Christchurch Women's Prison is over flowing with girls lost to the teenage waste land.
http://www.news. com.au/courierma il/story/ 0,23739,25561058 -13360,00. html
Sad sign of times
Article from: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
May 31, 2009
"GIRLS can do anything" was the catch-cry of the feminist movement for years and although some gender imbalances remain, many equity battles have been won.
But there's one area where we don't want to see women matching men. Queensland Police data points to a disturbing trend – the rise of the "thugette".
Increasing involvement in assaults, robberies and other forms of violent behaviour is alarming, whatever the sex of those offending
Some experts say it's an inevitable effect from rising binge-drinking among females. But there's more going on, as the aggressive attitude of many women behind the driving wheel demonstrates daily.
It is, perhaps, another symptom of a harsher, more selfish, less caring society that can only be changed by each of us becoming more considerate of one another.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Call to veto anti-smacking law
Well done Family First. My heart goes out to the Christchurch Father Jimmy Mason who was convicted for flicking his son's ear in public. Some female witness went running to the feminist agenda police with lies and that was that. He was convicted in the corrupt court system. Fathers are doomed in kiwiland. Jimmy Mason is a decent bloke and a real good dad. FACT.
<">a href="www.articlesoflaw.com/2009/05/31/call-to-veto-anti-smacking-law-stuffconz">
Lobby group Family First has placed ads in Sunday newspapers calling for the reinstatement of reasonable force as a defence in child abuse cases.
The group says the law change isn't working and Prime Minister John Key should change it.
In 2007, Parliament passed the so-called anti-smacking legislation removing the defence. Supporters highlighted cases where parents used the defence to escape punishment for beating their children with whips and pieces of wood.
Opponents said it would make criminals out of parents who lightly smacked their children and removed their right to discipline them.
The law passed by 113 votes to eight, backed by National under a compromise where a proviso was inserted that the police had discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent if they considered the offence to be inconsequential.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said Mr Key had promised to look at the legislation if it was impacting on good parents.
In the ad, framed as an open letter, the group says families had been prosecuted and children removed by Child, Youth and Family under the law change.
Cases included a parent who smacked a child once on the leg being prosecuted, parents who were interviewed for five hours by police and children removed by CYF for two nights when they admitted to a social service agency that they smacked their children.
Mr McCoskrie said use of the law was traumatic for families.
The group supports ACT MP John Boscawen's member's bill to allow parents to use a light smack to correct their children. They also want a royal commission to look at causes of child abuse.
In its six-monthly review of the Crimes Amendment Act which showed the impact of the law, police said it had remained minimal.
When the amendment came into effect in June 2007, police undertook to monitor its effect for two years.
Mr Key has previously said the law appeared to be working well.
<">a href="www.articlesoflaw.com/2009/05/31/call-to-veto-anti-smacking-law-stuffconz">
Lobby group Family First has placed ads in Sunday newspapers calling for the reinstatement of reasonable force as a defence in child abuse cases.
The group says the law change isn't working and Prime Minister John Key should change it.
In 2007, Parliament passed the so-called anti-smacking legislation removing the defence. Supporters highlighted cases where parents used the defence to escape punishment for beating their children with whips and pieces of wood.
Opponents said it would make criminals out of parents who lightly smacked their children and removed their right to discipline them.
The law passed by 113 votes to eight, backed by National under a compromise where a proviso was inserted that the police had discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent if they considered the offence to be inconsequential.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said Mr Key had promised to look at the legislation if it was impacting on good parents.
In the ad, framed as an open letter, the group says families had been prosecuted and children removed by Child, Youth and Family under the law change.
Cases included a parent who smacked a child once on the leg being prosecuted, parents who were interviewed for five hours by police and children removed by CYF for two nights when they admitted to a social service agency that they smacked their children.
Mr McCoskrie said use of the law was traumatic for families.
The group supports ACT MP John Boscawen's member's bill to allow parents to use a light smack to correct their children. They also want a royal commission to look at causes of child abuse.
In its six-monthly review of the Crimes Amendment Act which showed the impact of the law, police said it had remained minimal.
When the amendment came into effect in June 2007, police undertook to monitor its effect for two years.
Mr Key has previously said the law appeared to be working well.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Hands-on dads handle stress better
http://www.thestar.com/article/642135
The Toronto Star (Canada)
29 May 2009
Hands-on dads handle stress better
Valuing home duties and child care helps men cope with job loss
By Andrea Gordon, Family Issues Reporter
Job loss is traumatic. So is financial anxiety. But hands-on fathers who can juggle bath-time, playground jaunts and laundry duty are better equipped to deal with those than earlier generations of men, says the author of a new book on fatherhood.
In Daddy Shift, to be released next month, Jeremy Adam Smith explores how fathers' growing participation in childrearing and domestic duties is transforming modern families.
He says when dads are willing to embrace that, it helps parents and kids cope with the stress of a layoff or reduced work hours – especially at a time when men are harder hit by job losses than women.
"Something good has happened the last few decades and men now have the capacity to take care of their kids when women are in a position to be the breadwinners," Smith, 39, said in a phone interview from his San Francisco home. "If they can focus on that, it will help them to survive unemployment and it will help their families."
Smith's book, which reviews the history, economics and science of male caregiving, comes amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Statistics Canada reported earlier this year that two-thirds of those laid off in Canada were men. At the same time, more men have been taking parental leave following the birth of children and opting for fewer hours at work and more time with the kids.
Smith notes that in previous generations a male breadwinner who lost his job would likely withdraw from the family, his identity and self-worth shaken. "It would destroy him, he would actually spend less time around the house, less time with the children," says Smith.
While work is still at the core of most fathers' identity, more men are recognizing the importance and rewards of caring for kids.
"Today if the mother has the capacity (to earn) and the father is thrown into the role of being home, they are more likely to take that responsibility. They won't do it the way mothers do, but they'll do it."
Smith, a magazine editor and writer, became a stay-at-home dad for a year when his son Liko was age 1. He knows what it's like to do dishes with a fussy toddler in the backpack, crave adult company and never have a minute to himself.
He became a dad without a clue how to bathe or change a diaper. He became a primary caregiver while his wife was working full-time just because it was the best arrangement for the family at the time.
"At first I saw only the negative aspects: no regular work, no free time, no adult companionship, no respect ... this was not a role I embraced self-consciously," he writes in Daddy Shift.
But he soon marvelled at the bond he developed with his son and the sense of confidence and competence he gained as a parent. It changed him profoundly. And he thinks more men need to hear from fathers like him.
"My experience as a stay-at-home dad was a growing sense of power as a parent and as a man," he says. Guilt and blame are often used to motivate men to step up with childcare and chores, but Smith says the power angle is a better pitch.
"I think that's how you have to sell it to guys," he laughs. His book signals a shift in the discourse about fatherhood: one that encourages father involvement for the sake of men and their children – not just to help out mothers.
Liko, now 4, is in preschool and Smith and his wife, like a small but growing number of families, have alternated roles over the years. Daddy Shift is not about pitting one family's choices against another. It is more of a call-to-arms for this generation of fathers to be flexible and open-minded about their evolving roles.
Smith stresses that fathers aren't the only ones changing. Mothers have to be willing to let go of the reins and respect that fact that men look after kids differently, he says. In other words, don't judge fathers through the maternal lens.
Studies show men tend to be more comfortable with risk-taking by their offspring and less inclined to introduce toys or mediate a child's independent play.
Daddy Shift was written as a result of Smith's experiences and the dialogue with other parents on his blog Daddy Dialectic. Smith also cites leading Canadian research on fatherhood, including work by Ottawa professor Andrea Doucet and Kerry Daly of Guelph University, who runs the Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance.
Smith says while there's no ideal formula for dividing and sharing parental roles, the key for the 21st century family is having the flexibility to cope with an unstable economy and an information age that has changed the rules of the working world.
"We haven't achieved economic equality between men and women but the equation has changed and men are changing in response. The question is are we going to embrace that?"
The Toronto Star (Canada)
29 May 2009
Hands-on dads handle stress better
Valuing home duties and child care helps men cope with job loss
By Andrea Gordon, Family Issues Reporter
Job loss is traumatic. So is financial anxiety. But hands-on fathers who can juggle bath-time, playground jaunts and laundry duty are better equipped to deal with those than earlier generations of men, says the author of a new book on fatherhood.
In Daddy Shift, to be released next month, Jeremy Adam Smith explores how fathers' growing participation in childrearing and domestic duties is transforming modern families.
He says when dads are willing to embrace that, it helps parents and kids cope with the stress of a layoff or reduced work hours – especially at a time when men are harder hit by job losses than women.
"Something good has happened the last few decades and men now have the capacity to take care of their kids when women are in a position to be the breadwinners," Smith, 39, said in a phone interview from his San Francisco home. "If they can focus on that, it will help them to survive unemployment and it will help their families."
Smith's book, which reviews the history, economics and science of male caregiving, comes amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Statistics Canada reported earlier this year that two-thirds of those laid off in Canada were men. At the same time, more men have been taking parental leave following the birth of children and opting for fewer hours at work and more time with the kids.
Smith notes that in previous generations a male breadwinner who lost his job would likely withdraw from the family, his identity and self-worth shaken. "It would destroy him, he would actually spend less time around the house, less time with the children," says Smith.
While work is still at the core of most fathers' identity, more men are recognizing the importance and rewards of caring for kids.
"Today if the mother has the capacity (to earn) and the father is thrown into the role of being home, they are more likely to take that responsibility. They won't do it the way mothers do, but they'll do it."
Smith, a magazine editor and writer, became a stay-at-home dad for a year when his son Liko was age 1. He knows what it's like to do dishes with a fussy toddler in the backpack, crave adult company and never have a minute to himself.
He became a dad without a clue how to bathe or change a diaper. He became a primary caregiver while his wife was working full-time just because it was the best arrangement for the family at the time.
"At first I saw only the negative aspects: no regular work, no free time, no adult companionship, no respect ... this was not a role I embraced self-consciously," he writes in Daddy Shift.
But he soon marvelled at the bond he developed with his son and the sense of confidence and competence he gained as a parent. It changed him profoundly. And he thinks more men need to hear from fathers like him.
"My experience as a stay-at-home dad was a growing sense of power as a parent and as a man," he says. Guilt and blame are often used to motivate men to step up with childcare and chores, but Smith says the power angle is a better pitch.
"I think that's how you have to sell it to guys," he laughs. His book signals a shift in the discourse about fatherhood: one that encourages father involvement for the sake of men and their children – not just to help out mothers.
Liko, now 4, is in preschool and Smith and his wife, like a small but growing number of families, have alternated roles over the years. Daddy Shift is not about pitting one family's choices against another. It is more of a call-to-arms for this generation of fathers to be flexible and open-minded about their evolving roles.
Smith stresses that fathers aren't the only ones changing. Mothers have to be willing to let go of the reins and respect that fact that men look after kids differently, he says. In other words, don't judge fathers through the maternal lens.
Studies show men tend to be more comfortable with risk-taking by their offspring and less inclined to introduce toys or mediate a child's independent play.
Daddy Shift was written as a result of Smith's experiences and the dialogue with other parents on his blog Daddy Dialectic. Smith also cites leading Canadian research on fatherhood, including work by Ottawa professor Andrea Doucet and Kerry Daly of Guelph University, who runs the Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance.
Smith says while there's no ideal formula for dividing and sharing parental roles, the key for the 21st century family is having the flexibility to cope with an unstable economy and an information age that has changed the rules of the working world.
"We haven't achieved economic equality between men and women but the equation has changed and men are changing in response. The question is are we going to embrace that?"
Friday, May 29, 2009
I told you that the USA is a gynocracy.
Dear dad4justice,
I told you that the USA is a gynocracy.
I told you not to elect gynocrats.
I told you not to recruit merchant maureens.
I told you not to marry foreign women.
Many accused me of being an alarmist, a misogynist, and worse.
I was right. My detractors were wrong.
I took heat everywhere, and my professional credentials took
a hit -- for being right. Some generous subscribers donated
money to me (via my homepage) for putting my ass on the line.
Why? Because they valued my contribution to all men, and to
all of society. Most of my subscribers, though -- even the
very wealthy ones -- were happy just to sit in the bleachers.
I wrote an article (#84): "Men's Silence Is Women's Gold."
How true, how true. Men are getting exactly what they deserve.
Real men speak out, fight, and help other men -- tactically and
financially -- who are putting their asses on the line, as in
any war. Silence and inaction are for eunuchs.
So, where are we now?
* Women at the University of Chicago are vilifying male students
for starting a men's group. (see Femme Fishbowl)
* VAWA-connected Green Card fraud (VAWA Joe Biden begat this)
is now an epidemic (see Femme Fishbowl)
* Sonia Sotomayor -- GynObama's choice to replace SC Justice
Souter -- has, with her sexist, racist, and activist words
(both judicial and nonjudicial), vindicated me.
Articles: http://thenononsenseman.com/PopUps/ArticlesByMHR.html
Femme Fishbowl: http://thenononsenseman.com/page8.html
Do you know that, in some cases, I must have 5 e-mail exchanges
with men before they will join my mailing list? Right. That's
how chicken some men are. Never blame the feminists.
All the talking heads on TV are aghast that Sotomayor enjoys
a double standard. They all admit that a white man with Sonia's
racist, sexist, activist mouth would now be an ex-judge. Yet,
where are they on VAWA, rape shields, maternity fraud, paternity
fraud, Green Card fraud, DV fraud? Hiding under their desks.
Men's silence is women's gold. Duh.
Real men speak out, fight, and help other men -- tactically and
financially -- who are putting their asses on the line, as in
any war. To benefit from someone else's sacrifice without giving
back is dishonorable.
By the way, if you unsubscribe after receiving this message,
I won't miss you.
Ciao,
Marc
I told you that the USA is a gynocracy.
I told you not to elect gynocrats.
I told you not to recruit merchant maureens.
I told you not to marry foreign women.
Many accused me of being an alarmist, a misogynist, and worse.
I was right. My detractors were wrong.
I took heat everywhere, and my professional credentials took
a hit -- for being right. Some generous subscribers donated
money to me (via my homepage) for putting my ass on the line.
