Comments on: Guardianship http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/ - promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience - Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:53:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: MurrayBacon http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-184270 MurrayBacon Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:52:43 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-184270 Dear Tama, if you send me your EMAIL address, I can send an example. MurrayBacon murray_bacon@clear.net.nz Dear Tama, if you send me your EMAIL address, I can send an example.
MurrayBacon murray_bacon@clear.net.nz

]]> By: Colin of Nazareth http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-184178 Colin of Nazareth Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:39:50 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-184178 BEWARE TOXIC MOTHERS.. http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/toxic-mothers/2008/09/11/1220857740080.html BEWARE TOXIC MOTHERS..
http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/toxic-mothers/2008/09/11/1220857740080.html

]]> By: Jim Bailey http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-184147 Jim Bailey Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:09:12 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-184147 Tama - If you Email me your where abouts I will also put you in contact with those who can support you as Stand Strong in Australia - The Father Friendly Data Base? (FFDB?) contains many contact World-Wide - Onward - Jim Tama - If you Email me your where abouts I will also put you in contact with those who can support you as Stand Strong in Australia - The Father Friendly Data Base? (FFDB?) contains many contact World-Wide - Onward - Jim

]]> By: Jim Bailey http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-184063 Jim Bailey Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:37:01 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-184063 Tama - Looks a hard one to me - I would suggest a good yak maybe Emails with the very fine lawyer Rod Hooker here in Auckland and used to dealing with these issues - He advertises on the top left of the front page of this site or You can Email me for his contact details - Onward - Jim jimbwarrior@xtra.co.nz Tama - Looks a hard one to me - I would suggest a good yak maybe Emails with the very fine lawyer Rod Hooker here in Auckland and used to dealing with these issues - He advertises on the top left of the front page of this site or You can Email me for his contact details - Onward - Jim jimbwarrior@xtra.co.nz

]]> By: Tama http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-184061 Tama Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:28:30 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-184061 hi I am a single farther fighting for my son so he's not sent back to new Zealand to his mother who is a drug addict. I am currently living in Australia with my son and I need to prove how the family court system and child youth and family systems don't work in new Zealand please if you can help me with sum information that can benefit me in my fight for my son it would be much appreciated. regards Tama Awatere hi I am a single farther fighting for my son so he’s not sent back to new Zealand to his mother who is a drug addict.
I am currently living in Australia with my son and I need to prove how the family court system and child youth and family systems don’t work in new Zealand please if you can help me with sum information that can benefit me in my fight for my son it would be much appreciated.

regards
Tama Awatere

]]> By: allan Harvey http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-183972 allan Harvey Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:24:03 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-183972 Clearly the obligation is on a parent to consult with other guardians. As pointed out by Eric the FC can take a dim view on unilateral decisions (Will do if daddy has been lacking in consultation, a lottery if mummy hasn’t asked). I have had a few relocations overturned and one change in Dr and lots of disputes about schooling decided by the court. Bugger all chance in adjoining a school as a party. Judges would flick that out quick smart. You could always try a civil case for damages (eg additional travelling expenses) against the school itself if you really want to be paying court costs for frivolous actions. Schools are part of the system and it’s the Courts perceived view that they shouldn't be trifled with. This kind of disputes is a bloody good reason to oppose appointment of new guardians which was one of the trumpeted provisions of the CoCA. Why ever put yourself willingly as one of three guardians and risk the potential of being outvoted? I strongly counsel guys who have suggested getting their new partner listed as an additional guardian to not be so stupid. Normally you only need to be point out that they once thought the mother of their child could never seek to harm them and the penny drops. Allan Clearly the obligation is on a parent to consult with other guardians. As pointed out by Eric the FC can take a dim view on unilateral decisions (Will do if daddy has been lacking in consultation, a lottery if mummy hasn’t asked). I have had a few relocations overturned and one change in Dr and lots of disputes about schooling decided by the court.
Bugger all chance in adjoining a school as a party. Judges would flick that out quick smart. You could always try a civil case for damages (eg additional travelling expenses) against the school itself if you really want to be paying court costs for frivolous actions. Schools are part of the system and it’s the Courts perceived view that they shouldn’t be trifled with.
This kind of disputes is a bloody good reason to oppose appointment of new guardians which was one of the trumpeted provisions of the CoCA. Why ever put yourself willingly as one of three guardians and risk the potential of being outvoted? I strongly counsel guys who have suggested getting their new partner listed as an additional guardian to not be so stupid. Normally you only need to be point out that they once thought the mother of their child could never seek to harm them and the penny drops.
Allan

]]> By: Jim Bailey http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-183970 Jim Bailey Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:12:56 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-183970 It is not my personal experience neither anybody that has come to me for help that schools in general follow the law - Luckily I did find 2 in my area that have not only followed the book mentioned by Allan-H but also followed our FC Orders. It is WINZ and CYFS that don't follow FC Orders - In fact my experience suggests that MSD is in charge of the FC not Judges or the Law Onward - Jim It is not my personal experience neither anybody that has come to me for help that schools in general follow the law - Luckily I did find 2 in my area that have not only followed the book mentioned by Allan-H but also followed our FC Orders.

It is WINZ and CYFS that don’t follow FC Orders - In fact my experience suggests that MSD is in charge of the FC not Judges or the Law

Onward - Jim

]]> By: Eric http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-183969 Eric Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:35:53 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-183969 It is interesting that this is occurring a lot. It ought not to be. It has been held in Rea v Rea, a case involving a mother transferring a child from one school to another, that a mother is not entitled to disrupt the life of a child without consulting the other guardian (father) and the judge ordered that the child be returned to his original school. s16(5) of the Care of Children Act 2004 states <em>'However, in exercising (or continuing to exercise) the duties, powers, rights, and responsibilities of a guardian in relation to a child, a guardian of the child must act jointly (in particular, by consulting wherever practicable with the aim of securing agreement) with any other guardians of the child.</em>' The legal test is practicable. What hasn't been tested in Court yet is whether a school can be taken to court as a party to the respondent when a guardian acts in contravention of s16(5). This is something I would love to argue in Court. It is interesting that this is occurring a lot. It ought not to be. It has been held in Rea v Rea, a case involving a mother transferring a child from one school to another, that a mother is not entitled to disrupt the life of a child without consulting the other guardian (father) and the judge ordered that the child be returned to his original school. s16(5) of the Care of Children Act 2004 states

‘However, in exercising (or continuing to exercise) the duties,
powers, rights, and responsibilities of a guardian in relation to
a child, a guardian of the child must act jointly (in particular,
by consulting wherever practicable with the aim of securing
agreement) with any other guardians of the child.‘

The legal test is practicable. What hasn’t been tested in Court yet is whether a school can be taken to court as a party to the respondent when a guardian acts in contravention of s16(5).

This is something I would love to argue in Court.

]]> By: Scott http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-183968 Scott Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:33:43 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-183968 Agreed Bruce. The schools also make up lies just so they don't sound so bad, even the Board of (un)trustees has done this! Agreed Bruce. The schools also make up lies just so they don’t sound so bad, even the Board of (un)trustees has done this!

]]> By: bruce dewar http://menz.org.nz/2008/guardianship/#comment-183967 bruce dewar Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:32:06 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/?p=2191#comment-183967 i am also aware of where a school has allowed a mother to change the surmname of a child when the parents were still legally married.They seem to do whataever the mother asks to make life easier for themselves. i am also aware of where a school has allowed a mother to change the surmname of a child when the parents were still legally married.They seem to do whataever the mother asks to make life easier for themselves.

]]>