|
NZ Herald ‘Crisis of spirit’ hits health of NZ men
A former director of Lifeline, Bruce Mackie, says more men than women are dying in the workplace, on the roads and in water, and from cancer, heart disease and suicide, because they have learned not to value themselves.
He told the first national “men’s issues summit” in the Waitakere City Council chambers yesterday that boys grow up with no male role models of work/life balance and with media portrayals of men as “an irresponsible herd of buffoons”.
“The more we examine the state of men’s health, the more we expose problems of hopelessness, helplessness, meaninglessness and despair. This is a crisis of the spirit,” he said.
A number of male speakers, led by the embattled advocate for the “Kiwi bloke” John Tamihere, called for men’s problems in health, education and the justice system to be given the same kind of attention that was given to women’s issues.
“We must be quite fearless in the way we conduct our conversation, in the way we conduct our debate, in the light of some horrendous trends that are occurring, particularly with our young men,” Mr Tamihere said.
Victoria University researcher Paul Callister said men, not women, were bearing more of the “double burden” of paid work and unpaid childcare for children under 5.
“Is fathers’ work undervalued? The answer has to be yes in terms of a lack of public recognition of their ‘double burden’,” Dr Callister said.
NZCity: NewsTalkZB Men’s issues need to be brought to fore
John Tamihere is calling for men’s issues to be given more prominence.
Speaking at a conference in West Auckland, the Labour MP says advocating men’s issues does not mean they are against promoting the issues of other groups.
He says that criticism has put men off from promoting anything to do with their own values, health, and standards.
Radio New Zealand Newswire 06/05/2005:15:28
The former Labour Cabinet Minister, John Tamihere, has told the country’s first men’s issues summit that men need to accept their duties and obligations and stop blaming agencies of the state.
About 100 men are meeting in Waitakere City to talk about issues affecting men, and advocate for change.
In a speech to the meeting, Mr Tamihere highlighted the need for incentives to get men back onto education campuses to act as mentors.
Another speaker, Bruce Mackie, told the meeting the issue of men’s wellbeing is arguably the most important facing the country at this time.
Press Release: Waitakere City Bob Harvey - Men’s Summit
Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey today challenged New Zealand men to lift the game in terms of bettering themselves, doing better by women and children and taking their fatherhood responsibilities more seriously.
“There is still far too much domestic violence, sexism and aggressive male behaviour,” Mayor Harvey told the crowd of around 70.
“We are still seeing too many young men killing themselves – either by taking their own lives or through horrendous car accidents as bravado that seems more important than life itself.”
“We all know that these days women don’t fall about laughing as much as they used to when they hear the words ‘men’s group’ and I don’t think they’ve got the same misgivings about men getting together that they once had.”
“But we must continue to include women in our plans to redress the educational and social challenges facing men and boys. We must see women as allies not enemies. They are our team-mates in the game of healthy parenting and the co-creation of a healthy society. They are not the opposition and we must stop playing our end of that game.”
“We need to stand firm and tall for the forward view of what a truly honourable man is – a dynamic, intelligent guy who contributes to his family and community from a healthy place and space.”
The Nelson Mail 5 May 2005, Edition 2, Page 3.
Nelson fathering advocate Philip Chapman will be a guest speaker at New Zealand’s first Men’s Issues Summit in Auckland tomorrow.
Mr Chapman said Australia was “streets ahead'’ of New Zealand in addressing men’s issues, and he welcomed the summit as an opportunity to put the message out to people.
“I think we’re at a very basic awareness-raising stage. I question what the future is for boys in our country.'’
He said the biggest problem in advocating for men was the need to justify what they were able to bring to families.
Domestic Violence Distortions Conceal Culture of Male Hatred
November 11, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Mark Charalambous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October was Domestic Violence Month, and once again the PR campaign was ramped up to convince women that the only thing more dangerous than being on a date is being home with their husbands.
Radio stations broadcast public service announcements from SAFE, a national battered women?s organization, reminding us that ?domestic violence is the leading cause of injury for women in the United States.?
