There is a little old lady in Auckland with whom Helen Clark would not be very pleased. If she knew who she was, that is.

Back in the 1970s, when the little old lady was much younger, she used to go to feminist meetings. Not because she was a feminist, but because she and her husband were concerned at the sorts of things being discussed.

“So I would go off to all these meetings around the country to monitor what was going on,” she says. “I remember there was an outcry at one conference because a woman had brought along her baby son. He wasn’t wanted in the room because he was a male.”

She also remembers many of the women who attended or addressed these events, among them Helen Clark, Sylvia Cartwright, Marilyn Waring, Cath Tizard, Ros Noonan and Margaret Wilson.

For decades she has watched as the young feminists of the 70s became some of the most powerful leaders in New Zealand. And for decades she held on to a couple of documents which outlined, all those years ago, a long-term feminist agenda to change New Zealand society by attacking the traditional family unit.

How can we help children and young people increase their participation in society so they and everyone else might benefit from their input into decision-making processes?

This is one of the key issues to be discussed at a major conference running from July 7 to 9 at the University of Otago. Children and Young People as Citizens: Participation, Provision and Protection is the sixth Child and Family Conference run by the Children’s Issues Centre, which is based at the University.

The international speakers are Bruce Smyth from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, who will talk about encouraging more creative post-divorce parenting arrangements that meet the needs of children and parents; and Dr Ruth Sinclair, Research Director at the UK National Children’s Bureau, who will present on the English experience of children’s participation in public life.

The other New Zealand keynote speakers include Principal Family Court Judge, Hon Peter Boshier, who will look at how the Care of Children Act 2004 will affect children’s participation and protection rights in court cases.

Girls have out-performed boys in every school subject and low male achievement is spurring concern.

Secondary school NCEA results were released yesterday by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

The profiles show a growing gap between girls’ and boys’ achievement, and suggest children might be better off in single-sex schools.

Girls-only schools dominate all NCEA levels. Their pass rates are far above the national average.

Wellington High School principal Prue Kelly was not surprised.

English was particularly geared toward girls and many of the topics did not interest boys, she said.

“Analysing characters and having to think about why an author wrote what is often of no interest to boys.”

Education Ministry learning policy manager Steve Benson said the gender gap was a big issue. A research project was under way to address boys’ under-achievement but there were no easy answers.

Others had suggested the problem lay behind typical Kiwi attitudes to masculinity, with boys more interested in rugby than study.

As part of a comprehensive overhaul of the [Australian] family law regime, scores of new services for men will be funded in a $74 million prevention package.

Mensline Australia will get a big funding boost to support more fathers and to help them become more involved with their children before and after separation.

Up to 45 new “men and family relationship centres” will be funded to help men manage difficult relationships with partners, ex-partners and children.

The extra services are part of a $392 million family law reform plan, which has at its heart a radically different system for handling separation and custody.

Instead of heading to the Family Court, separating parents will be sent to one of 65 new Family Relationship Centres to see if they can agree on a custody plan for their children before they engage lawyers.

On April 22, 2005, Harvard University’s Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative (MBB) held a defining debate on the public discussion that began on January 16th with the public comments by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, on sex differences between men and women and how they may relate to the careers of women in science.

The Science of Gender and Science – Pinker vs. Spelke

A DEBATE
…on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes.

Who won the debate? Make up your own mind. Watch the video, listen to the audio, read the text and check out the slide presentations.

STEVEN PINKER is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. His research has won prizes from the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and he is the author of six books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, and The Blank Slate.

ELIZABETH S. SPELKE is Berkman Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, where she is Co-Director of the Mind, Brain, and Behavior Initiative. A member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she is cited by Time Magazine as one of America’s Best in Science and Medicine.

Very interesting material here.
I’m also very impressed by the comprehensive presentation of different media, a good model to aspire to for those of us using the web to educate others.

