Simon Mitchell.

Some people do have more than a burning desire to be a Labour Party stooge and they forget who they really are, lost in their illusion. Little minded lawyers from the home of the lazy and the incompetent. They become criminal lawyers not by their legitimate efforts, but by their illegal efforts. They can bend and break the rules in their mock court, and invariably implicate and discredit the Judge who has to cover up for them, even Mr Boshier — the Principal Family Court Judge.

The light of day, and a breath of fresh air, it’s a far cry from the foul stench, of the dark hole inhabited by Simple Simon and Prevaricatory Peter, but alas, such is the nature of the beast, this Family Court, with its contemptible courtlings.

Operation 2008 has announced that it will begin reminding in Wellington shortly.

The time has come when Operation 2008 are to begin reminding Peter Dunne of his responsibility for the current mess that is child “support” and family law.

For some time discussions have been taking place on what can be done to achieve equal parental rights and responsibilities. The point has been reached where engagement with the political process is not delivering and the situation gets worse, not better , Officials and Politicians do not listen.

Re branding and tinkering with the Matrix of Family law has failed to protect a child’s right to be parented by both mum and dad and mum and dad’s right to parent their children!

We have for years followed the political process for change and still the One parent is the Custodial Parent (has “day to day care” in the new speak) and the other parent is the visitor parent taxed for the privilege (“parenting time” in the new speak) is the norm. The Care of Children Act is just a re branding.

Tinkering with the Child Support Act 1991 cannot remove the fundamental flaws of this approach to supporting children. Politicians know the causes of the problem, but they lack the political courage to Act. They seek political appeasement and produce nothing.

Reasoned and well researched pleas have fallen on deaf ears and Officials and Politicians continue to hide behind a veneer of democracy while all they are doing is ticking the box on the process check-sheet that says “consulted”.

When reasoned and reasonable pleas to address the root cause are ignored, as punitive and discriminatory policy is driven to law, your ability to be an active parent in your Child’s life is further diminished. The only option left to effect change is to exercise the democratic right to non-violent protest, designed to influence the hearts and minds of those who make the law and the officials who advise and administer it.

Those who are responsible for the mess that is the current law are those who enacted it and the officials who advise them.

Peter Dunne,Leader United Future New Zealand and Minister responsible for Child Support
is member for Ohariu-Belmont. Peter Dunne needs reminding.We will be reminding Peter Dunne on the streets of his electorate. That reminding is starting very shortly.

If you would like to join the reminding Join Operation 2008

Media Release

Parents for Children

26 April 2007

For Immediate Release

Collins Fails Parents And Children Again

“By describing parents who have unpaid child support as neglectful parents Judith Collins has yet again failed to address the underlying cause of the alleged debt: Fundamental flaws exist in the Child Support Act 1991. Real neglect rests with politicians and their failure to admit that the Child Support Act 1991 is in need of significant reform.” Commented Mark Shipman of Parents for Children, responding to Collin’s comments.

Ms Collins National Party created this mess when they passed the Child Support Act, but it’s easier for her to demonise parents and have tax police arrest parents at an airport than to address the cause. Parents and children have been failed by politicians like Collins who never address underlying causes, focus on symptoms and use selective interpretation to demonise parents”. Observed Mark when asked what was National’s contribution to the solving the problem.

“Parents feel highly offended when Judith Collins states it is her opinion that if you owe money to child support then you are a neglectful parent. It’s just another example of her fixation with punishing parents by presenting selective figures that support her inflexible vendetta. Surely it’s obvious to ask the question: Why are so many parents put into debt by the child support act in the first place? The challenge for Collins and her ilk is to look for the causes, not the symptoms” Concluded Mark.

Ends
For further information contact
Mark Shipman 021982222
Jim Nicolle 021800586

Parents for Children is a national organisation seeking legislative change to enable parents who have separated to continue parenting and supporting their children.
This requires:
1. Presumptive shared parenting
2. A fair and reasonable child support system
Parents for Children advocates that best outcomes for children of separated parents is ongoing equal sharing of parental responsibility by both parents.

I’m Nigel Costley, a Nelson-based journalist, writing a story on blokes in teaching, specifically Nelson College headmaster Gary O’Shea’s idea of training teachers at his college. It could be an answer to getting more men into teaching. ‘Per’aps?
Researching this, I’m interested to talk to any bloke who has been through teacher training in recent years. Or has some hands’ on experience in this field. If said bloke would be up for half hour conversation on their experiences. I’m trying to keep clear of the highly-polarized gender politics. If possible. Probably not.
Please contact at: [email protected]

Fathers made to pay in child support blitz

By Patricia Karvelas

April 23, 2007 12:00am

A crack team of investigators will spy on divorced dads

who cry poor , using photographic and video evidence to expose them driving around in expensive cars and living in affluent suburbs.

About 120 people will be employed to undertake the intensive investigation work to force money from divorced parents who are using elaborate ways of covering up their real incomes

The shape of things to come here!!

Regards

Scrap

This was a list of issues with the child support tabled with David Cunlifee, the Minister Responsible for child Support in 2004 on the steps of Parliament.

I would like to seek suggestions for further issues to pass onto Peter Dunne.

