There has to be a better way!!!!!!
Peter Boshier last week sent out a letter to every solicitor in NZ giving them his support in their job of working in his court. He is right in doing this, that’s his job. In attacking the court workers at their homes, fathers have attacked the system and challenged the sanctity of law. We now have a situation where Mr Boshier has taken up a strong position and will not easily be moved from it. It is possible that both he and many other Lawyers were aware of the injustice in some of the interpretations of law. He will find it more difficult to make changes to these now.
If the written word (law) was a definitive arm of justice we would live in a perfect world. We don’t, that’s why in the West we have a legion of Christian denominations all interpreting from the same written word, the Bible.
The Family Court can be viewed as a religion and the judges as denominations. I have found some to interpret totally different on the same piece of law. Some lawyers and judges are from a denomination that interprets men as demons. No law will change that. Religious fanatics believe that the ends justify the means, so to lie and cheat to defeat a Demon is justified.
Emotionally I can understand protesting against individuals but rationally I cannot see the sort of changes happening that will bring about a more fair result for children.
In order to clarify their objectives can some of the protesters lay these out for me please.
I unfortunately do not have an answer but believe that answers can be found.
Of one thing I am sure, throw a man out of his home and isolate him from his children without just cause and you do irreparable damage that will have a flow on effect detrimental to all concerned.
“In attacking the court workers at their homes, fathers have attacked the system and challenged the sanctity of law.”
I dont know of any Father attacking the Court Workers!
Remeber Boshier is a spin-doctor for the industry of misery.
In the battle for hearts and minds he is not winning and he is worried.
Law change is the only answer!
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Tell me more….. What law would you change or impliment that will eliminate perverted interpretations.
Comment by triassic — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 4:06 pm
I wrote to Judge Boshier about my case he is away until July !!!!!!!
Julian
Comment by julian — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 4:09 pm
I feel the protests, public exposure is the only way to get change. This is how every other ‘movement’ in history happened, with protests. I am not a discrutled father, but a mother who fully supports the fathers protests.
Myself and my siblings were raised by our Dad -fulltime, god-for-bid if ANYONE had tried to take our Dad (or tell us our Dad couldn’t raise us) from us! Protests outside their homes would have been the least of their worries- try having their face on billboards!!!
Comment by jadie — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 4:11 pm
For my view on protests and law change see My post (Under child support section) The Sleeping Giant is Awakening.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 5:08 pm
It needs to be remembered that the first protests outside judges’ homes in Auckland and Wellington were in the year 2000. There has been plenty said and little achieved in the intervening 6 years, both in the court and parliament. Both Helen Clark and Judge Boshier cling to the statistic of mothers killed in the last 6 months, and 19 children left without their mother. If there is a failure here it is that 19 children lost both parents. 6 Mothers lost their lives and 6 fathers lost their mind. The family court was involved in at least 2 of these cases, as protection orders were issued, and probably more than that, but as is too often the case this court creates the tragedy rather than avoid. When you have been identified as the cause rather than the cure, when you have been given 6 years to create change, it is not hard to understand that those affected begin to herd and charge. As for change — When you see the family law section behaving like an unauthorized select committee, you really have to question the ethics of social democracy. By the way does anyone know who the guy was that died lying across the railway lines in Mt Albert on Friday night?
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Triassic,
Good post. I too want the questions answered you ask. These are a few things I have picked up from this site that need to be changed.
That’s the best I can do at present. I agree that we do need to petition with as many signatures as possible and I agree that we do need to break it down.
As for the protests, well it is good to be in the lime-light and it is good that people express themselves but I believe it is only a start. We have to follow through in other ways.
I thought John campbell live, channel 3, 7pm, tonight was dissappointing.
Comment by julie — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 7:53 pm
I watched 60 minutes on one, the youth suicide documentary. I only wish the media would confront the family court in the same Sound Sensible Reasonable Fashion, in which they presented youth suicide. It was interesting that the academics seem to believe we just couldn’t cope with this reality. I think it is them that has the need to get a life.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 8:28 pm
Seems simple to me what reforms are needed;
After separation, parenting is assumed to be 50 / 50. If there’s a good reason why this cannot be the case, parents can make their own arrangements, or apply for a court ruling.
Adequate evidence needs to be provided to support any claims that parenting should be other than 50 / 50.
Julie has stated the rest. Accountability is especially important. People should not be allowed to work in a Family Court or mediation service unless they are prepared to have their work be closely scrutinised. Why not? They have such power, their decisions can potentially cause such harm and lingering pain.
(As an aside; I have been constantly surprised of late, when I have seen and heard family legal types interviewed on the telly or radio (such as on the John Cambell show tonight), at the air of smugness and comfort with themselves that they regularly exude. I think a smug person is the wrong kind to be working in that field. They shuld be sorrowful, and heavy with the burden of their office, and they should doubt themselves often).
