De facto couples are in legal limbo after a parliamentary committee backed down on plans to give them the same legal status as couples who marry or enter a civil union.

The chairman of the select committee dealing with the Relationships Statutory References Bill, Tim Barnett, acknowledged that de facto relationships would generally lack the security and legal certainty of marriage or civil union.

A request that the Law Commission be asked to revisit the Property Relationships Act, in the way it treats de facto couples, could create further confusion. The act deals with the division of property when a relationship ends; it only applies to de facto couples who have been together at least three years, or have children.

Lianne Dalziel, a government member of the committee that considered the Relationships Statutory References Bill, said that legislation was implemented when civil union was not available to same sex couples and those who did not want to get married.

“We acknowledged as a committee that people who enter marriage or civil union are showing an unequivocal intention to change their status,” Ms Dalziel said. “But imposing obligations on people who decide to live together, but not enter marriage or civil union, may not be appropriate in some cases.”

Exactly what Men’s Centre warned about!

In a 1998 Men’s Centre North Shore submission to the Select Committee considering the Matrimonial Property Bill we warned about the inevitable problems that would arise if de facto relationships were treated the same as marriage.

When a couple take their marriage vows, they make a commitment, a contract, with each other and their community. The tradition that a marriage must be open to the public and usually involves parades and public displays reinforces this participation by the wider society beyond immediate friends and family. Society has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage because it socialises young adult males and leads to the best outcomes when bringing up children.

The contractual situation is not the same with de facto couples, who have by definition chosen to avoid making an explicit contract. The amended bill would cause a contract to come into effect by default simply because of the passage of time. The parties to this contract never formed an intent to make one, and many will consider themselves to be contracted under duress.

When exactly does a de-facto relationship start – when the couple first meet? The first time they sleep together? The moment they spend more than a certain number of nights together in any one week? What if the relationship remained unconsummated? This would be vitally important to establish with precision with so much potentially riding on whether the elapsed period was more or less than 1095 days. Is it workable?

How would the Court establish that a de-facto relationship has continued – are a couple who spend 2-3 nights a week together living in a “relationship in the nature of marriage”? What about four or five nights a week? What if a person spends 3-4 nights with one partner and 3-4 nights with another? Who would keep the records, which may well be required as evidence in court?

What if a couple live together for a while, separate for two years, then get back together again – would the clock keep ticking? What if they part regularly every few days because of employment conditions and spend much of their time apart? We can only conclude that these difficulties have not been fully appreciated.

The latest Select Committee report can be downloaded here.

Aloha John…great site!!!
…just a quick question, ever wondered why so few dads are granted joint custody, much less sole? it’s really no mystery…makes perfect sense.

I want to invite your readers to my website, www.imadadmom.com … a 52 chapter how-to book on singleparenting specifically for dads. It’s the first ever book of such detail written by a custodial dad, not some woman or psych or doctor without a clue.

Is the problem in courts anti-dad bias?
What is the meaning of the term “A Judge’s presumption of ignorance and incapability“?
How can you fight this beast, increasing your chance of joint, and even sole?

The key is knowledge of what is expected of you as a potential custodial or joint parent. Most dads walk into court totally clueless as to what a judge is looking for.

Life after divorce is a totally different animal, especially for the kids, and if the judge sees that you don’t have a serious game plan to deal with all these critical issues and needs coming up, you’re dead. Find out why DadMom should be required reading for every dad before marching into court…and how he will greatly impress the judge.

Here’s my promise…if after you have read DadMom, you don’t gain at least joint, I will double your money back on the book. My word. Don’t go into battle naked. Read the book and you will be armed for a damn good fight.

Knowledge is power…the judge will see that plain as day. For dads with custody, DadMom is your roadmap to a successful journey, helping you build that stable and happy home for years to come…and helping you avoid costly mistakes…I should know…that’s why I wrote it… to help dads have an easier go at it.

FATHERSEMPOWERED!
Let’s all win. Aloha, Dave Crowley.

There is some heated discussion regarding Celia Lashlie’s article about raising good men over on Trish Wilson’s blog (in the comments from March 1).

One contributor, NYMOM writes:

“Women in western society have finally, finally gotten to the point, over the last 30/40 years or so, where they can actually DO something on their own, be self-supporting if they wish, have careers or become professionals, doctors, lawyers, whatever they chose AND now we have a@@holes like this Lashlie trying to undo that and take away the self-confidence of young women who probably were FORCED into being both mother and father to their children because of the irresponsibility of men…

“Frankly I think Lashlie and her ilk should be thrown into the nearest lagoon populated with man-eating sharks and left there…”

I was particularly interested to read one of NYMOM’s earlier comments, which is the most concise summation of radical feminist ideology applying to child-rearing that I have come across:

“In a society where technology has given us the power to literally destroy the world if we continue starting wars all over the place, aggression in men, which at one point probably served some evolutionary useful purpose, has now become a menace to life itself on our planet…

“So we need to start raising little boys to behave more like little GIRLS to ensure that life itself on this planet isn’t threatened by continuing male aggression…

“The first step in this is to forbid the watching of sports events on TV for children younger then 18…and no participation in them either… no unsupervised contact with men, who haven’t been socialized properly which is about 99.9% of you, as there could be a tendency to pass along these aggressive mannerisms to the next generation…”

If adolescent boys could tell their mothers one thing, what would it be? Chill out and stop asking so many questions, says Celia Lashlie.