Please keep them concise.

MEN’S CONVOY 2004
Men on the Move for
Child Support Reform

1. A “one size fits all” formula assessment.

2. The objects of the Child Support Act 1991 focus on “benefit recovery” and not the best interest of children.

3. The formula assessment is based on gross (before tax) income.

4. Voluntary agreements can be replaced by a formula assessment at any time.

5. No account is taken of Student Loan commitments when calculating the formula.

6. The living allowance of the formula assessment takes no account of the cost of access for liable parents.

7. The departure order process is fundamentally flawed, with Administrative Review Officers and Judges trapped in a system that is locked in a set of precedents from the early 1990’s.

8. There is no accountability that the money collected actually goes to support children.

9. Administration and application of the Child Support Act by Inland Revenue favours the custodial parent at the expense of the paying parent and child.

10. The living allowance takes no account of any extra necessary payments made by the paying parent.

11. Ability of the Commissioner to create a Child Support income that defies Standard Accounting Principles to inflate paying parents income to unrealistically high levels that do not reflect the real income of the parent.

12. A reciprocal agreement with Australia that subjects New Zealand Parents to Australian Legal process and Law.

13. A ballooning debt crises that points to a fundamental failure if the “simple formula” ” approach of the Child Support Act 1991

Regards

Scrap

Judge Judy is at it again and shes more determined than ever to make IRD the judge, jury and executioner who can arrest you at the border.

Like a pit-bull in need of a muzzle, Judge Judy has maintained the same position for years. Its not something new to see a National MP wanting legislation that further removes your rights a a separated parent. Look at their pathetic track record – what have they done to seek to achieve real reform of the matrix of Family Law. Lets list a couple for those with short memories
The Child Support Act 1991, The Domestic Violence Act ….. Yeah they are a really pro shared parenting party , Yeah right!

Collins wants to draw up a discussion paper including the idea of making avoiding child support an arrestable offence. “People can be arrested for non-payment of fines and this is something clearly far more serious. They issue arrest warrants for fine defaulters but if someone pays nothing for their child we seem totally incapable (of stopping them skipping the country)”.

see here

Surface analysis of this debt produces calls for IRD, a government department, to be granted draconian powers to resolve the problem. The overseas experience of similar “percentage of gross income methods” shows huge debt problems and draconian measures have failed to significantly increase recovery.

I can understand people’s anger at kiwi parents who they perceive owe huge amounts of money and run off overseas ,but before you condemn them to arrest at the airport on the word of an IRD staffer ,please understand that the root cause of the debt is the structure of the child support act. Worldwide there is a child support debt problem in New Zealand over of half of the assessed liable parents are in debt.

When a system produces an output that places over half of those assessed to pay into debt the problem is systemic.

Despite numerous attempts at tinkering with the legislation to fix it never working, has any politician sought to address the root cause of the debt crises?

No, they would rather paint parents as deadbeats and give IRD draconian power so they can look good in the media. Then they wonder why parents turn up in protest outside their doors!

Non violent direct action starting small and building up, lets force a real debate onto the election agenda.

Quite a few of these politicians and officials need reminding of what they have allowed to happen. Looks like its time for some serious reminding to begin.

Regards

Scrap

P.S. IRD can already apply to the court for an arrest warrant for non payment and have had them granted, but that has to come before a FC Judge. What they want is detention by tax offical!

Abortion pictures you need to see (you may not want to)

no ma’am

To all the five percenters — the rest of us have had enough! Get Over It!

Whats a Five percenter?

It’s that five percent of men who act like absolute wankers when a separation occurs.

The men, who behave as selfish, arrogant bastards

The men whom the Politicians and Officials use to justify the failing matrix of Family law
And as reason for beating up on the rest of us.

Hung up as examples why shared parenting and fair and reasonable child support is not possible

Let me give you an example of a Five percenter.

When a separation occurs its usually something that has been coming for a while. The relationship is failing, on the rocks. It’s a time of real pain, deep anguish and hurt we have all been there, we know what its like to have our dreams shattered. But we are men and we also know how to be men. We know what’s just and fair and contrary to a lot of opinion on this site a hell of a lot of women do to.

There is no dispute that the best outcomes for our kids occur when both mum and dad parent the children. The five percenters are a not interested in what’s best for the kids and I am sick of the rest of us being labeled the same.

This week has shown me a classic example of a five percenter. Mum and Dad have separated and MUM wants to share the care of the kids, Mum wants to avoid Courts and Child Support so how does the dad respond?

He wants to split the kids up, eldest with him and the younger three with mum. Then he’s going to move away to another part of the country. Of course slaging off mum and poisoning the eldest against her was the first part of the plan. Let’s not forget the ex-parte application for “interim custody” for the eldest child and not seeing the other three! Lets not forget his abusive text messages and a long list if other stupid behaviors.

Why is he doing this, starting a conflict when he could avoid it? What drives this behaviour that sentences the rest of separated parents and children to the matrix of family law?

It is simple really, at the end of the day these five percenters don’t want to share parenting they want to punish the other parent. The system loves these guys, they feed it.