Why? Because they valued my contribution to all men, and to
all of society. Most of my subscribers, though -- even the
very wealthy ones -- were happy just to sit in the bleachers.
I wrote an article (#84): "Men's Silence Is Women's Gold."
How true, how true. Men are getting exactly what they deserve.
Real men speak out, fight, and help other men -- tactically and
financially -- who are putting their asses on the line, as in
any war. Silence and inaction are for eunuchs.
So, where are we now?
* Women at the University of Chicago are vilifying male students
for starting a men's group. (see Femme Fishbowl)
* VAWA-connected Green Card fraud (VAWA Joe Biden begat this)
is now an epidemic (see Femme Fishbowl)
* Sonia Sotomayor -- GynObama's choice to replace SC Justice
Souter -- has, with her sexist, racist, and activist words
(both judicial and nonjudicial), vindicated me.
Articles: http://thenononsenseman.com/PopUps/ArticlesByMHR.html
Femme Fishbowl: http://thenononsenseman.com/page8.html
Do you know that, in some cases, I must have 5 e-mail exchanges
with men before they will join my mailing list? Right. That's
how chicken some men are. Never blame the feminists.
All the talking heads on TV are aghast that Sotomayor enjoys
a double standard. They all admit that a white man with Sonia's
racist, sexist, activist mouth would now be an ex-judge. Yet,
where are they on VAWA, rape shields, maternity fraud, paternity
fraud, Green Card fraud, DV fraud? Hiding under their desks.
Men's silence is women's gold. Duh.
Real men speak out, fight, and help other men -- tactically and
financially -- who are putting their asses on the line, as in
any war. To benefit from someone else's sacrifice without giving
back is dishonorable.
By the way, if you unsubscribe after receiving this message,
I won't miss you.
Ciao,
Marc
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Do New Zealanders know tax dollars are paying for CYFS care givers to rape young girls?
Man there just isn’t enough hours in the day to address my overwhelming work load at present. John Key may be prime minister but the fractured family business is still destroying children, just look at child abuse statistics and the increase in CYFS notifications. The Family Court and CYFS are tragically for children just ideology driven feminist machines that mass produce conflict areas which seriously impact on the children.Greedy lawyers leech blood money from the adversarial litigation. Just visit a prison and ask how many former CYFS kids are in the cells. Build more prisons you brain dead government.
I am helping a 54 year old grand mother who has been fighting for access rights to her CYFS stolen grand son since the year 2001. The confused and troublesome boy has been in 32 different foster homes. He is 12 years old and feels unloved. CYFS do not tell him his grandmother exists!! Police requested DNA from him last week. The social workers involved in this case should be sent to prison. I will expand on this story at a later day. You bitches are going to jail.
I am helping a 22 two year old mother try and get her twin boys back from the dysfunctional and dangerous CYFS. This department is a collection of vicious Ruth Dyson type radical feminazi sluts. These ugly heartless bush pigs hate biological parents. This young mother was a CYFS kid, she had 97 different foster homes, only two of them showed her kindness, and she was sexually abused by CYFS approved care givers at least a dozen times as a child. Well done CYFS your behaviour is far worse than the Nazi’s.
I am also helping a CYFS kid, a girl the same age as my daughter, sweet 16. This young mother gave her first child up for adoption a year ago and she is desperate to keep her second child. CYFS have brought in the feminazi lawyers and stolen her daughter. I will battle the vengeful and vindictive CYFS lying whores at the Courthouse. What a disgrace, CYFS must be destroyed as it is in violation of basic human rights and values.
Must go and ask a Family Court judge a queston, that is;
Do New Zealanders know tax dollars are paying for CYFS care givers to rape young girls?
I am helping a 54 year old grand mother who has been fighting for access rights to her CYFS stolen grand son since the year 2001. The confused and troublesome boy has been in 32 different foster homes. He is 12 years old and feels unloved. CYFS do not tell him his grandmother exists!! Police requested DNA from him last week. The social workers involved in this case should be sent to prison. I will expand on this story at a later day. You bitches are going to jail.
I am helping a 22 two year old mother try and get her twin boys back from the dysfunctional and dangerous CYFS. This department is a collection of vicious Ruth Dyson type radical feminazi sluts. These ugly heartless bush pigs hate biological parents. This young mother was a CYFS kid, she had 97 different foster homes, only two of them showed her kindness, and she was sexually abused by CYFS approved care givers at least a dozen times as a child. Well done CYFS your behaviour is far worse than the Nazi’s.
I am also helping a CYFS kid, a girl the same age as my daughter, sweet 16. This young mother gave her first child up for adoption a year ago and she is desperate to keep her second child. CYFS have brought in the feminazi lawyers and stolen her daughter. I will battle the vengeful and vindictive CYFS lying whores at the Courthouse. What a disgrace, CYFS must be destroyed as it is in violation of basic human rights and values.
Must go and ask a Family Court judge a queston, that is;
Do New Zealanders know tax dollars are paying for CYFS care givers to rape young girls?
Where are all the nice, normal dads in children's books?
Quote: Not only did I find precious few role-model dads, I found hardly any
dads at all. In all the picture books piled up around our house - more than
100 of them, in unsightly towers - mothers appeared in just under half and
were invariably portrayed in a positive light. Fathers cropped up in nine,
of which only five took a positive role in parenting. Of course, I
shouldn’t base my judgment on our collection of books alone. But academic
studies confirm that men are underrepresented in children’s books. When
they do appear they are often withdrawn and ineffectual. In spite of
today’s shifting parenting roles, books aimed at pre-school children still
tend to depict the mother as the sole or primary care provider. Fathers are
absent, silly or just plain busy.
----------------------------------------------
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6358636.ece
The Times (Britain)
26 May 2009
Where are all the nice, normal dads in children's books?
By Damon Syson
When it comes to bedtime stories, my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Ava
loves the US author Richard Scarry’s books, especially Cars and Trucks and
Things That Go. Personally, I’m not so keen. I find Pa Pig — Scarry’s
father character — profoundly irritating.
Cars and Trucks centres on the Pig family’s outing to the beach. Over the
course of the day, Pa Pig repeatedly lets down the others. He falls asleep,
having promised to drive. He fails to change a flat tyre, leaving his wife
to do it. He gets sunburnt, despite her warnings. It’s an image of the
lazy, feckless, unreliable paterfamilias echoed in various TV sitcoms. He
is practically a porcine Homer Simpson.
I wouldn’t mind this so much were it not that Ava’s favourite TV programme
(with accompanying books) is Peppa Pig, boasting a similarly comical
caricature of fatherhood in the shape of the amiable Daddy Pig — fat,
greedy and a DIY disaster zone.
Don’t get me wrong, Peppa Pig is wonderful. And I’m aware that there is
plenty of good-natured humour to be had from lampooning fathers. But, faced
with these negative images, I looked through Ava’s selection of bedtime
reading in search of positive representations of dads.
The result was a shock. Not only did I find precious few role-model dads, I
found hardly any dads at all. In all the picture books piled up around our
house — more than 100 of them, in unsightly towers — mothers appeared in
just under half and were invariably portrayed in a positive light. Fathers
cropped up in nine, of which only five took a positive role in parenting.
Of course, I shouldn’t base my judgment on our collection of books alone.
But academic studies confirm that men are underrepresented in children’s
books. When they do appear they are often withdrawn and ineffectual. In
spite of today’s shifting parenting roles, books aimed at pre-school
children still tend to depict the mother as the sole or primary care
provider. Fathers are absent, silly or just plain busy.
Maybe this annoys me because not only am I a very hands-on father (I work
from home and do more than half the childcare) but I was brought up by my
father from the age of 3. It worries me that even though — or perhaps
because — she spends more time with me than with my partner, Ava is
obsessed with the mother/child relationship. Whenever we spot an animal or
bird in the park, her first question is: “Is he going home to find his
mummy?” Could this be related to the world she sees at story-time?
“Children’s books need to catch up,” says Nicholas Tucker, an educational
psychologist and the author of The Rough Guide to Children’s Books. “There
are a few in which you see dad washing up and doing things with the child,
but it tends to be at the weekend or on holiday. There are not many where
the dad is the most salient character.”
Tucker believes that this is simply “a hangover from when mothers were at
home and fathers went to work. The Ladybird books, for example, depicted
dads coming home on the last page for tea. Then again, it could simply be
describing a situation that is still true. On the whole, up to the age of 5
you do see more of your mother.”
And how much does what children read affect their perception of what is
normal? Could what my daughter reads now have a lasting psychological effect?
“No,” says Tucker. “The greatest psychological effect is on the parent. The
child has a reality and picture books may reinforce or contradict it, but
the only books that have a real psychological effect on under-5s are those
that set out to be scary — because children have an uneasy boundary between
fact and fiction that can be easily flooded.”
Whether or not what she reads now will shape Ava’s future world-view,
psychologists estimate that children begin to form gender stereotypes
between the ages of 3 and 5 — and while most pre-school literature
perpetuates the idea that fathers are out at work and barely involved in
childcare, the reality is very different. According to the Fatherhood
Institute, British fathers in two-parent families now carry out, on
average, 25 per cent of the family’s childcare-related activities during
the week, and one third of those activities at weekends. And the pace of
change is increasing. Between 2002 and 2005 the percentage of new fathers
working flexi-time to spend more time with their young children rose from
11 per cent to 31 per cent.
Clearly, the books we read to Ava every night do not reflect this. Then
again, this could have something to do with when they were written. Like
many parents, we tend to buy “timeless classics”, some of which were
written 40 years ago. You wouldn’t expect the dad in Judith Kerr’s The
Tiger Who Came to Tea to nip out to Tesco Express, whip up a vegetarian
moussaka and then don the Marigolds — dads didn’t behave like that in 1968.
Yet the dearth of domestic dads in pre-school books seems out of step with
the way in which family dynamics are evolving — and the way that they must
continue to evolve if women are not to be left short-changed and
overburdened. So surely it is the duty of publishers to do their bit?
Suzanne Carnell is the editorial director of picture books for Macmillan
Children’s Books — home to major names such as Julia Donaldson (The
Gruffalo) and Emily Gravett (Wolves, Orange Pear Apple Bear). Carnell
contends that the industry has responded to the shift in gender roles —
although she is quick to point out that women buy more books than men, by a
huge proportion.
“When you first mentioned this subject,” she tells me, “my reaction was
that you were probably correct in claiming that fathers are
underrepresented. That was certainly the case ten years ago. But then I
looked at what we and others are publishing and I don’t think that’s true
any more. Bringing in dads is something of which publishers have become
increasingly aware — not just with under-representation but in not making
our books too ‘girly’ and ensuring that there is plenty out there that dads
want to share with their children. We all have tractor books on our list
now — and we are conscious that picture books don’t all need to end with a
hug or a party. They don’t all have to be pink and glittery and about fairies.”
She cites Macmillan books such as My Daddy is a Giant, Daddy on the Moon
and Football Fever, in which a father takes his son and daughter to a
football match.
Such books are certainly a step in the right direction — but some of the
new dad-friendly children’s literature represents the pendulum swinging too
far. Some books involving dads, especially in the US, present us as
idealised figures taking our sons on fishing trips and dispensing copious
amounts of physical affection. Hey, dads hug too!
I am not asking for dads to be held up as supreme beings. I just want us to
get a look-in. Most of all, I want to see dads doing normal domestic
things. Carnell counters that the type of books depicting parents and
children going to the supermarket or the swimming pool — as in the iconic
Sarah Garland books of the 1980s — are simply out of fashion: “We just
don’t publish many domestic books at the moment,” she says. “Of course,
it’s very important for us to reflect society and there was a period when
publishers were very conscious of making sure that mother wasn’t always
behind the kitchen sink, that she could be a pilot or drive a tractor. I’m
afraid that was more of a priority than bringing Dad into the kitchen. So
maybe that was Stage One and we have now embarked on Stage Two.”
True enough. I am reminded that my bête noire, Cars and Trucks and Things
That Go, was written in 1974. Its roster of characters includes Mistress
Mouse, a doughty mechanic who wears overalls, drives a tow-truck and “can
fix anything”. In the counter-cultural context of the time, it went with
the territory to poke fun at patriarchal figures, as Richard Scarry does
via Pa Pig. Equally, the Sarah Garland books — with their ebullient lone
mother — were a reaction to the era when nuclear families were still the
norm in kid-lit.
So maybe it is still too soon to expect dads — once authority figures and
overrepresented in literature — to expect equal treatment. My concern is
that, as we enter an era when it is vital to suggest a new family model to
our children, their literature still hasn’t got with the programme.
Mind you, talking to Carnell, I am shocked that she seems mildly surprised
to find a father talking about “sharing books” with his child. Perhaps dads
have no right to expect a higher profile in children’s books for the simple
reason that too often we don’t buy them, don’t read them and, most
importantly, don’t write them.
As Nicholas Tucker puts it: “It’s worth remembering that most of the
authors of these books are mums, who write the domestic scene as they
experienced it. So if you really don’t think you can find a book with a
decent father figure, why don’t you go away and write one?”
dads at all. In all the picture books piled up around our house - more than
100 of them, in unsightly towers - mothers appeared in just under half and
were invariably portrayed in a positive light. Fathers cropped up in nine,
of which only five took a positive role in parenting. Of course, I
shouldn’t base my judgment on our collection of books alone. But academic
studies confirm that men are underrepresented in children’s books. When
they do appear they are often withdrawn and ineffectual. In spite of
today’s shifting parenting roles, books aimed at pre-school children still
tend to depict the mother as the sole or primary care provider. Fathers are
absent, silly or just plain busy.
----------------------------------------------
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6358636.ece
The Times (Britain)
26 May 2009
Where are all the nice, normal dads in children's books?
By Damon Syson
When it comes to bedtime stories, my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Ava
loves the US author Richard Scarry’s books, especially Cars and Trucks and
Things That Go. Personally, I’m not so keen. I find Pa Pig — Scarry’s
father character — profoundly irritating.
Cars and Trucks centres on the Pig family’s outing to the beach. Over the
course of the day, Pa Pig repeatedly lets down the others. He falls asleep,
having promised to drive. He fails to change a flat tyre, leaving his wife
to do it. He gets sunburnt, despite her warnings. It’s an image of the
lazy, feckless, unreliable paterfamilias echoed in various TV sitcoms. He
is practically a porcine Homer Simpson.
