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

$6 Million for Family Court PR scheme

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 1:53 pm Fri 12th May 2006

In Stuff today: Plan to help families cope with divorce

Parents about to divorce or separate are to be given free counselling sessions in a bid to lessen the impact on their children.

The $6 million scheme, unveiled by Justice Minister Rick Barker yesterday, was aimed at 15,000 parents who would separate or contemplate a split, during the next year, he said.

Mr Barker said not enough was being done to help parents.

The voluntary programme includes four hours of counselling, a DVD and written material, and coaches parents on the impact of divorce and how to involve their children.

The programme is an extension of an Auckland pilot scheme started in 2004, which had 100 per cent backing from the parents involved, Waitemata intern clinical psychologist Lynelle Gillard, said.

Auckland family lawyer Brian Gubb, who helped put the programme together, said it should be mandatory for all parents that were separating. “Otherwise the parents that you want on it, won’t (go).”

Isn’t this announcement good news, I hear readers ask? I think not. Superficially, it sounds quite promising (although astute observers may note that 100% support sounds just a little too good).

The pilot of scheme: Children in the Middle, was run on the North Shore and the Family Court published a report on the Parent Information Programmes here.

A perusal of the names behind the programme will cause considerable disquiet to any regular attendees of Mens Centre North Shore support groups! Notably lacking is any form of consumer representation, or any involvement by father’s support organisations. So who are the new experts on separation and divorce? The same lawyers, clinical psychologists, and court officials who have been at the forefront of the feminist father-removal programme!

The present programme was initiated by the Chairperson of the Auckland Family Courts Association, Brian Gubb, who contacted Associate Professor Fred Seymour at the University of Auckland Psychology Department to invite him to participate in setting up a programme in Auckland. The Auckland Family Court Association agreed to run a pilot programme and invited Lynelle Gillard, a Clinical Psychology doctoral student to be involved. It was decided to run CiM on Auckland’s North Shore. Support for the pilot was given by the then Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Patrick Mahony, the Auckland Administrative Judge, Judge Lawrence Ryan and the Ministry of Justice. After some initial consultation, an Advisory Group was established. Advisory Group members included Brian Gubb, Fred Seymour, Lynelle Gillard, Bruce Archer, Marg Dixon, Amanda Donovan, Hana Ellis, Andrew Finnie, Wayne Gates, Ian McHardy and Keith Young. Initial work in developing CiM took place during 2003, and CiM commenced in February, 2004.


  1. Anything that Brian Gubb is associated with has to be put in the ‘suspicious’ box. This man and his old partner Lynda Kearns are a couple of family destroyers. They care nothing for the children involved in their quest to win a case. Even when it is clear their client is a liar and a disturbed mother they still cheat & lie in order to pervert justice. Because of this fakes standing with the court he believes he is above the law. They wasted legal aid money (your money) in order to disect me purely on a personal basis. I only hope they do to someone of an unsound mind what they did to me. Then they will receive what they deserve.
    If you want to damage your partner and your child in the process this is the man to commision for the job.

    Not true Mr Grubb???? If not then please sue me!!!!

    I will not be anonymous to Grubby man as we have already had correspondence.

    Comment by Bryan N — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 4:43 pm

  2. Can we organise a group of interested people to map this initiative with a father’s advocacy supervision? If there are enough people, say 5, ready to talk with each other, observe the programme, comment and then report publicly on how it compares with our understanding of reality for children and fathers post separation?

    Comment by Ben Easton — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 6:05 pm

  3. I attended this programme some time ago, in a bid to familiarise myself with the family law system, and also hopefully learn something that would be of benefit to my child.

    My opinions and comments as to the worth of the programme were never sought, so it is surprising to read that the programme had “100 per cent backing from the parents involved”.

    I’ll offer my opinions now.

    Fred the Psychologist seemed to me a compassionate man who genuinely wanted to save children from the possible harmful consequences of parental separations, and he gave me some good advice. I also felt that Fred was attempting to put an unrealistically positive and simplistic spin on parental separation that just didn’t ring true, and did not reflect the injustice and powerlessness of my experience and that reported by so many fathers.

    Brian the Lawyer talked a lot but said nothing substantial that I can recall. He seemed reluctant to let us ask questions, preferring the sound of his own voice. Brian wanted to know what legal representation each of us had, leading me to suspect that his primary motivation was to tout for business.