They can’t cope with the reality of a failed relationship and they are not coping. They don’t understand the impact on the kids of parental alienation. They have lost sight of the kids, they make stupid decisions and do and say stupid things. They don’t engage their thinking brain; they engage their arrogant victim-hood.

Jo Blow above has the chance to share parenting, avoid child support and actually parent the children. That’s a pretty good space to be in and shows genuine effort on the part of mum. One would think that common sense could prevail but it wont.

We decry women who carry out such actions like Jo Blow is doing. The same must surely apply to men. So if you’re five percenter start thinking about how you are going to remain an equal parent in your children’s life’s because the rest of us have had enough. of you screwing it up for the rest of us.

You’re a man, act like one!

How do we change all this mess, we change the law! We put this mess on the election agenda by a plan of non violent direct action.

What we don’t do is encourage five percenters.

Regards

Scrap

I am hoping that readers were able to watch the first documentary of four episodes being televised by ‘Inside New Zealand’, TV3, Thursday nights.

I found the first to be a laugh and was happy ‘Kim and Corbett’ were a part. Alot of discussion is happening about Genders on many radio stations presently.

But it is not just New Zealand who is questioning our roles and feminism.

Support for feminism took another hit this summer with the airing of a Swedish television documentary called “The Gender War.” A wrenching debate was set off by the film, which showed militant feminism to be widespread, reaching into official circles: Ireen von Wachenfeldt, the chairman of Roks, Sweden’s largest women’s shelter organization, for one, was shown asserting that “men are animals.”

Suddenly the belief that politics, business, even private life should be reformed to allow a more equal society – a belief that has permeated Swedish politics for several decades – is being openly questioned.

“This could be a backlash,” said Yvonne Hirdman, a professor of history at Stockholm University, adding that she believed many people were glad.

There is also a feminist political party that seemed to be in a position to take 25 percent of the votes for the next election but have dropped to a meager 1.3 percent. This might be what is behind Labor’s push for state funding. ????

The party wanted to ban marriage altogether and make all children have neutral names only.

Sweden and New Zealand as well as many other western countries are following an International feminist movement. Everything New Zealand is doing, Sweden has done including the allegations of abuse on the police force.

We are to shortly see the feminist plan to give 20 hours a week free childcare from July 1st which they intend to increase full-time and have paid for by the state. Sweden has already fulfilled this and has free full time child care for children from age one.

The No Smacking Bill is just a tool to help get New Zealand to where Sweden is.

What comes next for feminism and equality in Sweden is an open question. Some observers believe that the recent wave of criticism and introspection will die down. But others think that social reforms will start to be rolled back, and that even the belief in equality that has been the pride of many Swedes for years may be in jeopardy.

“Testing times have arrived,” said Hirdman, a history professor. “Now we’ll see how deeply rooted this really is.”

International Herald Tribune

In his speech to the Salvation Army yesterday, Mr Key told how he sees domestic violence…

? “The trials (Louise Nicholas) throw light on a pattern of behaviour and an attitude towards women which persists in this country.

Domestic violence is the disgraceful secret of some otherwise successful men, and is the sorry burden of their partners…

There remains a dark side to the experiences of too many New Zealand women and children at the hands of too many New Zealand men. The evidence can be seen partly in the disturbing crime statistics relating to domestic violence…

It goes without saying that the perpetrators of violence are usually men, and their victims are women and children. These are the reported figures, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. All crime is subject to under-reporting, but violence against women and children is one of those crimes least likely to come to police notice.

For some of these women and children, violence occurs only rarely. For others, however, violence is so common as to be virtually a normal part of everyday life. This strips the dignity, self-confidence and hope away from those who are subjected to it.

It is a judge’s job to measure one crime against another, and to set a sentence accordingly. To me, however, domestic violence, which encompasses the injuring, bullying and oppression of women and children, is always sickening.”

?

Does Mr Key also find the injuring, bullying and oppression of men sickening?? Is he aware of the stats regarding the sex of the perpetrators of domestic violence against children?

? I would think statements like “patterns of behaviour and attitudes”, “oppression” and the ignorant phrase, “It goes without saying that the perpetrators of violence are usually men, and their victims are women and children,”? would clearly show Mr Key’s thinking on the topic.

So the leaders of both our major parties choose to ignore violence by women against men, children or other women.

The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill is open for submissions.

This is an important bill for Fathers as there are serious implications for paternity registration buried in the bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are of particular interest as is 84A

To Sum Up

The first is in relation to the part of the bill which places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a Registrar of the birth of a child. If

The only exceptions are when there is only one parent at law – this happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, or where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called “undue distress” to one of the parents.

This changes the position from the current law, where the obligation to notify a Registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth.

If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father – whether they choose to or not.

If the father does not agree to having his name on the Birth Certificate the registrar can use extensive investigation powers to place a fathers name on the birth certificate.

Section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence to “having had the relevant provision of this Act drawn to the person’s attention, fails or refuses to give any information required by this Act to be given”.

Please have a look at the bill and please make a submission to the select committee.

Remember a child has a right to know both of his parents and while it is easy to identify the mother the only conclusive evidence that a man is a child’s father is a DNA test. Please stress the need for FREE DNA testing if requested by a Father as a requirement for birth registration.

