Thursday, July 30, 2009

F4J asks - is the legal industry serving the community or just itself?

* Is the legal industry serving the community or just itself?

Has the public had enough of a harmful and a failing legal system? YES!

Are families and parents sick and tired of being treated like criminals and having their assets and finances looted by the legal system for little or no reason at all? YES!

Is the public tired of dishonest members of the legal system who line their pockets at the expense of families and hard working citizens of Australia? YES!

Is it time to overhaul the legal industry to properly safeguard the public from the constant abuse perpetrated by various members and processes of the legal system? YES!

In fact, is it not time the legal system grew up, attained a higher level of maturity and a more positive vision for humanity overall? YES!

Is this a system that an aware and awake public is not happy with, and wish to have it discontinued in it's current form? YES!

Are the rights of Australian citizens who have done no wrong, being taken away and ignored on a daily basis, with Australians getting sick and tired of this deplorable tyranny? YES!

The answer to all the above questions is YES!

However, the reality is nothing will ever be done about it. Why?

Simply, because the legal system has a huge financial interest in their system reaching into people's lives, stealing their money, their livelihood and often a person's life.

It's suspected that many good and naive people who work in the legal system have no idea of this or are too fearful to speak up and blow the whistle, exposing what's going on. And what's more, there is just no safe body to complain to.

What's more the legal system is antiquated and out of touch with a brighter vision for humanity, and in many respects is just plain broken and irreparable.

What truly defines a criminal and what proportion of the legal industry are in fact criminals, committing crimes on a daily basis?

The fact is that the public has little faith in the legal industry, with many people regarding it as a mockery. The only people who promote and praise the industry, are the ones in the industry or those who get a kick back from being associated with the legal industry.

Gee, what a game. A self perpetuating industry of money, power and fun for a few, no matter what the cost to innocent people. It's usually a game that benefits the wealthy, whilst often exploiting the rest of us righteous and vulnerable citizens.

Maybe, there will never be any perfect system created by mere humans, however where is the body or organisation that oversees the legal system, it's corruption and problems with due process and complaints?

A body that is transparent and accountable to the general public, and staffed by everyday common citizens of Australia, just like our juries — what's left of them.

Guess what? There is none! No surprises there.

On the brighter side, there will come a day when there will be no need for a legal system as more and more of the public wakes up.

So to all in the industry, this is a fantastic opportunity to bail out and go do something that you love and you are passionate about. A rewarding vocation that doesn't give you ulcers and health problems, where you can sleep at night with a clear conscience, knowing that you will be creating a better world for our children, families and society.

Ah, what a day that will be...

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

** Girl, 12, made false rape claim **

I regularly visit a good father who was imprisoned after a 12 year girl old was coerced by her devious mother to make up false allegations of unlawful sexual connection. A jury found him not guilty of two counts of rape of a minor, but guilty of two touching offences. He is serving 4 and a half years and everybody knows he is innocent of the crime. Just goes to show how a sinister spouse can brainwash her children into making false allegations so she can jump into bed with her boss twenty years her junior. The new boy friend moves into the prisoners house and abuses his two biological children. It’s even easier for the callous mother when she makes up the alleged offending and spews the bile to a man hating militant dyke feminist detective. You have serious blood on your hands Sarah E. I wonder how many more innocent dads you put behind bars you maggot? You should be behind bars you twisted whore pig. We will get even on judgement day.

** Girl, 12, made false rape claim **
Police reprimand a 12-year-old girl who falsely accused a 15-year-old boy of raping her in a Berkshire town.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - Men Are Getting Kicked in the Teeth - Men Are Getting Kicked in the Teeth

Posted using ShareThis

CYFS probe traumatises family

CYFS probe traumatises family

By admin | July 27, 2009

CYFS probe traumatises family

4:00AM Tuesday Jul 28, 2009
By Simon Collins

A father says his family were left traumatised and his elder daughter tearful after Child, Youth and Family Services investigated a smack.

Parents Erik and Lisa toured the world for years with the Christian theatre group Covenant Players, presenting plays to schools and church groups on themes such as self-esteem, peer pressure, resolving conflict, bullying and addiction.

“Before we had children, I read a number of books on strong-willed children by [Christian author Dr James] Dobson and others,” says Erik.