I wouldn’t mind this so much were it not that Ava’s favourite TV programme
(with accompanying books) is Peppa Pig, boasting a similarly comical
caricature of fatherhood in the shape of the amiable Daddy Pig — fat,
greedy and a DIY disaster zone.
Don’t get me wrong, Peppa Pig is wonderful. And I’m aware that there is
plenty of good-natured humour to be had from lampooning fathers. But, faced
with these negative images, I looked through Ava’s selection of bedtime
reading in search of positive representations of dads.
The result was a shock. Not only did I find precious few role-model dads, I
found hardly any dads at all. In all the picture books piled up around our
house — more than 100 of them, in unsightly towers — mothers appeared in
just under half and were invariably portrayed in a positive light. Fathers
cropped up in nine, of which only five took a positive role in parenting.
Of course, I shouldn’t base my judgment on our collection of books alone.
But academic studies confirm that men are underrepresented in children’s
books. When they do appear they are often withdrawn and ineffectual. In
spite of today’s shifting parenting roles, books aimed at pre-school
children still tend to depict the mother as the sole or primary care
provider. Fathers are absent, silly or just plain busy.
Maybe this annoys me because not only am I a very hands-on father (I work
from home and do more than half the childcare) but I was brought up by my
father from the age of 3. It worries me that even though — or perhaps
because — she spends more time with me than with my partner, Ava is
obsessed with the mother/child relationship. Whenever we spot an animal or
bird in the park, her first question is: “Is he going home to find his
mummy?” Could this be related to the world she sees at story-time?
“Children’s books need to catch up,” says Nicholas Tucker, an educational
psychologist and the author of The Rough Guide to Children’s Books. “There
are a few in which you see dad washing up and doing things with the child,
but it tends to be at the weekend or on holiday. There are not many where
the dad is the most salient character.”
Tucker believes that this is simply “a hangover from when mothers were at
home and fathers went to work. The Ladybird books, for example, depicted
dads coming home on the last page for tea. Then again, it could simply be
describing a situation that is still true. On the whole, up to the age of 5
you do see more of your mother.”
And how much does what children read affect their perception of what is
normal? Could what my daughter reads now have a lasting psychological effect?
“No,” says Tucker. “The greatest psychological effect is on the parent. The
child has a reality and picture books may reinforce or contradict it, but
the only books that have a real psychological effect on under-5s are those
that set out to be scary — because children have an uneasy boundary between
fact and fiction that can be easily flooded.”
Whether or not what she reads now will shape Ava’s future world-view,
psychologists estimate that children begin to form gender stereotypes
between the ages of 3 and 5 — and while most pre-school literature
perpetuates the idea that fathers are out at work and barely involved in
childcare, the reality is very different. According to the Fatherhood
Institute, British fathers in two-parent families now carry out, on
average, 25 per cent of the family’s childcare-related activities during
the week, and one third of those activities at weekends. And the pace of
change is increasing. Between 2002 and 2005 the percentage of new fathers
working flexi-time to spend more time with their young children rose from
11 per cent to 31 per cent.
Clearly, the books we read to Ava every night do not reflect this. Then
again, this could have something to do with when they were written. Like
many parents, we tend to buy “timeless classics”, some of which were
written 40 years ago. You wouldn’t expect the dad in Judith Kerr’s The
Tiger Who Came to Tea to nip out to Tesco Express, whip up a vegetarian
moussaka and then don the Marigolds — dads didn’t behave like that in 1968.
Yet the dearth of domestic dads in pre-school books seems out of step with
the way in which family dynamics are evolving — and the way that they must
continue to evolve if women are not to be left short-changed and
overburdened. So surely it is the duty of publishers to do their bit?
Suzanne Carnell is the editorial director of picture books for Macmillan
Children’s Books — home to major names such as Julia Donaldson (The
Gruffalo) and Emily Gravett (Wolves, Orange Pear Apple Bear). Carnell
contends that the industry has responded to the shift in gender roles —
although she is quick to point out that women buy more books than men, by a
huge proportion.
“When you first mentioned this subject,” she tells me, “my reaction was
that you were probably correct in claiming that fathers are
underrepresented. That was certainly the case ten years ago. But then I
looked at what we and others are publishing and I don’t think that’s true
any more. Bringing in dads is something of which publishers have become
increasingly aware — not just with under-representation but in not making
our books too ‘girly’ and ensuring that there is plenty out there that dads
want to share with their children. We all have tractor books on our list
now — and we are conscious that picture books don’t all need to end with a
hug or a party. They don’t all have to be pink and glittery and about fairies.”
She cites Macmillan books such as My Daddy is a Giant, Daddy on the Moon
and Football Fever, in which a father takes his son and daughter to a
football match.
Such books are certainly a step in the right direction — but some of the
new dad-friendly children’s literature represents the pendulum swinging too
far. Some books involving dads, especially in the US, present us as
idealised figures taking our sons on fishing trips and dispensing copious
amounts of physical affection. Hey, dads hug too!
I am not asking for dads to be held up as supreme beings. I just want us to
get a look-in. Most of all, I want to see dads doing normal domestic
things. Carnell counters that the type of books depicting parents and
children going to the supermarket or the swimming pool — as in the iconic
Sarah Garland books of the 1980s — are simply out of fashion: “We just
don’t publish many domestic books at the moment,” she says. “Of course,
it’s very important for us to reflect society and there was a period when
publishers were very conscious of making sure that mother wasn’t always
behind the kitchen sink, that she could be a pilot or drive a tractor. I’m
afraid that was more of a priority than bringing Dad into the kitchen. So
maybe that was Stage One and we have now embarked on Stage Two.”
True enough. I am reminded that my bête noire, Cars and Trucks and Things
That Go, was written in 1974. Its roster of characters includes Mistress
Mouse, a doughty mechanic who wears overalls, drives a tow-truck and “can
fix anything”. In the counter-cultural context of the time, it went with
the territory to poke fun at patriarchal figures, as Richard Scarry does
via Pa Pig. Equally, the Sarah Garland books — with their ebullient lone
mother — were a reaction to the era when nuclear families were still the
norm in kid-lit.
So maybe it is still too soon to expect dads — once authority figures and
overrepresented in literature — to expect equal treatment. My concern is
that, as we enter an era when it is vital to suggest a new family model to
our children, their literature still hasn’t got with the programme.
Mind you, talking to Carnell, I am shocked that she seems mildly surprised
to find a father talking about “sharing books” with his child. Perhaps dads
have no right to expect a higher profile in children’s books for the simple
reason that too often we don’t buy them, don’t read them and, most
importantly, don’t write them.
As Nicholas Tucker puts it: “It’s worth remembering that most of the
authors of these books are mums, who write the domestic scene as they
experienced it. So if you really don’t think you can find a book with a
decent father figure, why don’t you go away and write one?”
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
USA Supreme Court nominee supports reverse discrimination
Supreme Court nominee supports reverse discrimination
May 27, 2009
Dear Peter,
Here is a brief look at President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. You may want to forward this to your friends.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on "empathy" instead of neutrally in applying the law. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.
In a speech as a Court of Appeals judge, she said, "The court is where policy is made." Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.
In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.
According to Judge Jose Cabranes, Sotomayor's colleague, Sotomayor's opinion "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," and its "perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal." Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, "Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race."
Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color," which she believes should "affect our decisions." She went on to say in that same speech, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The poor quality of Sotomayor's decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
May 27, 2009
Dear Peter,
Here is a brief look at President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. You may want to forward this to your friends.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on "empathy" instead of neutrally in applying the law. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.
In a speech as a Court of Appeals judge, she said, "The court is where policy is made." Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.
In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.
According to Judge Jose Cabranes, Sotomayor's colleague, Sotomayor's opinion "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," and its "perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal." Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, "Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race."
Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color," which she believes should "affect our decisions." She went on to say in that same speech, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The poor quality of Sotomayor's decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Concern after teen sex revelations
So the learned authorities deem the solution to the teenage sex problem as “better sex education in schools and more parenting programmes”.Yeh right,as the father of two teenage daughters I can assure you that this demented idea is more pathetic stinking thinking from a bent system devoid of any practicable solutions to the increasing problem.
What a load of piffle. New Zealand governments have continually undermined the family unit for three decades now. Along with the media they have portrayed men as deadbeats and continually demonized fatherhood at every available chance, because New Zealand has been in the gripes of radical feminist ideologies, ruthlessly implemented by childless scum like Helen Clark and Heather Simpson. Fatherlessness is a rampant problem in kiwi society and many girls are sexually abused by step parents as the biological fathers are usually crucified at the request of the hateful radical feminists who couldn’t care less about the rising suicide rate for forced clients of the insidious Family Court .CYFS referrals are up 100% and that Department is a dangerous dysfunctional mess. Looks like New Zealand will continue to be world leaders in teenage pregnancies and child abuse. Proud to be kiwi? Just the mention of the country makes my stomach ill. What a cess pit for children.Gold medalists in child abuse. What a disgusting couuntry. How can anybody be a proud kiwi?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2441748/Concern-after-teen-sex-revelations
By JOHN HARTEVELT - The Press
Last updated 05:00 26/05/2009
Half of 16-year-old Kiwis say they have been in love and more than a third have already had sex, a new study reveals.
Results from the New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER) longitudinal study of 500 young people have led to calls for better sex education in schools and more parenting programmes.
The new study also reveals 84 per cent of 16-year-olds had drunk alcohol in the previous year and 51 per cent had done something they regretted while drunk.
"Sixteen is still young," Family Planning Association chief executive Jackie Edmond said. "This shows how important it is for parents to talk to their children around sexual health and sexuality."
Family Planning had "huge concerns" about sexual education in New Zealand schools and homes.
"The reality is that sexuality education and sexual health education in New Zealand is incredibly inconsistently applied across schools," Edmond said.
"We feel strongly that young people need the information so that they can make the decisions and there is no research that supports that telling young people more means that they will have sex earlier; in fact, it does seem to be the opposite."
The new results from the NZCER study, which started following the 500 young people from the greater Wellington region in 1993, also showed a fifth of the study's participants had got into trouble with the police.
Half said they had got into trouble at school and 30 per cent said they had been involved in a physical fight.
Almost all of the young people (92 per cent) had family rules about drug use, and 85 per cent had rules about alcohol use.
"You wonder why this isn't 100 per cent when these issues to do with engagement in risky behaviour is something that is worthy of discussion and parental input," said Professor of Parenting Studies and Family Psychology at the University of Auckland, Matt Sanders.
There were far too few parenting programmes available for the parents of teenagers, he said.
"There is no other human activity that is as important as parenting, but we provide far too little training and support for people to be able to do this and this is particularly true of parents with teenagers," Sanders said.
A government parenting education scheme, the Incredible Years, is expanding to include 15,000 more families.
The 12 to 20-week group courses, which include homework assignments on how to play with children, are targeted at the parents of three to eight-year-olds thought to have chronic behavioural problems.
However, Sanders said such schemes needed to cover teenage parenting and be more widely available.
"If you normalise it, de-stigmatise it and then give the public what they're looking for ... it will become just like a healthy, normal rite of passage," Sanders said.
Peer influence often overwhelmed parental influence on sexual exploration, he said.
What a load of piffle. New Zealand governments have continually undermined the family unit for three decades now. Along with the media they have portrayed men as deadbeats and continually demonized fatherhood at every available chance, because New Zealand has been in the gripes of radical feminist ideologies, ruthlessly implemented by childless scum like Helen Clark and Heather Simpson. Fatherlessness is a rampant problem in kiwi society and many girls are sexually abused by step parents as the biological fathers are usually crucified at the request of the hateful radical feminists who couldn’t care less about the rising suicide rate for forced clients of the insidious Family Court .CYFS referrals are up 100% and that Department is a dangerous dysfunctional mess. Looks like New Zealand will continue to be world leaders in teenage pregnancies and child abuse. Proud to be kiwi? Just the mention of the country makes my stomach ill. What a cess pit for children.Gold medalists in child abuse. What a disgusting couuntry. How can anybody be a proud kiwi?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2441748/Concern-after-teen-sex-revelations
By JOHN HARTEVELT - The Press
Last updated 05:00 26/05/2009
Half of 16-year-old Kiwis say they have been in love and more than a third have already had sex, a new study reveals.
Results from the New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER) longitudinal study of 500 young people have led to calls for better sex education in schools and more parenting programmes.
The new study also reveals 84 per cent of 16-year-olds had drunk alcohol in the previous year and 51 per cent had done something they regretted while drunk.
"Sixteen is still young," Family Planning Association chief executive Jackie Edmond said. "This shows how important it is for parents to talk to their children around sexual health and sexuality."
Family Planning had "huge concerns" about sexual education in New Zealand schools and homes.
"The reality is that sexuality education and sexual health education in New Zealand is incredibly inconsistently applied across schools," Edmond said.
"We feel strongly that young people need the information so that they can make the decisions and there is no research that supports that telling young people more means that they will have sex earlier; in fact, it does seem to be the opposite."
The new results from the NZCER study, which started following the 500 young people from the greater Wellington region in 1993, also showed a fifth of the study's participants had got into trouble with the police.
Half said they had got into trouble at school and 30 per cent said they had been involved in a physical fight.
Almost all of the young people (92 per cent) had family rules about drug use, and 85 per cent had rules about alcohol use.
"You wonder why this isn't 100 per cent when these issues to do with engagement in risky behaviour is something that is worthy of discussion and parental input," said Professor of Parenting Studies and Family Psychology at the University of Auckland, Matt Sanders.
There were far too few parenting programmes available for the parents of teenagers, he said.
"There is no other human activity that is as important as parenting, but we provide far too little training and support for people to be able to do this and this is particularly true of parents with teenagers," Sanders said.
A government parenting education scheme, the Incredible Years, is expanding to include 15,000 more families.
The 12 to 20-week group courses, which include homework assignments on how to play with children, are targeted at the parents of three to eight-year-olds thought to have chronic behavioural problems.
However, Sanders said such schemes needed to cover teenage parenting and be more widely available.
"If you normalise it, de-stigmatise it and then give the public what they're looking for ... it will become just like a healthy, normal rite of passage," Sanders said.