The certificate of birth is the primary document used for establishing proof of paternity for child support (tax) recovery and if it is wrong it is currently and will under this bill will be very difficult and expensive for a father to gain redress against the injustice.

Remember the solution is simple FREE DNA tests,without the mother acting as a gatekeeper, if requested as this will protect the child and the father and provide honesty and truth in parenthood.

Finally lets not forget the kids, they have the right to be sure that dad is dad and not an unrelated stranger.

Regards

Scrap

Many people don’t seem to think that they have access to this appeal. I am not sure how this could be so, in a modern democracy?
Please think through what is happening here and judge whether this is acceptable?
What should be done about the familycaught?

K v C [appeal: relocation]

––––– (2001) 21 FRNZ 686 –––––

High Court, Auckland (AP147-SW00)

6 December; 19 December 2001

Priestley J

Custody and access – Appeal – Children in mother’s legal custody – Protection order in place against father – Father had been granted order preventing removal of children from New Zealand – Mother sought to revoke order and sought permission to relocate with children overseas – Allegations of gang affiliations and threats to kill untested – Applications granted on ex parte basis – Father sought to set aside Family Court’s decision – Whether Family Court had made a mistake in fact and law – Family Court’s duty to take critical approach to evidence in ex parte proceedings – Paramountcy principle – Guardianship Act 1968, ss 11, 13, 23(2), 28; Family Proceedings Rules 1981, r 8.

Due to length – this is continued as a comment…….

Filed under: General – MurrayBacon @ 7:26 am
This was irrelevantly previously posted under Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?

The Family As Pillar Of The European Social Model

An example of what we miss when we edit our lives to focus on one aspect of good work toward to Re-Building the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**

Many NZ Men and some Women will be embarrased when real change for the good of Family comes from Europe, America and across the ditch while we pontificate – isolate, tribalise, intellectualise and repeat the mistakes of the past.

Yes I know some are aware of so called progress in OZY but most are reading that from the Spin Doctored press not the Men and their Families groups.
Enjoy but one example of HandsOnEqualParent-NEWS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News

Due to length – continued in comments

Below, I attach two papers by judge jan doogue, presented in 2003 and 2004, one supporting that judges should give (almost illegal?) support to mother abductors and the other suggesting that maybe father’s relationships with their children are being damaged without reason by familycaught.
When reading these papers, keep in mind the quality and skills for “weighing evidence” in familycaught! When you consider the absence of reliable evidence in most cases, then the ideas propounded by judge doogue can be seen to be highly hazardous to family relationships (I would suggest family vandalism?)
Lets apply common sense to obtain a working familycaught.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon
Notes:
2003(6) mother abductors are about 85%, not 70% as stated.
2003(7) read this carefully and make your own judgement.
>
>
2003
>
SECTION 13(1)(c) DEFENCES UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP
AMENDMENT ACT 1991
The Climate following DP v Commonwealth Central Authority; Re S
(Abduction: Custody Rights); E.S. v Secretary for Justice.
Judge Jan Doogue, Family Court, Auckland
INTRODUCTION
1. This paper deals with those cases where it is asserted by an abducting parent
that a child’s return to the country of habitual residence will either expose the
child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an
intolerable situation because of domestic violence.
2. Social developments and recent legal developments in Australia, United
Kingdom and New Zealand have converged to make this an extremely
problematic and challenging area of the law for practitioners advising clients,
and for Judges determining cases. Some legal commentators argue that The
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980
(the abduction convention) convention now puts at risk some children in
abduction cases involving domestic violence.
3. In this paper, I will review recent decisions where the difficult tension
between the abduction convention and the changing demographic of
abductors and reasons for abductions has been grappled with by Courts, with
particular emphasis on the trans-tasman situation in New Zealand and
Australia.
BACKGROUND
4. When the abduction convention was first formulated, the usual abductor was
a non-custodial parent and a father. Since then, there has been a significant
change in the profile of the “abductor”. Lowe and Perry (1) did a comparison
between the profiles of abductors between 1987 and 1996. They found a
considerable shift in the ratio of mother to father abductors. This was
confirmed by the statistical analysis of applications made in 1999 and
presented by Lowe (2) for the attention of the Special Commission at The
Hague in March 2001.
5. On the basis of that analysis Lowe found that globally 70 percent of abductors
were now mothers.
6. Judicial recognition of this change was given recently in TB v JB
(Abductions: Grave Risk of Harm) (3) by Hale LJ wherein she stated:
LexisNexis Professional Development Child Law Conference 2003 — Judge Jan Doogue Paper Page 2
“Now, however, in 70 percent of cases, the abductor is the
primary carer: the parent who has always looked after the
children, upon whom the children rely for all their basic needs,
and with whom their main security lies. The other parent is
using the Hague Convention essentially to protect his rights of
access”.
7. Whilst not all primary carer abductions have a history of violence or abuse
against the mother or child, it would appear that very many do. In a
significant number of such cases, the eventual outcome will be that the child,
if returned to the state of habitual residence, will legally be allowed to leave
that country with the primary carer. If the relocation is not sanctioned by the
Court, custody is most often granted to the primary carer in any event.

This paper continues in the comments section……..

