- 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.

Wed 26th February 2014

Father murder/suicide

Filed under: General — Maggie @ 3:50 pm

Obviously no one could possibly condone the tragic event of Ed Livingstone and his children. In the NZ Herald’s publications highlighting the shortcomings of this father over the past 2 days, and also in all the other reporting since this dreadful event took place I have been unable to find a reason for the protection order – sure there has been statements about breaching the PO but can we please go back a step – can someone enlighten me as to the reason for PO in the first place – and were accusations ever proven? This to me is where the crux of this matter lies. I am a grandmother and have seen first hand the damage that can be done to children and fathers by vindictive women whose only ‘reason’ for PO is that ‘I am scared’ no proof required – not good enough I’m afraid too much damage results – everyone has their breaking point.
My story fortunately has an happy outcome – my son now (after 8 yrs) has day to day care of his children.
Maggie

36 Responses to “Father murder/suicide”

  1. Exactly, but its a tool she used to get the kids / the house / and the money / lawyers / police all on her side automatically to which its almost impossible to fight.

    first in first served that’s how it works in NZ at the expense of the guys all too often.
    Good to hear your son had a good outcome :)

  2. P.S I read the protection order it was a temporary notice not a final so he had not gone to court for it to be contested or even proven yet as far as I am aware, but too late the damage has and is done.

  3. Allan Harvey says:

    The protection order matters are heard in Family (secret) Court so don’t expect that information to be made public.

  4. Yes good point Allan,

    The untested accusations taken as evidence to get a protection order that are admissible as fact in the family court must never be made public.

    (shhhh secret squirrel):)

  5. Brent says:

    From what I have read, he is alleged to have had a psychotic episode (blamed on a known side effect of his anti smoking medication) when he went to his family home to see the ex and children and she tried to leave in the car. She became frightened and sought a PO. Given he was the primary carer for the children, isolated in NZ and then no longer able to see his kids, then perhaps we can see how this could have turned out differently.

  6. Maggie says:

    I am not surprised he had a ‘psychotic episode’ – due to medication or not – he has lost everything – kids (whom he cared for full time up to separation) house, wife, status, the lot – this PO should have been heard much earlier – what we need is a change to the law that states all PO’s must be heard within say 14days – OK so all that costs money but it is better than costing lives and just might make women think twice and Women’s Refuge needs to realise that not all mothers are the Virgin Mary!
    Maggie

  7. Allan Harvey says:

    Maggie the current law says Protection Order defenses must be heard within 42 days. In most Courts that happens but with zero effect. When couples sepoarate they are in two completely different places. Often the leaver (70-80% women) have thought about it for months or even years. The left (80%) men are literally gob smacked, surprised and take time to come to terms with the situation.
    Often the conversation goes; “I think that separating might be a good idea”. He responds “What the F , where did that idea come from?”. She replies “You know we have been arguing and I have been thinking”. “OK” he says “yes we have been arguing but I had no idea you were thinking of us separating”.
    Then she gets to the point, “Well I have and I want you to leave and here is our oldest suitcase, pack what you want and bugger off , now!”
    She has spent years coming to terms with the idea of what separation may be like and talked with her girlfriends and possibly even seen a lawyer.
    Meanwhile he has been at work 8-12 hours, at least 5 days a week, earning money to support the whole family and in those few sentences his life is changed forever. He needs to come to terms with it in his head, in his heart, revise his concept of family while packing and possibly while the kids ask “Why are you packing daddy?”
    Personally I think it takes more than 14 days and normally more than 42 days to come to terms with that news and get your head around it before there is anything like a level playing field in the Family Court.
    Little surprise that virtually no-one gets rid of their protection order within those 42 days.
    Many guys baton the hatches, crawl into a man cave, spend lots of money renting a motel room and don’t tell a soul. Not their family, not their workmates, not their sports mates, not the guys at the club because they are gobsmacked, ashamed, feeling vulnerable and childless. That kind of revolution takes time to digest and begin to trust after something like that takes time.
    However in parallel they have a bailiff coming to serve them paperwork, a lawyer for child wanting them to tell them what the future might be like, they engage a lawyer of their own who asks for a deposit that is about a month’s salary and then bill like they are a invoice printing press. Then several 5-10,000 dollars poorer they end up in Court and Judge says well mum seems the stable one here and dad doesn’t have stable accommodation and he is working his ass off to pay the lawyer so I will make the interim parenting order in favour of mum permanent and when Dad has finished his Living Without Violence Programme he can ask for every second weekend access unless he needs to work all day Saturday to pay his Child Support obligations.

    Sorry Maggie changing the law to a 14 day defence period isn’t likely to make one drop of difference in the numbers of men who are alienated from their children by the Family Court process.

