Euthanasia

Looking at my poor fish, I can totally understand why people performed euthanasia.  I know it's considered 'murder' but it's actually merciful killing.  It's done out of love and compassion.

I look at my poor fish.  Fins disintegrating, one eye almost gone from the fungus but it is still alive. At least that's what I feel with its gills opening and closing.  It is not eating, has lost tremendous weight but a true fighter as it is still not dead.  I showed my dad on skype and my dad suggested that I should bury the fish.  Save the fish from all the pain and misery.  Unfortunately, I couldnt get myself to do it.  I still see a fish that has live in it...  but when I look at fish, I also feel so upset.  It is really suffering.

However this shed a new light on the Euthanasia.  I think the law and society is quite harsh on people who performed euthanasia.  I know it is wrong but the action behind that merciful killing is actually love.  It is very painful to see someone/something you love dying slowly especially when it reached an inevitable stage.  I mean, I wonder if fish can talk, will fish ask me to stop giving him treatment and let him go?  I have a tendency of clinging on to things and I do wonder is fish holding on because I keep talking to it and encouraging it to fight the disease.

A part of me wants to stop the water treatment so that fish can go peacefully and quickly but a part of me cannot do it.  I feel that I am being unfair if I let fish go without trying every possible way to keep it alive.  I do now wonder which is the lesser of the two evil?  Let it die peacefully or fight but see it suffer?

I know these are the questions that actually go through a person's mind before assisting in euthanasia.  It is a very hard and difficult decision.  We should try to put ourselves in their shoes before judging them.  In my case, it is just a fish and it is tearing my heart.  What more, if it is a human that we love so much?  So much that it hurts to see them in pain and suffering...

Sensible

Today is Christie Marceau's protest in front of the high court.  http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/13018212/bail-laws-protest-sparked-by-teens-death/  I hope the parents could convince the court to tighten their sentencing law... but as I have put it in my previous blog Reactive Law, it doesnt change the fact that Christie is dead.

My son is still very alive.  I just hope the law makers realised the flaw in this system before my son is permanently damaged - whether it is physically or psychologically.  As his mother, I am already drained out of energy.  My week seem to encompass packing his bag for him and then unpacking and it takes one day for him to get back to his usual routine.  Dealing with a clingy boy on Sunday morning and a very tired child is exhausting me mentally.  Not only I am exhausted and missing him, his fish must be missing him too!  Since this insane arrangement started, one of his fish is sick.  I wonder does fish misses his owner...

God, please help us out of this insane arrangement.  If I am feeling exhausted, the boy must be feeling confused and exhausted.

No Two People Are Alike

I am feeling so down and emotional today.  I know it stems from the exhaustion of my situation and every corner I turn, I hit a brick wall.  I wished that God can really send an angel to just 'save' us.  I think of the book my son got for me from the library one year ago - Not Without Her Son (Kay David).  The book felt like someone was writing my story but in a fictional way so of course it has a fictional ending where there is a knight in shinning armour to take her and her son away from the nightmare.  Why doesnt fictional ending happen in real life?  But quite the contrary.  I feel that no one truly really understand how I feel.  Everyone has their thoughts and comments as a third party.  I guess I cannot blame them.  They are not in my position and do not know how I truly feel.

As a mother, I guess I also could not comprehend other mother's feelings.  I feel very attached to my child therefore I cannot comprehend mothers that say that they need time off from their children, mothers that is OK leaving the children to stay at the babysitter overnight, or divorced mothers that actually is HAPPY to see their child living out of a knapsack on the basis it gives them time to do their own things.  Yes, I cannot fathom that but I respect that it is their decision and personality and do not see it as my place to offer my comments and thoughts.  But what hurts me is why my personal believe is not respected...

Everyone is different.  While some will say that my fight not to have my child living out of a knapsack is selfish, I  see the opposite.  I see that parents who have children but treat them as toys/commodity as selfish.  In fact, I find that so many people nowadays practice Love thyself first.   Well, it is God's word in Conversation of God - love yourself.

I am extremely critical and cynical in today's entry.  I just feel hurt and alone.  Even the catholic faith people have disappointed me.  I am going to use a friend's acronym NATO (No Action Talk Only) on how I feel about my situation.  Everyone has so much to offer in terms of 'talk' but no one has anything to offer in terms of 'action'.  The same with the church.  It's all about rules/ laws/ etc.

If I can be God a day, I will really tell everyone to please use their compassion and heart when weighing out a situation.  To stop being so rigid and judgmental.  This week I felt my faith was renewed when I had a conversation with my priest regarding laws and rules.  We spoke about IVF and how the catholic church is against it but as a person, if we were to use our judgment, it is essentially two loving people wanting to have their own flesh and blood.  It is not God's plan but if a couple has gone ahead to do it, who are we to condemn their action?   Is it not worse to ask them to abort?  So I thought I have met a priest who can think out of the 'box'.  However, when it comes to physically helping me, again he is bounded by laws of the church.

I dont know who make laws but Jesus' sure breaks them quite often.  He was pleased when Mary poured the expensive perfume and wipe it up with her hair while Judas grumbled.  Most people will be like Judas and see that as wastage!  Equally he was pleased Mary sat down to be with him rather than running around like a headless chicken like Martha.  He didnt mind befriending Zachaeus, the cheat.  He didnt mind the children disturbing him when he is trying to do his work.  I find that Jesus didnt mind being not in the in crowd but the focus nowadays is to be in the in crowd.  Think and act like the in crowd because it is normal.  Any behaviour out of that is considered weird, selfish, unacceptable.

I have no idea what I am babbling on today. I just know I dread the time when he will leave me for 2 nights.

Relocation

After the birth of our child, I got quite homesick and asked the husband to relocate with me.  I still remember after our short 1 month trip back when our child was 6 months old, I was so upset going through the customs in the airport.  While the husband (then, now ex) was rushing me through my food and tell me to hurry up, I was taking my time because I was so sad.  I remember saying it out loudly to him "You are returning to your home country where it is your familiar place while I am leaving my home country, my family and my familiar place".  Upon returning to NZ, I was clutching to my son and feeling so miserable.  After that, I have repeatedly asked my husband for relocation for at least until the child is older.  But it is always met with a simple answer " NO".  Being Asian, we were told to follow your husband...  If he says NO, it's a NO.  So I accepted that NO and asked not to return to the workforce because I really just want to be there for our son.  At least I thought that will be a compromise since he wont relocate and I find tremendous happiness just being with my son.  Unfortunately, it is a NO again and I am labelled being over possessive and protective of the child.  Soon after, the husband also walked out of the marriage.  


This time, I asked again to relocate but it was again a NO.  Stupidly, I still respect his decision and stayed on.  But as life gets harder when I have to move out of the family home, I thought I will do it legally and asked my lawyer to write to him a letter asking his permission to let me relocate.  Unexpected to me, his lawyer took the letter to the court and filed it saying that I had always wanted to return home and now with this letter, it is enough proof that I will kidnap our son out of the country.  