Peer influence often overwhelmed parental influence on sexual exploration, he said.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Help End Child Abuse
Dear Friends,
I have just read and signed the petition: "Help End Child Abuse".
Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are trying to reach 20000 signatures - please sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/720975298
Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.
Thank you! Peter
I have just read and signed the petition: "Help End Child Abuse".
Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are trying to reach 20000 signatures - please sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/720975298
Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.
Thank you! Peter
Sunday, May 24, 2009
NZ - Judging Judges
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2429188/Judges-go-under-microscope
Several of the country’s top judges have been described as idiosyncratic, arrogant, inflexible and not up to the job intellectually.
Nor can many run a courtroom efficiently or write timely and coherent judgments. Many lack litigation experience, meaning they come to the Bench with little idea about how to conduct a trial.
Most seriously, at least two are accused of predetermining a case before hearing the evidence.
The criticism comes in Judging the Judges, a survey published in today’s issue of The Independent where a group of our top barristers has been asked to rate our higher court judges.
All spoke on condition of anonymity. All had previously been offered positions on the Bench – and turned them down.
Separately, they were each asked to rank every judge in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
They were also asked what qualities they expected from their judges.
As a basic, the barristers want judges to have good analytical and interpretation skills (Court of Appeal), adjudication ability (High Court), stand-and-deliver (litigation) experience, scholarship, intelligence, the ability to engage in dialogue, and to be compassionate and fair.
Underlying the survey is the issue of power. Judges are empowered to stand in judgment of us all. But who judges the judges?
Nobody, it seems
Short of impeachment, they’re hard to shift once appointed to their $360,000-a-year (plus) jobs. And there’s little in the way of accountability and quality control.
Recently-retired High Court judge John Hansen calculates each High Court judge, with support staff, costs taxpayers more than $630,000 a year, plus superannuation.
With this sort of money, the public is entitled to expect fast, inexpensive, fair and just resolution of criminal and civil matters, Hansen says.
Are we getting it?
A big percentage of our top barristers say no.
The Independent did a similar survey in 1994, to the fury of then Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum and members of the conservative legal Establishment.
As they saw it, Judging the Judges was vulgar, abusive and brought the judicial system into disrepute. It was “unprecedented in New Zealand for lawyers to speak out critically in public of judges in this way”, Sir Thomas said at the time.
The Independent’s view: respect for the judiciary and courts as institutions might be essential but respect for the individuals occupying these positions must be earned if it is to be worthy of the name.
Today’s survey, as in 1994, will enable to learn more about judges, their habits, intellectual and judicial abilities, and their foibles – information previously confined to Chambers parties and barristers’ robing rooms.
Most of the information is common knowledge among the barristers who appear daily before these judges.
The Independent’s sin, it appears, was making it public.
But this type of information is highly relevant to business readers paying legal bills who want to know as much as possible about a judge’s style and capabilities, and how he/she might react to different circumstances and different types of argument.
Lawyers, or those who want to win, tailor their arguments to suit a particular judge’s particular style.
It is also relevant to suggestions by Justice Minister Simon Power that the already considerable power of judges could be boosted by moves to scrap jury trials for offences carrying less than three years’ jail.
A spokesman for Power said yesterday the minister “wasn’t interested” in commenting on the survey.
Several of the country’s top judges have been described as idiosyncratic, arrogant, inflexible and not up to the job intellectually.
Nor can many run a courtroom efficiently or write timely and coherent judgments. Many lack litigation experience, meaning they come to the Bench with little idea about how to conduct a trial.
Most seriously, at least two are accused of predetermining a case before hearing the evidence.
The criticism comes in Judging the Judges, a survey published in today’s issue of The Independent where a group of our top barristers has been asked to rate our higher court judges.
All spoke on condition of anonymity. All had previously been offered positions on the Bench – and turned them down.
Separately, they were each asked to rank every judge in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
They were also asked what qualities they expected from their judges.
As a basic, the barristers want judges to have good analytical and interpretation skills (Court of Appeal), adjudication ability (High Court), stand-and-deliver (litigation) experience, scholarship, intelligence, the ability to engage in dialogue, and to be compassionate and fair.
Underlying the survey is the issue of power. Judges are empowered to stand in judgment of us all. But who judges the judges?
Nobody, it seems
Short of impeachment, they’re hard to shift once appointed to their $360,000-a-year (plus) jobs. And there’s little in the way of accountability and quality control.
Recently-retired High Court judge John Hansen calculates each High Court judge, with support staff, costs taxpayers more than $630,000 a year, plus superannuation.
With this sort of money, the public is entitled to expect fast, inexpensive, fair and just resolution of criminal and civil matters, Hansen says.
Are we getting it?
A big percentage of our top barristers say no.
The Independent did a similar survey in 1994, to the fury of then Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum and members of the conservative legal Establishment.
As they saw it, Judging the Judges was vulgar, abusive and brought the judicial system into disrepute. It was “unprecedented in New Zealand for lawyers to speak out critically in public of judges in this way”, Sir Thomas said at the time.
The Independent’s view: respect for the judiciary and courts as institutions might be essential but respect for the individuals occupying these positions must be earned if it is to be worthy of the name.
Today’s survey, as in 1994, will enable to learn more about judges, their habits, intellectual and judicial abilities, and their foibles – information previously confined to Chambers parties and barristers’ robing rooms.
Most of the information is common knowledge among the barristers who appear daily before these judges.
The Independent’s sin, it appears, was making it public.
But this type of information is highly relevant to business readers paying legal bills who want to know as much as possible about a judge’s style and capabilities, and how he/she might react to different circumstances and different types of argument.
Lawyers, or those who want to win, tailor their arguments to suit a particular judge’s particular style.
It is also relevant to suggestions by Justice Minister Simon Power that the already considerable power of judges could be boosted by moves to scrap jury trials for offences carrying less than three years’ jail.
A spokesman for Power said yesterday the minister “wasn’t interested” in commenting on the survey.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Feminism is still assaulting academia
Somebody really should write a novel illuminating the still-proliferating negative effects of feminism on academic life. I wonder, though, under what category it would be stocked at bookstores. Unsolved Mysteries, perhaps?
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, May 22, 2009
Letourneau hosts 'Hot for Teacher' night at bar
Just imagine what the law authorities would do if this teacher was a male hosting such an event. Equality under the law is a delusion for men and totally unachievable in a sick feminist indoctrinated Western society. I thank the Canadian Activist Swannie for alerting the MRM to the spot on comments from the US activist Tami P;
"The U.S. Allows pedophile women to marry their victims (and) have access to their children after being convicted twice and allows them to publicly advertise for and seek out other pedophiles. We all hear about nambla but no-one hears of butterfly groups of female pedophile(s) in the underground.”
Letourneau hosts 'Hot for Teacher' night at bar
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsD6N9YWNXtNntbtSP5tE-5IRCvwD98BF3UG0
22nd May 2009
(4 hours ago)
SEATTLE (AP) — A teacher who became notorious in the 1990s for having an affair with a sixth-grader is hosting a "Hot for Teacher" night at a Seattle bar — along with the former student, now her husband. Bar owner Mike Morris said Mary Kay Letourneau has served her sentence and it's OK for the couple to have some fun.
The 47-year-old Letourneau served seven years in prison after pleading guilty in 1997 to raping Vili Fualaau, now 26. They met when Fualaau was in second grade and began their affair when he was 12 and she was a 34-year-old married mother of four. They were married in 2005 and have two daughters together.
Morris said Saturday's event at Fuel Sports Eats & Beats will be their third "Hot for Teacher" night. She greets people and he DJs.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
"The U.S. Allows pedophile women to marry their victims (and) have access to their children after being convicted twice and allows them to publicly advertise for and seek out other pedophiles. We all hear about nambla but no-one hears of butterfly groups of female pedophile(s) in the underground.”
Letourneau hosts 'Hot for Teacher' night at bar
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsD6N9YWNXtNntbtSP5tE-5IRCvwD98BF3UG0
22nd May 2009
(4 hours ago)
SEATTLE (AP) — A teacher who became notorious in the 1990s for having an affair with a sixth-grader is hosting a "Hot for Teacher" night at a Seattle bar — along with the former student, now her husband. Bar owner Mike Morris said Mary Kay Letourneau has served her sentence and it's OK for the couple to have some fun.
The 47-year-old Letourneau served seven years in prison after pleading guilty in 1997 to raping Vili Fualaau, now 26. They met when Fualaau was in second grade and began their affair when he was 12 and she was a 34-year-old married mother of four. They were married in 2005 and have two daughters together.
Morris said Saturday's event at Fuel Sports Eats & Beats will be their third "Hot for Teacher" night. She greets people and he DJs.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Court rules taxi driver falsely accused of rape can receive compensation in legal first
Court rules taxi driver falsely accused of rape can receive compensation in legal first
By Luke Salkeld
21st May 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184989/Court-rules-taxi-driver-falsely-accused-rape-receive-compensation-legal-first.html
A taxi driver falsely accused of rape could receive a five-figure compensation payout after winning a landmark victory.
Clive Bishop, 49, says his life was ruined after a drunken 17-year-old passenger claimed he attacked her.
Kirsty Palmer later admitted she made up the allegations and was jailed for ten months for perverting the course of justice.
When he applied for compensation, Mr Bishop described how months of living under a cloud of 'slurs and lies' had caused him enormous suffering.
But the foster carer was twice refused a payout by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on the grounds he had not come to physical harm.
That ruling has now been overturned on appeal - the first time the authority has agreed to compensate for the mental trauma of a false criminal accusation.
It is not known exactly how much he will receive but his lawyers estimate it could be up to £10,000.
Mr Bishop, who has fostered ten children with his wife Sue, picked
up Palmer in his taxi from a nightclub in February 2007. The mother of two was drunk and had already been sick.
But only hours after dropping her at her home, police arrived at Mr Bishop's house at 4.30am and arrested him in front of his wife on suspicion of rape.
Mr Bishop said: 'I kept trying to explain to the police that it was nonsense.
'But I kept being told to shut up. I was in shock but convinced that they'd realise I hadn't done anything and let me go.'
Mr Bishop was questioned for 12 hours before being subjected to 'humiliating' intimate forensic examinations and bailed. His taxi was also seized for forensic examination and he was under police scrutiny for a further three months.
Ostracised by his community, Mr Bishop says he tried to return to driving his taxi, but found himself unable to find work.
Months later, Palmer confessed that after being locked out of her house in her drunken state she had knocked on a neighbour's door and falsely claimed she had been raped.
But despite her admission, Mr Bishop was twice refused compensation because he had no physical injuries.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority overturned those decisions last week at a closed hearing in Taunton, Somerset.
Mr Bishop will now undergo a psychological evaluation to determine the amount he will be eligible to receive before officially applying for compensation later this year.
The amount he gets will depend on the psychological damage he suffered from the incident as well as his lost earnings.
Yesterday Mr Bishop, from Walton in Somerset, told how he had been 'to hell and back'.
'It's been such a difficult time for me and my wife,' he said. 'They claim you are innocent until proven guilty but in reality that is not the case. People always assume the worst and we had to live with three months of slurs and lies about my character.
'That is why this ruling is so important to me - I could not ever drive a taxi again so this decision will make a huge difference to my life. I'm just so very happy and relieved.'
His lawyer Russell Pearce said: 'It is a landmark case - especially for all those who have suffered the extensive trauma that a false allegation can bring.
'This now means that in the future other people will be able to make an application, which is very important.'
By Luke Salkeld
21st May 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184989/Court-rules-taxi-driver-falsely-accused-rape-receive-compensation-legal-first.html
A taxi driver falsely accused of rape could receive a five-figure compensation payout after winning a landmark victory.
Clive Bishop, 49, says his life was ruined after a drunken 17-year-old passenger claimed he attacked her.
Kirsty Palmer later admitted she made up the allegations and was jailed for ten months for perverting the course of justice.
When he applied for compensation, Mr Bishop described how months of living under a cloud of 'slurs and lies' had caused him enormous suffering.
But the foster carer was twice refused a payout by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on the grounds he had not come to physical harm.
That ruling has now been overturned on appeal - the first time the authority has agreed to compensate for the mental trauma of a false criminal accusation.
It is not known exactly how much he will receive but his lawyers estimate it could be up to £10,000.
Mr Bishop, who has fostered ten children with his wife Sue, picked
up Palmer in his taxi from a nightclub in February 2007. The mother of two was drunk and had already been sick.
But only hours after dropping her at her home, police arrived at Mr Bishop's house at 4.30am and arrested him in front of his wife on suspicion of rape.
Mr Bishop said: 'I kept trying to explain to the police that it was nonsense.
'But I kept being told to shut up. I was in shock but convinced that they'd realise I hadn't done anything and let me go.'
Mr Bishop was questioned for 12 hours before being subjected to 'humiliating' intimate forensic examinations and bailed. His taxi was also seized for forensic examination and he was under police scrutiny for a further three months.
Ostracised by his community, Mr Bishop says he tried to return to driving his taxi, but found himself unable to find work.
Months later, Palmer confessed that after being locked out of her house in her drunken state she had knocked on a neighbour's door and falsely claimed she had been raped.
But despite her admission, Mr Bishop was twice refused compensation because he had no physical injuries.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority overturned those decisions last week at a closed hearing in Taunton, Somerset.
Mr Bishop will now undergo a psychological evaluation to determine the amount he will be eligible to receive before officially applying for compensation later this year.
The amount he gets will depend on the psychological damage he suffered from the incident as well as his lost earnings.
Yesterday Mr Bishop, from Walton in Somerset, told how he had been 'to hell and back'.
'It's been such a difficult time for me and my wife,' he said. 'They claim you are innocent until proven guilty but in reality that is not the case. People always assume the worst and we had to live with three months of slurs and lies about my character.
'That is why this ruling is so important to me - I could not ever drive a taxi again so this decision will make a huge difference to my life. I'm just so very happy and relieved.'
His lawyer Russell Pearce said: 'It is a landmark case - especially for all those who have suffered the extensive trauma that a false allegation can bring.
'This now means that in the future other people will be able to make an application, which is very important.'
UK Domestic Violence Statistics - Fathers' Rights
Great to see a balanced report about the insidious occurrence of domestic voilence.Research Supporting Fathers Involvement in the Familyhttp://eventoddlers.atspace.com/TodVIDEO12.htmlThe Father's Rolehttp://eventoddlers.atspace.com/TodVIDEO13.htmlCA...