“In the back of my mind there was the suspicion that those children were not being raised right, that if they had loving parents who were consistent with their discipline, they would turn out to be good kids.

Erik said he and Lisa had never had any problems with their elder daughter, who will soon be 13. “And then we had Abigail.”

Abigail, now 10, “from day one has known exactly what she wanted and been very insistent on getting it”.

“She will no doubt make a fantastic leader one day,” her father said.

But right now she’s a challenge. “There are times when my wife and I are at our absolute wit’s end.”

Last November, they took her to a child mental health service to get help. Health workers noted a bruise on her back that had been caused by tripping over a vacuum cleaner.

Two days later, Abigail had what her father calls “a massive meltdown, banging her bunk against the wall and calling my wife evil”.

“I said, ‘Either your behaviour stops or you’re going to get a smack’,” he said. “She started kicking at me. I grabbed hold of her ankle and smacked her bottom.” Two of his fingers went above the line of her belt, leaving red marks on her back.

The smack worked. She stopped kicking and was soon apologetic.

But the mental health service was about to give her a full medical examination. Lisa told a nurse about the red marks and the smack.

A few days later, at 3pm on a Friday, CYFS staff rang. They had received a claim of abuse and they wanted the children out of the house while they investigated.

The parents protested, but were told they had no option. They found friends to take the two girls for the weekend.

On the Monday, CYFS spoke to the older daughter at school and left her in tears. Late that afternoon, social workers visited the family, realised there had been a mix-up between the red marks and the bruise from the vacuum cleaner, and closed the case.

Far from protecting the children, CYFS made things worse, Erik says.

“Abigail went round locking the doors one night because she was afraid someone was going to come and take us. Our eldest would wake up at all different hours and had trouble going to sleep.”

Erik himself had to take leave from work, complaining to CYFS: “I am angry, have difficulty completing simple tasks, have several times come close to bursting into tears and at least once have actually done so.”

* CYFS will respond on Friday.

Sunday, July 26, 2009


Another Family Court Suicide?

Two children were abducted to England by their mother.

- Returned to New Zealand under ‘Hague’s Convention’.

- False allegations continue; ten false allegations of Breaching a Protection Order investigated by Police.

- Father had to have supervised access (glowing reports from supervised centre).

- Father clashed with Judge and Counsel for Child over full contact.

- Supervised contact cut off from more false allegations.

- Father protests; -sectioned to Mental Health facility by Judge; found to be fine, released in under five hours.

- Further psychological reports ordered by the Court showed he was fine to see children.

- Judge ignored extended family’s pleas to have contact with children.

- Judge produces memorandum that says even if there is a hearing, he will not be allowed to see his children.

- Father has contacted the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice to plead to have any contact with his children.


TEXT ‘YES’ OR ‘NO’ TO 02102437942

I have Court documentation that proves a Judge, a Court appointed Counsel for Child and my wife’s Barristers have all lied in the Family Court.

Why are these people not accountable to someone?

Friday, July 24, 2009




The Dads On the Air Program is going from strength to strength- and this week the website has relaunched with a new updated design and new features.

Come and check us out. The design is now much cleaner and less cluttered and the site itself much more pleasant to use.

The more modern design makes it easier to read and navigate around. The pages have a friendlier URL structure, for example the backgrounder is at and the bookstore is at

As well the full weekly show flyers are now available for all shows new and old, not just a summary of each week's guests. Just click the show title on the Home page or the "Click to read more..." link on the Archives page.

You can now search old shows by topic from the Archives page. For example, if you're just looking for shows about Men's Health, just click the Men's Health link in the right column. You can now easily email shows to friends by clicking the Email Article link at the bottom of the show page

You can also now share shows using all the modern social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter by clicking the Share Article link at the bottom of the show page

We would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank our researcher Greg Andresen for the wonderful work he has done redesigning the website. He has done an absolutely marvellous job and we at Dads On The Air owe him a profound debt of gratitude.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Family court injustices to men

I know from first hand experience the injustice of the sinister murdering Family Court. RIP Mum I will get even with the low down filth. Watch out justice is coming you lying creeps!

Family court injustices to men

By Phyllis Schlafly
Posted: July 22, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).

