4 ms·

It sounds like you’re supposed to sympathize with the mother in this article but you need to be careful, especially when a court system—- that is generally incr

It sounds like you’re supposed to sympathize with the mother in this article but you need to be careful, especially when a court system—- that is generally incredibly biased against the father— makes a ruling in his favor. I can think of plenty of scenarios in what’s described where the mother is incredibly manipulative and plays the victim card as soon as there are consequences.

walkhour 4y ago
It's inconceivable an article tackling these topics had examples that represented the norm, instead, it will have examples where the victim is what's generally perceived as the weakest side. It's really hard to get a grasp of the situation with the initial example, we'd need to know how often these situations happen. So these examples elicit many feelings but don't provide a lot of information.
throw93232 4y ago
I simply do not buy it. This is UK, the most gynocentric society in the world. It is almost unheard of system would take children away from mother with force, and gave them to father. Based on my experience from court battles, there is something not told. 》expert found her to have psychological issues 》Months later, she was allowed two hours of supervised contact once a fortnight.
EdwardDiego 4y ago
Yep, generally someone goes to the media in these situations, whether it be the mother or father, when they feel completely hard done by, when often, they've been told precisely what the issue is, and given time to resolve it, and just doubled down. And of course, what they present to the media and what the truth is, are both two very different things. I am close friends with Mr A in this "article", which happened after his ex-wife was told by a judge to stop trying to alienate the children from their father. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/10/52651/sisters-stage-online-protest-against-family-court https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/10/52651/sisters-stage-on... All the patients complaints referenced were made by his ex-wife, none were upheld. And even the way the reporter phrased things was amazing: > When approached for comment regarding Mr A’s case, the authority’s media spokesman confirmed he could no longer work in New Zealand It implies certain things, but in reality, he was no longer renewing his practising certificate in NZ (because he lived in Australia), but if he chose to, he could renew it any time he likes.

walkhour 4y ago

It's inconceivable an article tackling these topics had examples that represented the norm, instead, it will have examples where the victim is what's generally perceived as the weakest side. It's really hard to get a grasp of the situation with the initial example, we'd need to know how often these situations happen. So these examples elicit many feelings but don't provide a lot of information.

throw93232 4y ago

I simply do not buy it. This is UK, the most gynocentric society in the world. It is almost unheard of system would take children away from mother with force, and gave them to father. Based on my experience from court battles, there is something not told. 》expert found her to have psychological issues 》Months later, she was allowed two hours of supervised contact once a fortnight.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Yep, generally someone goes to the media in these situations, whether it be the mother or father, when they feel completely hard done by, when often, they've been told precisely what the issue is, and given time to resolve it, and just doubled down. And of course, what they present to the media and what the truth is, are both two very different things. I am close friends with Mr A in this "article", which happened after his ex-wife was told by a judge to stop trying to alienate the children from their father. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/10/52651/sisters-stage-online-protest-against-family-court https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/10/52651/sisters-stage-on... All the patients complaints referenced were made by his ex-wife, none were upheld. And even the way the reporter phrased things was amazing: > When approached for comment regarding Mr A’s case, the authority’s media spokesman confirmed he could no longer work in New Zealand It implies certain things, but in reality, he was no longer renewing his practising certificate in NZ (because he lived in Australia), but if he chose to, he could renew it any time he likes.