Fascinating that Pinker, arguing against the Extreme Nurture position (that males and females are biologically indistinguishable, and all relevant sex differences are products of socialization and bias), says:

“I am a feminist. I believe that women have been oppressed, discriminated against, and harassed for thousands of years. I believe that the two waves of the feminist movement in the 20th century are among the proudest achievements of our species, and I am proud to have lived through one of them, including the effort to increase the representation of women in the sciences.”

“But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex – which I take to be the core of feminism – and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way.”

I had to laugh when I read:

“It is said that there is a technical term for people who believe that little boys and little girls are born indistinguishable and are molded into their natures by parental socialization. The term is “childless.””

TVNZ has an extensive report with video on the Stephen Jelicich case:

A long and public tug of love entered another phase last week when a family court judge ruled that nine-month-old Caitlin Jelicich could return to Wales with her mother.

Within hours the pair were on a flight out of Auckland before Caitlin’s father could prevent his daughter’s departure.

– – –

Union of Fathers co-ordinator Jim Bagnall says Stephen didn’t have a fair say.

Bagnall reckons some fathers get a rotten deal in the family courts and in some cases “there is obviously a gender bias”.

“There’s an agenda within the court in my opinion by certain judges and certain solicitors that fathers will be split from their children,” Bagnall told Sunday.

“The New Zealand Family Court in my experience is a very scary ordeal.”

Stephen Jelicich felt helpless and believed he was up against a system stacked against fathers who want to retain custody of their children. He was desperate and felt his only option to stop his wife leaving with Caitlin was to abduct his own daughter.

TV One News Summit tackles men’s issues (includes streaming video).

The state of “New Zealand manhood” was the topic of the first ever Men’s Issues Summit at Auckland on Friday.

Bleak predictions of the future of the New Zealand male were being made at the summit, which was held at the Waitakere City Council Chambers.

“The kiwi bloke for quite a long time has been under threat,” said conference organiser Warwick Pudney.

Delegates at the summit called for action on the issue of the male suicide rate – with men three times more likely to kill themselves than women – and a national screening programme for prostate cancer.

NZ Herald ‘Crisis of spirit’ hits health of NZ men

A former director of Lifeline, Bruce Mackie, says more men than women are dying in the workplace, on the roads and in water, and from cancer, heart disease and suicide, because they have learned not to value themselves.

He told the first national “men’s issues summit” in the Waitakere City Council chambers yesterday that boys grow up with no male role models of work/life balance and with media portrayals of men as “an irresponsible herd of buffoons”.

“The more we examine the state of men’s health, the more we expose problems of hopelessness, helplessness, meaninglessness and despair. This is a crisis of the spirit,” he said.
(more…)

Firstly, welcome to any new readers who heard about MENZ Issues for the first time at the Summit yesterday. I look forward to any contributions you might be inspired to make.

I have to confess that my note-keeping tailed off somewhat after the first few sessions, however if all goes according to plan there will be a future publication of the papers presented. They will also be made available on the web. What follows is a brief summary of the other presentations I attended, and some of my personal reflections on the summing up.
(more…)

Today’s summit at the Waitakere City Council chambers got off to a late start, which as it turned out was lucky because opening speaker John Tamihere was also slightly delayed. We were informed that his son had needed a bit of fatherly input into the matter of him staying at school for longer than it took for dad to drive away.

Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey opened the summit by acknowledging Felix Donnelly as one of the founders of the NZ Men’s movement. Twenty-five years ago, Donnelly ran a series of workshops one winter which Harvey attended. Bob then talked about his own early involvement in fathering issues, which resulted in him co-writing a book titled ‘Hey, dad! – a New Zealand father’s guide to survival’. He sees that we are not mentoring young men collectively as a society, and noted that young men are often lost right at the time they need most support.

Harvey says we must see women as team-mates and not opposition. Men can still be staunch and tough, but about the right values – the things that are decent about society.