Boys want their mothers to understand they know she’s there, that she cares and that they will talk to her if something big happens in their lives, but they also need some space from her on their journey to manhood.

That’s not to say our young men should be left to their own devices. Quite the contrary, says Ms Lashlie.

What they do need is a lot less mollycoddling from mum and significantly more time spent with the good men in their lives.

A former prison guard in male prisons, she is no stranger to the devastating consequences facing too many young men, for whom prison is a rite of passage, a place where they go to prove they are men.

The validity of being male appears to have been undermined. This is seen in male suicide rates, imprisonment rates and the road toll.

“A theme that emerged very quickly during my visits to the schools was that a great many mothers are over-involved in their sons’ lives, while many students said they lack a real relationship with their father.

“We witnessed the importance of mothers withdrawing and fathers becoming more involved at this critical stage in their sons’ development.”

She says mothers should never interfere in the relationship a boy has with his father, no matter what she thinks of him.

“Regardless of who their dad is, there is a tremendous urge in boys to want to know him, no matter how bad the news is. The mother has to take a deep breath, step back and let them have that relationship.

“If a boy doesn’t find out who dad is at age 15, warts and all, he will still be looking at 55, with a string of broken relationships behind him.”

Ms Lashlie says it’s time we cracked open the politically correct stuff and started to reinforce good male touching.

“I have seen some amazing examples of touch in boys’ schools. I saw one principal with a boy in a headlock, rubbing his head, saying ‘are we going to tuck our shirt in sometime soon?’ The boy was grinning from ear to ear. ”

“In today’s world we wrap our boys up too much. If they are unable to take a risk in healthy male pursuits, such as tree climbing, and rough-and-tumble, they may look for the risk elsewhere – drinking a bottle of bourbon, driving fast, or trying drugs. We need to give them more buzzes that are safe. Their world has become too sanitised.”

Women need to take responsibility for what they are creating.

“I don’t believe we should give up the fight for feminism. I have a huge belief in that. But there are problems we need to, and can, address. There is a hunger for information, particularly from women. That’s why I am putting my energies into finishing a book, based on the Good Man project, to help mothers deal with these issues.”

Lawyer Vivienne Crawshaw wrote recently about a case of parental alienation. She suggests that the NZ Family Court is well aware of this process and is equipped to deal with it.

[Hamish’s] mother Justine, was embroiled in a custody dispute with his father. Brian, his father, was not applying for full custody; his application was merely to share in Hamish’s life in a more day-to-day way, ideally week and week about.

However, Justine was adamantly opposed to Hamish spending any more time away from her. He was her only child, was already starting to want to spend more time with his friends than with her, and she was damned if she was going to allow Brian to enjoy him while she was left on her own.

As the lawyer [counsel for child] asked Hamish to come into his office Justine stepped forward. “I’d rather you not talk with Hamish on his own,” she implored. “He’s quite shy and I am concerned that he won’t remember all the important things.”

Much to Justine’s annoyance the lawyer insisted on seeing Hamish on his own, in his office, politely suggesting that Justine might want to pop out for a coffee while she was waiting, a suggestion she flatly ignored.

Almost verbatim Hamish quoted sections from his mother’s affidavit, commenting quite coldly that his Dad did not love him and had tried to bribe him by buying him a PlayStation for Christmas, adding that he was not going to be bought.

When the lawyer lightly tried to talk about how things might be for Hamish if he were to spend more time with his Dad, Hamish became more strident, and spoke strongly about how much his mother had done for him, the sacrifices she made and how little child support his father paid.

The lawyer had come across cases such as Hamish’s before. After interviewing Brian, he reported to the court that he was concerned that Hamish’s views were heavily influenced by Justine and suggested that the court direct a psychologist’s report, which might consider Hamish’s relationship with his parents, including any influencing of his wishes.

The court gives less weight to the wishes of a child where it has evidence of pressure by one parent being brought to bear over a child’s views. Over-involvement of a child in court proceedings is often a sign that they are not being permitted to truly express their wishes.