Honestly, what did I learn from this?  When I am married, we cannot relocate because I have to respect my husband's wishes and his business.  After separation, I cannot relocate because of the Law.  On top of that, because of the Non-Removal Order, I dont even have the freedom of travelling home for a holiday without getting the court's approval and paying a bond!  That would cost me a lot of money which I do not have.  So in short, I am stuck in this country for good or give up my son which I cannot do.  


On the topic of relocation, I was told that it is an expensive (over $20k) and long process with no guarantee because the best interest of the child is paramount.  Here again, I have an extensive research which says otherwise!

A "child's best interests" is NOT a "compelling reason" to micromanage childrearing in the absence of serious neglect or imminent physical harm of a degree that would warrant institution of dependency proceedings, and it is NOT a "compelling reason" to restrict a parent's freedom.

PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-ADJUSTMENT: The most well-adjusted group in this category were children who remained with their mothers whose fathers moved away.


GENERAL LIFE SATISFACTION: Children in the custody of their fathers scored lowest on general life satisfaction. Children of divorce whose fathers moved away and left them with their mothers were the most satisfied.\


HOSTILITY: Children who moved with their fathers, or who remained behind in the custody of their fathers had significantly more hostility than children in families in which neither divorced parent moved, or who either moved with their mothers or remained behind with their mothers.


However, the group of children who moved with their mothers or stayed with their mothers when their father moved still had less inner turmoil and distress than children who either moved with their fathers or stayed behind with their fathers when their mothers moved.


PERCEPTION OF PARENT AS "SUPPORTIVE": Children across all categories tended to perceive the parent they lived with as more supportive. However, in general over all categories, children had a higher opinion of their mothers.


"GLOBAL HEALTH": Children who moved away with their fathers reported significantly lower "global health" than children whose parents did not move, and also lower health than the remaining three groups.


Fairness requires us to take these adult interests seriously for three reasons. First, relocation doctrine should try to allocate fairly the personal hardships of divorce. Second, it should not exacerbate gender inequality. And third, it should not involve the law in unjust coercion. These conclusions do not provide simple solutions. But I will argue that they counsel against using conditional custody changes to deter relocation.


These laws tie women to the location of their marriage, which often was chosen by their husbands, and therefore often keeps them far from family. It also limits their mobility to seek better jobs or new relationships, either of which may be important to raise their standards of living.


As to children's interests, a large body of research suggests that children do well when their primary caregiver does well (both financially and in other ways). Until the harms of relocation are demonstrated with greater certainty, we should not put custodial parents and children at risk by limiting relocation for those who need it, either by coercive threats to change custody or by costly and time-consuming legal proceedings.

Quotes That Gives Me Strength...

I cringe whenever I think of holidays now.  I keep hearing the words 
"Which 2 days do you want?  The two days before Easter or after Easter?"
"Which 2 weeks of Christmas works for you?"  


Seriously, whenever I think of holidays, I feel like my son is being treated like a commodity.  Something that parents split!  It is so painful...  but these quotes keep me sane.  Keep me going that and letting me know I am not the insane one...

1)  "It was awful, just awful, being without my Mum and so far away from her. Even with a loving father, I felt like a huge piece of me was missing with out my Mother. I think all children feel the same way about their mothers (despite what the men's groups are trying to say)."

2)  Instead, it will simply say the courts should keep the idea of a meaningful relationship with an absentee father in mind when they make decisions about a childs future.

3)  Shared Parenting is hurting children. - Jennifer McIntosh


4)  In the best of these cases, the nonresidential parent remains welcome in and supportive of, the child's primary home, has remained "family", and the child feels free to spend time with that parent in the same way the child would remain free to visit with a relative across the street. But the child is not living in two disparate places at once, in two separate households (or families) at the same time.

5)  Joint Custody harms children, infant struggles.  Report from University news & Info

6)  If you look at the overwhelming number of divorced parents who have remained friends, you invariably will see that one of the parents has sole custody (or what amounts to sole custody), but the other isn't concerned about this in the least.

7)  McIntosh Study 2006 : Children whose emotional well-being was poorest at the end of the year were those living in shared care with the combined stressors of highly conflicted parents and poor maternal availability.

8)  Joint physical custody is logistically impractical and psychologically detrimental.

9)  "Joint custody awards do not improve the lot of children. In fact, most children in court-imposed joint custody (not just those with abusive fathers) do poorly and are more depressed and disturbed than children in sole custody, even when the parents genuinely choose joint custody. Furthermore, joint custody results in lower child support awards, which fathers are no more likely to pay than awards made when the mother has sole custody. Joint custody does not even result in the father spending any more time with his children."

10)  "There are many things wrong with this unthinking rush to joint custody, but the primary objection is that it changes the focus of custody away from the 'best interests of the child' to the best interests of the parents -- or, more precisely, to the best interests of the father."

11)  Joint custody *increases*, not decreases, covert resentment and conflict

12)  Psychological researchers who have expressed negative opinions about joint custody include, among others, Anna Freud and Judith Wallerstein. A major problem according to Wallerstein, is that the child lives life in a "no man's land." Having children routinely shift as a temporary resident between two households that have other permanent members who "really" live there full time presents a destructive outlook for a child, damaging of identity and self-esteem.

13)  It would be far better for the child to have one stable one-parent "intact" home and for the other parent to visit in a complementary way, than to create the conflict of competing "homes."

14)  Children need to know where home is, and what they get there or do not get there, they carry with them for the remainder of their lives.

15)  "The children in this study whose lives were governed by court orders or mediated parental arrangements all told me that they felt like second-class citizens who had lost the freedoms their peers took for granted. They say that as they grew older and craved independence, they had even less say, less control over their schedules and less power to determine when and where they could spend their time -- especially precious vacation time."

16)  While divorce hurts children, living with parents who continually wage embittered battles is even worse. Research shows that the children who suffer most are those whose parents divorce, and then carry on the battle for years. The courts have often believed that awarding joint custody would force parents to put aside their anger and cooperate for the sake of the children. However, often, the opposite occurs. The children become either the weapons or the trophies

17)  "...[C]hildren are people not houses. They looked forward to a time when they could stop living like nomads."

18)  According to Trinder's research, using the law to settle custody disputes usually makes matters worse for all concerned but she is clear that 'cutting children in half' is not the answer."

19)  Look what happened to joint custody. As a lifestyle, it just does not work. Its only arguable accomplishment probably is to ultimately send more children into the sole custody of their fathers than otherwise would occur.

19)  Fathers used joint custody as a means of taking children away from their mothers. - ABUSE!
It is used as a stepping stone where the real agenda is to position the father to remove custody of children from the mother down the road (often he cannot do that at the time of divorce because he has not established himself as an equivalent parent.

20) Children of divorce are having more problems -- assuming they are -- it's more likely to be because of the rise in popularity of the ridiculous, schizophrenic, and unstable co-parenting ideology, which in turn is increasing the absence of mothers from their children's lives, as well as increasing stressful, wasteful, and expensive years of "burgeoning custody litigation,"

21)  The reality of joint custody is not "sharing" and it's not "two homes." It's "no home."

