- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

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

Thu 14th June 2012

Anthony Mahon: ten years ago very justifiable concern about gender bias in Family Court

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 12:25 pm

The 7th June edition of The Court Report on TV7 featured an interview with Anthony Mahon, co-author of the Law Society’s submission on the current Family Court review, and Deborah Hart, executive director of the Arbitrators & Mediators Institute. They were discussing the recent 70% increase in costs of running the Family Court, with no corresponding increase in productivity.

It’s well worth a watch.

Linda Clark made the important point that public perception is one of the drivers of Family Court dysfunction:

“Whenever you look at any of these issues, one of the things that bubbles under the surface is an unease about the Family Court because of persistant claims from father’s groups that this is a Court which has a gender bias.”

Mahon responded by acknowledging that up to 30% of children loose all meaningful contact with their fathers within five years of parental separation. Then to my surprise, he admitted:

“There was a very justifiable concern about gender bias ten years ago.”

He then went on to claim the Family Court has since made huge strides to change, that society has changed but legislative processes lag, etc.

He also told Linda that part of the blowout in costs was caused by “more complex cases”, which Linda not only failed to challenge, but even repeated as if it were fact when later interviewing Minister for Courts Chester Borrows. Have people and their relationship issues really changed significantly in the last ten years? I don’t think so.

It was interesting to see Borrows proudly wearing his white ribbon to signal his open allegiance to a gender-biased social campaign! I don’t think he gets it.

6 Responses to “Anthony Mahon: ten years ago very justifiable concern about gender bias in Family Court”

  1. Andrew Wotton says:

    The problems of the family court are that;
    1) It is adversarial and not inquisitorial.
    2) The behavior of lawyers protracting cases in order to make more money or because they have a feral feminist attitude.
    3) The anti father attitude that prevails throughout most of the family court.

  2. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Andrew Wotton#1

    Its more then ‘The anti father attitude that prevails throughout most of the family court.’…Its anti Male right through N.Z society thanks to to the feminist movement agenda of demonizing Manhood and Fatherhood

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

  3. Vman says:

    He then went on to claim the Family Court has since made huge strides to change, that society has changed but legislative processes lag, etc.

    What evidence is there of this?
    That is an easy claim to make but the results show this is not true.
    These same organisations were saying there is no bias until they were blue in the face 10 years ago. Now they say that 10 years ago they were lying but everything is so much better now.
    Hahahahahaha!

    yeah Right!

  4. MurrayBacon says:

    Is there an echo in the room? I seem to remember similar statements by “judges” Trapski, mahony and boshier, through the last 30 years. It shows how poor NZer’s memories are, that such a shallow form of spin could have succeeded for so long. [Those who cannot remember history, are doomed to repeat it.] Of those, only Trapski was honest enough to realise that positive changes weren’t happening and to quietly resign and move on with some integrity intact.

    To me this suggests that those “judges” have no credibility at all, in suggesting that any further reforms that they might be involved in could have any social value for NZ families, especially children.

    On the contrary, I would suggest that any reforms should make very sure that those “judges” and present familycaught$ legal workers have no role at all, in which they have monopoly power, or protection from honest well-informed competition and proper accountability. All of their proposals offer the same child-protection deficient service, just moving around who they want to pay their bills.

    I do suggest that women’s interests are often damaged within familycaught$ too, through overcharging for low quality and dangerous “services”. How many women get through familycaught$ with intact house ownership? They suffer when they are not able to parent properly, because they have put themselves into a solo parent situation.

    The people suffering the most damage in familycaught$, are children. In auctioning off custody, the proper interest of children to maintain a constructive working parenting relationship with both parents, is severely compromised to the paramount financial interests of the legal workers.

    MurrayBacon.

  5. Ford says:

    #4..’They suffer when they are not able to parent properly, because they have put themselves into a solo parent situation.’..they did it to themselves and have noone else to blame

Leave a Reply

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

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar