As posted on Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Opinions expressed by others are not neccessarily those of Watching CYFSWATCH New Zealand.

Source: CYFSWATCH NZ or www.cyfswatch.org

The CYFSWATCH.BLOGSPOT.COM blog was closed down, as was the next one at CYFSWATCHNZ.WORDPRESS.COM, who also felt the wrath of the Communist actions committed by CYFS (Child Youth & Family) CEO Peter Hughes.

The website justice.kiwi1960.com is now just http://www.kiwi1960.com and will feature a petition shortly calling on the Government to leave this site alone, that the people WANT debate on CYFS, and that its better to NAME and SHAME the bad social workers rather than tarring all social workers with the same brush; such a ’tarring’ is not fair to the GOOD social workers who work at CYFS.

The MSD (Ministry of Social Development) should use the infornmation here to investigate the complaints.

The Minister (David Benson Pope), the Childrens Commissioner (Cindy Kiro), and the Associate Minister for CYFS (Ruth Dyson) cannot hide from these complaints anymore.

Whether they like it or not, this site IS NOW the Independent CYFS Complaints Authority.

kiwi1960

Can you help me??? I have been in the Family Court battling for 4 years. I have been separated from my child for apparently objecting strongly to experiencing unsolicited anal sex. If you are able to reverse my aversion to this practice please contact me.

1. I object to being thrown out of my home and work place through an illegal ex parte order. The shock of this is indescribable.

2. I object to separation from my Daughter through a false protection order.

3. I object to an attack on a ‘Fisher Based’ contracting out agreement (prenuptial) when the other party was clearly advised of her rights under section 21 of the PRA.

4. I object to The High Court overturning the first Judgment in my favour due to small technicality. (debatable)

5. I object to Legal Aid supporting the other party when under their own rules “there must be a good chance of success to receive funding”

6. I object to paying out $150K to successfully defend a contract perfectly performed in accordance to the rules of the PRA 2002 that Margaret Wilson stated….. “will create clarity and certainty”

7. I object to the reality that despite the attack being Spurious I cannot sue the lawyer who initiated the attack by his counterfactual statement that he felt he did not ”advise’ his client adequately. (There are many loopholes that the other party can blackmail you on…..NEVER EVER live with someone in YOUR home regardless of any contract or trust)

8. I object to my child’s mother taking off from my town to live in another town without the courts or my permission.

9. I object to my ex wife making false claims that I had sexually abused our daughter and was raping her so she had to “get away”

10. I object to a Judge kicking for touch and delaying a decision for a year allowing the inevitable to come about. ( Child now settled…huh! funny that)

11. I object to claims of threats being made by me against her new partner when in fact he was the protagonist by playing the knight in shiny armour.

12. I object to the lesbian policewoman who 3 months later laid charges against me with no proof but a deaf man who stated in court he did not see or hear anything but a little girl crying.

13. I object to the District Court Judge who convicted me and was swayed by the policewoman complaining that I had laid a complaint against her with the Police Complaints Authority for her verbal attack and threat on my elderly mother and daughter outside the Court.(these dykes are vicious, she admitted to me she believed my wife’s story that I had been violent to her over 10yrs, in actual fact this was proven in court to be rubbish)

14. I object to the District Court for later stating that I could not have the transcript for the hearing as they were not available.

15. I object to the lack of importance placed by the FC Judge on the blackmail used by my ex wife in court, She said to me in a break… if I dropped my opposition against her relocation she would drop their criminal charges against me.

16. I object to the final order permitting the relocation of my daughter permanently. From the Judgement it appears that I lack the ability to trust my ex partner enough to eliminate conflict between us.

That’s 16 times I was sodomised and I just cannot seem to enjoy it. What’s wrong with me?

Is there a pill I can take that will make all the above OK?? Oh yes there is of course…cyanide.

Cyfswatch Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 10:35 am

Go to www.cyfswatchnz.blogspot.com for an explanation page of the latest events. CYFSWATCH do not intend re-launching the site via Google.

It is just convenient to post a page there for now.

CYFSWATCH

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Where has www.cyfswatchnz.wordpress.com gone?

