- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Hey Folks, we just launched some petitions on the parliament website a couple of days ago. Could you please sign them and share them with other people ……. Much appreciated! Links below …
Petition 1 : Sanctions on parents who misuse Family Court procedures
Petition 2 : Default 50/50 shared care for children after parental relationship breakdown
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
THE default 50/50 shared care at separation is not a good idea. (Living in a backpack between homes)
Children need 1 home and the better parent (at least).
50/50 should never be preconised as default. And if so: not before 3 years old and not after 7 years old.
Otherwise they never gain the emotional stability required for psycho-emotional resillience
Children in split homes do not fare well in general and in particular (become stuck between parent competing for more time either to get on the DPB or to avoid paying child support)
Great effort but that is a recipe for conflict and a disaster in progress.
Comment by JustCurious — Tue 17th December 2019 @ 8:24 am
#1 I disagree completely. 50/50 should be a starting point. Quite often one parent feels that the children are “theirs”. And that the other parent should just pay money. And let’s not forget that paying money doesn’t entitle you to any time with “their” children.
If 50/50 was the default position, it shouldn’t be too hard for a Judge to see when one parent views the children as their possession and the Judge should be able to fall back on 50/50 shared care.
If you think kids are “living in a backpack between homes’, then you’re not very organised as a parent. When my kids came to me, they had everything they needed at my house.
Comment by golfa — Tue 17th December 2019 @ 7:16 pm
I have read and watched some professionals’ take on how we are now in a time whereby our lives have shifted so much in areas of work life balance, how we manage a family nowadays is far different from that of the previous generation.
Yet the way that Law looks at how we manage separation and the children, best interest an aw.. has neither kept up nor managed the changes…a tragedy, especially for the Dads all over this nation…this nation of firsts.
Something I have also read so much about is necessity for both parents to maintain healthy and happy relationships with their children.
Fathers above all else should have the default setting for FULL RESPECT when dealing with any BODY concerning their children…is has to begin this way.
Comment by mama — Wed 18th December 2019 @ 5:35 pm
#2 sensible position “If you think kids are “living in a backpack between homes’, then you’re not very organised as a parent. When my kids came to me, they had everything they needed at my house.”
I know… any sensible parent would be driven to replicate one or the other house lot… so the real home was the space between their two homes….
And their true identity probably hidden between every duplicate object or artifact reminding them of what’s theirs too but bot NOT IN this home.
Even their language display it. They say “At Dad’s or at mom’s” and NEVER at home””
Comment by JustCurious — Wed 18th December 2019 @ 9:57 pm
#2 ~ “#1 I disagree completely. 50/50 should be a starting point. Quite often one parent feels that the children are “theirs”. And that the other parent should just pay money. And let’s not forget that paying money doesn’t entitle you to any time with “their” children”
Perhaps then Child support is a scam? How can they deprive you and extort you for the privilege of not seeing your kids? Should there not be equal compensation?
Something like “I care enough to make sure you pay for your kids so in return I will guarantee you contact with him/her since that is what is in their best interest?
Or is it one of those things another department all together has to look independently at, reflect, ponder and decide on?
Comment by JustCurious — Wed 18th December 2019 @ 10:10 pm
#2~ “If 50/50 was the default position, it shouldn’t be too hard for a Judge to see when one parent views the children as their possession and the Judge should be able to fall back on 50/50 shared care.”
Another law change is not going to make a difference if the ambit is to have more court regulation of our family disputes and the future of our children.
IN fact , I think you might want the opposite.
less interference by the government into the family.
NOt default splitting of the kids into two or more separate boxes.
Something of the likes of “NO MORE CHILD SUPPORT!” FIRST
OR Domestic violence bill is a crime against men
OR summary proceedings Act is contrary to our bill of rights…
Flush out the real problems.
However 50/50 does no good to our children if the parents themselves cannot agree first hand as to where custody is best and contact better.
It only invites trench warfare (legal ambushes and so)
Comment by JustCurious — Wed 18th December 2019 @ 10:22 pm
#4 “the real home was the space between their two homes” What does that even mean ? Maybe if you spent less time gazing at your navel, you might make some sense.
“And their true identity probably hidden between every duplicate object or artifact reminding them of what’s theirs too but but NOT IN this home.” What are you talking about ?