    I would agree with Brian though, when he says that the programme should be mandatory for all parents who are separating. Otherwise, what’s the point, if a parent who wants to be constructive turns up, while a destructive parent is free to remain ignorant of the harmful effects of their behaviour?

    I would also recommend losing the lawyers. A programme aiming to teach parents how to communicate constructively with each other has no need of their involvement.

    Comment by PaulM — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 9:11 pm

  4. More fodder for The Sisterhood economy. Note the article recognises research that children of separated parents are twice as likely to commit crimes, with 20 per cent of youth offenders coming from broken homes — 10 per cent more than those living with two parents. Again; this is not news to those of us in the know. These offending youths probably have little, if any, Contact with their fathers, who in turn have little, if any, real parenting* involvement, even if they do see them.
    * I see ‘real parenting’ as recognising paternal parenting as of equal value and worth to maternal parenting, where both parents views, standards and techniques etc are valued, not with either party merely a subordinate delegate to the other. If daddy can only care for little Johnny or Janey on weekends, so long as he kowtows to every instruction given by custodial mummy (‘make sure they’re in bed by 9; Make sure they eat their greens; Don’t let them drink strong spirits; remember you must feed them the red pill at 8; the green pill at 12, and 4 black pills both before, during and after every feeding’ etc), that’s not real parenting. Real parenting puts the children’s interest paramount, and recognises both parents, irrespective of their differences, as vital to the long-term welfare of their children.
    Children whose parents went to Family Court were at the highest risk as they were often exposed to intense conflict and uncertainty”.
    Maybe because they have to sit there, listening and agreeing to trumped up charges against daddy. Maybe because they’re having to take sides. Maybe they just want to have a normal daddy in their lives, who they can share their love and devotion to (in equal measures with mummy), who in turn just wants to love and protect them, and be a real daddy to them.
    Is that so hard?

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 13th May 2006 @ 6:46 am

  5. Whether or not others consider me loopy my observations remain considered and without a contesting argument that does not rely on absolute ignorance. We fathers where on the end of an injustice working within the limitations of legislation and our right to protest can bring discord to our societal protections to such an extreme that our views, finaly will be considered. I think that this is a simple observation, neither loopy or sad.

    The programme seems to me to be sensible, yet it is subject to the direction of the psychologists who have been trained in the practices to create its need and lawyers like Mr Gubb who seem to me to be driving an agenda that is deliberatly oblivious to necessary factors in its formation. When fathers become more confident about the power we presently hold they may wish to publish on this site some of those provable facts. Like for example that Judge Kendall lied in his judgment alluding to logic in its conclusions.

    What he didn’t say is that he is a very mean man who didn’t want to protect the children he was presiding to serve. He played with symantics like they belonged to him. Or Judge Rota who illegally placed me into prison saying that if I talked about Constitution he would put me into jail and then did anyway. Why? It was because he didn’t want to talk about the constitution and he wanted to teach me a lesson. Why? Because he didn’t like me. I’m not sure if my 5 and a half day food and water strike had any impact on him, but hopefully that he broke the law will have some kind of redress.

    Will it? This is an example of how men should stand. Tell the public what the people who operate teh system have done. Work it through and publish.

    What about Judge Mather? The Ministry of Justice and the Court of Appeal are not interested to find out whether Steve Cleal the Family Court Manager at Waitakere lied, or Judge Mather. Mr Cleal did lie, that is already a fact but what about Mather then? Did he slip a note into my file, as it seems consistent with the evidence at the time, or did Mr Cleal not open the file when advising me in comlpete earnest that he was confused about what the Judge was doing with his judgement. He hadn’t made one. You would have to think Mr Cleal was at fault but it wasn’t as if Steve didn’t know about my case. Mr Cleal said “I don’t know what Judge Mather is doing, it is unusual”. I don’t know where the judgement is. Mysteriously a note appears in the file along with the judgement later when I finally get it that suggests that Mr Cleal doesn’t look in files when making earnest statement. Eh? A Manager who doesn’t open a file before making a very “crystal” clear statement. And that’s not all folks when it comes to opening up my file, that’s a promise. Judge Boshier should do something before it’s fully opened.