Once again the truth squad had to answer the bell with the real facts. Far from being the leading cause of injury to women, domestic violence accounts for somewhat less than 2 percent of all women?s injuries. Data on injury rates of women is freely available from the CDC?s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) which tracks a representative sample of hospitals nationwide.
A 1997 Dept. of Justice report, ?Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments? based on 1994 NEISS data, reports that 1.4 million people were treated ?for injuries from confirmed or suspected interpersonal violence.? It states in the first paragraph: ?These patients represented about 1.5% of all visits to hospital EDs and 3.6% of the injury-related ED visits in 1994.?
NEISS data from 2000, also on the internet, shows women?s injuries from all types of violence amounts to 4.9 percent of the total. The leading cause of injury is falling down (28%), followed by vehicle accidents (18.1%).
The claim that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury is exaggerated by an order of magnitude, that is, by a factor of at least 10.
What cause is served by exaggerating the true incidences of domestic violence against women? Is the truth not horrendous enough ? that perhaps 2 percent of all injuries to women are due to assaults from people they know?
And this ?error??if that?s all it is?has a flip side. Just as the Red Sox never-before-in-history-of-baseball comeback from a 0-3 game deficit in the ALCS assures their place in the history of baseball, it simultaneously condemns the Yankees as the greatest chokers in the history of the game. Implicit in this domestic violence lie is a devastating indictment of men. Each of these grossly exaggerated number of women?s domestic violence injuries must be mated with a male batterer.
Though this may be one of the more flagrant examples of statistic abuse by the domestic violence community, it is not some aberration. The domestic violence experts use every trick in the statistical book to cook up their alarming ?facts.?
Let?s call this ?error? what it is: thinly disguised hate speech against men.
While Congress dances around legislation that will criminalize speech critical of the accepted victim classes, it is funding hate speech campaigns against men. The Violence Against Women Act, besides being facially discriminatory if not unconstitutional, is funded to the tune of billions of dollars.
Think about it. If someone inflated claims of black-on-white violence by over 1,000 percent, do you think they would qualify for government funds to spread this ?information? as a public service announcement?
Several years ago I attended a seminar by Denise Gosellin, a criminologist who had just authored a book on domestic violence, ?Heavy Hands.? In response to a question of mine she related how she had been told that the government would not fund any study that includes male victims of female domestic violence.
Organizations like SAFE produce domestic violence ?fact sheets? that usually include a list of debunked ?myths? such as: ?Substance abuse is a cause of domestic violence.? Those who actually work as first responders in the community know that substance abuse is indeed a major cause of domestic violence. But since this subverts the overall message of male demonization that is the true objective, it is presented as a ?myth.?
The real cause of domestic violence, according to these ?experts,? is that violence against women is inherent in the construct of masculinity. Men resort to violence when they lose the control over women that the ?patriarchy? bestows upon them, otherwise identified in these circles as ?using male privilege.?
The more one digs into this movement, the more it resembles a religion rather than a campaign for social reform and justice. It is a belief system steeped in feminist anti-male ideology, based on feelings and fear rather than sound scientific research. At the heart of the domestic violence industry is a culture of male hatred.
Ever since male-bashing became the national sport decades ago, there is no shortage of studies to quote in support of the campaign to demonize men. But the public would be shocked if they knew just how academic standards have been corrupted in the social sciences where students who eventually produce these studies are indoctrinated.
A standard introductory sociology textbook used in many colleges and universities, ?Essentials of Sociology? by James Henslin, actually steers students away from doing research on women who abuse men. The first chapter includes a section on the correct methodology for doing research. It uses spouse abuse as an example:
?Let?s use spouse abuse as our topic. The next step is to narrow the topic. Spouse abuse is too broad; we need to focus on a specific area. For example, you may want to know why men are more likely to be the abusers.?
Ironically this falls on the same pages as a boxed feature that warns against trusting common sense and conventional wisdom when approaching research. It lists ten true/false statements and then reveals on the next page that all are false, contrary to common sense. But the author contradicts his own instructions in his spouse abuse research example:
?You must review the literature to find out what is already known about the problem. You don?t want to waste your time rediscovering what is already known.?
