- 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.

Sun 4th May 2014

Non-custodial parenting skills and guardianship in familycaught$

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — MurrayBacon @ 1:22 pm

There have been several posts recently where non-custodial parents have had difficulties in being heard at all in familycaught$.

One of the dishonest manipulations, for taking sole custody (the concept of sole custody was repealed in Care of Children Act passed by Parliament in 2004, but not familycaught$) is the without-evidence Protection Order.

Time has moved forward, the real world is progressing and NZ caught$ generally have moved backwards too. Leading the backwards charge, is familycaught$, by proclaiming itself a learning organisation. Sure, I have seen their ability to mangle money out of families develop into a Crusher level of skill. In terms of protecting anybody at all, I have only seen them protect their own paramount financial interests.

Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.

Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.

So the following experience is just to help non-custodial people (the concept of custody was repealed in Care of Children Act passed by Parliament in 2004, but not familycaught$) to deal realistically with familycaught$.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The guy who wrote this is an idiot – I know!
He wasted $800 on legal workers, through 20 years, due to lacking full knowledge about familycaught$. Would have got better value from sex workers.
The judge involved is probably the second or third best familycaught$ judge NZ has ever had. He has done far less damage than all of the others and I believe played a role in writing Care of Children Act, even if he couldn’t ever bring it into force. This Act was a significant advance in child protection, but other jurisdictions can show that in practice. I believe that his judgement is fundamentally misleading. People who read his published judgement, without reading the idiot’s application, would be easily misled. The first step to protecting children is honesty, not invoicing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If anyone has mental health difficulties after reading the judgement below the application, contact me and I will send you a photograph of a psychologist.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not suggesting that anyone should be dishonest with judges, or with any fellow citizens, let alone a fellow parent.
However, while dealing in good faith, it is wise to protect yourself from the harm that these people might be able to do to you, through their erratic, unpredictable, stupid, ignorant or irrelevant behaviour.

I do want the familycaught$ service to be successful in serving families and protecting children.
This can easily be done, using pretty much existing legislation, with only minor changes and many tens of thousands of deletions.
Judges would have to be honest, be willing to serve and have to take responsibility for their decisions.
They would be paid according to the quality of their work, not by the hour as at present. Unless their incentives are sorted out, they will never change their spots. In any case, by specifying that judges must have relevant skills, not a single existing judge could be retained in a reformed Family Court.
Submission for Review of Family Court
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8 Responses to “Non-custodial parenting skills and guardianship in familycaught$”

  1. idiot 1 says:

    Myself
    My address
    18th September 2000

    Family Court Registrar
    District Court
    Auckland

    FP. 004/1263/90 Application for Removal of Myself as Guardian

    Dear Sir,

    Please remove Myself, as guardian of our children .

    Please appoint a replacement guardian, to act to protect our children ’sinterests.

    In considering this Application, please dispense with counselling, as you usually do.
    Thank you for your assistance,

    Yours faithfully,

    Myself

    IN THE DISTRICT COURT
    HELD AT AUCKLAND FP. 004/1263/90
    BETWEEN: Myself
    My address
    APPLICANT

    AND: CHILDREN’S MOTHER
    Her address
    RESPONDENT

    AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF GUARDIAN
    FP. 004/1263/90

    I, Myself of Auckland, make affirmation and say as follows:

    In support of Application for Removal of Guardian, I Myself of Auckland, say as follows:

    It would suit the administrative convenience of Family Court and children’s mother, the familycaught$’s preferred guardian.

    I have not been effective as a guardian and should be replaced by someone who will act to serve and protect our children’sinterests. Children’s mother’s parenting style is such that our children should be served by two real guardians. I do not wish to remain a barrier to this.

    I cannot bear to stand by and watch the existing familycaught$/children’s mother parenting relationship and what it is doing to elder child, while I am not allowed to help and my name is on the books as “guardian”. Please release me out of this situation.

    As the changes requested are a minor paperwork transaction only and probably will not alter anything about the way our children are being cared for, please approve it without wasting time on counselling or a formal hearing. I do prefer to negotiate and discuss, to reach the best solution. However, I am practical and do not wish to throw good time after bad. I understand that there is no point in negotiating with dishonest people. I will not attend a formal hearing or counselling. While children’s mother remains the familycaught$’s preferred guardian, I do not wish to waste any time in having any form of contact with the familycaught$.

    In the absence of seeing elder child’s school reports, for two years, I contacted elder child’s school and asked to see these reports. Children ’s mother had told me that elder child was doing poorly, but I was surprised to find out that he was generally obtaining E’s (on a scale from A to E, there is no F). Children’s mother seems to not be disciplining elder child in any way. This appears to be because she wants to stay popular with elder child, to retain his custody. Whether he is progressing or not at school appears to be unimportant. I suggest that elder child needs parental guidance and consistent firm discipline, about responsibility, work ethic and respect for other people.

    In the last few months, my requests to meet with children’s mother and the children and discuss the children’s progress and parenting issues have usually fallen on deaf ears, though once a time was set, but children’s mother ended up doing her supermarket shopping and I was left waiting outside her door, for the agreed time.

    To get around the increasing doubletalk (dishonesty), I have tried to discuss issues only with everyone present. I have promised our children that I would only discuss parenting issues with children’s mother , with both of them present. Only about four such discussions have been held in three years. Generally, alas, the result is no discussion at all.

    I trust that with me removed as a paper guardian and until the replacement guardian has been appointed by the familycaught$, the familycaught$ will now take more seriously it’s responsibility as a guardian and carry out this task skilfully and well. By me not wasting the familycaught$’s time, the familycaught$ will have more time to devote to its responsibilities as guardian for our children .

    Over the past 12 months children’s mother has often refused to carry out the access arrangements provided for in judge robinson’s last familycaught$ Order. Please issue a new familycaught$ Order, modified to make acceptable children’s mother’s present behaviour. I suggest that you simply state that access shall be to children’s mother’s convenience and she can decide on the basis of any whim, at any time. This change would help the familycaught$ to not look quite so stupid, by giving children’s mother an Order that she could not “break”.

    I consider that it is important, as an issue of principle, that I am publicly seen to be having nothing to do with the familycaught$. I can see that I cannot serve our children’sinterests in any positive way, through any form of contact with the familycaught$. I prefer to be not involved in any way with the familycaught$. I do not want to throw good time after bad. I prefer to model reasonable honesty and sharing, rather than lawyer style “do what you can get away with” ethics to our children . I have observed that my attitudes and values about parenting are of no interest to the familycaught$.

    I can see that removing me as guardian, best serves our children’sinterests, of those options that the familycaught$’s prejudices allow it to consider.

    I am frustrated at the incongruity between the familycaught$’s actions and words. This is painful and detracts from my enjoyment of the rest of my life. There is no constructive reason why I should continue to take any part in these dishonest charades. I do not wish to be patronised, by taking part only in the theatrics. I would rather not waste my time or the familycaught$’s, at all.

    A behavioural psychology student experimented with monkeys. They were taught that after a warning light flashed, they could then press a button to avoid being given a sharp nasty electric shock from the metal bars of the cage. Later the monkeys got the electric shock anyway, pushing the button did not prevent the painful electric shock. To the experimenter’s surprise, many of these monkeys died, but the control monkeys, who hadn’t been taught to press the button didn’t die, but were annoyed and angry at the shocks. Further investigations showed that the loss of control led to much increased stress and this stress led to the deaths. In my own humble case, I do not wish to share responsibility, when you do not share any decision making with me. Please impose this change while I am still alive and enjoying life. !!! I have never asked for total control over our children’s upbringing, but only to share in it. I now understand that I was expecting too much in making this request and I have reduced my expectations from the familycaught$ down to a reasonable expectation, nothing.

    It is important to me, to be publicly seen to be not taking part in forming any agreements of any form with either the familycaught$ or children’s mother . All previous agreements have been broken by children’s mother . I consider that she has planned these courses of action, in the sure fire knowledge that she could rely on the complete, unwitting and non-judgemental support of the familycaught$. She is a Social Worker experienced in dealing with the familycaught$, so she knows what is acceptable to the familycaught$. I now have enough experience with the familycaught$ to assess the reality, as against the theory of the Acts of Parliament, so I can now conclude that there is absolutely no advantage to anyone in me having any contact with the familycaught$ or any dealings with it. I prefer to only form agreements with parties who are honest and who, if circumstances led them to break an agreement, they would also negotiate and take suitable remedial actions, to maintain working relationships.

    Children ’s mother calls me a “fuckin wanker” to the children, behind my back and to my face, many that times I pick them up and drop them off. Technically she is correct! However, her message is accompanied by extreme body language indicating more hatred than is necessary for a constructive parenting relationship. She also tells them that many different things prove that I don’t love them. She also tells them that I am not paying correct Child Support. She has also told me to commit suicide, after the suicide of Younger Child’s soccer coach, in the children’s hearing. Maybe she says other things to the children, that they have been kind enough not to tell me about? I understand the stresses that this causes to elder child, in particular. It is completely unacceptable, that Myself allows himself to be talked to (to his face and behind his back) in this way and the only sure way to stop Myself behaving like this, is to immediately remove Myself as guardian.

    I can see that these stresses preclude me playing any positive part in our children’s upbringing. I do understand that it is unfair to our children to be placed in this situation and that to protect them from it, I should be removed from their parenting.

    I can see that it is easier for the familycaught$ to side with the party that breaks Court Orders, as this then gives the least chance of further arguments and mayhem for the children, in the short term. However, everyday street wisdom knows that it leads to worse relationships in the long run.

    I have been told previously, by a familycaught$ j that they are not interested in fairness, they are only interested in what is best for the children. I can see that removing me as guardian would be the best solution, in keeping with this familycaught$ policy (its not written in the Law!). Children ’s mother has the ear of our children for very much more of the time than I do and again this fits in with the familycaught$’s policy of unfairness. Much time has flowed on since children’s mother and I first were before a familycaught$ j and thus the errors in judgement are now history and well set into concrete. Please be clearly aware that I do not appreciate the way the children’s time and growing up has been partly wasted.

    It disappoints me considerably, to have to observe and accept that the familycaught$ prefers and supports children’s mother’s parenting style.

    Children ’s mother applies manipulative skills, in her upbringing of our children. I observe that the familycaught$ works on a policy that when bruises cannot be seen, then everything is OK. I choose not to engage in similar tactics, as I feel it would tear our children to bits, if we both behaved in these ways. I consider that if the familycaught$ cannot detect these issues, relating to honesty, deception, manipulation then it is not fit and able to carry out the task given it by Parliament. It is clear that children’s paramount interests would be best served by spending Govt wages on people who can help children. Curiously, the people who do help children (teachers, nurses, doctors), are willing to give many more hours of their time for similar wage dollars. It would be more efficient to dispose of the familycaught$ and subsidise the Mercedes Benz dealers directly, according to their needs.

    I can no longer delude Myself, that the familycaught$ can perform according to the Guardianship Act and the Family Proceedings Act. It would save much frustration, if these Acts were dumbed down to the level that the familycaught$ does work at, during the tenure of the existing staff. This is an issue under the Trade Descriptions Acts. The past level of performance only justifies salary at the bottom of the “voluntary worker” range.

    It is sad, that children’s mother has failed to develop ongoing satisfying adult relationships, in the 10 years after our separation and divorce. We separated at her instruction. I would prefer that children’s mother would take out her frustrations on me directly, not through the children. At my request, she has been rude to my face more, but seemingly this has not abated the flow of prejudicial comment that our children have to listen to, behind my back.

    This request is simply for a correction to the paper legal records to honestly match the real life situation that was put in place by j robinson’s order. In this order, his actions (as distinct from his words) were to “constructively dismiss” me as guardian, by approving children ’s mother’s breach of court order. I am now asking that the familycaught$ state this directly and honestly on paper. If j rob was sincere in his words, he would have set a date for us to return to Court, so that children ’s mother would know that her parenting style would be under ongoing scrutiny. (For example, a Dr who prescribes antibiotics must say to the patient, if there is no improvement by X days, make an appointment and see me again. If he fails to do this, he risks being charged under the Medical Practitioner’s Act, for unprofessional conduct.)

    The most recent court hearing, where I did not wish to take any part, resulted in court ordering court costs against me, to be paid to children’s mother . Again, the familycaught$ acted to constructively dismiss me as guardian. I do not wish to take part, even less to be forced to support children’s mother by successive financial penalties. It is more efficient and kinder to remove me as guardian.

    Please, in your mind, dismiss me as a nutter. (Albeit a nutter who has sat on about 10 Medical Council CAC Committees, I have an Engineering degree, I am a Registered Engineer, I run my own business and I gained Bursary exams in my 6th form year at school.)

    Children’s mother prefers to be a sole parent. She spins beautiful yarns about how she tries to help my relationship with our children . I see her “help” as more often destructive than constructive, but even at my request to stop, she carries on unstopped. I can see that children ’s mother is reluctant to discipline elder child, due to the fear that he might then want to live with me. Possibly, children’s mother may now be able to provide the guidance and discipline that elder child requires. This is a small and faint hope.

    In my previous affidavits, I asked to share in the care and upbringing of our children . Nothing has changed in my own attitudes. I now realise that familycaught$ js support women to be dishonest within the parenting relationship and actively encourage women to break court orders. I now understand that I could not offer our children a sensible, secure environment. At any point in time, children ’s mother might decide to “repossess” elder child , again in breach of court order. With this type of support from the familycaught$, I would be a totally unsuitable parent. I apologise for being deceived by the written forms of the Family Proceedings Act and the Guardianship Acts. I now understand that the wisdom in the written law is nothing, without staff who are able and willing to apply it.

    Children ’s mother has recently offered to let me take elder child’s custody (but not on paper). Each previous time she has done this, it has been to assist with her overseas travel plans. When I have asked her about these plans, she has not communicated accurately to me, to obtain actions from me that I would not have done, if she was honest to me. Then, when she has returned, she has repossessed the children. Then, when I have challenged at familycaught$ this method of deciding the children’s custody, the familycaught$’s actions have always rubber stamped children’s mother’s actions as being perfectly acceptable to them. Now that I understand this system (which to me appears in contradiction to the Acts of Parliament) I now know that I cannot offer stability or security to elder child or Younger Child. This situation is very unfortunate and I do not like this situation. I feel that there is something unhealthy about a parenting relationship, where one parent will only share the children’s custody, to facilitate travel or when they have really fucked things up. She still feels that she owns Younger Child and that there is no need to discuss any changes in his custody for any reason. I feel that children’s mother’s attitude of ownership over our children , leads to her trying to prove that she is the only parent that our children need and to doing everything that she can to exclude me and to poison my relationship with our children. The familycaught$ has always supported and encouraged children’s mother’s parenting and dishonest negotiating approach.

    The familycaught$ does not seem to understand that by reinforcing children’s mother breaking every court order, there is little chance that she would respect the next one!!! It is sad and unnecessary, that wisdom that has been known for thousands of years, must be relearned by bungling familycaught$ judges, making mistake after mistake. All this proves the old adage, that for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. For the salaries paid, the public have a right to judges satisfactory enough to perform under public scrutiny. Judges Beatty and Hesketh were not criticised for their quality of work as judges and were skilful enough to work in open court. (One pleaded guilty and the other was acquitted!!) They should have been kept on and the familycaught$ judges fired. It is just as well that the familycaught$ does not have access to the death penalty, this limits the magnitude of your fuckups.

    I do understand that this request is not normal. I do understand that important legal issues must be considered, before destroying guardianship relationships. I would have preferred that such consideration was given, at the time these decisions were made and implemented. I fully appreciate that these changes formalise my relationship to our children as that of any person in the street. I am certainly not proposing that I will treat them the same as they are treated by anybody in the street. I intend to continue to offer them what support and care and love that I can. I fully appreciate that these changes will have no impact on the “cash-flow” parent relationship, which will continue unchanged. I am glad that the familycaught$ cannot alter or destroy DNA relationships! I have considered the weight of my request and I do wish to proceed and have these issues tidied up as quickly as can be achieved by Justice Department typists. Please advise me by mail, when you have completed the bureaucratic paperwork and this Order has taken effect.

    I apologise for not even holding familycaught$ js in contempt.

    I am not asking you to exercise any form of thought, discretion or wisdom, just to ink your stamp on the black ink pad and thump it onto the paper and sign your name honestly and date it correctly. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

    I trust that this resolution will assist the familycaught$ to best provide for our children’s welfare, without me wasting any of your time, now or in the future. I do not want the present situation to continue and propose these minor changes only because they are a more practical and honest set of relationships for managing our children’supbringing,

    yours faithfully,
    Myself.

    AFFIRMED at Auckland by the said
    Myself

    Signature of Applicant:

    this …………………………..(date)

    before:

    A Registrar of the Family Court of New Zealand

    The Registrar
    District Court
    Auckland

  2. idiot 2 says:

    )IN THE DISTRICT COURT FP No. 00411263/D190
    FAMILY DIVISION HELD AT AUCKLAND
    BETWEEN Myself
    Applicant
    AND CHILDREN’S MOTHER
    Respondent
    Date of Hearing: In Chambers, on the papers
    Date of Judgment: 19 June 2001
    Counsel: Both parties self-representing
    RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P F BaSHIER
    [1] By application brought on 1 February 2001, the applicant, who filed
    proceedings personally, applied as follows:
    1. I request that the Non Violence Order against me be revoked.
    2. Please remove me — Myself, as guardian of our children .
    3. Please appoint a replacement guardian to act to protect our children ‘s interests.

    [2] Having read Mr Myself’s documents through, I issued a minute on 20
    March 2001 indicating that the Respondent should be served and that depending on any response and the nature of it, I would convene a hearing if required.
    [3] On 30 April 2001 the Respondent filed a reply indicating that she would
    not file a Notice of Defence to the applications. However, she indicated that it was unnecessary for the Court to appoint additional guardians for the children, as she had provided for them by way of testamentary guardianship in her will. She added that if the application were to be granted, then “I request that the children’s passports be returned to me forthwith”.
    [4] In an undated document faxed to the Court on 30 March 2001, the
    Applicant indicated that he wished to withdraw item number 4 of his application and I take that to mean that he longer seeks a Mediation Conference.

    3
    [5] However, in a further document, again undated, but sent by facsimile to
    the Court on 27 May 2001, the Respondent sought an improved “guardianship” -relationship and sought a Mediation Conference to address a wide range of issues.
    [6] The parties have been involved in substantial litigation since 1990.
    [7] The scars that both bear are obvious. In support of his application filed
    on 1 February, the Applicant expressed dissatisfaction with the Family Court and how it endeavoured to deal with family disputes and said “I consider that it is important, as an issue of principle, that I am publicly seen to be having nothing to do with the Family Court”.
    [8] The Applicant develops, in his Application, his reasons for his dislike of
    both the Respondent and the Family Court.
    [9] Equally the Respondent, in her reply, wished to distance herself from the
    Family Court process so as to avoid taking up the Court’s time and because she regarded it as unproductive to enlist the Family Court’s assistance to resolve the dispute.
    [10] I accept that both parties harbour strong feelings about each other and the
    Family Court. While this is regrettable I do not believe any rehearsing of the history of litigation, nor why there is this degree of discontent, would

    4
    be productive. My task is to deal with the Applications on the basis of the law, as I understand it to be. Furthermore, I regard my task as applying a pragmatic solution to what each party wishes.
    [11] The Non Violence Order was made on 13 May 1991, by consent, an interim order having been made on 12 May 1992. Given that the Respondent does not oppose discharge of the Order, should it be discharged?
    [12] Very soon elder child will be 16 years old and Younger Child turned 13 in January this year. The children are plainly in a very different position than when the orders were first made.
    [13] In considering discharge, I must apply the objects of the Domestic
    Violence Act 1995, which replaced the Domestic Protection Act 1982. In my view, the Order may now be discharged. The parties have been separated for a long time and I see no evidence of a present need for protection. Needless to say, the Domestic Violence Act affords the ability for either party to obtain protection in the future, if required.
    [14] I next turn to the request for a Mediation Conference which, although initially made and then withdrawn, seems to be pursued by Mr Myself in his latest documentation.

    5
    [15] Section 13 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 provides: “13. Mediation Conference:
    Where an appliication has been made in a Family Court —
    (a) by a husband or wife against the other spouse for a separation order or a maintenance order, or
    (b) by one parent of a child against the other parent for an order for a custody of or access to a child —
    either party to the proceedings or a Family Court Judge may ask the Registrar of the Court to arrange a Mediation Conference to be convened.”
    [16] Save for the application relating to discharge of the Non Violence Order, orders sought by Mr Myself pertain to guardianship issues and do not relate to custody or access. Given the history of this file and the strongly held views of each party, not only does the holding of a Mediation Conference appear to be outside the law but, furthermore, patently unwise.
    [17] Finally, I turn to Mr Myself’s application to be removed as a guardian and requesting the Court to replace him with a substitute guardian.
    [18] The Court’s power to remove is as set out in Section 10 of the Guardianship Act 1968. The section reads:
    “10. Removal of Guardian:
    (1) The Court may at any time on application by the other parent or by a guardian or near relative or, with leave of the Court, by any other person, deprive a parent of the guardianship of his child or remove from his office any testamentary guardian or any guardian appointed by the Court

    6
    (2) No parent shall be deprived of the guardianship of his
    child pursuant to subsection 1 of this section unless the Court is satisfied that the parent is for some grave reason unfit to be a guardian of the child or is unwilling to exercise the responsibilities of a guardian.”
    [19] It is unusual for a guardian to apply to have his or her own guardianship
    terminated but Section 10(1) does not appear to forbid it. S10(2) only permits deprivation of guardianship on two grounds; the first that a parent is gravely unfit or secondly that a parent is unwilling to exercise responsibilities of guardianship.
    [20] I see no suggestion from either party that the first ground is relied upon. It
    can therefore only be that the Applicant is unwilling to exercise his responsibilities that jurisdiction exists to remove.
    [21] I am required when considering this application, to address Section 23 of
    the Guardianship Act which directs me to regard the welfare of the children as the first and paramount consideration.
    [22] Mr Myself articulates an unhappiness with the Family Court and a frustration at being a parent and guardian in law but not in practice. However, nowhere in his documents but most importantly those filed most recently on 27 May 2001, do I see an unwillingness to be a parent and guardian. To the contrary, the Respondent believes that both children need two parents who could work together “honestly”.

    7
    [23] That being the position, I see no jurisdiction for me to remove him as a guardian pursuant to Section 10(2). It follows that to appoint substitute guardians is equally unnecessary.
    [24] The substantial issue facing the Applicant and Respondent is their inability to engage in a satisfactory arrangement wherein they can each parent the children. A legal solution to this dilemma is illusory. It is unwise and unproductive for the Applicant and Respondent to believe that the Family Court is a panacea for personal dispute resolution. It is not. This is frequently misunderstood. In this respect the Family Court’s dual role of conciliator/mediator on the one hand but decision-maker on fact and law on the other hand may, at times, be confusing and unhelpful.
    [25] Solutions sought by both Applicant and Respondent, in this case to their unresolved personal relationship, will not be found in judicial determinations required to be made from time to time. Answers to issues of the sort reflected in the most recent documentation belong to a discipline wholly outside the structures of a Court of Law.
    [26] For the above reasons, all applications are declined including the
    Respondent’s suggestion that the children’s passports be returned to her. As difficult as it may be, determinations on issues affecting the children’s welfare including guardianship issues may be required from time to time. The process may be made more accessible to each party if, in the future,

    8
    disputes involving guardianship (including overseas travel) are referred to the Court with supporting documentation, and simply dealt with on the papers, having regard to the merits of the arguments.
    [27] There are accordingly the following orders:
    1. The Non Violence Order is discharged.
    2. Orders sought for removal of guardianship and substitution of
    guardianship are declined.
    3. Pursuant to Section 27(A) of the Guardianship Act 1968, this
    judgment may be published but no publication shall bear the
    name of the parties or the names of the children.
    P F Bashier
    familycaught$ judge

  3. Allan Harvey says:

    I was wondering how things are for you and your children now? It would seem your children will now be about 29 and 26 years of age. What reflections do they have on this difficult time in their lives?
    Thank-you for sharing the sad story above.
    In solidarity.

  4. idiot 1 says:

    My story might be sad, if I was a victim? Prior cruelties had prepared me well and loving parenting had given me good resilience.

    I published this story, on recently reading two family stories much more inexcuseably relationship vandalistic than anything I or my children have experienced or seen. On reading those stories, I was horrified that “the troubles” are still going on, in fact from the children’s situation, even much worse.

    On seeing one story, where the father’s request for a psychiatric evaluation of the mother was refused, where the mother’s own affidavit cried out for a psychiatric evaluation. But the familycaught$ stood idly by, passively, stupidly and irresponsibly sitting by and allowing the mother to deny access between the children and father. The one man who could protect the children from damage by being left in the sole care of a dysfunctional, disturbed and delusional parent, was denied any access at all, through the refusal to act of familycaught$.

    Sure, there were no photos of bruises, but I know that women (or men) like this are extremely dangerous to the children’s development, as sole parents. The harm done can persist right through and past 29 years…… I am not blaming the mother, the blame for her behaviour lay far into the past.

    Dangerous on her own, much safer the more shared the care was – so lets maximise the harm?

    On reading that story of pathetic judgement, creative inertia, I could no longer remain silent and not state the incompetence, irrelevance and failure to meet minimum professional standards that my family had experienced.

    I had intended to wait until my own children’s understanding of history was satisfactorily mature. This development is slow and not now worth waiting for. But on seeing far worse situations, my family reasons to delay further were greatly overturned by responsibility to families presently in familycaught$, or who may be in the future.

    Dear Allan, you are spot on. My eldest son is still paying a harsh cost for the upbringing that I and his mother gave him. His judgement is still quite immature and wasteful of resources given to him. My younger still has plenty of frustrations, but has survived in style. Even that is less than what I wanted to do for them both.

    I don’t believe in shouting at judges who harm. This is far too quick. I believe in slowly extracted accountability, more like penances, until issues are resolved and balances restored, in a gentlemanly fashion, that is truly understood, deep in the heart.

    idiot 1 – max. murderer.

  5. Had_Enough says:

    I found this very difficult to read as the frustrations expressed by Idiot_1 are very similar to my own and I can only hope that idiot_1 now has a good relationship with his children. The contempt the family court shows towards the role of fatherhood is a national disgrace and a disaster for NZ society.

  6. idiot 1 says:

    Dear Allan, a more careful answer to your question: Ggle “shared parenting? I wished” new zealand, perhaps adding issue-40 if there is any difficulty. Remember that that article was published by a Government funded organisation, so there was some compromise and polishing, that some people other than myself might consider dishonest.

    Dear Had_Enough, my own personal experience suggested familycaught$ judges couldn’t satisfactorily understand father’s roles in bringing up children. Listening to many women’s stories has shown me that the issue is more related to custodial/non-custodial, even though those concepts were carefully taken out of NZ legislation by the Care of Children Act Passed by Parliament 2004, but never brought into operation yet.

    The main issue is care of children and a working knowledge of how parent’s mental health affects ability to nurture and properly develop children is the paramount issue. familycaught$ just gets totally distracted by their paramount, narcissistic and insatiable need to plunder my $800.00.

    idiot 1 – max murderer

  7. Vman says:

    “The substantial issue facing the Applicant and Respondent is their inability to engage in a satisfactory arrangement wherein they can each parent the children. A legal solution to this dilemma is illusory. It is unwise and unproductive for the Applicant and Respondent to believe that the Family Court is a panacea for personal dispute resolution. It is not. This is frequently misunderstood. In this respect the Family Court’s dual role of conciliator/mediator on the one hand but decision-maker on fact and law on the other hand may, at times, be confusing and unhelpful.”

    I have read similar comments in judgments whenever the family court has been cornered on it’s failure to protect the child’s relationship with the father. If the mother does not abide by court orders then “the Family Court is [not] a panacea for personal dispute resolution”.

    Look at Boshier’s statement carefully:
    “The substantial issue facing the Applicant and Respondent is their inability to engage in a satisfactory arrangement wherein they can each parent the children. A legal solution to this dilemma is illusory.”

    Actually that simply is not true. A quick and no nonsense enforcement of the court’s own orders as per existing laws, would result in dramatic change of behaviour among obstructive parents. However let’s put that aside for a moment.

    In other words, when two parents can not make an arrangement wherein each can parent the children then the family court can offer no solution.
    This begs the question – why have a family court?

    It seems to be there in black in white that the family court should simply be abolished as a forum for parenting disputes. As Boshier states, expecting the family court to provide solutions to parenting disputes “is illusory.”

    Hence scrap it altogether as far as parenting issues are concerned and create an entirely new system that is designed to keep parents involved with their children. By enforcement of court orders for example.

    The family court simply does not comprehend what it’s function is.
    Scrap it.

  8. idiot 1 says:

    Dear Vman, spot on. Did you read my detailed proposal under the button: Submission for Review of Family Court?

    I make the same point in the section Ensure Private Certifiers Work Under Constructive Incentives.

    When the issue is complete failure to follow legislation, in terms of Guardianship decisions, when the issue is breaking agreements earlier negotiated and signed, then their is no point in dealing with liars, up a bench or down a bench. Too bad about the children, eh?

    Best regards,
    idiot 1 – max murderer

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