Ho Hum. Another day like any other on the TV news. Last night’s TV3 late edition high-lighted two stories, one on the Basley report, the other on a growing difference between men and women’s incomes 5 years after graduation. Of all the stories that can be presented, of all the wrongs that can be righted, yet again it is men behaving badly and women coming off the worse. I can’t think of a single news story in the past 30 years that chastised behaviour that only women were guilty of, or featured women seriously acknowledging any of the many ways in which they obtain advantage over men.

We know they are more likely to abuse children and more likely to abduct them with no serious consequence to themselves. We know they’re not going to be harmed or killed doing the very worst of jobs that need to be done, and that they will live longer by at least 5 years. They get the hog’s share of government funding, be it health, education, welfare or? superannuation. Drive through any affluent neighbourhood and a significant number of the houses will be occupied by older women on their own. On the other hand, take a look at all the homeless people, and they are mainly men. As earners, wives, widows and beneficiaries of trusts, women control a significant majority of the country’s wealth. I can’t put an exact figure on how much they collectively control, because that information is not really available. Unlike the figure for salary differences between men and women 5 years after graduation.

Consider the method being used to fashion an increasingly women-oriented world. One by one the stories are trotted out, one after the other. Each is relatively innocuous, common-sense almost. How could anyone defend the actions of police in the many cases in Basley’s report? What isn’t innocuous is the filter. When will there be a Basley report on the number of times police have arrested the male victim of a female abuser? Or a report on the extent to which women use false sexual accusation for personal advantage, and the attendant social cost? On the whole issue of sexual exploitation, ask any bouncer who guards rock stars who they get the most trouble from. Ask any young man conned into being a parent to a child he didn’t sire. Ask Paul McCartney.

Interesting also is the personal interest taken by the mother of our nation in this latest affair. She doesn’t often step in to matters that are usually handled by the judiciary. I don’t recall her taking any public interest in David Dougherty’s plight, locked up as a child rapist when DNA evidence proved conclusively that he was innocent. She may well have sympathised, but how many votes are in that? And votes are what she’s all about this time. For the first time as PM, she’s facing a real threat in John Key. Without a block female vote at the next election, she’s toast.

We men are not all virtue, and women not all villain. But we are at the raw end of a society that exists emphatically for the benefit and protection of women and children only. Society may want our labour, but we are on our own.

Press Release by Families Commission at 11:32 am, 03 Apr 2007

The Family Court was opened to the news media almost two years ago in a move designed to open the court to the public gaze. However a study on the results shows that journalists have barely parted the curtains.

?

The Families Commission has just released a study funded by its Blue Skies Fund, The Family Court, Families and the Public Gaze by Canterbury University researchers Ursula Cheer, John Caldwell and Jim Tully.

?

“The intent behind opening up the Family Court, with certain restrictions, was to promote public understanding and transparency in the face of a public perception of secrecy and bias,” Ms Cheer said.

?

The researchers examined the results of the first year following the change, looking at media reports and the new environment, and surveyed judges and journalists.

?

“Judges generally were disappointed by the lack of interest shown by the media and felt that reporters were more interested in the views of people who were dissatisfied rather than in the Court itself,” said Ms Cheer.

?

Over the year, there were just 101 articles published on Family Court cases and many dealt with the new reporting regime itself. Only a few looked at individual cases.

?

Some media did not consider Family Court cases newsworthy or felt uneasy reporting the cases. However, the study also revealed that media were hampered by practical limitations such as lack of personnel and time to cover cases.

?

The report suggests that the media could take more advantage of the new openness to assist public understanding of the work of the Court. However they would be assisted in this if plans for opening the Court more fully were brought to fruition.

?

For a copy of the report visit www.nzfamilies.org.nz/publications

Nowhere is it written in stone that the view of the majority is always right, (NZ Herald Editorial 2 April 2007), however the view of minorities is well documented as usually left. While our children may currently be suffering a degree of state enforced illiteracy, there is an older majority of the population, who are well advised when it comes to the politics of the state. Knowing that this government had previously formed an agreement (without consultation), with the United Nations to repeal section 59, by 2005. Knowing that other countries who have treaded this path have failed to achieve said proffered solutions. Knowing that there is a legal transition of authority from the family to the state, we can be grateful that the majority can still read and think. When Hitler said “your child belongs to us already”, and Churchill, said “family is the foundation of society”, that’s written in stone all over the world. The majority should be as intolerant of Herald propaganda, as they are of the state machine.

When it comes to the difference between mothers and fathers, and politicians, we can say this: raising your children will always be a greater challenge than winning an election, and that is why the state should never be a parent.

Lets support good parents (mothers and fathers), over abducting parents.

Should Kay Skelton and Dick Headley be prosecuted for the abduction, within NZ, of a 6 year old boy?

On the face of it, they are charged with a long term child abduction and this is just the final act in a 6 year run of holding the familycaught in contempt.

Child abduction does seriously affect the child. His schooling has been interrupted. His family and friend relationships have been completely broken, for 10% of his entire life and damaged for all of his life. It teaches very skewed values and experience about relationships between men and women, that lay down a nasty legacy for the child’s future relationships. The hiding and the dishonesty lay down intuitions of fear and evasion, that imprint the developing mind, to some extent. Children have a right to be protected from abduction.

