'Children Need Both a Mother and a Father'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710114,00.html
The World from Berlin
'Children Need Both a Mother and a Father'
A ruling by Germany's highest court on Tuesday should make it easier for unmarried fathers to secure joint custody of their children, after it judged a mother's veto to be unconstitutional. The German press welcomes the judgement, arguing it means the law will finally reflect social changes.
Unmarried fathers in Germany are now much more likely to secure joint custody of their children -- even against the wishes of the mothers. The country's Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday that mothers should not be allowed to veto an unmarried father's bid for custody, as this discriminated against his parental rights.
Up to now, if a separated couple had never married, fathers could only apply for any kind of custody with the express agreement of the mother. The court ruled that, while the mother can continue to be initially granted custody, the father should be allowed legal recourse to request custody. The judges said that until the necessary legislation is put in place, family courts should give joint custody when it is applied for, "as long as this is in the interest of the child."
The ruling came after a father challenged the fact that he had been denied custody of his son, who was born in 1998. It also followed a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2009 that German laws breached anti-discrimination laws and contravened a European directive on the right to sustain and respect family life.
Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser- Schnarrenberger, a member of the liberal Free Democrats, greeted the ruling and said that her ministry was already working on draft legislation.
However, there is not universal approval for the ruling from within the government's ranks. Dorothee Bär of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats, said that the "institution of marriage was being increasingly undermined." Speaking to the Munich-based newspaper TZ, she said that she was concerned that the only remaining advantage of marriage would be in terms of taxation.
On Wednesday the German press is largely enthusiastic about the ruling, arguing that it reflects the changing realities of family structures:
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"The constitutional court's decision on custody rights has put an end to an older, insensitive period of family law. More than 60 years after the German constitution came into effect, it has finally fulfilled its duty to put illegitimate children on an equal footing with other children. The judgement is a good example of the court's power to make the law adapt to changed family structures. Almost every third child (in Germany) is now born out of wedlock. The country's highest court is now trying, with much juristic finesse, to give these children the right to a father as well as a mother."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"The judges are calling for unmarried men to have the same chance of gaining custody as married men. Now politicians and the courts have to make sure that both groups can avail of this opportunity."
"First of all, a change in the law is required… Unmarried and married fathers should be automatically given custody rights to their children when they are born, rather than having to apply for it."
"And there has to be a change of culture on the family courts, so that the judgement is not just on paper but also works in practice."
"The reality is that the mother has long ceased to be the only important attachment figure in a child's life. However, in case law, her special position still endures. If parents cannot agree on joint custody, then the judge will in most cases choose the woman."
"Ideally there should be more cases where both ex-partners take care of the children. That usually benefits the child. And that, after all, is what really matters."
The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
"Why should married and unmarried fathers be treated differently? Fathers are all equally fathers, surely? But that is the crux of the matter. Not all fathers are the same."
"There are more and more fathers who take good and loving care of their children. The lawmakers are now seeing this reality. However, there are also fathers who look for custody only as a way of exercising power. They want to be regarded as a father legally, though they are long gone from the child's everyday life, or were never there to begin with. These are the fathers who do not pay enough, or any, child support. According to the statistics, they account for more than half."
"It would, therefore, be a good idea if the lawmakers were to create criteria that could be considered in negotiating custody rights and that actually describe caring for children: responsibility, a connection between the child and parent, empathy -- the basics that make parents into parents."
The conservative Die Welt writes:
"The judgement is a step in the right direction. Unmarried fathers will in future have a better chance of securing custody rights. However, to get this chance they have to still drag their ex-partner to court. This is not only an unnecessary burden on the courts, it is also a burden on the relationship between the parents, which provides the framework for any joint custody of a child."
"In cases where one parent justifiably wants sole custody, then there should be the possibility of legally securing that. But for the others it could be helpful after a painful separation not to be tempted to use the issue of custody in any power games."