In this situation, a psychologist’s report that showed Justine was unduly influencing Hamish would ensure the court did not allow his views to determine the outcome of the parental dispute.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

If the veil of secrecy which the court operates behind was as effective as she no doubt believes it to be, most Herald readers would no doubt be reassured by Crawshaw’s article. Fortunately, repeated leaks of documentary evidence show that court appologists present a very distorted picture of what actually happens.

In August 1998, MENZ Issues published the story of “Jeremy Collins”.

Quoting (with names changed) from the ‘confidential’ 2002 section 29 Psychologist Report on Jeremy’s family:

In the last report, the writer noted the impact of Mrs Collins’s attitude on Sarah’s decision making…

Mrs Collins did not appear to appreciate that there were legal implications with respect to some of her actions (e.g., reducing the access frequency from that which was stated in the court order), nore did she appear to appreciate that Mr Collins remains a guardian and as such can request to be involved in decision making (e.g., with respect to health matters).

At the bottom line this is Mrs Collins’s position, she does not want Mr Collins to feature in her life or her daughter’s life. She has also stopped all contact with Mr Collins’s family and does not appear to be in contact with her own family.

[Mrs Collins] believes the abuse occurred and cannot understand why there is any uncertainty about this…The writer simply wishes to state that Mrs Collins is acting in a manner consistent with her beliefs.

There can be little doubt that when a parent holds attitudes as strong as those held by Mrs Collins, then any child living with them will be aware of these attitudes. At the last assesment it was clear that Sarah was well aware of her mother’s opinions and this had affected her decisions.

The influence of her mother upon her decision making is less overt at this time than it has been at previous assessments. The writer is well aware that it could be debated that this is because Sarah has now totally internalised her mother’s beliefs and is “alienated”.

The psychologist presented the court with three options:

1. Enforce access. “This approach has not worked in the past and the writer is unclear as to why it would work now”.
2. Provide counselling for Sarah. “It is this writer’s opinion that it is unlikely such counselling could be effective”.
3. Cease access.

Jeremy has not seen his daughter Sarah since.

• Child Support Rip Offs
• Family Court Fiasco
• Prostate Posturing
• Educational Bias
• No Men’s Ministry…

Men Don’t Like This ! ! !

Join the second Men’s Convoy, and take the message about redressing the balance of family
dysfunction to the streets and Parliament.

Convoy starts Auckland Saturday 5th March 2005 at 1:00 pm and concludes at Parliament, 1:00 pm Friday 11th March.

Join the second Men’s Convoy and drive for change.

Itinerary of Men’s Convoy 2005

Saturday 5 March – Child Support Reform Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo Dress up as your favourite “super hero” and join in the Convoy kick Off – Albany Mega Centre

6:00 pm – 7:00 pm BBQ Public Meeting – Child Support Reform – Northcross Intermediate

Sunday 6 March – Family Court Reform Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo. Father Xmas, Judge Dread, Wonder Woman, Homer Simpson etc – Manukau City Mall

7:00 pm Public Meeting – Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Monday 7 March – Men’s Health Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Red Square, Tauranga

7:00 pm Public Meeting – Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Tuesday 8 March – Education reform Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Hamilton Garden Square

7:00 pm Public Meeting – Men’s Convoy Issues

Wednesday 9 March – Men’s Ministry Day
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – The Square, Palmerston North

7:00 pm Public Meeting — Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Thursday 10 March – Child Support Reform
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Queensgate, Lower Hutt

7:00 pm Public Meeting — Men’s Convoy Issues (venue TBA)

Friday 11 March – Men Don’t Like This!!!
1:00 pm Super Heroes Demo – Parliament Grounds

4:00 pm Convoy Wrap — up Trax Bar, Railway Station

Saturday 12 March – Convoy Social
1:00 pm Fireman’s Arms, Petone

Men’s Convoy 2005 co-ordinators contact details

Jim Nicolle – Spokesperson NZCS Reform Network
(04)586-0880 jnicolle [at] slingshot.co.nz

Mark Shipman – Auckland Co-Coordinator NZCS Reform Network
021 982 222 mark [at] shipman.co.nz

Kerry Bevin – Auckland
025 613 2806 magnz [at] xtra.co.nz

Wayne Hawkins – Auckland
025 604 2218 magnz [at] xtra.co.nz

Jim Bagnall – Auckland
021 170 7375

Kobus Abrie – Tauranga
kobusabrie [at] xtra.co.nz

Rob Murray – Wellington
murray [at] clear.net.nz

Photos of the 2004 Men’s Convoy leaving Auckland

Stephen Jelicich, speaking publicly for the first time since coming out of hiding with baby Caitlin, said the role of the Family Court in determining parental custody was too important to be shrouded in secrecy.

“I have absolutely no doubt the Family Court needs transparency because they do seem to be a law unto themselves. They disregard laws, they rush things, they don’t actually take into account the child’s welfare.

“I have documented proof as to what was done wrong (in my case).”