This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wash., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It." Schlafly also is founder and president of Eagle Forum.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Wife wins in court's property shock

Wife wins in court's property shock

A landmark Supreme Court judgment has opened the way for wives to take a share of their husbands' property - even though they owned it before the marriage. A prominent Auckland family law barrister ...
The following personal message was also included:

What else would you expect in feminaziland where the Dame and her Supremo Sisterhood Court run men into the ground. Little wonder woman out number men in a country saturated in unlawful gender discriminataion.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Rewarding Careers in Child Protection

More reports of WA mothers mistreating children,27574,25802810-2761,00.html

18 July 2009

More reports of WA mothers mistreating children
By Nick Taylor

The number of WA mothers reported for abusing their children has leapt in the past two years.

Figures from the Department for Child Protection, obtained by The Sunday Times, show the number of mothers believed responsible for "substantiated maltreatment" has risen from 312 to 427. In the same period - 2005-06 to 2007-08 - the number of fathers reported for child abuse dropped from 165 to 155.

A breakdown of all family-based child abuse shows and increase from 960 to 1505 last year.

Michael Woods, of the University of Western Sydney, said the data "debunked a common misconception about fathers and violence".

Dr Woods, who is also a co-director of the university-based Men's Information and Resource Centre said: "The figures undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children's wellbeing.

"The data is not surprising. It is in line with the international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse."

He said previous practices of lumping together de factos, live-in boyfriends and overnight male guests with fathers as male carers had "skewed beliefs" about who abused children.

Angela Hartwig, executive officer of the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services WA, said the increases were a concern, but child abuse, neglect and domestic and family violence could be reported in several ways.

"Because the woman is so often the primary care-giver she is held as being responsible for the neglect," she said.

"This could also explain why there is such a high number of neglect cases against women, as the data only shows the first person believed responsible.

"The statistics do not show the strong correlation that where there is child abuse there is often domestic and family violence and the women may be the victim of the abuse.

"If she is a victim of domestic and family violence, a woman has very little power to change the situation.

"It is difficult for a woman to provide for children when living with an abusive partner who has total control of all decisions made, which includes controlling the finances."

Friday, July 17, 2009

Ben Easton highlights unlawful gender discrimination by BNZ on radio

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Peter van de Voorde, I am a producer and presenter on popular weekly radio program, DADS ON THE AIR, AUSTRALIA, broadcasting from radio station 2GLF in Sydney, Australia. For more details please visit our website

We are the world's longest running radio program on father's issues. Dads On The Air, covers a wide range of social issues around gender and parenthood and actively promotes a positive view of men, boys, fatherhood and co-parenting. The program has attracted leading politicians, authors, academics, and lobbyists from Australia and around the world. You can find out more about the program at:

On next week's program (10.30 am Tuesday 21st July 2009), we will be featuring an interview with New Zealand's Mr Benjamin Easton, who has recently challenged the Bank of New Zealand in court, regarding the Bank's advertising campaign, which supports the prevailing hysterical propaganda in the context of Domestic Violence.

There is growing community concern, because this campaign appears to be based on misinformation designed to stereotype only Men as abusers and only Women and Children as victims.

Please consider the following links to more reliable information on relevant statistics.

Furthermore, according to the 2007 Child Maltreatment Report of the US Department of Health and Human Services: Victim data were analyzed by relationship to their perpetrators. Nearly 39 percent (38.7%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone (figure 3–6). Nearly 18 percent (17.9%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone. Nearly 17 percent (16.8%) were maltreated by both parents.19

Bank of new Zealand customers are not only Women, in fact a large part of your customer base is made up of Men. Many of these men are alarmed at the Bank's willingness to promote so many of their customers as abusive, violent thugs.

Accordingly and in fairness to the Bank's customers, we would like to invite a spokesperson from the Bank of New Zealand to take part in next week's program, in order to explain the Bank's position on this all important issue.

I look forward to hearing from you with a favorable reply.

Thanking you

Kind regards
Peter van de Voorde
Producer, and co-Presenter
+61 04286 48691

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Childless man freed after serving time for child support ...

It took action by a local Human Rights organization to get this parent out of jail. I'm sure a lot of readers didn't even think you could be jailed for failing to 'support' a child who isn't yours?

As Mothers and Fathers who have families hurt by the system. I think we all know how easy those types of actions are. Without first recognizing "rights", how can any legal system provide "justice" ?

Think about Family Rights and goals:

Join the National Parents Leadership Council and join like-minded
people: http://www.NatiionalPLC.Org/

Take loving action and demonstrate sacrifice to show others the power of your (and our) beliefs.

Best regards!

John Murtari

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

F4J Canada - Jailed for Being Dad

Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Fathers 4 Justice Canada ~ Jailed for Being a Dad

Press release

Contact: Kris Titus
Phone: 1-888-345-2262 ext.703

July 14, 2009

For Immediate Release July 14, 2009

Jailed for Being a Dad

Alienated father tells the court, "No Kids, No Money"

An F4J Fathers 4 Justice member has gone to jail for 20 days for his independent protest and refusal to pay child support arrears for children he has, by the courts own admittance, been alienated from.

Richard Coulter, 47, of Cookstown, ON was yesterday sent to Central North Correctional Facility, for telling the court, "No kids, No money."

Mr. Coulter has seen his children once in 5 years, despite repeated attempts to try to maintain contact.

While Mr. Coulter has fallen behind in child support, moneys owed to him for the division of the matrimonial home are yet to be paid, and his access was never enforced.

In his speech to Justice Mulligan today, Richard said, "Your system allowed this person, not only to dismantle the family, but you also gave her the authority and allowed her to make me homeless, fatherless, childless and jobless."

In a recent order of April 6th, Justice Guy Ditomaso said, "Further, his children were alienated by _____ in that he was never able to see them and for this reason, his ability to pay child support was also impacted."

Kris Titus, National Coordinator of F4J Fathers 4 Justice says, "Although we don't recommend our members to take this type of action, we know how Mr. Coulter and his new spouse feel. This is what happens when the system is just too imbalanced for both parents to survive and thrive after divorce. We hear from a lot of second families and fathers just struggling to feed themselves after support payments."

The group has concerns for Mr. Coulter's welfare as the prison is otherwise known as Penetang Super Jail and houses 1500 inmates. The prison has previously been clouded by contraversy and health and safety issues including the death of a prisoner.

F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada believes the best 'child support' is equal parenting. "It is important that parents are allowed to support their children in all ways, physically, spiritually, and emotionally, as well as financially," says Titus. "People are just plain fed up."

Studies have shown that those who see their children regularly more frequently keep their child support obligations.



CONTACT: Canada National Coordinator, Kris Titus 1-888-345-2262 ext. 703

National Website for more information about F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada Canada:

National Action website:

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Despairing dad's suicide vote

"Suicide Prevention New Zealand director Merryn Statham said: "To use somebody taking their life as an opportunity to draw attention to your cause in this country is unethical."

This women allowed homosexual activists like Tim Barnett to hijack a 2005 two day symposium that was supposed to be addressing the needs of all men.How ethical is that!?This sinister lady does not concern herself with the fact many forced male clients of the bias Family Court take the suicide option. Who can blame them? Eh Judge Boshier would you like help me scrap a man's brains from the wall after he has eaten the double barrel after false allegations made in the Family Court resulted in a dishonest protection order? It was really hard watching the mother of his two young children attend his funeral in the new car with the new boy friend. Your Family Court is evil and satanic.



Last updated 05:00 12/07/2009

Sunday News, July 12

A FATHER locked in a bitter custody battle says he will have his case published in a publicly distributed pamphlet, inviting readers to vote on whether he should commit suicide.

Men's rights campaigner Jim Bagnall says his group, Coalition of Fathers, supports the dad and the pamphlet-drop will help raise awareness of their cause.

"I will be distributing pamphlets with a summary of his story and his phone number, and then he can evaluate how many messages he gets either yes or no whether he should commit suicide or not," Bagnall told Sunday News.

But the move has been slammed by Mensline and Suicide Prevention New Zealand, and is potentially a breach of the Crimes Act.

The man, in his 40s, said he had been driven to despair through his unsuccessful attempts in the Family Court to gain access to his daughters.

"I've been to court 12 times. There's no hope for people like me, I don't fit in any more," said the man, who cannot legally be named. "You take someone's children away and you take away their hopes for living."

The man, an immigrant, said he moved to New Zealand with his then-partner to start a new, safe life.

But the relationship dissolved and his ex got custody of the girls. He said his access had been further limited because of allegations his former partner made against him.