22)  JOINT physical custody isn't about "sharing." It's about splitting the spoils (in this case, rendering children possessions) down the middle to "share" in the sense of halving.

The First Step to Success is Admitting Failure

New Zealand, while you claim that you are advance because you believe in equality, you are actually behind in your thinking.  Other countries in the world has come to terms that shared parenting is a result of a Father's Rights group and in the Interest of a Father and not in the interest of the child!  Other countries like UK and Australia is at least humble enough to accept that they have make a mistake and is making an effort to rectify it for the future of their younger generation.  United Kingdom (UK) has rejected the shared parenting policy in November 2011 (refer article below).

David Norgrove's Family Justice Review has rejected calls to give fathers equal rights to share custody of their children
By Tim Shipman Wednesday, 
Nov 02 2011 
[United Kingdom] Fathers hopes of securing equal rights over their children will be dashed tomorrow when a review of family law is published. Plans to give parents equal rights to share custody of their children in the event of a split have been rejected by the Family Justice Review, led by former civil servant and businessman David Norgrove. In a further blow to fathers rights campaigners, the Norgrove Report will also reject calls to enshrine in law the principle that children should have a meaningful relationship with both their mother and father. Instead, it will simply say the courts should keep the idea of a meaningful relationship with an absentee father in mind when they make decisions about a childs future. The report was rejected as a slap in the face for fathers last night and will undermine David Camerons claims that he would speak up for a strong family life. Sources familiar with the report said Mr Norgrove had rejected statutory protection for men because it waslikely to lead to lengthy legal battles to define a meaningful relationship. In his interim report earlier this year, Mr Norgrove concluded the state of the family courts was shocking and that disputes take far too long to resolve. He also rejected plans for parents to share custody 50-50 after seeing evidence that the system does not work in countries where it has operated such as Australia. A senior government source said: The panel found that shared custody on an equal footing led to lengthy delays in the courts which are not in the interests of the child.


Australia is still practicing the policy but judges with conscience have stepped down and opposed the policy.  


Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'
Matthew Fynes-Clinton 
November 09, 2008 11:00pm
LANDMARK laws that promote equal parenting time for separated couples are emotionally damaging children, according to lawyers and psychologists. Brisbane-based former Family Court judge Tim Carmody has branded the push towards shared parental responsibility and 50-50 parenting time "a failure".
He said the onus to apply equal shared parenting orders was part of the reason he resigned from the bench in July.
"It created a real crisis for me," Mr Carmody said. "I just couldn't keep doing it."
The orders appear to fly in the face of exceptions to the legislation, such as family violence or when equal time with parents is not "reasonably practicable". Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh said children in 50-50 care risked developing higher than average levels of sadness, anxiety, clinginess and other mental health problems.
She said equal-time parenting could be especially damaging for children under three.

The changes - introduced by the Howard government in 2006 to assuage concerns about absent fathers - mean both parents are legally bound to jointly attempt to make "major long-term decisions" about their children's care, welfare and development.
Fifty-fifty parenting time is not automatic. But when equal shared parental responsibility is imposed, Mr Carmody says the court is required to "favourably" consider a further order that a child spend equal time with each of the parents.
The amendments were flawed because highly conflicted former partners never co-operated on decisions, Mr Carmody said.
He called for a "non-presumptive best interest-based solution". "In most cases, (that) would be in a single principal place of residence (with children) spending more time with mothers than fathers," Mr Carmody said. "For most people (in the past), that worked. Even though dads didn't like it and grumbled about it, it worked even for them."


For the sake of our children, New Zealand law makers, please listen to your children.  Dont wait 10 years after every country has reformed their parenting policy to admit that "OK, now it's time for us to follow suit".  By then the damage is already done to our children.  There is already a trend amongst the youth with the increase crime rate and suicide rate!  We need more stable upbringing to bring better youth to the future.  

From a child's perspective

Those of you who read my blog will know that I am fighting for NO overnight stay but just take the child out for play, parks, lunch etc.  Somehow today, someone sent me the link to Liz Library which I have posted some of the facts/studies.  But I just came across this.  Reading this got me crying. I feel exactly like this child if I have to be subjected to such a lifestyle.  I was sort of in this arrangement of living as a kid and it affected me even though it is not a divorce.  I do hope all man out there will read this and advice your other divorced men friends...

A child's perspective of shared parenting:
"I will NEVER forgive"

"I am the result of shared parenting. It was enforced because my parents were told it was the normal arrangement when they divorced when I was 12.

I spent every second weekend (far from the disgusting 50/50 arrangements some poor children are forced into) travelling for three hours around trip to spend time with my Dad.

"I am left with an anxiety disorder and I will NEVER forgive my father for pushing his desire to see me over my need for consistency and a normal life.

"I was never able to make "best" friends because I was never around! With one week on and one weekend off I could never be counted on by my friends. Sleepovers were impossible. I travelled for hours to see my father, away from my extra curricular activities while his life barely changed at all. I missed hours and hours of ballet lessons, outings with friends, church and so on.

"All this was done after a violence free relationship and fairly amicable split by my parents. The fathers in Australia can look forward to their children HATING them for what they've done.

"Good on you Mens' groups. By the way, do they think their daughters are going to be proud of the fact their fathers ignored basic evolutionary science (that children need their mother and that mothers are chemically wired to be the most empathetic and self sacrificing parent) to get his own way?

"HAHAHAHAHA.

"My father recently expressed sadness that we were forced into such a contact arrangement. I appreciate that he loves me and did what he thought was best but we both agree that it was the wrong way to handle the situation. You know what I would have loved? Visits! My dad coming to me! I would have loved him visiting me, picking me up and taking me shopping, or to the park, or out for lunch, or to the museum and me not having to miss what all my friends were having (a consistent childhood) in order to spend time with him.

"It was awful, just awful, being without my Mum and so far away from her. Even with a loving father, I felt like a huge piece of me was missing with out my Mother. I think all children feel the same way about their mothers (despite what the men's groups are trying to say).

"PLEASE! Listen to the children! Please!"

---

Read more at http://www.singlemotherforum.com/

Joint Custody is Not Two Homes. It's No Home

Very well drawn cartoon - as a mother this cartoon is not funny.  It's painful if you see your child doing that. (p/s the link doesnt take you to the page so I am cutting and pasting it here) 

JOINT custody isn't about "sharing."  It's about rendering children possessions and splitting them down the middle to "share" in the sense of halving.

It's about operating separate automonous households that do NOT have to confer, because EACH can do whatever the heck it wants to, consistent or not, approved by the other parent or not.  

Joint custody is not two homes. It's NO home. Children are entitled to the stability and security of having a real home.

Living out of a knapsack is SO SELFISH.  Thank you to those who support and research on this SELFISH attitude. 