The situation has imposed “wasted” legal costs onto the father and the long suffering taxpayer. (In this case, the costs imposed on the Police were not large, as they just waited for the child to give himself up. Only when the “abductor” is a father, do the Police put in much effort.)

However, before throwing the book at this mother and her father, the familycaught should seriously consider it’s own contribution to this debacle. By supporting the mother’s actions, up until the final hearing before the abduction, the familycaught has actively REWARDED the mother, for holding them in contempt. They may have tut-tutted with WORDS, but even the most dismal of idiots know that ACTIONS speak louder than words. The judge’s words were shown to be lies, by their ACTIONS which consistently rewarded her for her behaviours. Let the punishment fit the crime?

The most basic parenting course, teaches that for discipline to be effective, it must be CONSISTENT and reasonably quickly delivered! Let the punishment fit the crime. These judges consistently rewarded the mother, for holding court orders in abject contempt. Their behaviour allowed and drove her to continue being dishonest and manipulative.

Lets see these familycaught judges in the dock, alongside Kay Skelton and Dick Headley. I would suggest that they should get longer sentences than the direct actors. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Even more to the point, lets see these judges pay for remedial activities for the boy and financial recompense for the father and taxpayer.

Real judges, with the skills to perform constructively and cost effectively, as a Family Court Judge, would not say one thing and do another, in their judgements. The NZ public deserves what they get, for accepting the use of lay judges (without relevant professional level training) in familycaught.

Real judges would have successfully passed professional level assessments in courses covering:

1. Weighing evidence
2. Parenting skills
3. Assessing parenting skills
4. Assessing parenting resources
5. Family discipline
6. Family budgeting
7. Family mediation
8. Gender equity

Weighing evidence is important. If this first step cannot be got right, then all that follows is like a house of cards, there is no reality or strength or value in it. Accusations of violence or sex abuse are easily used in front of these “lay” familycaught judges, to support allowing the other parent to immediately gain total control over the children’s situation. It is only when the evidence is weighed correctly, that the punishment will fit the crime.
The important issue is not punishment for its own sake, but bringing the real life consequences back onto the perpetrator. Doing this, teaches people to respect each other. Not doing it, teaches people that they can readily do damage to others, their ex-partner, their children, other people and rely on getting away undisciplined.
In the end, damage of any sort in a parenting relationship dis-serves the children.

These subjects are not rocket science, on the contrary, people with these skills are happy to work for much lower salaries than familycaught judges are currently paid!

Before anyone prosecutes the mother Skelton and her father, surely we should prosecute the far more serious abductions ie international abductions?

One example is given in K v C 21FRNZ686. The familycaught judge, without notice to the father, lifted a CAPPS Order and put a woman child abductor onto a plane, with 5 children, for them to never be seen again. Judge Priestley overturned the familycaught judge’s DECISION, but as the children were out of NZ, his piece of paper only assuaged the father’s feelings. Why do this, when the NZ Legislation requires us to ACT against child abduction, to deter it by consistently prosecuting it?

Judge Priestley carefully did not give the name of the familycaught judge, to protect the judge from prosecution and protect the confidence of the NZ public, in the familycaught judges provided for them. The only identification is “Papakura Family Court”, but even this could have been falsified to protect “confidentiality”. By doing this, Judge Priestley and judge boshier become accessories after the fact, to that familycaught judge’s part in the 5 child abduction.

It seems that the familycaught judge was protected from accepting responsibility and from any remedial re-training or supervision?

Would you want to know that the judge at your upcoming hearing had previously removed a CAPPS Order and put a woman child abductor onto a plane, with 5 children, for them to never be seen again?

Or would you be happier to have this information withheld=hidden from you?

If you have a familycaught hearing coming up, write to judge boshier and ask him to assure you that the judge provided for your hearing was not the familycaught judge in K v C 21FRNZ686.

There have been about 250 children returned to NZ, under Hague Convention, in the last 20 years. Most of the abducting parents will have returned too, thus at a guess 100+ abductors (say 85 mothers and 15 fathers).

I am not aware of a single prosecution of any of these abductors.

The USA sometimes prosecutes and jails abducting parents who are returned under extradition, whether mother or father of the child.

I do appreciate that such a prosecution is a deterrent to abductors, that might lead them to take extreme measures to avoid capture. However, surely the most important issue is to deter abduction in the first place, as far as possible. This is why Parliament passed legislation making child abduction a crime.

International abduction is insidious, in that the chances of the return of the child are much lower than for abduction within NZ. The child is suddenly ripped right out of their entire community and dropped into some other. Fear of capture and lies pervade every aspect of the child’s life. Life becomes a lie.

The damage to the remaining parent (85% fathers) is usually quite cruel and most fathers (and mothers) in this situation get horrifying little support or assistance. Some of these parents are offered so little hope through meeting familycaught, that they destroy their own lives, even though they were not the abductor parent.

Recently, Sweden returned an abductor mother and her son to NZ. She returned in a blaze of self-released publicity and with a police escort. Even so, the NZ Police were “unable?” to catch and prosecute her for the more than year long abduction. (The daughter was not returned by Sweden, as they considered that she was near enough to 12 years, that she could decide to not be returned. The “legal delays” within NZ, led to this non-return. The legal delays, were very profitable for the NZ lawyers and familycaught judge involved and contributed to the non-return due to delay.)