John Tamihere – keynote speech
A TV crew was right in JT’s face all through his opening address, but they were probably disappointed that he didn’t say anything particularly inflammatory, and disappeared without filming much else. Two video cameras did manage to catch most of the speakers however, and it is hoped that some footage may be broadcast at a future date – MENZ Issues readers will be the first to find out where and when!

Tamihere spoke about the importance of fathers’ involvement with children, and the value of supporting families. He also said New Zealand men must have meaningful conversations about health issues so that they become more health conscious. Currently many men’s health problems are being dealt with by the criminal justice system.

“I’m not interested in men claiming victimhood”, Tamihere stated, reinforcing my belief that the time has now come for politically minded men to focus on concrete solutions and proposals, now that the problems are widely recognized. He finished on an interesting note, given some of the recent comments on other posts in MENZ ISSUES “this is not a party political issue – it is about building nationhood.”

Men’s Health – Bruce Mackie
Bruce began his presentation by outlining some of the positive changes taking place in other western countries as well as NZ, noting a paper written with Stuart Birks by my wife Felicity titled ‘Gendered approaches to health policy‘.

Mackie also discussed the rise of independent men’s groups acting outside the established policies and delivering health services. In NZ, successive governments have ignored the groundswell. He said that an accountable national body addressing men’s health issues was long overdue.

Echoing the previous speaker, Mackie told us the biggest male health issue is the huge number of men in prison with mental health disorders. He noted that an unhelpful climate of blame and accusation exists towards male health that emanates from the epidemiological data and its related literature on risk.

In conclusion, Bruce said that at heart Men’s Health is an issue of the spirit, and many men’s problems are related to a loss of identity, meaning and purpose: “Without an intense awareness of our wisdom, a strong vision of role, a deep sense of calling – a lofty and noble dream of a new world – men will continue to get sick and die”.

I’m too tired to write more tonight, but here’s some photos of the Summit:

John Tamihere, Warwick Pudney

John Tamihere

Bruce Mackie

Warwick Pudney

Paul Callister, Phil Chapman, Rex McCann

Dennis Valentine, John Binstead, Alan Blackburn

Part two of Report

Part two of May 2005 Men’s Issues Summit report

Videos of this event

Videos of the May 2005 Men’s Issues Summit here

A father prepared to go to any lengths necessary to regain contact with his children (including enlisting the services of NZ’s Wizard), recently made a one-man Hikoi to Wellington to try and draw attention to his grievances. The latest development in the long campaign by Ben Easton has seen him jailed in Auckland for breaching a Domestic Protection Order.

Newstalk 1ZB carried two reports yesterday:

Prison refuses visit by Fathers’ Union

The Union of Fathers is appealing to be allowed to visit a prisoner they believe could be on a hunger strike.

Ben Easton is being held in Auckland Central Remand Prison after he was arrested for breaking a protection order.

The long-time campaigner told the Union of Fathers he would go on a hunger strike while in the cells.

Prison bosses say none of their inmates has missed more than three consecutive meals.

Union of Fathers spokesman Jim Bagnall says this may be the case, but officials are not letting anyone see Mr Easton.

He says supporters just want to visit him to make sure he is okay.

Hunger-striker to receive Union of fathers visit

A group of fathers will soon get their wish to visit a hunger-striking comrade in prison.

Ben Easton has been refusing to eat at Auckland Central Remand Prison after being arrested for breaching a protection order, and the Union of Fathers has been trying to see him, but was initially denied access.

Now a Corrections Department spokesperson says it generally takes up to three days to clear a visitor permit. there appears to have been an about-face at the prison: officials initially denied they had a hunger-striker inside.

Dr Muriel Newman MP (ACT party)

This Week Newman Online looks at the issue of prostrate screening for men and asks why the Government hasn’t implemented a screening programme for prostate cancer when it kills almost as many men as breast cancer.