Embargoed until 00:01 hrs Wednesday 3rd May 2006

When couples break up, future contact with their children should be measured in terms of quality, not quantity, according to a new booklet 'Private arrangements for contact with children', published by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

We need to focus more on relationships and less on the quantity of contact when considering the quality of young people's family lives, say its co-authors, Dr Fran Wasoff, of the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Bren Neale, of the University of Leeds.

The booklet was produced to accompany a special seminar organised in Edinburgh on May 3 for the Scottish Executive, examining the effects of privately-agreed child-contact deals made by parting parents.

In Scotland since 1995, under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, parents have had responsibility for ensuring contact, even after separation or divorce when this is in the best interest of the child.

On the whole, says Dr Wasoff, evidence from other countries suggests that both resident and non-resident parents find private arrangements satisfactory, in contrast to high levels of conflict in cases involving the courts. However, she argues that to understand these arrangements properly, it is important to have a picture of the different patterns of contact. This is information available for some other countries, though not currently for Scotland.

Looking for lessons from abroad, she says that while the statutory framework in Australia is broadly similar to Scotland's, new ways of supporting post-separation contact are being developed. A network of 65 community-based government-funded Family Relationship Centres will begin in July 2006, as a single entry point to the family law and support system to foster more use of private arrangements for parent-child contact.

Australian parents are encouraged to develop parenting plans and try to resolve contact and residence issues privately, perhaps with the help of family services, who are to receive enhanced funding. However, where cases go to court, there is also an aim to make proceedings themselves less adversarial and likely to exacerbate conflict.

Meanwhile over here, according to Dr Neale, private arrangements can work well when based on consensus and good quality relationships, when the needs of the children are a priority, and the arrangement is viewed flexibly so that it can begin to break down naturally as young people assume control of their own time and space.

But, she says, they do not work effectively when based on unresolved tensions and poor quality relationships - where the needs of parents are put first, and when they are inflexible and rigidly enforced so as to prevent young people from gradually assuming control of their time and space.

Drawing on first-hand testimonies from the children of separated parents, Dr Neale says that in some cases arrangements for sharing time between the homes of Mum and Dad can be the product of insecure and over needy parenting, and a rather uneasy compromise between parents over rights to the children.

And she argues that if we are to focus on the best interests of the child, we have to attend to their citizenship as well as their welfare.

Dr Neale said: "Once children are recognised, we can start to listen to them and respect their ways of defining their needs, rights and interests, and find ways to include them in discussion and decision-making. This will mean adults no longer making all the decisions for children, but supporting them as they begin to take responsibility for shaping their own lives."

---

For further information or a copy of the report, contact:

* Amanda Williams at the ESRC on 01793 413126; e-mail: amanda.williams@esrc.ac.uk

For further details only, contact:

* Dr Fran Wasoff on 0131 650 3922; e-mail: Fran.Wasoff@ed.ac.uk * Dr Bren Neale, on 0113 343 4813; e-mail: b.neale@leeds.ac.uk

---

Notes for editors

1. 'Private arrangements for contact with children' is published by the ESRC to accompany a seminar on May 3, 2006 in Edinburgh - the first in a series to be organised by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Scottish Executive on key policy issues. Speakers are Dr Fran Wasoff, Reader in Social Policy, School of Social and Political Studies, and Co-Director, Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, at the University of Edinburgh; and Dr Bren Neale, Reader in Child and Family Research at the School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds. 2. The event is part of the Public Policy Seminar series, which directly addresses key issues faced by ESRC's key stakeholders in government, politics, the media, and the private and voluntary sectors. The next to be organised with the Scottish Executive will examine how to reduce re-offending in Scotland. 3. The Scottish Executive is the devolved government for Scotland. Established in 1999, it is responsible for most of the issues of day-to-day concern to the people of Scotland, including health, education, justice, rural affairs, and transport. It manages an annual budget of more than £27 billion in the financial year 2005-2006, which is due to rise to over £30 billion in 2007-2008. http://www.scotland.gov.uk 4. The ESRC is the UK's largest funding agency for research and postgraduate training relating to social and economic issues. It provides independent, high quality, relevant research to business, the public sector and Government. The ESRC total expenditure in 2005/6 is £135million. At any time, the ESRC supports more than 4,000 researchers and postgraduate students in academic institutions and research policy institutes. More at http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk 5. ESRC Society Today offers free access to a broad range of social science research and presents it in a way that makes it easy to navigate and saves users valuable time. As well as bringing together all ESRC-funded research (formerly accessible via the Regard website) and key online resources such as the Social Science Information Gateway and the UK Data Archive, non-ESRC resources are included, for example the Office for National Statistics. The portal provides access to early findings and research summaries, as well as full texts and original datasets through integrated search facilities. More at http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk

Our Research

ESRC Society Today contains a database of ESRC funded awards, and replaces the Regard service previously available at ILRT Bristol. This database, can be accessed either by browsing through "Our Research", or through the (advanced) search functionality available at the top of this page, and provides a key source of information on ESRC Social Science Research awards and all associated publications and products.

JOINT CUSTODY DOES NOT WORK 
(or maybe the road to hell isn't paved with such good intentions.)   

The URL for this webpage is http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/joint-custody-does-not-work.html

parallel parenting shared custody parenting plans
RESEARCH CITES HERE bauserman 5/5/3/3 shared parental responsibility joint custody research

---

Joint Custody Just Does Not Work. Research from the California Judicial Council, 2000. Look at the findings; ignore the "spin." This study was done ostensibly to look at the results of mediated "parenting plans."
Look what happened to joint custody. As a lifestyle, it just does not work. Its only arguable accomplishment probably is to ultimately send more children into the sole custody of their fathers than otherwise would occur. (A primary reason fathers' rights groups push for it.)
However, it's unlikely that any group, children, mothers, or fathers, benefits from this phenomenon -- other than, of course, custody mediators, evaluators, and parenting coordinators, who make more money the more problematic and unworkable a "parenting plan" is. See "The Agenda Behind the Rhetoric." Most fathers who weren't the primary parents during their marriages eventually (if not immediately) palm off the primary parenting ontostepmothers and others. And in the long run, while it saves on paying child support (a psychic reward for the bread-winning father), it rarely costs less to have custody of a child than to pay child support. Mothers who initially were stay-home parents or merely their children's primary caregivers, and/or the dependent spouse, suffer long-term detriment, both economic and emotional. Most of all, the children themselves, who most likely did not need this in order to have a "relationship" with their fathers, just don't do well from repeated changes in household/family composition, and from the lack of stability.
Read the research, here, and here, and here.
Below, a graph from the California Judicial Council study. Does joint custody work well? Do families like it? Is it stable?

The above graph shows what happened to 1032 children's custody over a five-year period in California. Joint custody diminished for all age groups, and nearly disappeared as children entered their teens (and expressed some opinions?). But also look at what happened over the same period of time to father sole custody. Fathers used joint custody as a means of taking children away from their mothers.
While more of the older children who left joint custody went to live with their mothers, a significant lesser portion did go with their fathers. And look at the fathers' glom of custody of the younger children. According to the study (which really wasn't about "this" issue), joint custody also caused a higher number of subsequent household changes and instability for many of the children placed into it. Joint custody theory however, even when very young children commenced in sole mother custody, arguably resulted in far more children ending up in the sole custody of their fathers than would reasonably be expected -- or reasonably would approximate that parent's share of the childcare and homemaking in "intact" two-parent homes. It is used as a stepping stone where the real agenda is to position the father to remove custody of children from the mother down the road (often he cannot do that at the time of divorce because he has not established himself as an equivalent parent. Of course, at that later date, if he's remarried, he gets credited with the stepmothers' caregiving.)
So much for the specious pablum by the "bi-nuclear" rhetoric set about "sharing" and "co-parenting." (In 2005 there was a far higher percentage of initial joint custody awards than in 1991. Note to noncustodial mothers who in desperation now support joint custody: you're supporting the most likely reason that today you are a noncustodial parent.)
Interesting how as the anti-divorce set decries its perceptions of increasing problems among children of divorce, it usually attributes the problem to the myth that divorce rates are "increasing" -- they aren't, and haven't for more than a generation now, so this hypothesis fails utterly. Reality check: regardless of whether or not divorce is bad for children (and I think it is, in the abstract), if problems are increasing among children of divorce, that simply cannot be from any correlation with divorce rates. It may well be because both the anti-divorce and normalize divorce proponents ignorantly or deliberately equate "children's divorce-related problems" with "father absence." All the focus is on this hopeful and completely unproved factor as a necessity for child well-being. All the focus is on the most absurd minutiae that in the main means little. There is not even a suggestion that if, as a demographic group, children of divorce are having more problems -- assuming they are -- it's more likely to be because of the rise in popularity of the ridiculous, schizophrenic, and unstable co-parenting ideology, which in turn is increasing the absence of mothers from their children's lives, as well as increasing stressful, wasteful, and expensive years of "burgeoning custody litigation," including the endless talkety talk-talk meddling with families by those who make their money doing "therapeutic jurisprudence."
More commentary from Australia:
Trapped in the middle - Gender/Australia/Shared Parenting/Children/Research
Below, the reality of joint custody is not "sharing" and it's not "two homes." It's "no home."

---

The following factors are the only ones that consistently have been related to positive child adjustment post divorce and are consistent with the findings of all relevant research:
1. Positive "custodial parent" adjustment (i.e. maternal adjustment -- most "custodial parents" in the research were not androgynous parent units but mothers), which is associated with effective parenting;
2. A positive relationship between the "custodial parent" (i.e. mother) and child; and
3. A low level of conflict between parents (more likely when post-divorce parenting arrangements mirror the patterns set in the family prior to the divorce.)
See Marion Gindes, The Psychological Effects of Relocation for Children of Divorce, AAML Journal, Vol. 15 (1998), pp. 144-145
The following factors are the only ones that consistently have been related to positive effects of father involvement, and are consistent with the findings of all relevant research:
1. How the child perceives the father to feel about the child (which is not related to how much time he spends with the child, and not necessarily related to how the child feels about him, a factor that is comparatively insignificant vis a vis the child's well-being); and
2. A father who emotionally cares for, financially supports, respects, is involved with, takes some of the work load off of, and generally makes life easier, happier and less stressful for... his children's mother.




How long more are we to subject our child to such instability!!! It's my son.  Not just another child, not just another toy!  Please someone, please wake up and do something before my son suffers.

Flies, My Life

With the summer weather, I have been battling with flies in the house!  This fly situation in my house makes me think of my life, the way it is now.  I am so annoyed with the flies inside my house, I spend time trying to shoo them out. I try my best not to swap them as I feel guilty killing them.  It's like an endless vicious cycle.  I open the windows to get some breeze, fly comes in, I shoo it out, close the window and then it comes in again when I open the window.  


To many other people, I am asking for this endless vicious cycle. I could just swap them and they are dead!  Yeah, I guess I could but I feel guilty.  When I do swap them, I pick them up and put them in a tissue and wrap them up with dignity. 


So maybe it is my personality that is resulting my life to be this endless battle with family court and endless hurt by the ex-husband.  I am not strong enough to swap the trouble away.  


Another alternative is to install fly screens all around the windows and doors.  So I guess for my personality, prevention is the only way I can protect my child and my heart.  But how do I prevent it?  I wish there is a solution as simple as just installing fly screens around the house.  


I guess while most people look forward to weekends, I dread the weekends.  I dread it because I dont get to see my child when weekend comes along.  So today's blog is a nonsense blog except to someone who is empathetic.  Then they know the turmoil in me. The anger but not allowed to show because it is wrong to show your anger in this modern pretentious world.  The hurt and the tears but yet again, not allowed to cry because then you are considered unstable and not normal or wallowing in self pity.  


There is no more outlet in this fake world.  Either you pretend to be what others want you to be and accept their decision or you are considered abnormal, unstable, etc... and the Law is not about being righteous but a 'blind follow' of some written text by somebody.  

Dragon? Dog? - Perception & Personality

My mum sent me this photo taken by my uncle.  She said my uncle felt blessed that he saw a dragon on the first day of Chinese New Year.  My mum sent it saying how lucky of my uncle.  Need to buy numbers.  As for me, since my mum says it is a dragon, I try to see a dragon but my initial thought was A Dog!  And a dog that is running too.  But of course, if I force myself to see a dragon, I can convince myself, I can see a dragon.  


The next morning, I asked my son what can he see.  He says A Dog, Mama!  When I asked him what is the dog doing?  He said the dog is running.  


Now, that got me thinking.  My mum's personality is to agree and she says she sees a dragon because my uncle said that it is a dragon.  She does not question and even if she thinks differently, she convinces herself it is dragon.  


As for me, I think I see the world like a child.  I see a dog and take it as it is.  Just because my mother and my uncle sees it as a dragon, I dont have to force myself to see it the same way.  My personality is simple and straightforward.  Say what I feel and act how I feel.  I guess just like a child.  


This does not indicate my son and I share the same thinking.  It just shows I see the world from a child's perspective.  Everything is either black or white... the grey area confuses me just like uncertainty confuses a child...  I get hurt easily...I guess I am also quite anti-establishment (like a child!)  

Dragon? Dog? Or something else?

The Vow

My friend  me out to watch The Vow as a way to cheer me up.  It is a sweet romantic comedy but as my mind is not in the right frame, I couldnt get myself to laugh.  Instead it affirms what I feel about my first article Love is A Decision (here). 


The Vow is based on a true story and they showed the actual couple at the end of the movie.  It is about this woman Paige who was involved in a car accident and suffered brain trauma.  As a result, she suffers from memory loss and couldnt remember her husband.  Her husband has to start all over again in trying to get her to love him...


My perception is, if love is really a feeling instead of a conscious decision, she would still have the feelings she felt for her husband as she did not lose her sense of feelings!  She lost her memory for the past 5 years, those years that she met and married her husband.  So it means when she lost that memory, she lost the conscious decision she make when she decided to fall in love with him and commit to him.  


So when someone walks out in a divorce, it is a conscious decision to walk out.  It is not because he has lost the feeling.  He make the conscious decision to walk out and away.  The conscious decision to hurt and destroy.  And of course, how could I not 'curse' the law since it is eating me alive!  The law then allows this conscious  decision to take place and protect that decision to hurt and destroy by allowing it to happen to the child.  Why is it considered a bad father to physically abuse the child but it is considered an acceptable behavior to mentally abuse the child and the mother?  


Just for argument sake, if someone who asked for divorce suddenly suffers from a brain trauma and forget everything except back to the days when everything is a bed of roses, what happens?...

Reactive Law

I came home from church today and saw this pamphlet in my mailbox.  It was a personal appeal to launch Christie's Law by Sensible Sentencing Trust after the murder of Christie last year.  Christie lives on the road parallel to the road I live in.  I remember on the morning Christie was murdered, I heard lots of sirens and didnt think much about it until I saw in the North Shore Times, the story of her murder.  Here is a link to her murder story.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5940887/Family-hold-on-to-memories-of-Christie-Marceau

My reaction to this pamphlet - a good move and hopefully it can change the law but to Christie's parents, siblings and boyfriend, Christie is already dead.  No matter what we do now, the fact that Christie was murdered will not change.  

But what affected me is the way the law works.  Despite constant complains and facts indicating that there is a major flaw in the law, nothing is done or it is conveniently ignored until something happens.  But that usually mean it is too late for the people involved.  

So far only the family law has been my constant daily struggle.  I have repeatedly told lawyers over and over again, presented mental health reports, psychologists reports that putting a toddler to live out of a knapsack can have quite a significant mental effect on the child.  But all I get is:

 

1)  These research articles/facts are from the USA.  Seriously, are children in the USA different from NZ?  People have realised that the so called Best Interest of the Child is not working, that's why a research has been undertaken!

2) The LAW requires the child to live out of a knapsack so it is OK.  We cannot be unfair to either parent.  

Honestly, the Law is man made but to be treated like it is a Bible and the veto decision over a parent's opinion seem very extreme and lack of discernment in the so called justice makers.  

So what happens now?  The law changed 15 years back to remove custody and expect equal share of the child and child living out of a knapsack.  Then flashforward 10 years, these children all grown up and then there is a significant rise of mental health amongst the youth and youth suicide.  But to change the law is a long tedious process so the 'people' of power/ law makers just ignore the issue and pretend that it is unrelated.  Maybe then one day,  an outspoken psychologist comes along and make sure that his findings/views are heard.  But what does that mean to my child?  Too late.  He has already suffered the psychological and mental damage.  

Look at Christie's killer, Akshay Chand.  Only 18 and what triggered in him to murder?  His life is over, he is hated by Christie's family and friends while his family and friends feel hurt and sorry and try to put the blame on someone/something.  It's human nature to just want to blame someone or something.  Maybe blame the law?  Maybe blame the racism?  They can continue blaming and and the LAW can continue shirking responsibility but in the end it is the people affected that gets hurt.  

It is my son's future that I am fighting for.  I do not want him to be another statistic.  It's time the law makers be a bit more proactive rather than reactive.  Dont wait for something to happen, another teen murderer due to mental health, another dead teen before you go in depth and realised it is the law that enables all this to happen.  

If there is more repercussion in the law, whether it is murder or divorce, people are less likely to commit the wrongdoings.  A simple cause and effect rule that works in all aspect of life.  

I Miss My Son

Its almost midnight and I can't stop thinking about my son. We have never been apart this long. I hate this stupid, idiotic law. HATE it!

Being Asian...Being Catholic

Last night, I felt that beside physically losing my son, I am also losing him as in losing him completely.  I hear stories and from my on observation, I can see that this is inevitable.


I hear stories of divorced children from mixed cultural marriage as they grow up start denouncing their Asian heritage.  It is the same story whether it is the mother that is Asian or the father that is Asian.  The Asian parent 'loses' out in a western country.  Somehow being Asian is considered 'un-cool'.  And in a divorced situation where the child have a choice, the choice is to be cool which is being NOT an Asian or have any association with it.  


In my case, I am a double 'un-cool' because I am also a Catholic.  That is SUPERBLY un-cool - Catholic and Asian in a modern westernised county.  


I try speaking to my son in Chinese but he has no interest to learn it, I take him to a Chinese community playgroup and he didnt want to attend after the first class...  This is just the beginning of indirectly denouncing his Asian heritage.  With the non-removal order in place, it is definitely inevitable by teenage years, he would completely denounce his Asian heritage and will not be surprised denouncing his Catholic upbringing too... 


I blame the law for this although readers and people out there can say it is up to me how much I want to influence him in his Asian heritage.  Sorry, they are wrong.  When he goes to school, it will be his peers and fitting in that matters.  It's not so much the parent anymore.  Especially in my case, where he does have a choice between living a complete Kiwi lifestyle which is carefree and loose or a strict cultured Asian Catholic upbringing.  


Silly jokes like this shows that people do not realise and respect the Asian culture though the joke is meant in a well mannered way -  "He might not denounce you because you are Hot.  He can show off to his friends how Hot his mother is."  I am his mother and I want him to be proud of me because I am his Mother, his Asian mother, not because I look young and petite.  


What is so humiliating being an Asian?  I have met Asians that grow up in this country that says I am as much Asian as I look.  The rest of me is Kiwi. I dont practice any Asian culture and have no interest in any Asian culture.  Why is that?  What is so embarrassing about the Asian culture/food?  

A system so flawed, a system of oppression

D-day hurt me to the core.  I am going to fight the flawed oppressive system in NZ all by myself as someone who is more traditional in my believes.  


1)  Convenience in Getting a Divorce and Protection
1 out of 3 marriages in NZ ends up in a divorce.  Why isnt this ringing alarm bells in NZ?  Because you can obtain a divorce so easily with zero to non repercussion.  Why?  Because in NZ if you throw a stone and if it lands on someone head, I bet you that person has a Family Trust.  Almost everyone has a Trust even little kids! With protection from a Trust, people are less willing to 'make it work'.  It's so easy to set up a Trust and as long as you set it up before having proof of a serious relationship with the other party.  Simple scenario - You meet someone and kissed her and maybe have sex with her (sex is so random and free in NZ!), then you go "uh huh, I'd better quickly set up a Trust in case things get serious or she gets pregnant!".  That's it, you are now protected in terms of your assets and property.  So now, with a more relax attitude, you freely have sex and then she asked for commitment, you say OK but what is commitment? It's just standing in front of a bunch of people saying the same words that your forefathers said but now those words carry no depth - "till death do us part, in sickness and in health".  It's just words to utter to make everyone happy.  When the going gets tough, OK, time to get the hell out of there. Get a lawyer, sort out the relationship property which luckily most of it is in Trust and move on.  So simple.  


If there is a child involved, that is the beauty of a Trust.  Manipulate your Trust to provide yourself a lower income so that you pay lower child support.  Or go fight for 50/50 custody so that you dont even have to pay for child support!  How beautiful is that to be a man in NZ?  As for the woman/ex-wife that is left behind, "OK, you are out of my responsibility now.  Bye bye!"


Changes That Should be Looked At
Well I am sure we cannot abolish Family Trust because many men/women out there will complain that there are women/men out there who are vultures and just marry and divorce to get money. OK, I agree that these vultures exist so I have no comments regarding Family Trust.  It should stay the way it is.  


But we can change the divorcing rules to make it harder and people feel more committed to make it work.  For example Malaysia and Singapore, if you divorce your wife, you have to pay her maintenance until she dies or re-marries!  What is classified as maintenance?  Let's see, how about paying for her basic living expenses.  Now, wouldnt that make any couple think twice or maybe thrice before saying "It's not working out, let's divorce".  I have seen many couples stay together for the sake of the children but also because they say divorce is so expensive.  Might as well stick with it!




2) Rights and Children
Over and over again, I hear a child has 2 parents, both parents deserves the child or  better phrased in a politically correct way, the child deserves equal time with both parents.  Alright, I do agree with that comment but is it taken in the context of a child's best interest (seem to be the popular phrase in the family court!).  To be honest, it is taken in the best interest of the parent!  


Many years ago, in the event of a divorce, it is without a doubt the child will be in the custody of the mother. But in the recent 10-15 years, this dynamic has changed to 'care of child'.  I can see how that comes along as fathers feel that they have their rights over the child too.  I am not disputing that fact.  But what I am disputing is the interpretation of these father's right and best interest of the child has gone so far off tangent that it has become a personal vendetta between the parents rather than really for the child.  


Changes That Should be Looked At
I am very traditional and have always believed that a child should have one place called home.  I totally disagree that a child should be treated as a yo-yo being pushed to live out of a knapsack on the basis of being fair to a father and a mother. To prove my point, a MALE mental health worker supports this thought.  
http://www.theledger.com/article/20120128/NEWS/120129672?p=2&tc=pg


Let's look at it this way, in a married stable family, the husband is usually the provider and his involvement in a child (namely toddler as it applies to me) is basically bathing and playing with him.  The caring and nurturing is the role of the mother.  So should this dynamic not stay to ensure the child grows up knowing the respective role of being a Father and being a Mother.  
A psychologist Robert Emery (male again!) has called this the approximation rule for post divorce care arrangement.


So what I am asking is to re-look at why is there such emphasis on the young child (toddler) living out of a knapsack, such insecurity and instability for a child's mind.  Can the law not accept Man and Woman are different.  We will never be alike, emotionally we are different.  So have the child placed with the mother as their Home and the father visits, takes the child out, play with the child.  The child still has contact with both parents and despite coming from a broken family, the child recognises the role of being a Father and being a Mother and this is important in their upbringing because they then know their role whether as a Father or a Mother.  God never intended equality when he make Man and Woman and in parenthood.  If he did, he wouldnt make Woman to carry the child for 40 weeks in her womb.  He knew the Woman will be the nurturer.


On a more personal note:  I am a child that lived out of a knapsack.  I spend weekdays at my grandparents and weekends at my parents. as both my parents work and it was a suitable arrangement for the adults.  My grandparents love me to bits and my parents too so I am considered lucky to be loved so much and am settled in both houses. But how the first 5 years affect a child cannot be underestimated.  I noticed I have a tendency for attachment to things / people.  As I grow up and also I have been to counselling, the counselor is not surprised that it could be linked to my instability in my childhood. No doubt I was loved by my parents and grandparents and they have the same culture and upbringing, but I am a child with developing mind.  I was probably confused and the only thing that was stable for my was Dolly who was with me weekdays and weekends.  So in a way, I have developed that attachment and fear of losing things. Quoting from an advert - The yo-yo sleeping arrangement was like 'now  you see it, now you dont'.  


So now, it hurts me to see my child going through the same process I went through and I am beginning to see that he is also getting a sense of attachment to toys/soft toys.




3) Non- Removal Order - action and reaction
With the increase of cross-country/ cross cultural marriages, Non-Removal Orders can be taken out so easily.  Just state your fear and you will be granted a non-removal order and the other party will be left with the agonising emotional and financial threat of that order.  Firstly, I feel that the non-removal order is a action/reaction process.  Let's look at why someone wants to leave the country:
i) so much conflict that it is draining all the energy out
ii) emotional support (one always choose to leave to return to home country for that support)
iii) financial support (NZ law does not require the man to pay any maintenance!)
iv) cultural difference


And let's look at why someone takes out a non-removal order?
i) Afraid that the child is taken out of the country and never see the child again (always this reason is used in court)
ii) or is it just a personal thing/ a way of controlling? (never the reason but mostly the actual intending reason)


Changes That Should be Looked At
As I have mentioned, it is a action/reaction process.  The person who wants to leave is usually being pushed to a corner financially and emotionally that all they seek is love and support from people who loves them.  It is a reaction to the other's party action.  As such, some of us asked for permission to relocate while some just take the drastic move to run away.  The silly ones that ask for permission to relocate (yours truly) thought it is being open and honest but resulted in a reaction that resulted in the non-removal order. So this whole process is a cycle of action resulting in reaction! 


So to ensure that everything is done in good faith, when a Non-Removal Order is taken out, the party that takes out the Order should also be told that since it is a somewhat imprisonment (as the other party cant leave the country with the child without paying you/the court a bond (note, a hefty bond too!)), then the criteria for taking the order is the party has to provide with the imprisoned party a roof over their head.  They have to pay for the mortgage/rent of the mother and child.  If the party refuses to do so, then it is clear it is all about personal control rather than really wanting to have the child stay in the country!  


The Current Trend of The Family Law in NZ and its Effects on the Younger Generation


1) The sanctity of marriage is no longer sacred.  The words "till death do us part, in sickness and in health" bears no weight.  Why should it with the current protection the law provides?  First, start up a Trust.  It is better than a pre-nuptial.  Once the money side of things are taken care of, go into a marriage casually.  And with the current upbringing, it is OK to walk out when things are not working out.  My upbringing from my parents/grandparents is "You have make that decision.  Stick with it thought thick and thin!".  So the law has somehow allowed what I call 'easy way out'.  


2)  Children are commodity, not little humans with emotions.  Ha, I am sure any lawyers especially child advocates will completely disagree with me and cursed me too.  I am just speaking as a mother.  A mother who loves her child so dearly that I am labelled as over possessive.  In more traditional and religious countries, the role of a Mother and a Woman is respected and they understand that women are emotionally different.  As such Man also respect that this woman who is the mother of his child.  I agree if the father is completely alienated from the child, then it is wrong but if the father still has contact and plays an important role in the child's life, why is pushing/forcing a child to live out of a knapsack so important.  It is almost like "It is within my rights, so I want it".  I really would like to add my 2cents thought here.  I noticed a trend in mental health amongst youngsters and also an increased in youth suicide rate in NZ.  Is this a bi-result of this Family law?


