Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?
Lets support good parents (mothers and fathers), over abducting parents.
Should Kay Skelton and Dick Headley be prosecuted for the abduction, within NZ, of a 6 year old boy?
On the face of it, they are charged with a long term child abduction and this is just the final act in a 6 year run of holding the familycaught in contempt.
Child abduction does seriously affect the child. His schooling has been interrupted. His family and friend relationships have been completely broken, for 10% of his entire life and damaged for all of his life. It teaches very skewed values and experience about relationships between men and women, that lay down a nasty legacy for the child’s future relationships. The hiding and the dishonesty lay down intuitions of fear and evasion, that imprint the developing mind, to some extent. Children have a right to be protected from abduction.
The situation has imposed “wasted” legal costs onto the father and the long suffering taxpayer. (In this case, the costs imposed on the Police were not large, as they just waited for the child to give himself up. Only when the “abductor” is a father, do the Police put in much effort.)
However, before throwing the book at this mother and her father, the familycaught should seriously consider it’s own contribution to this debacle. By supporting the mother’s actions, up until the final hearing before the abduction, the familycaught has actively REWARDED the mother, for holding them in contempt. They may have tut-tutted with WORDS, but even the most dismal of idiots know that ACTIONS speak louder than words. The judge’s words were shown to be lies, by their ACTIONS which consistently rewarded her for her behaviours. Let the punishment fit the crime?
The most basic parenting course, teaches that for discipline to be effective, it must be CONSISTENT and reasonably quickly delivered! Let the punishment fit the crime. These judges consistently rewarded the mother, for holding court orders in abject contempt. Their behaviour allowed and drove her to continue being dishonest and manipulative.
Lets see these familycaught judges in the dock, alongside Kay Skelton and Dick Headley. I would suggest that they should get longer sentences than the direct actors. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Even more to the point, lets see these judges pay for remedial activities for the boy and financial recompense for the father and taxpayer.
Real judges, with the skills to perform constructively and cost effectively, as a Family Court Judge, would not say one thing and do another, in their judgements. The NZ public deserves what they get, for accepting the use of lay judges (without relevant professional level training) in familycaught.
Real judges would have successfully passed professional level assessments in courses covering:
1. Weighing evidence
2. Parenting skills
3. Assessing parenting skills
4. Assessing parenting resources
5. Family discipline
6. Family budgeting
7. Family mediation
8. Gender equity
Weighing evidence is important. If this first step cannot be got right, then all that follows is like a house of cards, there is no reality or strength or value in it. Accusations of violence or sex abuse are easily used in front of these “lay” familycaught judges, to support allowing the other parent to immediately gain total control over the children’s situation. It is only when the evidence is weighed correctly, that the punishment will fit the crime.
The important issue is not punishment for its own sake, but bringing the real life consequences back onto the perpetrator. Doing this, teaches people to respect each other. Not doing it, teaches people that they can readily do damage to others, their ex-partner, their children, other people and rely on getting away undisciplined.
In the end, damage of any sort in a parenting relationship dis-serves the children.
These subjects are not rocket science, on the contrary, people with these skills are happy to work for much lower salaries than familycaught judges are currently paid!
Before anyone prosecutes the mother Skelton and her father, surely we should prosecute the far more serious abductions ie international abductions?
One example is given in K v C 21FRNZ686. The familycaught judge, without notice to the father, lifted a CAPPS Order and put a woman child abductor onto a plane, with 5 children, for them to never be seen again. Judge Priestley overturned the familycaught judge’s DECISION, but as the children were out of NZ, his piece of paper only assuaged the father’s feelings. Why do this, when the NZ Legislation requires us to ACT against child abduction, to deter it by consistently prosecuting it?
Judge Priestley carefully did not give the name of the familycaught judge, to protect the judge from prosecution and protect the confidence of the NZ public, in the familycaught judges provided for them. The only identification is “Papakura Family Court”, but even this could have been falsified to protect “confidentiality”. By doing this, Judge Priestley and judge boshier become accessories after the fact, to that familycaught judge’s part in the 5 child abduction.
It seems that the familycaught judge was protected from accepting responsibility and from any remedial re-training or supervision?
Would you want to know that the judge at your upcoming hearing had previously removed a CAPPS Order and put a woman child abductor onto a plane, with 5 children, for them to never be seen again?
Or would you be happier to have this information withheld=hidden from you?
If you have a familycaught hearing coming up, write to judge boshier and ask him to assure you that the judge provided for your hearing was not the familycaught judge in K v C 21FRNZ686.
There have been about 250 children returned to NZ, under Hague Convention, in the last 20 years. Most of the abducting parents will have returned too, thus at a guess 100+ abductors (say 85 mothers and 15 fathers).
I am not aware of a single prosecution of any of these abductors.
The USA sometimes prosecutes and jails abducting parents who are returned under extradition, whether mother or father of the child.
I do appreciate that such a prosecution is a deterrent to abductors, that might lead them to take extreme measures to avoid capture. However, surely the most important issue is to deter abduction in the first place, as far as possible. This is why Parliament passed legislation making child abduction a crime.
International abduction is insidious, in that the chances of the return of the child are much lower than for abduction within NZ. The child is suddenly ripped right out of their entire community and dropped into some other. Fear of capture and lies pervade every aspect of the child’s life. Life becomes a lie.
The damage to the remaining parent (85% fathers) is usually quite cruel and most fathers (and mothers) in this situation get horrifying little support or assistance. Some of these parents are offered so little hope through meeting familycaught, that they destroy their own lives, even though they were not the abductor parent.
Recently, Sweden returned an abductor mother and her son to NZ. She returned in a blaze of self-released publicity and with a police escort. Even so, the NZ Police were “unable?” to catch and prosecute her for the more than year long abduction. (The daughter was not returned by Sweden, as they considered that she was near enough to 12 years, that she could decide to not be returned. The “legal delays” within NZ, led to this non-return. The legal delays, were very profitable for the NZ lawyers and familycaught judge involved and contributed to the non-return due to delay.)
The impact on these children was swept under the carpet and the mother was left free to return to Sweden. The social and financial costs to the father were not an issue for the familycaught. The “wasted legal costs” were not an issue to the familycaught judges and legal workers, they just banked them! The perhaps half million dollars down the drain, is of a similar order to a small arson or a 100 car conversions. Let the punishment fit the crime.
We may have no-fault divorce, but this does not mean that we have n0-responsibility for all parenting behaviour and misbehaviour. Our existing legislation supports putting responsibility onto errant parents. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Why are familycaught judges not doing it?
The only way that parents can be motivated to behave constructively, is when we have familycaught judges who have the simple basic skills to be able to weigh evidence competently and assess responsibility and parenting skills and then put responsibility onto the errant parent(s). This is called the principle of “public policy”.
If the familycaught would like to be taken seriously, then lets see them prosecute the serious cases of child abduction and accessory to abduction FIRST.