A few weeks ago, John Tamihere confirmed in his infamous “Investigate Magazine” interview what many New Zealanders already know: that the country is being run by radical feminists. The ‘sisterhood’, as the Prime Minister apparently likes to refer to her inner sanctum of colleagues and advisors, effectively has an iron grip on the country. It is no wonder that New Zealand men are feeling more and more disenfranchised as each day goes by.

Feminist ideology has the ultimate goal of power and autonomy for women, with women taking over a country’s top jobs, finally freed from their ‘bondage’ to their husbands and children. As a consequence of the long-term enticement of women into power positions, children have been relegated to a distant second, and men are all too often regarded as the enemy.

(more…)

A Wellington man has won a landmark Court of Appeal case to prove he is the father of a child he has not seen for five years.

It took a $50,000 legal battle for the man to have the girl’s DNA tested, after the child’s mother – who denied the man was the father – appealed against a High Court order to test the child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the order, establishing a precedent that courts could force mothers to test their children when it was in the child’s best interests.

Previously, the courts could recommend the tests, but had no powers of enforcement. But the case established that guardianship of the child could be assigned to the courts for a few hours while DNA samples were taken, then transferred back to the custodial parent.

The Star-Times reported in January that hundreds of Kiwi men were having secret, mail-order paternity tests in Australia because of suspicions they were not the real father of their children. They could not have the tests in New Zealand without the mother’s consent. In 30% of cases, the result was a mismatch.

DNA Diagnostics spokeswoman Kate Hurford said business from New Zealand had more than doubled since the article, with 30-35 Kiwi men tested a month.

In his recent speech ‘Social and economic goals of labour market policy ‘, the Hon Steve Maharey says:

“Economic costs of social problems
In New Zealand, half of all female homicides are the result of domestic violence. Ten children are killed every year in acts of domestic violence. The non-financial cost of family violence is inestimable. The financial cost of family violence in New Zealand is between four and five billion dollars. And this is a conservative estimate calculated ten years ago. This cost is partially comprised of greater use of health services and police and court time. But it also includes loss of income and work for employees due to family violence. ”

Maharey is referring to Susan Snively’s badly flawed study on the costs of family violence, previously discussed in MENZ Issues. Posing as an “independant researcher”, this Woman’s Refuge fundraiser assumed that all violence is by men against women and children, and came up with totally unrealistic estimates of injury rates.

Stuart Birks has a critique of the Snively study on his website.

Press Release: Hon Ruth Dyson

A $12 million investment in services for children who witness family violence is a key part of the government’s commitment to eliminating violence within families, says Child Youth and Family Minister Ruth Dyson.

Speaking at the National Foster Care conference in Wellington, Ruth Dyson said the new service would ensure the needs and interests of children affected by family violence were appropriately addressed.

“The service will focus on ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children who witness violence within families,” Ruth Dyson said. “It is essential that children are safe, well supported and able to access child-focussed services.”

The service will see up to 45 child advocates placed in community NGOs around the country.

Child advocates will work with children who receive family violence services from both NGOs and government agencies. Their role will include:

– Education and awareness of the effects of family violence on children
– Ensuring all agencies respond to the needs of the child
– Advice and consultation with those working one-on-one with a child
– Specialist assessment and referral for individual children where necessary.

“Family violence is a very difficult and complex issue. To make a difference we need to affect changes at a very personal level within communities and families.”

Press release by Hon Marian Hobbs:

Parenthood report tackles complex issues

A Law Commission report tackles complex questions about laws on parenthood, the Minister responsible for the Law Commission, Marian Hobbs, said today after the tabling of the report in Parliament.

The report, New Issues in Legal Parenthood, is a comprehensive review of the laws on parenthood.

“It is important that these laws are reviewed periodically to ensure they keep pace with technology and social change,” the minister added.

Some of the issues dealt with in the report originated from policy work on the Care of Children Act 2004 and Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004.

Those acts raised the profile of the importance of children having clear rules about who are their parents and who has legal responsibility for them.