"It would make sense to give both parents automatic custody rights when a child is born -- including if they are unmarried. At the same time, fathers must be prevented from suddenly ditching their responsibilities."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"It cannot be the case that the mother can block a father's custody of his child, and in doing so interfere with their relationship. The law cannot abet these kinds of power games that happen when relationships break down. This is about the welfare of the child. And family law is still infused with the spirit of the past, a different family reality. The new ruling is only reflecting the deep changes in society."
"Children need both a mother and a father. … Those who bring a child into the world together should share responsibility for it."
The mass circulation Bild writes:
"Fathers are not per se the worst parent and mothers are not automatically the best. Uncaring fathers and caring mothers -- these are clichés that since yesterday can be put where they belong: in the garbage can of prejudices."
"Of course the best thing is when a child lives with the father AND mother. As a proper family. But this ideal case is (unfortunately) not always reality."
"And if the parents split up, then there should be only one criteria for deciding who has custody: the wellbeing of the child."
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:
"One and a half million single parents live in Germany, a fifth of all families, and 90 percent of these households consist of mothers with their children."
"In the case of couples splitting up, fathers disappear amazingly quickly -- not just from the woman's life but from that of the children. Many not only don't like paying child support … they also don't turn up to parent-teacher meetings, they don't make the breakfast, they don't take care of the child when it's sick, or organize the shopping or the children's birthday parties, they don't make sure their kids get private lessons and only go every now and then with them to football training."
"Of course there are committed fathers who take care of the children and share responsibility. These men deserve custody."
"But for many, an automatic custody right would be undeserved and scandalous, because it would be damaging for the children."
-- Siobhán Dowling
How To Destroy Sanity, Morality, A Country And Your Family.
(An article, not for the brave, but the gutless)
Look up the word abnormal in a dictionary. This is something like what you will generally find:
abnormality - an abnormal physical condition resulting from defective genes or
developmental deficiencies or introduced external factors such as drugs, radiation etc.
abnormality - retardation sufficient to fall outside the normal range of intelligence
abnormality - marked strangeness as a consequence of being abnormal
abnormality - behaviour that breaches the rule or etiquette or custom or morality
Defective. Retarded. Strange. Perverse. Behaviour that falls outside of acceptable decency. Raoul Mote in the UK was recently hunted to his death for being all of those things. The pseudo mother and rent-a-dad that tortured and murdered Baby Peter are in jail now because they fall into the category of being sub-normal, but why are we putting these people in prison if we are a “progressive society” concerned with the rights of minorities? Surely child murderers and cop shooters are a minority too aren't they? Surely their rights are important in a “tolerant” society.
Think about this hypothetical situation and see how it makes you feel.
Imagine if all of your countries paedophiles got together and formed a social action group pressing for the “right” to be allowed to prey on children sexually. Let's say they called their group activities, “Happy.”
Consider how you would feel if they told you that they cannot help being what they are because they were born that way and it is genetic. How would you feel to be told by them that it is YOU that are abnormal because you both hate and fear these people for what they do and want to do to your children. A new word suddenly enters the common language to describe people like you. You are “peadophobic.” Under the definition of this newly invented word, you are now the abnormal one for objecting to having your children raped.
The paedophiles hold “Proud to be Happy rallies” and march through the streets dressed in bizarre costumes and exhibiting strange behaviour. Perhaps dressed in nappies (a diaper, if you are American) and carrying little children’s dolls. Singing loudly, songs that celebrate their “differences” or which decry their past treatment. Maybe they adopt a strange, artificial way of speaking and pepper their language with slang terms which they begin to push for you to adopt as normal language. Language which is obsessively sexual in nature and filled with innuendo and near-the-knuckle remarks. They form “Happy” police associations and press for the recruitment of more “Happy” policemen and women so that they can be better represented in the community and can “educate” other police officers into accepting them. “Happy” lawyers, judges and politicians come out of the closet and begin to press for changes in the law. Television personalities, politicians and journalists, always wanting to look “trendy” and “cutting edge” and “right on” and “left wing” begin to adopt the paedophiles slogans and support their call to be “recognised” as “normal members of a progressive and tolerant society.” Church leaders come out strongly against this idea but are shouted down. Made to look old fashioned and any teachings against this sick behaviour found in the Bible are ridiculed, twisted out of context and mocked. Anyone who objects is branded a “normal” and told to stop being perverse and twisted and just accept “Happiness” (paedophilia) as mainstream; but every time you use the words 'happy' or 'happiness' they leave a bad taste in your mouth no matter what the social manipulators say and you regret the passing of their original meanings.
