Custody clash father tells why
An Auckland father at the centre of an international custody dispute has told his family he is hiding with his 5-month-old daughter because of an “unfair” court decision to award custody to her mother.
Police yesterday appealed for 39-year-old Stephen Paul Jelicich to contact them and hand over baby Caitlin, following a request by Interpol.
But Stephen Jelicich’s father, Paul, last night told the Herald that his son would give himself up in exchange for a new custody hearing.
Paul Jelicich said Stephen and his wife arrived home at the end of October for a family holiday in Kumeu, West Auckland.
The relationship, which he described as “volatile”, soured during the visit.
“She said [to Stephen], ‘I’m going to Wales and taking Caitlin with me and there’s not a thing you can do about it, and I don’t want you to come back’.” Mr Jelicich said his son took advice from police and lawyers and sought custody of his daughter.
The case went to the Family Court before Christmas but was adjourned until January 10.
Mrs Jelicich applied for an urgent hearing and it was granted on January 6, when the court declared the case should be heard in Britain, where Caitlin was born, and awarded the mother custody.
Stephen Jelicich claimed the custody hearing was rushed and “all he wants is his day in court”, said his father.
“Nothing was done right,” said his mother, Jan Jelicich.
“He was supposed to be given 48 hours’ notice [of a hearing] but because it was going to be Christmas Day he was given 24 hours.”
Mr Jelicich snr said his son was a “good father” but “the system let him down” and running was his only option.
Unfortunately I can sympathize with Stephen when he says
” all he wants is his day in court.”
My young daughters Abigail and Jessica were abducted from my life July 3 -2001.
I am still waiting for my day in court. Is that fair ?
Stephen please stay strong mate, as collectively we must expose the cruel persecution that sincere fathers face when confronted by such a hateful system as the family court. Hold onto your daughter mate, as you deserve custody, as you have shown you are a caring biological parent. The family court is a disgraceful mess that is damaging so many children it makes me cry!!! Its so sad that Children are not a priority in this country. When is someone going to do something to save our Children?
Comment by Peter Burns — Fri 14th January 2005 @ 10:38 am
I have a vex wife who moved twice to other cities in NZ taking our son with her without even informing me! Did the Femily Caught give a shit about such parental abuse and disrespect?
In the best interests of the children. Yeah right.
Stephen Gee.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 14th January 2005 @ 3:12 pm
Is there some special reason why the Police are giving this particular case priority? Surely they are expected to give priority to the cases where there is a possibility of danger to the children (even if this is when they are in the care of the mother) After this, as time permits, they should deal with other parental abductions (such as mothers who fail to allow fathers access) in order. The mother of Caitleen should have been told that ‘Police resources were limited, and that her case would be dealt with in due course, if and when resouces were available’.
Or do we still have good old “JIM CROW” policing where you always arrest the nigger (or father)?.
Comment by John — Fri 14th January 2005 @ 5:54 pm
how can you people say that stephen should ” hold onto his daughter”? do any of ypu personally know this couple? do any of you know any of the circumstances??? has anyone actually thought of the hell caitlins mother is going through throughout all of this? she has not seen her baby for over a week? she doesn’t know for sure she is safe! whilst stephens argument is valid , he should see his daughter, is it right that he has completley dissapeared taking a small baby away from it’s mum?
Comment by joanne — Sun 16th January 2005 @ 12:18 am
Joanne,
LOOKING AT SOME SALIENT FACTS – Caitlin’s mum recently committed a serious physical assault on her partner Stephen, AND has a proven documented history of mental illness. The mother in turn then tells the father she’s taking Caitlin to the other side of the planet where he will have absolutely no contact with Caitlin, and where the mother will not be supervised but left unaccountable to do god knows what.
So my questions are somewhat different to yours –
‘what loving father would just hand over his duaghter to a violent mother with a history of being mentally unstable?’ and,
‘Where’s your compassion for the father?’
I say ‘Goodonya Stephen, you and Caitlin are in my prayers’.
I can easily imagine the living hell he’s going through.
I myself took my son into hiding for the first week of seperating from my ex-wife. After a year of solid abuse from my ex wife, and seeing her then start to assault our son, it seemed the most sensible thing to do.