The impact on these children was swept under the carpet and the mother was left free to return to Sweden. The social and financial costs to the father were not an issue for the familycaught. The “wasted legal costs” were not an issue to the familycaught judges and legal workers, they just banked them! The perhaps half million dollars down the drain, is of a similar order to a small arson or a 100 car conversions. Let the punishment fit the crime.

We may have no-fault divorce, but this does not mean that we have n0-responsibility for all parenting behaviour and misbehaviour. Our existing legislation supports putting responsibility onto errant parents. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Why are familycaught judges not doing it?

The only way that parents can be motivated to behave constructively, is when we have familycaught judges who have the simple basic skills to be able to weigh evidence competently and assess responsibility and parenting skills and then put responsibility onto the errant parent(s). This is called the principle of “public policy”.

If the familycaught would like to be taken seriously, then lets see them prosecute the serious cases of child abduction and accessory to abduction FIRST.

For prosecutions to be effective as a deterrent, they must be as speedy as possible, as suggested in Care of Children Act 2004. If these cases were prosecuted and child abduction dropped right off, the legal workers would lose over $10 million in income per year. Its a win-win situation for children, good parents and the public, to prosecute child abductors (but not for familycaught judges and lawyers). This conflict of interest is not managed professionally and this debacle just goes on without an end in sight.

It looks as though this will only be by private prosecution, so do we need a familycaught at all? What value are these familycaught judges successfully delivering, for their wage?

Lets not forget abductions within the same city:

When a father moves out of a family home, taking the children with him, to get the final day-to-day-care that he demands, then this is also a serious case of abduction. When a familycaught judge rewards this father, by giving day-to-day-care, to suit his new location, this father is being rewarded for using fait-accompli and manipulation. These situations usually put quite a lot of costs onto the other parent, the mother. A typical example may cost the mother say $100 for selling a house and buying a new house to suit the new parenting location and possibly costs associated with changing job etc.

It would be constructive, to NOT give the advantage to the parent that uses fait-accompli and for the familycaught to require honest negotiation. The negotiation should take place before the children are moved. Say for 5,000 separating couples per year, requiring honest negotiation would save parents collectively about $50 million a year in the first year of separation and about $5 million a year for each subsequent child raising year. All this, for only costing the legal workers $20 million a year.

Lets recruit judges who know what honesty is and why it is valuable. This is the only path to: Let the punishment fit the crime.

In the meantime, I will throw in $100 to prosecute the father of the abducted child, for not protecting his child from abduction and familycaught. He did not serve his child’s interests, by trusting the familycaught.

Neither did I, damit (conclusion in 20FRNZ604). Alas, I hold the familycaught in the same contempt, that it holds it own caught orders. My experience of the familycaught dreamworld is now several years old, but it does not seem to have moved forward in terms of protecting children from “image over reality” dishonest parents.

If anyone cares to read boshier in 20FRNZ604, if you are interested to see whether he honestly presents in his judgement, the essence of my application, then I can give you a copy of my application. I am happy for you to be the judge.

I offer judges green(now clarkson) and robinson up for prosecution, as active supporters of a woman child abductor (within city abduction – support after the abduction), in my own experience.

Lets build up a public list of familycaught judges who have actively supported child abduction (either by a mother or by a father) and try to return their profit from this. Please identify whether the support was after the abduction or prior to the abduction?

How many abductions have these judges been actively involved in?

The familycaught needs skilled professional management, from outside the ranks of the legal workers.

Lets get real judges in the familycaught.

My appreciation to honest good parents (mothers and fathers).

Murray Bacon
34 Valley Road,
Mount Eden,
Auckland.
ph 638 7275

We have to accept that dads are important, it does take two to tango, after all. They should be encouraged to take more responsibility for child-raising. A survey by the Ministry of Social Development showed that around 30,000 children have no other parent contributing towards their development. Fathers must be responsible for their children and we will require liable parents to meet their financial obligations.

Recognising all Kiwis’ potential
Address to Auckland Rotary Club
Judith Collins – 26 March

What’s up with Helen Clark these days? Before she announces yet another of her personal opinions, she’s taken to first saying “Any reasonable person would agree that …” (insert personal opinion here).

The implication is that:

a) reasonable people don’t differ

b) she is a reasonable person.

In the real world, someone who suggests that reasonable people don’t have differing views is not a reasonable person.

It’s clear she thinks group sex is disgusting. There will be plenty who agree. I suspect that most reasonable people find all sorts of sexual behaviour disgusting, particularly if they don’t practise it themselves. And most reasonable people probably don’t much care what other consenting adults get up to, so long as they keep it private.

But now that Helen is speaking on behalf of all of us, and has the profile to pressure the police, I’d apprecate it if she would make clear all sexual practises that she thinks are ok. A list published in the Herald would do fine.
In the meantime, maybe we should all just desist altogether.

FYI

Wellington peaceful protest march details

MARCH ON PARLIAMENT

Against Anti Smacking Bill

Then do something about it BEFORE it’s too late!

Join us in a PEACEFUL protest

Wednesday 28th March 2007

Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then

advancing to Parliament

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

?

For more information, see

http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mail
[email protected]

Mitch Lees
Representative
Phone: 027 243 1676

?

?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm?

March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm
Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Anti Smacking Bill

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford’s proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.

Sue Bradford’s bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be ‘ratted out,’ Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours? The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place – wasting valuable time and resources — and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger — hardly what they need.

I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct. The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It’s time to push back. The present law allowing “reasonable force” should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.

ENDS

Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/

Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Like all Aunties know what’s best for you!
So remember at the end of the Day
It’s the Aunties who have all the power and say

Aunties always know what’s best;
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

Aunties are a dangerous breed,
For them logic and reason are not a need,
When they speak their views are clear
Reason and logic not required here!
Its arrogance that only aunties display,
Maybe it because their friends are gay?

Aunties always know what’s best
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

Aunties are always telling you
What they demand you will do.
Political Aunties are the worst
It’s like New Zealand has been cursed!
Aunties always miss root cause,
Because they can they tinker making un-required laws
That strip away your parenting rights
It’s a worry being in the Aunties sights.

Aunties always know what’s best
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

And when the Aunties have had their day,
It the kids that suffer from what they do and say,
So when you vote in 2008
You have the choice to change their fate.
Remember Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
And what they have done to you.

With all due empathy towards those unfortunate women diagnosed with breast cancer, the process of feminist pressure on Pharmac, the health system, and on (and from) the feminist government keen to promote female interests has been selfish and callous towards men. Pharmac has already recommended a short course of Herceptin therapy for early breast cancer, and the $6 million cost of this to District Health Boards will result in resources being unavailable to treat diseases affecting both genders. However, breast cancer spokeswoman Libby Burgess expresses her gratitude for this contribution from our society by complaining that it is “cheap, unethical and throwing NZ women a few crumbs”. She and feminist lobbyists continue to demand that a long course of this expensive drug be approved, amounting to over $70,000 per breast cancer patient in order to “reduce the chance of breast cancer returning”, in addition to existing, expensive treatments and in addition to the expensive programme to make screening free for women and to encourage them to use screening.

Men continue to die more than women from most of the leading causes of death and they continue to live about five years fewer than women. These facts don’t seem to merit a mention by the feminist state. Men continue to provide the majority of our nation’s economic wealth through their industry and initiative, and in the process they continue to suffer around 100% of workplace deaths and the vast majority of serious workplace injuries and maimings, not to mention the long-term health damage inevitable in many male occupations. Surely they are entitled to a fair share of the health budget? Surely the impact of expensive initiatives for women’s health should consider the impact on men’s death rates? Surely at least we can expect some gratitude from women who disproportionately benefit already from the health budget?

Note that Pharmac seeks feedback from the public concerning this matter by April 12. They are one body I think that would take into account people’s submissions, unlike most parliamentary select committees that are shams to push through predetermined policy. Most of us males are chivalrous and would be reluctant to argue against help for suffering women, but I think it important to remind the health authorities that men are here, are dying and that any new funding exclusive to women’s needs will remove resources for men’s needs.

Hans

See Herceptin article

This woman was yesterday convicted of murder. She manipulated her two male boarders to throw the molotov cocktails that killed 71-year-old Joan Betti, through which she also hoped to murder the woman’s daughter and granddaughter out of jealousy. Aside from this being another case of a violent femme, it’s notable as an example of that proportion of violent crimes committed by men but caused by women. I have come across quite a few cases where a male is the one who actually assaults someone in domestic or general community violence, but the action was out of misguided chivalry resulting from a woman’s claims to him about the victim and encouragement that he defend the woman’s honour or exact retribution on her behalf. The Clayton case is unusual only in that the woman was held accountable on this occasion for her role. Usually that doesn’t happen and the offences merely contribute to statistics of male violence. Although the men who commit such violence need to be responsible for their own actions (and foolishness), we also need to acknowledge women’s violence in manipulating of age-old male social instincts to protect women, and the frequency with which this and other male instincts provides women with abusive power over men.

(Similar instincts I think are at play in police reactions to domestic violence by women against men. The police are inclined to protect the woman from the consequences of her actions and the woman encourages this in various ways.)

Hans

From: www.stuff.co.nz

Tuesday, 20 Mar 2007

Woman guilty of killing great-grandmother
A woman has been found guilty of murdering an Upper Hutt
great-grandmother in an arson attack while the two men who
threw the molotov cocktails for her were found guilty only
of manslaughter.

A High Court jury in Wellington yesterday found Carol May
Clayton, 57, guilty of murdering Joan Betti, 71, while
Richard Steven Pearce, 21, and Nicholas Andrew Edgarton, 19,
were found guilty of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder.
…

Clayton was also found guilty of attempting to kill Mrs
Betti’s daughter and granddaughter , Judith Betti and
Latisha Owens, both of whom she suspected of having sexual
relationships with her boyfriend, David Betti.
…

The Crown alleged Clayton orchestrated the attack out of
jealousy, and that the two young men, who were boarders at
her house, threw a molotov cocktail each, in the early hours
of that Saturday morning…