“The report grapples with some difficult issues,” Marian Hobbs said. “For example, should the Courts have the power to force a child or adult to provide a bodily sample for the purpose of parentage testing using DNA profiling? Should children have more than two legal parents? These are complex questions and will require a considered response from the government.”

Because recommendations in the report propose amendments to various acts, several ministries will be directly involved in preparing the government response to the Law Commission’s report. That response is required to be presented to Parliament in October 2005.

END of the Minister’s Press Release.

Download the report here:
NZLC R88 New Issues in Legal Parenthood [1,240KB pdf]

A few excerpts from the report:

2.7 In fathers’ groups where the men were legal parents but had grievances about their inability to continue effective parenting upon separation, genetics was very important and they considered the fact of a genetic link should elevate their status above that of a step-parent. Another view held by others representing fathers’ interests, however, was that social parenthood and not genetic parenthood should determine parental .financial liability.

———

4.15 However, a distinction between a man in an ongoing relationship with the mother and a man not in such a relationship should be continued. It would be both unreliable and unsatisfactory to enable a father to be named in the birth details on the word of either the mother or any man who claims to have had sexual relations with her around the time the child was conceived.

———

4.17 There is now much discussion of wrongly attributed paternity in the Western world and there are frequent estimates in the media of the numbers of children whose legal fathers are not their genetic fathers. Alleged rates range from 1 per cent to over 30 per cent, with 9 or 10 per cent being commonly cited. The speculation has been heightened by high profile cases of paternity fraud, which have been reported in the media in recent years. However, hard data to back up claims as to what the rate is are much harder to come by.90 There is no New Zealand research on this matter.

———

4.23 Some of those representing fathers’ groups suggested that there should be mandatory
genetic testing at birth for every child as this would allow men to accurately establish whether they fathered the child as the mother alleged. Should the tests disprove paternity, the man in question could then make an informed decision as to whether to support the child.

Media Release

Parents for Children 20 April 2005

For Immediate Release

Law Commission recommendations on paternity testing unacceptable to parents and children.

“Last Thursday, the TV3 documentary Inside NZ: DNA and You, showed Kiwi’s that paternity fraud does happen in New Zealand. Paternity fraud is a deliberate act of dishonesty, with the clear purpose of depriving a child of her right to know her genetic and cultural heritage, usually with the hope of financial gain. Preventing this fraud is simple: free DNA paternity tests for fathers. Samples can be taken by a GP, testing done by a lab and counselling made available for all parties. Not a complicated legal appeals process in a dysfunctional discredited and closed Family Court. The Law Commission recommendations are unacceptable to parents and children.” Commented Mark Shipman, National President of Parents for Children, on the DNA paternity testing recommended by the Law Commission

The Law Commission states in its report “We acknowledge that a father cannot be absolutely certain of his paternity save for a DNA test, unlike the mother ” (5.51) then goes on to propose constructing a legal process that focuses on some theoretical notion of ethics and consent. The end cost to Taxpayers for implementation of this proposal will be hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, most of it going to support the family law industry. It’s unacceptable that the Commission supports keeping barriers in place that continue to encourage paternity fraud when the solution is simple.” Commented Shipman

”The potential for financial gain from these frauds is huge! If a father is earning say $45,000, lives by himself and has his daughter on the weekends, he would be paying about $5700 annually as child support for one child. Over 18 years he could pay over $100,000 in child support. That’s a lot of money” Responded Shipman when asked what the financial effect on a father a paternity fraud could have.

”The loss of family history, social and cultural identity when a child is deprived of her father and led to believe that a stranger is her father and the long term effects of this on the child must not be understated. Kids have two biological parents mum and dad, they have a right to be parented and be a part of the family and cultural life of both parents.” Responded Shipman when asked what effect on a child a paternity fraud could have.

Ends

For further information contact
Mark Shipman 021982222
James 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.

Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Judith Collins MP – National Party Families Spokeswoman

Rich irony in PM’s family friendly photo op

National MP Judith Collins regrets that she will be unable to attend the launch tomorrow of a Families Commission survey because she’s “too busy being a parent”.

“I am pleased that the Families Commission has found an opportunity to give the Prime Minister a friendly photo opportunity. It is just a pity they’ve chosen to launch the programme on the day most parents, including myself, are tied up with their children’s Saturday sport.

“It’s just as John Tamihere said this week and goes to show how out of touch Helen Clark and Labour are when it comes to family issues.

(more…)

Prime Minister Helen Clark says she is concerned about Labour MP John Tamihere’s latest criticism of his cabinet colleagues, and thinks the MP has been under stress.

Mr Tamihere’s extraordinary comments have been published in Investigate magazine after a conversation with its editor Ian Wishart.

Tamihere told Investigate magazine:

“Heather Simpson – Helen’s assistant – wanted me in the tent as damaged goods. Too tough to lose completely. She’s dangerous, a very dangerous woman.”

Asked what was the most powerful network in the Labour executive “the Labour Party Wimmins division… it’s about an anti-men agenda”

“(Prime Minister Helen) Clark has been brutalised by people who have called her lesbian, no children and all the rest of it. Her key advisor Heather Simpson is a butch, and a lot of her support systems are, Maryann Street and so on, and she’s very comfortable in that world and comfortable with it. I’m not.”

“Men’s problems are traditionally dealt with by the criminal justice system. Women, on the other hand, get a bloody Cartwright Inquiry and get millions of dollars thrown at their breasts and cervixes.”

Rodney Hide’s blog has an additional Tamihere quote:

“They [Helen Clark and her mates] don’t have families. They’ve got nothing but the ability to plot.”

to which a commenter has added pertinantly:

“His comment about families is what all of us think. Socialist ideologues tend to be children from the previous generations ‘middle-class’ who don’t have close families. ”

John Tamihere will be the keynote speaker at the Men’s Issues Summit in Auckland on May 6th.
More info and registration: www.mens-summit.org.nz

You are invited and challenged to attend to the first ever gathering in NZ to address Men’s Issues.

This is a one day event which draws together a variety of perspectives on men, from academic to activist, from psychosocial to social service.

Its intention is to open up the full breadth of the issues for discussion, find common threads, and strategise ways to improve male well-being and relationship. We hope that it will spawn other related events.

For two decades men have been responding to the issues raised by a climate of social change in areas such as fathering, health, work and lifestyle, male violence and education. Little has been done however to draw those strands of endeavour together into a more integrated approach to the male condition. Policy on Men’s Issues in party politics, social services and government and has been either non-existent or incidental to other issues. Men have often been trapped by their own isolation, care for family, and dependency on others, and so neglected to advocate for themselves in a climate of gender change. Men’s need to examine their condition will benefit not only themselves but also their families and community.

This is a call to social services, policy writers, planners, politicians and men and women to consider the male condition and advocate for change. This is particularly a call to men come together in a spirit of creative change and advocacy for the betterment of all.

Welcome in anticipation,
Warwick Pudney

REGISTRATION FORM and more information at www.mens-summit.org.nz

Speakers:

1. Men in Policy and Politics
John Tamihere 9.20 – 10.00am
MP for Tämaki Makaurau, Former Cabinet minister, father and red-blooded male

2. Men’s Health
Bruce Mackie 10.00 – 10.40am
former director of Lifeline NZ and Lifeline Auckland, Counsellor and neuro-feedback therapist

Morning Tea 10.40 – 11.00am

3. Men and Violence – The Cost to Men
Warwick Pudney 11.00 – 11.30am
author, AUT lecturer and director of the New Zealand Violence Prevention Society

4. Men in Research – What needs researching and how?
Stuart Birks 11.30 – 12.00pm
Director, Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, Massey University

