Here are some sobering truths about the system. Based on many other cases, the only reason you got custody was because the mother lacked any kind of subtlety. If she had been at least a little subtle you would not have ended up with custody and it certainly would not have been resolved as quickly as two and a half years. The only cases I have heard of that the father gained custody was when the mother was proven beyond doubt to be a complete nut case. Your case cost you a paltry $10,500+, a sum that makes you the envy of most fathers.

When I say this, I don’t mean to trivialise your experiences in any way. Your case was not just appalling, it placed the children in clear and present danger of serious harm. Not to mention the significant actual physical, emotional and mental harm that was caused to the children. I expect you will be scared by the experience for life.
I am just pointing out that for the standard practice of the NZ family caught system they would consider this to be a wonderful example of what a great service they provide and how well it works.

It is for this reason that I think your case illustrates very well much that is wrong with the system. If we use this as a case study it has the benefit that the father was eventually given custody. I call this fact a benefit because it means the divorce industry can’t dismiss it as simply another father that didn’t get what he wanted. It helps turn the attention to the gender bias of the process.

Steve Jelicich found the same with the Henderson Police, a few years ago. I guess that the police take their lead from the familycaught. Protecting a baby, by leaving it with a violent drunk woman, its hard to understand how this protects children?

There are many many other similar stories. I have heard a small number of similar stories, where it was a psychotic man, whose behaviour could not be appreciated by a familycaught “judge”.

You seem to be taking the familycaught rather seriously. This means that you are taking them for granted, like expecting them to follow common sense or legislation. By kidding yourself, against a significant amount of evidence – if you ask around and listen to it – you are setting yourself up for much dissapointment.

I suggest that you respect the amount of harm that these clowns can do and be more careful to sensibly protect yourself from them. In the end, if they fail to respond to the situation before them, you must accept that you will not be able to save your children. If you throw money at the problem, you may even make it worse! and you have little chance of getting any better response.

Approaching the familycaught really is a gamble (even for women!), so only do it to the extent that you can afford to take poor odds and waste hard earned tax-paid money. Remember that by entering the room, you must be prepared to accept absolutely any possible outcome. If you are not prepared for this, stay away. What’s the point?

Cheers, MurrayBacon.

I had to leave my home and my two remaining dependent children even though
she had threatened to harm them. There is history of her threatening to harm
our children. There is history with the Police of an attempt by her to
kill our children. There was a current threat by her to harm our children.
Regardless I was forced to abandon my babies and leave them at serious risk.

I never went back!
I contacted CYFS out of concern for my children’s safety – what a mistake!

Conclusions:
If I am violent towards my wife I must leave my home and children.
If my wife is violent towards me I must leave my home and children.

I won custody of my children in the Family Caught after 2½ years of
defending obvious lies and delusions being entered as evidence by my ex-wife’s
solicitor who would’ve made a tidy sum from the Legal Aid Authority. I counted
eleven people in Caught one day and made the comment to my solicitor “there
are eleven people here today and I’m the ONLY one paying!”. The ordeal cost
me $10,500 in solicitors fees. My children paid the highest price and only
because of the gender bias that dominates our Family Caught system.
CYFS were absolutely useless. I was clearly the wrong gender for their
liking. CYFS caused my children further abuse because of their inability to
see past their gender bias and support the male primary caregiver of the
children who is often referred to as ‘Dad’ or ‘father’.
My ex-wife has further Protection Orders against three more men since I
ended my relationship with her six years ago and all on Legal Aid. Sometimes
it’s not that man that’s the monster!!

When will fathers and their children be afforded protections from
partners who use Protection Orders as a means to gain Power & Control and then
use that Order as an umbrella to shield themselves while they are violent?

I have no faith in the Family Caught. It is commonly believed to be supportive
of mothers and their children and destructive towards fathers and their
children. My experiences confirm that despite me winning custody.

re your request for a good family law expert on the North Shore

I would recommend Barrister Susie Houghton of Ponsonby. I don’t know what she charges, but she knows the North Shore Family Caught well and is highly respected, especially by the judges there. She is very formidable to come up against. If you need a good lawyer I would rather have her on my team than against me. She is very trustworthy and a very decent person in my experience. I can’t say this about all lawyers but she is amongst the very best I’ve encountered.

Another very good one is Barrister Greg Milicich of Takapuna. He is very decent and fair and has a lot of experience in the North Shore Family Caught too. He is also quite formidible in cross examination. Both Houghton and Milicich won’t pull any punches in telling you the truth or the grim reality of your situation. For grim situations they are outstanding in saving you from drowning. Barrister Jane Hunter in Auckland city is another very good one, but hard to get hold of (it’s a sign of a good lawyer). Hunter is very good with property cases and will afford you the time.

If on the otherhand you just want a blind, faithful lawyer who will do just whatever you want no matter how off the wall you ask her to be (and don’t care about the cost) try Natalie Schumacher of Takapuna. She will fight very hard for you no matter how lost your cause might be, she takes no prisoners, doesn’t negotiate ever, and will attack the opposition ruthlesly like faithful rottweiler until you call her off.

Good luck, avoid the cost of a lawyer if you can. Many judges are quite tolerant of self-litigants and property is one of those issues where a judge has just as much discretion as any other Family Caught mater. He/she will most likely go with what is fair and you have to go into Caught with this mindset – you won’t win what you want so settle beforehand on what is most likely to be fair and argue just for this.

I was watching the programme and was severely distressed to see and hear Helen Clark’s response to families not being effected by the act.

I wish to inform you that myself and my family infact have been severely effected. My Wife passed away just over 3 years ago, of breast cancer, I have meet another lady, who has 3 children and we have come together to form a blended family.

My 14 year old daughter and her Grandmother worked together to have her removed from my care. My 14 year old called cyps to say I had abused her both physically and mentally. Cyps did a full investigation into this and of course found this accusation was not true, and found us to be completely blameless. It was her response because we had said no to her choice a boyfriend, she was involved with a 16 year old who had been expelled from school for stealing a laptop, he had also informed us that he was going to be a father (another teenage pregnancy), and was smoking,drinking etc. Everything most parents would dread for there daughter. The maternal grandmother role in all of this was – ringing and telling her how to go about leaving home, and who to contact – ie cyps, school counsilor etc.

Cyps put my daughter into the grandmothers care for a “cooling off” period of 2 days, they then requested 2 weeks, which i agreed to, and within this period of time, the maternal grandparents applied to the courts for day-to-day care without notice, and was granted this without my consent and before the judge had read the cyps report. They are saying my youngest daughter needs to have the relationship preserved…but from my point of view – if they can apply for one without notice what is going to stop them from going for my youngest daughter as well, whilst at there house on a “visit”. there is no protection or rights for parents/fathers out there.

Myself and my partner decided to move with the other children to Australia, Once the grandparents got wind of this they then took out orders preventing the removal of my younger daughter (11), The orders where discharged by Judge O’donavon, only to be appealled not by the applicaticants but by my 14 year old under legal aid. Where I have had to sell our family home in order to pay court costs.

She was successful in her application, therefore setting a new presidence by the high court to allow any child to appeal proceedings that do not relate to them. This is because of the 2004 care of the child act, that Helen Clark says families are not effected.

In my case, as a parent, I have realised and judge has confirmed that my parental rights have been removed, I have done nothing wrong as a parent, I have lost one of my children at a substancial legal costs to myself and family, and potentally going to loose my 2nd daughter under this act.

this is turning into a ongoing family and high court proceedure, The high court judge, himself, has stated that this act needs ammending to protect the rights of a parents.

I therefore can only protest very strongly at Helen Clarks comments that it does not effect familys, and does protect families. The act has become so broad that anyone can apply for day to day care of your children with out notice, and chances are it will be granted.

This has resulted in my decision to leave new Zealand as I do not believe I have the rights as a parent to bring up my children here.

this is not a position I don not wish for any parent to be in.

would appreciate any comments….or anyone else who has lost a wife/partner could be at risk of the maternal grandparents role over-riding the parents role!!

Visit http://www.uof.org.nz for help. Even if they don’t exist in your area, they can still point you towards friends

Does this strike you as a person who is serious?

I gather that what forced his hand was the reporting of the Jayden Headley case. There was nothing unusual about this case except that the media reported on it. This in turn eventually forced the District Court to jail the mother. This never would have occurred if the media had not reported on the case.

We also began to hear about a few other cases where parents where taking matters in to their own hands in defiance of Family Caught orders. Mothers do this all the time. What was new was the media started reporting some of the cases. This reporting is the biggest threat to the Family Caught. It makes it public knowledge that people can and do ignore the courts orders. Fathers started getting the same idea.

This then forced Boshier to be seen to be doing something.

So he is pushing for changes to the Family Court act so that judges wear robes.

This case was not at all remarkable. The mother had been obstructing the father’s involvement with the children. The family court had been tacitly encouraging her to do so. All just standard operating procedure for the family court. The family court demonstrated to the mother all through the process that she could exclude the father as and when it suited her. She simply forgot to have a little bit of tact while doing this. Eventually she left the family caught with no possible option but to give temporary custody to the father. This was an outrageous about face by the family court so she simply took matters into her own hands by arranging the kidnapping of her own son.

This was her mistake. By having a 3rd person kidnap her son, the father was able to go to police and the media. That took control away from the family caught and involved the district court. That is when some action to enforce the court orders finally began.

Of course it never would have reached this level if the family court had made it clear from the outset that the child would be cared by both parents and obstructions to this would not be tolerated. However the family caught is strongly opposed to having such an outcomes based attitude. That would force it to be truly child focused and inclusive.

Therefore Boshier’s response was for family court judges to wear robes. Thus he can be seen to be doing something while at the same time not changing anything.