I then took my son to the family court displaying my bruised and swollen face from the last physical attack she made on me for all therein to see; told them of my ex wife’s violence AND STILL THEY INSISTED MY SON BE RETURNED TO HIS MOTHER. This was many years ago, and yet I’ve lost count of similar stories from men of family court bias against them, the fathers. Stephen’s account of the family courts bias against fathers is just the most recent in a long litenany which NZ society at large seems to be in terrible denial about.
And sadly I fear your reaction is just part of that denial.
Comment by Stephen — Sun 16th January 2005 @ 4:07 am
re comment by stephen. whilst i have full sympathy for your situation , do you actually know the facts of this case and not just what you have read in a newspaper? do ypu actually know of any black and white proof that the mother is violent? do you know stephen jelicich personally and are able to comment on his abiliy as a father or are you just seeing this case through ” blinkers” because of your own bad experience? not all cases are the same!
Comment by joanne — Sun 16th January 2005 @ 5:57 am
Joanne, ALL the lawyers in this case themselves acknowledged the mother’s recent violent assault against the father, and her history of mental illness. If that’s not black and white then I don’t know what is. It’s certainly good enough for me. Having spent many years recently working in NZ as a social worker and probation officer, I’ve known many folks placed under supervision for much less.
And yet, whaddayaknow? our beloved ‘family’ court not only let’s the Mom walk scott free, but gives her full custody of a small child, and the ability to bugger off all the way to Wales, effectively defathering the child!! Puleeeeeeeeease. Can you imagine in your wildest dreams a father being treated the same way by our family courts. Yeah right.
Whilst I haven’t met Stephen personally, I believe those I know with longstanding integrity within the Men’s movement who do. And taking all of the above into consideration form my opinion that Stephen is a competent father.
And are you suggesting the NZ press are so incompetant or worse still such father-friendly liars that they’d falsely report of a violent woman?
I agree with Caitlin’s Grandparents – let’s have a review of the whole case. I’d go further still, and also advocate for a completely open, and therefore publically acountable family court. For as it is I fear there will be other cases like this until it moves from being the sad star chamber it’s become.
Comment by Stephen — Sun 16th January 2005 @ 5:09 pm
I sympathise completely with Mr Jelicich and his daughter. My own case was dusted off on 20/20 last year, an episode called “Bad Girls”, which dealt with violent women, and clearly showed how women do not need to take any responsibility for violence against their spouses, their children or their sexual molestation of their kids.
In our case all agencies were hostile to me, and many created fictions which were sworn as truth in court. “Only have the children’s best interests at heart” sends a chill down my spine and make my kids run for the hills now days.
The court ordered reports from CYPS even though there were accusations of bias against them, and these were pretty much proven later; well pretty much, they had to pay compensation.
In the face of a record of long standing maternal abuse of our daughter, our family court (wisely?) gave custody to her abuser, wiping me their protector, out of their lives. My life was ruined, just a gutted shell. They thought they could make a mum of her and put her in 24hr parenting tuition, but this failed, she was expelled, the case came back to court, and everyone had to backtrack. I got custody after I was ruined living in a dingy flat smelling of cat urine, all I could afford.
On 20/20 my ex admitted to the nation how guilty she feels for what she did. My daughter made accusations against CYPS and my costs judgement was quoted onscreen, drawing just a feeble response from CYPS. This time they did not sue TV3, perhaps they just did not want a debate about their child interviewing techniques.
If it were a mother doing what Mr Jelicich is doing, she would have almost limitless advocacy, and positive media attention. AS it is, being male, he lacks this and the police and court are using the media against him. viz tonights news comments from police and chief family court judge.
I wish you and your daughter well Mr Jelicich.
Comment by Alan — Mon 17th January 2005 @ 7:28 pm
Rodney Area Commander, Inspector Janet Hope has threatened to put out an arrest warrent for Mr Jelicich and advised that the consequence could be detrimental to his custody case. Lets think about that….. Here is a parent that is under great stress protecting his child from a violent disturbed mother. He has vocal support for his parenting skills from his family and friends. He has demonstrated his soundness of mind and love of his daughter through his interviews with the media. His actions are due to his protest of the Family court decision that has on numerous times got things wrong. If an agreement was made between the parents to live back in NZ and that decision is best for the future for the child then that is the sole deciding factor and both parents need to accomodate the childs interests. Insepector Hopes’ statment is one that illustates misandry that now runs through our society at all levels.Ispector Hope is oblivious to the fact that the CHILD has a RIGHT to have access to both parents regardless of what law he has broken. The police action in this matter and in other custody wrangles disgusts me. They state that they only enforce the law, but believe me, from my personal experience they have an agenda all of their own and it would appear that the evidence required for action or no action is ‘testicles’.
Comment by Bryan — Tue 18th January 2005 @ 10:33 am
with all due respect to previous comment , how do u know that the mum is “violent and disturbed” because you read it in a newspaper?? come on , arn’t u a bit more intelligent than that? everyone is quick enough to comment on the mum’s state of mind but what about the dads?? is taking a 5 month old on the run a bit unstable? everyone is quick enough to have a go at the mum when none of you know her or stephen to that matter! who says he’s a good dad? him?????????
Comment by joanne — Tue 18th January 2005 @ 1:20 pm
ps, as for his family’s comments on his parenting skills , how do they know??? this is th first time they saw caitlin and by the way the family didn’t agree to live in nz, they agreed to live in wales for 5 years, but stephen didn’t stay or work there because ” he didn’t like the weather” my husband would sweep floors in the snow if it meant feeding and clothing our child! that’s a good dad !!!!!!!
Comment by joanne — Tue 18th January 2005 @ 1:27 pm
Wow Joanne! What a reaction!
I notice you haven’t answered any of my previous point (see above). Like for one, the fact that ALL lawyers involved in this case have acknowledged the mother’s recent violence and history of mental instability.
Don’t you think that the fact that the police haven’t for all this time taken out an arrest warrant against Stephen is telling? If the police had any concerns that Stephen was violent (as you want us to question), and for the child’s safety, don’t you think they would have taken out an arrest warrant against this father long ago? Bear in mind her a woman in NZ can these days get an ex-parte order against her hubby on the basis of a merely unproved allegation of domestic violence these days.
2 other points I’d like you to consider –
So your hubby would shovel to feed hid child. Well, that’s noble. However I believe this father is doing something much braver than that for his child. You don’t risk getting arrested shovelling snow!
Also I’m amazed and delighted that the NZ media hasn’t put an anti-male feminist spin on thier reporting of this story (so far).
Wow! Dare I think that the NZ media’s finally gotten it that our family court is misandrist? Could appropriate sympathy for fathers be going mainstream? I’d certainly like to think so.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 18th January 2005 @ 5:51 pm
ther is nothing noble about working to feed and clothe your child! thats what parents shpuld do no matter what! if yo think that going on the run is far more noble than doing a days work then i think you have your priorities all wrong !
Comment by joanne — Tue 18th January 2005 @ 9:55 pm
I disagree. Quality parenting seems to me one of the noblest sacrifices anyone can make. Risking arrest from a deep well of love for one’s child impresses me too.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 18th January 2005 @ 11:29 pm
well you obviously get impressed far too easily! your views are all stemming from your own experiences and are nothing to do with this case! i feel you would argue with any women who had a view! you are very arrogent!
Comment by joanne — Wed 19th January 2005 @ 1:02 am
While I cannot condone Stephen breaking the law by abducting his daughter, when faced with a similar situation I’m not sure I would do anything different. That the mother has physically abused Stephen and caused grevious enough harm to require medical treatment suggests that the long term prospects for their daughter are unlikely to be good.
Stephen, you and your Princess are in my thoughts and prayers. We trust that you will have your “day in court” and that the outcome will better serve the welfare of your daughter. God bless.
Comment by Mark — Wed 19th January 2005 @ 10:35 am
Joanne,
I’m sorry to see that you’ve slipped into abusive namecalling by saying of me quote ‘you are very arrogant’. Oh dear, what a shame.
I was under the impression such personal abuse wasn’t allowed on this thread.
John P, please confirm.
Fair enough that postees disagree, but I’m not comfortable with what seems like the textual equivalent of disrespectful verbal abuse.
For the record Joanne, a brief foray into other postings I’ve made here at MENZ will show in black and white that I have often not only agreed with, but publically lauded the thoughts and ideas of certain women. For instance Muriel Newman, Barbara Faithful. So I think you do yourself no favours by trying to impughn my character as somme kind of anti women type simply because you can’t get me to agree with you.
Stephen Gee
Comment by Stephen — Wed 19th January 2005 @ 1:30 pm
Joanne,
I have to agree with Stephen Gee. I scanned through his comments and I don’t see any justification for such a heated personal attack. Your implication that he is disagreeing with you just because you are a woman is -in my opinion- unfounded. Please play nice.
Comment by tonyf — Wed 19th January 2005 @ 1:48 pm
Thanks for the support Tony.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 20th January 2005 @ 3:47 pm
This story parallels the american woman who, against an american court order to allow the father access to her children, abducted them to New Zealand. Does anyone remember that? It was a while ago, and for me the details are hazy, but I remember it being on the news.
She abducted the children, brought them here and the american court ordered them to be returned. She said that they had been abused by the father (rightfull or wrongfully no one really knows)and the american press lapped it up, so much so that congress passed a law that permitted it. They even named the law after the father! In the end, the family of the father took the case to the supreme court and luckily good sense prevailed and they deemed the actions of congress to be unconstitutional.
Very similar case indeed. The more I read about the Jelicich saga, the more I start to think that Stephen Jelicich’s actions were wrong and the child should have returned to Wales (not necessarily with the mother) and custody should have been disputed there. I also think that although the judgement of Judge Boshier resembled that of Pilate, it was the right one.
The one nagging question I have is why were the assult charges against Diane Jelicich dropped? My only guess is that it could effectively stop Diane Jelicich from ever seeing her daughter.
Comment by tonyf — Thu 20th January 2005 @ 5:34 pm
ok let’s be realistic her..what ( and i mean what) if the mother had hit the father? yes it would be a terribly wrong thing to do but none of us know any of the circumstances within this marrage. would it then be justified to stop the mum seeing her child? if that is your view then it would mean that every man who has ever raised a hand to their partner should be stopped from seeing their kids! if someone ( man or women ) once raised a hand to their partner it does not make them a terrible parent, it mkes them a bad partner!
Comment by joanne — Thu 20th January 2005 @ 11:05 pm
I guess the majority of people will never experience what Stephen Jelicich is going through and so can only make assumptions. Its all very well to imagine what it would be like, but to live it is unimaginable. In short I am an average kiwi with a daughter born in the UK, I now have no contact because of similar events. I dont agree with taking a small baby from a mother but a dad has to stick up for him self and his rights when he can, if thats what it takes to be seen then thats what it takes. I think you have done the right thing.
LWT
Comment by Lloyd — Thu 20th January 2005 @ 11:32 pm
Joanne wrote:
“…if that is your view then it would mean that every man who has ever raised a hand to their partner should be stopped from seeing their kids!”
Your? you mean me? That is not my view at all. I am suggesting that the charges were dropped to ensure contact with the mother. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t a conviction mean that Diane Jelicich would not be granted a visa in future?
Joanne also wrote:
“if someone ( man or women ) once raised a hand to their partner it does not make them a terrible parent, it mkes them a bad partner! “
I cannot agree with that. It at least sets a bad example. In my opinion, it makes them both a bad partner AND parent, regardless of their gender.
I would also like to suggest that fathers (maybe like LWT) have lost complete contact with their children for a lot less. Many men have lost their children at the mere suggestion of physical abuse.
Comment by tonyf — Fri 21st January 2005 @ 8:15 pm
Yeah thats the truth, what about the dads who have done nothing but care and have been shut out. I dont know about physical abuse but mentally my ex partner has drained me to the point that finally maybe the law is the only way to solve contact. I dont even know if that is possible between NZ and UK.
Comment by LWT — Sat 22nd January 2005 @ 12:34 am
ok if one of your partners dissagred with a court decision because they claimd you were unfit then went on the run for 9 days would you agree with them?
Comment by joanne — Sat 22nd January 2005 @ 1:11 am
The point of the matter is that mainstream media represented this issue in the mothers favour, not mentioning his justification or his intention.
Comment by Athena — Sat 22nd January 2005 @ 1:33 pm
As a female and a daughter of a single dad I would like to comment on this issue and of single fathers in general. It is clear that Steven Jelicich deserves and is capable of gaining full custody of his child. It is evident that he will not be granted custody even if he had not taken his daughter because he is a male. I hope the Justice System inconjuction with Legal Drafters can absorb the pyschological statistics relating to all parties and make the right decisions based on the truth not based on being scared of change. Mainstream media is to blame, you only have to watch 30 minutes of commericials to see the parental bias with comments such as “mums know best” “only mums know that … project is due on tuesday” painting mothers to be the ones who take responsiblity and “natural care” for their child” its absolutely disgusting and I do not understand why more women are not promoting equal parents rights.
Comment by Athena Cotidis — Sat 22nd January 2005 @ 3:41 pm
Athena,
What a remarkable last posting you made. Thank-you very much.
I agree entirely.
You’ve truly made my day. I’ve been achingly waiting many years for just such a comment from a woman in NZ. It gives me much hope that eventually fathers and underfathered kids there can get justice.
In response to your concern that more women aren’t promoting equal parenting rights, I suppose NZ women have grown used to being all powerful in this area of thier lives that they don’t want to share power.
As I was reluctant and felt threatened at first having to work alongside women employees, I see women in general reluctant to allow men into childcare which they see as ‘thier province’.
However I see pressures innexorably mounting to force change to this.
One pressure is that word has now gotten around as to how being a father is these days an extremely risky business. (Check out Matthew Weeks – Men’s Marriage Strike for more details.
With fathers experiencing a disempowering nexus of unilaterally instigated ‘no-fault’ divorce, DPB provision, closed-off secretive family court proceedings, uncorroborated ex-parte domestic violence orders, and pathetically little or no action taken to hinder those mothers who sabotage visitation with false accusations etc, it’s truly difficult to think of what more constraints to involved fathering could be instituted.
Is it any wonder then that many men aren’t interested in getting intimately involved with women and the birthrate has dropped off so markedly. What has been coined a “marriage strike” by men seems to be taking hold. I’ll take an educated guess here and say that unless father’s rights improve dramatically you’ll see increasing numbers of men who feel so rightly intimidated by this state sponsored powerlessness, that they shy off coupling with women and fathering period.
Another pressure I see being brought to bear here is that women who’ve wanted it all – to work fulltime and be the primary caregiver, seem to be waking up to smell the coffee – the fact that that’s a recipe for horrible burnout. And so it’s really in thier best interests to share the ‘reigns’ of parenting with thier menfolk to avoid such misreable calamity.
And finally who isn’t sick to death of hearing of yet another young Kiwi woman who has taken advantage of things to become another amongst teh legions of solo-mums cruising on the backs of decent hardworking kiwi taxpayers – who’re funding such profligacy whilst struggling mightily to make some headway.
I may be wrong in my conclusion, but I sense things coming to a head on these matters. And live in the hope I want to encourage you to continue sharing of better times to come for NZ fathers. And even more importantly for thier children.
Bless you Athena,
Stephen Gee.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 22nd January 2005 @ 6:02 pm
quote:
ok if one of your partners dissagred with a court decision because they claimd you were unfit then went on the run for 9 days would you agree with them?
Comment by joanne
unquote.
rephrase the question to reflect the actual situation:
if you took your child away from your partner (it’s other parent) & went overseas, so that your partner would not be able to see their child, and you got the court on your side, and your partner disagreed with the court decision…
Comment by ricky — Sun 23rd January 2005 @ 3:51 pm
re comment by ricky….what is your point? i am unclear of what you are trying to say! sorry
Comment by joanne — Mon 24th January 2005 @ 10:47 am
Joanne,I do not understand why you are on this website! this website is used to promote equal parents rights, yet you are on here being quarellsome and contridicting this forums purpose.
Comment by Athena Cotidis — Mon 24th January 2005 @ 11:22 am
I have watched this entire thread and issue play out and it certainly is a perplexing situation. There are several relevant questions that need to be answered that leave me scratching my head.
If the mother is supposed to be so mentally disturbed and violent, why did Mr Jelicich even have a relationship with her let alone a child?
How on earth do the family court imagine they are going to shake off the accusations of being anti-father when they go and give custody to a woman who has an assault charge pending against her?
Final comment. Running away from a difficult situation only delays the inevitable. Whilst it does gain some publicity to an issue, it generally tends to polarise people’s opinions.
This is a very sad case, a lot of very good fathers out there are being marginalised by the courts, a lot of hopeless fathers are also out there ensuring that there are plenty of good examples why fathers aren’t good enough. In terms of Mr Jelicich, to be honest I don’t know enough about him yet to decide which group he belongs in.
Comment by Adi — Mon 24th January 2005 @ 11:36 am
I wish to seek permission from Alan
Mon 17th January 2005 @ 7:28 pm and Stephen
Sun 16th January 2005 @ 5:09 pm to use these examples of unfair court decisions or bias in my essay, I would change names if preffered.
Comment by Athena Cotidis — Mon 24th January 2005 @ 1:34 pm
“If the mother is supposed to be so mentally disturbed and violent, why did Mr Jelicich even have a relationship with her let alone a child?”
well, one obvious answer springs to mind: presumably because he loved/loves her.
it is possible to love the mentally ill you know! and the mentally ill have as much right to have a child as any of us.
as i see it the mental illness issue is only a digression, just introduced to this debate as an additional reason to raise an eyebrow over the court’s decision.
the main issue is much more simple:
partner A chooses actions which do not prevent partner B from having access to their child;
partner B chooses actions which prevent partner A from having access to their child.
who should the court support? partner A of course, but that is not what they did.
joanne’s participation in the discussion is welcomed by me, since it is when an argument is questioned and opposed that it can be seen to be sound or unsound.
joanne, if you read this post it should make clear the point of my previous post.
Comment by ricky — Mon 24th January 2005 @ 5:14 pm
Athena, if you show me the quote/s from my posting that you’d like to use, and an abstract of the essay in which it/they would be included. Then I’ll consider your request further.
Adi, three comments in response to the questions you raise.
First – Unfortunately some people get hitched up to folks who’re fine at that time but find that thier wife/husband becomes mentally unwell later, perhaps many years later. I wouldn’t rule that out.
Secondly – When it’s understood that the family court has been to a large extent captured by a mix of unconscious misandric feminists (products of 30 years of feminist brainwashing from the male-bashing feminist movement) and old school ‘put women on a pedestal’ chilvalric types. Then it’s easy to see how they’d be so biased against the like of Mr Jelicich.
And from such a persective they’d just rationalise that what they do isn’t anti-father, but (and here I just about gag with a mix of sadness and disgust) ‘for the good of the child’.
Third – Rhetorica Question – What does the FACT that the daughter has been returned from hiding by Mr Jelicich IN FINE SHAPE tell you about Mr Jelicich’s parenting skills and love for his daughter?
Doesn’t seem like he’s a candidate for the ‘hopeless’ dad category you mention above does it?
Stephen Gee
Stephen Gee.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 4:49 am
re comment by athena. i am sorry you do not like my views but unfortunatly not all views can be the same. i am on here because this is an issue which is very very close to my heart and i am intitled to my opinion don’t you think? i was not aware that this site was only for people who can politly agree! i apologise if my tone can sometimes become irrate but it is something that i feel very strongly about and do get a bit annoyed at. it is an open site which can be added to regardless of their views , after all , if we all agreed on things then there would be NO disscussion!
Comment by joanne — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 4:59 am
I have now realised that they cannot be used because of the requirements of the essay but I would have loved to use them as examples. Joanne, what issues do you say are close to your heart? you don’t seem to be straightforwared! eg are you equal parents rights or mother-only? even so I apologise for the misunderstanding as I thought it was a sight to unite supporters.
Comment by Athena Cotidis — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 11:11 am
athena , i am a mother who would always want the best for a chid , be that with their mum or dad! this case is close to my heart as i know BOTH parents! are you a parent athena?
Comment by joanne — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 11:43 am
re stepphens comment on ” the fact that the child was returned in fine shape means that stephen jelicich has great parenting skills ” i would like to say in return that the fact that caitlin survived 5 months in her mothers care must then mean , in your theory , that her mother has fabulous parenting skills too!
Comment by joanne — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 11:55 am
what a stupid question?
Comment by Athena Cotidis — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 5:35 pm
why??
Comment by joanne — Tue 25th January 2005 @ 10:38 pm
Joanne, Oh dear, how you seem to twist things to suit your own ends.
At risk of being further insulted (abused with names and unfairly characterised as anti-women) I will say this in response to your most recent posting –
For starters you’ve badly misquoted me. Apparently it seems to suit your own rhetoric. I’d appreciate it if you’d read what I wrote again and honor me with accuracy.
Then again, if you can’t be bothered to read my words verbatim, but twist and add your own spin to them, then I fear your not being respectful of me or this sites community but playing obfuscating mindgames (and for what it’s worth coming off looking foolish to an audience reading this thread who see through such).
Also, to my way of thinking a definition of great parenting skills includes being able to reasonably and sensitively relate to the other parent. Assaulting the other parent severely and then using a misandrist institution like the family court to bludgeon the father emotionallthrough taking off to the other side of the planet and thus depriving him of parental contact with the child doesn’t come anywhere in that picture. So frankly your question about the respective parents abilty to parent in this scenario seem absurd to me.
Stephen Gee.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 26th January 2005 @ 1:02 am
re stephen , i think you will find i quoted your words to a “t”.i have not twisted them in any shape or form, i feel that what i said was a valid use of your theory, but as usual , you are not willing to look at things from any other way but your own and use words to try and worm out of things . why is it that when stephen takes care of caitlin it’s ” good parenting skills ” but not when the mum has her ? have you any proof that the mum is nothing but a good mum to caitlin? have you any proof that stephen is a good dad other than this theory?
Comment by joanne — Wed 26th January 2005 @ 2:14 am
Joanne. Not so. Sorry, but I urge you to carefully reread what I’ve said. If your truly open you’ll see I have indeed been misquoted.
I have NEVER written as you claim – ” the fact that the child was returned in fine shape means that Stephen Jelicich has great parenting skills” unquote.
What I actually wrote was quote “What does the FACT that the daughter was returned from hiding by Mr Jelicich IN FINE SHAPE tell you about Mr Jelicich’s parenting skills and love for his daughter?” unquote.
This in addition to abusing me earlier with insulting characterisations inferring that I’m anti-women.
Not a good look.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 27th January 2005 @ 12:03 am
re stephen , you will be pleased to know this will be my last posting on here . i have run out of steam trying to have a disscussion with such a narrow minded person! you are obviously a very intelligent man who uses that to cover your insecurities with as large a words as you can find! i can only sympathise with you as i’m sure many women who come into contact with you are frightened off by your patronising attitude! i am sorry you have had a bad past when it comes to your wife but you can’t tar all women ( mothers ) with the same brush!you ARE very blinkered in your attitude and i fear that nothing will change that ! i feel you would take up any fight to do with this cause before you even have any facts due to your own bad experiences! good bye
Comment by joanne — Thu 27th January 2005 @ 11:01 am
Goodbye Joanne,
I hope you can experience more calm in your life. You seem to be very strung out.
Stephen
Comment by Stephen — Thu 27th January 2005 @ 5:42 pm
poor post Joanne…
Comment by tonyf — Fri 28th January 2005 @ 8:57 pm
According to the mother, Stephen “burst his own eardrum” while “attacking himself”
Yeh, right.
TV interview with Diane Jelicich (video)
Comment by Nigel — Tue 1st February 2005 @ 9:13 am
Stephen Gee and Joanne, That small baby has a mum and a dad that love her to bits, no one can dispute or assume otherwise, reality is that one of them will have to sacrifice what country they live in if both are to have regular contact.
I dont think the mother is just taking off. I learnt this when I went to live in London and be with my daughter. It made me understand what it is like to be away from your home and direct family. It was not utill I was in the same situation that my ex had already experienced in New Zealand that I understood why she had gone home to London. After all most of us love our family and our home.
Stephen Gee I agree with your comment “definition of great parenting skills includes being able to reasonably and sensitively relate to the other parent” In this sort of situation it takes alot of understanding and sensitivity to work things out, it is such an involved issue that it would be enough to make anyone break under the stress.
Comment by LWT — Tue 1st February 2005 @ 9:22 am
The mother doesnt “love her to bits”, if she did she wouldnt be so selfish as to tell Stephen Jelicich that she doesnt want to see him again and doesnt want him to go back to Wales. Why should a parent have to spend a fortune on moving to a differert country anyway because of a selfish parent? Diane Jelicich already has 4 children from a previous marriage, and Caitlin is an only child who clearly derserves to be with her father. LWT, you post your message as if its like any normal situation, yet you don’t give us the facts – because you are looking at it as if its black and white.
Comment by Athena Cotidis — Tue 1st February 2005 @ 2:30 pm
Hello LWT,
I’m glad you agree that great parenting skills includes being able to reasonably and sensitively relate to one’s partner/spouse. From seeing the mother has bashed the father and broken his eardrum, then apparently gone on primetime and lied saying he did it to himself, it would appear she lacks such ability. And the thought of that kind of woman taking a child to UK and effective fatherlessness fills me with dread.
I won’t deny that being with her family in UK is probably important to baby Jelicich’s mother. However, as I stated above the end result of such a move is that the child becomes effectively fatherless due to the enormous distance and expenses involved in maintaining physical contact between father and child.
On balance therefore I think it’s more important for the child to know thier father and mother than be shuttled off to the maternal and fatherless far flung distance. And one other thing – why hasn’t the mother been directed to attend anger mangement? I’ve personally counselled loads of men who got directed to such for much less than bursting someone’s eardrum! Alas, alack, such is miasndrist Old New Zealand.
I’ll go on record as saying that if such a mother is allowed to take a child away from the father to the other side of th planet it will send a chilling message to the menfolk of NZ about just how disposable they are to many in thier midst. And it won’t enhance the femily caught’s sorry reputation one jot.
Stephen Gee.
Tony F and Athena, Thanks foryou supportive comments.
Comment by Stephen Gee — Tue 1st February 2005 @ 3:59 pm
just for the record athena, diane jelicich has 3 children other than caitlin and not 4 as u state! these other three children are hard working , sucsessful , wonderful kids , so di can,t be that much of a bad mum!!! also diane jelicich is a highly qualified cardiothoracic nurse who is a very competent and intelligent woman!
Comment by joanne — Tue 1st February 2005 @ 11:00 pm
as one of the parties discussed in this forum,i am happy to answer any issues raised. To joanne who apparrently knows me,i would appreciate knowing in what capacity that is.Also as to the issue as to my being a good parent,i do have it on good authority that i am, ie letters from diane on file with the court stating what an excellent hands on dad i am. To those that dont recognise the systemic bias in the family court and supporting agencies i truly hope you never have to find out the hard way.
For those that have been on the sharp end of that bias,i certainly hope that i can assist in changing that culture.
regards to all steve jelicich (aka Caitlins dad)
Comment by steve jelicich — Wed 2nd February 2005 @ 10:31 am
Hi Steve,
Sorry to hear about your dealings with our all too familiar father bashing family ‘court’.
Some comfort may come from reading Phyliss Shafly’s op-ed piece found at at today’s mensnewsdaily.com page. For alongside the likes of Bob Geldoff and Prince Charles wieghing in to support dads it seems this is yet another sighn that the cultural tide is slowly turning in favour of fathers being given a fair go at hands on parenting. Although sadly I have to say not soon enough for the likes of many good fathers who’ll continue to get shafted until major changes take place.
You’ll have seen my postings above, including I suppose how I too took flight from an abusive spouse – with my son. So I can relate to some of what you’ve been through.
I take some comfort also in the belief that the strongest weapon we have in combatting such horrible systemic bias as you so rightly allude to is in telling our stories.
I recall a psychologist, a close friend of mine for several years once said I was too attached to my own story of being shafted by the family court. I dropped him from my Xmas card list as quick as… and almost told where to go in no uncertain terms.
No doubt you too will be finding out just who your real mates are. These experiences tend to sort out the chaff from teh straw in terms of friends and allies.
As a great mentor of mine Warren Farrel often says – “people don’t hear what men don’t say”. A reason I’ll keep expressing my experience of misandry and supporting other men to do likewise. So, all power to you in keep on telling your story mate. I encourage you to continue doing so, as it can only add to our culture’s growing awareness that something is terribly amiss with how fathers are being treated throughout the developed world as disposable.
Rest assured also that despite the likes of Joanne trying to silence me with a guilt trip about being anti – women, I’ll be continuing to say my piece too.
Joanne – You can harp on all you like about what a wonderful mum/nurse etc Dianne is. To me it doesn’t make a jot of difference. I reckon the bottom line is no matter how many kids she’s raised, if she’s beating the shit out of her partner (burst eardrum), then threatening to use the father-bashing family court to deprive a child of it’s father, and attempting to bugger off overseas with that child then to me she’s seems a callous, brutal, vindictive abuser, not someone fit to be called a good parent, nor for that matter a very competent and intelligent woman as you refer to her.
Stephen Gee.
Comment by Stephen Gee — Thu 3rd February 2005 @ 5:59 am
Thanks for the support Stephen. Obviously there are a lot of going ons behind the scenes as to courts and the support agencies,who at this stage are running,but as this is of great interest to the public good i assure you i will not let them hide.
As to Joanne,i believe she says she knows me, but would at this point have me at the disavantage.Although i do welcome her comments and would be more than willing to address her points,in the interests of truth and integrity.
Im not sure if the moderator approves,but if anyone is interested i would suggest they visit http://www.parents4protest.co.uk, there is a link to me on that site.
regards to all steve
Comment by steve jelicich — Thu 3rd February 2005 @ 8:29 am
I’m closing comments on this item now. IMO parts of it got a bit uncivilised for my liking – if you want to carry on please do so after the next update.
Comment by JohnP (admin) — Thu 3rd February 2005 @ 2:06 pm