I notice that quite a few people, both male and female, express nervousness (if not outright rejection) at the idea of automatic 50 / 50 shared parenting. I wonder if that may largely be because of a widespread deeply held assumption that men are not as fit for parenting as women. If so, that’s an assumption that has to be challenged again and again until dispelled.
Comment by PaulM — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 8:53 pm
Paul,
I am glad you agree with the accountability and I also want to add that those sorts of changes are feasible.
I don’t see 50/50 parenting coming into play because I don’t see it as feasible. Although it sounds great and should be considered by parents breaking up.
I would consider all the problems with 50/50 parenting being implemented. At what cost to the child? Well for starters there would be no Child Support and each parent will not be able to have a home for the children. In alot of families there are more than one child. What if there are 4 children. We live in a world where both parents HAVE to work to make ends meet, right? With 50/50 parenting we are going to see alot of poverty. And that’s only one aspect.
How well have you thought this through is what I am interested in.
Comment by julie — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 10:44 pm
OK you got me Julie … I havn’t made a study of shared parenting issues my whole life so yes there’s a lot I havn’t thought about and I would like to hear all the possibilities debated.
One great advantage of assumption of equal shared parenting would seem to me to be that it would encourage accountability of parents. At present any fool of a parent can break up a family with no concern for consequences, knowing that child support dollars will come flooding in. Perhaps parents who wjsh to embark on a career of solo parenting shouldn’t have it made quite so easy for them.
Also the most valuable commodity here is parent-child time, not money or things. And I mean valuable to the child. The present system might ensure that children have enough money and things, but at the cost of their relationship with one parent? That’s way too high a price.
Comment by PaulM — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Paul,
I am glad you don’t know everything.
I think study does need to be done on the subject.
I know money isn’t everything but I also know that it gives choices for children. It doesn’t hurt to give them music leasons or dancing, sport etc. And, have you seen the costs of these things today? What about pony club? Wow. And to own a horse?
I know these are considered luxuries but I also know that they keep children out of trouble and often free from depression by persuing things they are good at.
Having the DBP for an amount of years is OK. It is not nice having to put your kids in daycare from birth. I tried it and you end up feeling like you are a bad parent. The children pick up every sickness and often their nappies are not changed when you pick them up. They scream when you drop them off. Biological parents care more for their children than strangers.
These countries that have legislated 50/50 have created alot of problems for families especially those on middle to low incomes.
Besides all this, I think it is great that you do something. Actions speak louder than words.
Comment by julie — Mon 22nd May 2006 @ 11:50 pm
Well I think I’ll pretty much rest my case there. What you are saying seems to match the materialistic anti-father attitude that has taken hold of this society; “Forget about dad, I’ll get you a horse / music lessons / playstation instead (and Dad will pay for it.)..”
Actually it’s having a close relationship with both parents that ahead of all else, keeps children out of trouble and free of depression. Especially a relationship with dad. Think about your own dad Julie. Would you have traded him for a pony?
I know children scream when you drop them at daycare, it’s tough. Us dads need to do more of that basic hands-on parenting too. And mums need to let us do it. We can be good at it.
Comment by PaulM — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 12:26 am
The Judges, lawyers, psychologist, registrars and obviously the mother of my only child have ignored laws, court rules, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, my rights, but more importantly the best interests of our child, for one reason only…to prevent my son sharing his time equally with both parents. EVEN THOUGH the mother swore in her first affidavit that “we both cared for our son equally full time prior to separating”, she had “no concern” about my ability to care for our son, and that she “does not know who the better parent is”.
The mother refused to implement an access agreement for months…but the lawyers and judges did nothing.
She breached a Non-Removal Order by purchasing airline tickets to Vietnam (a beneficiary on legal aid?)…but the lawyers and judges did nothing. She admitted to immigration fraud in the Family Court, yet the judge said in her decision that I failed to discredit her, and then allowed her to take our son to Vietnam (a non Hague signatory). I withheld my son on the day of her flight and went on the Holmes show, but she flew out of NZ on a another flight a few days later. She then kept my son and I apart for a further month after she returned. I filed to the courts for an Order to enforce access, and was successful, but then another judge overturned the Court Order the next day. Then my son and I were “sentenced” to 5 months supervised access (2 hours per week @ $60 each time), even though the mother agreed that there were no signs that my son was in any danger, and the supervisor said that “the courts got it wrong”. The cost of this supervised access cuased me to sell my home.
The mother made THREE false complaints to the police…apparently a common act used to discredit a father and keep him from his child, and I have now waited TWO AND A HALF years for a custody hearing.
