Which of the following do you consider to be too girly?

?

• Staying home as a house husband to look after the kids while the partner works full time
• Shaving/waxing under the armpits
• Wearing jewelry such as rings and studs
• Putting a band aid on a 10 year old boy’s knee
• Compromising in a conflict situation rather than attempting to win outright
• Shaving/waxing the chest
• Washing and ironing clothes
• Wearing a skirt
• Preparing food and feeding a 2 year old in a high chair
• Caring about your skin
• Asking the doctor to check out the pain in your back which has been worrying you for the past month
• Taking an interest in how different clothes feel against your skin

?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above then you don’t stand a chance against feminism, because feminists don’t consider anything too ‘manly’? They do everything that men do and retain their femininity.? ? My daughter wears a tie to school every Friday, and when I was a kid, I thought that was something that only men wore!

?

Basically feminism has enabled women to make huge strides and while they have been doing that, men have lurked in the background reluctant to change, trying to hang onto the last bastion of some outdated definition of masculinity.

?

So, what does being a male mean in modern society?

What things are too ‘girly’?

Should there be anything that is too ‘girly’ given that there is nothing that the feminists consider too ‘manly’?

What is your definition of masculinity?

I saw Wayne on the 6 o’clock news tonight leaving with his empty pram, to walk 600kms (approx) to Wellington. And inside his pram cover was the tent he may be staying in along the way. Those cold winter nights alongside Mt Ruapueha and nearby towns in winter with the snow. How brave he is.

And, I could hear him saying Good-bye to the Jim’s via the microphone of TV3 news.

So he will be finding a place to rest his weary head by now. I expect that the Jim’s will probably stay with him tonight.

Does any-one know what Wayne’s website is? (That is if it is up and going.)

This evening, while my grand-daughter completed swim-training, I spent an interesting period in the local sauna. Eleven men and one woman engaged in debate of DPB, the inequity suffered by men, male child education, and more.

Of the eleven men, only two had not been, in some way, molested by the system. Their reason being clear; neither were over 20 years old. And two more were Koreans being worked over by the system! Those who know how traditional (in Korea) Korean society is structed, will understand the enormity of the shock these two have suffered.

The woman, who inevitably left in a huff, admitted she had had a child BECAUSE SHE WANTED A CHILD, AND HAD A RIGHT TO HAPPINESS! and had been on DPB for 17 years. ‘However,’ she asserted. ‘My daughter will grow to become a fine tax-payer to help pay for your retirement.’

When one of the number asserted he had paid to allow his ex to raise 4 fine children who would similarly become fine tax-payers, Ms thicko started getting huffy and went off again about how she, as a person, had a right to happiness, and simply because she niether liked nor trusted men and thus has never wanted a relationship (just a child) was sufficient warrant for her to go right ahead and fulfil her dreams….at our collective expense.
(more…)

Below is a point that I have heard John P. state on quite a few occasions and think it needs much more serious discussion. I also think this is one of the fundamental issues, which I call wing issues; I think must be addressed to be solve our cooperative efforts (and not left to die on the vine for it is too uncomfortable to be addressed). John P states:

One of the greatest weaknesses of the men’s movement in my view is that almost every one of us considers ourselves an “ideas man”, and believes he has the answer, if only everyone else would follow our lead. New, inspirational initiatives spring up almost weekly, while organisations with hands on experience and collective wisdom struggle for survival.

To start things off I see this Ideas without Following of John’s being a male Yin/Yang issue (which simply means it comes with both pluses and negatives). Men don’t follow other’s cult-like, as can be seen with groupies at any concert being more female than male.

So we test our leaders and their ideas more, and this is all good. Our actions are more lone wolf yes, but this means also it can’t be stopped too (for it has to many heads).
(more…)

We have a Family Court for broken up families to mediate (whether through mediation, counselling or judges decisions) the access of children, day-to-day care etc, etc. We have child support payers and receivers which the go through IRD and follow a formula the Governmet set. Some people pay small amounts, not enough to cover child expenses while others are paying well over the costs to rear a child. Thus giving the receiver money for new boobs, tummy tucks, etc, etc.

Either way you look at there is unfairness in both the family court and regarding child support.

So we all get together and bitch about the systems we are unlucky to have become involved in.