According to Dr. Heslin, the assumption that men are far more likely to abuse their female partners than vice-versa is a commonsense notion that needn?t be questioned ? furthermore, it would be a waste of time to do new research to confirm a result that ?is already known.?
When social science serves the cause of ideology, this is just the kind of nonsense we can expect.
The corruption of the behavioral sciences in feminist-driven areas of study such as domestic violence and ?gender? studies is uniformly appalling. Students across the educational landscape are not being educated as much as indoctrinated into a distorted feminist worldview. Perhaps schools should consider placing their behavioral science departments into some kind of academic receivership under trusteeship of their mathematics departments.
It?s instructive to reflect on the fallout of Steve Basile?s attempt to do research on domestic violence.
In 1997, when Basile undertook to analyze in a scientific and comprehensive manner the issuing of domestic abuse protection restraining orders (aka 209A?s), the reaction of the domestic violence ?experts? in the community was to pass a law restricting access to the data Basile used. In contrast to most domestic violence studies, Basile?s research was scientifically sound. He didn?t self-select a sample to predetermine the results as is typically done with advocacy research, but examined all domestic abuse prevention orders issued by Gardner District Court for one year, 1997. The first phase of the study was published in the Journal of Family Violence earlier this year; the second phase of the study, which focuses on court response, is pending publication.
During the data gathering phase the domestic violence community (specifically Jane Doe, Inc.) got wind of his research and in record time legislation was passed amending the Public Records Law, Massachusetts?s version of the Freedom of Information Act. Attorney General Tom Reilly, state senator Therese Murray and then-Senator Cheryl Jacques submitted and lobbied for legislation restricting access to 209A documents. So much for legislative gridlock ? if you?re on the ?right? side of the issue; in this case the side of ensuring that actual data on domestic violence never fall into the hands of anyone who doesn?t follow the party line.
More recently Basile attempted to gain access to the data behind a junk-science study, ?Child Custody Determinations in Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence: A Human Rights Analysis,? authored by Dr. Jay Silverman, an assistant professor in the Department of Society, Human Development, and Health at Harvard University.
The data for Silverman?s study is based on a 2002 Wellesley College study: ?Battered Mothers Speak Out?. It purported to show that battered women are being abused by the state's family courts by awarding custody of their children to their ?batterer? husbands, thus endangering the children of these parents.
In typical junk-science fashion, the research made absolutely no attempt at objectivity. To achieve the desired results the researchers engineered an appropriate population sample and solicited ?expert? testimony from the plethora of feminist, anti-male practitioners employed in family law and domestic relations. Inclusion in the population required that a participant be 1) female, and 2) angry at the outcome of her case. Once a candidate was found, so-called ?snowball sampling? was used to find other potential participants. That is, a disgruntled female litigant recommended other disgruntled mothers to the researchers.
Basile?s request for the data was met with a series of rebuffs after he approached in turn the Harvard School of Health, Silverman himself, and finally Harvard President Lawrence Summers. His efforts were eventually squelched when he received a terse, threatening letter from Diane E. Lopez, of the Office of the General Counsel for Harvard.
The media is also complicit in promoting these vicious stereotypes. They never employ journalistic standards when reporting on these studies, fail to report on contrary research, and generally display an unquenchable thirst for any ?news? that confirms the reprehensible behavior of men toward women.
Consider the following
False data about female victims of domestic violence that implicitly demonize men are presented as fact.
Social science courses steer students away from doing research that challenges the false data.
The government funds the organizations that present the false information, and won?t fund studies that might contradict it.
The state legislature amends the Freedom of Information Act to restrict access to court documents to those friendly to the domestic violence industry.
The media uncritically report garbage science results that support the false data and ignore contrary studies and viewpoints that challenge the established ?facts.?
The courts use double standards for men and women in domestic relations cases based upon a paradigm that relies upon the false data, leading to host of injustices, some of which are a direct cause of the nation?s number on social problem: fatherlessness.