Principle Family Court judge Boshier refuses to look into my complaints, so I therefore have no other course of action but to support the Fathers Coalition and take our fight for justice to the streets. The change must start with at least Boshier’s replacement!
Comment by Wayne — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 2:07 am
Julie,
You said –
“With 50/50 parenting we are going to see alot of poverty”
and
“These countries that have legislated 50/50 have created alot of problems for families especially those on middle to low incomes”.
Where exactly is the research you claim to have claiming that 50/50 custody causes poverty?
Also you said –
“Having the DBP for an amount of years is OK”.
I disagree.
I reckon it must be more than OK.
I know three women who BOUGHT HOUSES ON WAIHEKE in the 90s on the DPB!! All had kids who went to school all day too!!
Nice ‘work’ if you can get it.
Shame the taxpayer carried these leeches though.
I used to boil hearing them badmouth the Xs they’d screwed through false allegations and bellyache about how woebegotten thier lot was too. I dated one for a while, and dumped her pronto that I knew the full story.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 2:50 am
To Paul,
I always find you attitude to be more than reasonable when you comment and post. But I had not expected for you to wirte,” What you are saying seems to match the materialistic anti-father attitude that has taken hold of this society;”
If everytime someone disagrees with men they are considered to be for women and if everytime someone disagrees with women they are considered to be with men, then we have a bigger problem than I realised.
To be blunt, “I don’t believe you will get 50/50 parenting enforced in NZ. Not now and not in the next 10 years”
I don’t know how many years this has been fought for and I am aware you will be pissed with me. I am merely pointing out that while 50/50 might be good for you and some others on this site, it will have consequenses for others.
If my ex and I had 50/50 parenting, we would be barely surviving. Computers and broadband even a luxury today will be non-existance. You know people with 50/50 sharing so I ask, “Do they both work?” “Do they have children with disabiliites?” “Can you both own a house?”
And besides I am not against fathers being with their kids. I just think 50/50 parenting needs to be challenged. Maybe shared parenting is a much better solution. The post is about ‘bringing about change’
Comment by julie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 9:05 am
Hi Wayne,
You may be quite right when you wrote, “The change must start with at least Boshier’s replacement!”
Because I think his ego is taking over to see the protests as a personal challenge to him and his staff.
Comment by julie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 9:08 am
I disagree too Juile, sorry, I have shared parenting with my ex hubby- we have two children- and my kids are not in poverty. Plus our daughter dose in fact have a pony which she just loves. She went to her first show this year and both of us were there (very proud parents) to support her. 50/50 has made my kids very happy, they dont ask ‘wheres dad’, or ever look sad because their parents are not together. They have ‘free flow’ between us and they think it is great. Children are 6 and 4, and when we split we both decided we would NOT let anyone tell us how to raise our kids ie; Family court, so we concentrated on making life as good for the kids as we could by not inflicting PA!
As a Psychology student I know how important parents are to kids and the way some Fc Psychologist’s behave sickens me. I do wonder where they did their training! There is a lot of studies and material out their that shows how important biological parents are to the children they have.
NZ really needs to wake up and realise what the FC and its subordants are doing to these families. It is CHILD ABUSE, and I am shocked that this is the 21st century and we have people who are set on destroying innocent childrens lives.
I was even more shocked when I witnessed a NZ primary school teacher- who I would have thought to care for children- lie to a Judge, threaten a fathers life, and tell a child his Dad didnt love him, sent abusive txts, abusive phone messages and attempt kidnapping! Oh and the usual DPB fraud.
Its the kids I feel for, so sad.
Comment by Jadie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 9:30 am
Hi Stephen,
I don’t have anything statisics or articles to give you to prove my point. And I probably shouldn’t have written ” 50/50 causes Poverty’ or given that impression. I agree that I should think before I comment.
50/50 parenting is not new so there are alot of stories that have been told. I will spend some time on the web looking them up and get back to you.
As for the DBP. I don’t know how someone could be on the benefit and paying of a house worth millions. You have to understand that I don’t know the sort of women you do or have. Everyone I know is struggling to get by. Petrol increase have hurt many pockets of people I know.
Anyhow, WINZ doesn’t think that possible and friends I know who pay off million dollar houses are on 2 good incomes and often renting rooms in their houses if they are single. You would be paying thousands of dollars a month on mortgage.
But I am willing to take your word for it for may be that in the 90’s WINZ paid a % of mortgage or rent whereas today they pay a maximum of $150 a week and maybe $60 extra for hardship towards mortgages and rents.
Comment by julie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 9:30 am
Hi Jadie,
I am always willing to learn and be challenged. So, how do you do that? You are a student. Do you work full-time and study part-time when you don’t have the children? Or maybe you are in another relationship so have more than one income in your home.
