MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

6 Comments »

1. 

   Boshier twists the facts – Tichbon puts him right – Thanks to the NZHerald and the anonymous Guest-BOOK Entry

   Good One Bruce-T

   Onward – Jim
   P/S 6300+ hits on Monday

   Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 6th September 2006 @ 7:06 am

2. 

   I can assure you as a once loving and caring parent that the family court is nothing more than a cess pit of lies & prejudice . Wonder what % of women have ever been directed from the cess pit court to criminal court to face contempt & perjury offences after irrefutable evidence has proved them liars.The cess pit court turns a blind eye to false allegations and protection orders are as easy to get for a women as a lotto ticket. We all know that crater face Boshier is a feminazi directed by the sisterhood to promote unwarranted, drawn out ,expensive and injurious family court proceedings because the sicko’s enjoy destroying the bond between father and child. The injustice, discrimination , prejudice , bias , disregard and injury, suffering , trauma and exploitation will continue until the family court is destroyed !!!

   Comment by dad4justice — Wed 6th September 2006 @ 7:22 am

3. 

   hmmm I disagree. And the children show that it is NOT the way THEY want it. I know of two children, one a 13yr girl and a 12yr old boy, who ran away from their mothers to be with their fathers- many times- beacuse the courts insisted they had to be with their mothers. The children TOLD the courts they want to be with their father. but the courts didn’t LISTEN, as per usual. FINALY the courts came to the party ‘better be with the father then’, the children have never been happier!!
   And yes Boshier, I know both sides of the story, a very balanced view. But basicaly the courts were bias and didn’t listen to the children, so…… effecting their welfare! as goodness knows what could have happened to them in presuit of their father.

   Comment by wendy — Wed 6th September 2006 @ 11:50 am

4. 

   press release:

   Turner: Boshier’s assumptions wide of the mark

   United Future deputy leader Judy Turner has accused Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier of making “wild assumptions” based on recent gender-based statistics.

   Judge Boshier stated “mothers and fathers seem to be saying that they prefer it that mothers care for children in the vast majority of cases. In all probability what the Family Court is doing is mirroring social reality.”

   Mrs Turner said the gender-based statistics released by the court show 65 per cent of day-to-day care orders are awarded to mothers, 11 per cent to fathers, about 12 per cent to another party, and another 12 per cent share the care.

   “Most parenting orders – 74 per cent – are reached by consent between parents.

   “Only 5.4 per cent of orders are made by a judge at a defended hearing and the remainder – 20.6 per cent – by a judge at a formal proof hearing where only one parent attends.

   “Judge Boshier is using these statistics to give credibility to the actions of the Family Court, yet I can see no justification for his assumptions,” said Mrs Turner.

   “These statistics do not prove that parents prefer mothers to care for children, what they do show is that many fathers who come before the Family Court feel forced to agree to a less-than-satisfactory parenting arrangement for fear of being cut off from their children entirely.

   “For Judge Boshier to say that this mirrors social reality is completely erroneous, and is a slight on the importance of fatherhood.

   “What the statistics do show is that after the Family Court process only 23 per cent of fathers are left with a day-to-day caring role with their children.

   “As far as I am concerned that does not mirror social reality, and God forbid if it ever did,” concluded Mrs Turner.

   ENDS

   Comment by UF — Wed 6th September 2006 @ 12:30 pm

5. 

   Boshier’s simply playing with statistics and being terribly insulting to those who have genuine grievances with his ‘court’.
   No wonder his institution is under seige with a political party now stepping up to take shots at him and his scam.
   He wants it both ways.
   He wants a closed femily caught sisterm which still operates as a feminist kangaroo court all too often giving women what they want, under the guise of ‘in the best interests of the child’.
   And then he wants us to accept his perspective from inside this secretive cult as being a mirror of social reality.
   Duh!!!

   Smell feminist shithink around here?

   That’s the kind of warped logic we’re confronted with folks.

   Good on Bruce T for having the balls to speak out against Boshier’s weaselworded nonsense.

   As Jim would say – onwards!

   Comment by Stephen — Wed 6th September 2006 @ 12:47 pm

6. 

   ‘He was surprised the figure for shared parenting at 12 per cent was so low. “Most of the day-to-day care orders that I make are shared and many of my colleague judges take that view as well,” Judge Boshier said.’
   How much is this buffooon paid to head the FC??? Why does he think the Coalition are protesting regularly???
   Perhaps now,Mr Boshier,as the truth seems to have finally permeated that thick skull you obviously possess,you will direct your underlings to ensure that this pathetic percentage value is greatly enhanced!!

   Comment by Mike — Wed 6th September 2006 @ 4:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.