There?s a word that is appropriate to describe such a confluence of interests promoting lies as truth: Conspiracy. And if the issue were anything but the politically loaded third rail subject of domestic violence, that?s how it would be recognized, and maybe eventually, exposed.
Mark Charalambous
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Charalambous, a resident of Leominster, MA, is a founder of, and the Spokesman for, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition.
A 20-year-old man who allegedly snatched his two-year-old son from his former partner in the Far North yesterday will appear in the Kaikohe District Court today.
Up to 50 police, including the armed offenders squad, were involved in the operation from about 7.30am.
The boy and his mother were the subject of a protection order.
A hunting rifle was in the vehicle but Mr Swann said his understanding was that the firearm was not carried during the alleged abduction.
After the kidnap, the man eventually made his way to Teal Bay where he parked his dark green 1997 Ford Falcon station wagon under a pohutukawa tree at a reserve at the end of the beach, near an estuary.
Let?s break the silence!
ARE YOU BEING ABUSED?
Are you being hurt by your wife or your girlfriend?
Do you know someone else who is being assaulted or abused by their wife or girlfriend?
Does your wife or girlfriend use sex as a weapon to control and intimidate you into getting what she wants?
Does your wife threaten that she is going kick you out of the house, take you to court and get everything, including the kids?
Is the person you love hurting or abusing you?
Is she threatening to hurt you?
Do you feel trapped or scared?
These things are ABUSE.
You can do something about it.
What is husband abuse?
The terms husband abuse or husband assault are used when a woman hurts or threatens the man she is in a relationship with. Husband assault including threatening is against the law!
Assault and threatening includes
? Throwing objects at you.
? Threatening to kill you or destroy your property
? Slapping, pushing or hitting you anywhere on your body
Husband abuse includes emotional abuse such as:
? Insulting the man or treating him badly in front of others.
? Threatening to hurt the man
? Blaming him for things that are not his fault
? Controlling what he does and where he goes
? Threatens to have sex with another man
? Interferes with his relationship with the children.
Abusive women power and control over their partners. Men are being abused every day in our country - young, old, disabled, poor, rich, immigrant men and men who were born in New Zealand. Abuse can start with a slap and a push and end in murder. Children who see their mothers violent and abusive to their partners remember it for the rest of their lives and can become abusive themselves to their children.
This abuse against children and fathers must be stopped.
Children and their fathers have the right to feel safe too.
What you can do to help protect yourself from husband abuse?
Try talking to your wife or partner first and seeking counseling. If this approach does not stop the abuse, then it is a good idea is to tape record the abuse in your home by taping the abuse on a small concealed pocket recorder and recording the incidents of abuse in your home when they happen. This includes abuse against the kids too. Quite often a woman who abuses her husband will abuse the children as well.
Unfortunately, most police officers will not believe you if you tell them that you are being threatened or physically abused and in fact you may be accused of making a nuance call to the police. A tape recording will give the evidence you need to verify that you are telling the truth and to help ensure that the police do their job right.
It is not advisable to leave your home as the woman can, in most cases, get a court order to keep you out of your home permanently. She will usually keep you from seeing your children as another form of control after you are separated. The abuser should be made to leave the home, not the victim.Unfortunately, there are few if any established places where men can go for help.
Although the government has provided millions of dollars to women?s shelters it does not provide men with even the most services when it comes to dealing with abuse. Men and caring people in the community are must contact their government representative and complain about the disgraceful lack of services for man.
Why do men stay with their abusive partners?
Our society makes it very difficult for men to leave women who abuse them. Many in society still refuse to believe that women, who are supposed to be the weaker sex can control or abuse a man. Many others believe that a man should be able to handle any woman.
A man generally remains in a relationship with an abusive women for reasons such as:
It is embarrassing to admit that a woman is abusive. After all men are supposed to be bigger and stronger.
Most men feel a duty and commitment to remain in their relationship. Studies show that it is men who strive to keep a relationship intact, not the woman.