Speaking with Caitlin in his arms, Mr Jelicich said that despite losing confidence in the Family Court, he was confident of keeping his six-month-old daughter in New Zealand.

The couple now have a month to prepare their cases for the Hague Convention proceedings. Mr Jelicich said he had not spoken to his estranged wife since before Christmas, when they had an argument that resulted in Mrs Jelicich being charged with assault.

Police withdrew the charge after she left New Zealand for Wales but Mr Jelicich said he did not consent and was seeking to have the charge laid again.

from Neman Online

Helen Clark’s call to get mothers out of the kitchen and back into the workplace failed to strike an empathetic note. As commentators were quick to point out, it had the ring of a communist clarion call. Socialists, of course, firmly believe that a woman’s place is at work and not in the home. They regard women as child-bearers, not child-rearers, and believe that the all-important role of raising children should be carried out by the state in government-controlled child-care centres.

Underpinning this socialist worldview is a realisation that once children are released from the protective embrace of nurturing parents into the arms of state institutions, there is nothing to save them from the brainwashing necessary to keep the socialist flame alive.

This strategy was highly successful in Communist Russia last century. By 1920, in some cities upwards of 90 percent of families were living in state hostels, eating in communal kitchens, and sleeping in segregated quarters. The role of parents was to bear the children, and the role of the state, to raise them.

A High Court judgment has exposed a bitter custody battle in which a woman’s false allegations of sex abuse took two years to disprove because of incompetence on the part of social services. The injustice suffered by the father was compounded when a costs award in his favour was reduced by the High Court following an omission in a Family Court judge’s ruling. The woman – who accused her ex-husband of sexually abusing their daughter and a son from a previous relationship – concealed from specialists details of child abuse by a previous partner and the fact that her own children had told her that her present partner was abusing them.

She had been ordered to pay 75 percent of her ex-husband’s legal expenses, though she still has custody of their daughter. The court took the view that, after the two years it took to unravel the false abuse allegations against him, the father needed to be gradually reintroduced to his daughter’s life. But the High Court slashed the costs award by more than two-thirds to a mere $5000 after Family Court Judge Patrick Grace inadvertently omitted to specify what he would have awarded had the mother not been legally aided.

Family law specialist Stuart Cummings said the errors described by Justice John Wild’s judgment were “massively important” and the two-year delay was the primary cause of the injustice. “You can take this all the way back to the Magna Carta,” he says. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

The High Court judgment sends a clear warning to Family Court litigants about abuse allegations, says Gumming, and is an indictment of the system charged with protecting children. Long delays and their disastrous consequences constitute a miscarriage of justice: “The children and the father have been victimised.”

excerpt from an article by by Nick Smith
NZ Listener
Page 19
February 19-25th, 2005

The document below was released under the OIA.

Please note that the lack of consultation with stakeholders as seen in the document.

Inland Revenue National Office
Freyberg BuildingAitken Street
PO Box 2198 Wellington
New Zealand
Telephone 04-472 1032
Facsimile 04-474 7217
POLICY ADVICE DIVISION

18 August 2004

Associate Minister of Revenue (Hon David Cunliffe)
cc: Minister of Revenue

Proposed Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

Executive summary

This report provides an update on the Special Commission held in June this year at The Hague to progress a new international agreement for co-operation in the collection of child support and other forms of family maintenance.

The focus of the meeting was the draft convention which had been prepared prior to the Special Commission. During the course of the Commission the draft convention was modified to reflect changes that were discussed. However, significant areas still need to be resolved. These are set out in paragraph 7. A further draft of the convention is expected to be forwarded to government for their consideration early next year, with another Special Commission scheduled for May next year which will aim to finalise the convention.

Recommended action
It is recommended that you note the contents of this report.

(more…)

Kia ora Folks

I had a notable success in the Dunedin Family Court [recently] with the help of the precedents provided on your website. I am a self representing litigant.

Three years ago after my children and I sought help from the “domestic” violence we were enduring from their mother I was taken from our home by her exparte application for a Protection Order. After 2 years of expensive and ineffective lawyers ($25,000)I went back to University (after 25 years away)and am now starting my third year of Law this year.

Thanks for the help, I am committed to service now and although i don’t want to be a lawyer I see myself with a task to do. Ironically, given the bizzare allegations we have endured, I trained as a child therapist 25 years ago and my children, aged from 30 to 7 years have steadfastly denied the legitimatcy of this process throughout.

We have been assisted by a new Family Court Judge here called Emma Smith, amazingly, despite her gender, an honest person with a confidant and sparky manner. A change in C$C has also helped as the previous one called Rachel Cardosa has damaged many children and men through her dishonest and sick ignorance of childre’s needs.

Another item that may be of interest.

