunket
Plunket in my view was a organization to help mothers, not one that I viewed as a child watch dog.
In an internal Plunket document obtained by RNZ, the child welfare group said there could be fewer home visits and parents might have to travel further to clinics if they had the resources to.
In terms of men’s issues should we be concerned for the welfare of children as we can be when there is a protection order in place.
Father’s concerns are often seen as irrelevant and we’ve even seen child deaths occur because those concerns have been ignored.
Women have been so encased in the law the child has an often reluctant, removed, detached second parent.
If a support service like Plunket is restricted by funding does that suggest that more children may end up in CYF care because young mothers will not make the effort to travel to Plunket.
Is this an ongoing combination of events that is driving the wedge further between men and their children?
My experience supports your claim. a child was born. Plunket arrived and was informed that mum was violent to the child. So in the Family court shortly afterwards, Plunket sided with mum, accusing the father of “not being a supportive husband” – no mention of the children’s safety or best interests.
Comment by Kiwi Keith — Tue 18th September 2018 @ 7:58 am
But to most people, there is a way they view Plunket.
Then suddenly you find you’re being treated differently.
If you were a woman, you’d be a personal interest story of the one who got a raw deal.
But no, even if the media took an interest, this like many other issues gets locked up in the Family Court of ‘Civil Secrecy’.
The same thing happens with midwives in the pre natal rather than post natal care.
But we’re our own media here or are we not?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 18th September 2018 @ 9:07 am