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tim Harford takes apart a rogue statistic on domestic violence
TO ALL MRA'S WORLDWIDE.
Other parties have also been included in the BCC file including Church organisations and media reps.
URGENT!
Enclosed with this email is an attachment of an MP3. file. It is a segment of a BBC program that investigates the veracity of statistics, in this case, domestic violence statistics. I would urge ALL MRA's that have web sites to post this segment on their sites. I would urge all others to pass this segment (or a link to it) to their representatives in government, to newspaper and other electronic news media as quickly as possible. Also, please check with other organisations that are working with, have an affiliation to or are otherwise connected with Men's groups, however loosely, to see if they have heard this important information. If we are to pull down the feminist lies, we must have the truth. This is one such bullet in our gun.
In anyone has trouble receiving or opening the attachment please contact me and other arrangements will be made to get it too you.
Details below:
More or Less - Fri, 15 May 2009
Tim Harford takes apart a rogue statistic on domestic violence which has been circulating since the 1990s, questions news reports which suggest that the recession is hitting white collar workers hardest and reveals a new mathematical riddle - the Kate Bush conjecture.
An Open University co production for BBC Radio 4. Broadcast on:BBC Radio 4, 8:00pm Sunday 17th May 2009 Duration: 30 minutes Available until: 12:00am Thursday 1st January 2099 Category:Factual
PLEASE NOTE: Here is a link to the BBC program in full. This link will not last long as the programs are taken of the player after one week or so. That is why I have recorded the relevant segment. Also, you may not be able to use the link from countries outside of Great Britain. I am not sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9p0t/More_or_Less_15_05_2009/
With grateful thanks to Anne Harris of SNAP and to Mark Brooks who brought this program to my attention.
George Rolph
London
--
Repentance is the destruction of false love (that love of sin) so that true Love (that Love for God) may be born.
Other parties have also been included in the BCC file including Church organisations and media reps.
URGENT!
Enclosed with this email is an attachment of an MP3. file. It is a segment of a BBC program that investigates the veracity of statistics, in this case, domestic violence statistics. I would urge ALL MRA's that have web sites to post this segment on their sites. I would urge all others to pass this segment (or a link to it) to their representatives in government, to newspaper and other electronic news media as quickly as possible. Also, please check with other organisations that are working with, have an affiliation to or are otherwise connected with Men's groups, however loosely, to see if they have heard this important information. If we are to pull down the feminist lies, we must have the truth. This is one such bullet in our gun.
In anyone has trouble receiving or opening the attachment please contact me and other arrangements will be made to get it too you.
Details below:
More or Less - Fri, 15 May 2009
Tim Harford takes apart a rogue statistic on domestic violence which has been circulating since the 1990s, questions news reports which suggest that the recession is hitting white collar workers hardest and reveals a new mathematical riddle - the Kate Bush conjecture.
An Open University co production for BBC Radio 4. Broadcast on:BBC Radio 4, 8:00pm Sunday 17th May 2009 Duration: 30 minutes Available until: 12:00am Thursday 1st January 2099 Category:Factual
PLEASE NOTE: Here is a link to the BBC program in full. This link will not last long as the programs are taken of the player after one week or so. That is why I have recorded the relevant segment. Also, you may not be able to use the link from countries outside of Great Britain. I am not sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9p0t/More_or_Less_15_05_2009/
With grateful thanks to Anne Harris of SNAP and to Mark Brooks who brought this program to my attention.
George Rolph
London
--
Repentance is the destruction of false love (that love of sin) so that true Love (that Love for God) may be born.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
EDITORIAL: Anti-Dad bias - Washington Times
Lifetime TV, a network known for its movies about women being endangered by men, has sunk to a new low - a reality program called "Deadbeat Dads." Will Lifetime TV be truthful about how often some mothers end a relationship with the father, take custody of the children and refuse to allow the father access to the children?
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, May 18, 2009
No-Fault Divorce : America's Divorce Mill
No-Fault Divorce: America’s Divorce Mill
May 18th, 2009 by Judy Parejko
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/05/18/118701/
Readers' comments can be viewed and submitted at Catholic Exchange.
What is no-fault divorce?
When you ask most people, they will say it’s a mutual-consent process, or that it preserves privacy , or that it eliminates blame for the failure of the marriage.
Not many people will answer that it’s a lawsuit in which one party is suing the other party. And even fewer will know that it came from the Soviet Union.
Like previous divorce actions, no-fault divorce is still a lawsuit, which means that one party is invoking the state’s police powers against the other party. The main difference now is that the person filing for divorce no longer has to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. This type of lawsuit is unique; it’s the only type of legal action devoid of any ‘claim’ (complaint), and if the party being sued doesn’t know the complaint, then there’s no possibility of a defense.
As for the communist origins of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law review article by Donald M. Bolas entitled, “No Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?” explains how, after speaking with Russian lawyers, he stumbled upon how Soviet divorce law may have influenced our own laws.
Bolas explains that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917, religious marriages were no longer recognized by the state. Marriage became a “state action” and divorce became merely an administrative process known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One spouse simply filled out the paperwork at city hall and the other party was then notified by mail that they were no longer married. Some people married twenty times. There was also a ‘free love’ bureau where people could sign up for partners.
The fact that this type of law increases the divorce rate is proven every day in the United States. Since the onset of no-fault divorce, the divorce rate doubled with one divorce granted for every two marriages that take place. In terms of sheer numbers, approximately a million divorces are finalized each year, translating into 3,000 divorces every day.
How coincidental that the U.S. divorce rate is among the highest in the world, vying only with Russia!
Another interesting fact about no-fault divorce is how strikingly similar its underlying thinking is to abortion law. In fact, laws dealing with both subjects were being drafted at the same meeting. This is how it all began.
History
In 1970, a national group of lawyers gathered for their annual meeting at the Colony Motor Hotel in Clayton, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. At this meeting, two new ‘model’ laws were being drafted and debated. These laws would serve as ‘blueprints’ for state legislators around the country to enact as state laws. The purpose was to create more uniformity in state laws. One of these laws was called the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act (then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion laws).
A common theme found in both of these debates was the word viability and this word would be operative in rationalizing both of these laws.
In the case of abortion, the discussion revolved around the viability of the human life, meaning its potential for survival outside the mother. The divorce debate was similar: a marriage could be terminated “on the basis that it no longer is a viable institution ,” according to the transcripts that have been preserved from these debates.
Using viability as the operative term would soften the discussion on divorce, or abortion, making these new laws more palatable to the public. This way of thinking would also help cover up the truth so we wouldn’t have to ‘look’ at the reality: that both are really destructive acts. One act destroys the product of the one-flesh union while the purpose of the other act is to destroy the one-flesh union itself.
During a pregnancy, we now are able to ‘see’ the reality of life due to technical advances. However, in the case of marriage, there isn’t any test. One person’s word suffices. Judges and lawyers don’t check for vital signs in the marriages, which assumes they are all dead on arrival.
The label given to this new type of divorce is something of a misnomer. The term ‘no-fault’ came into the vernacular with the introduction of ‘no-fault’ car insurance. The rationale behind no-fault car insurance was to move cases more quickly into ‘settlements.’
The same is true for no-fault divorce because now the emphasis is on moving cases into mediation where settlements are supposed to be reached, conveniently skipping the step of determining viability. Once a petition for divorce is filed, the marriage is essentially doomed, since no one checks for any pulse.
The term “no-fault” has served masterfully to cover up something that is far more sinister. The idea that the State is forcing people out of their marriages is hard to fathom but because every divorce petition is granted, and none are ever denied, then there are certainly a few viable marriages that meet an untimely death.
Conciliation/Reconciliation
Before the onset of no-fault divorce there was a burgeoning activity around the country called the Conciliation Court Movement with the focus on marital reconciliation. This movement began in 1939 when California enacted its Children’s Court of Conciliation Law in order to:
… protect the rights of children and to promote the public welfare by preserving and promoting family life and the institution of matrimony, and to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies.
By 1970, Conciliation Courts were operating in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, using a growing body of knowledge and techniques to help restore family life. But now, such lofty goals cannot be found anywhere in our statutes.
When no-fault divorce entered the picture, the emphasis in conciliation courts soon changed to ‘divorce with dignity.’ Settlement negotiations took place under the auspices of a mediator who assisted the courts in keeping the conveyor belt moving.
Is there another possibility? Can distressed spouses find ‘relief’ for their anguish? Could we create Marriage Support facilities that operate in the same way as the Pregnancy Support facilities that offer another answer than abortion? Marriage Support facilities could do the same thing by offering couples the help they need to stay together.
In many ways, the Church might be the perfect home for these facilities. Tribunal offices could incorporate the Conciliation Court model, summoning couples from the civil courts. At this time, spouses are typically directed to Catholic Charities, but this is not enough because the problem requires a blending of both legal and pastoral initiatives.
Also needed are skillful practitioners who are trained in multiple fields. Working with a dyadic relationship is much harder than working with one person individually. Not many practitioners can handle such a challenge without bringing their own biases into the work.
By all appearances we are a nation that wants to defend traditional marriage, as evidenced by the number of state constitutional amendments that have passed. The next step is to protect marriages from being destroyed in this country’s no-fault divorce mills.
[This article originally appeared in Canticle Magazine and is used by permission of the author .]
May 18th, 2009 by Judy Parejko
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/05/18/118701/
Readers' comments can be viewed and submitted at Catholic Exchange.
What is no-fault divorce?
When you ask most people, they will say it’s a mutual-consent process, or that it preserves privacy , or that it eliminates blame for the failure of the marriage.
Not many people will answer that it’s a lawsuit in which one party is suing the other party. And even fewer will know that it came from the Soviet Union.
Like previous divorce actions, no-fault divorce is still a lawsuit, which means that one party is invoking the state’s police powers against the other party. The main difference now is that the person filing for divorce no longer has to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. This type of lawsuit is unique; it’s the only type of legal action devoid of any ‘claim’ (complaint), and if the party being sued doesn’t know the complaint, then there’s no possibility of a defense.
As for the communist origins of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law review article by Donald M. Bolas entitled, “No Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?” explains how, after speaking with Russian lawyers, he stumbled upon how Soviet divorce law may have influenced our own laws.
Bolas explains that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917, religious marriages were no longer recognized by the state. Marriage became a “state action” and divorce became merely an administrative process known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One spouse simply filled out the paperwork at city hall and the other party was then notified by mail that they were no longer married. Some people married twenty times. There was also a ‘free love’ bureau where people could sign up for partners.
The fact that this type of law increases the divorce rate is proven every day in the United States. Since the onset of no-fault divorce, the divorce rate doubled with one divorce granted for every two marriages that take place. In terms of sheer numbers, approximately a million divorces are finalized each year, translating into 3,000 divorces every day.
How coincidental that the U.S. divorce rate is among the highest in the world, vying only with Russia!
Another interesting fact about no-fault divorce is how strikingly similar its underlying thinking is to abortion law. In fact, laws dealing with both subjects were being drafted at the same meeting. This is how it all began.
History
In 1970, a national group of lawyers gathered for their annual meeting at the Colony Motor Hotel in Clayton, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. At this meeting, two new ‘model’ laws were being drafted and debated. These laws would serve as ‘blueprints’ for state legislators around the country to enact as state laws. The purpose was to create more uniformity in state laws. One of these laws was called the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act (then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion laws).
A common theme found in both of these debates was the word viability and this word would be operative in rationalizing both of these laws.
In the case of abortion, the discussion revolved around the viability of the human life, meaning its potential for survival outside the mother. The divorce debate was similar: a marriage could be terminated “on the basis that it no longer is a viable institution ,” according to the transcripts that have been preserved from these debates.
Using viability as the operative term would soften the discussion on divorce, or abortion, making these new laws more palatable to the public. This way of thinking would also help cover up the truth so we wouldn’t have to ‘look’ at the reality: that both are really destructive acts. One act destroys the product of the one-flesh union while the purpose of the other act is to destroy the one-flesh union itself.
During a pregnancy, we now are able to ‘see’ the reality of life due to technical advances. However, in the case of marriage, there isn’t any test. One person’s word suffices. Judges and lawyers don’t check for vital signs in the marriages, which assumes they are all dead on arrival.
The label given to this new type of divorce is something of a misnomer. The term ‘no-fault’ came into the vernacular with the introduction of ‘no-fault’ car insurance. The rationale behind no-fault car insurance was to move cases more quickly into ‘settlements.’
The same is true for no-fault divorce because now the emphasis is on moving cases into mediation where settlements are supposed to be reached, conveniently skipping the step of determining viability. Once a petition for divorce is filed, the marriage is essentially doomed, since no one checks for any pulse.
The term “no-fault” has served masterfully to cover up something that is far more sinister. The idea that the State is forcing people out of their marriages is hard to fathom but because every divorce petition is granted, and none are ever denied, then there are certainly a few viable marriages that meet an untimely death.
Conciliation/Reconciliation
Before the onset of no-fault divorce there was a burgeoning activity around the country called the Conciliation Court Movement with the focus on marital reconciliation. This movement began in 1939 when California enacted its Children’s Court of Conciliation Law in order to:
… protect the rights of children and to promote the public welfare by preserving and promoting family life and the institution of matrimony, and to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies.
By 1970, Conciliation Courts were operating in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, using a growing body of knowledge and techniques to help restore family life. But now, such lofty goals cannot be found anywhere in our statutes.
When no-fault divorce entered the picture, the emphasis in conciliation courts soon changed to ‘divorce with dignity.’ Settlement negotiations took place under the auspices of a mediator who assisted the courts in keeping the conveyor belt moving.
Is there another possibility? Can distressed spouses find ‘relief’ for their anguish? Could we create Marriage Support facilities that operate in the same way as the Pregnancy Support facilities that offer another answer than abortion? Marriage Support facilities could do the same thing by offering couples the help they need to stay together.
In many ways, the Church might be the perfect home for these facilities. Tribunal offices could incorporate the Conciliation Court model, summoning couples from the civil courts. At this time, spouses are typically directed to Catholic Charities, but this is not enough because the problem requires a blending of both legal and pastoral initiatives.
Also needed are skillful practitioners who are trained in multiple fields. Working with a dyadic relationship is much harder than working with one person individually. Not many practitioners can handle such a challenge without bringing their own biases into the work.
By all appearances we are a nation that wants to defend traditional marriage, as evidenced by the number of state constitutional amendments that have passed. The next step is to protect marriages from being destroyed in this country’s no-fault divorce mills.
[This article originally appeared in Canticle Magazine and is used by permission of the author .]
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
New-family- court-rules- to-improve- openness - Yeah Right pull the other one
They said the same thing five years ago in a Law Commission Report titled Dispute Resolution in the Family Court (report 82). I submitted a 6000 word document and not one of the recommendations has been used by the Family Court, which is, just a gravy train for feminist loser lawyers who often help the children clients in Youth Court once they have graduated through the insidious muck of the civil Family Court of lies. The sick system creates troublesome children because the court appointed Chldren's lawyer hates fathers. The media don't have the spine to challenge judges, so nothing will change. As Family Court statistics increase more kiwi kids look set to be stuffed up by the dirty low down tactics of lying lawyers and twisted psychologists in a sinister court. Nothing will change in the bias Court of hate!Justice does NOT exist in the Family Court. Just look at male suicide rates.
http://www.stuff. co.nz/national/ crime/2415378/
New-family- court-rules- to-improve- openness
New rules, including more powers for registrars and increased media access, will be introduced to the Family Court on Monday.
The rules, contained in the Family Courts Matters Act, would increase the openness of the court and help the public understand how it operated, Courts Minister Georgina te Heuheu said.
News media would now be able to attend hearings and publish proceedings, but not information identifying children or vulnerable people without leave of the judge, while support people and others would be able to attend with a judge's permission.
Mrs te Heuheu said other minor process and procedural changes were designed to improve the operation of the court.
Registrars would be able to appoint lawyers and report writers with a judge's direction, issue summonses under the Domestic Violence Act and direct the serving of applications under the Family Protection Act.
The changes taking effect on Monday are the first stage of the Family Courts Matters legislation, with changes to counselling for couples and parents , and the introduction of counselling for children and family mediation to take effect in the future.
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier said the new Act "dramatically opened up the Family Court even further to appropriate public scrutiny".
The court was sometimes viewed as a "secret" court, he said, and along with greater openness the Act would increase the professionalism and quality of service of the court.
"There has been the need to balance openness and the public's right to know with reasonable preservation of privacy, particularly for those who require the court's protection because of their vulnerability, " Judge Boshier said.
"I believe the balance arrived at is the correct one for our times."
-NZPA
http://www.stuff. co.nz/national/ crime/2415378/
New-family- court-rules- to-improve- openness
New rules, including more powers for registrars and increased media access, will be introduced to the Family Court on Monday.
The rules, contained in the Family Courts Matters Act, would increase the openness of the court and help the public understand how it operated, Courts Minister Georgina te Heuheu said.
News media would now be able to attend hearings and publish proceedings, but not information identifying children or vulnerable people without leave of the judge, while support people and others would be able to attend with a judge's permission.
Mrs te Heuheu said other minor process and procedural changes were designed to improve the operation of the court.
Registrars would be able to appoint lawyers and report writers with a judge's direction, issue summonses under the Domestic Violence Act and direct the serving of applications under the Family Protection Act.
The changes taking effect on Monday are the first stage of the Family Courts Matters legislation, with changes to counselling for couples and parents , and the introduction of counselling for children and family mediation to take effect in the future.
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier said the new Act "dramatically opened up the Family Court even further to appropriate public scrutiny".
The court was sometimes viewed as a "secret" court, he said, and along with greater openness the Act would increase the professionalism and quality of service of the court.
"There has been the need to balance openness and the public's right to know with reasonable preservation of privacy, particularly for those who require the court's protection because of their vulnerability, " Judge Boshier said.
"I believe the balance arrived at is the correct one for our times."
-NZPA
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Steve Richards: The great myth of public service
If we did not elect a parliament of freaks, the MPs' expenses tell us something about the mindset of people working in publicly funded institutions. In particular they expose as too simplistic the idealistic notion of a unique 'public ethos'.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Carey Robets ; Shattering rampant abuse myths
Carey Roberts column
Shattering rampant abuse myths
May 12, 2009
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/090512
Imagine a world where ideology takes the place of truth and laws are rooted in dubious factoids from nowhere. That pretty much sums up the fact-challenged, hysteria-mongering domestic violence industry that is propped up by $1 billion of federal money each year.
Industry ideologues are loathe to admit the fact, but they truly believe the cause of partner abuse is patriarchal oppression. Not convinced? Just take it on the authority of feminist Gloria Steinem who once made this randy claim, "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."
In her now-famous PBS interview, Steinem expounded on her conspiracy-laced worldview: "It starts with the slippery slope of the supposition [of] gender that sexual relations between men and women are dominant-passive... And then it goes all the way up the scale to beatings, torture, [and] murder." www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/interv/steinem.html
That's right, share a few tender moments with your romantic heart-throb and next thing you'll end up a statistic in the newspaper obituaries.
Journalist Philip Cook has recently come out with a book titled Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Cook probes the patriarchy-equals-violence theory and concludes it has more holes than a rotted-out rain barrel.
Take lesbian battering, which experts say is more common than heterosexual abuse. Remember Lindsey Lohan coming to blows with her girlfriend in a London nightclub last November? Recall Jessica Kalish of Florida who was stabbed with a screwdriver 200 times by her former female lover? And Raina L. Johnson who last year was sentenced to 28 years behind bars for the shooting of her ex-girlfriend in Washington, DC?
It's pretty loopy to explain away female-on-female brutality by casting aspersions on the loathsome patriarchy, so it's easier to pretend such incidents never happen, I guess.
In that same PBS interview, Steinem also made the claim that domestic violence is "the major cause of physical and psychological injury to women." Everyone knows Steinem is an authority in such matters, so everyone assumed she was telling the truth.
Except for Phil Cook, who decided to trace the origin of the canard.
Back in 1985, advocates Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft poured through a stack of hospital emergency room records. Without rhyme or reason, they tallied every case of injury as caused by domestic violence, unless the chart specifically said a stranger had caused the harm. When later pressed to explain his unconventional methodology, the best Stark could say was, "maybe domestic violence is the leading cause of injury and maybe it isn't."
That's right, and maybe the moon is made of cheese so the Man in the Moon can have something to eat. Or maybe it isn't.
But that logic didn't stop former senator Joseph Biden from becoming a True Believer. "The single greatest danger to a woman's health is violence from men. Something is sick in our society," he once admonished. That line of thinking is reflected in the federal Violence Against Women Act that Biden succeeded in passing in 1994.
The DV-as-the-leading-cause-of-injury legend soon became a dependable applause line as President Bill Clinton and senators Olympia Snowe and Ron Wyden joined in the sing-along.
And sure enough, look at the Security and Financial Security Act that Rep. Roybal-Allard of California introduced just a few months ago. Peruse the bill's findings, and once again you see the lie standing straight and tall: "Violence against women has been reported to be the leading cause of physical injury to women."
Once such myths are embedded in the national psyche, they become ferociously difficult to remove. Take a Department of Health and Human Services website that once featured the "Domestic Violence is the leading cause of injury to women" claim.
"It took two years, letters from a congressman, and an inquiry from a Senator's office, plus numerous letters, which mostly went unanswered, for an undersecretary at HHS to finally respond that maybe 'the' leading cause was erroneous, but it was 'a' leading cause. The truth, of course, is that is was neither," recounts an exasperated Philip Cook. "Eventually the HHS removed the statement from its Website site but refused to issue a retraction, even after eight years of perpetrating an outrageously false 'health' statement."
Curious to know what are the leading causes of injury to women? Here they are: unintentional falls, car accidents, and overexertion. Domestic violence did not even make the list: http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/hi/pages/226i.html
So relax ladies, everything you've heard about the "epidemic" of domestic violence is mostly hype calculated to stampede you into divorcing your husband and voting for yet another taxpayer-funded, ideologically-charged abuse reduction program.
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 RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, 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
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/090512
Shattering rampant abuse myths
May 12, 2009
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/090512
Imagine a world where ideology takes the place of truth and laws are rooted in dubious factoids from nowhere. That pretty much sums up the fact-challenged, hysteria-mongering domestic violence industry that is propped up by $1 billion of federal money each year.
Industry ideologues are loathe to admit the fact, but they truly believe the cause of partner abuse is patriarchal oppression. Not convinced? Just take it on the authority of feminist Gloria Steinem who once made this randy claim, "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."
In her now-famous PBS interview, Steinem expounded on her conspiracy-laced worldview: "It starts with the slippery slope of the supposition [of] gender that sexual relations between men and women are dominant-passive... And then it goes all the way up the scale to beatings, torture, [and] murder." www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/interv/steinem.html
That's right, share a few tender moments with your romantic heart-throb and next thing you'll end up a statistic in the newspaper obituaries.
Journalist Philip Cook has recently come out with a book titled Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Cook probes the patriarchy-equals-violence theory and concludes it has more holes than a rotted-out rain barrel.
Take lesbian battering, which experts say is more common than heterosexual abuse. Remember Lindsey Lohan coming to blows with her girlfriend in a London nightclub last November? Recall Jessica Kalish of Florida who was stabbed with a screwdriver 200 times by her former female lover? And Raina L. Johnson who last year was sentenced to 28 years behind bars for the shooting of her ex-girlfriend in Washington, DC?
It's pretty loopy to explain away female-on-female brutality by casting aspersions on the loathsome patriarchy, so it's easier to pretend such incidents never happen, I guess.
In that same PBS interview, Steinem also made the claim that domestic violence is "the major cause of physical and psychological injury to women." Everyone knows Steinem is an authority in such matters, so everyone assumed she was telling the truth.
Except for Phil Cook, who decided to trace the origin of the canard.
Back in 1985, advocates Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft poured through a stack of hospital emergency room records. Without rhyme or reason, they tallied every case of injury as caused by domestic violence, unless the chart specifically said a stranger had caused the harm. When later pressed to explain his unconventional methodology, the best Stark could say was, "maybe domestic violence is the leading cause of injury and maybe it isn't."
That's right, and maybe the moon is made of cheese so the Man in the Moon can have something to eat. Or maybe it isn't.
But that logic didn't stop former senator Joseph Biden from becoming a True Believer. "The single greatest danger to a woman's health is violence from men. Something is sick in our society," he once admonished. That line of thinking is reflected in the federal Violence Against Women Act that Biden succeeded in passing in 1994.
The DV-as-the-leading-cause-of-injury legend soon became a dependable applause line as President Bill Clinton and senators Olympia Snowe and Ron Wyden joined in the sing-along.
And sure enough, look at the Security and Financial Security Act that Rep. Roybal-Allard of California introduced just a few months ago. Peruse the bill's findings, and once again you see the lie standing straight and tall: "Violence against women has been reported to be the leading cause of physical injury to women."
Once such myths are embedded in the national psyche, they become ferociously difficult to remove. Take a Department of Health and Human Services website that once featured the "Domestic Violence is the leading cause of injury to women" claim.
"It took two years, letters from a congressman, and an inquiry from a Senator's office, plus numerous letters, which mostly went unanswered, for an undersecretary at HHS to finally respond that maybe 'the' leading cause was erroneous, but it was 'a' leading cause. The truth, of course, is that is was neither," recounts an exasperated Philip Cook. "Eventually the HHS removed the statement from its Website site but refused to issue a retraction, even after eight years of perpetrating an outrageously false 'health' statement."
Curious to know what are the leading causes of injury to women? Here they are: unintentional falls, car accidents, and overexertion. Domestic violence did not even make the list: http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/hi/pages/226i.html
So relax ladies, everything you've heard about the "epidemic" of domestic violence is mostly hype calculated to stampede you into divorcing your husband and voting for yet another taxpayer-funded, ideologically-charged abuse reduction program.
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 RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, 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
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/090512
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Feminism blamed for ‘erosion of manhood'
Feminism blamed for ‘erosion of manhood’
By Lito Zulueta
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:58:00 01/24/2009
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090124-185270/Feminism-blamed-for-erosion-of-manhood
MANILA, Philippines—A high-ranking Vatican official currently in Manila has warned of the erosion of manhood and the “crisis in fatherhood” that have resulted in millions of children worldwide without a father or enjoying emotionally healthy relations with one.
German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, president of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum,” the Vatican dicastery (or administrative agency) on charity, aid and relief, blamed “gender mainstreaming” and “radical feminism” for attacking biological manhood and insisting that “sexual roles are learned.”
He said men are demeaned and what is held up as an ideal is a man who is feminized and emasculated, one who, in a European study, is held up to be “a sweeter man.”
Fatherhood in crisis
“Is male identity then nothing other than a product of a special culture and the consequences of social circumstances?” Cordes asked in his speech, “Fatherhood-An Auxiliary Role?”, which was his doctorate address Friday after receiving an honorary doctorate in theology from the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas.
The doctoral hat and cape were bestowed by UST Rector Magnificus and former Commission on Higher Education chairman Fr. Rolando V. de la Rosa, O.P.
Witnessing it were German Ambassador Christian Ludwig Weber Lortsch, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines president Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, CHEd chair Emmanuel Angeles, and former Philippine Ambassador to the Vatican Henrietta de Villa, who is now consultor of the pontifical agency headed by Cordes.
‘The new man’
Cordes said statistics around the world “confirm that today the self-understanding of manhood and especially fatherhood is in crisis.”
He said a Catholic Charities survey in the United States showed that 24 million children are living in homes without a father. He said “fatherless boys are twice as likely to be in prison; they are more likely to drop out or be expelled from school; they account for 63 percent of suicides, and 90 percent of those who run away from home.”
He said in his own country, the German newspaper Frankfurther Allgemeinen, ran a story with the headline, “The Insecure Man.”
Cordes blamed the loss of manhood and fatherhood to liberal and secularistic legislations to invent “the new man.”
“We have grown accustomed to hearing about legislation undermining the role of the father, such as adoption by gay so-called ‘parents,’” Cordes said. “A bill passed recently in Britain (‘Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill of 2008’) allows two lesbians or single mothers to conceive a child without a father; all that is needed is ‘supportive parents.’