Lunch provided 12.00 – 12.45pm
Entertainment 12.45 – 1.00pm

5a. Men and Work
Dr. Paul Callister 1.00 – 1.45pm
Consultant Researcher and Policy Adviser

5b. Men in the Social Services
Alan Blackburn 1.00 – 1.45pm
ManAlive CEO, Social Entrepreneur Scholarship 2004

6a. Fathers and Fatherlessness
Rex McCann 1.45 – 2.25pm
Author, Founder-director of Essentially Men

6b. Family Court – Marginalised Men
Jim Bagnall 1.45 – 2.25pm
Fathers’ Advocate

7a. Boys in Schools
Joseph Driessen 2.25 – 3.05pm
Former Associate Principal of Wanganui High and consultant on Boys in Education

7b. Men Prisons and Community
Kim Workman 2.25 – 3.05pm
Former Assistant Secretary (Penal Institutions), Department of Justice, Head of the Prison Service and Deputy Director General (Mäori Health)

Afternoon tea 3.05 – 3.30pm

8. The Problems and the Possibilities of Advocating Men’s Issues
Philip Chapman 3.30 – 4.00pm
National President, NZ Father and Child Society, men’s health and fathering promoter.

9. Panel of speakers: Summing up discussion and recommendations for a strategy
Facilitated by Warwick Pudney 4.00 – 4.30pm

Closure by Mayor Bob Harvey 4.30pm

Some of us are very interested to hear from anybody who is involved with the Family Court mediation pilot project mentioned below, particularly on the North Shore.

A pilot project aimed at helping troubled families resolve disputes more quickly is underway in a number of family courts.

The trial gives those involved in custody, access and guardianship battles the option of using specially selected mediators.

The pilot is being carried out in Porirua, North Shore and Christchurch and will start in Hamilton shortly.

Researchers have given fresh weight to the complaint of many single women – there aren’t enough men.

Kiwi men in their relationship-forming years have disappeared in their thousands, says social scientist Dr Paul Callister.

The result is that men are increasingly outnumbered.

Since 1991, the census has shown a widening gap between the number of women and men aged between 20 and 49, reversing a long history of men having the numerical advantage.

In 1986 there were 700 more men than women in that age group, but by 1991 women had started pulling ahead.

By 2001, the census counted 53,000 more women than men aged 20-49, or just under 7 per cent more women. About 1.5 million Kiwis are in this age group.

Callister and Professor Richard Bedford of Waikato University are to probe migration and census data in countries such as Australia to find out what has happened to the Kiwi men.

A current affairs programme is doing a story which uses as its hook the New Plymouth case where a father was found guilty of assaulting his son, after he allegedly smacked him twice on the bottom. This opens up the wider debate as to whether smacking is the appropriate way to discipline children, and whether section 59 should be repealed.

I’m looking for people who strongly feel that smacking is appropriate as a means of discipline and that the law should not be repealed. I’d particularly like to talk to academics and psychologists with an interest in this area, but also church leaders and families.

I need to speak to people preferably no later than the end of this week, although I will continue to field calls and enquires thereafter.

Anyone interested in talking to me by phone initially, can call me on 09 916 6899 or 021 412 022. I will call them right back so that no phonecosts are incurred.

Many thanks John, I appreciate this. Miriama

Stephen and Diane Jelicich were a couple whose split became as acrimonious as it can get.

It culminated in January with Stephen running off with their baby daughter Caitlin and hiding from police for 10 days.

Diane went back to Wales not knowing where her daughter was or when she would see her again. But the couple believe it should never have been that bad.

They told Close Up they blame Victim Support for creating the situation which made Stephen take Caitlin.

It all started on December 22 when Stephen called police claiming Diane had assaulted him and damaged his eardrum.

A few hours later police and Victim Support arrived and took Diane and Caitlin to Women’s Refuge while Stephen was out.

At the same time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. However, the couple did not signal they wanted to be separated.

While it was Stephen that was the alleged victim that day, it was Diane and Caitlin that were rescued by Victim Support.