Last year the Dunedin Family Court commissioned a 29A report in response to further allegations by the children’s mother. Happily the report completely vindicated our stance and the Court instantly doubled our family times (access. Court staff initially declined to give me a copy of the report (saying I could only read a copy there.

As it was 10,000 words I felt this a significant disadvantage) I must stress that the staff here are very fair and helpful. They phoned several other Courts, who all said they also only gave copies to lawyers, then at my firm insistence they contacted a Judge in ChCh who was available to give a ruling. The Judge agree with my point which I had thought was quite clear,(see Section 29A 3 A) and issued a direction that I was to be given a copy.

Enough of the rant, I just wanted to share my great news and pass on my appreciation,
Cheers
Doi
Heart Song Express
P.O.Box 6057 Dunedin North
0274158375
theedge [at] xtra.co.nz

I am currently in Family Court proceedings, Wellington for Protection Oder and Custody proceedings. I have had some supervised access to the Family Friend, Johnsonville last year. During Court proceedings the Access Supervisor stated that no one in 18 years has had supervised access at the Family Friend suspended.

Has anyone experienced suspension of access from the Family Friend, if so can you advise me urgently, I am back in Court this Friday ( the fourth day so far).

Secondly, during my initial interview I was told the rules of access, being be on time, leave on time, don’t drink or take drugs before or during a session ( I don’t do this stuff anyway) and don’t raise adult issues. That was it no other rules, during Court the access supervisor raised a series of rules that she never told me about, has anyone been to Family Friend and had a detailed list of rules given or discused with them, or did you get what I got?

Lastly, I am fighting back against the system, I think we all agree it is biased, and you are up against it. I have committed myself to establish a Law Practice to fight the system from the inside for Fathers and for their Children. The Law Practice will require support to establish accredited access services, a father/children’s refuge/centre and an education website for the legal side. Your comments welcome.

My first goal is to establish a how do booklet to de-mystify the whole Family Court and legal process, show what you can do and can’t do, show you the tricks being used by the other side, and open up the process to establish awareness and fairness. When the playing field gets a bit more even we can win more often and change the current results. Who wants to help.?

It seem that New Zealand is following UK in this new syndrome. CYFS has already win a landmark decision concerning this from Judge Ellis in the Family Court in July 2004 in Wellington.

The new syndrome was started by Dr Danya Glaser from the UK. She has stated in her reports that over 50% of the population of New Zealanders suffer from this.

CYFS now has the power to remove any child they believe suffers from this syndrome whether the facts are right or not.

The Syndrome is that the parents are disattached from their children and can not recognise or take their clues from the child. They put their own interests first.

I am defending against this in the High Court next month.

Anyone got any new points that could be helpful in the defense.

EM

More information:

Quoted in Judgments From the Family Court

Judge Ellis noted he was troubled by the use of terminology such as “abuse” and “neglect” throughout the case. He acknowledged that Tina and Michael in fact loved their children very much and had done their best for them, given their own personal history and experience.

“It is abhorrent to suggest they have deliberately set out to deprive or abuse the child in any way.”

“There is no evidence here of physical beating, but there is compelling evidence of serious and long-term damage being done to children in this family,” said Judge Ellis.

Dr Danya Glaser

Shelley Stevenson, Associate of Rainey Collins recently attended the New Zealand Law Society Family Law Conference called “Raising the Standard” held in Auckland.

Dr Danya Glaser, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist from the prestigious Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in London gave an address on the definition, recognition and treatment of emotional abuse and neglect in children. A day long workshop run by Dr Glaser in Wellington immediately after the conference was also attended by Shelley. Shelley, paediatricians, family lawyers and other professionals from around New Zealand gathered in Wellington for the workshop.

Visiting expert Dr Danya Glaser told an international family law conference in Melbourne in October 2002 that Parents who use children “as footballs” in acrimonious separations are guilty of a form of emotional abuse.

Dr Glaser, a consultant to London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, whose work has been cited by the courts, said that emotional abuse often overlapped with physical, but could also occur on its own.

Some of the major categories of abuse were:

• Unresponsive, emotionally neglectful behaviour, the most important example being mothers suffering from post-natal depression.
• Perceiving one’s child as worthy of punishment, describing them as “a bad apple, bad gene or a chip off the old block”.
• Acting inconsistently with children (for instance, making threats but never acting on them) or exposing them to inappropriate concepts.
• Failing to recognise a child’s individuality or boundaries, as in the family law example.

My name is Gérard Cassina and I’m a retired French schoolteacher with a degree in English, which I took long ago so please excuse any awkward sentences I could have written. I’ve been delighted reading [the articles at MENZ.org.nz] and I write to you hoping to be useful.

My proposition can be shortened in a formula:
Democracy + Feminism = Dictatorship of Feminism

Why?