But what about men, in general, in NZ?
(more…)

Amongst his (I think its a him) comments, Zeal makes one useful point amongst his socialist dross. That is; rearing children is a huge task; at least rearing them properly is so. It is also an extremely expensive exercise.

My grand-daughter, of whom I am more or less the sole funder, does swimming, piano, soccer. The fees alone for just those three cost me around $50 pw. Given she’s entering high-level swimming competition stage, replacement (practice) gear costs about $15 pw. Comp toggs and caps, and all the frills which one needs to be up there with the rest of the comp swimmers, costs about a further $10 pw. Soccer costs me about $15pw in just gas for transport. So there’s $90 pw. But then she needs clothes, dentistry (at the moment, orthodontics at $5k). Then there’s summer activities, school fees, clothes, some mild entertainment, birthdays, Christmas, holidays, etc. Not to mention food, share of power, phone etc.

I figure I pay about $10k a year and don’t begrudge a cent of it.
(more…)

Child Support and custody issues will be discussed during a seminar at the Kelston community Centre tomorrow.

The event, starting at 7.30pm, is being organised by the Auckland Single Parents Trust in conjuction with the North Shore Mens Centre.

Trust spokeswoman Julie says the evening caters for men and women. “It’s about child support and how it works for the paying parent. It’s also about other issues like shared parenting”

Julie says it is important for both parents to try and share the parenting load. “The fact of the matter is it’s stacked against the man. If they’ve been the main provider then that’s what is in the child’s best interest”, she says.

“But one parent ends up getting more access than the other and the other parent’s input is mainly financial”, she says. “If both parents share the children they get more valuable time with both parents who can work out the finances for the children.”

Julie says the domestic purposes benefit often becomes a trap. “We want to encourage people to get off the benefit and to start making a life for themselves”, she says.

Guest speakers will include Jim Bagnall and Jim Bailey from the North Shore’s Men’s Centre.

Western Leader, Tuesday July 4, 2006.

Of course this would not be happening without the support of Mark Shipman, National President of Parents for Children who will be the main speaker.

Amazingly the phone continues to ring with men payers, women payers and women of husbands paying child support wanting to join to change Child Support issues. We welcome anyone to join, attend and gain support from these 3 groups.

Single Parents
Men’s Centre North Shore
Jim Bailey – Hands on Equal Parenting

Interesting Government Statistic to consider
stats on single parents and children

At the risk of appearing to lecture, may I offer the following words from John Stuart Mill, from his essay on Liberty.

‘The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in th way of cumplusion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penaltie, or the moral coercion of publuic opinion. The priciple is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, becauase it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with an evil in case he do otherwise. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is answerable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’

Here Mill asserts we have the absolute sovereign right over our own body and mind. It follows, therefore, that in accepting that right we must also accept the responsibility to protect ourselves.

This does not confer a right on anyone to expect me to protect them against themselves. And so those who choose the freedom of indepence must also choose the responsibility of independence.

I cannot for the life of me, see how any beneficiary recipient can claim to choose self-support responsibility when they are demanding the ‘right’ to use a part of my hard-earned money to support their life-style.
(more…)

Hi all,

Last night, in amongst much, I wrote:-

Then we have to address the very nature of abuse. Surely, anything short of demonstrable violence is abuse of position, but hardly constitutes indefensible abuse, or avoidable abuse.

Upon reading it, I can see the potential for misinterpretation, so please allow me to restate the case.

It seems to me that physical abuse, adult-on-adult, is indefensible and potentially life-threatening, thus ‘any’ level of physical abuse must be dealt with vehemently and immediately.

But what of the other so-called abuses, verbal, psychological, financial, and big dingaling ‘potential abuse’. Surely, physical abuse is a provable assault, ergo, one person must hit another.
(more…)

The next person who asserts we need to ‘educate’ the bludgers so well described in Jim’s article, I will strangle.

I see Tamhere is being excoriated for asserting ‘benefits’ should be paid out in kind, not cash. The anti crowd rattle on about abuse of power when a state-dependent is ‘given’ other than the money to spend.

‘What we have to do,’ they crow, ‘is educate the beneficiaries.’

They’ve been crowing that line for years.
(more…)

The Carey article on female violence is interesting. But like all articles based upon statisitics, it fails to impress the antagonist or the Judges of the pro and an-tagonists.