Previous items about the Jelicich case:

• Family Court fugitives and the role of the Police
• Custody case father calls for Family Court transparency
• High Court hearing about baby Catlin today

The rather startling news that 60% of reported cases of child abuse now turn out to be completely unsubsantiated (or “incorrect” according to current jargon) gets a completely different spin in the Dominion Post story below. Presumably Stuart Birks said something meaningful to the reporter about the subject of false allegations, but it didn’t survive the editing process.

Radical femimist insistance that “women and children never lie about abuse” means that false accusations are one of those subjects that mainstream media sometimes prefers to avoid.

CYF wait list rises in capital

In the Wellington and upper South Island region, more than 380 cases of suspected child abuse are waiting to be assigned to a social worker, compared with 260 in September 2003. Of those, 312 were defined as “urgent” and 77 were “low urgent”.

Incorrect reports of child abuse to Child, Youth and Family each month have soared in the past five years… with 899 cases in December 1999, compared with 2370 in December 2004. Incorrect cases are those that are investigated fully but, for whatever reason, no evidence of abuse is found. They now make up about 60 per cent of claims — compared with 45 per cent five years ago.

Ms Angus was not concerned about the growing number of unproved claims, which reflected an increase in overall reporting of child abuse. There had been a 57 per cent increase in notifications in the past three years.

“Child abuse is not acceptable and the message is getting across.”

New Zealand Father and Child Society vice-president Stuart Birks said the figures raised questions about who was reporting child abuse. Allegations of child abuse could be damaging to families and children.

Sunday March 13, 2005
The Observer

There is never going to be such a thing as ‘a good divorce’ but Suzanne, a 39-year old from East Anglia, reckons hers was ‘probably as good as it gets’. Her decree nisi arrived two weeks ago and her main feelings were of relief and sadness in equal measures.

‘My eight-year-old daughter asked me if we could watch our wedding video – she was 18 months old when we were married,’ she says. ‘I said “No” and tried to explain that it would make me a bit sad because on the day we got married I thought that we would never split up. That really upset me, but I know it’s time to move on.’

Suzanne is a pioneer of sorts. She is one of the very first of a new generation of UK divorcees who have opted for a brand new non-adversarial alternative to the divorce courts. The approach has been imported from the US and goes under the unappealing title of ‘collaborative law’. So far there are about only 100 family lawyers who have been trained in this radically new approach by Resolution (formerly the Solicitors Family Law Association).

‘This is a new concept within family law,’ claims Roger Bamber, a Resolution member and a family law specialist at law firm Mills & Reeve. ‘It’s different from the conventional approach because you specifically exclude litigation and all that that implies. The courts polarise attitudes quickly and force couples to accentuate their differences and it is the same for lawyers – if you are preparing for court you have to concentrate on where the differences lie.’

Under the new model, couples and their lawyers work together in round-table meetings to negotiate agreements on financial and other issues without the involvement of the courts. Crucially, you agree from the outset that you will not drag each other through the courts unless negotiations break down – and then you will have to instruct new lawyers.

One lawyer calls this the ‘Jesus bolt’ – referring to the piece of metal connecting helicopter rotors to the engine. If you happen to be in one when the bolt comes out, you’ll only have time to say ‘Jesus’ before you plummet to certain death. The terrifying prospect of the divorce courts should prompt a similar response. Agreements are made with the full support of both you and your partner and, as a consequence, you are far more likely to stick to them.

This month divorce lawyers will be encouraged to curb their more predatory tendencies when Pauline Tesler, the American attorney who is one of the architects of collaborative law, flies in to the UK to train another batch of 250 lawyers. Her approach with her own clients is refreshingly direct. ‘If you would rather give up the right to dance at your daughter’s wedding for another £ 20,000 on the settlement, there are lawyers down the street who would love to help you, and you’ll send their child to university – not yours,’ she tells them.