For prosecutions to be effective as a deterrent, they must be as speedy as possible, as suggested in Care of Children Act 2004. If these cases were prosecuted and child abduction dropped right off, the legal workers would lose over $10 million in income per year. Its a win-win situation for children, good parents and the public, to prosecute child abductors (but not for familycaught judges and lawyers). This conflict of interest is not managed professionally and this debacle just goes on without an end in sight.
It looks as though this will only be by private prosecution, so do we need a familycaught at all? What value are these familycaught judges successfully delivering, for their wage?
Lets not forget abductions within the same city:
When a father moves out of a family home, taking the children with him, to get the final day-to-day-care that he demands, then this is also a serious case of abduction. When a familycaught judge rewards this father, by giving day-to-day-care, to suit his new location, this father is being rewarded for using fait-accompli and manipulation. These situations usually put quite a lot of costs onto the other parent, the mother. A typical example may cost the mother say $100 for selling a house and buying a new house to suit the new parenting location and possibly costs associated with changing job etc.
It would be constructive, to NOT give the advantage to the parent that uses fait-accompli and for the familycaught to require honest negotiation. The negotiation should take place before the children are moved. Say for 5,000 separating couples per year, requiring honest negotiation would save parents collectively about $50 million a year in the first year of separation and about $5 million a year for each subsequent child raising year. All this, for only costing the legal workers $20 million a year.
Lets recruit judges who know what honesty is and why it is valuable. This is the only path to: Let the punishment fit the crime.
In the meantime, I will throw in $100 to prosecute the father of the abducted child, for not protecting his child from abduction and familycaught. He did not serve his child’s interests, by trusting the familycaught.
Neither did I, damit (conclusion in 20FRNZ604). Alas, I hold the familycaught in the same contempt, that it holds it own caught orders. My experience of the familycaught dreamworld is now several years old, but it does not seem to have moved forward in terms of protecting children from “image over reality” dishonest parents.
If anyone cares to read boshier in 20FRNZ604, if you are interested to see whether he honestly presents in his judgement, the essence of my application, then I can give you a copy of my application. I am happy for you to be the judge.
I offer judges green(now clarkson) and robinson up for prosecution, as active supporters of a woman child abductor (within city abduction – support after the abduction), in my own experience.
Lets build up a public list of familycaught judges who have actively supported child abduction (either by a mother or by a father) and try to return their profit from this. Please identify whether the support was after the abduction or prior to the abduction?
How many abductions have these judges been actively involved in?
The familycaught needs skilled professional management, from outside the ranks of the legal workers.
Lets get real judges in the familycaught.
My appreciation to honest good parents (mothers and fathers).
Murray Bacon
34 Valley Road,
Mount Eden,
Auckland.
ph 638 7275
Posts RSS 2.0
Greeting All,
I have returned from a couple of wonderful days with my sister and her Family – Spent a few hours with Warren Heap and his family (He is most certainly in recovery) and a few hours with a grand Aunt.
I come home more determined than ever to stand and fight for the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
I was also acutely aware of Javan missing out on this 1/2 of his Family because he is with Mum.
I am sad to find my personal and practicle challenges have had little effect but glad to see others are requiring Murray to check what he is proposing.
Many of those at our family gathering are aware of my Cousin Wayne’s work Sanson/Palmerston North and of course his Parents have now come into the picture
I spent some time explaining this thread **Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?** on Mens issues and how some enjoy various forms of debate.
I shared that I had risked getting personal to expose what I think is wrong thinking on Murray’s behalf and my frustration that many would/are following the idea thru and thus wasting precious time and resources to get on with shaping new law and Social Policy to Prosecute ALL who damage our FAMILIES.
One of my sisters twin girls (18) suggested that **Families in Anguish** (They have heard me use the term many times) often hide in dissonance.
We discussed what that means.
I thought it appropriate to post here what we found on Google
**Cutting down the dissonance: the psychology of gullibility**
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/valhouli.html
Hope it makes a few more think a little deeper than academidic pontificating before they give more amunition to the **Empire of Injustice**
Onward in Coalition – Jim Bailey – JimBWarrior
Murray please note I have not said do not try and do not work for change.I have also encouraged you to do so.
What I have said is that this method does not produce real change and the history of the fight for reform of the Matrix of Family Law shows this.
Surely it is obvious that well documented and analyzed data and information and solutions has been provided and ignored. It is ignored because it does not fit into the ideology of the current hegemony. (As Antonio Gramsci defines it, “The term hegemony describes the process whereby ideas, structures, and actions come to be seen by the majority of people as wholly natural, preordained, and working for their own good, when in fact they are constructed and transmitted by powerful minority interests to protect the status quo that serves those interest.”)
Take a look at the issue surrounding Paternity testing and resultant Births Deaths and Marriages registration amendment bill 2007.
This has been an extremely well organized and argued debate, which “we” have continuously won. Yet the result is an “expert” report form the Law Commission that supports the status quo ideology and Officials drafting a bill that denies a child the right to be assured that dad is really dad!.
What is needed and what you are doing with your action is the creation of a counter hegemony and be assured that I support such work.
The response to Silly Sues Folly is a counter hegemony and now a family movement promoting parents rights is creating and presenting its own intellectuals( note the term does not refer to academics) and alternative view of what reality is. A view held by at least 4/5th of the population compared to the 1/5 minority that support Sues folly. That support will cost dearly at the ballot box!
If you think I am discouraging you, you are shooting the deliverer of the message at the expense of listening to the message.
Do not give up but break out of your faith that the current system can deliver real change. That does not mean don’t keep fighting to hold the line.
What is needed is a strategic direction that brings about the counter hegemony and the new hegemony that will grow from this.In this we all play a part.
If you have some time read about Montgomery and how he forged the concept of a modern democratic army and his strategic innovations.
Keep up the fight Murray and don’t give up. I hope the question of support is clearly resolved.
Regards
Scrap
Something serious to consider before hammering old ideas to change our current disasters in Family Law and Social Policy
Most current bureaucrats and many Judges have been appointed by the regime that has made it loud and clear that they do not value the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
We know they do their best to block us
If that is so and I think most of you will agree why do we continue to throw our resources at brick walls
We must advance new ideas thru parliament to bring down those walls
Tinkering with any existing system is mearly Sabre Wobbling
I still believe my simple strategy to be the most advantageous put forward so far
1. Bring HandsOnEqualParenting in as the basis of all family related Law and Social Policy
2. Bring law into place that allows ALL to be prosecuted who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES**
3. Bring law into place that blocks all gender bias and causes gender equality in total
Let the tinkering to form rules – laws for FC-CS-WINZ-CYFS be developed from that point.
Onward – Just a Dad, Grand Dad, Grand Uncle – Jim
Dear folks,
I am sorry that I have maybe created a misunderstanding.
I don’t see attempting to prosecute child abductors and their accessories as solving all of the problems in family law, I don’t see it as solving problems of child support.
I have only suggested a small side project, aimed at saving 50 – 200 children a year from international abduction, reduce associated suicides and aimed to reduce the number of within NZ abductions resulting in disputes which put lots of money out of families and into the hands of legal workers.
>
Trying to save these children can be done just by passing around information we have, to people we know who are at risk.