"I've told my family back home that I've had enough," he told Sunday News. "I've had two breakdowns and I am at the point now where I don't care, because they'll either kill me or I'll do something."

Bagnall claims the man's case isn't unique. He says separated fathers routinely have access limited to children the moment their ex makes an allegation against them.

"(The man) can only see his children under supervised access," Bagnall said. "(His suicide vote) is drastic but what other options has he now got left?"

But Mensline's Denis Bunbury says the planned move is dangerous. "I think he may feel his circumstances are very extreme, and one can understand why he feels that way," Bunbury said. "But it is not constructive."

Suicide Prevention New Zealand director Merryn Statham said: "To use somebody taking their life as an opportunity to draw attention to your cause in this country is unethical. If that man loses his life, his children are the ones that suffer the most. He's experiencing extreme distress. The group (Coalition of Fathers) should recognise the extreme risk the member is experiencing at the moment. There is help available."

Under the Crimes Act it is a crime to "incite, counsel, or procure any person to commit suicide. But Bagnall says: "I wouldn't call it promoting suicide, I would call it advising what is going on in the courts."

He says his group predicts people will vote "No" and advise the man to keep fighting to get back his children.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Yes family breakdown IS behind broken Britain

If the motherland is broken then that explains why New Zealand is so unsafe for children and fathers. Sadly child abuse is evetywhere, meanwhile the hateful radical feminists encourage the fractured family industry. What a sick society.

Yes family breakdown IS behind broken Britain

After a top judge says family breakdown is a national tragedy and attacks the BBC for suppressing debate on the subject, the Mail reveals the truth that the oh so liberal Corporation wanted to conceal

Full Story:

Friday, July 10, 2009

Dads Are Key to Making Us Human

Someone should explain this article to the cold hearted aliens that infest the De Femily Court.

Dads Are Key to Making Us Human
Dads Are Key to Making Us Human
By Robin Nixon,

Some 95 percent of male mammals have little to no interaction with their children. Homo sapiens are one of the most notable exceptions, leading some scientists to think fatherhood is an important part of what makes us human.

Most theories for the family involvement of fathers invoke the familiar "Man the Hunter" characterization, in which dad protects and provides for his young.

While fathers do play key roles in securing the physical health of their children, they also can be important for the optimum development of psychological and emotional traits considered to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional control and the ability to navigate complex social relationships.

Unlike many other animals, humans need their fathers well beyond the act that leads to conception, researchers are coming to realize.

Paternal prep school

There is plenty of time for this emotional hand-off. While other primate babies can fend for themselves in roughly a decade, human childhood stretches 18 to 20 years, said David Geary of the University of Missouri and author of "Male, Female: Evolution of Human Sex Differences" (American Psychological Association, 1998).

Also, anthropologists speculate that the relative helplessness of human children has made multiple caregivers a vital necessity — that encourages bringing dad into the picture. Even today, in both traditional and industrialized communities, a father's presence correlates with improved health and decreased child mortality, Geary said.

Evolutionarily speaking, he added, the kid-phase probably lengthened as dads got more involved. With an extra person dedicated to caring for them, kids have no need to rush towards adulthood.

Perhaps out of worry for their kids' future financial security, dads across human cultures mostly focus on preparing children to compete within society. They give advice, encourage academic success and stress achievement, Geary said. But it is not all lesson plans and lectures.

Kids also learn from fathers during a unique form of papa play. Unlike mothers, fathers tend to roughhouse with their children.

"They rile them up, almost to the point that they are going to snap, and then calm them down," Geary said.

This pattern teaches kids to control their emotions — a trait that garners them popularity among superiors and peers, he said.

Parenting for the grandkids

Good fathers are rewarded with quality family relationships across the board, Geary said.

When children have warm relationships with their father, as well as calm home lives, they tend to sexually mature later. Their bodies intuit they are safe and time is taken perfecting social skills before entering the real world, Geary said.

The extra practice gives children a competitive edge. As adults, they are more likely to form secure relationships, achieve stable social standing and become able parents. In this sense, a father who takes care of his children also gives his grandchildren a leg up.

Not that involved dads must wait to be grandpas to reap rewards from pitching in with childcare. In addition to experiencing the tenderness of the father-child bond, many dads gain a feeling of camaraderie by providing support for mom. Also, the more help a mother receives after giving birth, the faster she becomes fertile again.