What we need, within the Family Court, is a level of proof which would stand the test of a jury. The mere opinion of sundry self-styled experts is not enough; nor is the well-rehearsed, hysterical testimony of sundry partners.

But, moreover, we need to move the FC judges much further toward listening to the children. After all, it is they whom we all must seek to protect…but not at any expense.

The abuse of a spouse does not presume the abuser will abuse the children; yet spousal abuse is used as conernerstone evidence of a spouses unfitness to care for a child.
(more…)

Jim Peron writes on Lethal Welfare

Lethal welfare?
Posted by Jim at 7:25 pm on 26/06/2006

Institute for Liberal Values of New Zealand

Before delving into the horror of the Kahui story, I should recapitulate for the visitors to this site from outside New Zealand who wouldn’t know what I’m talking about.

A woman brings her infant twins to hospital claiming, “they won’t eat.” The reason they won’t eat is they were almost beaten to death. She then clams up and demands an attorney. She has been on welfare apparently her entire life. She had four children by a previous partner. She gave birth to the twins (who were triplets but one died) and had another child one year earlier with her current 21-year-old boyfriend.
(more…)

Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?
by Carey Roberts

Peer into the dark heart of radical feminism, and you’ll get a glimpse of a seething caldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia.

Visit the N.O.W. website and you’ll see dark warnings that “women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work.” Things are even worse at the National Abortion Rights League, which alerts us that President Bush “has waged a tireless war on women’s reproductive rights and personal privacy.”

But the greatest feminist boogeyman is domestic violence. No other issue so propels the luna-chicks into a wailing convulsion of breast-beating and hair-pulling.

As a service to my readers, I must state the following warning: DV HYSTERIA IS HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS. The only known way to prevent the spread of this condition is to inoculate yourself with the facts. So let’s see what the research has to say.

Read the article: Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?

Opinion Wed. June 28, 2006

Foster Care System Disregards Fathers
by Jeffery M. Leving & Glenn Sacks
Jun 15, 2006

When a mother and father are divorced or separated, and a child welfare agency removes the children from the mother’s home for abuse or neglect, an offer of placement to the father, barring unfitness, should be automatic. Yet according to a new report by the Urban Institute, few fathers are able to reunite with their children, who are instead pushed into the foster care system.

The new report “What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers” examines the foster care systems of Massachusetts and three other states. The report contains a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers in only 8% of cases.
(more…)

Our law say’s we should look at what’s in the best interest of a child when parent’s seperate as the main focus. Then the law is handed over to the judicial system to implement the law. Who are these judges who decide and implement what is in the best interest of the child? Well, they are people that have passed a law degree, served as full-time lawyers for a sufficient length of time and get basically voted in because of thier good behaviours when they were barristers which they earn’t as a promotion from a lawyer. Do we all know how to get a promotion? Sure, we do. We keep the best interest of the system we work in as number 1. The difference between the law system and a system that makes a business profit is showing initiative or thinking outside the square.

In a business, risk is something a person will take to show their greatness. It has a chance of failure and reward which if it works has worthwhile reward. In fact, in contempory business, one could find big rewards. You don’t find this in Government departments as the judicairy system is. It is supposed to be seperate but is it? Initiative and thinking outside the square is often frowned upon. It has it’s own politics going on within over who is king pin and who are the wipper-snappers rocking the boat. There is no profit, no real cause to aim for. It is a day-in-day-out mundane J.O.B. (Journey of Boredom)

Now, who are the parents that these full-time lawyers who become full-time barristers and then full-time judges decide the fate of?
(more…)

(PC Fines for Men’s Rights Site in Cards Next?)
From: Wired News, via the Honor Network

In Italy an sanctioned action taken by the only newly & slightly voted in Italian government (with close ties to the EU and UN leadership), that could have strong repercussion to the Men’s Rights Movement and their forums, has occurred.

Blogger Roberto Mancini was fined $16,000 for defamation. The action taken by at least two mainstream journalists against Mr. Mancini was over mere sarcastic and crude comments made by him, or those visiting and commenting in his forum, and not for the more traditional forums of defamation.