Most men feel that children raised in a home with a father and mother is best for the children.
The woman promises to never be abusive again and begs him to believe her. Most men usually do.
Men feel most responsible for keeping the family together.
Men are aware of the bias in the courts and know that the court system will likely strip them of everything and give it to the woman.
Sex. Many women will use sex to control their partner by threatening to cut it off if they don?t get their way or to give it to lure a man back. Women hold the ultimate control when it comes to basic sexual needs.
There is just nowhere for men to go. There are no government funded shelters or support services for men.
Why do women abuse and batter their partners?
An abusive woman often wants to have power and control over her partner and the whole family including the children.
She may believe that she has the right to control her husband or partner.
She had learned that she can be abusive and nothing happens.
She may feel that she cannot handle the problems in her life.
She may feel powerless and abusing her partner is a form of power.
Our society must show that we will no longer turn our backs on violence, abuse and persecution against men
END
By VERNON SMALL
We are undereducated, underpaid, overweight, rough on our kids but basically happy.
That's the picture of New Zealanders painted by the latest report card on our social wellbeing.
The study, released yesterday by the Social Development Ministry, shows things in New Zealand have generally improved since the mid-1990s.
We rank in the top half of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for two-thirds of the indicators where data can be compared with other countries, and we rank fifth out of the 26 OECD countries on the complacency-ometer ? an overwhelming 80 per cent of us say we are satisfied with our lives.
Compared with the populace across the ditch, New Zealand has better rates of employment, less obesity, more women in Parliament and greater trust in others. But Australians have better incomes, tertiary education and adult literacy rates and they smoke less.
The report, the third in a series produced by the ministry, shows that compared with the OECD average New Zealand performs well on life expectancy, education, employment, trust in others and absence of corruption.
But we are in the bottom half of the OECD in per capita incomes (despite an improvement in the last three years), income inequality, rates of child deaths by maltreatment, youth suicide, obesity and literacy.
Voter turnout, housing affordability, income inequality and income levels have deteriorated since the 1980s.
But the ministry said the May Budget, and its "Working for families" package should have a positive impact on these indicators.
National's welfare spokeswoman Katherine Rich said the report card gave the country a C-plus and highlighted yet again areas of critical need. "For the sake of our children we cannot accept such a dismal pass mark."
In the year to June 2003, 31,781 care and protection notices were made to Child, Youth and Family, and 7361 children were assessed for being abused or neglected, she said.
"Our youth suicide rate remains the highest in the world for males and second highest for females."
Poor literacy rates and an average wage that lagged behind Australia provided real cause for concern. "You would expect an improvement in some of these indicators in the current economic environment," she said.
Green Party social services spokeswoman Sue Bradford said the report showed that the gap between the haves and have-nots was still widening. "It's all very well to have a strong economy but too many New Zealanders are being left out in the cold."
She called for an immediate rise of the minimum wage to $11 an hour, saying it was shameful that 10 per cent of New Zealanders live in overcrowded accommodation.
The report shows that the gaps between Maori and Pacific people and the rest of the population are closing. For instance Maori are outstripping everyone else in their participation rate in tertiary education, at 16 per cent against 10 per cent for the rest of the population.
The figures include training schemes and modern apprenticeships.
But the increased participation rate had not translated into higher educational attainment, with Maori and Pacific people improving on previous years but still lagging behind the rest of the population.
END
Hon_Rick_Barker:_Family_Law_Section_Executive_Committee_-_dinner_Rotorua
Family Law Section Executive Committee - dinner Rotorua
There is a real mood of willingness for the Family Court system to be brought into the 21st Century.
---------------------------------
There is a real mood of willingness for the Family Court system to be brought into the 21st Century. As family changes involve step parents and children, single parents and extended family - the role of the family court changes.
The government is listening to what practitioners envisage for the court.
We talk about wanting more openness, but at the same time we must be confident that families won't get caught up in a media circus and lose their privacy.
Generally for people to need a family court, things are not going so well in their lives, so everyone involved is dealing with many different emotions.