You now no longer dare to shout after your children as they go off to school, “Have a great day and be happy.” You stop using the word altogether in its proper context because it gnaws at your mind and turns your stomach.
In the legislature of your country, the “progressive” ones sit down to invent laws making “paedophobia” illegal. Now YOU can go to jail if you dare to voice your objections to their perverse behaviour. You have become the abnormal one and the national print and electronic media pound you, daily, with programs designed to make you all feel incredibly guilty because paedophiles were jailed for their behaviour in the past. You are told you are “dinosaurs” if you disagree with paedophilia and their practice of raping children is spun to us as a beautiful thing that both the children and the adults involved enjoy. Cop shows are made to ridicule the old beliefs against “Happy” people. The United Nations and the EU have a drive to force all countries everywhere to accept “Happiness” and the raping of children old enough to give their consent (i.e. They can talk) as a fundamental human right. Adoption agencies are forced to allow children to be adopted by “Happy” parents. Schools are told to promote and teach paedophilia as a normal activity. Movies are made glorifying the “naive sexuality of children” as something wonderful to be exploited, made sacred and revered. Paedophile priests start demanding the right to be made Bishops in the Church and huge splits happen in the denominations.
Would you think the world had gone crazy?
You would be right if your answer is yes.
However, this has already been done to you, at least twice. The first time was over feminism and the second was over homosexuals. You have been lured away from normality and plunged into a weird, new, but false, “reality” that has had terrible consequences and is actually killing people and it has all happened to appease two groups that hate your guts. Worse still, you have bought into it and accepted the perverse as normal because you were too lazy to object and too browbeaten to get your arguments against this madness into some form of coherent shape. You have sacrificed all that is good and decent on the alters of spin, lies and insanity and it is killing everything that once glued your society and land together. You have sold your soul and the souls of your children to the devil and now you are reaping his rewards. Is that really what you wanted in order to look “progressive” and “tolerant.” Are “leaders” that promote these things really the kind of people you want taking moral decisions on your behalf?
You were sucked into supporting feminism and homosexuality because those promoting it changed and distorted the language they were using to describe it. The real motives of these groups was hidden from you while you were pounded with guilt and fear if you dared to disagree. This massively dangerous and Satanic attack against you and your family is no accident of history. It is a carefully planned and evil attack on your family, your society, your way of life, your spirit and your mind. Everything that is decent and good has been branded old fashioned and defunct and you are being sold a bill of goods that will rob you of your very humanity and already has to a frightening degree. A relatively tiny group of sick, perverted, amoral people are destroying everything that makes your country stable under the disguise of “progressive and tolerant political correctness.” They are wilfully and with huge malice, spreading this rot through your country and using the media, certain politicians and unthinking celebrities and a barrage of naked, black, psychological propaganda to do it. It is as if they were deliberately injecting your body with cancer cells in order to kill it.
They are sacrificing our marriages, our families, our fathers our mothers, our religion and the health and and futures of our children on the alter of rights (not responsibilities and morality but “rights”) so that a few homosexuals can get their sexual thrills and they are using false guilt and fear of prosecution for objecting to this sickness in order to do it.