Comment by golfa — Thu 19th December 2019 @ 8:58 pm
Good to look at it from a child’s perspective sometimes. 🙂
We all want to make or change laws… but whom are we changing it for?
And what are we trying to achieve and on whose behalf?
Comment by JustCurious — Thu 19th December 2019 @ 10:01 pm
# 8,,,,, Judge Curious, Hi,,,, what needs to change is the whole damn approach for two humans who have children when moving forward after separating,,, if the bloody LAW says it puts the best interest of their children at heart then it is failure to not put the best interest of both Parents at heart. For instance it would be interesting to follow future cases whereby the two parents were of the same sex,, I wonder if this will be handled entirely differently. Will one of them be a Perp and one a Victim???
Comment by mama — Sat 21st December 2019 @ 9:07 am
Hi Mama,
you highlight a very interesting concept…
yes, what if the two parents are of the same sex?
IS best interest of child served by both parents being of the same gender?
And is the best interest of parents the primary consideration when ascertaining child’s best interest and WELFARE.
“if the bloody LAW says it puts the best interest of their children at heart then it is failure to not put the best interest of both Parents at heart.”
I was raised with the idea that parents need to curtail their own needs and ambitions to satisfy their children’s needs including contact and relationship with the other parent at separation and almost more importantly, best efforts must be made to preserve the entire social structure of the child. It is supposed to be a no brainer. Children come first – parents come second (from parental perspective)
Comment by JustCurious — Mon 23rd December 2019 @ 1:55 am
Judge,,,The child has two parents, it is not up to law to dictate parenting or with hold parenting,,, all due respect should be shown for the family as a whole,, the state will never be there in the minutes of the childs life, it is the parent, and those parents do indeed need the law to put their best interests at heart when the best interest of the parents is for the child.
A more holistic approach if you will.
Comment by mama — Mon 23rd December 2019 @ 4:30 pm
If anyone is still confused …. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BaGE-YBLfA&
Comment by golfa — Tue 24th December 2019 @ 4:17 pm
11~ thanks mama for clarifying your thoughts…
Mt feelings exactly: “the state will never be there…)
I see it as interloping: “all interferenc ebut no responsibility and nor liability.”
Comment by JustCurious — Tue 24th December 2019 @ 10:42 pm
As an educator and someone with a psychology background, I agree with the 50/50 default care. Forming a strong bond with both parents at a younger age requires short bursts of care and connection with both parents within a short timeframe.
When a child is older they have more of an ability to cope with separation from someone they have formed a bond with but younger children need constant reminders of their bonds with both parents.
Comment by Rapopi — Tue 24th December 2019 @ 11:09 pm
#14 well presented disagreement…
“Forming a strong bond with both parents at a younger age requires short bursts of care and connection with both parents within a short timeframe.”
I partially agree as stated above THAT this is best ONLY between the ages of 3 and 7… any sooner – not good and any later either- not good enough.
I have seen too often a temporary situation/solution becoming the permanent problem…
research may suggest otherwise but my empirical knowledge confirms the above.
I am not a psych. I have however spent over 20 years on and off coaching and over 14 years perusing at child attachment theory. So I am a bit familiar with the dynamics.
Comment by JustCurious — Wed 25th December 2019 @ 11:05 pm
The most common issue of child separation is when mother for child desires to play vindictive payback and desire to hurt (payback) the father for perceived crimes within the relationship or to her, so many children lose loving father’s because of that. It’s endemic, just as is guaranteed DPB income for mother for child…. It’s endemic
Comment by m r poole — Sun 28th February 2021 @ 3:19 am
How do we reopen the petitions? Is there a way to leave it open? Why does it close?
Comment by Robin — Wed 10th March 2021 @ 9:40 pm
Can someone post this petition? Petition of Darrin Cassidy: Royal Commission of Inquiry into Family Court practices
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petitions/document/PET_104576/petition-of-darrin-cassidy-royal-commission-of-inquiry
Comment by Robin — Wed 10th March 2021 @ 9:45 pm
Its a bit disappointing that there are only 115 signatures.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 12th March 2021 @ 9:46 am
The change.org petition has over 3000 signatures so it’s a communication thing that needs to be sorted. The Family Court needs to have the roof peeled back just like it does to lives of so many. There is something seriously wrong when barristers such as Natalie Quirke can earn over $450,000 in 2020 from legal aid alone.
Comment by Judge Dredd — Fri 12th March 2021 @ 11:01 pm