    The previous comment on the article describes the needs of parents who are likely to be missed in the programme’s provisions it directed with the authority of the present psychologists and lawyers and judges like Judge Mather, Rota or Kendall. The past and present patsy game of “mummy knows best” is going to be entrenched in its formative construction. Bevan Berg’s view that children shall soon be able to sue the court is a view that is highly relevant to my comments here. We are in danger of allowing a new societal construction to evolve without dads standing with the kind of backbone our shoulders are supposed to require supporting our society and communities. We are standing like drooping victims. If our children are going to be able to sue the people who have done us harm it will be because we do something about it and not because the people who have done us harm have a natural tendancy to recognise the damage they cause.

    Bevan’s relativity is profound to our observations on this new programme. The programme if implemented with adequate resourcing ($6M is nothing to the infrastructure it requires to make it economical) effectively replace the Family Court. It will not cost the parents anything against the thousnads of millions of dollars that have been drained from families in and at their most vulnerable condition. The money that lawyers use to furnish their appartments and lavish their fridges are the dollars and cents of our children’s inheritance. This programme should have been operative well before the people running the justice system decided to establish and separate the judicial process over families. They knew what they were doing then just like Mr Gubb knows what they are doing now. Making money. Calling us sad is a convenient exploitation of the facts. He should bet his children’s bottom dollar on me being sad. Whether or not I am angry with the same degree I contain my sorrow is a gamble I wouldn’t advise him to aggravate. Of course I am angry. His people stole my children. I am non-violent, but that should not make me his literal abusive target. That it does puts him well within the sights of being mine. This is an example of me asking fathers to stand straight and Mr Gubb as with any other exploitative lawyer, senior or otherwise quickly to improve their performances.

    The State party of New Zealand has a considerabvle problem and they need to fix it quickly. I suggest that while fathers are roaming around thinking that they are the subjects of an injustice, we promote Judge Boshier to have a long and meaningful discussion with Bevan Berg. In the meantime for our children, brothers and families we need to concentrate on getting this programme where it isn’t just “mummy who knows best”.


    …on mother’s day. Please Judge Mather bring me back the children that you took away.

    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 14th May 2006 @ 11:43 am

  6. Re Linda Kearns as a family law counsel. I was stuipid enough to engage her for a child support case. She wound me saying we had a good case until the day of the hearing and then suddenly advised me to abandoned it as we weree walking in the door. She was useless, the IRD lawyer tied her up in knots. The woman is barely competent and hardly speaks in court. Anyone engaging her does so at their own risk. Avoid this lawyer if you can and don’t worry if your ex-partner engages her. She presents as an expert, in fact she has simply been ueseless for a long time and got away with it.

    Comment by Gerry — Sat 15th November 2008 @ 12:10 am

  7. Hi Gerry

    I hear what you are saying about Linda Kearns. Is there anyway I can contact you about her? We are having our own issues with her


    Comment by William — Fri 17th July 2009 @ 8:24 am

  8. Hi William – you can contact me at [email protected]. I don’t recommend you give out personal information on this site because a lot of people tied up with the Family Court monitor it and may use it against you in a report they may be asked to write for the Family Court (Lawyer for Child, Psychologist, etc). The Family Court hates criticism of any sort and will attack you if you dare criticise it.

    Comment by Gerry — Fri 17th July 2009 @ 11:50 am

  9. my daughter was abused by her father, the court case was changed last minute by linda kearns and judge druce . i did nothing wronge they put both my daughters into the fathers care it was so unfair. i spent two years trying to visit my daughters at an access centre my daughters suffered as a result , andy my husband now believes they were in colusion because our case did not add up one day the truth will come out and i would like to speak the truth i had to lie and say he did not do it in an affidavid so i could get my daughters back where’s the justice in that.any one that can prove problems with linda kearns and april trenberth,and judge druce should make contact these people didnt care about my daughters and i failed to protect them and so did the law.

    Comment by andy and tania — Sat 28th November 2009 @ 9:53 pm

  10. Hi there Andy and Tania,
    Am interested in finding out more about some or actually one of the people you are mentioning in your above post as am working with them at the moment.
    Look forward to hearing from you
    Thanks, and would be greatful if you could mail me

    Comment by Kendra Reynolds — Thu 8th April 2010 @ 9:29 am

  11. Fathers being disadvantaged in New Zealand? Not as far as I can tell.

    I had a similar experience of being hushed up and told “not to tell certain things” for fear they would backfire on me or look like cheap shots, “don’t be negative about the father”, blah blah, but he couldn’t have cared less about taking care of his family, in actuality, and there was plenty proof of this. Very little of the reality of this person’s effect on, and treatment of, his family ever made it through to the judge for fear of “looking negative”. The entire process was insane.

    All that this “nicey nice” strategy did was to present a warped and falsely positive picture of someone who had only ever acted in his own self-interest with regard to his family. Coached by his counsel to pitch a certain angle based on the latest child psychology fad, the only thing of interest to the judge that WE got was the age of the child and the need for continuity in his relationship with his father. Nothing else and no one else mattered.

    Dad – the magic ingredient! I don’t see where men do not have rights.
    In fact, you don’t even have to act like one to get them.

    Comment by anonymous — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 7:11 am

  12. Hello anonymous, you can tell a lot about you as a person by your comment.

    1. I bet your regretting sleeping with him and choosing him as the father of your children.
    2. I bet he’s known this and stays out of you way for it. Maybe he can do no right in your eyes so he’s been pushed away from trying in fear you’ll abuse him.
    3. Maybe he didn’t have the option of not getting pregnant or the option to abort or adopt.
    4. You come across as a bitch and it looks like someone else thinks so and told you to ‘hush up’ from pulling him down.
    5. You want him out of his children’s lives because you’re selfish and thought about what you wanted.
    6. You’re going to accept child support even though you stand and say, “I don’t want him in his children’s lives”. His money’s OK though, eh?
    7. You’re going to turn his children against him.

    I’m going to be disappointed if what I say is right.

    Comment by julie — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 9:46 am

  13. ….blah blah, but he couldn’t have cared less about taking care of his family….

    If that is true then how do you explain that he is fighting in court to remain part of the children’s lives?

    It is self evident he cares about his children.

    Your problem is that he does not care for you and he has no reason to support you.
    You feel you have the right to make this – your problem – become the children’s problem. You want the children to suffer for your greed.

    You need to grow up and start putting the needs of your children before your own selfish wants and motives.
    Everybody is telling you this but you still refuse to listen.
    You have a lawyer working in your own interests that has spelt this out for you but you still don’t get it.
    Sadly you are typical of the problematic mother in the family court that simply does not ‘get it’.

    The best thing would be to reduce the time you spend with the children until you wise up.

    Comment by Dave — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 12:14 pm

  14. If that is true then how do you explain that he is fighting in court to remain part of the children’s lives?

    I don’t know how many times over the last decade I have tried in vain to explain that to the family courts, when my ex says I have no interest in my children or caring about them. Then why am I still here, and have been fighting from the start? I ask. Her reply? Because he is trying to control and intimidate me!

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 3:06 pm

  15. Hi Scott.

    I ask. Her reply? Because he is trying to control and intimidate me!

    I think there are quite a few women out there who think like this.

    I’ve heard one women say that the father fought for the right to be in his children’s lives and then he won and then he didn’t stick to the arrangement. I heard another woman relate.


    One time over the phone I said something that wasn’t nice to my ex. My sons growled me straight afterward and my ex phoned every few days for a few weeks.

    He doesn’t see his sons on a regular basis and that’s mostly because we live in different towns. When we lived in the same town our sons would go back and forth between our homes as they felt like it.

    What I learnt from this experience is that my ex is happy when things are all good between us but when things are not, he works at making sure everything’s OK. He has sons and as a father he just wants his right to be intact. I see women on this site say their exes don’t have that right any more because he upset them. One called it a privilege that he has lost.

    It’s not up to a mother to decide whether the father has a right or not to be his children’s lives, it’s a right he has because he IS the father just the same as a mother has the right to be in her children’s lives and children have the right to be in both their parent’s lives. I suppose in a way it is a type of ‘wanting control’ because you need to do your best to make sure your right is intact. If you don’t try and control the situation then you let go of the situation and you lose your right. If your ex thinks it is her right to control whether you have a right or not then you have to take her to court and fight for your right.

    I hope this doesn’t come across as if I’m telling you your situation. I think this is what it’s about and sometimes I explain this way to parents.

    Comment by julie — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 10:19 pm

  16. Hi Julie.

    Sorry, but this is just a tactic that she uses to try and stop me from seeing my children and paint me in a bad light. It is a lie told as an excuse to condone her terrible and immoral actions.

    And I’ve heard it all before as well re didn’t stick to the arrangements. It’s difficult to when they change almost every second or you are told of changes after the fact. Quite often this is just a baseless lie again. The courts allow this.

    Women can lie as much as they like and are never asked for evidence in the family (wimmins) court and are never held accountable.

    I have fought through the so called system and been chewed up and spat out the other side worse than before, emotionally, financially, spiritually and my health has deteriorated too. Hence posting on this site.

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 11:09 pm

  17. You are not in the least aware of what my situation was, no. In fact, I imagine it would be illuminating to chat with the wives of some of the men here and hear the other side of their sob stories.

    He chose to smoke and grow dope and lie around and not help us financially survive when he was with us, while I worked like a crazy person to pay our expenses. He apparently did this to his last girlfriend too. You aren’t noble simply by virtue of having a male gender. I have ensured that he has regular access to his son, and not said a word against him, so my son loves his dad. He did not pay child support for a long time, then only a bit, and never the full amount he claimed brazenly in court, which was provable but not important to the judge. I allow him to pay what he wishes without comment, and do not change his access as a function of whatever coins he wishes to throw our way for food and heat. I have never been on the DPB, work time and a half, and in fact supported his arse for years while he massaged his options, a luxury I never ever had. He will not let us move to a less expensive place to live, forcing us to remain in utter penury, for the sake of his access, which is geocentric, as I invited him to come along with us. But he wants to stay in a place HE likes, to the detriment of the rest of us. He drove his stepchildren away with his awful behaviour.

    It’s a man’s world really. It is nice that Julie manages to co-parent and is happy with it. If she had been married to the guy who fooled me into thinking he wanted to do something in life and not live off us, she might not be posting on here.

    Comment by anonymous — Sat 3rd July 2010 @ 8:31 pm

  18. Are you on DPB “Anonymous” ?

    Comment by martin swash — Sun 4th July 2010 @ 2:28 am

  19. Hi Ben – I really admire the work you have been doing in Wellington and your selfless acts to draw attention to social issues — particularly for fathers. Kia Kaha to you.

    I took part in the Auckland pilot. The fundamental flaw is that the programme is voluntary. I am not supporting Brian Gubb (I’ve never met him — yet) but I totally agree with him that the programme should be mandatory for all parents separating. Read into that what you will in my experience.

    If the courts can mandatory make men attend such things as an anger management course (not that this applied in my case), it should mandatory make parents attend this programme.

    This is the whole fundamental weakness and flaw in the Family Court system. Avenues which punish and discriminate against fathers are mandatory; avenues which might actually make a difference in the parenting arrangements are voluntarily. And what scorned person (mother or father) hell-bent on revenge and punishment is going to voluntary give up that agenda if they have a choice.

    Just like parents sometimes (in the best interests and welfare of their children) have to tell their children to do things they may not want to do, the same sometimes applies to parents. Sometimes warring parents have to be led to water and made to drink. The Family Court is naive and limp wristed and works on the premise there are no personal agendas between parents (wrong!) and a lot of what occurs is simply about punishing the other party (right!).

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 4th July 2010 @ 2:42 pm

  20. To anonymous-i absolutely relate to your comment about being bullied by councel june 30 and being told what to say. My son is at the mercy of April Trenberth, how can a mens rights supporter be in charge of what is supposed to be unbias? We also have had Wayne Gates as a councellor a known mens rights advocate . Conflict of interest much? We have had enough of these people trying to make us happy when its the boy they are supposed to be working for. Not only has April Trenberth tried to get rid of me once,she did it again this week with her rubbish report. She is not a doctor and is giving serious medical diagnosis without the relevant qualifications,those diagnosis having been disputed by a well known and qualified psychiatrist. Do not listen to these angry men and women who try to belittle you anonymous have the courage of your convictions and know who you are.My journey for my boy started a long time ago but my search for fairness begins right now, I am taking this to the highest authority I can find,also read UNCROC menifesto for the rights of the child, it is global and nothing April Trenberth does aids any child I know of,only their fathers !!!