Feminists and homosexuals have sworn to destroy the family, replacing it with their version of a “new family” because that is the only way they can get you and I to accept them. They hate the traditional family and everything it stands for because it excludes them. They are busy replacing normality with abnormality. Sanity with madness. Stability with chaos. Health with sickness. Manners with crass linguistic brutality. Decency with perversion and in the process they are destroying the lives of our nations children and parents and they could not give a damn because they hate all that YOU stand for and want for YOUR children if you are in any way decent.
It does not matter to these perverted people how many of our children die because their families have been destroyed and they end up on drugs, in gangs, or in prison. It does not matter to them that our children are failing in schools and being left out of the jobs market. It does not matter to them that fathers are killing themselves because they cannot see their children. It does not matter to them that again and again we are seeing children being abused in the home by single women who cannot cope with trying to work and bring up a family alone. Or because they are inviting an endless series of temporary rent-a-dads into their homes that they do not know and their kids are not safe with. Or that children like Baby Peter are being murdered by their selfish single mums and their live-in boyfriends. None of that matters as a long as this minority of perverts can kiss and hold hands in public and the feminists can seize power and dictate to us all how we must live according to their rules and not the rules we have spent thousands of years fighting for and establishing as normal.
This is what they mean by “tolerance” and “equality” but there is no tolerance, no mercy, no equality for their victims. We are being force fed a sick and twisted morality and told we are “right on” and “progressive” if we support the destruction of our children and families! All of this is happening so that a tiny minority can suck each others genitals and they call this society, built upon this perversion “civilized.” This is not civilization. This is the destruction of civilization.
If you have believed that feminism is about equality between the sexes you have believed the lie. Those words are smoke screens. Smoke and mirrors designed to obscure the real agenda. Feminism, like militant homosexuality is about the destruction of the family and decent, law abiding family life. Research it and look at what they have said about destroying the family and how they are going to do it. Don't take my word for it. Get off your lazy behind, connect to the Internet and start taking responsibility for the lives of your family, children and your country again. That is, if you still love those things.
If you are one of those who could not be bothered to think about these things when they were happening and you quickly trotted off to the polling booths with your mind switched off, to vote yet more of these sick people into power as quickly as you could, because you were missing your favourite soap opera or football match on the TV, then what we have now is your fault and the blood of our dead children is on your hands.
When you next ask, 'what is wrong with my country?' look in a mirror because the answer is YOU.
You are the one that failed to take a stand for decency and truth. It was you that kept quiet and did not want to put his or her head over the parapet in case the sickos took a shot at you. It was your cowardice that has led to this nightmare and it is only when you find the guts to fight for decency again that the rot can be stopped.
Do you have the guts to stand up for what is right?
If so, do it now because tomorrow is too late.
It is time for decent people everywhere in the world to take a long and careful stock of what really matters to them. Are you one of them?
George Rolph.
London.