1. Women outlive men by years (7 years in France) . The political consequence is they’ve got an overwhelming majority. In France women are 54% of voters !
2. An organised group (Feminism) has convinced women they’re “class-victims” (something like the “working poor” of Marxist ideology).
3. Thus women have got a class-consciousness as a gender along with an overwhelming majority that can’t be outvoted by men: we are facing a dictatorship.

Thus, no wonder if political men are so eager to pass legislation along feminist’s rules.

What can be done?

Men’s health is a capital issue for a gender well balanced democracy. But we’re well aware that Feminism is plotting to widen the gap: breast- cancer campaign / nothing for prostate. And it’ll take decades!

But, given a full awareness of the situation, there should be political ways to achieve a gender-balanced democracy. For instance, women would get a red ballot paper and men a blue one, then a 50/50 gender law would be applied so that 54% of women would be 50% and 46% of men would be 50% too.

I’m dreaming! Right now, we are immerged in a feminist propaganda, which pervades all society. First of all, we have to enlighten everybody: Feminism isn’t a benevolent movement whishing to improve women’s lives but an organised group using an oversimplified ideology as a tool to get power for their own sake, in a hidden way.

What is Feminism?

A communist ideology applied to genders: victims are women; extortioners are men, ideal aim: an abstract equality between genders.

As in Russia the struggle will last endlessly, no matter any improvements! Feminism needs an enemy as a justification and since it is organised as a Nomenclature: a small secretive group using ideology to improve their own position in society whatever any “collateral damages” they inflict to others in the process. Once you get a good place , you hold it fast like termites eating up the structure of a building until it crumbles to ruin .To recognise equality is achieved would be the end for feminist women and men alike

Feminists policies based on oversimplified views of relations between genders will lead to chaos just like communism in Russia. More than 30 years of Feminism have already produced some results!

1. Loneliness for all :more and more unmarried, divorced people, widows (breast cancer campaign / nothing for men can only lead to more widows. Is it good news for women?)
2. Family breakdown: more and more young people adrift, a tenfold increase in medications for depressive people since 1980, more and more drug addicts, suicides and attempts of suicide (140 000 in France last year).
3. A more and more violent society: a steep increase in all offences, family violence, prisons exploding with prisoners (96% of men in French prisons – a 2 fold increase in 20 years).
4. A decrease in school efficiency measured by PISA. In France where 85% of schoolteachers are female one boy out of 4 can’t properly read (compare with 1/9 girls) at 15. One can consider education as a feminist administration. In prison a large number of prisoners has no degree. In the USA it’s not much better, I’ve got figures!

Most people are unaware of these facts and feminist propaganda is busy finding fake explanations for them.

Waiting in my inbox when I returned from summer holidays was a letter from Martin Lewis, founding editor of MENZ Issues.

“Hi John
I was googling my name to see if something I had written had a reference on the net when the MENZ Issues archives came up. Interesting to revisit them. Also good to see that someone is still keeping up the ‘good fight’!

One thought that struck me though was that the MENZ term was originally “Masculist” not “Masculinist” … ever heard the term “Femininist”? I haven’t. More importantly a masculist would be to the Men’s Movement what a feminist is to the Women’s Movement whereas as I understand it, in feminist parlance, a masculinist is one who fights against feminism … for the macho male tradition. Which do we wish to promote and align ourselves with? Personally I support the former.”

Now I would have sworn that I’d seen an early draft of the then Men’s Centre North Shore newsletter using the word “Masculinist”, but I can’t find anything so I must have imagined it. I’ve always personally thought the term “masculist” to be uncomfortably close in sound to the word “emasculate”. I also have trouble with the idea that elements of male culture can be appropriately defined by feminists. In addition, the reality is that much of the driving force behind the current men’s movement is a fight against feminism – or more accurately, against that strain of feminism which actively works to disadvantage males.

In regard to my mystery source, Martin notes:

“Definitely not one of mine as it was an issue I debated before joining MCNS 🙂 The reason I was debating it was that I was told (by a feminist) that a masculinist was someone who wanted to maintain the status quo … men in control of women (her perspective) and I was arguing that I, and men like me, wanted to achieve equity or equivalence for men and women, (which was why I supported feminism in the ’70’s) not so much equality as ‘viva la difference’ I say. Equality suggests androgyny to me. Equivalence means ‘different but of equal value’ and equity, fairness.”

Characterisation of the men’s movement as a bunch of conservative, reactionary, patriarchal oppressors has been a regular theme in feminist publications over recent years. In my experience of over 10 years attending support meetings I would say that only a tiny minority bear any resemblance to this description. Most of us actually like women very much, and we fully support their right to be treated fairly with men in society. I’m sure the majority of us would go along with Martin’s attitude of ‘viva la difference’ .

In the end, labels are not as important as collective action by the people actively involved. Perhaps more relevantly, I’m not about to edit hundreds of ancient web pages, so it looks like we’ll have to remain “Masculinist Evolution New Zealand” and define the term for ourselves.

