One in Three Fathers Will Lose All Contact With Their Children
Auckland family lawyer Anthony Mahon (immediate past chair of the Family Law Section of the NZ Law Society) reports some sobering facts about the alienation of fathers in post separation situations. As family lawyers go, Mahon seems ok. He was a member of the Family Court Review Reference Group and so has seen the “inside information” gathered for the current Famaily Court Review.
In the 01 June 2012 issue of “NZLawyer” magazine Mahon reports that authoritive research now shows over 30 per cent of fathers (about one in three) will lose all contact and access with their children within five years of separating from their children’s mother. The cost of that for our children in terms of their health, education,and social welfare costs is alarming.
Mahon writes opposing giving greater powers to Family Court judges, saying the failure of Family Court jurisprudence in respect to the wholesale (and in our view often unhelpful) appointments of Lawyer for Child has resulted in a financial burden that has all but crippled the Family Court process. The ambulance at the bottom of the cliff introduced by the government is to start charging fees, instead of actually addressing the problem. As UK Family Lawer Judith Murray [1] has pointed out in circumstances when the child’s views about the non-resident parent are entrenched giving strength to the child’s voice through separate representation can exacerbate the alienation.
Mahon points out the figures now show almost 50 percent of all relationships will be affected by family law issues at some stage.
Mahon also points to the failure of the much heralded Early Intervention Process (EIP) where the introduction of counsel-led mediation has neither led to a increase in resolutions or substantial freeing up of judges’ time to hear more cases. In fact, says /mahon, there has been no noticeable increase in hearing time since the EIP was introduced, but the cost of funding lawyer for child and mediation and legal aid has gone through the roof.
What their Honours are doing with the extra time that has been freed up is anyone’s guess, but families going through the Family Court do not seem to be benefiting. The Auckland Family Court can now take up to a month to release judicial directions issued at a judicial conference.
The overall operating cost for the Family Court for 2009/10 was $137 million, plus $13 million for judicial costs (including judges’ salaries and allowances). The costs of appointments of lawyers to represent children under the Care of Children Act cost $23 million in 2009/10. A Family Court judge is paid $288,500, plus they get an annual allowance of $4100. It seems clear who is benefit from the Family Courts of this country. It is not families.
Simon J for GerryMen Fathers’ Action
[1] “Transferring residence where contact is obstructed” by Judith Murray (Jurisprudence BA (Hons) (Oxon) 30 September 2010, 4 Paper Buildings Private Law Seminar, London.
Posts RSS 2.0
Ïndicative of the deeply engrained misandry is that it has taken literally DECADES for these shocking facts to be made public by one of the legal profession. Good on Mr Mahon for breaking ranks and doing so.
Thank you very much for this interesting material. The familycaught$ costs reminded me of someone saying “can’t they eat cake?”.
I am very very cautious about accepting any marketing material from legal workers as authoritative, in any sense. Legal workers may be happy to consider each other’s publications as authoritative, but as consumers we would be wise to exercise our own caution. Similarly, I would caution about any feminist or masculinist publication, that is not peer reviewed before publication.
I have once met Antony Mahon, at TVNZ and he wears a really good suit and speaks nicely.
[1] “Transferring residence where contact is obstructed” by Judith Murray (Jurisprudence BA (Hons) (Oxon) 30 September 2010, 4 Paper Buildings Private Law Seminar, London.
Please be cautious in reading marketing publications. Remember who is writing the document, consider what they hope to personally gain by publishing their document and thus what conflicts of interest apply? Legal workers and drug company sponsored medical researchers usually fail to honestly declare all conflicts of interest. A few do, but it appears that the majority see this as an impediment, to their life of crime.
I see quite a few reasonable ideas presented in “Transferring residence where contact is obstructed” . It is very much from a legal point of view, rather than considering the best interests of the children and adult parties, in the real world. The problem with the legal approach, is that although it might reach the correct outcome eventually, most likely the family will have been almost destroyed and plundered in the “legal process”. In UK, cost of “legal services” is much higher than in NZ, thus they are very selective who they plunder. It appears that this provides some degree of protection for the poor!
In general, I give much more trust to Journal of Family and Conciliation Courts Review, from USA. People like Janet Johnson publish much more reliable research and it is peer reviewed. This journal has quite a large number of papers on PAS and possible methods of managing these situations.
Cheers,
MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Feminist “equality”. Kick dad out of the home, brand his forhead with the word “ATM machine”, and deny him any right to see his children. If he loses his job and can’t pay, throw him in jail.
The men’s rights movement:
1) Equal protection under the law for all.
2) Equal protection of government for all.
Feminism: hate.