It is my job and the role of you all here tonight to make the rocky road as smooth as possible.
The government announced a $73 million budget package to improve the courts by injecting money into new technology, staffing and facilities.
I am just quickly going to read over some of the initiatives that are coming up:
Non-Judge Led Mediation
The government is investing in a pilot of non judge-led mediation that will run in the North Shore, Hamilton, Porirua and Christchurch Family Courts over 2005. The aim of this initiative is to test ways of assisting parties to resolve differences through providing faster access to mediation services. This pilot is part of the Government's response to the Law Commission's report Dispute Resolution in the Family Court.
Counselling for Couples
?? Presently couples' counselling is only available for heterosexual couples, both married and defacto.
?? But this could well change to include same sex couple because of a proposed amendment to the Care of Children Bill.
Family Court Website
?? I really enjoyed launching the revised Family Court Website the other week because the pages for children were just so chatty and unfrightening. It has pages that state the type of questions that a child might ask ie is it my fault, where will I live, do I have to like my parents friends?
?? It has great information about how to get to court and what a courtroom looks like, Access to Court forms and guidelines for their use
?? Some Depersonalised judgments of Family Court cases are also going up on the site but Judge Boshier (say bosha) will be able to talk more about that.
IT
?? I have just been visiting some Australian courts and was very impressed with the IT they are using to link up information between agencies and courts and would like to see some of that in use over here,
Media Access to the Family Court
?? As you all know, media are currently prohibited access to any Family Court Hearings. But recently the Select Committee has put forward recommendations under the Care of Children's Bill that will alter this in the following ways:
?? 'Accredited media' representatives be allowed to attend Family Court hearings;
?? and media would not be permitted to disclose the identity of involved parties.
Family Courts Matters Bill
?? Government has agreed to the development of a Family Courts Matter Bill this year.
?? There's been no decision yet on matters to be included in the Bill. However, there are a number of improvements which the Law Commission, in its report on Dispute Resolution in the Family Court, recommended which may be suitable, including the power for counsellors to recommend a next step in proceedings, extending audience rights at mediation conferences to wider family and whanau, and renaming mediation conferences a settlement conferences.
The government has at the core of its policy and investment the development of Strong Public Services' and it is putting the money where it's mouth is by investing in the courts.
I am also always open to hearing your thoughts and thank you for this invitation to dinner this evening and I look forward to chatting with many of you later.
Thank you.
Men Don't Tell
Men Don???t Tell Domestic abuse is a very serious problem, regardless of who is the victim. Abusive wives are not as common as abusive husband, but, they can be just as harmful. In the movie Men Don???t Tell, we see the true story of a man who was both physically and verbally abused by his wife. Lori, the wife, created a household filled with jealousy. She was unable to control her anger and began to abuse her husband Ed. The situation is a perfect example of the cycle of violence. Their problems start because of Lori???s jealousy towards those, besides her, who receive Ed???s attention. This jealous develops into anger that begin to cause fights between Lori and Ed. Lori hits Ed for the first after a party she has for his birthday. She apologizes but Ed tells her it???s not her fault and just dismisses it. Unfortunately situations like that continued to occur. Lori would hit Ed and then promise to change. The cycle repeated for the remainder of the time that Ed stayed with Lori. Ed does not tell anyone about Lori???s abuse. Instead he makes up stories to cover his obvious wounds. He does finally tell his story after the night things got completely out of control and Lori ended up in the hospital. However, even then he was reluctant to tell his story. The reason Ed kept his abuse a secret was out of fear that nobody would believe him. Once he does tell his story the police do not believe him. His own father tells him to say he was drunk and did not mean to hurt Lori. Because of the general belief that only men can be abusive, the actually victim in this story almost was the person the get in trouble for the battering. Both the ways Lori and Ed handled their problems could be a result of the abuse that was part of both of their lives as children. Lori, the abuser, was beat by her mother as a child. Through growing up this way, abuse was seen in her home as the common response to anger. Lori developed from the abused, as a child, into the abuser in her later life. Ed however was a constant witness to the abuse his father afflicted on his mother. His mother used to tell him not to say anything to anyone about the abuse. He was taught that it was not something you talk about which may have also contributed to the length of time he had stayed with Lori and also to his reason for keeping the abuse a secret. Unfortunately both of Lori and Ed???s children were witnesses to the abuse in their home. It could have the same effects on them in their adult life that it did on their parents. Ed does live Lori and takes the children with him, so hopefully that is enough to keep the children the right way to deal with an abusive partner. The abuse that was present in this story became out of control.. Ed finally stopped the repetitious cycle of violence that was occurring. He left and stopped the abuse. He told Lori that she did not help and that maybe after she got the appropriate help they could talk. Lori was emotionally ill and hopefully with the right kind of help was able to stop her abusive behavior. Unfortunately abuse does not just stop on its own. It only continues to get worse as the abuser begins to feel more powerful. Ed did the only thing possible to put a stop to Lori???s behavior; he left her. He got the self confidence to realize it was not he fault and that he did not deserve what she was doing to him. Thankfully he realized this before it was too late.
Bibliography
movie; Men Don't Tell
From http://www.maxim.org.nz/discuss/thread.php?topic=111.1
Subject: Marriage: an enduring institution
There's some good news on the marriage front. Statistics NZ says last year saw the greatest number of marriages since 1991 -- 21,420. That was 3.5 percent more than the previous year. The marriage rate has stayed stable for several years now, at 14 out of every 1,000 eligible not-marrieds. The figure is inflated somewhat, though, because more than one in three marriages are between people who have been married before.
While it's a positive indicator of the enduring preference for marriage (according to the 2001 Census, for every 100 people in a relationship, 80 were married), we have still fallen a long way since the peak in 1971, when 45 out of every 1,000 married.
Balanced against this are some sobering figures which show that between June 2001 and June 2003, sole-parent families with dependent children outgrew two-parent families, not only in percentage terms but in absolute numbers.
Lindsay Mitchell, a petitioner for a review of the DPB, says that according to the New Zealand Income Survey, produced by Statistics NZ, single-parent families grew by 12,600 or nine percent. Two-parent families grew by only 11,000 or three percent. "This trend is very bad news," says Mitchell. "When marriages fail or parents reject each other it is a cost to all of society. Children from one-parent families are more likely to live in poverty or be on welfare. They are more likely to exhibit negative outcomes."
END
From http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=15&art_id=ct20040409232620856K35135&set_id=1
McBride 'kidnapping' highlights custody wars
April 09 2004 at 11:26PM
By Lauren Mannering
Single parents who want to have custody of their children who are not living with them must go through legal channels to do so.
This is even so in situations when the children are allegedly being abused.
This has been highlighted by events this week when charges were laid against Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride for allegedly kidnapping his young daughter. It is alleged that McBride's actions were prompted by claims that the girl was not being well looked after.
'It is the natural thing to do, but you are failing to comply with a court order'
But what does the law say in cases where one parent alleges that another is abusing their child? A parent who wants to remove a child from an allegedly abusive partner or former partner must obtain a court order.
Ronnie Naidoo, spokesperson for the South African Police Services, said parents naturally want to intervene in situations where they feel that a custodian parent is not looking after the child properly.
"It is the natural thing to do, but you are failing to comply with a court order," he said this week.
"You can't take the law into your own hands," said Deanne Kahn of Werksmans Attorneys. There are certain procedures that have to be followed, she said.
The law differs in terms of married and unmarried parents.
'You can't take the law into your own hands'
In the eyes of the law, divorced and unmarried couples have different rights in regards to their interactions with their children. In cases of abuse both can act on behalf of the child provided they go through the correct procedures.
Married or divorced fathers have automatic rights, rights of custody, guardianship, and access as regards their children. In order to get their children out of an abusive situation they would have to apply for a court order to change the custody of the child, said Kahn.
According to Kahn, as the law currently stands, unmarried fathers have no rights in regards to their children and have to apply to the court for these rights in terms of the Natural Father of Children Born out of Wedlock Act.