CYFSWATCH NZ are currently in a none too subtle game of “whack-a-mole” with the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry responsible for CYFS. It seems as if there are some very motivated Government individuals who are determined to remain unaccountable to the NZ public about their gross abuses of children and families in New Zealand.

We have posted this page here to advise our readers that:

1/ The entire blog content has been saved, and so can be re-published, anywhere, at any time.

2/ We are at this stage unsure of what transpired over at wordpress. We did not delete the blog. We have contacted wordpress and asked if they can advise us as to what did happen.

3/ If it wasn’t wordpress who deleted the site, then we have to surmise that an external party was responsible for the act.

4/ This message is posted on blogger for convenience. We do not intend re-launching the blog on Google.

Contact us at [email protected] if you have any more questions.
(more…)

A couple of considerations relevant to Child Support, from a discussion in another forum:

1. “Child Support” is a misnomer. Non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who earn an average or median income are required to pay far more than the children would ever cost to run. The maximum liability for two children is around $25000 per year (over $2000 per month). No way ordinary children will ever cost that much. So the tax is not conceived as child support at all, but as spousal support. I call it “Father Removal Tax” because it is mainly just a method to facilitate the expulsion of fathers from their own family units.

2. The current system of so-called “Child Support” is just another gender wealth redistribution technique invented by feminists, to go along with “matrimonial property” (usually including everything the man worked for prior to ever meeting the woman who then seizes it) and tax-related payments to women (such as the DPB, and the “Unsupported Woman” benefit for which there is no male equivalent). Taxes of course have always come primarily from male industry and productivity, for which men shorten their lives and ruin their health. Father Removal Tax is calculated on the after-tax earnings of the father, meaning that with two children non-custodial fathers are effectively taxed at around 65% of their gross earnings when income tax is included. Men are now slaves in the service of feminist interests.

3. People agree to make and to rear children, usually entering into some contract with a partner to do so, whether formal or informal. When one party then renegs on the contract by running off with some new exciting lover and trashes their children’s family unit, should the other parent still have to continue to service the breached contract? In my opinion, the other parent’s liability should at least be carefully limited to half of what are reasonable expenses specifically for children such as their clothing, school and medical expenses. Most NZ children would not cost more than $50 each per week ($2500 per year) to run, so the liability should rarely be more than $25 per week per child.

4. There is a spurious argument that the custodial parent (usually the mother) should be reimbursed for the larger house she needs to maintain with rooms for the children, the car she needs to transport the children etc. In fact, if the father wants to have a full and meaningful as possible relationship with the children he also needs to maintain a larger house with rooms for the children and a car to transport them and everything else, so his child-related lifestyle expenses are little different from the mother’s and there is no justification for him subsidizing such costs for her. Further, he usually contributes more than the mother to the costs of access, e.g. travelling to see them.

5. However, if the father is not the primary child-carer and he is the one who renegs on the contract, I think it is reasonable that he pays more and reimburses the mother to maintain something approaching the economic conditions she had during the marriage.

6. Of course, the most equitable arrangement that is also likely to be best for the children is a shared-care one where no other money exchanges hands unless some imbalance of specifically child costs develops. Feminists will argue that the mother who put aside her career for the family would then be disadvantaged, and I personally would support some additional subsidy to her following separation for a couple of years while she builds up her career again, but then only when it was the father who abandoned the marriage-type contract.

7. In most other legal contracts if you breach them there are penalties but with the most important contract of all, that of marriage and family creation, there is no penalty and in fact the State rewards primary child-care partners (usually mothers) for such skullduggery. If the State wants to facilitate often impetuous decisions by primary caregivers by paying them the no-fault DPB for breaking up their children’s family units, why should the other parent (usually the father) have to reimburse the State for its foolishness?

Hans Laven

Its that time of year when the Tax Police are busy issuing their Child Tax Assessments.

Don’t forget to object to your assessment. It doesn’t matter if you are unsuccessful and it costs you nothing except a few minutes to draft an objection letter.Its your legal statutory right to object.Objections cost IRD as they have to respond to the letter and review your objection. Every letter they have to write and every phone-call they have to answer is a cost of compliance. Imagine how much it would cost if 1000 parents objected!

Now we are all familiar with the saying :”you pay peanuts you get monkeys.” and IRD has its fair share of monkeys administering child tax. I’m all for being kind to monkeys and would encourage others to do the same. Every time IRD writes to you they seem to include an addressed envelope so why not take the time to send it back to them? (No stamp required!) I would suggest that you put in a little note saying “Peanuts for the Child Tax Monkeys” and 2 or 3 peanuts.

Lets call it a peanuts for the Child Tax monkeys campaign. The purpose is simple, increase the cost of compliance.

1) It costs the monkeys to open the letter
2) Its takes the monkeys time to read the note
3) It takes the monkeys time to dispose of the peanuts
4) It costs money while the monkeys talk about the peanuts.
5) It can be done frequently and targeted at major monkeys (E.G. David Udy, Ken Pope, Heather Styris……)

Compliance and the “Compliance Triangle” is the holy grail of child tax collection. Increase the cost of compliance and the Dogma of voluntary compliance fails to keep the collection costs down!

Operation 2008 is slowly building in its attack on the compliance model used by IRD with the aim being for members to make it cost $10 dollars for IRD to collect 1 dollar of child tax.

Get sending those peanuts and keep reading. This is just a small beginning of that escalating non violent direct action targeted to explode at election time in 2008 .

N.B. No insult to monkeys intended and no peanuts were consumed while writing this article.

Regards

Scrap

Source: WATCHING CYFSWATCH New Zealand

cyfswatch Says:
February 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pm e

Message from cyfswatch:

We did NOT delete the blog – we have made contact with wordpress to try to ascertain what might have happened. We will keep you posted. Blog is saved so won’t be an issue, plus we have the watchingcyfs mirror site. May have been hacked? Not sure.

CYFSWATCH

Has CYFSWATCH New Zealand been got at ????????????????????

Its gone again

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.

The dictionary describes fatherhood as:
to act as a father to somebody, especially giving advice, comfort, and protection.

The Family court describes it as:
all the above unless Mother doesn’t want it, then just give us your wallet.

For the last four and a half years I have held on to the belief that the Justice system would have within its fold some wisdom. Wisdom is the love of truth and knowledge. Our system has little of that. Did you know that there has been no study to understand the effects on a father of false sexual abuse on his children by the mother? Wouldn’t you think that understanding these effects might give Judges some wisdom in dealing with the aftermath? Judges tend to think that fathers are bullet proof and that he should be able to handle any crap sent his way. If a Father raped the Mother of their child you can imagine and understand the reaction of the Judge. He would be sympathetic of her fear of him and realise that a normal trusting relationship would be difficult. He certainly would not accuse her of “not working with him and always being mistrustful of his actions” and then stating “therefore you are not suitable for co-parenting so fuck off” (abreviated)

Take it from me, the family court is a joke and treat it with respect at your own peril.

Here is a summary of what I have learnt over 4.5 years

1. Society does not want fathers to be hands on. Just financial providers.

2. Women want men to be sensitive but just sensitive to their needs.

3. Judges believe that men are the instigators of violence until they prove
themselves innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Judges interpret a women lies as “unfortunate”

5. Legal Aid Services are an agency to help women to destroy men.
They break their own rules in order to aid a woman in “distress”

6. The Police are political when it comes to applying law in Male Vs Female. Misandry rules.

7. The courts are administered in a dubious way in which a Judge can have
transcripts altered or even deleted to stop any enquiry into the way they
conduct a case.

8. A Man’s Human and Civil Rights are only as good as the integrity of the woman he
has a relationship with.

9. Becoming a father is the worst mistake a man can make in this society.
If I had sons I would have them all sterilised.

A New Zealand training programme helping to identify child abuse trauma in mental health patients will soon be helping victims in the United Kingdom.

University of Auckland psychologist Doctor John Read has been commissioned by the professional development journal of the Royal College of Psychiatry in England to describe the training programme.

Dr Read said: “Childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect are extremely common experiences among those who suffer from serious mental illness .

“It is incumbent on all our mental health professionals to know how to ask about past abuse and how to respond appropriately.

“Sadly, this is still not the case, largely because of the over-emphasis on diagnostic labelling and medication.”

The one-day training programme has been running at the Auckland District Health Board since 2001.

Funding was currently being sought to make the same training programme available in Britain, Dr Read said.

“We are delighted that British psychiatry is taking the lead from Auckland in prioritising the taking of trauma histories when undertaking mental health assessments.”

The training programme was based on University of Auckland research on the relationship between abuse and severe mental health problems, including psychosis, he said.

Dr Read’s paper called “Why, when and how to ask about childhood abuse”, will be published in the March edition of Advances in Psychiatric Treatment.

– NZPA

NOTE: The comments expressed in these articles may not reflect that of the post author

I remain very concerned that Bradford’s bill is being touted as an ‘anti-smacking’. It is not that at all. This bill will outlaw ‘all’ forms of violence toward children which, on face-value, seems like a damned good idea.

However, what is completely missing throughout is a definition of violence.

Over the years, at this site, we have all read reports from men who have been deemed violent for little more than a look or a huff.

The power this bill will give to the small group of CYF mad-persons amongst the sane CYF workers, to wreck even more families, is beyond imagination.

This small group of CYF mad-persons, which from what I have observed on CYFWATCH, is limited to about 100 out of some 1500 otherwise decent social workers, will have a field-day with this new legislation if it passed.

These social misfits will be able to remove children and bust up more families with even less substance for reason than they are required to have now….and even now it ain’t very much.

This bill must be stopped.

Personally, I have never had to do much more than give my kids the ‘evil-eye’ to get them to understand that some behaviours were unacceptable….but then I do really good line in ‘evil-eye’, even though my kids learned quickly that it was an act.

But I find it perfectly acceptable to force a child away from danger, and although I don’t actually understand why some children need a smack, I accept a mild jobbie to a hand as okay when parental skills, or whatever influence is working to muddle the amazing results returned from mutual love and respect between adult and child fails.

But as soon as that light slap turns into a thwack, then my red-lights turn on. Countless now are the times I have stopped to ask a ‘parent’ why they just hit (not slapped, but hit) a small child, or have remonstrated with a small child with language fitted only for the gutter, and had the pleasure of seeing utterly perplexity on the face of the hitter, followed by a violent response.

But, so far I have managed to talk my way past the inevitable angst of a challenged ‘parent’ and been rewarded with an attenuation of vitriol.

Don’t get me wrong here. They haven’t all stopped to consider the error of their ways and thanked me for interceding, but the F-words and C-words (all adjectives used to describe me, in front of the children concerned) have slowly died away to mumbles and the odd ‘bugger’.

The only people (and I use the word loosely) who have the wish and ability to enforce the ‘letter’ of the Bradford Bill , are those few utterly mad CYF workers mentioned ealier herein. But the power it will deliver into their deranged hands is incomprehensible.

Real anti-violence is not a government issue, it is a family and social issue. So long as families refuse to do nothing it will continue. So long as folk, unlike me, who refuse to intercede, it will continue.

But the potential for family violence which is being delivered into the hands of the fractous few is beyond imagination.

David

Marc Alexander – Smacking away parental rights

When governments start debating what reasonable means, when they second-guess the care provided by good parents, and confuse parental responsibility with child abuse, it’s clear they deserve to lose the confidence of those they purport to represent. They need to go.

If this is a vote of no confidence in our current parliament then there are at least two sensible people left in New Zealand. I’ll support that.

The velvet underground-Labour’s quiet revolutionaries

It used to be said the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Now, people whose hands have never been near a cradle are deciding what’s best for children, and the country.

Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics”

She says things are not done by accident. John Tamihere agrees saying that these people think in timeframes of 10 to 15 years. They don’t have families so they plot because they have nothing better to do.

Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.
(more…)

There are no grounds for the alteration of section 59 of the Crimes Act, on the basis of child welfare. The proposal of this bill was only ever intended to empower the state in its authority over the child, and to empower the family court. Even the alteration being proposed by Chester Burrows is unacceptable. Mothers and Fathers must never be open to or subject to any threat or allegation that undermines that authority. Any change to this legislation will not protect the children who are most vulnerable. If children are ill treated it is a time to help. We have created a climate of fear in households where those that need help fear asking because of the consequences they might face. Parents will fear admitting the truth because it will bring prosecution instead of help. We have always had the means to help and we still do. This raging debate is not about is not about welfare, it is about power. Authority invested in the family being transferred to the state. It is an unfortunate fact of life that some parents will fail, and some parents will fail their children, but we cannot ever criminalise the position of mother and father. If we start imprisoning parents we will not be locking up child abusers, we will be incarcerating failed parents One step in the wrong direction is one step too far. We should concern ourselves about community, and how to help each other, not about dominion over one another.

Not so long ago I was in a gas station in Auckland when the attendant ran out of the office and stood in front of a car. It was already clear from the behaviour of the three boys in the car that it was a drive off in progress, and I had made a decision to get out of my vehicle and head over to their car. As I got to the drivers window he was reaching for the keys, something he quickly decided was not a good idea. His two mates in the rear continued to yell at the driver “just start the car, drive off don’t worry about him”.
I had a word to the courageous couple in the back seat and they decided to run off. The driver decided it was a wise to move to sort things out, and he went off to the office to arrange payment for his stolen gas. Why would I bother? No one else in the service station did, they all hid in their cars.
If we do not want to live in a climate of fear, from an undisciplined society, then we must recognise the need for urgent change. If there is a mess in the back yard it is from the rubbish flowing from the house. It isn’t going to be fixed by some lame duck families’ commission whose first words were “repeal section 59”. These people are just expensive mouth pieces paid to say what the government wants to hear. A Government that is entirely responsible for the deterioration in our society over the past 8 years. If New Zealand wants a decent society it isn’t going to come from a Government that is a threat to our society, the society that we grew out of.

It seems that CYFSWATCH has been removed overnight.

Another blow for Free Speech in New Zealand.

Don’t be fooled by the CYF complaints authority proposal. While United Future is hailing this as a big success the government position is that the authority will not be independent but will form part of the ministry of social development. This is not an independent authority; it is just hiring a few more people in a government department to investigate a lack of responsibility by the same department. If CYF is failing that failure belongs to Ruth Dyson and the head of her department, and it will continue to fail while government policy and the family court produce even more work for CYF.
Even if it was independent the new commission would be consummated by Labour cronies just like the Families Commission was.

Joke of the week….

United Future on domestic violence…..

United Future leader Peter Dunne says the weekend’s tragic events like the stabbing of children in Naenae and violent attacks in south Auckland and Wellington call for prompt action from the Government.
“New Zealanders have become heartily sick of these outbreaks of violence seemingly every weekend.
“We have a Families Commission which the Government should urge to report back within a short time frame about the causes of domestic and street violence in New Zealand and what can be done about it as soon as possible,” he says. I urge the government to get the Families Commission involved immediately and get some action underway,” says Mr Dunne.

What a bloody Prattler. You are the Government. Remember! You own the other end of the coalition agreement! Remember! You get a ministerial salary. Remember!
Have you got an ounce political responsibility or are you just another Labour gauleiter. Doesn’t your coalition agreement work? Why don’t you tell us what the Government is going to do? Why don’t you tell us what policy you will implement instead of clinging to your feel good astatic white elephant

An Invitation to Enlist for Operation 2008
Issued by the New Zealand Child Support Reform Conference 2007

Dear equal parental rights and responsibilities supporter,

This is an invitation to enlist as a founding member of Operation 2008.

By coordinating, planning and acting together at a level of non-violent direct action appropriate to individual members we can create the synergy to achieve shared parenting and fair and reasonable child support.

By enlisting for Operation 2008 you agree with the following:

* There is an urgent need to enshrine in New Zealand law the right of every child to be equally parented by both parents and the right of both parents to equally parent their child:

o To ensure the best outcomes for Kiwi Kids.

* Action is needed to place Child Support and Family Law on the election agenda in 2008.

* Support the solution: The Donkin Method supporting Jayden’s Law.

* Agree to take part in escalating, non-violent direct action culminating in a month of coordinated action during the 2008 election campaign.

* Be committed to the principle of “Same Goal – Different Paths”:

o Members seek the same goal, but the level of action that members may be able to commit to may be different. Co-ordinated action is important to achieving the goal.

* That only the spokesperson appointed by the New Zealand Child Support Conference 2007 can speak on behalf of Operation 2008.

o Members can refer to themselves as supporters of Operation 2008 when speaking in public or by using the Supporter of Operation 2008 logo.

All Operation 2008 communications will be exclusively electronic via the Internet. If you do not have access to email or Skype, an attempt will be made to attach you to a “buddy” to pass information along to you.

Electronic registration available at Operation 2008

Dateline:UK
By:Brain Wheeler
Via:The Honor Network
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

Here may be one of the reasons for Dads not being told of when mothers give us kids for adoption, click:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6297573.stm

Found this on Google encourage you all to contribute.

The Child Support Act 1991 causes untold misery for New Zealand parents and children.Politicians and Officials continue to ignore the pleas of parents and children for reform.Parents have had enough and here is a space to remind those officials that they can no longer hide under a vale of secrecy. Take the opportunity to tell the truth of your experience of the New Zealand’s Child Support (Tax) System. Open up the festering sore of Child Support Secrecy to the light and air of the internet.

Get posting guys

Regards

Scrap

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Thursday, 15 February 2007

Watching CYFS

Description:

In defence of CYFSWATCH New Zealand and Free speech.

Group Email Addresses:

* Post message: [email protected]
* Subscribe: [email protected]
* Unsubscribe: [email protected]
* List owner: [email protected]

Posted by cyfswatch at 20:19

Women need to re-think their attitude to men and children. I recall a few years back someone studiously informing me the social climate did not favour men. Obviously our social environment has been increasingly polluted by the toxic attitude of global feminism. We need to establish just who is responsible for this excessive hot air contamination. Some institutions may be prepared to trade their verbal diarrhoea for sensible credits, while other will need to be declared contagious and isolated. What I see emerging with the reality of climate change is the greater need for men as the dangers of real climate change become more obvious and frequent. It is the unfortunate role of the male to be expendable in any successful society. There were no medals for being a feminist meal ticket, but will soon be valued less callously. With communities facing more frequent harsh weather, higher winds, and excessive rainfall, we will find survival in the global village much harder. We will return not only to our national hamlets, but to smaller more robust and secure communities to deal with rapidly increasing degrees of devastation. We will again become more reliant on each other not only as communities, but as families and couples. I wonder though, like the Nazi bastards, who spent the last 60 years hiding around the world, where some people think they are going to fit into the new and rapidly evolving landscape.

Dateline: Austria, Europe
By: Timocrat
From: The Honor Network

Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

In the heart of enlightened socialist Europe an attorney/mother/feminist has been discovered to have kept her daughters in a complete darkened dungeon-like conditions for 7 years, with no outside contact- but with the mother. Excrement and other mater was said to be meter high, and the girls, now just being released after their ordeal, are said to flee sunlight and hide in dark places wherever they can find it (under tables etc.). The girls were said to have played with mice for fun!

(more…)

Reminding

re·mind (r?-m?nd’)
tr.v. re·mind·ed-,re·mind·ing-re·minds
To cause to remember; put in mind:

Reminding is about to begin, it’s the first stage of “Operation 2008”

The child support system and supporting matrix of family law is failing our children.

For over 40 years parents have sought change from a sole custody model – one parent is the custodial parent and one parent is a visitor and taxed for the privilege. Change has reinforced this 20^th century approach and ignored the fundamental right of a child to be parented by mum and dad and the right of mum and dad to parent their children with minimal state intervention.

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”.

No real change has occurred. Politicians on the advice of Officials and vested interest groups, funded by the same Officials, do nothing.

When reasoned and reasonable pleas addressing the root cause/s 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 law are those who enacted it and the officials who advise them.

The time has come when Operation 2008 is about to begin reminding Politicians and Officials that they are responsible for the current mess that is Child Support and Family Law. The solution is simple: equal parental rights and responsibilities. The Donkin Method supported by Jayden’s Law. Politicians and officials are being reminded that they are responsible and therefore accountable their failure has left no option but an escalating non violent campaign until the required reform is achieved.Escalating to a month of action for law change timed to coincide with the 2008 general elction.

To Join Operation 2008 email [email protected].

FYI, I came across this Australian organisation and a speech given to it by NZ MP Dianne Yates. Note her claim that because so many powerful positions in NZ were occupied by women the country ran like clockwork. Such partisan arrogance, reminiscent of the “master race” beliefs in Nazi Germany.