Being raised by more than one person also enhances social skills, theorizes anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, author of "Mothers and Others" (Belknap Press, 2009). Children not only grow up more emotionally secure, they are better at taking another's perspective — a skill critical to our socially-reliant species.

In traditional communities, especially during infancy, extra caregivers are usually female kin, such as grandmothers and aunts, Hrdy writes. But in nuclear families, fathers play this role.

When father-child relations are strained or chaotic, the insecurity can translate biologically as a message to grow up fast, Geary said. There is an unconscious sense that "if you are going to reproduce at all, you better start early," he said. As a result, girls reach menarche sooner and form clingy relationships, while boys become aggressive and sexually exploitive.

This rarely bodes well for the next generation.

Biological roots of paternalism

The emotional contribution of dads might have some biological roots. Despite conventional wisdom, men experience biological changes during a pregnancy, albeit not as extensively as women do.

Men who are emotionally close to — and usually cohabiting with — a pregnant woman, go through their own hormonal surges, especially just before and after birth, said David Bjorklund of Florida Atlantic University. For example, a new father has elevated levels of the hormone prolactin — usually associated with lactation in women — that trigger his nurturing instinct.

This may be evolution's way of ensuring more constant care for a baby that is more dependent and demanding than any other newborn in the animal kingdom.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Why most men tolerate feminist misandry

Why most men tolerate feminist misandry
Jeffrey Asher
7th July 2009

Over twelve years of teaching "Men’s Lives," I also wondered why majority-male legislatures, judiciaries and mainstream media editors, capitulated to and enforced feminist politics and jurisprudence.

Above all, men are powerfully driven by sexual attraction to women. Men easily rationalize their sexual need for women as based in intellectual and moral equality.

Male protection of women and children - at the risk of men’s safety and lives - over millennia of social evolution, allowed our species to survive. I suspect that imperative is as integral to male brains and hormones, as the need for and care of children is integral to women.

Men in power did not accede to feminists because of sexual opportunism alone – women remain second to one in that category. When feminists – confused as representing women – called out to men for ‘equality,’ men entrenched quotas and feminist jurisprudence. A man shamed by a woman promptly takes corrective action, to ‘act like a Man’.

Most men did not expect feminists, to lie. Nor did men account for female emotional volatility. Men did not expect feminists to sabotage the family. Men did not realize that the driving force behind feminism was activist female self-loathing and lesbian misandry, deliberately alienating girls and women from heterosexuality and the family.

Donna Laframboise in "The Princess at the Window," observed that in the feminist movement, the lunatic fringe had taken over the mainstream. Feminists terrorized women against men with abuse, assault and rape agitprop. And yes, too many men remain self-loathing feminists.

I suspect the above partially explains the reluctance of most men in power to oppose feminist opportunism, even after their own marriages are destroyed and their children torn asunder.

Sanford Braver, "Divorced Dads" (Putnam 1998 ISBN 0-87477-862- X): "A 1998 Gottman study (J. Marriage & Family, 1998) instructed: " ... men should forget all that psychobabble about active listening and validation. If you want your marriage to last for a long time, just do what your wife says." This discovery coincides with "... the loss of power in marriage that men have experienced over the last 40 years." (Page 140).

At the end of the day, most men hope to return home, to their wife and children, whom they love. That is a powerful restraint against male denunciation of feminist family destruction.

JN Asher

Monday, July 6, 2009

Gender bias evident in parental alienation cases

As a client of the NZ Family Court since the year 2001 I find it appalling that the children's court appointed lawyer and psychologist has never witnessed the loving interaction and bond between a dad and his two daughters? Strange eh. I call it unlawful male gender discrimination. End of story. I hate PAS and the evil in the Family Court.


Gender bias evident in parental alienation cases

Mothers are more likely to be the parent behind children's estrangement, yet fathers more often ordered into counselling, study finds


March 28, 2009

JUSTICE REPORTER -- A study of alienated children has found that mothers were significantly more likely to be the parent who emotionally poisoned their children than were fathers.

Toronto family lawyer Gene Colman told a Toronto symposium yesterday that of 74 court rulings that found parental alienation since 1987, the mother was the alienator in 50 cases. The father was the alienating parent in 24.

