01 January 2006
Neville Robertson attacks Union of Fathers
(Dr Robertson) said the Union of Fathers talked in terms of men's rights but the issue was really what was in the best interests of the children. "I really get concerned that maybe what's happening here is we get a vocal group talking about their assumed rights and taking the attention off what is in the best interests of their children."
(NZ Herald 10 September 2001, Family Court 'not anti-men,' says psychologist)
The above statement from Robertson is basically just a rant denigrating the Union of Fathers, without any evidence to back up his assertions.
Note that it is Robertson, and not the Union of Fathers who is talking about "men's rights". If the Union of Fathers has talked about "Men's Rights" then Robertson has not provided any context.
There is nothing wrong about any group of men talking about men's rights, just as there is nothing wrong with women talking about women's rights. Such discussions are not necessarily incompatible with other issues that have (and should have) a focus on the best interests of the children.
Neville Robertson has obviously never bothered to find out what the concerns of fathers are associated with the family court.
Nevill Robertson should get out of the field and leave a vacancy for a new breed of researcher who is concerned about the rights of men, women and children - and who fully appreciates that the Family Court should not be a rubber stamp to the alienation of children from their fathers.
He could begin to understand that both men and women are capable of evil - especially in the context of a separation ..... but far more importantly that both men and women are capable of tremendous love for their children. The Family Court is not a place for acting out gender beliefs, but a place for innovation in ways of truly considering the best interests of the children.
Perhaps Robertson could listen to the Union of Fathers ...... just once may be a profound start...... They are probably not an organisation who have all the answers, but they are certainly not an organisation who deserve the public denigration that Robertson offers them.