  8. storm13 says:

    Yes well said Allan; Thanks to further affidavits I have just been informed my ex had a protection order written out ready to lodge 10 years ago! Wish me luck court tomorrow

  9. Aaron Bell says:

    I agree alan, missed 1 point the mother would be poisoning kids with lies over time you can see kids, and like my ex senting txt messages to try get you to txt bsck or ring to say yoou breach order (my even sent explisive sexail messages), my also sent letter and reg rang lawyer for child to discredit me with lies I not hear for years from him, plus refuses to front letters she sent

  10. Man X Norton says:

    A presumption of equal shared care and a major tightening up of protection order criteria would, I believe, reduce tragedies like this and would reassure and comfort parents and children alike in the process of separation.

    No protection order beyond a few days should ever be imposed on the basis of another person’s allegations without any corroborating evidence. Yet this still remains the norm, even for ‘without notice’ orders that represent a further huge lurch towards corrupt justice.

    Although law change is essential, the law as it stands at any one time should be followed to the letter. Protection orders are supposed to be made only on the basis of a pattern of violent behaviour rather than out-of-character reactions, for example, during a separation process. It would seem that Livingstone’s claimed ‘psychotic episode’ due to side effects of medication should not have been allowed to result in any protection order. Family Court judges have almost unbridled power to make whatever decisions they wish (on the spurious justification that protection of children requires such flexibility) and they often ignore justice towards men in order to salve claimed discomfort for women in these situations.

    Of course, promotion and support for families to stay together (and less encouragement, facilitation and reward for breaking up our children’s families) would also reduce tragedies and increase the emotional health of our children and society generally.

  11. Downunder says:

    I am old enough to remember the outrage that surfaced after the Bristol murder/suicide (a not dissimilar situation to Ed Livingstone’s) where something needed to be done, this could not happen again – an investigation was launched and would contribute to the birth of the Domestic Violence Act.

    It has happened again, and I hear the noise, but the outrage demanding an investigation to identify possible causes and find solutions – where are those voices?

    There have been calls for tougher applications of the current law, but that to me signals the continuing distinctive change away from a social conscience that seeks a better outcome to the dogma of ism determinedly stamping its feet on the march to feminist superiority.

    A lot of self-interest being invested here – so much so that you won’t see any change.

  12. Allan Harvey says:

    Yes Police Safety Orders which trample all over human rights but only for up to 5 days are a good intervention. Union of Fathers justice for life.made a big call to support the introduction of that legislation. Fewer than 5% of Police Safety Orders are being changed into Protection Orders. That is a great success for the intervention.
    Rough justice for up to 5 days but Protection Orders are often rough

  13. Allan Harvey says:

    Christine Bristol had the support of Ruth Busch, law lecturer of Waikato University who has been an extremely powerful advocate for the DV law change in the 1990’s.

  14. @ Maggie at least people are getting the idea that it was entirely preventable and did not need to happen and yes no one is perfect.

    @ man x Norton , Spot on :)
    @ storm good luck :) thoughts with you.
    @ down under , and we all know why that is ,as they now have what they want to use as a tool to get it.

    @ Alan, well said ,

    I,m going to say it one more time , beautifully put. Alan.

    I had heard that you had supported the P.S.O orders (what about some type of mediation instead at this point ?)

    but I personally am not a fan of them either (P.S.O) as they require even less story telling and evidence,
    Interesting that only 5 % turn into P.O orders……

    I was almost on the receiving end of one of those for absolutely no reason till I whipped out my camera and explained, what was going on as no way was I staying silent, going through that rubbish again.

  15. Downunder says:

    @Allan – What are the stats on PSOs though?

    Has it been anything more than a progression of the unofficial policy of arrest the male at domestic incidents (the one that grew up with feminist intervention in the role of policing).

    Interesting reading books like ‘Out of the Steam and Mist’ (a memoir by Alan Duff) where he talks of his mother’s continual arrest as the aggressor in domestic incidents in their home.

    We consider it a darker age socially but at least it was an era of better reasoning – one might question how much we have grown as a society, technology aside.

  16. Julie says:

    I think the situation needs to be looked at from a non gender position because men and women act the exact same way when the shoe is on the other foot, from my experience.

    Of course there’s a lot to take into account and there’s much more to these stories than what people share.

    Maggie, how sad you are an enemy to your grandchildren’s mother. What’s happened to the other grandmother? Where is she on all this? This is not a war, this is family dynamics.

    As for the protection orders…. Why is ‘fear’ a threshold? A judge knocked back a father’s application for a protection order 2 days a go saying something like, “You haven’t mentioned the fear factor”.