3) As such, a child grows up being unsure of their respective roles.  A boy from a broken family will grow up thinking that I can have equal rights with the woman which from a traditional point of view means, I dont really need to respect the woman and her emotions.  Secondly, he will also learn that it is OK to marry and divorce because there is no real repercussion.  If the child is a girl, she will grow up (if she picks up her mother's hurt) having doubts about man.  


4) As we are trying to encourage a cross-cultural diverse world, the Non-Removal Order and the law is having the opposite effect.  In hindsight and more prepared now, I see women thinking about their future.  They make sure that their rights and the child's right is protected in their home country too.  As such, the law has created a drift/kink in a cross cultural marriage.  Now that many of us has started sharing our hurts, other women know that if you deliver your child in that country, if anything happens, you are bound by that country's law.  Because of that many Asians I know have decided it is safer to deliver the baby in their home country, gain the right to live/ residence there and let the child have the father's home country citizenship for descent.  If only I was given that advice...  


5) Again from a traditional point of view, the current trend in Family Law will result in a morally loose younger generation with no sense of responsibility and respect.  


What am I fighting for?  I am fighting for my child's stability and my financial and emotional stability.  I am fighting for someone to acknowledge the current family law trend is very flawed to the extend of oppression. 
Everything has become so businesslike.  I was brought up that when a man marries a woman, they become one and if there is a child, they are all one big family.  When one walks out, they walked out of the union, they have disappointed both the other parent and the child.  For that action, there should be repercussion so that they know and understand their decision.  But the current family law has given them the protection and rights so people walked out of relationship so easily.  I never thought I will be a divorced woman, I never wanted to divorce, I wanted to stay on for the sake of the child.  I thought all my intentions are for the best interest of the child but looks like this is a selfish world.  You dont stay on if you are unhappy.  You just move on and hey, the child will adjust and adapt!

Till Death Do Us Part

Tomorrow is D-day.  The day I have to listen to a bunch of people who do not know my child talk about the BEST INTEREST of My Child.  Because of this, I am feeling and wishing that some people who have loved me unconditionally could be here tomorrow, holding my hands, making me feel loved.  


First is Ah Qong.  I realised that I have not left Ah Qong's side until I left to go to uni in May 1997 and he passed away soon after in October 1997.  Our bond goes beyond the physical realm... I remember once when I went to Langkawi with some friends, Ah Qong had a dream and walked all the way over to see me and warned me not to help anyone carry their luggage.  We often dream and connect with each other somehow, someway.  When Ah Qong went back to China which he reckons will be his last time, his health took a turn and he slipped into a coma.  I was beside myself and wanted to fly there but of course I couldnt.  All I could do was try to connect with him and it felt like we connected.  He woke up and according to my cousins, the first thing he asked for was the jade he bought for me.  Despite the fact that Ah Qong cannot write English and I couldnt write Chinese, we communicated via mail when I was away in uni and get our letters interpreted.  In August 1997, I remembered dreaming that Ah Qong is sick.  I queued up to use the public phone to see whether he is OK.  He actually fell sick 2 weeks after my dream.  He got well and when I returned home for my semester break, God took Ah Qong back.  It was very quick.  I was still playing with Ah Qong that evening and that night, it was like his time is up.  Very peacefully he slipped out of the world. I was with him, holding his hand, screaming at the doctors like a lunatic... Our bond was unconditional and it was really till death do us part (physically)...  I am blessed to have 20.5 years with you and the world is lucky to have 87.5 years of you.  


Subsequently in 1998, I attended LSS in SFX and missed my grandfather so much.  I prayed for another Ah Qong.  When I opened my eyes, there was this old man praying near me.  He looks quite similar to Ah Qong.  I went up to him and another bond was formed - Grandpa Boey.  I hung out with Grandpa Boey and his evergreen friends after church each Sunday.  I clung on to him like my 2nd grandfather.  When I graduated in 2000, I even took Grandpa Boey and his evergreen friends to my hometown for a visit.  The whole trip back (3.5 hours) was bliss.  It felt like my own Ah Qong but english speaking sitting with me in the car.  Again, God has HIS plan... after the visit to my hometown, Grandpa Boey returned home and got sick.  I see this energetic old man slowly depleting away... I was angry with God for taking my new found Grandpa away.  However, he also moved on to be with God in May 2000, I was with him till his last few hours... till death do us part Grandpa Boey.  It was a good 2+ years.  The bond helped me slowly heal...


I moved to NZ and here I met a special girl, Sandra.  Our friendship was short but she is so open, so loving, so carefree and so pretty.  The 6 months friendship, I felt that she shared with me everything and vice versa. In a way, we were similar in personality.  We dont like secrets and we blab out everything.  She is always smiling so people assume she is on top of the world.  A great smile and a great face.  We tend to judge on the surface.  Inside, she does have her own turmoil but I was also to wrapped up in my own life to realise that.  In fact, the word here is TOO SELFISH of me.  When I get the call in reply to my text message to her telling me that Sandra is now with God, I cried.  I cried partly because I missed her and her true friendship but partly also because I am angry with myself for not being a better friend.  I  cried myself to sleep and that night because I was thinking of her so much, I dreamt of her.  It was no consolation...  For tomorrow's D-day, if only Sandra will be here.  I know she will hold my hands and wipe my tears for me.  I still miss her till today and it has been 7 years since her passing.  


Grandma Paula - I guess I am really upset with God for taking you away last year  when I really needed you most.  When you approached me in church, I never knew I would grew that attached to you.  I remember those times I talk to you about McLeod's Daughters, having apple sauce with our dinner.  I look forward to the day of the week where I can come over to your place for dinner.  When I am at my lowest, when nobody knew the sense of loss I felt, you were the only one who let me cry it all out and after crying until there were no more tears, you just let me sit there and didnt once say a word.  Your expression shows it all. It was no judgement, no comments, but just be there for you type of friendship.  The few months leading to your passing, all we both talked about is going Home.  No one knew how much it meant to us, for you it is back to your own house and for me, back to my own home country with my child.  Now, you are Home with God.  I am upset and angry but you left a good message for everyone - Miss me a little, but let me go...  I miss you a lot but am trying to let you go but really wish you could be here for me tomorrow. Despite our age difference, we had a good 7 years of bonding, relationship.  


Last is my own Poh Poh.  Still very much alive and am hoping and praying that I could be with her for her last few years.  She will be 90 this year.  


Sometimes I wish death do not exist... as I lost people who loved me dearly and unconditionally through death and these are the few people I know I can count on tomorrow to hold my hands, to just be there without judgement or comments.  To let me be me...

Ignorant, Ignorant, Ignorant!

When I started this blog, I had no where to turn to because every Kiwi I speak to has only one thinking and I thought felt I was alone in my weird thinking.  But since then, I no longer felt alone... I was sent thisblogtalkradio http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jon-hansen/2012/01/28/a-tender-trap-how-women-work-the-system-in-custody-battles and it is really a summation of my past few musings...


One thing in common - all these blogtalk, articles, medical publications, mental health workers are all from the United States of America.