Murray makes some good points and I agree with his thrust, we just provide this material because we acknowledged it is an unequal battle by rules made by others. If we choose to engage in this battle we sadly have to play by their rules and perceptions. For example, like it or not, the Family Court will not accept PAS, but will accept parent alienation if the ‘syndrome’ part is left off. The US material is good, but we referred only to the British material because the NZ Courts are more ready to accept British cases as substantive as opposed to American. The overwhelming majority of overseas precedents accepted by the NZ Courts are from English law, which is understandable given where our law comes from. Our aim is to assist others cope in an adversarial system where there always has to be a winner and a loser, and sadly seems to put far too many fathers in the latter category.
Dear Tony, thank you for your comments. Sun Tsu would be proud of you. Pragmatic and practical.
When I said “I trust…”, I was meaning in terms of me trusting the research factual content, rather than presenting it in a caughtroom.
You have gone a step further, which in terms of protecting parents, (fathers and mothers) and children, is what is important.
In the territory of parental alienation, the best research (that I can find) seems to be coming out of USA. Note – research.
You are talking about presenting precedent judgements to a NZ caught. Although NZ caughts might prefer NZ or Australian or UK judgements over USA, we have a choice. Do we present a judgement, or do we present original research?
I know that judges prefer precedent judgements, but in the territory of child protection and parental alienation, there is a confusing sea of judgements, pointing in all directions (like the arms of the scarecrow in Wizard of OZ “Which way did they go?” and he points both ways.. Ask again, “which way did they go?” He swaps his arms around and still points both ways..) Making a judgement about human situations, is like driving a car only in reverse. Hard work and high risk too.
Maybe in this case, it is necessary to present relevant precedents that appear to support your own proposition and to find a well qualified psychologist, to present the research that backs up your proposition.
In the end, the judge will probably make up their mind, based on the behaviour in caught of the litigants, (whether he had sex the night before), then the precedents and lastly the up to date research. Even if this is wrong, in terms of making quality decisions, we do have to work with the pre-existing judge material that is already appointed. They are familiar with the concepts of judgements and dangerously, woefully ignorant about child protection psychology. We all tend to gravitate to what we are familiar with, whether or not it is the data that has the highest reliability to guide us to the best outcome for the children and parties.
Anyway, if the judge is particularly unsatisfactory, this often being the case, then the first hearing is only to admit all necessary and relevant evidence, so that you preserve access to a workable appeal.
If you haven’t brought in all necessary issues in the first hearing, then you have only access to an appeal hearing where you have guaranteed that you will fail!
Thus, you cannot leave off the hard work, to the time that you submit appeal documents, as most legal-workers appear to do. (This is the economic optimum approach, if your customer is paying you to fail. If you want to succeed, then you have to work harder. As rc said recently, if you want a good job, you really have to do it yourself! or pay your legal worker to succeed.)
For a hearing on these issues, it will be necessary to present supporting precedents and have a well qualified expert present supporting research. There should be a supporting trail of discussion and negotiation, which clearly demonstrates good faith and that your proposed parenting plan is workable in the real world. All the preparation must be completed, before presenting the first application.
Please contact me and discuss this further… (09) 638 7275.
MurrayBacon – merciless axe murderer.
Murray (#5); more research? And more research? Even when parental alienation is positively and blatantly provable? I rather prefer the pragmatic approach taken by the Brazilian government; they enacted a law regulating parental alienation back in August 2010. The obvious thrust of the law is to prevent parental alienation in the first place; then it empowers the court and the judge to apply REAL punitive measures where it can be demonstrated that parental alienation has occurred.
The really great thing about the Brazilian piece of legislation is that it is short, simple and clear in it’s intent. Now, perhaps our “justice” system could set its own precedent by looking elsewhere, outside of research and outside of archaic, ineffective or non-existent laws from england or the usa.
A “loosely translated” copy of Brazilian LAW No. 12 318, DE 26 AUGUST 2010 “Provides for parental alienation and amending Art. 236 of Law No. 8069 of 13″ can be found here:
http://fkce.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/25/
One in 3 fathers will loose all contact with their children within 5 years of separating from the mother….
…and NZ lacks the political will and social concience to do anything about it.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
So Brazil, a Catholic country that worships the mother Mary, creates a law that recognises the following activities as child abuse and specifies redemial actions. yet NZ wont. NZ has a 3rd world system. It’s barbaric.
Actions specified in the Brazilian law:
Examples of forms of parental alienation, as substantiated to the court or discovered by an expert, or charged directly with the testimony of third acts are aimed at:
I – open a campaign to ban the behavior of the parent exercising parenting;
II – impede the exercise of parental authority;
III – prevent contact of the child or adolescent with a parent;
IV – opposing the right to family life regulated;
V – deliberately omit relevant personal information to parents on the child or adolescent, including educational, medical and related changes of address;
VI – make false allegations against parents, against his family or against the grandparents in order to prevent or hinder their care to the child or adolescent;
VII – Change the address of residence without justification in order to prevent the attendance of the child or adolescent with the other parent, with his family or grandparents.
#8..a friend of mine has a sister that has left her husband and moved 6-700 km away without prior warning and wants to change the kids surname as well
XXXXX
Bruce and Vman,
spot on! However, a father or mother facing alienation needs to do the best they can using levers available in NZ. The right amount of publicity is almost always a high priority too.
Accountability, maybe the caught system has very little, so you have to install sensible accountability through reasonable publicity. Excellent example, is Steve Talylor’s recent work, http://menz.org.nz/2012/judge-treats-rapist-with-leniency/#comment-732982.
After several successes, then it is easier to get the legislation changed. The legislation seems to be a long way behind social research knowledge.
Unfortunately using those levers comes at a price, and there can come a point where the estranged parent gives up. So often the custodial parent uses both legal and emotional and outright defiance of court orders to break those bonds.
The end result is the loss to the children of that parent. It can be a misjudged attempt to leave a gap to insert another parent into the child’s life. Older children frequently resent this, voting with their feet to discover that “Missing link”
For the parent who runs (Gives up or is destroyed)consequences can be disastrous. ranging from an inability to relate to others through to suicide and even murder. (The infamous bristol affair of the early 90′s is a good example of this)
Family bonds are very strong and are broken at ones peril.
Gwaihir (#12); you are correct; in fact the only real option in NZ is the “give up” option when parental alienation separates one parent from their children. The government is more than happy to perpetuate the system of only one custodial parent; simply it’s a revenue winner for them. What is their incentive to change the legislation? The government won’t act on referendum outcomes; so why would our “casual” lobbying make an iota of impact? Dunne and his femimen will merrily trudge on ignoring the focal issue that it’s kids’ well being at stake and introduce more legislation that favors the more revenue for the crown option.
I have resigned myself to the fact that I’m not going to see my daughter again; at least that recognition allows me to plan a life without her. I don’t like it; but battling my ex-wife and the shonky state judiciary for access when the odds are so weighted against you; forget it.
Dear Gwaihir and Bruce S, I have seen many men who have given up on trying to maintain access to their children. I have also seen several men who refused to give up and persisted through the tribulations of dealing with familycaught$ and police.
Children suffer quite horribly from the wrongful loss of either parent. Maybe the custodial parent makes the situation seem impossible, through manipulation and lies.
This does not protect and develop children, it is tantamount to destroying them.
When a “judge” gives up on trying to protect the relationship with the other parent, they aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. This doesn’t mean that you have to give up.
The NZ Care of Children Act should result in judges protecting children’s relationship with both parents, unless that parent is dangerous to the children. The fact that some “judges” wither and give in to manipulative relationship vandal parents, just leaves these defective “judges” being relationship vandals in the same way. Kay Skelton showed how easily this can be done to many NZ familycaught$ “judges”. Although Judge Boshier published these “judgements”, I never saw that any changes occurred. The unsatisfactory “judges” appear to still be unsatisfactory…… Custody reversal provides constructive incentives for good parenting behaviour.
The fathers who were successful, were good listeners. They listened to idiots and they listened to other fathers who had been successful in dealing with familycaught$. A wise man can learn from a fool, but a fool cannot learn from a wise man.
Guided by what does work, they proceeded until they succeeded. These guys were willing to talk and explain, if they were asked, but they weren’t worried to be heard, they just wanted to protect their relationship with their children and got on with the job (ie no drama).
If I can pass on their experiences, I will be very happy to do this.
Certainly the process is not as easy as it should be, in a sensible world with integrity. If something is valuable, then it is worth fighting for. The art is in pressuring, without fighting, according to Sun Tsu!
With the new pressure on costs, then fathers and mothers will have to be very careful in the applications that they submit to familycaught$. They must be fully prepared for appeal, at every step of the way. Working on your own, this will be punitively destructive. By teamwork, this becomes a workable process.
The history of Governments versus legal “profession” shows many examples where teamwork between legal workers was lacking, in NZ and in UK. However, greedy as they may be, they had good enough mental health to eventually see which side their bread was buttered on. In the end, they achieved enough teamwork and taking advantage of breach of conflict of interest – ie Minister of Justice serving the profession, not citizens, they were able to protect their own interests.
Can we pull together a team of litigants, who can put aside their egos and other mental problems and work together to protect father’s common interests? Or will our mental illnesses rule and we all fight individually like Don Quixote? I suggest that if even legal workers can do it, we should be better placed to win, if that is what we really want…..
If we don’t pull together, then father litigants will be financially destroyed, through the next 2 years.
I hope that the value to our children, of their relationship with their fathers, is enough incentive. Maybe lots of fathers don’t fully appreciate how important they are in their children’s lives…. They should learn.
Thank you GerryMen, for your valuable contributions in this area.
Cheers, MurrayBacon – impatient axe murderer.
You have a misplaced faith in law, Murray, for me courts just implement the will of the state. Nothing will ever change internally, it will only change by external actions from motivated fathers
Tis better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all. (said for a good red whine.)
I am not sure if it is still true. I suspect that it was repealed by the matrimonial Property Act.
To give up, is to be beaten by your own decision. I believe that children are worth more than giving up. Children of fathers who give up are said to have 10x higher suicide rate, they are much more likely to go into a life of crime…
Just because the familycaught$ is there, isn’t a reason or excuse to give up. Cheers, MurrayBacon.
@14 & 16. Murray. You are right.. BUT, you have to remember that the familycaught employs specific tactics to deter men from continuing relationship. They break the law by making judgements outside their jurisdiction, they impose costs which are totally excessive, they allow applicants to provide evidence which has not been provided to other parties prior. And, if they are self represented then the bill of rights is conveniently hidden under the desk, not to mention the human rights act.
And if you have a lawyer they will bleed you dry while you fight for years for what your children want… contact with you. 4+ years for me now. I’m sure that’s not the longest but can you imagine the respect I have for such a court…..
Yes; I have been fortunate to had such a hard skin that I’ve accepted all the wrongs and fought them, and am still fighting them. When my son came into the world, I was his mum and dad since his mum rejected him. So you can imagine the bonds of parenthood are strong in me.
But others are emotionally and physically scarred by this caught system and have no choice to walk away. I have sympathy for these fathers, at least the ones who tried to fight anyway. The ones who just walked without a fight I have less sympathy for…
Dear JS, I acknowledge everything that you say. I was beaten when I went through familycaught$ on my own. I acted in good faith, even though I was suspicious this would not be how they dealt with me. My intuition was unfortunately more correct than the printed legislation. Also an honest lady lawyer warned me about familycaught$. Her advice to me was worth many tens of thousands of dollars, though it only cost me $500.
I am in touch with several fathers, who have departed NZ, as they felt that to stay risked their own sanity and happiness.
I am suggesting that if people work together, then walking away isn’t the only choice. I have seen fathers have reasonable success with familycaught$ and also not have their own lives too badly damaged. They were streetwise and understood what judges can do and what they refuse to do. These men were not deceived by the printed legislation, they had found out about the real behaviours in familycaught$.
I am suggesting that many people on this website focus on the failures. If that is their personal wish, fine. This does have the unfortunate effect that this website does paint a more negative impression, than what actually does and can happen in familycaught$.
Don’t think that I am defending these thieves and clowns. On the contrary, I have worked hard to propose a replacement, that would work by incentivising customer service and successful, good quality work. The present system incentivises incompetence, featherbedding and what is negligibly different to theft, its just that it isn’t directly covered by the Crimes Act.
I am suggesting that those men who are more successful are usually fairly quiet about how they succeeded. If you ask them and listen carefully, they are usually helpful and open. If you just moan to them, they stop wasting their time with you – fair enough. So, for the best and most useful advice, you have to carefully seek it, when it is available.
Just like TV adverts. The adverts that come to you and make it easy for you, end up being more expensive. For the best prices, you go to the shops that don’t have to advertise.
As a group, we let ourselves down, by not having the patience and tolerance to work constructively together, ie teamwork. While this continues, we will squander what opportunities are available to us. Lets not defeat ourselves, by giving up within a short distance from some success.
I appreciate the posts from Gerrymen, as they help show the sensible path forward, in the existing familycaught$.
#15 billy whizz, you suggest that I have a misplaced trust in law.
I have more faith in Parliament and legislation, than I have in “judges”. I would guess that this is visible in my comments. However, Parliament has made some massive, expensive blunders, Buildings Act, Think Big, familycaught$, placing too much faith in judge’s skills……
However, many men who “fail” in familycaught$ haven’t prepared themselves well enough. I have seen many failures, where the preparation might have looked good to the person presenting it, but to a dispassionate observer, there were gaps in the arguments and they hadn’t protected their credibility well enough. If you are fighting in someone else’s territory, then you have to be well prepared. If you cannot trust to good faith, then obviously you will need better weapons….
This is difficult to impossible to do on your own. Most people don’t have access to the information that they would need. It is possible, only by teamwork.
Most fathers that I have met, are not good team players and prefer to fail on their own, than to work cooperatively with others. Some do work well together and benefit from this cooperation.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.