  17. Allan Harvey says:

    Umm Julie because the threshold for a Protection order is being afraid and having taken an action in response to that fear.
    I have heard judges on several occasions look a male applicant in the face and say “You look a big strapping young man, I can’t see that you have any reason to be afraid”. This in cases where weapons have been used (knives), boiling water, threats of self harm, prolonged psychological and verbal abuse.
    There are two very different standards in out Courts for Protection Orders. One for female applicants and a completely different standard for male applicants.
    It has been a long time know but when I was in the Bay of Plenty (10 years ago) there was even more different standards. For white middle class female applicants the threshold was low, much higher for brown, working class female applicants and even higher for any male applicant.

    Last year I had one case of assault, breach of a trespass order, vandalism, interference with a vehicle, and wasting Police time by telling them porkies. Father obtained Protection Order without notice from an out of town judge and the local system rallied around to overturn this “injustice”. Family Court found a judge and a full days Court time for a hearing to be held (and throw out fathers application) all within 7 days of the PO being granted.

  18. Downunder says:

    That discussion really points out the basis of a protection order.

    It relates to a state of mind not to a state of behaviour.

    In other words a woman can be extremely violent and her partner will not get a protection order, yet a man can be totally non-violent and his partner will get a protection order.

    The legislation was clearly designed to allow lawyers to benefit women and its application is clearly designed to advantage women.

    It has never been about protecting children or defending a decent parent.

    Protection orders seldon take into account the children and ‘their best interests’.

    Protection orders simply apply for the ‘benefit of the children’ (i.e. automatically) on the basis of a woman’s ‘stated, state of mind’. (It doesn’t even have to a real state of mind, just one that suits the applicant on the day)

    In many cases it would be caparible to CYF placing a ward of the state with a sex offender, yet it has been allowed to happen.

    Why would a society do this – it’s utter stupidity.

  19. Maggie says:

    Hi Julie – you really show your naevity – obviously you have never dealt with a vicious self serving mother who will damage her own children just to ‘win’ thankfully in this case she didn’t. In answer to your query ‘where is the other grandmother?’ Well she is just as absent as she has always been – her and her daughter are 2 peas in a pod – selfish and self serving the last thing on either of their minds is the well being of the kids.

  20. CSA says:

    The answer for Ed Livingstone decision is very simple – he was in a relationship with female psychopath.
    He was a kind guy, who wanted to have a family and put his life into his kids.
    At some point this lady thought to get everything she wanted, including kids.
    Protection order based on sole allegation, any attempt to make a contact with kids used to further criminal allegations of breach of it and a simple family kind guy presented as a violent offender for the society.
    He lost everything and clearly seen that he can do nothing to stop this psychopath and did not want to have kids becoming like her. So he did the only thing that was possible for him based no actions (or actions against family and kids by FC) from the society. He simply did not see any other options…

    Who is going to believe a male when female psychopath alleges violence? Nobody…

  21. Murray Bacon says:

    NZ law would be much safer, for children and people who care about their children, if removal from the matrimonial home required prior agreement of a new parenting agreement.

    The Family Court Rules, if you take them seriously, generally follow the principle of giving notice and avoiding unilateral action. (familycaught$ judges stray away, because this serves their paramount financial interests.)

    Requiring prior agreement protects honest parents from dishonest parents and from legal workers too.

  22. Julie says:

    Maggie #19.

    Hi Julie – you really show your naevity

    LOL. Thanks judge.
    No point continuing on.

  23. Julie says:

    Considering we are talking about ‘bad women’ and ‘bad women’ using the law to harm men and their children, I am wondering if people are using Family Court Rules 2002, section 34?
    I am very serious.

    I want to know how people are using it to stop emergency and without notice orders (from applications) and what I can learn from their experiences.

    Just in case there’s a reader like me :), an interlocutory application is an application to prevent irreparable harm from occurring to a person or property during the pendency (time when things are undecided) of a lawsuit or proceeding (in this case a parenting order).

    I can’t help but think judges would want something available to prevent an injustice especially if people can be seriously harmed. When ‘bad women’ are making emergency and without notice applications, what’s to make judges aware they are ‘bad women’ who will harm men and their children?

    If not, what ARE others doing when an emergency application has been signed by a judge and you know the judge has it wrong?

    I was thinking of making a post about this, but it might not be important enough and a comment will be enough to teach people.

  24. @ murray bacon , that would be too easy and simple and logical ! :)

    @ Julie, it is a gender problem, apart from you no one else is disagreeing as its clearly a huge problem for most guys.

    (I am getting contacted constantly with messages of thanks and been there done that and if only I knew or wished the info was around for me)

    Yes you would think judges would want to have all the facts but as its with out notice they have no idea about the other sides story and cant.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. (laughing at the system)

    Waste of space if its “without notice” its already been decided and actioned, its still deemed temporary for the many months till it is permanent !
    YEA RIGHT !

    I have first hand experience With several without notice loads of shite.