What do you readers think about this?

Well, I headed off up North for a couple of weeks disconected fron the internet just as the biggest mainstream media news story about fathers and the Family Court in months was breaking, and returned to find our most active discussion to date.

The UK based group Parents For Protest have a comprehensive collection of links to news stories about the Jelicich case on their website, howevewr, here are a few extracts from reports made over the past fortnight.

Supporters of an Auckland father in hiding with his 5-month-old daughter want an investigation into the Family Court handling of the custody case that sparked his actions.

Jim Bagnall, national president of the parental support group Union of Fathers, said important evidence was not considered before the Family Court gave custody of Caitlin to Mrs Jelicich and ruled that the case should be heard in Britain.

Mr Bagnall, who supported Mr Jelicich during the Family Court process, believes the hearings were rushed because it was Christmas.

“I think people were loath to get themselves embroiled in something … and they rushed it through.

“Why should Caitlin not receive better treatment? Why did they bulldoze the whole thing through?”

He said the judge who remanded Mrs Jelicich on the assault charge was the same judge who had awarded her custody of Caitlin the previous day. Mr Bagnall has written to Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier about his concerns.

(more…)

Am I the Father?
Paternity Testing Advice in New Zealand
— This is potentially very important to you!

It is the right of every child to know for sure who its true father is. It is just as important for fathers to know who their true children are.

Yet there is a very high likelihood that as a NZ male you are not the true father of a child that you think is yours. The possibility you are not the father is high, about 10% to 20%.

You can easily do a paternity test yourself to prove if you are the father, using an overseas laboratory. It will give you peace of mind, and if you are not the father you could save yourself thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support payments.

If you have any doubts, get the overseas test done. Its better odds than any lottery ticket you will ever buy. And do the test quickly — we explain why below.

Read on; there are a lot of things you need to know about this issue.

This paper is dated February 2005

Contents
Overview — the two classes of paternity test.
Our Advice
The Paternity Problem is Massive
Do It! Find an Offshore Laboratory
It’s Your Secret — don’t tell anyone
Social Fatherhood – The Myth
The Financial Side — the best lottery ticket you will ever buy
Summary of Actions You Must Take
More Paternity Issues
What The Government Must Do To Fix The Paternity Problem. — dreams are free

(more…)

Violence Against Women And Role Of Media

By Kamala Sarup

Media had still not played effective roles in minimizing domestic violence against women even, media can play a lead role in the society’s fight against violence against women. As media is the eye, ear and limbs of the society they could help a great deal in mitigating violence against women.

The media’s role should be to expose and generate awareness against society’s ills and evils, therefore their role should be still more effective. The media has to be more aware of violence against women. Even, many women have said that the media coverage (of rape or other violence) was like a second assault all over again, because of their insensitivity in using pictures, publishing names, and other violations of privacy.

We have some questions. Will media play a pivotal role in stopping injustices to women? Will media sit together and discuss serious issues inhibiting woman’s ability to enjoy right to freedom and right to equality??
(more…)

An Auckland father at the centre of an international custody dispute has told his family he is hiding with his 5-month-old daughter because of an “unfair” court decision to award custody to her mother.

Police yesterday appealed for 39-year-old Stephen Paul Jelicich to contact them and hand over baby Caitlin, following a request by Interpol.

But Stephen Jelicich’s father, Paul, last night told the Herald that his son would give himself up in exchange for a new custody hearing.

Paul Jelicich said Stephen and his wife arrived home at the end of October for a family holiday in Kumeu, West Auckland.

The relationship, which he described as “volatile”, soured during the visit.

“She said [to Stephen], ‘I’m going to Wales and taking Caitlin with me and there’s not a thing you can do about it, and I don’t want you to come back’.” Mr Jelicich said his son took advice from police and lawyers and sought custody of his daughter.

The case went to the Family Court before Christmas but was adjourned until January 10.

Mrs Jelicich applied for an urgent hearing and it was granted on January 6, when the court declared the case should be heard in Britain, where Caitlin was born, and awarded the mother custody.

Stephen Jelicich claimed the custody hearing was rushed and “all he wants is his day in court”, said his father.

“Nothing was done right,” said his mother, Jan Jelicich.

“He was supposed to be given 48 hours’ notice [of a hearing] but because it was going to be Christmas Day he was given 24 hours.”

Mr Jelicich snr said his son was a “good father” but “the system let him down” and running was his only option.

Nearly $1 billion in child support is now owed by absentee parents as the number of broken families in New Zealand skyrockets.

A Ministry of Social Development study estimates one in two mothers will, at some stage, raise their children alone — a trend the Government says is reflected in the $873 million owed in child support.

The figure represents a 19 per cent increase on the amount owed 12 months ago.

Associate Revenue Minister David Cunliffe acknowledged the level of unpaid debt was unacceptable.

However, he blamed the 20% increase on more broken relationships resulting in more child support payments.

“As IRD (the Inland Revenue Department) deals with more people and greater amounts over time that debt is likely to increase,” he said.

National Party social welfare spokeswoman Katherine Rich said the Government should apply more “aggressive measures”, such as blocking parents who owed “reasonably-sized” child support debts from leaving the country through greater links between the Inland Revenue and Immigration departments.

Police are appealing to a father who has gone into hiding with his five month old baby, to give her up immediately.

Baby Caitlin Jelicich was due to fly to Wales with her mother on Monday. But her father, Stephen Jelicich, 39, failed to return her as agreed after the weekend. The transfer of Caitlin was due to take place at Henderson Police station.

Caitlin’s mother was returning to live in Wales and left on the flight with another child but without her baby daughter. She is now trying to return to New Zealand.

Anyone who knows where Caitlin is should provide that information to police.

Inspector Hope added: “Under the Guardianship Act, the court has issued a warrant to enforce custody with the safety of the child being the paramount concern, so anyone who knows where the child is should come forward with the details. “

Jann Blackstone-Ford and Sharyl Jupe are friends. They work for the same organization. They live just eight houses apart. Their children get along well together.

They’ve also been married to the same man. Ms. Blackstone-Ford’s husband of 15 years, Larry, was first married to Ms. Jupe and is the father of her son and daughter.

So how do these two women not only share custody of those children, but maintain a friendship? Some ex-spouses can hardly tolerate the other being in the same city, no less go to lunch or celebrate Christmas with the ex — and his/her new spouse.

In a word: children.

“Put the kids first,” says Ms. Blackstone-Ford from her house in California. “Get over yourself.”

The two coined a phrase to replace “stepfamilies,” a word they say often has a negative connotation. They decided on “bonus families,” because a bonus is a reward for a job well done. And, they say, “it’s hard work to be a good bonus parent.”

The two co-wrote a book, Ex-Etiquette for Parents: Good Behavior After a Divorce or Separation (Chicago Review Press; $14.95) to help others in blended families find peace with one another.

By Kamala Sarup

Media had still not played effective roles in minimizing domestic violence against women even, media can play a lead role in the society’s fight against violence against women. As media is the eye, ear and limbs of the society they could help a great deal in mitigating violence against women.

We have some questions. Will media play a pivotal role in stopping injustices to women? Will media sit together and discuss serious issues inhibiting woman’s ability to enjoy right to freedom and right to equality??

Media also have a duty to report accurately on acts of violence against women. Although some in the media are to be commended for their ongoing efforts to reflect sensitive, diverse, and egalitarian images, others in the media still incorporate images that convey destructive messages. Still women’s bodies are used as objects to sell products. Media should highlight injustices meted out to women by the male dominated society. Media’s growing role in highlighting violence against women and stressed the need for creating awareness among the victim women about their rights, so that they could protect themselves.

A Hamilton man who helped his runaway daughter elude authorities for a week may face charges, Cambridge police say.

Louise Irwin, a state ward, was listed as missing on December 30, after a row with Lynette Karam-Whalley, the Cambridge hairdresser who has been her foster-mother for the past two years.

After leaving Mrs Karam-Whalley’s salon, the 13-year-old hitch-hiked to Hamilton, where she was picked up by her birth father, Ronald Irwin, Sergeant Gordon Grantham said today.

Mr Irwin then allegedly hid his daughter from authorities for a week, telling police he had no idea where she was.

Today, Mr Irwin said that over the years 10 of his 11 children had been placed in CYF care because of alleged neglect.

“The real reason why I hide (sic) her was because I was trying to get hold of a counsellor,” he said.

New Statistics New Zealand research shows the number of long-term marriages ending in divorce has risen sharply in the past decade. In 2003, 940 marriages of 30-plus years ended in divorce – 60% more than the 570 in 1993.

Experts say the trend is probably driven by women with financial independence leaving their husbands after their children left home.

Roy McKenzie Centre for Family Studies director Jan Pryor said people now had higher expectations of their relationships. After the children left home, many couples decided they did not want to spend another 30 years in an unfulfilling relationship.

Pryor said marital break-ups could be just as distressing for adult sons and daughters as for youngsters, but in different ways.

Families Commission figures showed nearly half of Kiwi mothers would be solo parents at some stage before they turned 50, and one in five would live in a step-family.

These trends have alarmed many, who blame the demise of traditional family values for the nation’s woeful child abuse and domestic violence statistics.

Maxim Institute director Bruce Logan said research showed children were better off with a mother and father who were married.

But the country’s latest champion of the family, new Families Commission head Dr Rajen Prasad, denounced the “moral panic” and said families were very resilient to change.