>
Whether we attempt the prosecutions, depends on whether the people who have suffered abductions or near misses wish to support, by providing the evidence.
>
It does happen that many of the reasons abductions are a problem, are similar to the reasons that many other issues in family law are problems, poor quality legislation and poor quality performance of judges. I have not suggested that prosecuting judges will solve the problems with judges skills or improve the quality of legislation already passed. I haven’t directly made any suggestions about improving the skills held by judges, although a problem defined is getting close to a problem solved.
I hope this clarification can reduce the apparent arguments, between people who I see as agreeing!
Thanks again for contributing,
MurrayBacon.
This is a simple issue to me.
Would I prefer that Murray succeeds, or doesn’t succeed?
If I thought he had zero chance of carrying this off, why would that matter? I would still prefer that he prove me wrong.
He’s asking assistance from the willing.
The depth of thinking to his argument is evident in his writing. His energy and persistance is obvious.
If he manages to prosecute a judge for flagrantly ignoring, actually encouraging, one of the most serious offences in the law books, I would not like to think that I had tried to dissuade him. Even if he manages to break into the mainstream press and bring attention to this appalling injustice, he has done something hugely worthwhile.
So I say good on ya mate. Knock ‘em dead.
This is a simple matter to me also,
I wish Murray all the best, and victories in bit sized chunks are far more beneficial than no progress at all.
I am aware of a number strategies in progress that do not include ***bothering***, but which are currently making progress and raising public awareness. But because these strategies are not in line with Jim’s personal plan of action, he tends to dismiss them as “wastes of time and resources”, or worse, makes personal attacks on the characters involved.
I don’t gauge success by the number of stories in the media or hits on a website, but rather, how many MPs you can convince to enact law change. I’ve been featured in the media many times and always “positively”, but that’s no indicator of success. In fact my walk to Wellington was so positive that we had the opportunity to increase our support base through the roof, but sadly, the Fathers Coalition had no interest in listening to what the petitioners had to say.
What I am saying is….there is more than one way to bring about law change, and ***Bothering*** as a strategy is a long shot at best, unless numbers match or surpass the Anti-s59 Repeal Bill marches and ***botherers*** are prepared to listen and react to public feedback and also be prepared for later political and legislative aspects of the campaign.
I walked to Wellington, pushing a pushchair and Petitioning for an Inquiry into the Family Court, and late last year colleagues and I submitted written submissions in support. Just last week I went to Wellington to make an oral submission to the Law & Order select committee in support of the petition. But sadly, even though I’m pleased with what’s been achieved so far, and how an inquiry or at least select committee support for systemic changes may be just around the corner, I can’t tell many people about it because I know I will get attacked by the Fathers Coalition because what I am doing is not ***bothering***.
If you don’t believe me Jim, below are comments made by you in a single thread about Murray’s excellent proposal to prosecute judges.
“Instead we start yet another vague but well written wonder/rant and don’t bother with BOTHERING or supporting other initiatives that are well underway by giving them power to negotiate”’
>>>MurrayBacon: Following was repeats of content from thread above,
>>>deleted as personal attack on Jim by holding his own words against him.
>>>
Jim, I am bewildered that you could insert so many negative comments about a well meaning person and his idea in a single thread. “Your” way is not the only way, and others should not only be free to try other avenues, but you should support and encourage them. You refuse to listen to others, you constantly attack those who don’t follow “your” methods, and you are always trying to draw people from good internet forums involving good ideas and healthy debate to your own link over-loaded website, then brag about how many hits you get.
People like Murray, myself and others…..
1-are not the enemy, or traitors as I have been called,
2-we are not pontificating, but clearly some one is…. (Pontificate; – State ones opinions as if they are the only possible correct ones. Collins English Dictionary).
3-discussing ideas on forums before taking action is an excellent strategy,
4-our ideas and efforts are only rubbished by a small minority (the Bradford section of the movement LOL),
5-we have the capacity to “listen”, unlike ……………,
6-we are not driven by Ego as you often imply,
7-I was at both the Fielding and Wellington marches……where you?
8-others deserve a degree of respect for the work they are doing and the sacrifices they are making.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, now stand back and let others get on with their cat skinning.
Happy Easter to all back in NZ.
Nice post Mr Bacon, Swedish connection gave a chuckle.
For Scrap, Family Court and IRD are in a slight dilemna with regard to the oustanding child support I owe being all of $274.
The amount outstanding is payment required after abduction to Sweden.
It has been temporarily stayed by a suspension order with a “live” application for a departure order.
The twist, all other matters before the family court have been resolved amicably,and the Child Support issues should have been finalised at the same time.
It wasn’t and Family Court with IRD are scratching heads, Counsel to assist the Court has been appointed to find a way forward.
The way forward that I am plugging and which is under consideration by the family court, if counsel finds they have the jurisdiction, is transfer to the High Court for an evolution of law pertaining to fairness and natural justice through a Judgementary Declaration in respect of liability when abduction takes place.
If it doesn’t work, Wayne start walking to Dunnes, Taxi there for you isn’t it, Scrap? and Jim and I will come down in the war wagon, a bothering we will go!!!!
In all seriousness, Jim is right in the solution, but, Wayne is also right and Ben is also right and a great many others.
All of us have the solutions, regrettably the beast is thick skinned and deaf, it may die by a single blow but again it may be felled by a thousand cuts.
From Thailand
Paul and Opal signing out
Thanks for your encouragement Paul and Opal.
I apologise for cutting out some personal comments above. These discussions don’t need to go through this discussion thread. To be successful communication, these side discussions need to be two way and direct, ie in person.
Readers, please comment on the priority order that I suggested for prosecution of child abductors, how do you see it?
Are you happy with the present way that familycaught/police prosecute child abductors (if you are then there is no need for private prosecutions)?
Should we organise a march to request familycaught to enforce laws against all child abduction, that is on all cases, not just selectively prosecuting occassional cases that make it into the media?
Do you see judge’s present training and experience as acceptable?
Do you believe that familycaught works in an acceptable time frame, or should they get onto cases much more quickly?
What would you add to warning still married fathers of the risk that their children face of abduction?
What other actions can we take, to protect these children?
What other actions can we take, to ensure that the familycaught gives a good quality, cost effective, timely service?
Best regards,
MurrayBacon.
Wayne,
You are shooting the person who delivers the message and not listening to the message.Yes he is blunt, but thats the real world.
What Jim is telling you is that a Select Committee Inquiry will do tidily squat to deliver any real change (EPRAR).
What will happen is that the officials will get what they want and anytime a complaint is raised against the Matrix of Family law the stock standard answer will be “thats being reviewed by the select committee.”
It will dampen the discussion in election year and keep the grave injustices out of the election debate. Yet again.
Being honest about the likely outcomes does not mean that people do not support your action and do not assist you!
Eating The Chocolate Elephant [Youngblood,Micrografx:1994),the basis of your small bite approach, is not as simple as taking small bites, it is a TOTAL process management and re- engineering approach to “business improvement”.
