Create an account
Hi, I'm the bottom of Tats' navel, where some guilt still lurks - Tactical Ninja
Apr. 17th, 2012
10:00 am -
Hi, I'm the bottom of Tats' navel, where some guilt still lurks
Leave a comment
April 17th, 2012 05:09 am (UTC)
I did an equally scientific
Google search, using the term "non-custodial mothers" and limiting to pages from NZ. It got a whopping 164 hits (fathers got 726 and parents got 2960). After controlling for repeats and for sites advertising "non-custodial mothers" t-shirts and bumper stickers, there were 10 hits left. Here they are:
1. Not a NZ site after all.
2. Waiting list for support group for non-custodial mothers and fathers.
3. The findings of a complaint to the BSA in which a programme dealing with divorce and the rights of noncustodial fathers was deemed to be balanced despite not addressing the issues of noncustodial mothers in NZ (dated 2001).
4. An issues paper from the centre for public policy evaluation discussing the process of the family court, which has one line claiming that Family Courts "enthusiastically supports the relationship of non-custodial mothers with their children" (dated 1998).
5. An article from the USA posted on the menz.org site in which a USA Bill strengthening fathers' rights is commented not to have reduced the rights of non-custodial mothers and therefore is advancing gender equality (dated 1999).
6. Another article on menz.org claiming that the percentage of non-custodial mothers that default on child support is more than twice that of non-custodial fathers (dated 2008). Vitriol abounds in the comments, directed at women in general and Ruth Dyson in particular. This is the most active non-custodial parent advocacy site in NZ btw.
7. An American study of non-custodial mothers for sale on The Nile.
8. A lone commentor on a response to the Welfare Working Group's report last year, admitting she's a non-custodial mother.
I'm not even sure what to call this
, but it doesn't mention non-custodial mothers at all and I've no idea why it came up in the search. It seems to be a rant about how policy development is gender biased in favour of women (dated 1998).
10. A comment on a Standard article in March this year in which the commentor claims to have a non-custodial mothers' group, advertised in something called "WCC magazine." I couldn't find a WCC magazine to check.
From that I can conclude that nothing's really changed except there might be a support group - only I can't find it and the person mentioning it was in the context of how her contact details were published with the add and she was stalked and threatened by an MRA over it.