Jim Bagnall – Family Court should follow Australia
On Newstalk 1ZB:
Children’s best interests should be central
Great to see a positive message getting reported straight, I hope the reporter’s job is safe. A pity they didn’t get the Father’s Coalition name correct!
“…it is time to stop picking sides in custody battles and find what is best for the child.”
His comments follow the indefinite jailing of a Hamilton mother, 35-year-old Kay Skelton, for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of her son Jayden Headley.
Coalition of Fathers spokesman, Jim Bagnall says if the courts took Australia’s lead and made the presumption of shared custody, parents would not take such drastic measures.
My thoughts exactly John **I see the MEDIA still has it wrong — ALL supporters of the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** are SpokesMen/Women**
However we play into Boshiers hand by extolling whats happening in OZY – NONE of the OZYies I communicate with think the new system is all that great – The updates on the HandsOnEqualParent-NEWS talk of much disappointment
If we don’t keep right up to whats happening in our issues World-Wide we makes the same mistakes as our peers overseas without listening to their learning
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 27th October 2006 @ 4:29 am
No comments on the following case in the news yet?
Not that its the FC in this case its the High Court judge letting her know its up to her how long she stays behind bars.
But good to see someone obviously playing games with custody getting a good serve from the judicial system eh?
Comment by Mark Lloyd — Fri 27th October 2006 @ 8:37 am
And it looks like she has been manufacturing letters alledgedly written by the boy. surprise surprise.
Stuff: Custody battle turns nasty with mistreatment claims
Comment by Mark Lloyd — Fri 27th October 2006 @ 8:45 am
Well it is wonderful to see the mother is acually being held accountable for her actions…finally!! I hope a few more mothers get locked up for other such behaviours.
Comment by wendy — Fri 27th October 2006 @ 2:35 pm
I have heard one thing they propose is to use compulsary mediation. I believe a very big part of the problem is our adversarial or conflict-based dispute resolution process where lawyers do their best to hide the truth and caused delays. There is nothing in legislation that says that on separation the woman is to get custody of the children and possession of the matrimonial property and the man is to be sent to anger management. This only happens in common law or judge-made law.
Comment by eye of the tiger — Fri 27th October 2006 @ 5:55 pm
And now the relatives are shoring up support
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10408235
What a crap state of affairs either way you look at it really.
Comment by Mark Lloyd — Mon 30th October 2006 @ 9:16 am
Tiger,
What makes you think councellors are any more NATURAL Family Orientated than Judges?
I would suggest they will be even more agenda filled and even more sckilled to achieve their own agenda
We need presumptive “Equal” Parenting deep within ALL Law, Social Policy and Social Impetuous before we continue to tinker with our troubled FAMILIES in Anguish Flourishing industry.
Even better HandsonEqualParenting from conception.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 30th October 2006 @ 9:47 am
Jim you are absolutely right. Presumptive Equal Shared Parenting as the starting point is essential to deny either party a position of power and control.
Further, compulsary mediation can only be successful where BOTH parties want what’s best for the child, and where the courts actually listen and take on board what mediators say.
Comment by XSryder — Mon 30th October 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Tiger,
I’ve been on the recieving end of ‘mediation’ and it’s been misandrist to a tee. I had no show of getting a fair crack. Just bear in mind ‘mediation’ is but a word which can mean many different things to many different people – many with hidden agendas which unfortunately don’t become apparent until you’re sat in front of them.
Jim and XSryder said it right. Presumptive joint shared parenting as the starting point is the way to go IMO.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 31st October 2006 @ 2:37 am
Stephen and others
I agree, presumptive joint shared parenting as the starting point is the way to go. The question I ask is, where in legislation does it say otherwise and yet we know that’s not happening.
I’m well aware of agendas but with mediation, parties don’t have to agree to anything. Parties and attorneys often have a common motivation to obfuscate the resolution process: one may not want to face up to the issues in dispute; the other gets paid for their time. They typically will refuse to negotiate and will unnecessarily escalate the conflict and the costs of litigation. In most disputes there is typically only one party who really wants to have things resolved. In front of a good facilitator it’s hard to keep that going. If nothing else you will at least have a record that could be handy later when you are accused of not wanting to settle in the plea for costs. Even if parties don’t enter into an agreement you party may gain invaluable understanding.
Comment by eye of the tiger — Wed 1st November 2006 @ 2:35 pm
The Family Court has recently completed a study of several years and new directives with similar themes – ie making the child central to consideration and increasing scope for mediation.
My personal impression is that, frankly, it’s a little pointless – as the real problem is the current rules not being adhered to or enforced by judges.
Hopefully, however, it’s a question of evolution – where increasing pressure on and guidance for judges will see changes in that way.
Comment by Kai — Mon 20th November 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Shared parenting should be a given, but not possible in lot of cases. Especially if you have selfish ex that undermine your authority and will not support you.
I am saddened that some people choose to make life harder for the children and parents involved. When it could be made easier with a little co-operation.
Comment by Vicki — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 2:29 pm