Baggage
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874415
I wrote to Ruth indirectly last year when the Owen Glenn Foundation announced its constituents, pointing out to Owen that he had quite possibly chosen the very epitome of baggage ridden and out dated thinking possible to head his commission. Rather than take advise from well researched International experts he relied on a writer of a Policy Paper bemoaning the week implementation of an Interventional Programme that even refused to first consider the merits of such a programme.
Now we see the "baggage agenda", by using the personal anecdote of escaping a violent relationship with a gun pointed at her head, Ruth confides to us her personal bias and actually by default her denial of her contribution to this very unfortunate situation.
Conventional Relationship Counselling looks at the dynamics of relationships and after exploring individual behaviours under stress also looks at some form of accountability to address and resolve the behaviours.
Normal people under normal circumstances don’t go round pointing guns at people’s heads. Even in her narrative Ruth acknowledges that there is a "violent" group distinct from the norm in this scenario. Professor Dutton in his work argues that this is the small percentage of DV that is truly violent, not in the realms of typical "jostling" , and is attributable mainly to Personality Disorders.
This situation Ruth describes is most likely a fit of Professor Dutton’s model. But Ruth persists in viewing all Domestic Incidents as a replay of her situation, which is probably no more than 2-4% of all so called DV events.
And so the baggage displayed is this, Ruth is still in denial many years later about the true nature of what happened to her, and is on her mission from "some higher calling" to stamp out any such occurrences again, but in a true blunt instrument fashion with no acknowledgement that the general population does not actually behave in the extreme that she experienced.
Supporting clauses such the "Bristol" convention is a very public display and, I believe, a misuse of her position at the Glenn Foundation which ostensibly is to research first and conclude later. I rather suspect that they are yet again rediscovering the oft researched and long proven observation that typical "DV" events are actually 50%-50% Gender distributed and thus can be classified as Gender Neutral, obviating the need for any special Interventional Programs, or enshrined Legal conventions and especially ones that are Dogmatically Gender based.
I have deliberately highlighted the "alleged" below because this is the ridiculously non-contestable trigger for many of the DV interventions invoked unilaterally in this country. It’s time to remove the reliance on hear say, unfounded "fear" , and manipulation, use of the children's safety as a weapon and a litany of other regretful behaviours that many people resort to in these circumstances, simply because they can. By basically ignoring evidence of a usual standard, which in effect is what the Bristol clause allows, sub standard evidence, many rights of the affected parties are overridden and abused by the Interventions. Ruth you should be allowing the "Law" in its well proven format to work and view the new legislation changes as an attempt to be "blind in justice" as it should be, not giving a short cut to personal vengeance which the Bristol clause permits at present.
Ruth I have asked you to reconsider your position on this issue and I do so again after your very public display of baggage....
Owen your concerns apply equally to Mothers OR Fathers in these times of stress and the current system is used, abused and manipulated by all. Its time to remove the Gender biased nonsence and this will only become more obvious since the passage of the so called "Gay Marriage" bill. Same sex relationships break down in exactly the same way as hetrosexual ones and the so called Violence is the same.
The best solution is to apply conventional Relationship Councelling early when families find themselves in times of stress.
To our chagrin our Conventional Councelling services have been depleted in favour of funding a faulty paradigm of Genger Based Interventions, that are both unproven and destructive.
NZ Herald Article Text for reference Purposes
The clauses require judges to consider a list of factors, such as the frequency of the violence, before approving unsupervised contact between the allegedly violent parent & child. Photo / Thinkstock
Sir Owen Glenn's inquiry into child abuse and domestic violence says more children may be abused if they are forced to have contact with violent parents under proposed family law changes.
Inquiry director Ruth Herbert has urged MPs in a submission to retain rules which ban unsupervised contact with the children by any parent alleged to have been violent towards them or their other parent.
The provisions, known as the "Bristol clauses", were passed after Wanganui man Alan Bristol killed his three children and himself following a bitter break-up with his wife, Christine, in 1994.
The clauses require judges to consider a list of factors, such as the nature and frequency of the violence, before approving unsupervised contact between the allegedly violent parent and the children.
Family law reforms, now before a select committee, would abolish the clauses on the grounds that they have been made redundant by later law changes requiring judges to protect children's safety.
The New Zealand Law Society, in another submission on the reforms, said the clauses had become "a blunt instrument which can sometimes have a disproportionately adverse effect on parent, child and family relationships".
But Ms Herbert, who fled from a violent relationship with "a loaded gun pointed at my head", said many women had told the Glenn inquiry they still felt unsafe under the current system, so it should not be weakened further.
"The Bristol clauses are one of the central tenets of family law.
"How is removing them going to improve the safety of the child?" she asked.
She said she found it staggering that the biggest reform in family law for 30 years was almost silent on the safety of women who suffered domestic violence, even though an initial consultation paper said 51 per cent of parents involved in Family Court care-of-children cases had parallel domestic violence proceedings.
"It's staggering that it is so silenced, so minimised, so normalised - it's just that they are emotional parents," she said.
"I've been through a break-up, and I've been through a domestic violence break-up, and I can tell you they are light years different. (A non-violent break-up) is very, very different from when you are leaving for fear of your life."
She is also concerned about a proposal that judges considering who should care for children may take into account parents who are "obstructive towards any person who has, or is seeking to have, a role in the upbringing of the child".
"We have received many examples of the Family Court classifying mothers as obstructive when they try and raise concerns about the safety of their children when in contact with abusive fathers," she said.
She also urged MPs to require comprehensive training of mediators and court staff in domestic violence and child abuse.
Glenn inquiry think-tank members are about to begin a round of visits to about 25 towns, starting in Tauranga, to seek input from people affected by domestic violence and child abuse.
Glenn's concerns
• Violent parents may get more contact with their children.
• Protective parents may lose care of children if they are seen as "obstructing" contact with the other parent.
• No provisions for training mediators and court staff about domestic violence.