    Comment by Lucinda — Mon 24th September 2012 @ 3:31 pm

  21. Lucinda (#21): April Trenberth, men’s rights supporter? That would be a pleasant thing but unlikely. I’m not aware that April has ever contributed to the men’s movement, here on the MENZ site or elsewhere. I suspect that if Ms Trenberth has identified issues with regard to your parenting competence or safety, they will be justified. As always, men will be subject to much more scrutiny, suspicion and fault-finding than women ever are in the Family Court, because of the degree to which feminist propaganda has shaped family law and Court practice.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 25th September 2012 @ 12:21 pm

  22. #22 truly you haven’t had any dealings with the courts since the rights of fathers bill passed through court and this has nothing to do with mens rights its to do with false accusations re my parenting and nothing she said is justified in any way. it is actually appalling i had another of her reports thrown out of court as to unjustified claims on my state of mind . she is not a doctor nor is she qualified thus.a professional psychiatrist cleared me as sane and competant in a highly functioning capacity.i will not be insulted by her or by you in claiming her regard will be only concern is the system is soul destroying enough without battling false accusations by a trumped up pretender.i have many male friends whom have removed their children from bad situations/mothers and i am proud of them,i have been conceptualised into one of Trenberths stereotypes and im not having it!

    Comment by Lucinda — Thu 27th September 2012 @ 9:00 pm

  23. #23 Lucinda. The rights of fathers bill has passed through Court ? When was this ? Because it’ll be news to all of us.

    Comment by golfa — Thu 27th September 2012 @ 9:40 pm

  24. Dear Lucinda – I would love the opportunity to talk with you re April.

    Comment by scotty — Tue 28th January 2014 @ 9:56 pm

  25. Me too, lucinda – It is a very interesting to hear what you have said, please contact me too. I have had dealings with April too.

    Comment by Kay — Tue 28th January 2014 @ 10:00 pm

  26. Dear Lucinda please I do not know how to contact you but I too have a very interesting case and I too prior to reading you post recognised that April trenberth is not there for the child/children and is acting for the paying parent. So those who can not afford to pay her ridiculous fees $180 per hour and attempt to stand up to her when she is making ridiculous suggestions which are totally bias during session I.e. When the children play up for ex (father of children and by the way he had the money to pay her ugly fees) she demanded that I drive to ex house tell the children off and then leave. Hello this was a very volatile relationship I left when I refused she (April) threatened that she was going to recommend to the courts that the father should have full custody. Talk about bullying tactics !!!!!!! Please how can I get in touch. I have several files on her code of conduct and I tell you the governing body would have a field day with her. But with the corruption that goes on with this level all she will get is a smack on the hand. It’s a shame because there are some wonderful counselors out there which do a great job. April is on a power trip and riding the gravy train!!!!

    Comment by Scotty — Mon 17th February 2014 @ 8:35 pm

  27. I would also like to talk to Lucinda, Scotty, Kay regarding April Trentberth. How can I get in contact with someone on here???

    Comment by Serena — Fri 23rd May 2014 @ 1:30 pm

  28. I’m keen to talk with Lucinda, Scotty, Kay about April Trentberth. How can I get in contact with someone on here?

    Comment by Beth — Wed 25th March 2015 @ 1:10 pm

  29. Comments above are critical of April Trenberth. I cannot comment on those comments. However, recently a father was quite appreciative of April Trenberth’s psych report, so it seems that her performance is not black and white bad at all.

    In my experience, many of the criticisms of psychologists are made by parents who are not fully aware of their own limitations, so perhaps are surprised by comments made in psych reports.

    I have seen several examples, where I thought that the psych was too polite to the parents and didn’t call a spade a spade. Maybe that was constructive, but in my opinion it didn’t put enough pressure onto the parents, to address their own issues (that did impact onto the children). As a result, the potential value from including psychologists in familycaught$ operations is not fully achieved, or even much at all.

    I echo comment #22 above, unfortunately.

