List member Heather Roy from the Act Party has written a nice piece on the plight of single parent fathers.

This week saw the issue of Child Support raised in Parliament, with National MP Judith Collins using the term ‘deadbeat dads’ to describe those fathers who fail - or refuse - to fulfil their obligation to contribute financially to the raising of their children.

On the whole, New Zealand is a ‘can do’ nation with ‘can do’ people: we can, and do, fulfil our responsibilities; we can, and do, pay our own way; we can, and do, stand up for fairness over discrimination. With such a pervading and upstanding social view, New Zealanders on the whole have no time for ‘deadbeat dads’.

So why, then, do we allow the odds to be stacked against fathers who are at the opposite end of the scale - who want nothing more than to play an equal or larger part in the lives of their children?

In 2006 the Care of Children Act came into effect, designed in part to shake up the Family Court and to dispel the ‘myth’ that the Court was biased against men and preferred sole maternal custody as the outcome of its hearings. Under the Act, ‘Custody and Access’ were replaced by ‘Shared Parenting’ - meaning that, ideally, both parents share equally the responsibility and joy of their child’s day-to-day care; neither parent has full control and neither parent can be left out of their child’s life. On paper, it seems wonderfully fair.

Changing legal terms, however, is a far cry from changing attitudes and it is the same judges making the final decision - often with the same gender bias they used before. An example of this lingering attitude can be seen in the case of one father who, having been left with sole care of his child for several months following the breakdown of his relationship with the mother, filed proceedings in the Family Court for an Interim Parenting Order.

Now, one might say that - as it were he who initiated proceedings - the father cannot complain about the treatment he received from the Family Court. However, this man went to the Court after indications that his former partner was about to take the child to live with her in an unstable environment. There were also indications that his former partner would not be keeping to the equal care arrangement they had previously agreed on as she required Majority Care of the child in order to qualify for the DPB. His fears were:

* That his child’s living arrangements while with her mother were far from settled - ie the child’s mother had no fixed abode and was relying on the generosity of friends to provide a roof over her head on a day-to-day basis.
* The mother would not make the effort to keep the child in Early Childhood Education
* With an informal agreement, the mother would use the child as a weapon or leverage whenever she wanted/needed something (as had happened on at least one occasion)

He also suspected that, once in receipt of the DPB for having Majority Care of their child, it would be HE who had the child for the bulk of the time - while having to pay Child Support to the mother.
Having remained in the family home, and having kept to the stable routine his child was used to, this father felt it best for his child’s wellbeing that the child remained with him in the interim until such time as his former partner was in a more suitable situation. He also assumed that the Family Court would feel the same way.

He was wrong. Within minutes of the preliminary hearing, this father realised he was quite possibly on a hiding to nothing. His former partner accused him of keeping their child from her for months, labelled him controlling and domineering, accused him of prolonged domestic abuse and insinuated that he put his career ahead of all else - all without a single shred of evidence.

The judge responded by suggesting to the mother that she had grounds to limit the father’s time with the child to Supervised Access, and accepted that the child had been withheld from her mother for months - despite the father providing written proof of dates and times that his former partner had refused to see the child due to social engagements.

Both parties were then given time to come to some kind of access agreement; once this was done and ratified the judge recommended that the father attend a parenting education course - a suggestion that was not made to the mother, whom he thanked for coming along.

And, so, the bias against fathers continues.

The fact is that politicians are right: ‘deadbeat dads’ DO need to lift their game and be more responsible for the welfare of their children. But at the same time there needs to be more equality for those fathers who truly want to be involved and are doing all they can - spending thousands upon thousands of dollars in lawyer fees - to do just that.

It is time for some real change. Politicians - indeed, New Zealand society as a whole - must take a closer look at the plight of these fathers. Perhaps if we improve the incentives for estranged fathers - and take away the unfair challenges that leave many left out of their children’s lives - we would see a drastic reduction in the number of fathers who are so beaten down by the system that they give up completely and play no part in their children’s lives.

I was asked about this test and what it means. I thought I would explain here because many of us are unsure how politics work. And our vote is going to be important this year.