Family First trying to save the Kiwi Family Unit
Dr Aric Sigman Melinda Tankard Reist IN THE MEDIA THIS WEEK UK pyschologist Dr Aric Sigman and Australian author and commentatorMelinda Tankard Reist are the keynote speakers at our Forum on the Familythis Friday 6th August.Here's a summary of their media coverage over the past 48 hours Soft parenting causes teen problems, says expert ONE News August 02, 2010 Modern parenting techniques are leading to a generation of "little emperors", according to controversial UK psychologist and author Dr Aric Sigman. Sigman told TV ONE's Breakfast programme parents need to stop trying to be their child's friend and set firm boundaries. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/harsh-criticism-modern-parenting-3681201 WATCH TVNZ Breakfast http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/author-criticises-modern-parenting-5-22-video-3680636 WATCH ONE News http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/modern-parents-bringing-up-little-emperors-1-42-video-3681992 LISTEN National Radio's Kathryn Ryan interviews Aric Sigmanhttp://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20100803-1005-Feature_guest_-_Aric_Sigman-048.mp3 Psychologist tackles 'spoilt generation' The Press 02/08/2010 Parents should mete out computer and television time as if it was as detrimental to their children's health as sugar, salt or saturated fats, an expert says. Psychologist Dr Aric Sigman, a fellow of the Britain's Royal Society of Medicine, has been brought to New Zealand by lobby group Family First. Sigman said a new breed of parents, who were afraid of confronting their children, had created a "spoilt generation" with a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/lifestyle/3980286/Psychologist-tackles-spoilt-generation LISTENDr Aric Sigman speaks on NZ's Radio Rhema regarding his book Screens 'damaging young brains' NZ Herald Aug 2, 2010 A psychologist who made his name on the evils of television is now warning against computers as well, saying they are bad for the brains of young children. Dr Aric Sigman, an American-born British psychologist who is in Auckland for a forum organised by Family First, says computers should not be used in schools by any children under 9. He says research shows that young children's social and educational development is retarded by screens of all kinds - "TV, educational TV, DVDs, computers, social networking, computer games. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1objectid=10662945 Sexualisation of girls makes them ill - author The Press 03/08/2010 Young girls are increasingly portrayed as sexually available and interested mini-adults, an Australian feminist says. Melinda Tankard Reist, editor of Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, said Western culture had developed a highly sexualised and homogonised view of females in the past decade. "A scary view about what women and girls are good for has developed; they are merely here to service the sexual satisfaction of men and if they don't succeed they're worthless," she said. "And we're now applying adult concepts to children: our culture is repackaging young girls as sexually interested and available." Tankard Reist is in New Zealand to address a Family First-hosted conference, The Forum on the Family, in Auckland on Friday. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3983393/Sexualisation-of-girls-makes-them-ill-author Feminist: Sex culture setting women back NZ Herald Aug 2, 2010 "Raunch culture" has set back women in Western societies more than 50 years, says a visiting Australian feminist. Melinda Tankard Reist, a founder of a group called Collective Shout which names and shames companies using sexual images of girls, says we are raising children in a "pornographic landscape". "I think we have gone backwards," she said. "Raunch culture has taken us back. It's an absolute tragedy. These were issues being raised by feminists in the 1950s and 60s." Ms Reist, a controversial figure in Australian feminism because of her opposition to abortion, will speak at a forum run by Christian-based lobby group Family First in Auckland this week. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1objectid=10662946 LISTEN Melinda Tankard Reist on National Radio's The Panel with Chris Trotter and Linley Boniface TV star plans brothel NZ Herald Aug 3, 2010 Former politician and high-profile broadcaster Pam Corkery has been linked to plans for New Zealand's first brothel for women. ....Australian feminist advocate Melinda Tankard Reist, who will be in Auckland this week to speak at a forum run by lobby group Family First, said she was disgusted with the idea of the sale of sex from men to women. Turning the tables did not make prostitution right or the situation any better for women, she said. "It's no great advancement for women's empowerment to say that we can now buy men for sex. It's no great sign of liberation. Prostitution from men for women is still about the trade in human bodies and human flesh ... just because it's men that's being sold doesn't make it any better. It's still very wrong." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1objectid=10663203 LAST CHANCE TOHEAR THEIR MESSAGE 'LIVE'! If you would like further information, or would like to register for the Forum on the Family, simply click on the image below. Registrations closeat midnight tonight
Kind regards Bob McCoskrie Host - Forum on the Family
The Awesome Power of Family Courts -- June 2010 Phyllis Schlafly Report
Unfortunately the Men's Rights Movement in Kiwiland does not have such a powerful writer like Phyllis Schlafly. The Family Court of New Zealand is a gravy train for so called professionals who claim to act in the child's best interests. These unscrupulous sods feed on the misery associated false allegations with meandering and heartbreaking litigation.The malicious lies made by a vindictive and vengeful maternal family go unchecked and the respondent to proceedings ( dad of children) has his life ruined unfairly by a callous - cruel Family Court! No wonder men forced into Family Court proceedings are killing themselves in ever increasing numbers. Hey Judge Boshier how do you sleep at night you cold bloodied alien prick!