I do understand how important both parents are and am glad you worked things out sensible. My ex and I decided to split the children. It wasn’t a decision upheld so we just let the kids decide when to go to where. But then my children are 18 and 15.
Comment by julie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 9:37 am
Hi Julie
I study full-time and work part-time. I own my own home. Only one income. Ex and I split any major $$ the kids need, eg, school stuff, medical. No child support paid by either of us since we do it this way. Ex own his own home too.
Niether of us are struggling at all (despite the petrol!) Kids are clothed feed and healthy. But that dose not mean I earn heaps of $$, I have enough to have a good life. I dont smoke, drink, owe anyone money (apart from the morgage) or have heaps of luxuries. I was brought up to live within your means. It is sad though that people do find it hard, and there has always been poverty of some sort in society. I guess thats just life.
Comment by Jadie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Julie,
Why are you distorting what I’ve said?
I DID NOT state the houses DPB recipient women on Waiheke I knew in the 90s were buying houses worth millions. (150 – 400k more like).
Also thanks for fessing up you don’t have research to back the claim of 50/50 parenting leading to poverty.
Actually I believe you’ve missed the point entirely.
I don’t hear anyone unreasonably suggesting 50/50 parenting-time be set in stone like some imutable law.
That would be as dumb as the current adversarial star chamber set up which results in may parents (most usually dads) being alienated.
Conversely what I do hear is the entirely reasonable advocacy for 50/50 parenting as the starting point in negotiating how to best parent kids.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Stephen,
I had the impression we were talking about the women on Waiheke as owning a million dollar home. That was what I thought you said in a previous comment from another post. Sorry about that.
I do hear the unreaonable 50/50 parenting time. Or as close to 50/50 as possible. Check out Mens Network
The theory
Genuine 50/50 equal parenting after divorce or common-law relationship breakdown.
The reality
Every family is different, each child is different, and people’s circumstances vary widely
In practise
We demand that unless proof, of a level suitable for a court of law, is forthcoming giving reason or reasons why not, then a presumption of absolute equal, 50/50 parenting be enforced as a default.”
Comment by julie — Tue 23rd May 2006 @ 5:51 pm
PAY ATTENTION to what Wayne had to say.
These are facts!
We as men and woman living in a free society need to get rid of the system and perpetrator of such shameful deeds. The Family court as it is has to go. I’ll never give up till it has.
As I have seen written here “All it takes is for Good Men and Women to do nothing for these crimes against our friends and brothers and sisters to continue “ What a sad a sorry place NZ has become if we let OUR taxes be used to have the way it is continue the way it is. I’m for the protestors and Wayne. Till I find a better more powerful way.
Comment by Phoenix — Wed 24th May 2006 @ 6:54 pm
Phoenix,
I don’t get it. I read and hear Wayne’s story. It is 100% wrong, but I don’t see how getting rid of the family court will stop this from happening. Is he to take matters into his own hands? That is a past gesture.
Waht could he have done better? Nothing, as he did his absolute best. Will the fall of the family court stop this type of behaviour?
Comment by julie — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Julie
You hit the nail on the head. No area of law has such ramifications on society as family law. That is why they set up The Family Court. The biggest mistake was to leave the rest of the system supporting it without change. Any system set up is only as good as the weakest link. The weakest link in family law sticks out like dogs proverbials. Much work needs to be done in the area of debate to correct this, all concerned parties, male, female, mothers & fathers. It appears to me that the powers that be are not interested in debate with those most affected by system, FATHERS!!!!
In Australia, a family court judge, a mother and her lawyer were all shot dead by disgruntled Fathers. They had nothing left to live for and took their own lives as well as those they felt anger toward. I perdict that eventualy the same will happen here unless some serious attention is given to the legitimate issues raised by fathers here. From what I have read on this site the majority of men want reasonable changes made. The danger with radical change is that another party will be feed injustice. Lets come up with a petition to parliment through the right channels that makes changes that gives all parties a fair shake.
To expect Lawyers to behave differently in this area of law is just pissing in the wind.
Comment by triassic — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 1:11 pm
I hear you loud and clear Triassic. And I think Jim can lead us. And I think all concerns should be covered.
He only has to get away from the political side of things.
Comment by julie — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 1:22 pm
the “FhoneY CourT” charade must be lifted, it exists on no more than hocus-pocus, gobbly gook, judges and lawyers here to spook.
Identify the cancer and then remove it.
Comment by cwb — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 1:43 pm
cbw,
I mean we are on the post, ‘Our pain goes on for a long time’ Sorry about that. Come join us.
Comment by julie — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 1:49 pm