The test has 6 pagers of questions which are about issues today from the left of politics and the right of politics and the authoritarian and the libertarian stand. Yet this test will not give you an accurate picture of what you believe in. It will not tell you who to vote for. You must decide that yourself.

The left is Labor in NZ. The right is National. These are the 2 main parties. We have other smaller parties which tend to lean left or right over issues and are mostly there so to put their views and wants forward that are unique and may not be included with the left and right parties policies. These small parties make deals with the bigger parties by giving their support for the bigger parties to make changes and gain a move they wanted. Winston Peters wanted extra money for the pensioners so he bargained with Labour. He gave his support to them to pass something and his party got what they wanted.

United future did the same. They wanted a families commission so they bargained with Labor the same way. The Maori party has done the same and so has the Greens.

The talk of politics is full of talk of the left and the right, but what exactly is the difference between the two?

How To Tell Left Wing From Right Wing In Politics

Well, the right wing tends to be associated more with ‘conservative’ values (with a small ‘c’)… the status quo and tradition. They tend to be more tougher on law and order than the left, and emphasise the importance of free trade and low taxation policies, often cutting tax when in power. A welfare state may be seen as important, but not the extent as for a more left wing society.

The right essentially plays up the role of the individual, and in an extreme right wing view, like atomism, there may be no society, but only a collection of individuals. Extreme right wing views are those such as fascism. Most governments these days move away from the right to the centre.

The left wing, on the other hand, is associated much more with what may be termed more liberal values, the role of society, and the community as a whole. Law and order policies tend to be more relaxed, taxation is increased by large amounts as they look to create a safety net and look after the poorer members of society through a more robust healthcare system etc.

The autonomy and role of the individual is undermined much more in such a system, and the state plays a larger role in people’s lives. Many governments of today occupy a centre-left position. These governments are more likely to experience poor law and order records, and declining success of businesses, due to the taxation policies and more relaxed approach to law and order.

An extreme left wing view is something like communism, which looks exclusively at the community as a whole, to the detriment of the individuals that constitute that community. Both extremes lead to very unpleasant systems under which to live.

We in NZ are on the left at the moment and we have very extreme left wing people running the show. Many of these people are behind the scenes and are known to be associated with communism back in Russia. In fact Helen Clarke (our Prime Minister) herself attended a course at a communist school in Russia.

But don’t let that be a reason not to lean to the left. You need to use your vote carefully and think what is best for you as a parent and for your children because you are raising children. They are your concern. Labor is not just socialists but very strong feminists. And feminists do stand up for women and for children. Yet they are biased to men and boys.

If you are a working mother or father who is paying taxes you may want to vote for National to get a tax break. And if you are in business for yourself you will find National gives the best deal for business. The left tends to take from the well off to give to the poorer community. And they are prone to put more pressure and laws on business.

What is an
Authoritarian?

Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterised by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organisation, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measure. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.

In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom.There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security. Usually, an authoritarian government is undemocratic and has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.

This is the type of Government form we have now. Labor does not listen to the people but pushes laws onto them against their will. We have had the ‘No smacking bill’ this year with much protest from parents and the ‘Electoral Finance bill’ which has stopped free speech and soon we will be under the “No hate laws” and many others to follow an ideology that is socialism through the Western countries.

Other laws have come through the Human Rights Commission such as children being able to choose their own sex at school and free choice in religion and other non discriminative laws.

All this is the state being the parent to the people and telling them how to live.

What is a libertarian?

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realise his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don’t harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defence), and tolerance (honouring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

This type of life style follows that people are paid for their value and not the same as every one else. It allows people the chance to better themselves and gain from being better. It is like being able to be competitive. The best person for the job. And not a quota of 50% women and so much % of each ethnic group. It means that what you own belongs to you and not the community. People who are well off would want to be libertarians while those on benefits would want to receive the same as the one who puts the effort in to make their life style better.

These people do not want to be told how to be parents. They want the right to decide for themsleves. They want the right to have their children follow their traditions and not be educated to be like everyone else. Today they would be the parents who don’t want their children being taught homosexuality and trans-gender sexuality at school. They would also be the parents who do not want the state running their lives.