The Awesome Power of Family Courts -- June 2010 Phyllis Schlafly Report
Tell John Key to stop 1080 killing our country!
| Hi d4j, Poison-laced pellets are being dropped from the air all over New Zealand. Why? The government is trying to control invasive pests. But they aren't the only ones suffering. Tell Prime Minister John Key to stop the poisoning.>> The poison, Compound 1080, has killed everything from dogs and birds--including the prized Kiwi--to deer, horses and sheep. It's time to stop this indiscriminate poisoning of New Zealand.>> The aerial drops are supposed to cut costs, but with the untargeted killing and poisoned water sources, the price is too high. Tell Prime Minister John Key to prohibit the use, production, sale, importation and exportation of Compound 1080.>>
|
|
System is failing our kids say dads
http://www.stuff.co.nz/
A group representing fathers is calling for a complete overhaul of the child support system because it fails to put the needs of children first.
"The system is too crude at the moment and encourages one parent to be a care parent and one to be a cash parent," Union of Fathers president Allan Harvey said. "That's not best for our children."Last month the Sunday Star-Times revealed that of the 176,500 people liable for child support, 121,500 were behind in their payments. Together they owed more than $560 million in unpaid child support and $1.2 billion in late payment penalties and interest.
The government has not ruled out making changes to the child support system, but has been waiting on a report from the auditor-general on child support debt levels before deciding what steps, if any, it will take to improve the way child support is collected.
That report was tabled in parliament on Thursday. It estimated child support debt and unpaid penalties would reach $7b by 2018 and most of it would never be collected.
Auditor-general Lyn Provost said while Inland Revenue was doing a good job managing child support payments, it needed to focus more on preventing debt piling up in the first place.
Revenue Minister Peter Dunne welcomed the report, saying the auditor-general had "hit the nail on the head on a number of issues and challenges around child support".
"The auditor-general has pointed out that the system can seem complicated, particularly when it comes into people's lives at a very stressful time as a relationship breaks down. I also agree with the report's comments on simplifying the information available to parents," Dunne said.
He was expecting a report from Inland Revenue officials shortly and that was likely to form the basis of a paper that he would in turn present to cabinet outlining recommended changes to the system.
Any changes cannot come soon enough for the men Harvey is working with, many of whom are involved in protracted disputes with their former partners over care arrangements for their children.
One dad, who was reluctant to speak publicly out of concern for his children, had custody of his two teenagers but his ex-partner was paying only $350 a month in child support despite earning more than $100,000 a year and having a new partner who earned more than $200,000. He was battling to get an extra $50 a month from her.
Another dad had shared custody of his two children, aged two and five, but was still expected to pay $1500 a month in child support even though the children lived with him every second week, during which he met their full costs.
"The system is fraught with problems and inequities," Harvey said.
"It is stuck back in this care versus cash parent model rather than a more dynamic model like the Family Court has moved to, where both parents have a continuing involvement in a child's life in terms of care and hopefully in terms of cash."
Child support reform advocate James Nicolle said the system was failing both parents and children.
"It's just not fair to anyone - I have seen case after case where people have been pushed to the wall by the amount of child support they have to pay.
"Systems like this don't work anywhere in the world. If you go to the UK, Australia, the United States, Europe . . any system that is based on a percentage of income of the parent results in massive debt. They don't just work - they're unsustainable," Nicolle said.
The government needed to move to a model based on shared parenting, where time spent with children and related costs were acknowledged and the expenses of raising a child were shared equally.
Unfortunately, he said, there seemed to be little political will to make such change.
"I suspect it has to do with the fact they see the child support debt and the huge dollar figure on their balance sheet and don't want to lose that potential revenue stream," said Nicolle.