    1, the protection order.
    2, the attempted sale of my hummer from under me.

    the norm is without notice and the threshold’s involved , but either way the courts have to take notice of a “female psychopath alleging violence” they have no choice.

    So thank you for bringing up section 34 , do we know how many even knew or used it or more importantly been successful with using it…

    Allan might know.

  25. Mits says:

    Good try thinking that femily caught will be bound by “rules”
    They ignore perjury, disclosure deadlines,unethical behaviour by the legal beagles and the such like but you think its a solution to post femily caught rules as in “look, this is what happens”
    What a crock
    Protection orders are part of the process touted by females and their supporters. Accuse him of violence, corroborating evidence isnt required your word will be sufficient. If he is forced to to a stopping violence program then there is your proof as he needed to to the course. If he volentarily does the course then thats even better as only a violent person would need to do a stopping violence course. Of course if he refuses to do the course then there is a gold plated example of his guilt as he obviously won’t do the course as he is violent and in denial as well.
    When she says he’s violent, then to femily caught his protestations that he isnt are proof of the accusation.
    The best testimony I have ever seen was at the Masterton femily caught where some wit had scratched out the letters to make family spell Fa_il_ court pointed this out to others waiting in the waiting room to resigned nods of agreement and funny how none of the staff employed there sought to change it.
    Mits

  26. UM , …….

    A recent analysis of domestic violence restraining orders issued in 2006 in Campbell County, West Virginia concluded 81 percent were unnecessary or false.

    In Massachusetts, in Gardner District Court in 1997, 34 percent of TRO requests from men were turned down — compared to only 10 percent from women.

  27. MurrayBacon says:

    Protection Orders as a form of using familycaught$ as a tool of abuse:

    February 12, 2014
    Letter: Easy route to restraining orders unfair to males
    Gloucester Daily Times

    Courtsey of one of my golfa mates.

  28. Allan Harvey says:

    Dominic do you have a reference for the statistics you quote??
    Some of the leter Murray quotes comes from http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/VAWA-Restraining-Orders
    Although Protection Orders are an application I strongly advise against I am quite surprised that Gardner Family Court grant 66% of applications from male applicants. I have about a 50:50 strike rate here and those are from applications where we have demonstrated evidence of physical injury or Police reports identifying the harrassment from the female party.
    Too often judges look at men and say, “You are a big fellow surely you are not really scared of her.”

  29. @ Alan, oops same one, I got the info off the Facebook site but it came from other one.

    81 % um, speechless for once :)

  30. Allan Harvey says:

    Before being too speechless we really need to know how they define “unnecessary or false”.
    An interesting statistic in New Zealand is that 95% of Protection orders are granted to women and just 5% to men. This despite some world class research showing violence in the home is basically 50:50. You can read Judge Boshier’s spin on this at

  31. MurrayBacon says:

    Try this link: judge bashier’s marketing drivel

    Public service warning, to warn readers to protect themselves, from lazy people who want money without working for it themselves:

    The familycaught$ hurts only those who take it seriously.

  32. Thanks Alan & Murray, yes your right, thanks for putting that link up , that sure was some “spin” even with even more damning facts like 93.5 per cent of applicants are female and women to men violence just as common, ect they still try to “slippery weasel” out of the fact that anyone can make up bull and use it to get custody of the kids 85% of the time, with no comeback at all by abusing the system that was meant to be gender neutral.

  33. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Dominic Dilligaf, I was being deadly serious, not just joking. While the familycaught$ encourages perjury and abuse of process, it cannot and can never protect and serve anyone, apart from it’s own paramount financial interests.

    @ murray bacon , that would be too easy and simple and logical ! :)

    Natural justice is a lesson that caught$ seem to have to learn and learn again, at huge cost to the peoples trampled on on the process. Although MPs expressed concern about how well the Domestic Violence Act would work, it was passed into law anyway.

    Although these concerns were stated before the act was passed, it has never been evaluated for effectiveness since it was passed. Whenever problems are shown to exist, it is defended with religious zeal, but with care to not look at the facts.

    These people who refuse to look at evidence of ineffectiveness, are the same people who ignore evidence when trampling people in familycaught$. Just pigs at an honourless trough.

  34. Haare Tukariri says:

    The safest outcome for domestic troubles are intermediaries for both sides. That they are related to the parties concerned could be a good thing, but impartiality is the first priority. The children take the brunt in these cases, if handled badly by both parties the scars may take years to heal, if ever. My earnest desire before litigation is applied, is that the husband and wife stop, take a step back and a deep breath. Your behaviour from that point on sets the benchmark for yours and so many other lives.

  35. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Haare Tukariri, beautiful common sense – the rarest stuff on earth. MurrayBacon.

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

« »

Powered by WordPress