You can be a left libertarian also and you can be a right authoritarian.

I am hoping this has been helpful.

Grab a coffee for this one.

It is a little long but well worth the read. Every part of it is an eye opener.

It discusses Eastern women’s plight for freedom and equality and asks and answers why feminists are not caring about these women.

Be aware there are some brutal things to read.

But what astounded me the most is that brown men are not bad men. Only white men. You see, if brown men beat their women it is because white men oppressed brown men.

It doesn’t say this part but I bet feminists agree with it …. if brown men beat white men then that is fair. That is for past grievances.

Go figure!!! I guess, brown women have a free pass to beat me too because I am a white woman.

stand your ground

Oh, and it describes the UN utopia and the genders feminists and much more.

I thought I would find out if I was left or right. Am I a Labour supporter or a National supporter? even though it doesn’t matter that much any more under socialism.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.31

Romano Prodi is the person that I am like politically. I quite like that because I do have an interest in economics and business.

And yet I am socially concerned for the people.

You will find this test interesting and you will enjoy the questions.

Take the test yourself (click on the words)

I have been asked to give advice on how to get teenagers into helping with housework. You know what I mean. Getting them to pull their weight around the house.

It is hard when you are a single parent especially if you are also working, to keep the house clean and the laundry up to date and teaching your children how to do things for when they leave home. There are too many children living at home now and some of them are even 40 years of age. Living in the comfort of their serving parents.

I want you to think hard about that. Do you want your children living at home when you are 60 or 70 and they are using home as a drop in centre when they have a life and are a burden when they don’t? Forget about building a flat down the back for them as most single parents will never be able to afford that and forget about feeling sorry for them because buying their own home is harder than it was yesteryear. You are a person first and as a parent it is your role to get them ready for the real world to the best of your ability. (helping out while they save money is not the same thing or when they are in desperate need for help that is short term)

This is your motivation to put the energy into them while they are teenagers. You want what is best for them without being their slave. Because a slave does no good in making teens independent.

So let’s get down to it.

The one thing that is important to know when dealing with training teenagers is that you have to be a broken record. They don’t get it straight away. Consistency and persistence is the key. They will test you 100 times, they will complain 100 times, and they have 100 excuses. Just learn to say, “NO” and “YES”. Getting into debate with them is pointless. Losing your mind and yelling at them is pointless. My most well used sentence became, “This is not negotiable”. I would say it 100 times back if I had to. “This is not negotiable”. “This is not negotiable”. “This is not negotiable”. “Do you realise how much time you are wasting on me telling you, this is not negotiable”. “What did I say?”. “This is not negotiable”.

I started mine with dishes. At first it was one washes and one dries. Then when my nephew came to stay I made it 10 dishes each and that did not include cutlery. You see, I made a game out of it.

Every second Sunday we each had to choose what we were going to do. Putting everything on paper and letting each choose a job from the hat so to speak was different but caused problems because teenagers complain when they do more than the other. But I was on a mission and so something else needed to be used.

I gave them the responsibility of their own rooms. “I need your sheets to wash”, was enough to start the ball rolling in the morning. Nagging for the rest of the time was helpful but not much fun. Then they were to wash their own clothes. It meant more wash loads but it has taught them to use the washing machine and this way I was never in control or able to be blamed for their clothing problems.

Then I found that I was the one always having to make sure everyone was doing what they were meant to do. That was annoying because I had to be the motivator and if I was tired things did not get done. And slowly we did fall back to me doing the work.

So then I tried something that I found to be a great tool.

I told the kids that we were having a family meeting on Wednesday nights. Just one hour … or more if they wanted to use it. The looks back were strange and the replies were, “I am not going to do that”.

So I made Wednesday nights take-away night. I started with the ‘family feast’ from KFC. I have to be honest and say that food is a good tool.

Anyhow, while they were enjoying their meal, I asked them what they needed to do during this coming week. Did they have an assignment due? Was there a shop they wanted to go to? Was there something that they needed to get motivated for?