Some newspapers hailed this as ‘the end of fatherhood.’”
He said a survey of German universities recently showed that while there were 98 university chairs “for deepening questions on womanhood,” only one existed for men.
“In Europe, psychologists and anthropologists have labored to diminish masculinity,” Cordes said. “New investigations such as that published by the Council of Europe in 1998 claim that the ‘new man’ is ‘sweeter.’
Men and fathers should be led to become more like women and mothers in their behavior and reactions. They also advocated ‘flexibility of the sexes’ in the education of children.
Cordes said the erosion of manhood and fatherhood has a negative impact on “boys’ self-understanding,” adding that even girls form their self-understanding by their relationship with fathers and men.
Fathers as anchor
Fathers are “an anchor for us in cases of loss and danger,” said the German prelate. When children try to carve out their own autonomous existence from their parents, it is the father they look up to.
“From the presence of the male body, something is transmitted to the ‘I’ that makes the child blossom,” Cordes said. “Whoever as an individual has never been generated or raised in the way by his father or his fathers will have a limited self-esteem.”
Cordes said the loss of masculinity and the crisis in fatherhood have bearing on Christianity, which calls God as Father. “The lack of a human father makes it difficult to grasp Jesus’s teaching on the heavenly Father,” he said.
By Lito Zulueta
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:58:00 01/24/2009
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090124-185270/Feminism-blamed-for-erosion-of-manhood
MANILA, Philippines—A high-ranking Vatican official currently in Manila has warned of the erosion of manhood and the “crisis in fatherhood” that have resulted in millions of children worldwide without a father or enjoying emotionally healthy relations with one.
German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, president of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum,” the Vatican dicastery (or administrative agency) on charity, aid and relief, blamed “gender mainstreaming” and “radical feminism” for attacking biological manhood and insisting that “sexual roles are learned.”
He said men are demeaned and what is held up as an ideal is a man who is feminized and emasculated, one who, in a European study, is held up to be “a sweeter man.”
Fatherhood in crisis
“Is male identity then nothing other than a product of a special culture and the consequences of social circumstances?” Cordes asked in his speech, “Fatherhood-An Auxiliary Role?”, which was his doctorate address Friday after receiving an honorary doctorate in theology from the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas.
The doctoral hat and cape were bestowed by UST Rector Magnificus and former Commission on Higher Education chairman Fr. Rolando V. de la Rosa, O.P.
Witnessing it were German Ambassador Christian Ludwig Weber Lortsch, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines president Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, CHEd chair Emmanuel Angeles, and former Philippine Ambassador to the Vatican Henrietta de Villa, who is now consultor of the pontifical agency headed by Cordes.
‘The new man’
Cordes said statistics around the world “confirm that today the self-understanding of manhood and especially fatherhood is in crisis.”
He said a Catholic Charities survey in the United States showed that 24 million children are living in homes without a father. He said “fatherless boys are twice as likely to be in prison; they are more likely to drop out or be expelled from school; they account for 63 percent of suicides, and 90 percent of those who run away from home.”
He said in his own country, the German newspaper Frankfurther Allgemeinen, ran a story with the headline, “The Insecure Man.”
Cordes blamed the loss of manhood and fatherhood to liberal and secularistic legislations to invent “the new man.”
“We have grown accustomed to hearing about legislation undermining the role of the father, such as adoption by gay so-called ‘parents,’” Cordes said. “A bill passed recently in Britain (‘Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill of 2008’) allows two lesbians or single mothers to conceive a child without a father; all that is needed is ‘supportive parents.’
Some newspapers hailed this as ‘the end of fatherhood.’”
He said a survey of German universities recently showed that while there were 98 university chairs “for deepening questions on womanhood,” only one existed for men.
“In Europe, psychologists and anthropologists have labored to diminish masculinity,” Cordes said. “New investigations such as that published by the Council of Europe in 1998 claim that the ‘new man’ is ‘sweeter.’
Men and fathers should be led to become more like women and mothers in their behavior and reactions. They also advocated ‘flexibility of the sexes’ in the education of children.
Cordes said the erosion of manhood and fatherhood has a negative impact on “boys’ self-understanding,” adding that even girls form their self-understanding by their relationship with fathers and men.
Fathers as anchor
Fathers are “an anchor for us in cases of loss and danger,” said the German prelate. When children try to carve out their own autonomous existence from their parents, it is the father they look up to.
“From the presence of the male body, something is transmitted to the ‘I’ that makes the child blossom,” Cordes said. “Whoever as an individual has never been generated or raised in the way by his father or his fathers will have a limited self-esteem.”
Cordes said the loss of masculinity and the crisis in fatherhood have bearing on Christianity, which calls God as Father. “The lack of a human father makes it difficult to grasp Jesus’s teaching on the heavenly Father,” he said.
Monday, May 11, 2009
USA : Judge Judy Tells False Accuser (in front of 10 Million): "You Didn't Play Fair!"
Judge Judy Tells False Accuser (in front of 10 Million): "You Didn't Play Fair!"
[]
RADAR ALERT:
Judge Judy Tells False Accuser: "You Didn't Play Fair!"
The Honorable Judith Sheindlin has made it clear that the no-nonsense judge will not tolerate the manipulation of the judicial system by litigants who try to use restraining orders and false allegations of domestic violence to their advantage.
During the April 30, 2009 episode of Judge Judy, Her Honor told her audience of 10 million people that the female defendant was not about to "put one over" on her. "That's how well I know your game," she told the defendant. "... you may get over on a judge tomorrow, but you're not getting over on me today ... I am going to tell you what you did wrong ... you didn't play fair!"
This episode can be viewed at YouTube in two parts. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPk07BK3qA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPk07BK3qA and part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNLPn6gyZo.
Judge Judy is viewed by 10 million people daily. That is a quick and efficient way to spread the word to the masses that the this type of abuse should not and will not be tolerated.
Contact the producers of Judge Judy and let them know how important cases such as the one above really are by going to http://www.judgejudy.com/your_opinions.php.
Then contact your local legislator and let them know that even Judge Judy and her audience of 10 million people are aware that false allegations of domestic violence and the overt abuse of restraining orders are "not fair."
As always, please remember to be polite.
To find your Representative's contact information go to http://www.house.gov and enter your zip code in the upper left corner.
Date of RADAR Release: May 11, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org.
[]
RADAR ALERT:
Judge Judy Tells False Accuser: "You Didn't Play Fair!"
The Honorable Judith Sheindlin has made it clear that the no-nonsense judge will not tolerate the manipulation of the judicial system by litigants who try to use restraining orders and false allegations of domestic violence to their advantage.
During the April 30, 2009 episode of Judge Judy, Her Honor told her audience of 10 million people that the female defendant was not about to "put one over" on her. "That's how well I know your game," she told the defendant. "... you may get over on a judge tomorrow, but you're not getting over on me today ... I am going to tell you what you did wrong ... you didn't play fair!"
This episode can be viewed at YouTube in two parts. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPk07BK3qA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPk07BK3qA and part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNLPn6gyZo.
Judge Judy is viewed by 10 million people daily. That is a quick and efficient way to spread the word to the masses that the this type of abuse should not and will not be tolerated.
Contact the producers of Judge Judy and let them know how important cases such as the one above really are by going to http://www.judgejudy.com/your_opinions.php.
Then contact your local legislator and let them know that even Judge Judy and her audience of 10 million people are aware that false allegations of domestic violence and the overt abuse of restraining orders are "not fair."
As always, please remember to be polite.
To find your Representative's contact information go to http://www.house.gov and enter your zip code in the upper left corner.
Date of RADAR Release: May 11, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
NZ Fathers in Coalition Working Party letter to Minister of Courts.
21 April 2009
Georgina te HeuHeu
Minister of Courts
Parliament House
Wellington
Dear Minister
GENDER BIAS AND ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION IN THE FAMILY COURT.
I write to you as a semi-retied Registered Psychologist who has taken an interest in the functioning of the Family Court for over thirty years. Based on my own unfortunate experiences with the system I became a foundation member of the Families Need Fathers society in the late 1970s and just prior to the establishment of the new Family Court in 1980, also helped to form the Wellington based Equal Parents Rights Society.
I can say without exaggeration that, circa 2009, little has changed to bring about gender equality and equal treatment in primary care and contact issues ( custody and access) and where the rights of the father to generous or equal shared parenting arrangements are respected and fostered.
In October 2003 together with others from the man and father’s rights movement of the time we called for the second Principal Family court Judge, Judge Mahoney to step down. The grounds for making this request are outlined in the enclosed letter to Helen Clark of 15 October 2003.
Coincidently or not, Judge Mahoney did retire and the current third Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier was appointed in his place with a term of office limited to eight years only with the brief that he was to accelerate and promote innovation and change in the Family Court. He is now halfway through his term of office and while he has introduced incremental but piecemeal reforms, those have not been fast enough or far enough in my opinion to change the prevailing ‘culture’ of the Family Court and to treat more equally, fathers as parents with the right of generous contact or equal contact time with their children post separation.
You may or may not know that about 500 men commit suicide each year with 300 suicides linked to post –separation trauma. A subset of this total has contested custody in the Family Court and we understand through the current Families Commissioner, Dr Jan Pryor, that Judge Boshier is extremely concerned about those statistics. For over three years the men’s rights groups have made representations to the Families Commission and we have received sympathetic hearings mostly from Dr Prasad. I also include two bound documents presented to the Commission in 2007 which I hope will serve to persuade you that the Family court is not gender neutral as your predecessor, Rick Barker has so firmly asserted.
The main purpose of this letter is to challenge his statement and yours that you remain to be convinced that the Family Court is gender bias.
May we draw your particular attention to the six case –histories (including Mr Easton’s) and to the readings “Families Need Fathers” which contain two Editorials in the New Zealand Law Journal of March 2004 and August 2006.This is strident criticism indeed coming as it does from within the legal profession itself. We asked the Families Commission to support our call for a Royal commission of Inquiry into the Family Court, which Dr Prasad declined to do in view of the number of existing reports( at least six) on the Family Court, particularly the Law Commission’s report of March 2003.Dr Prasad quite rightly observed that the path to reform was contained in this report and all that needed to be done was for the Court to actually implement its main recommendations!
He also suggested that we take our case to the Human Rights Commission, but to little avail so far.
The recently legislated Family matters bill now incorporated into the original 1980 Family Courts legislation changes little in my view and certainly not be prevailing and well –entrenched anti-male, anti father bias. This is not exclusively the situation because two of our cases are of women also harshly treated by the Courts. So we are looking not only at gender bias but downright incompetence and judicial misfeasance as well.
Our working party is now seriously writing in similar vein to John Key calling for Judge Boshier to step down unless he, in his last four years of office, greatly accelerates the pace of reform. While he meets periodically with lobby groups advancing women’s rights, he has, over more recent years, declined to meet with the men’s and father’s rights groups.
Before we ask to meet the Prime Minister, we would like to request a meeting to discuss these issues with you at a time to your convenience.
Kind regards
Craig Jackson.
On behalf of the Fathers Coalition Working Party
Wellington
cc
Chester Borrows, MP
Rick Barker, MP
Dr Rajen Prasad, MP
Grant Robertson, MP
Rodney Hide, MP
Paula Bennett, MP
Ros Noonan, Chief Human Rights Commissioner
Jan Pryor, Chief Executive Officer, Families Commission.
Georgina te HeuHeu
Minister of Courts
Parliament House
Wellington
Dear Minister
GENDER BIAS AND ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION IN THE FAMILY COURT.
I write to you as a semi-retied Registered Psychologist who has taken an interest in the functioning of the Family Court for over thirty years. Based on my own unfortunate experiences with the system I became a foundation member of the Families Need Fathers society in the late 1970s and just prior to the establishment of the new Family Court in 1980, also helped to form the Wellington based Equal Parents Rights Society.
I can say without exaggeration that, circa 2009, little has changed to bring about gender equality and equal treatment in primary care and contact issues ( custody and access) and where the rights of the father to generous or equal shared parenting arrangements are respected and fostered.
In October 2003 together with others from the man and father’s rights movement of the time we called for the second Principal Family court Judge, Judge Mahoney to step down. The grounds for making this request are outlined in the enclosed letter to Helen Clark of 15 October 2003.
Coincidently or not, Judge Mahoney did retire and the current third Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier was appointed in his place with a term of office limited to eight years only with the brief that he was to accelerate and promote innovation and change in the Family Court. He is now halfway through his term of office and while he has introduced incremental but piecemeal reforms, those have not been fast enough or far enough in my opinion to change the prevailing ‘culture’ of the Family Court and to treat more equally, fathers as parents with the right of generous contact or equal contact time with their children post separation.
You may or may not know that about 500 men commit suicide each year with 300 suicides linked to post –separation trauma. A subset of this total has contested custody in the Family Court and we understand through the current Families Commissioner, Dr Jan Pryor, that Judge Boshier is extremely concerned about those statistics. For over three years the men’s rights groups have made representations to the Families Commission and we have received sympathetic hearings mostly from Dr Prasad. I also include two bound documents presented to the Commission in 2007 which I hope will serve to persuade you that the Family court is not gender neutral as your predecessor, Rick Barker has so firmly asserted.
The main purpose of this letter is to challenge his statement and yours that you remain to be convinced that the Family Court is gender bias.
May we draw your particular attention to the six case –histories (including Mr Easton’s) and to the readings “Families Need Fathers” which contain two Editorials in the New Zealand Law Journal of March 2004 and August 2006.This is strident criticism indeed coming as it does from within the legal profession itself. We asked the Families Commission to support our call for a Royal commission of Inquiry into the Family Court, which Dr Prasad declined to do in view of the number of existing reports( at least six) on the Family Court, particularly the Law Commission’s report of March 2003.Dr Prasad quite rightly observed that the path to reform was contained in this report and all that needed to be done was for the Court to actually implement its main recommendations!
He also suggested that we take our case to the Human Rights Commission, but to little avail so far.
The recently legislated Family matters bill now incorporated into the original 1980 Family Courts legislation changes little in my view and certainly not be prevailing and well –entrenched anti-male, anti father bias. This is not exclusively the situation because two of our cases are of women also harshly treated by the Courts. So we are looking not only at gender bias but downright incompetence and judicial misfeasance as well.
