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!
What was the result of D day?
ReplyDelete