Of course there was. And then I wrote them down on separate pieces of paper, one for each of us. Yes, I had to do it too. I am part of the family after all. And then came the final triumph. They had to sign their piece of paper.

On the first meeting they scoffed at the idea. “I am not doing that”, came back the answer. But I persisted and asked them what they wanted for next weeks take-aways. And suggested that we can’t put the TV back on until these papers are signed.

So next week came and new goals were made and new things added. We were using family time to make family decisions and the housework is a family decision. And a family commitment. No more was mum in charge. Now a list was in charge and it was rewarding for them and for me when each Wednesday night we were able to celebrate our achievements. 3 small goals is what we started on.

Still today we have our family meeting and our family take-aways and I will tell you that it has made my life wonderful as a single parent. We have a list of things that need to be done each week and we are working on bigger goals by creating short steps to make them happen. The teenagers have goals and a direction. And are motivated by breaking the goals down into achievable steps. You can even add saving for something on the list. Getting a part time job. Homework for assignment deadlines.

And family meeting time is a great time to get to know what is happening in each others lives. Plus it helps each other help the other. No more selfishness when you are working together. Each knows that the other has their own path to take.

And the housework gets done by everyone. We did have to negotiate and the lawns were divided into sections. But who said there is only one way of doing things? Let you teens be creative and let them help decide how things will get done. You will find this tool very successful I promise you.

I would enjoy to hear what other parents have found to be successful. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I mean climb a mountain. (skinning teenagers is not a healthy thing for me to promote)

Useful links.

Parenting young adolescence

study on parents with teens

Housework for kids

by David N. Bass

16 January 2004

The modern feminist view holds that if you earn nothing, you are nothing.

In her book Women and Madness, Phyllis Chesler perfectly illustrates modern feminism in her statement that, “Most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they marry and raise children.” In order to be “unique” and retain their “human self,” women must leave their homes and families for the office to work beside men. They must climb the corporate ladder, earn high incomes and exert heavy influence over others in order to obtain self-worth.

Chesler points out the fact that, at its root, feminism is a philosophy that bases a person’s value on success in the career world rather than on who he or she is as a human; on how tirelessly someone can pursue power and money, instead of on the inherent value of human life regardless of professional accomplishment. The modern feminist view holds that if you earn nothing, you are nothing.

How did such a materialist philosophy of self-worth come to be in America? Its history can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution. During that time, men left the home and migrated to the big cities to compete in the new industrial climate. Up until that point, most men had worked in agrarian settings near their wives and children, creating worth in the family homestead as opposed to worth in the corporate world. But when modern industry moved into American life, fathers left for the cities and mothers were left alone to care for the children. This was the first step toward establishing a system basing human worth on jobs and income.

When the Sexual Revolution swung into full gear during the latter half of the 20th century, a similar phenomenon occurred, one that contributed even more to American materialism and the family’s breakdown: women gradually began leaving the home. Public schooling in the form of glorified child sitting made it possible for women to leave most childrearing responsibility to the care of the state, television and McDonalds.

These two events, men leaving the home during the Industrial Revolution and women leaving during the Sexual Revolution, energized feminism’s materialistic view of human self-worth. In less than a century, a sizeable portion of society shifted its concept of human dignity-not just for women, but for men as well-from accomplishments inside the home to accomplishments outside the home.

Ideas have consequences, and the consequences of feminist materialism have been disastrous. The 2000 census reports that traditional families account for only about one fourth of American households. Like feminist Linda Gordon said, “The nuclear family must be destroyed.” Can anyone doubt that Gordon’s hope is coming to fruition? Can anyone question that traditional families are going the way of the dinosaur?

Friedrich Engels, one of the fathers of communism, wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: “The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry.this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” This is the key goal of both feminism and communism. Destroy the traditional family, and Western nations will crumble.

That certainly seems to be happening. Along with the decline of traditional families has come the decline in birth rates in Western nations. In Great Britain the fertility rate is only 1.6 children per woman; in many Balkan nations the birth rate has dropped to 1.2 children; fertility in Spain is the worst of any European nation at just over one child per woman. Such statistics prove beyond a doubt that Western societies are adopting the feminist philosophy that children are a hindrance to “the good life.”

We no longer look at children as God’s blessing, nor do we view a warm and loving family as a gift. Instead, we search for fulfillment in material possessions rather than relationships, in self-indulgence rather than self-sacrifice. Feminism has ripped the traditional family to shreds, all in the name of liberating women. But instead of liberation, feminism has promulgated a belief that has dramatically wounded our society, and healing that wound is not an easy task. But it is possible.

Recognizing the problem is the first step. As Dr. Margaret Levy, a surgeon and mother with children, wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “I am not a liberated woman. I am incarcerated in a world and lifestyle far more complex and complicated than my great-grandmother, raising her eleven children in an apartment in the Bronx, could have imagined.”

Freedom or incarceration? It’s a woman’s choice, isn’t it? Our society’s future is bright if we can bury the carcass of feminist materialism and once again view motherhood and professional homemaking as the two most important occupations of the human race.

David N. Bass writes for World Newspaper Publishing and has a regular column at AmericanDaily.com, ARationalAdvocate.com, and RenewAmerica.us.

There was a time when mothers would help with children’s education at schools. There was time when we were not so politically correct and mums and dads would take children on school excursions.

But all that has changed.

Now mothers and fathers cannot enter the school unless they have signed in and then often they need to be chaperoned around the school. And now with social workers in schools parents are considered the enemy. The one who is abusing their children and need to be caught out. The family unit is now the cause for all the woes of children’s behaviours.

Could it be the father? Then we need women’s refuge intervention. Could it be the mother? Then we need CYFS intervention. Either way parents are pretty much left in the cold.

And all the while the schools get worse. They ARE unsafe for children. They HAVE been for years but the majority of schools would not accept it. No matter how much the parents told them.

But now things are so out of control no-one can lie any more. They are violent and full of drugs. The teachers are unsafe to teach and cameras are in place to capture bad behaviour.

Fact is; the cameras are in plain sight and the kids know where they are safe from the cameras. Yeap, not much has changed from when I went to school. If you don’t want to get caught you just do it out of sight.

Now we have police entering the schools in South Auckland and the parents standing along the boarders of the school grounds in the centre North Island.

Parents have been forced to take their children’s education into their own hands at a North Island school plagued by drug use, violence and the abuse of teachers and students.

And despite the Ministry of Education sending in a commissioner - its highest level of intervention - to sort out problems at Rangitahi College in Murupara nearly two years ago, a damning Education Review Office report says there has been little progress.

Yesterday, parents at the school 45 minutes southeast of Rotorua, were patrolling the college gates ensuring pupils were wearing the correct uniform.

Other parents were doing their bit to combat the school’s high absenteeism rate by picking up children in vans and getting them to school on time.

“We can’t be doing all the teachers’ jobs but we are trying to get more involvement from parents - that’s what our school needs,” said Melody Delamere, who has two sons at the college and heads a group called Parent Force. “What happens inside the school gates is their responsibility but we try and do what we can on the outside.”

A recent ERO supplementary review report of Rangitahi College revealed staff were forced into a situation where they were managing student behaviour rather than promoting learning and achievement.

The report said the decile one school, with a roll of 47 boys and 46 girls, was “not always a safe environment for staff and students”.

“There is evidence of verbal abuse of staff, disobedience by students, instances of theft, vandalism, damage to school property, bullying, fighting and use of illegal drugs by students.”

Levels of student achievement at the school were low - just a handful of students managed NCEA Level 1 in 2006 and none passed levels 2 and 3.

Commissioner John Carlyon, whose role is to change the policies, procedures, culture and relationships covering virtually all areas within the school, said the report was devastating. “It was accurate and with no surprises but it’s still hard when you see it written like that.”

Mr Carlyon, who replaced the school’s Board of Trustees in 2005, said it was crucial the community had more involvement.

“I have no doubt at all that until the school is able to work with the community in a partnership the school is going to continue to face difficulties, so I’m thrilled these groups are on board.”

He expected to see positive changes at the school this year. “It’s not optional, things have to change.

“I’ve been disappointed that the expectations we agreed to in 2007 were not achieved. I know it’s been hard for the school and management but I expected things to have been better.”

Ministry of Education schools performance manager Marilyn Scott said lifting the school’s performance was not something that would happen immediately. “Nor can it be one person’s job to fix an entire school,” she said in reference to Mr Carlyon.

NZHerald

Law firm Kensington Swan has topped the list of recipients of legal
aid payments, a legal website says.

LawFuel, a legal news and job website, has published the latest legal
aid payments, obtained under the Official Information Act.

The figures showed Kensington Swan as the largest beneficiary of
legal aid payments for the 18-month period until December 31, 2007.

The firm was paid more than $3.6 million in that period, including
more than $1.3 million in the six months until the end of last year.

Second on the website’s “Legal Aid Rich List” was Wellington lawyer
Sonja Cooper, who has been suing the Government on behalf of
psychiatric patients for the past several years. She was paid $2.8
million in legal aid in the 18-month period.

Other top earners included the Auckland Maori law chambers of Charl
Hirschfeld (more than $2.8 million), Wellington’s Rainey Collins, who
also handle substantial Maori claims work, (more than $2 million),
Rotorua’s Rangitauira & Co ($1.6 million), Wellington barrister Greg
King ($1.4 million), and former Victoria University lecturer John
Miller ($1.3 million).

The highest earning region in the past six months was Waikato/Bay of
Plenty, with the top 10 recipients receiving more than $3.8 million.
By contrast, Canterbury’s top 10 earners took $1.7 million.

CHEQUE LIST

Top Five legal aid earners - 18 month period to December 31, 2007,
rounded to nearest $1000:

* Kensington Swan $3,625,000
* Sonja M Cooper $2,865,000
* Charl Hirschfeld $2,818,000
* Rainey Collins $2,080,000
* Rangitauira & Co $1,618,000

nzherald

A Family Court judge is alarmed at drug P’s impact on families. Reference Sunday Star Times 24th February 2008.

Couples are increasingly citing use of the drug methamphetamine or “P” as a reason for seeking protection orders, divorce and sole custody of children.

Family Court judges have told the Sunday Star-Times that allegations of P use in such cases were prevalent and rising.

Two judges said that a quarter of current applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act involved the perpetrator of violence using P.

Problem areas included New Plymouth, Wanganui, West Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, Palmerston North and Wellington.

Principal Family Court judge Peter Boshier said the trend was a “huge concern”. “[This] is particularly ominous because it’s such a hard drug to conquer in terms of rehabilitation… Where meth is involved it produces such volatility that [judges] don’t want to put children at risk, whereas some other forms of drugs and alcohol don’t necessarily have the same alarming consequences.”

Out of 66,500 cases dealt with by the 45 Family Court judges last year, 4351 involved protection orders and 21,391 were applications for care of children.

Several family lawyers said they had noticed an increase in the number of P-related family break-ups over the past five years, including affluent families who seemed to “have it all”. In most cases, both parents had tried P socially but one had become addicted.

In one case, an Auckland couple in their early 30s started using P recreationally at a cost of $500-$800 a week. He gave up but she got addicted, which caused arguments and led to their break-up. She took their four-year-old child and lived transiently with friends, and started a relationship with a P dealer, which became violent. The woman’s neighbours and family became concerned at her dishevelled appearance and and reported her to Child, Youth and Family.

In another case, an Auckland woman in her late 20s, who was separated and shared custody of her two-year-old, developed a P habit. Her ex-husband found out and sought sole custody. At the same time, staff at the child’s crèche notified CYF over the woman’s appearance. She failed a drug test and lost custody of her child.

Boshier said judges usually granted protection where P use was alleged or proven in many cases grandparents stepped in to care for children.

“I do not want to suggest there’s anything wrong with grandparents bringing up children, but as a society we have a norm of the parents…”

Many judges direct parents accused of having a P habit to take a hair follicle test, which detects the drug months after it is taken. ESR carries out an average of three hair tests a week for Child Youth and Family, most for custody cases.

Boshier said alcohol was still regarded as the number one drug in protection orders, and cannabis was also often present.