Our working party is now seriously writing in similar vein to John Key calling for Judge Boshier to step down unless he, in his last four years of office, greatly accelerates the pace of reform. While he meets periodically with lobby groups advancing women’s rights, he has, over more recent years, declined to meet with the men’s and father’s rights groups.
Before we ask to meet the Prime Minister, we would like to request a meeting to discuss these issues with you at a time to your convenience.
Kind regards
Craig Jackson.
On behalf of the Fathers Coalition Working Party
Wellington
cc
Chester Borrows, MP
Rick Barker, MP
Dr Rajen Prasad, MP
Grant Robertson, MP
Rodney Hide, MP
Paula Bennett, MP
Ros Noonan, Chief Human Rights Commissioner
Jan Pryor, Chief Executive Officer, Families Commission.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Because Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse!
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/05/prweb2394944.htm
Media Release: ...Because Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse, Says Fathers4Equality
The Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia's internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments. According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, "These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire. But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them."
Sydney, NSW (PRWEB) May 8, 2009 -- A case of poor judgment.
The Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia's internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments.
According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, "These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire. But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them."
James Adams adds, "What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers' groups at all). Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor."
The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:
*the order of costs, at the Judge's discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have "knowingly" made false allegation in Court, and
*unspecified actions, at the Judges's discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent
The importance of these provisions
Patil explains that "These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally. Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.
"So these are 'good', modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children."
Introduced only after extensive community consultation
According to Adams "These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years. Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners."
But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.
Really soft penalty for a very serious crime
Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that "Proving that someone has 'knowingly' made false allegations rather than 'mistakenly' or 'recklessly' is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result 'knowingly false' allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years. If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children's matters by the judiciary.
"Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime. It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place."
So these are "good", modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.
Measured responses to issues of concern
Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that "Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions. Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures."
"Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented."
Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that "a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand."
Adams continues "Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect."
Broader consultations as a first step
Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court. Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.
Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments. This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.
Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court. It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford.
Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.
Media Release: ...Because Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse, Says Fathers4Equality
The Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia's internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments. According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, "These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire. But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them."
Sydney, NSW (PRWEB) May 8, 2009 -- A case of poor judgment.
The Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia's internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments.
According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, "These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire. But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them."
James Adams adds, "What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers' groups at all). Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor."
The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:
*the order of costs, at the Judge's discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have "knowingly" made false allegation in Court, and
*unspecified actions, at the Judges's discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent
The importance of these provisions
Patil explains that "These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally. Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.
"So these are 'good', modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children."
Introduced only after extensive community consultation
According to Adams "These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years. Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners."
But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.
Really soft penalty for a very serious crime
Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that "Proving that someone has 'knowingly' made false allegations rather than 'mistakenly' or 'recklessly' is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result 'knowingly false' allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years. If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children's matters by the judiciary.
"Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime. It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place."
So these are "good", modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.
Measured responses to issues of concern
Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that "Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions. Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures."
"Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented."
Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that "a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand."
Adams continues "Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect."
Broader consultations as a first step
Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court. Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.
Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments. This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.
Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court. It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford.
Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
NZ Family Courts Defy Law to Deny Dads Access to Children
Data kept by the New Zealand government and obtained by Family First NZ shows that, in cases in which parents dispute custody, only 13% result in a 50-50 split. In the three years since the passage of the Care of Children Act, mothers were awarded sole custody in two-thirds of cases.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Bring Dylan Home Update
Subject: 2 years on
Hi All,
Today marks 2 years since Dylan abducted from New Zealand
Auckland, May 4, 2009
This sad anniversary sits as a tragic indictment of both the Hague Convention on Child Abduction and the indifference of the New Zealand government to the plight of an infant citizen.
Four-month-old Dylan was taken by his mother, Gulsen Nil Laybourn and his grandmother Hatice Cicek for a 3-week holiday to Turkey. They left Auckland International Airport on May 4, 2007. Gulsen and Dylan were booked to return home on May 28, 2007.
On May 25, Dylan father, Bruce Laybourn, received an email from Gulsen stating that she was not returning and that “you will not see you only son grow up.”
The sad facts:
• The Hague Convention sets a time frame of 6 weeks for the return of an abducted child
• Both Turkey and New Zealand are signatories to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.
• Bruce Laybourn’s application for Dylan’s return met every Hague Convention criteria – he and Gulsen are both New Zealand citizens, they were married in New Zealand, Dylan was born in New Zealand and all lived together in their family home in New Zealand at the time of the abduction.
• New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, himself a father of young children, has not even acknowledged Dylan’s case despite hundreds of emails to him from New Zealanders demanding action to rescue Dylan. These can be read at ... http://www.facebook.com/l/57916;http://www.bringdylanhome.co.nz/?sayings
• The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, cancelled a meeting Bruce Laybourn made with him to discuss what his Ministry might be able to do. Formal requests for reasons the meeting was cancelled were ignored.
• The Minister of Justice, Simon Power, wrote claiming New Zealand could not interfere in the judicial process of another country – a statement that fails to understand that the Hague Convention on Child Abduction is an international agreement that provides for the “Requesting State” (New Zealand) to request reasons for delays (Article 11)
• Calls to the Governor General’s secretary & messages left have been ignored. The Governor General is New Zealand representative at Gallipoli next weekend and has an opportunity to informally raise the matter with the Turks.
If you could be so kind as to sign the petition Bruce has started that would be fantastic:
http://www.facebook.com/l/57916;http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/bringdylanhome
--------------------
Hi All,
Today marks 2 years since Dylan abducted from New Zealand
Auckland, May 4, 2009
This sad anniversary sits as a tragic indictment of both the Hague Convention on Child Abduction and the indifference of the New Zealand government to the plight of an infant citizen.
Four-month-old Dylan was taken by his mother, Gulsen Nil Laybourn and his grandmother Hatice Cicek for a 3-week holiday to Turkey. They left Auckland International Airport on May 4, 2007. Gulsen and Dylan were booked to return home on May 28, 2007.
On May 25, Dylan father, Bruce Laybourn, received an email from Gulsen stating that she was not returning and that “you will not see you only son grow up.”
The sad facts:
• The Hague Convention sets a time frame of 6 weeks for the return of an abducted child
• Both Turkey and New Zealand are signatories to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.
• Bruce Laybourn’s application for Dylan’s return met every Hague Convention criteria – he and Gulsen are both New Zealand citizens, they were married in New Zealand, Dylan was born in New Zealand and all lived together in their family home in New Zealand at the time of the abduction.
• New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, himself a father of young children, has not even acknowledged Dylan’s case despite hundreds of emails to him from New Zealanders demanding action to rescue Dylan. These can be read at ... http://www.facebook.com/l/57916;http://www.bringdylanhome.co.nz/?sayings
• The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, cancelled a meeting Bruce Laybourn made with him to discuss what his Ministry might be able to do. Formal requests for reasons the meeting was cancelled were ignored.
• The Minister of Justice, Simon Power, wrote claiming New Zealand could not interfere in the judicial process of another country – a statement that fails to understand that the Hague Convention on Child Abduction is an international agreement that provides for the “Requesting State” (New Zealand) to request reasons for delays (Article 11)
• Calls to the Governor General’s secretary & messages left have been ignored. The Governor General is New Zealand representative at Gallipoli next weekend and has an opportunity to informally raise the matter with the Turks.
If you could be so kind as to sign the petition Bruce has started that would be fantastic:
http://www.facebook.com/l/57916;http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/bringdylanhome
--------------------
Monday, May 4, 2009
globeandmail.com - Public scrutiny in family courts
All Canadians have an interest in making sure that the children of high-conflict divorce are protected, and that those charged with protecting them, including the courts and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, do good, and not harm. That is why the courts are open. The freedom of the press belongs not only to the media, but to all Canadians.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The family court should be held accountable.
The happy feelings experienced by a dad after listening to his daughter’s echoes of laughter safe in a happy family unit will remain distant but satisfied thoughts locked into my memory banks. Those were the days when life was such a big buzz .I was the proud father of two beautiful young girls and twin sons. My joy made me think I was taking giant steps on the moon.
Then one day false allegations struck and a major depressive episode started. Completely unprepared for police, lawyers, judges, maximum security mental health forensic unit and prison this shafted dad was lost in a world of hopelessness. Overwhelming obstacles blocked his every path when trying to reconnect with his estranged children.A pointless plea to government fell on deaf ears.
The sadness of the sudden loss of beloved daughters was a terrible trauma and his mum died. However he was so happy after one of his daughters came to live with him after a seven year absence. Unfortunately my daughter was an extremely damaged client of the caring and civil family court. She became a party to proceedings as a 6 year old. Children quickly become file numbers and a cash cow for evil police, judges, lawyers and psychologists who successfully brainwashed her to hate dad.
But wait, the poisoning process didn’t work and the so called –‘in the best interests of the child’ brigade suddenly went very silent. Deceitful judges were astounded and shocked they had to amend a court order so my daughter could live with me. The horror in their lying faces was sickening to witness. These disgusting individuals are corrupt judges.How can they sleep at night?
But wait no family court support? Where is the support from these professional pond scum that distorted my precious daughters mind? They are nowhere to be found when my daughter goes off the rails. I want assistance, so I ring her court appointed lawyers Chris Robertson (Ashburton) and Adrienne Edwards, and court appointed psychologists Michael Davidson and John Watson, but they all hang up on me. They don’t help fathers. This is unlawful discrimination but who cares, this is New Zealand the land of gold medalist child abusers and a corrupt judiciary.
Should I go and throttle judge Boshier the crater face creep that runs the evil court? No way, because that would make more prison time and that would kill this bewildered and frustrated father, plus Boshier would just say that the welfare of my daughter is not his concern.
I ring police and ask them to put my daughter on the missing list.
Then one day false allegations struck and a major depressive episode started. Completely unprepared for police, lawyers, judges, maximum security mental health forensic unit and prison this shafted dad was lost in a world of hopelessness. Overwhelming obstacles blocked his every path when trying to reconnect with his estranged children.A pointless plea to government fell on deaf ears.
The sadness of the sudden loss of beloved daughters was a terrible trauma and his mum died. However he was so happy after one of his daughters came to live with him after a seven year absence. Unfortunately my daughter was an extremely damaged client of the caring and civil family court. She became a party to proceedings as a 6 year old. Children quickly become file numbers and a cash cow for evil police, judges, lawyers and psychologists who successfully brainwashed her to hate dad.
But wait, the poisoning process didn’t work and the so called –‘in the best interests of the child’ brigade suddenly went very silent. Deceitful judges were astounded and shocked they had to amend a court order so my daughter could live with me. The horror in their lying faces was sickening to witness. These disgusting individuals are corrupt judges.How can they sleep at night?
But wait no family court support? Where is the support from these professional pond scum that distorted my precious daughters mind? They are nowhere to be found when my daughter goes off the rails. I want assistance, so I ring her court appointed lawyers Chris Robertson (Ashburton) and Adrienne Edwards, and court appointed psychologists Michael Davidson and John Watson, but they all hang up on me. They don’t help fathers. This is unlawful discrimination but who cares, this is New Zealand the land of gold medalist child abusers and a corrupt judiciary.
Should I go and throttle judge Boshier the crater face creep that runs the evil court? No way, because that would make more prison time and that would kill this bewildered and frustrated father, plus Boshier would just say that the welfare of my daughter is not his concern.
I ring police and ask them to put my daughter on the missing list.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Family First - Fathers Missing Out
Thursday, 30 April, 2009 - 17:40
Children Penalised In Parenting Orders
Fathers Missing Out
Family First NZ says that children are missing out on access to both their parents as a result of parenting orders being made in the Family Court, and that there appears to be a clear bias against fathers.
Figures obtained by Family First NZ under the Official Information Act show that only 13% of disputes results in a 50-50 parenting split.
"These figures are a tragic reminder that children are the ultimate losers when there is a breakdown in the parent relationship," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The greatest injustice is that a parent can lose regular and sufficient access to their children when they may have done nothing wrong and never agreed to the separation in the first place."
The figures for the past three years since the passing of the Care of Children Act also show that mothers are more likely to be granted the most time, gaining sole custody in 2/3'rds of cases, but the father has only a 12% success rate.
"It is disturbing that judges do not consider that it is in the best interests of the children concerned to evenly divide their time between parents. For fathers who wish to take their parenting role seriously, there appears to be a significant 'perverse incentive'. Denied access simply feeds the anger and resentment that may exist between the parents."
"Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier has said that judges are influenced by research that shows kids with absentee fathers are most likely to have developmental problems and become childhood delinquents. Yet these figures suggest that this risk is not being taken seriously enough."
Family First is calling for shared parenting to be the default position for child custody arrangements in the family court.
"Children deserve access, support and love from both parents during the difficult period of breakdown and separation," says Mr McCoskrie. "This should be our starting point."
Children Penalised In Parenting Orders
Fathers Missing Out
Family First NZ says that children are missing out on access to both their parents as a result of parenting orders being made in the Family Court, and that there appears to be a clear bias against fathers.
Figures obtained by Family First NZ under the Official Information Act show that only 13% of disputes results in a 50-50 parenting split.
"These figures are a tragic reminder that children are the ultimate losers when there is a breakdown in the parent relationship," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The greatest injustice is that a parent can lose regular and sufficient access to their children when they may have done nothing wrong and never agreed to the separation in the first place."
The figures for the past three years since the passing of the Care of Children Act also show that mothers are more likely to be granted the most time, gaining sole custody in 2/3'rds of cases, but the father has only a 12% success rate.
"It is disturbing that judges do not consider that it is in the best interests of the children concerned to evenly divide their time between parents. For fathers who wish to take their parenting role seriously, there appears to be a significant 'perverse incentive'. Denied access simply feeds the anger and resentment that may exist between the parents."
"Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier has said that judges are influenced by research that shows kids with absentee fathers are most likely to have developmental problems and become childhood delinquents. Yet these figures suggest that this risk is not being taken seriously enough."
Family First is calling for shared parenting to be the default position for child custody arrangements in the family court.
"Children deserve access, support and love from both parents during the difficult period of breakdown and separation," says Mr McCoskrie. "This should be our starting point."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)