"I'm not trying to dump on moms," Mr. Colman told about 150 psychologists, family lawyers, mediators and activist parents. "I'm just saying, that is what the data reveal."

In parental alienation syndrome, an estranged parent systematically brainwashes a child into hating the other parent. The profile of the syndrome escalated over the past year, after three Ontario judges ordered that children be removed from an alienating parent and taken to U.S. clinics for deprogramming therapy. Print Edition - Section Front

Section A Front Enlarge Image The Globe and Mail

Mr. Colman said that alienating fathers were twice as likely to be ordered to undergo counselling as were mothers in alienation cases - a finding that raises serious questions about whether judges are exhibiting gender biases.

Twelve of the 50 alienating mothers in his study were ordered into counselling, as compared with 13 of 24 fathers. "As social scientists will tell you, that is a high level of statistical significance in terms of differential treatment by gender," Mr. Colman said.

"As lawyers and judges, we have to be vigilant to make sure that we ... are not influenced by whether the mom is the alienator or the dad is the alienator. There should be no differential in how either gender is dealt with."

The other findings in Mr. Colman's study included:

The number of parental alienation cases has shot up from 21 between

1987 and 2000 to 53 between 2000 and 2008.

Fathers who had their alienated children switched from their homes were granted some form of access by the courts in a "much lower" percentage of cases than were mothers.

Fathers who alienate their children are somewhat more likely to have their children removed from their residence and relocated with the mother.

Mr. Colman said that of cases where the father was the alienator, children were ordered to switch to the mother's residence in 78 per cent of cases. In contrast, 62 per cent of the mothers who alienated their children had them switched to the father's home.

"It would seem that if you are the dad, you have a greater probability of having the residence changed on you," said Mr. Colman, founding editor of the Canadian Journal of Family Law and founding member of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

How the New Zealand judiciary are still able to bias custody law.

Open Letter to Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier

Dear Judge Boshier,

I refer to your interview on TV One on June 28th 2009

. Since the text of the interview is on the web, I assume that the interview was not edited before being screened -- incredibly enough!

Custody Bias

I say "incredibly enough" because of the following: In response to the accusation that women get sole custody in two thirds of cases, you stated that men and women got sole custody equally frequently, as a proportion of the numbers of times that mothers or fathers actually applied for sole custody. In other words, the reason for the fact that women get sole custody in two thirds of cases was that women applied for sole custody more often than men. In response to the interviewer asking for clarification, you then said:

"Right, well if you've got a mother applying for sole care, it's logical (my emphasis) she's probably going to get sole care. If a father applies for sole care he might, and so the number of applications that mothers file are many many more than fathers."

What is incredible, in my view, is that you did not see fit -- on one of the rare occasions when you have appeared on television -- to clarify your use of the word "logical". It cannot be news to you that subsection 4(4) of the Care of Children Act 2004 states quite clearly that:

"For the purposes of this section, and regardless of a child's age, it must not be presumed that placing the child in the day-to-day care of a particular person will, because of that person's sex (my emphasis), best serve the welfare and best interests of the child."

Section 4 is the section which states that the principle of the welfare and best interests of the child must be paramount -- yet here you are, as the Principal Judge entrusted with the implementation of the Will of Parliament,as expressed in this Act, stating quite boldly and without qualification that subsection 4(4) is not worth the paper that it is written on! Will you consider resigning?

As is well known to those of us who have studied law, and as is stated in the textbook Family Law Policy in New Zealand,1 people bargain "in the shadow of the law" -- i.e. with an assumption at the back of their minds about what the outcome would be if the matter went to court. So what you were in fact saying was that most lawyers advise their clients that the New Zealand Family Court is biased against fathers, and that a female client would be well-advised to make an application for sole custody, but a male client would not.

Welfare and Best Interests of the Child

Since I am not a judge, however, I am free to criticise Parliament's insistence that the welfare and best interests of the child must be paramount. There are typically at least three people involved in such cases:

the two parents and the child. It is prima facie arbitrary and a breach of two people's human rights for the rights of the parents to be disregarded. I am fairly certain that, if it wasn't for the fact that this principle is usually interpreted in a way that suits the mother, it would never have been included in the Act. Parliament is never happy unless it is favouring women and oppressing men. In that respect, you are in tune with the Will of Parliament.

Apart from the issue of human rights, there is also the issue of realism: It would only make sense for the welfare and best interests of the child to be paramount if there was some rational process for coming to a reasonable conclusion about which decision on custody would actually best serve the welfare and best interests of the child. There are principles stated in the Act, and there are criteria listed in past cases, but none of these are prioritised, and the job of the judge is to predict the future, when the science available to guide his decisions is even more uncertain than that guiding the forecasts of metereologists and economists!

Moreover, it is not clear that all the correct principles and criteria are being considered. As your interviewer pointed out,

"A child that has no father is 14 times more likely to rape, 20 more times likely to go to prison...."

The principles and criteria do not mention preventing rape, imprisonment, unhappiness, poor school results, truancy, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, suicide, and so on. If they did, they would probably favour father custody or joint custody -- and that was certainly not the Will of Parliament, was it?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

1 Henaghan, M. and Atkin, B., Family Law Policy in New Zealand, 2 ed 2002,
Wellington:LexisNexis Butterworths, p. 267.

Violent Women Put in Refuges NZ Prostate
Cancer Screening Right to life
in black & white New
gendered mortality
Female Subjectivity as Standard for Law & Policy International Men's Day

Friday, July 3, 2009

NZBC guidelines for misandry

Australian playwright David Williamson gives his thoughts on writing about women at the Author's Right To Speak seminar at the Sydney Writers Festival. No wonder all we ever hear about in New Zealand is misogyny but never misandry, which is the hatred or oppression of males!

A couple of thoughts from international colleagues in the Fathers Right Movement;

Robert writes;

“Freedom and liberty are not absolutes in today's world. They are subject to interpretation and secret censorship that leaves the population believing they have witnessed and are experiencing unadulterated freedom and liberty.This is not true as this pod cast from New Zealand epitomizes.You will find out how women can be defined in only a certain number of ways and definitely not in others, most interesting.

I have a great deal of sympathy with his views having been on a BBC
"internal steering committee" where scripts were altered 1 year in advance to get across the message of a planned campaign against men.

This is something that should belong to the Fascist and Soviet era but, no, it is alive and well in 2009. If anything, it reinforces the proposition that a Commissariat is at work in most countries benevolently 'guiding' how we think and what we think.”

Tom writes;

“Worth a listen to re the example of the NZBC guidelines for writing about women and the deliberate feminist agenda (propaganda) behind that push to manipulate NZ citizens."
David Williamson on writing about women


Download MP3 (3.5MB, 7:45 minutes)

Who is David Williamson?:

Thursday, July 2, 2009

PAS is a great get rich scheme for family court filth

Unfortunately the insidious Parental Alienation Syndrome, promoted by the family court system, is not a recognized disorder by scientific and medical communities because it lacks validity and reliability. However, in the real world greedy unscrupulous lawyers and psychologists ride the gravy train so they can leech as much blood money from a family court file. They enjoy a court where false allegations are the norm.They delight in adversarial tactics for effect. They can meander a case on for years (mine started in 2001 and I want clossure). They don’t care about the damage to the alienated father, the paternal side of the family(RIP Mum) and the sad estranged children.

PAS “deprogramming” techniques divide relationships rather than unite, but then again that’s what the dirty low life family court is all about. A sick, sad joke. Many falsely accused fathers simply leave the country or commit suicide rather than face the overwhelming obstacles put in place by the feminist orchestrated court of hatred.

Sadly 87,000 cases passed through the scumbag family court last year. Great stuff a real growth industry for lying lawyers and twisted pus laden psychologists. Lies are again the winner on the day. PAS will enable the devious lying professionals to buy a new Beamer. You filth make my stomach turn, you mongrels, judgment is coming soon.

What a sick country that allows a court to create so much misery so professionals can get wealthy. No wonder we lead the world in child abuse.

The family court of New Zealand is a vipers den of evil.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

Carey Roberts column
$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

July 1, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn't always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world's first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. "Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters," she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright prevarications. The report, "Fifty Domestic Violence Myths," is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting:

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, "domestic violence is all about power and control"? That's code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men's insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that's what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, "We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women."

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the "VAWA Mafia" find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the "He had it coming" line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it "domestic violence."

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications. So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there's not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That's the biggest whopper of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report. As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, "You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts." Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to, he has published in The Washington Times,,, Men's News Daily,, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2009 by Carey Roberts