Naomi Koutoulogeni, the assistant director in the social services department that deals with child-related issues, said that "the correct procedure would normally be to go to the child protection unit (CPU) at the nearest police station".
If they are convinced, the child will be taken away and an inquiry will be undertaken by the CPU.
Sipho Skosana, a family law consultant at the People's Family Law Clinic in Johannesburg, said that the parent without custody of the child "does not have a right, legally speaking, to take the child with him or her".
His advice to parents that find themselves in a similar situation is to "act swiftly. Go to the police ask for the CPU to intervene in the matter.
"Once it has been determined that the child is in an abusive situation and there is enough evidence to prove so, the child will be taken to a place of safety."
The child will remain "in a place of safety while the allegation is being investigated" and while custody is being determined.
"A place of safety could be an institution or a relative - anywhere away from the abuse," said Naidoo.
The parent can then apply for custody of the child, and, according to Skosana, "because of the abuse the court will recommend that the other parent be granted custody of the child".
END
Home Truths
By Greg Knight
The Weekend Sun, Tauranga, Bay Of Plenty, New Zealand
Friday 2 April 2004 Issue: 182
Opening of the Family Court
A couple of weeks I wrote an article about the New Zealand Family Court. It could not have been a more appropriate time to write about the public's dissatisfaction with this institution.
With the well publicised contempt of court charge against Nick Smith for releasing details of a family's case from his electorate, it is a stark reminder that the Family Court is not only very protective of it's own, but very protective of the way it operates and the way its decisions are made. This can be seen by the High Court ruling that Dr Smith had undermined public confidence in the Family Court. Yet the very nature of the Family Court and its secretive structure has in itself undermined public confidence. It is important that the public are well informed about such important decisions that effect our communities around us.
After 30 years of secrecy the public are starting to become aware of some of the unjust decisions that the Family Court has made over this period. It has been a slow painful experience for many people, especially the parents who feel they have been unjustly treated.
'Cattle market'
The president of the Law Commission has stated that the present court structure is at times little better than a "cattle market", carries a cost too - for the thousands of people who use it, voluntarily or involuntarily, in one way or another.
The restriction on parents being able to talk about their cases has meant that Judges have never been subjected to public scrutiny, or accountability for their decisions.
Nick Smith support
The public support of Dr Nick Smith has been clearly shown that New Zealanders believe that the Family Court should be open to public scrutiny, and that an MP and parents within a case should be allowed to raise failings with the Family Court and the people associated with it.
In one editorial of a leading newspaper, the opening line was " if our Courts system was any other kind of business, it would have been re-evaluated and overhauled well before now, such is it inadequacy". Although a travesty, it is encouraging to those who wish to see change, that an MP has seen first hand the Family Court in action, with the Court once again taking away the rights of the parents.
The time has come for the Family Court to be opened to public scrutiny and to carefully evaluate its procedures and practices. While the Court continues to hear cases behind closed doors, the public will struggle to maintain confidence in it.
Suggestions
If people cannot be allowed to judge for themselves that the Court is doing a good job as many of its supporters say, ( usually lawyers, psychologists and judges who benefit nicely with large monetary incentives ) then the Family Court will continue to be a mistrusted and unaccountable secret society.
The Law Commission's review that was presented to Parliament two weeks ago, contains many valuable suggestions, one of them being opening up of the Family Court so that the media can report proceedings, subject to restrictions on identifying parties.
What the Court or our politicians need to be careful of when making any new rules, is that Judges should not be allowed to unnecessarily suppress the media or the parties involved from reporting or discussing Family Court proceedings.
Public assessment
There is no doubt that if this Government were to take away the Family Court's shroud of secrecy, then it would give the public a proper opportunity to assess whether the Family Court is acting in an equitable and competent manner, as Act's social Welfare Spokesman, Muriel Newman has said "the demand for change would be immediate and profound. "
If this happens, it is likely that we will see a decline in the adversarial litigation between parents warring over custody and access, who will recognize that mediation and shared care arrangements are a better option.
END
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|