    I suspect that many psychologists have not satisfactorily stayed up to date, with developments since they graduated from university. As a result, perhaps psychological practice in NZ is 30 to 40 years out of date, compared to research? Staying up to date satisfactorily is very time consuming (much more than a couple of days work a year) and thus costs real money. I guess unless there are quality checks operating, money rules supreme in psychologists private decisions of how much time to put into staying up to date.

    The familycaught$ follows the principles for secret caughts, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Children, women and men suffer accordingly.

    MurrayBacon – deranged axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th March 2015 @ 3:05 pm

  30. Linda and April.

    There’s a couple of names that go all the way back to UOF days.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 25th March 2015 @ 5:10 pm

  31. I am also aware of a recent psych report by April Trenberth that was fair to the father concerned. She is clearly not one of the man-haters.

    I hope that making this public does not mean her referrals will mysteriously dry up!

    Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 25th March 2015 @ 5:31 pm

  32. I am aware of a recent report by Felicity Leach that, although in some ways duplicitious in favour of the mother, showed a surprising level of balance, fairness and frankness concerning both parties, and provided a way forward to resume and heal the relationship between father and child.

    Instead of reflecting the nature of the particular psychologists involved, I believe that what we are seeing is further evidence of significant change in public awareness, knowledge and attitudes. Female psychologists who previously were likely to allow feminist propaganda to dominate their thinking are now considering matters in a more balanced, realistic way. A real wave of change is developing. Politicians have yet to catch up with the change and media still give almost totally preferential coverage to male-bashing feminist groups. There is much yet to do, but make no mistake, change is happening and will increase in pace. Get on the wave, write letters, make noise.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 26th March 2015 @ 10:07 am

  33. Dear Man X Norton,

    I hope that you are right. I am less confident than you, due to my respect for the creative inertia, deadwood, greed and prejudices in familycaught$ judges.

    I can only imagine positive change, when a large number of mothers and fathers speak out publicly about the lack of quality and integrity in familycaught$ decisions and the sheer slowness with which they crush family’s money.

    Or, if the Minister of Justice were to change the familycaught$ to work using judges paid only by the litigants and working under standards that keep them on track with respecting mothers, fathers and children’s rights to a good upbringing.

    In the meantime, I hope that father’s support people can knowledgeably help fathers to accept constructive comments made in psych reports and act to address these issues. In the end, this would benefit children, mothers and fathers.

    If I was allowed to dream, I would make the same comment about mother’s support groups, but I ain’t rich enough to have dreams.


    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 26th March 2015 @ 12:05 pm

  34. Hi Gerry – I so hear what you have said in the past. My wife was recently questioned at court about a comment I put on here, however the lawyer used it as the child had said this to their lawyer. Sad world we live in when you as for honesty and justice to only find corruption. It is interesting that my Wife is being accused of alienation, yet the father of the children has done many things for example, looked after a sex offender, crashed the car when drunk whilst the kids are in the car, broken every single condition in the Interim Parental order that was signed by both parties – even down to our 12 year old boy being returned to us with bruises and the father openly admitted to all the above – these are many of the things that have happened yet all seem to be brushed under the carpet due to the fathers allegations of alienation.

    Isn’t it amazing that there is an uproar about two men being shot due to drug smuggling, yet the family court process and decision making is and continues to destroy families all the time. There are innocent children and parents who are having their life destroyed both financially and emotionally and all the process does is give a big fat cheque to lawyers – I guess my wife will wait to be questioned on that too!!!

    At the end of the day, if the father gets what he wants and the children are removed from my Wife due to false allegations, then we will not fight the system, we will expose the system for what it is.

    And the Psychologists who wrote an affidavit for the father when my Wife wouldn’t do as she was told will be first on the list of exposure.

    And I am sure that this is surfed by all the lawyers – which means I am not allowed to have an opinion!!

    Comment by scotty — Thu 30th April 2015 @ 12:36 am

  35. April Tremberth is still at it,it is now 2017 .I have an Asperges grandson of 9yrs old and a granddaughter of 4 .
    They have both been taken from mum and dad ie: because he was not going to SCHOOL
    Why? Because he was bullied at both schools he attended.
    Mum was home schooling and he was doing well
    the psychologist never even got to see the boy how can she have an opinion she has said he is not asperges just bad parents
    Anyone had dealings with this thing who is meant to know all?

    Comment by yen — Mon 3rd April 2017 @ 4:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar