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

A Question

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:58 pm Thu 18th May 2006

How do those who feel completely abandoned by any hope of receiving justice, get their point across to the Family Courts?

This is justice which should be meted out after the due process of positive proof has been offered, all witnesses examined and cross-examined to the point where the reasonable man on the street can arrive at a reasoned conclusion?

And where the accused (mostly we men) are deemed innocent till proven otherwise.

Proof which is founded on hard evidence, corrobarated by parties of sound mind and age. Not unfounded allegation, opinion, and malicious suggestion.

It seems one way is to bring the court’s attention to the fact that a very significant proportion of the population has lost faith in its integrity. Surely, no greater negative comment can be made of any court in any land than, ‘We, the general public no longer trust you’re impartialty or integrity,’ the very statement which has been made on countless thousands of occasions at this site.

No such comments would ever be levelled at the Criminal Court because the evidence given is properly tested and, at the end of the day a judge or jury have sufficient information upon which to make an informed decision.

But I return to the question….How do we get the Family Court to recognise such a significant loss of faith?

It seems clear to me that the protest movement is having some level of impact; quite what that level happens to be is in the realm of conjecture.

What about writing to the court? Would such letters be either accepted or even read? Perhaps.

But I’ve just discovered a sure-fire way of encouraging the Court to read our fears.

Since February, I have written about seventy posts to the convenor of this site, most have been published. I was also warned, very early on, by John, that CYFS regularly monitor this site and have been known to take ‘injudicious’ posts to court.

And so I have made very sure none of my posts have been injudicious, but I have striven to make them pointed. I have also purposely named some of the actors in the grim and child- destroying play in which I am involved.

Some of you may remember I openly invited Lizzie Curtis (Waitakere CYFSterhood and champion for the total destruction of my grand-daughter’s entire life) to use my posts in evidence; or at least bring them and many of the replies to the attention of the Court.

In my wildest dreams I never really believed she would be so pavlovian. But I kept ringing the bell hoping against hope that Lizzie would make a shot at opening the food container.

Bugger my gumboots. Today Lizzie has filed 43 pages of various transcripts of my posts and many others! By filing them Ms Curtis has, ipso facto, required of the Court to read and assimilate each one! Thus she has achieved, on our behalf, that which we didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of achieving. Ergo, having the Family Court read and give due legal consideration to our fears and loss of faith in the Family Court system.

I fully appreciate the reading judge will be more than mildly miffed at some of the posts. But the fact remains, there is little and diminishing confidence that the Family Court delivers justice.

I can but trust the presiding judge will sublimate his annoyance in favour of concentrating on the complete lack of substance Lizzie’s various affidavits have offered. And, further, give due consideration to our collective concerns.

It is fair to assert the Court is persuaded by the CYFSterhood reports which, especially in my case, are about as unbiased as a slave-trader’s belief in human freedom. But perhaps, having read the various posts which the lovely Lizzie has included in her affidavit, the Court just might stop and ponder.

All we wish to have happen is for just one judge to ask, ‘Are we being rail-roaded by CYFS?’ If we get just that one thought to gain substance then perhaps many thousands of future families and the attendent children will not be destroyed by the palpable haters of men…..certainly the Waitakere CYFSterhood and associated Lawyers for Child….and we know who they are, don’t we?

So there you go. Sometimes even (apparently unqualified) social workers have some useful input into our cause to gain proper justice from the Family Court system.:–))

On behalf of all of us, Lizzie. Please allow me to say a huge thank you. You have achieved for us what we could never have hoped to achieve by direct approach.

Ding,Ding, Lizzie! Bell’s ringing. Dinner time! :–)) You should just about have time to attach this post to another affidavit before 10 am tomorrow. :–)) C’mon Liz. Please? Pretty please?



  1. Family Court affidavits are not worth the paper they are printed on… shyt paper has more value…..!!! forget words like truth and integrity when you get absorbed into the judicial system……. just learn the meaning of corruption and injustice .The sick system is beyond hope – a man will never win – justice does not exist in this sisterhood nation !!!!!…. end of story . Yes I am angry and with bloody good reason !!!!!!My anger cannot destroy me any further .

    Comment by Peter Burns — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 7:12 pm

  2. Hi dave
    when did this happen and why did she submit the affidavit… i thought she had “hate males” as her number one priority?

    Comment by starr — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 7:29 pm

  3. First.Peter. Hang in there buddy. Never give up hope.

    Second. Starr. These people join the bureaucracy because they can’t actually get a proper job. They are the world’s incompetents, struggling to gain some power in their own miserable lives. But they do so by trying to gain power over our lives.

    But they all enjoy one central Archilles heal. They are all as thick as planks.

    I can’t reveal what Lizzie stated in her affidavit which attached the posts, but you may be assured her cause for filing it made me fall off my chair laughing. Damned near hurt myself in the fall. :–))

    Lizzie thinks/thought that by ‘revealing’ the posts her case would be in some way strengthened. The fact is the dopey braod has just ‘made’ the Court recognise our collective plaint. Ergo: We don’t believe justice occurs in the Family Court.

    Good, eh? :–))

    I say again. The NZ Court system is the last bastion of sanity. If any part of it is deemed, by a significant sector of the public, to be faulty, it ‘must’ respond because the Court of New Zealand ‘must’ be respected as being the final word.

    If that respect is villified then our justice system goes out the window and anarchy will inevitably reign.

    But don’t expect some sort of Saul Of Tarsus revelation from the Court, as a reult of Lizzies fabulous inclusion. It all takes time and persistence. Straws on the camel’s back.


    Comment by dpex — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 7:48 pm

  4. There is much I do not post here, for the very reason that I am concious that The Sisterhood has eyes. I quite expect that my ex’s lawyer, perhaps even my ex, is keeping tabs on this site.
    I have had no CYFs involvement; hence I do not tend to write regarding CYFs. But I stand by every word I write. I have no tolerence for child sexual abuse. I have no tolerence for unbridled violence. I am not abusive towards anyone.
    Anger, you see, The Sisterhood tell us (aka femi-nazi woman running a Living Without Violence programme) is actually quite OK. If woman didn’t get angry, they would not have acheived the vote. It is what you do with that anger that is important. I write.
    I will not resort to violence (physical). I do not control anyone. I do not manipulate anyone. I tell things like they are.
    I am quite comfortable with the notion that everyone is responsible for their own actions.

    But I get around; From Wairoa, to Wellington, to Auckland, to Christchurch. The DominionPost is available all over the country – even here in Bluff. Can you be certain where I live? My very own children wouldn’t even know.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 7:49 pm

  5. From what I hear the Waitakere CYFS social workers are fighting amongst themselves.

    Comment by julie — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 8:57 pm

  6. David:

    No such comments would ever be levelled at the Criminal Court

    I hate to disillusion you, but they have a bit of a credibility problem too.

    Comment by JohnP — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 9:09 pm

  7. They seek him here, they seek him there,
    Those sisters seek him everywhere
    Is he in Bluff? Is he in the Waikato?
    That damned elusive Al D Rado

    Comment by PaulM — Fri 19th May 2006 @ 1:49 pm

  8. I dispute that!
    I have never been in the Waikato!
    Waihi is not Waikato!

    Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 19th May 2006 @ 10:08 pm

  9. The **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** should DEMAND the “Presumption of HandsOnEqualParenting from Conception”.

    once in law these troubles would be over and the “Empire of Injustice” put out to pasture or even better the GRAVE.

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 20th May 2006 @ 3:47 am

  10. Just because someone has submitted something in an affidavit, does NOT mean that a judge will read it. It appears that it is common for them to skip read affidavits, especially those from non-custodial-parents or from men (let alone if the writer is both).
    The only achievement, is that the affidavit is sitting on the family court file. This can have some value…..
    Murray Bacon.

    Comment by Murray Bacon — Sat 20th May 2006 @ 1:20 pm

  11. Murray,
    Your comment is somewhat concerning me.
    A judge must take into account what affidavits say. Otherwise they are sacked as they are accountable too. I am sure they have an audit system.

    Just to add, I was talking to a friend today about the court system. You would be suprised if we brought criminal law into these conversations. (well, maybe not)
    Anyhow, before a court proceeding for my son, I had confronted a group of mothers (one being the adult when my son was charged)outside the courthouse for other reasons about the situation. I only knew one of these women and the one that was responsible for my son and who did the crime was a “P” addict.
    She came into the court with me, my son and our lawyer and told the judge and police that she was the offender of the crime and that my son was just around with a few friends.
    6 months later, we are fighting the police and CYFS for teens, about the consequenses and fine.
    Why, because they had no record of the person responsible. Why, because everything in the court is about paperwork.
    Affidavit’s in my opinion is what it is all about. You are convicted on paper not on presence.

    Comment by julie — Sat 20th May 2006 @ 2:33 pm

  12. Julie says:

    A judge must take into account what affidavits say.

    According to the law, Family Court Judges can consider or ignore anything they like when making their decisions. Evidence is regularly disregarded if it doesn’t suit the agenda.

    Otherwise they are sacked as they are accountable too.

    Have you ever heard of a Judge being sacked for making bad decisions?

    I am sure they have an audit system.

    They used to, but in the early 90s it became clear that statistics were demonstrating the NZ Family Court’s overwhelming bias in favor of women. So now this kind of information is officially “not collected”.

    Comment by JohnP — Sat 20th May 2006 @ 5:45 pm

  13. John,
    I don’t know how to express my concern over what you have written. I am stunned.

    Comment by julie — Sat 20th May 2006 @ 6:09 pm

  14. Julie you have so clearly just expressed the very sentiment we fight to get the truth of what generations of Law and Social Policy have done to our FAMILYS, our Nation.

    People simply do’t beleive what many have been saying for generations. They don’t want to beleive that there is some thing terrible going on in our Courts, CYF’s, WINZ, and other parts of Bureacracy because it effects their own sense of security.

    We are simply not safe from the so called pillars of our society. Keep well away from its clutches if Poss.

    John has put it better than I can but I want you to extend this thought into other areas and to think seriously about whats motovating you to want riches as you put it.

    Our riches are in our Kids, give them your time while you have them. Real Parenting is a 24X7 JOB, thats demanding without driving yourself to riches in the far right sense.

    Many of us need to look deep into ourselves and check our motives honourable that they may seem.

    Remember these Judges and Lawyers think they are honouable/ethic yet they earn their riches from damaging our FAMILYS.

    Regards – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 20th May 2006 @ 6:31 pm

  15. I also got the point across that I had lost confidence in the Family Court. I got this point across by simply listing the facts. You can do this in a non confrontational way.
    The judge noted I had little confidence in the court in a memo which went on file.
    I think the more father’s that make it clear that the court has lost their confidence the better. I suspect this actually happens quite a lot.

    The one thing that really threatens the Family Court is that the public may compeletely loose confidence in it.

    Comment by Dave — Wed 24th May 2006 @ 6:09 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