This is the type of issue which should bring anti-PC organizations and the men’s movement closer together to stave off the establishment’s desire to silence forms and forums of decent ( that are much less under their control in the larger branches of the media). Send that anti-PC bloke you might know an email and offer some cooperation sooner, rather than later!

This morning, on Woodhams magazine show, Robyn Langwell, editor of North & South Magazine said, ‘I think ‘all’ babies should be taken away even if CYFS ‘just’ think there is an issue with the parents.’

Langwell was back-commenting on the Kahui twins and, without any thought for the content of her words, bought straight into state-controlled families regime.

Nanny state knows best. You’re unfit to be a parent! So we will institutionalise your child because we know better.

I wonder how long it will be before parents of new-borns have a cage with a hungry rat in it, clamped to their faces, and asked questions about their fitness to be parents?

Langwell (not the sharpst tack in the box) but getting off on being ‘the editor’ of a sometimes, vaguely interesting tabloid, just helped the system to start aquiring the funds for the cages.

What will be next? Automatic but reversable sterilisation at birth? Then sit a test to have the sterilisation reversed? But gee, the cost will be but $$9,999 with a 100% discount if the woman can prove the rapist, pedophilic, violently aligned father was just a sperm donor and will have no contact with the child.

Langwell, you’re a clown. You are proof positive of a missive my old grandather told me years ago. He said, ‘Never worry what a woman thinks, they don’t do it very often.’

Yet I know so many credible women who do think, yet none have risen to your lofty heights. Maybe that’s the trick. Remain dumb, do loads of body-styling, tow the party line, get into the sexy group, then pretend you have a brain.

Grandad must have met you in a previous life. Maybe he was a colon and you happened to pass by.

Cheers
David.

I have gained so much information and insight from males on this site and I want to tell you as many other people may do or forget to do, “Thank-you.”

From having the opportunity to sit with the North Shore mens group, I can see you really help not just a father and child but a person to find a way to have a chance to be what is important, being thier own life.

I could tell each one individually how special you are but it is what you do together that makes such a difference. You guys don’t do what you do for money, for you do things in your own personal time which you have a right to be selfish with.

What was so impressional to me was the fact that you do not lay blame, for you ask others what their part was and challenge thier fathering role. Not only that, but you give reality to men that may want to deny their women are serious and willing to use the Domestic Violence as a weapon.

Oh my God, you have taught me that I have brought upon myself the reactions I received from my ex-husband. I never saw my actions as encouraging violence until now. I used to put things down to outside influence like alcohol and drugs thinking that you and I were from different worlds but I now see that having a male come home to a house where his woman says, “You can’t come in, because I don’t want you here” is so outrageous. How would I feel working hard and being told in an instance that I am not allowed to enter my home, that I should sleep in my car and somehow in an instant start a life all over again. And then on top of that a huge chunk of my money is taken away from me. You are better than the best for continuing on against all the odds. You put up with us women and I can’t believe that you even want to know us.

I know I am a woman that you guys would normally see as the enemy but I have changed my thinking and I intend to change other women’s thinking.

What was so outrageous last night is that I was under the impression that I had cancelled last night and a friend who has never been into religion said to me, “Maybe God has something in plan for you.” A higher power is neccessary in addiction problems but not God. And then a knock on the door. If that sounds out of it then you know how I feel. But I received more than I hoped for.

So I want to thank you Paul C, Jim Bagnell, Jim Bailey, Dave L, Kerry, Murray, John P, Bevan, Stephen, Intrepid, Starr, Leon, Paul M, Mark, James and the all of you that care for mens issues because without you 300,000 children are without their fathers today and my boys won’t have even the slightest chance.

julie

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

Saturday June 10, 2006
By Chris Barton

Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men’s groups’ protests.

Will judges be intimidated by the men’s groups’ protests?

I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.

What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court’s making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.

Many in the men’s groups vent a lot of anger. What’s behind this?

Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.

Where I think men – as a broad generalisation – find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.

When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father – or indeed the court – would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests – and views – of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.

The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What’s your view of that?

I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men’s groups would need good research to back their position.

In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.

I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.

But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.

Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.

Men’s groups say the court grants protection orders against men too easily.

There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that “without notice” applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed “on notice”, with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.

Men’s groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.

For “false testimony” one can often substitute “a different perspective or perception”. If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.

The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?

This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.

Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court – as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.

It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child’s views and the child’s instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.

What do you think of the men’s groups’ tactics?

Men’s groups can frequently be helpful in providing a “McKenzie friend” or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.

But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men’s groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.

I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?

Author
– More by Chris Barton
– Email Chris Barton

What level of inhumanity must a person descend to that enables him/her to in any way just upset or deprive a child?

But what level of disgusting inhuman descent must one reach before seriously hitting a child is acceptable?

What level of inhumanity could enable any person to hit, with such ferocity as to kill and seriously injure, a three month old infant?

Cru Kahui is dead after just three months of life. His brother Chris is critically injured…three months old.

The perpetrator of this vile crime deserves to die, very slowly and painfully. If not for Cru and Chris, then for me and the billions, world-wide, who need to know justice for these little boys.

I don’t care for their reasons or excuses. The perpetrator’s act in this case is well beyond even normal revulsion levels.

You can bet CYFS will get pilloried for this. In this instance I wish to extend my support to CYFS. When the rocks begin to be thrown. How could you possibly have known that such an animal as the killer of this child existed, or could even begin to predict he/she would kill and seriously injure.

No. CYFS make a lot of bad mistakes, but this time they deserve our support in the event they attract blame; which they most assuredly will.

We know this pig will end up in prison. Let us hope the other prisoners do that which our society, in such extreme cases, should be doing, lawfully.

David.

And now the Police want the power to issue ‘instant’ DVOs. It seems to me that this is yet another smoke-screen the police are using to ‘ease’ their work-load.

The concept being, Herbert The Violent (that’s the Herbert who has just beaten the tripes out his spouse or children) can be slung out on his ear and forced to stay away.

The concept appears, at first assessment, to have merit. But on second thoughts, the police already have a wide range of charges which they can use to contain a truly violent partner. For a proven assault, as opposed to, ‘My partner just said something man to me and I actually need him out of here before my ‘new’ partner arrives,’ the police can arrest and detain the perp…And so they should.

But now they want the job of judge and or jury by making instant assessments of a ‘situation’ and handing out instant DVOs. That is NOT their task. Their task is to enforce laws, take appropriate actions in the circumstances, then leave matters to the court to decide an appropriate solution.

We must not allow this initiative to progress beyond the media.

Cheers
David.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The government is pooling the funding. This means that for groups to receive funding they have to work together to get more funding.

Maybe Jim’s opinion on this, just maybe will back me up. (But then maybe he doesn’t see how I see things)

For example a group meeting of all interesested groups on youth was called to get the Waitakere Community together to deal with the youth problem. (Friday 16th June)

This is not the first for the doctors and dentists etc are doing the same. The government is finding a solution that is. “Instead of individually paying out funding, all work together and you will get more as a group.”

I reckon personally that a group like SKIP who got 10+ million dollars funding over the next 4 years will be the main provider and all the others will have to support and be a part else they are out of luck for money.

It makes sense for groups to get together, agree with issues and plan goals together. Not only will you make a bigger impact but you will get tax payers money. Where would men prefer to pay there taxes? For DV or mens issues?

I am still happy to find where our group belongs in all this. Shared parenting is the right thing to do but it is also a good business choice if one wants to get funding.

This is my opinion but I tell you, you will see it come to be.

Women have spent the last 20 years trying to solve this problem and it is only getting worse they say. Common sense needs to prevail.

OK, so we know that biologically males and females are different but we don’t want to listen to that or take it into account, do we?

So let’s combine the psychology and philisophy. Let’s look to what we are raising. I was asked the question myself last night, “Am I raising men or boys?” And I have seen the light.
This is my problem for I have been raising my boys to be men and not an equal to a female being raised into a woman.

We have been doing it wrong, I agree. So here is the solution.

From this day forth we will start from the birth of our children. Our boys we will dress in pretty dressess and pink ribbons. When they fall over as toddlers we will remind them how weak they are. We will pamper them in cotton wool and shower them in bracelets and jewels. We will make them emotional human beings and teach them to cry.

Our girls we will dress in pants, shirts and ties. We will teach them to harden up when they fall over as toddlers. We will work them so their hands are rough and continually explain it is their responsibility as females to protect the weak.

When they are teenagers we will send them off to the armed forces where they will learn strictness, discipline and combat.

Our teenage boys we will be patient with, forever encouraging them to keep themselves clean and pretty.

And for the males that exist today, for we have just raised them wrong, we will round them up and ……… (imagination please).

Opinion: Dave Crampton

Big News with Dave Crampton

Bradford & Kiro Disagree On Smacking

Green MP Sue Bradford and Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro are in sharp disagreement over Bradfords bill which aims to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline from the Crimes Act. Such is the disagreement that Kiro refuses to comment on it and Bradford refuses to clarify her position.

It revolves around the term “violence”.

Both consider child abuse is domestic violence, both want to get rid of child abuse and both consider all forms of physical discipline as violence. Yet Bradford differs in that she considers some forms of physical discipline should not be a criminal offence. That is why she is suggesting an amendment in her bill to clarify that it is not her intention to ban physical discipline and time out. Therefore Bradford does not consider all smacking as physical abuse.

Kiro does, and often points to the Domestic Violence Act 1995.Violence is defined as physical abuse in the Domestic Violence Act, with regards to physical discipline of Children. The problem for Kiro is that the intention of Parliament when the Domestic Violence Act was passed in 1995 was that the term violence did not extend to light physical discipline. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner tried- and failed – to amend the Act so that physical discipline could legally be described as violence to set her up for a bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Case law has subsequently backed up Parliaments intent.

As all physical discipline is not legally abuse, it therefore cannot legally be classed as violence. Consequently, when Kiro says she wants to get rid of violence, she conflates that term with physical abuse, but fails to say why she refuses to define what she means by violence.

When I rang Kiro to discuss this with her she rudely stated she wasn’t going to comment, and hung up in my ear.

This is really a sore point, isn’t it.

ENDS

From an actual case…..BTW, not my particular case. This is CYFS-V-J.

CYFS apply for a S78 nd are intent on removing a boy with serious mental and physical issues which require specialist knowledge to manage and treat.

The s78 is stayed. Later CYFS assert to the Court that a s78 was the wrong mechanisim to use in the case of the boy. Why?

Well, it turns out that only guardians can authorise medical care for a child. A s78 does not give CYFS guardianship, only interim custody.

And so, despite knowing the child had serious issues, of which one in particular could see the child choking to death in under 30 minutes, (a point with which CYFS were made abundantly aware) CYFS were prepared to uplift him. And these are the women the Family Court entrusts with the care of children!

And so, when next you are faced with a s78 you might like to quickly file an application for a stay based upon your child’s medical needs and citing that only you, as guardian can approve any medical care for your child. Naturally, you will have to demonstrate an existing condition which ‘may’ require medical attention.

What I am not sure of (yet) is what the case would be if your child (while in care under a s78) breaks an arm and needs urgent medical care. Only you as guardian can authorise it. Maybe you would if the child was returned to you. I shall discover the answer in due course and report back.

For the record the relevant pleadings from CYFS are as follows.

1. The Chief Executive (CYFS) has obtained an order pursuant to s78 of the CYP Act 1989 (“the Act”) by which the CE hs been granted interim custody of the child.

2. The CE has no guardianship orders in respect of the child in its favour and is unable to obtain guardianship pursuant to s110 of the Act until a declaration is made.

3. A declaration pursuant to s67 of the Act cannot be made until a GFC has taken place and if the conference does not reach agreement, a defended hearing.

4. The s78 Order does not authorise the Cheif Executive to make make guardianship decisions about the child, which in include medical care and counselling.

One to four above are transcripts from court docs.

The question which is wandering around my mind, at the moment is, what ‘other’ guardianship decisions can CYFS not make?

For example, can CYFS ‘decide’ to not allow a child to attend various sports activities expressly authorised by the guardian? Can they? Surely, such would be a guardianship issue.

Can they dictate which school a child attends? Surely, such would be a guardianship decision.

Can they dictate what a child must eat or drink, tooth-brushing frequency, toiletry habits…the list goes on? Surely, a guardianship issue.

But if the real guardian is ill-prepared to cooperate with CYFS, then how can they act? And can the guardian have recourse in the event CYFS apply some measure, expressly reserved for the guardian?

Dunno yet. But I sure as hell intend to find out.

Cheers
David.