It is built on benchmarking (Previous performance) and quantification of current performance. Its built on the philosophy of a guy called Demming and supported statistically by the work of Shewart.
The success of small bites is executive level support for change based on the voice of the process and listening to that voice.Listening to the process is solely for the purpose of identifying and removing or mitigating special cause variation.
In social change it is easy to mitigate opposition by using the “democratic process” and supporting apparatus to prevent social upheaval. Select committee inquires are a classic example of this.
How is this known? Because those who have been doing this for a long time have tried and quantified what the results deliver.
When someone comes along and says look I am going to change the face of the Matrix we share the lessons learned and they are discounted as : “you didn’t do it right, you weren’t professionals who understand the system, the time wasn’t right…..
So we have to let others come to the same conclusions and then face the reality that real change (EPRA) is only achievable by political power. Sue Braford, who you compare Jim to is actually achieving the change that years of lobbying could never achieve.
Support is a two way affair. Supporting someone does not mean that you cannot say that the outcome will not be what they want and the approach taken will fail. It would be a serious omission not to tell the truth up front! Sadly when one is honest its taken as criticism.
Regards
Scrap
Sorry about being repetitive, Scrap I do see what you are saying and I am not disagreeing. I am NOT trying to address the wider issues here, just to direct the right amount of effort towards protecting a vulnerable group of children, from a harsh and somewhat damaging upbringing, by a parent who wants to exclude the other parent and their family. This is my response, horror, to what seems like the people being paid to do it not actually protecting these children and denying in public that the issue is even serious, while they contendedly bank the proceeds.
The amount of effort I am suggesting need not take much away from the political front, that you are discussing. In fact, it might actually give some public impetus. Please see my comment 54 above.
On the political front, positive solutions need to be reasonably acceptable to a very wide section of our society. Put in a different way, they must respect a wide range of viewpoints. Solutions that don’t meet this standard, should never fly through the political process, as you have said. (This comment opens a can of worms, I know!) A big problem to solving these issues, is that many (most?) of the sections of people we are talking about, don’t have a good understanding of other people’s situations. This makes it extremely hard to start a productive discussion, let alone create a working consensus.
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
Murray,
Was actually replying to Wayne in my last comment
As to a pluralistic approach to politics , it no longer exists. That is the reality of the current system. What we have in our country is the tyranny of the few, supported by the oppressive State apparatus.
The politicians, officials etc do have a good understanding of the issues involved, but they have an ideology and a “democratic process” that ignores the issues because the process enables them to do so.
That aside for you to succeed in your goal you need to first identify the problem.
What is the root cause/s of the problem ?
There are a number of techniques that can be applied to identify root cause.
Have a look at http://www.couriouscat.com and consider the following tools.
1)Fish Bone Diagram
2)Interrelationship diagram
3)Pareto analysis.
4)Five Whys
These are summarized in the US Coastguard guides (easy read and idiot proof)in particular the Process Improvement Notebook
Part of the problem identification is to clearly map the process under investigation and be clear what outputs the process and interlocks (sub-processes) can deliver.
Remember the legal system that supports and condones these abductions is process driven and the outcomes can easily be measured.
You will find that this stage will take the longest time but definition and quantification of the problem accurately is the only way to identify root cause. This is not easy in complex interrelated systems!
Once the problem is identified you can show, via quantification if any improvement applied to the process is working.
This all fits into the PDCA Demming cycle. Once again curious cat has easy to understand literature outlining the continuous improvement cycle.
This is essentially the model that the governments policy analysts use but they don’t really have the statistical process control statistical skills to quantify the improvement gain and never complete the check/act phase of the cycle.
This then needs to be presented in the correct style for politicians and be robust enough to take the negative impact from their policy experts who don’t like the thought that mere upstart parents know better than them and there Master Public Policy tutors.
At the same time you need to be lobbying anyone who shows an interest and couching the issues and solution in your terms.
For example call it Court Sanctioned Child Abduction they will call it Hague Convention removals. Similar to MPS talking about beatings and thrashings in the silly sue debate and labeling it children’s rights cf to anti smacking and parental rights.
You need someone to manage the media its an art form and you need to listen to them. There is a good man for that in Wellington who will if nicely asked and actually listened to be a great help in promoting your campgain. (off list email)
Essentially you need a project manager, a project plan, risk and impact assessments and a competent team to implement the plan. Its not by committee its by leadership, teams wont always agree but they will work the plan and plan the work and disagreement will be internal. You must trust your team.
Hope thats some help in giving you guidance on a path forward.
Regards
Scrap
Dear Scrap,
I thank you for the references, I will look them up. I also agree about the methods of investigation into the root causes, that you have listed.
In the mean time, I have suggested quite simple, low tech actions that most of us can easily take, that would allow parents (mainly fathers) to become realisticly aware and to protect their children from the hazards of abduction.
Any member of the public, reading or listening to profit-media, can obtain the impression that strangers and fathers are the largest abductor hazards. This simply is not true and as a result of this misinformation, most fathers are not protecting their children. familycaught judges know the truth, but they are “strangely” silent. Is this because the status quo is so profitable, that they don’t want to kill the golden goose?
Rather than just complain, I am asking each reader to:
1. think through your family, friends and workmates, separated and still married
2. which of them might be at risk of having their children abducted, if they were to separate? Essentially all?
3. pass on to the father and mother, NZ abduction Hague statistics, showing abductions and non-returns.
4. pass on Robin Bowles “Taken In Contempt”, so that they can have a glimpse of the consequences of child abduction
5. make a copy of the DVD about the consequences of child abduction and pass it on to the parents, so that they can see the results of being casual about protecting their children. (If you don’t already have a copy, talk to me.)
6. should married couples consent to non-removal orders, while still happily married? I suggest YES! I know it is unpleasant to face, but better safe than sorry.
7. Do you know people victimised by child abduction? Let them know about this campaign, to clamp down on abduction, so that they can consider if they wish to help.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon. murray_bacon@clear.net.nz phone 09 – 638 7275
Scrap,
Thanks for your response to my comment, and thanks for being polite.
As I see it, there is currently no viable vehicle for forcing complete systemic change in one go (save for civil war) or even driving home a message to the government that encapsulates the “complete” picture of current injustices metered out by family Law. Yet as I said, there are a number of projects being driven by individuals and small groups. Maybe you’re right in that an Inquiry won’t achieve anything, but I looked into the eyes of select committee members when I explained our current suicide rate and that this is what triggered Howard’s government to take action. I believe I left them with the right impression.
Unless there is the development of unity and an overall strategy between the various interested parties, individuals and small groups working away at bite sized chunks is all we have.
The reason I walked to Wellington; I was involved in some early Fathers Coalition protests, but after reflecting on my personal involvement and discussing the strategy with many other people, I came to the conclusion that we needed to conduct ourselves in a way that drew more support from the wider community. That is exactly what I achieved with my walk and petition. The make up of petition signatories was very similar to those who marched against Bradford’s bill. That is the sort of support required, but the Fathers Coalition has so far been unable to draw them out when required. I was given lots of advice by the public on how to achieve this, but that advice was “lost in translation”, shall we say.
I have even stressed many times that a better strategy might be a campaign to unite all the mens, fathers, parents and associated groups throughout NZ, in time for the next elections, and perhaps allocating two national conference dates, one just prior to the elections. No surprise….that suggestion got shot down too.
Telling individuals not to attempt to bring about change issue by issue (and attacking them for doing so), would be like telling the Chinese not to invent the abacus, the Germans not to invent gear-driven calculators and Bill Gates not to write DOS based software until we have computers with 3GH processors, 2GB memory and fibre-optic connectivity.
We need to do what we can with what we’ve got, and the Father’s Coalition do not have a holding stake or monopoly on strategies to bring about positive change for families.
Editing out what one does not want in any discussion will keep progress in that discussion confined to the limitations of the editor, the gullible and those who hope he/she is right.
Now that we have several defending the orginal subject line it is clear why we make no progress.
An excellent writter looked into the eyes of a select committee and read them like knowbody who has gone before and the gullible listen
An excellent writter refuses to go beyond the shores of his personal experience and the gullible listen
An excellent writter knows what the man/woman in the street thinks and values it above what the many have gone before and the gullible listen
An excellent writter tells the gullible that the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** does not listen yet has know idea who or what that coalition is?
Sad really
Onward – Jim
Wayne,
I sincerely hope that your submission does engender change, which is why I contributed input to it. My concern is that the change will be controlled by the officials as was the case in Australia.
I too have looked into the eyes of select committee members and even had agreement from them that the situation is unjust and appalling.
I have DVD where Sue Braford and Muriel Newman openly admit that they agreed the situation was unjust but the officials stifled there attempts to change the law on Child Support assessments and student debt repayments crippling parents.
Your vision of a united front of parents seeking reform is very much one I hold dear and one that I strive for.
Contact me off-blog and lets talk about your ideas.
Regards
Scrap
The discussion above has ranged over the wider issues, which really are outside of the limited scope I was initially addressing, quickly improving the protection from abduction that we give our children.
Extracts from “Taken in Contempt”, by Robin Bowles:
This book is dedicated to my grandson,
who is growing up in France,
and to his father,
who has joined him in exile.
Thanks especially to my first-born and much-loved son, not really called Alex, who agreed to let me tell some of our own story; and my husband Clive, who helped me through the worst of the pain with his strength, support and encouragement. He never wavers.
>
THIS is a book that needed to be written. International child abduction is a problem that bedevils family courts throughout the world. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction is an attempt to address the problem. It is far from perfect but it is better than the anarchy that prevails in relation to abductions from non-Convention countries.
This book recognises this and also graphically describes the system of private abductions and counter abductions that occur where the Hague law does not apply or is not applied effectively.
All abductions have a detrimental effect upon children but this system of private ‘justice’ has the potential to do great harm.
The Family Court of Australia maintains a 24-hour service that is primarily directed at the prevention of child abduction. Similarly the Australian Federal Police pay particular attention to this problem.
As the book recognises, the Attorney General’s Department in Canberra also has dedicated people working to assist parents to recover children that have been abducted either to or from Australia.
However, Courts, judges, police and public servants are not perfect and some of the people in this book are quoted as being highly critical of all of these groups, including some judges of the Family Court of Australia. Their criticisms may or may not be correct. It very much depends upon the perspective, and the perspective of people involved in bitter family law disputes is often not very objective. While I do not necessarily agree with all that is said in the book and in particular the criticisms expressed of my Court,
it is not immune from criticism and I consider that the author has done the public a service in directing attention to the harrowing and difficult problems associated with international child abduction.
The Honourable Alastair Nicholson, AO RFD
Chief Justice
Family Court of Australia
DURING my research for this book, I have been inspired by a number of ordinary people describing extraordinary events. These people, who were strangers to me, have volunteered to tell of their most personal feelings, to alert, to educate, to entreat, to share the agony of losing their children through abduction by a partner they trusted. Some of their stories have happy endings, but not many. Many spoke to me through tears and bitten lips. Sometimes they have been angry instead – or as well. All are different, but it seemed everyone had a common goal in agreeing to speak to me. All of them said, `I want to contribute to your book. I want to warn parents this can happen to you.‘
On 11 March 1999 it happened to my son Alex.
I wasn’t shocked when he first phoned me, as I knew his wife had gone. That morning, while Alex was at work, I had willingly driven Catherine and their eighteen-month-old son to the airport, knowing that Catherine’s father was dying and believing my son had agreed that she should go to her father’s bedside. But once he read me the note she’d left, I realised this was a different situation altogether. My pain and grief were compounded by my guilt at having participated. Trust is so easily abused. Suddenly we had become statistics. My son had become a ‘left-behind’ parent, and
our family had changed for ever.
These abductions plunge the left-behind parent into an abyss of shock, despair and bewilderment. The emotional trauma is sharpened by the prospect of having to contend with an unfamiliar political and legal system, usually with no knowledge of the law or international niceties. Just identifying sources of help can be difficult.
Emotional, financial and personal resources are often stretched to the limit.
During the first shocking days or weeks, left-behind parents discover that they must do all of the running, as possession is nineteenths of the law. They also struggle with the realisation that (as often happens) the abducting parent could be telling their children all sorts of untruths about why they left. They imagine the abductor saying the left-behind parent is dead, or didn’t want to come along,
I hope the stories of the people who have taken part in this book will help in some small way to raise awareness about this injustice being perpetrated on children all over the world. These are not children from Third World countries. They are the children of our neighbours, our friends – even our families. The stories I’ve heard represent immeasurable heartbreak.
Lady Meyer knows of one US father and one French grandfather who committed suicide because they could no longer cope with the injustice and the unrelenting pressure. As Logan Clarke says, `It is a wicked crime.’
And what of the effects on the children? When the abducting parent sets out to turn the child against the other parent, the resulting inner conflict can be devastating for the child. As Lady Meyer describes it:
A common thread in all too many cases is the sustained, vengeful effort of the abductor to deprive the other parent of contact with the child to the maximum degree possible. The aim in fleeing one judicial system to another is to permanently reverse previous custody decisions and destroy the other parent’s relationship with the child.
When parents abduct children, they are obviously not going to speak well of the other parent, saying that he/she still loves them and wants to see them. On the contrary, the children are told that their other parent is a bad mother or father, who has abandoned them and could see them at any time if only he or she wanted to.
>
>
On 26th of October 2005 I, Murray Bacon, sat at the back of a caughtroon at Manukau District Court, with judge adams and legal workers gray cameron and simon jefferson discussing whether to send a Declaration to Sweden, saying that a boy aged 5 and a girl aged 11 had been illegally removed from NZ.
I expected 5 or maybe 10 minutes of discussion, as the issues at a family level were simple, clear, unambiguous and obvious.
Over 2 and a half hours went by, as these people discussed the removal from NZ, which preceded the passing of the Care of Children 2004 Act, the possibility that the Swedish Government and Courts might not act on this letter and therefore possibly it should not be sent.
