- 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.

Mon 6th October 2014

Police Interference

Filed under: Law & Courts — 11girls @ 6:31 pm

Recently, the local Police Family Violence Coordinator rang me on behalf of the ex, who has a Protection Order against me. He offered to mediate an upcoming contact, which to me wasn’t that bad anyway. I politely refused his offer on these two grounds:

1)It would undermine the legitimate pathways I have taken through the Family Court System to communicate the issue with the ex first, attend mediation, and the extra step I took in arranging a round table meeting. I showed the officer proof of this through email and a clipping of my next step in Making Application to Vary a Parenting Order.

2)I reminded him of a complaint I recently laid against Police. In brief the ex would contact Police say the Parenting Order says this and that I was breaching and demand Police assistance, and they would jump .On 6 occasions this happened and on those occasions I was required to show the Actual Orders or agreements and nothing eventuated. However the damage was done in respect of what the ex wanted. With this Police presence she would poison the childrens minds to sayings like “see, Dad must be the bad parent if the Police have to contact him all the time”. I requested on these grounds that I did not want anymore unnecessary Police presence in the childrens lives….Nec minuet… I pick up the kids and they inform me that they were questioned by police on not only issues relating to pick up and drop off but questions like “Which Parent would you rather live with”. I Contacted LFC who knew nothing about the interrogation.

On behalf of my relationship with my children is there anyone out there that has practical words of wisdom to lessen the pressure on my children.

11 Responses to “Police Interference”

  1. Anne says:

    The only thing that is going to take pressure off the children is if the games stop. We both know this is up to and only up to the big people in their lives, and sadly the way the system is set up to and in part even encourages estrangement, lies, and protraction, it isn’t going to happen soon. The power tripping in these situations is bordering on unforgivable because of the impact it has on our kids. This is life long too! Don’t doubt that. My advice – do your utmost to rise above the bullshit, behave impeccably, and never ever give up. All tall orders, believe me I know, but from the perspective of looking back if you can do this your children will never ever forget that Daddy was always a good and loving man. Whatever your ex attempts to fill their heads with simply won’t add up in the end. Be strong. Hold onto the truth. And before you know it your children will be grown up and thanking you for being strong and holding on to the truth. I speak from experience. Good luck 🙂

  2. The man in Absentia says:

    There is the charge of attempting to pervert or obstruct justice.

    If somebody is repeatedly making illegitimate complaints or making false claims to create a definable advantage over another person.

    Make a compliant to the police in this regard.
    The police are only puppets.
    Its when they don’t act when your compliant is legitimate that they lose power.

  3. realkiwi says:

    maate, you are right to express concern at the police interviewing like this… especially if the issue is one where the court and a lawyer for child is involved, how did you get on with the complaint to the police, do you have a lawyer doing the right things? You may get a bit of help at Father and Child, they offer phone or email support, plus they meet every wed night in onehunga if that suits, sometimes a lawyer is there and he offers basic support or good directions…

  4. JohnPotter says:

    Something doesn’t seem quite right with this story, 11girls.

    The action of the Family Violence Coordinator offering to mediate a contact is unusual to say the least.

    I’m wondering if the police are beginning to have concerns about the mother’s behaviour?

    I remember one father at a Men’s Centre North Shore support meeting tell us that he had to go to court 17 times to get a warrant to enforce his access order. At first his children found the experience of being taken away from their mother in a police car stressful, but after the first few times they started to think it was normal.

    By the end they would be begging the police to turn on the siren and the flashing lights, thinking it was a big joke! I understand your concern, but children are often much more resilient than we think.

  5. The Logical Song says:

    The cops have committed child abuse by interrogating the children without the parents presence.

    Get the cops names and lay a child abuse complaint.

    The cops should never have talked to the children without first talking to both parents and asking the parents permission as they are the guardians and have common law right to their children.

    The state has proven it cannot do a better job than leaving the children with their biological willing parents. The state needs to mind its own business.

    Anyone who thinks it should be anything else but 50/50 care without a conviction for harming the children is a child abuser and is increasing the danger to all parties.

  6. JohnPotter says:

    #The Logical Song, I don’t know where you got the idea that:

    The cops have committed child abuse by interrogating the children without the parents presence.

    To my knowledge, a child undergoing an evidential interview will NEVER have a parent present.

    Also, the attitude that parents have some kind of:

    common law right to their children

    is not likely to be helpful in a Family Court situation. If you must talk about “rights” it is better to focus on a child’s rights to have the care of both their biological parents.

    Sadly, there are all too many situations where one or both of the parents are abusive or neglectful, and in these situations the state does indeed need to step in and take control.

  7. Man X Norton says:

    JohnPotter: While it’s true that a child undergoing an evidential interview will not have a parent present, the parent may be in the next room and available to comfort the child if necessary. Also, unless the investigation is into allegations against the parents, parents will (and should have to?) give permission for their children to be interviewed.

    Even in dealing with adults, police and other authorities routinely go beyond their empowering legislation. They will fail to inform people of their civil rights and instead ask questions and expect answers concerning matters which civilians have no legal obligation to discuss. Children similarly are not informed that they have the right to say nothing and they and their parents are usually not informed that the child has no obligation to submit to an interview at all. Children are used as evidential cannon fodder, subjected to leading questions and other forms of manipulation simply to assist authorities in some campaign against an adult. Of course, adults are subjected to similar kinds of manipulation but when it comes to children it’s like ‘taking candy from a baby’. Hence the ridiculous things that authorities got the Christchurch Creche children to allege. Since then there has been little change in evidential interviewing rules and the same stuff goes on, but it is now a bit more difficult for police to withhold from Court selections of interviews that might show the child has been led.

    Evidential video interviews are a convenient way of allowing manipulation of children’s evidence free from any oath of honesty and from the other rules applying in a hearing that were designed to reduce false evidence. The interview is then played in Court as if it is reliable evidence.

    While it’s true that the state steps in and takes control where parents are abusive or neglectful, unfortunately most of those state agencies have no code of ‘first do no harm’. The result is that state agencies, especially CYFS, will step in on the basis of hearsay, inadequate evidence, feminist ideology, a ‘sexual abuse’ witch hunt based largely on superstitious beliefs, and/or personal vendettas against a parent who has displeased a ‘social worker’. The anti-smacking law and foolishly expanded and vague definitions of ‘violence’ have increased this problem. Relevant state agencies including Family Court will act not in the best interests of children (taking into account realistic risk levels) but instead to protect their own backs from rare tragedies after which they may be accused of not acting forcefully enough. Empirical risk assessment tools are often not used. The result is that huge numbers of families and children are damaged unnecessarily through little-justified intervention hoping to avoid a small number of truly abusive cases. It is very much like removing organs through surgery at the first hint of pain and without adequate diagnosis.

    Sorry to rave on…

  8. JohnPotter says:

    I fully agree with most of what you say Man X Norton, except:

    the child has no obligation to submit to an interview at all.

    If CYF suspects a child is being abused and starts an investigation, an evidential interview will take place even if parents object strongly. As far as I understand, a child has no legal “right to say nothing” in these circumstances. If you can provide information or precedents that suggest otherwise, please do so.

  9. Downunder says:

    @John Interesting comment.

    Regardless of legal rights I have found social workers at least think along those lines.

    Mention the ‘no option’ in relation to a child and watch the scowl.

    I have never actually looked into it, but we had a discussion in another post, with Steve the conservative candidate, which ever post that was, that would probably be a good start to examining that.

  10. Downunder says:

    Here’s the discussion here

    It is under the Family Court Lawyers Feral Post

  11. The man in Absentia says:

    Police interference. Is the subject.

    When is police interference good?
    When is police interference bad?

    The good would be that it upholds the law.
    This could be helping to see that the court orders are upheld for both parties. That they help stop petty adult bullshit.

    The bad interference is when it act with the intent of not upholding the law.
    Like when they turn a blind eye to falsified birth certificates.
    Like when female versions of sexual offending is condoned and joked about. Like being stitched up. He must have deserved it.

    Its the police that must fight for the law.

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