How could this discussion go on for so long? The issues were being discussed as if this was the first ever Hague application to leave NZ. I knew that this was not true, as NZ has averaged about 50 applications per year, so through several years there had been several hundred similar applications.
Several months later, I heard that the Swedish Appeal Court had ordered that the son be returned under police escort, but that the daughter was near enough to 12 years, that she could decide to stay in Sweden.
Thus the time delay waiting for the “hearing” in Manukau, plus the delays for the judgement to be released and the letter finally be sent, had allowed the mother-abductor to keep the daughter in Sweden, despite the Hague Convention.
http://familycourtnewzealand.bravehost.com/abduction.html
It felt to me that the issue was being stretched out, to justify larger bills. I’m told this hearing cost the NZ and Swedish Governments close to $20,000, apparently only for disadvantage to these children.
As a citizen, I cannot be silent, about what looked to me to be featherbedding to provide financial support to legal workers, at serious cost to the quality of care for children.
Familycaught judges decry child abduction in public, but under cover of secrecy, their actual behaviour is largely one of encouragement, enabling and support. Parents and grandparents must defend their children, despite the familycaught.
If we want to contribute to reducing NZ’s appalling rate of illegal child abductions, we must act at a personal level (despite the familycaught) to warn parents to protect their children from this scourge.
We should also put pressure onto the legal workers, to perform their jobs with due skill and integrity. If they are unable to provide a competent, skilled, cost effective service, then taxpayers SHOULD be protected from paying them!????
The Conflicts Of Interest that occur in the “legal” process are not being managed by the present “Chief Justice” and the present “Principal familycaught judge”, thus the management of these conflicts of interest must be performed from outside of the legal workers community, by people with the skill and integrity to do this. This is not difficult to do and is essential, if we want the familycaught to ACT!!! against child abduction. Concepts of quality control and performance auditing, have been used successfully in competitive industries for half a century (as described by Scrap above). If we want acceptable performance from caughts, then these management tools must be used in the management of the caughts. Although there is some knowledge of these techniques among legal workers, management of the caughts have been careful to never apply them for the advantage of the NZ citizens or the protection of the most vulnerable of NZ’s citizens. Our caughts will only move forward under their own initiative, when access to judges is by well informed customer choice, influenced by cost, on a competitive basis.
Lets do it for all of our children. I am making a call for action, not for more talk. Please just do it!
Best regards,
Murray Bacon.
Murray,
Awesome that you raise this issue in a public forum like this.
I think Hans L has exposed what I perceive as the major issue with the “Men’s movement” in New Zealand (and, for all I know, the balance of the world).
This is the internal bickering and cheap shots at other Men who push a slightly different barrow to mine.
Your belief that the people we really need to be talking to are the ones who do not post here: the general public who have no experience of our judicial “system” and the various government agencies which support their efforts to de-Parent Families.
I must admit, when I saw the sheer volume of comments, I was in two minds as to whether to continue and then Rob C said that you are looking for people who are WILLING to assist in some way.
So, without prejudice, I willing to offer my assistance [in the form of my time] to get the message out to John and Jane Public.
Stay healthy and happy,
Mark Shipman
Thanks Mark, for your offer of support. Please pass on “Taken In Contempt”, to people whose children may be at risk, also the NZ Hague abduction statistics and K v C 21FRNZ686.
I have been contacted by a father with two young children taken out of NZ and we will be meeting in the next few days. I hope that the action is now underway.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon.
Subject: NZ – Kiwisfirst.com – Challenges NZ-Judiciary
Good one Vince
Go http://www.kiwisfirst.com
Onward in Coalition – Jim Bailey – JimBWarrior
Founder – http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
And – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News
Opt-In -/- Opt Out -/- OPTION – (LINK)
Get serious or get out
or Go http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/44279.html
This thread was started, when it looked as though Kay Skelton would never be held accountable for her role in abducting her son away from his father. Since then, a highcaught date was set 11/11/2007 – and drifted into ancient history with no action!!??
>
It has since become obvious that Kay Skelton has previously been an international abductor. If she had been required to face the consequences set out in NZ legislation, then I am sure that Jayden would have been spared the second abduction that entertained us on the TV News. Thus, the familycaught leniency, refusal to follow NZ law, resulted in Jaydon suffering the second, long drawn out abduction.
Thus, the familycaught’s leniency and refusal to follow the law, has had real and fairly serious consequences for Jayden.
It has no doubt also played a significant part in persuading other mothers that they can get away with abduction and even if court, they would never have to face any consequences at all.
Thus the child abduction rate is increasing, due to the public knowledge of the judge’s refusal to allow prosecutions of these women abductors.
The Police put a lot of effort into running to ground, father abductors that intended to deprive the mother of access for a few days.
It appears that they take no action, or negligible action, to protect children from mother international abductors, that intended to deprive the child of it’s father – forever!
The typical father within-NZ abduction costs about $10,000.
The typical mother international abductor costs NZ Government $250,000 to $500,000.
Work out for yourself, who the police really should be chasing.
However, if the police know that the familycaught judges will just “spring” the woman abductor, then the situation degrades to chaos, for our children.
These child abductions put many many $millions each year into the pockets of judges and legal workers, for no value to children or parents at all. Taxpayers should protect themselves from being bled like this, for no value – just for increasing the abduction hazard faced by their own children.
It is cheaper to prosecute a few cases and reduce the number of abductions that “happen” to our children. Its certainly better for the children, to really deter child abductions, by mothers or fathers.
Are these amateur (lacking professional level training to be a judge) judges just dipsticks ?
European judges have basic lawyer training and go on to judicial training for a further 2 years. They CANNOT enter judicial training, if they have more than one years experience working as a legal worker.
Think it through – why would European Governments place such a requirement? What do we lose, by appointing judges with say 5 to 15 years experience working as a legal worker (and no training relevant to working as a judge) ?
>
Half a year has drifted by, without Kay Skelton’s prosecution proceeding!
If anyone has any knowledge of why Kay Skelton hasn’t seen the inside of the dock, please inform readers?
Maybe there is a good and legally acceptable reason?
At present, it just looks like one law for women and one law for men. I am not talking about the written laws, they have no effect in NZ, it is what really happens inside familycaughts that actually affects children and their relationships.
This contempt for NZ legislation doesn’t protect children.
Why throw the police at the 15% of abductors and help the 85% of abductors who are more dangerous to children’s upbringing?
If this is true, then men need to know the truth and make alternative plans.
>
Does this sound familiar with the familycaught’s role in protecting children’s relationships with their fathers in general?
>
The issues about whether father’s relationships with their children should receive similar protection, to mother’s relationships with their children is rather polarising, unfortunately.
>
As I see it, good parents are willing to share their children, actually WANT to share the children with the other parent.
Lets be careful to distinguish between MOST mothers who DO respect children’s relationships with their fathers and the small minority of mothers who vandalise their child’s relationships. (Relationships with fathers and with their father’s wider family too.)
Thus I am sure that the majority of mothers do not have much sympathy with insecure hazardous mothers, who would try to vandalise their children’s relationship with the father. (I mainly see the familycaught as hapless relationship vandals, as they furtively act in secret to protect these mothers from facing the consequences for their actions. In doing so – they are sacrificing the children, to their greed for money.)
>
When it comes to listening to evidence presented in familycaught:
There are none so blind, as will not see!
?
Jim Bagnall and I tried to hammer these issues on Youtube, in time to invite parent’s to protest outside Kay Skelton’s trial (that never happened):
>
Lets prosecute child abductors3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4QTwtiymA
>
>
Fathers anguish over abduction3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GKsrqiMnrk
>
>
Reading the Australian Family Law Act 1975 brought home to me how far NZ is behind Australia. Our familycaught opened for trade in 1980, alreadt 25 years behind. They can’t even copy.
With every new innovation by the NZ familycaught, we seem to fall even further behind! We would do far better to just copy Australian legislation, it would be much safer for our children too.
>
It’s time that all NZ men, act to protect their children and make Family Law an important erection issue….
>
Don’t Vote – it only encourages them!
>
Apathy Rules OK, said the sheep, just before it’s throat was cut and it was fleeced.
>
Please don’t drift, until you find out your own children are gone….
>
Removal of children from the marital home, without the informed consent of the other parent, should be illegal, if done by either parent. This is where the familycaught winds up the stress and breaks down trust between parents (and creates its asset stripping opportunities for personal profit).
>
Honest negotiation was never started by unilaterally removing children, to get the familycaught fait accomplii advantage!
>
Best regards,
Murray Bacon.
Judge Boshier has given a speech about the future of the familycaught at Victoria University Wellington.
Judge boshier does touch onto many real issues.
However, as a person who has seen familycaught in action on about 10 occasions, his conclusions and claims are off this planet and lost in the smoky unreality of self delusion and/or hallucinogenic drugs.
This may not be so obvious to people who have not heard one of these familycaughts in action, or listened carefully to people who have been through it. Even now, I still at times have difficulty believing stories that people tell me, about what has gone on in some familycaught!
No wonder the public often refuse to listen to their friends or family who have been extruded through familycaught. One day we must all wake up.
Before you read his speech, please note that the familycaught has always had several methods to enforce its orders and to prosecute or admonish those who flagrantly breach its orders.
Thus the problem about enforcing familycaught orders has always been in the sheepbrains of the judges. Even worse than the lack of enforcement of orders, has been the lack of understanding inside the judges – of the real world consequences that obviously will flow on from the familycaught refusing almost completely to enforce it’s own orders.
As a consequence of knowing that their orders wouldn’t be enforced, judges have got into the lazy habit of not producing judgements of good enough quality – that they COULD be enforced. (In any case, if the judges often get the facts wrong, how could the resulting judgement hope to have any value for anything?)
Whilst Judge Boshier likes to draw attention that orders were enforced onto Kay Skelton, he is ignoring the even more important issue of HOW LONG it took, before the familycaught started enforcing its orders for the protection of the boy. I suggest that by spinning only part of the story, judge boshier is disastrously demeaning the credibility of every judge in NZ.
The most important questions are:
How much harm has been done, in the wait for enforcement?
What remedial actions are being taken, to ameliorate the damage caused by this long wait for competent judgement?
Who is paying for the remedial actions?
(the people who caused the delay in judicial competence or someone else?)
I suspect that much of the required remedial actions are not in fact taking place at all?
Even now, Kay Skelton’s announced prosecution for within-NZ child abduction has never taken place.
More importantly, she was never even charged with her earlier international abduction!
Reality is a crutch for people who cannot handle drugs?
We need familycaught judges, who have wisdom that is respected in the real world, rather than the smoky hallucinatory self-referential self-congratulatory rooms of the familycaught.
I am not saying judge boshier is the worst judge, on the contrary I believe that he is the best familycaught judge (since Judge Inglis and Judge Trapski retired years ago).
His heart is sort of in the right place, but when he twists himself to protect other judges from public accountability for their actions, then boshier is at his very worst.
I suspect that judge boshier’s strange and dangerous to himself behaviour results from the lack of statutory levers that he has, to try to manage his group of judges. He just doesn’t have the tools to do his job.
This was previously demonstrated by Judge Trapski more than a generation ago. Without any improvements in the law, judge boshier still accepted the job. He should have known what he was letting himself in for.
Boshier seems to be learning the epithet:
Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
And he is certainly getting repetitive lately!
In the fullness of time, maybe he can get a job in the reruns of Alice in Wonderland, if there are no problems with proteinous plaques on the brain.
I find judge boshier’s claims so misleading, that I believe they are deceptive, manipulative, black lies rather than “white lies”. The public are increasingly being shown the truth about the familycaught. It seems they are reacting to the revelations, as they slip out, very slowly.
It is also a question of alternatives. While the familycaught can force both parties to take part, through threats, extortion and coercion, it only takes one party to force honest people to deal with familycaught.
This monopolistic power should only be given by the Government, to people who honour the trust placed in them and who have the integrity and stomach to be publicly accountable. Judge boshier is showing that the familycaught lacks these attributes, in spades.
Perhaps we should be looking carefully at options for Court systems, where the judges DO NOT have monopolistic power, where they compete for work on the basis of well informed public opinion, their charges for service and quality of service. The less successful ones could then freely choose between starvation to death or begging.
When judge boshier can discuss in the same sentence enforcement of orders and judges clothing, his world is that of clowns, not gowns.
There is a need for a working familycaught system, based on honest negotiation and competent enforcement, not on extortion in the best interests of legal workers.
Most people feel that respect is earned through showing wisdom and integrity, not demanded through wearing irrelevant strange clothing and threats of financial extortion.
The problems with the familycaught are in the heads of the existing judges.
The problems can only be safely repaired through complete replacement of these “judges” by people with relevant professional level training to be appointed as judges.
This would not be expensive, it would save a lot of money for the Government.
Do it once and do it right.
If I have made any mistakes above, please draw my attention to them and I will be pleased to make a humiliating public correction. ph 09 638 7275
>
>
>
Dominion Post
Wednesday, 23 April 2008200804230500
Judges ready to jail parents
The Family Court is getting tough, planning to crack down on people who
breach protection and parenting orders, its top judge says.
The move follows concerns the court has become so informal that people no
longer fear the consequences of breaking the law.
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier unveiled yesterday a series of
changes to formalise court proceedings – and indicated he was prepared to
jail parents who did not respect the law.
Judge Boshier has asked the Justice Ministry to investigate having police
prosecute people who breach parenting or protection orders to help drive
home the message that legally enforceable court orders must be obeyed.
“I think if people understand that breaching court orders results in
interaction with police they might think it is very undesirable,” Judge
Boshier told The Dominion Post.
“One of the complaints that’s made by users of the Family Court is that
sometimes there’s no proper consequences if a person breaches an order, so
they wonder what the point of coming to court is.
“I think it’s legitimate that people, by the time they get to the court
order, should expect it will be implemented – no ifs and no buts.”
To formalise Family Court proceedings, judges would resume wearing robes,
courts would be made bigger and lawyers would have to stand to address
judges.
In a speech to a public law seminar earlier yesterday, Judge Boshier said he
also wanted better courtroom security, because he “drew breath” every time
someone opened a briefcase in court.
He indicated that he would not hesitate to jail parents if they broke the
law during custody disputes.
Kay Skelton was jailed for 13 weeks for contempt of court after refusing to
divulge what she knew about her six-year-old son’s whereabouts. Jayden
Headley was snatched from a Hamilton library in August 2006 before being
returned to his father in January last year.
“I guess … she got the message,” Judge Boshier said in his speech. “We’re
trying to say to people: `This is a court where you are entitled to expect
consequences and you’ll get them.’
“I think there’s the risk that we’ve been so informal it’s led to a
misunderstanding of consequences.”
The Family Court deals with 66,000 new applications each year, covering
cases such as custody disputes, protection orders and mental health orders.
But it has come under fire from aggrieved fathers, who picketed judges’
homes in 2006, claiming the court was biased toward mothers and cloaked in
secrecy.
Judge Boshier said yesterday that the court had taken “a battering”.
Fundamental changes had been required to make it more credible and
efficient.
The Family Court Matters Bill, now before a select committee, would allow
more media scrutiny of cases, promoting openness.
There were also moves to reduce delays and promote more efficient justice
for Family Court users, though tensions remained around granting protection
orders based only on allegations without all the facts. “The court cannot
guarantee to always get it right,” Judge Boshier said.
Almost a year has gone by, since a High Caught trial date was set for Kay Skelton, regarding her 6 month abduction of her son Jayden.
The date has gone by, with no public explanation of why she has not been prosecuted.
Even more glaring, is why prosecute her for a 6 month within NZ abduction, when she has never been brought to charge, for her previous international abduction??
In the 12 months that have drifted by (with these ineffective judges still being paid despite their failure to perform), the judgements that Judge Boshier posted on the familycaught website, have been quietly scuttled, as if they had never been posted!!!! Even Google cache has forgotten about them. They are still around in the real true world, so if you would like to know the truth, about how well the familycaught protects NZ children from abduction, seek and yee shall find.
Historians used to say “Russia – the country where even history is uncertain!”
well – we alas can add soviet NZ to the list….
This failure of the police to bring prosecutions of women abductors may be largely due to the lack of stomach of the familycaught “judges” to allow these prosecutions to proceed to conclusion.
All the while that the familycaught sits on its hands, more children are being internationally abducted, at an increasing rate. The refusal to prosecute is feeding these international abductions, so that they are increasing at over 15% per year, more than a child per week. The concept of deterrence, to protect our children, is being scuttled by these “judges”.
In the last year, while Kay Skelton has been smirking and laughing at these placeholder “judges”, a further 50+ children have been abducted.
In the past year, I have heard a lady High Caught judge say that caught orders are to be obeyed. I have also heard the NZ solicitor-general say the same in the High caught at Auckland!
I now just laugh at these two-faced hippocrites, as I have never yet seen a familycaught order, which was subsequently enforced. (I have heard about a few being enforced, but not in my personal experience.) On the contrary, in my personal experience, the “judges” have refused to enforce every order that I have ever asked them to enforce. Not only that, but they have then gone on to change the orders, so that the order just breached, was now what was required!!!???? Eat one bite and you can grow taller, eat another bite and you can shrink back again…
Our children ARE still worth protecting!
I have had the experience of listening to the IRD barrista saying in High caught, that abduction isn’t harmful to children and therefore, it is acceptable that IRD (spousal and) child support assist and subsidise women abductors by continuing to take (spousal and) child support payments from the father and pass them on to the abductor mother. I felt physically sick after hearing this speech.
I realised that it was because the very people who I expected to act constructively to protect children and deter future abductors, were in fact working against the protection of our children and prepared to state this fairly publicly. I believe that it is these ethics, that feeds the apparently high suicide rate of IRD CS staff. They should not be put into this position, by the Government.
Please ask your local politicians what they are doing to protect our children from abduction, internationally and also from the matrimonial home?
Query them, to separate out talk from action.
It is only by many members of the public showing them, that we care for the protection of our children from one eyed parents, female or male, that we can improve the protection that we give our children.
I do suggest that you take a little time out from everyday life and listen to a few hours of what happens in our caughts. Judge for yourself, the quality and value of what is going on in them… If you are not satisfied by the quality of what is going on, then you cannot protect your children’s future by being silent.
Our children’s peaceful childhood should be protected from abductors.
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
This UK website provides some information, to help left behind parents handle abduction:
http://www.mensaid.com/abduction/
Hi guys, yes, anyone that steals a child from their parents should be prosecuted, i feel they should be executed, stealing a persons property is really bad but to steal a persons life is playing with fire, i am going to get my wifes children back if it is the last thing i do because it isnt just my wife getting hurt but it is also her children and those peices of scum who told all those lies about my wife and stole her children are going to be sorry for what they have done
Hi Hadi and others,
Take care that revenge does not disempower your parenting. Focus on the kids, history cannot be re-written, trying to right old wrongs will destroy you. Look forward not back.
There is significant wisdom in Chris Jones example as he gets on with the task of parenting Jayden.
It would be good to see Kay Skelton before the Courts but given the last 12 months don’t hold your breath. I wonder how the Police or Justice might explain the prosecution of the Northland accomplisces but the lack of progresss with Kay and Dick Skelton.
Lets keep up the good work of encouraging parents so that more children are not abducted.
Revenge is sweet though AND WHAT IS REQUIRED !
Doing nothing will get us nothing
For me, this thread had six purposes:
1. let married parents see that that they have to protect their children from abduction by the other parent, that the familycaught does precious close to nothing to deter illegal child abduction. (Actually, it aids, supports and enables child abductors to break these laws.)
2. to persuade still married parents that these risks are far higher than profit media indicate to the public ie about 60 – 200 children abducted per year
3 to let still together parents see that once abducted, they have barely over 50% chance of seeing their children again if they are the mother and significantly under 50% chance of seeing their children again, if they are the father.
4. let parents see that familycaught operation is more related to financially milking abductions, than protecting children from abduction.
5. That the deterrence function of prosecuting abductor offenders is almost completely dead and this is driven by the defective and dangerous personal values of these familycaught “judges”.
6. to persuade left behind parents of abducted children to look at the quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness of familycaught operation. When they have considered these issues, to consider making available the evidence that they hold, to allow a group of people to drive prosecutions of “judges”, when their behaviours have been clearly outside of NZ legislation.
It will only be when the NZ public take their own personal responsibility for enforcing the laws of NZ, that these laws will be enforced competently and effectively, for the protection of our children.
Competent enforcement of these laws will never happen by accident.
At present, no left behind parents have offered their evidence, to use for prosecuting “judges”, so it seems that they are relatively satisfied with familycaught performance? I cannot understand how they could be happy, but I respect their choice.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Judge their values by their actions, not by what they say.
The familycaught has now released the abductors with minimal punishment.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/5221600/boys-abductors-avoid-jail-terms/
Cheers, MurrayBacon.