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

Boshier lashes out at fathers

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 10:14 pm Tue 9th May 2006

NZ Herald: Fathers’ vendetta angers top judge

Principal Family Court judge Peter Boshier said men’s groups such as the Union of Fathers, which had been picketing two judges’ homes in recent weeks, were going beyond acceptable democratic protest.

Boshier’s “beyond acceptable democratic protest” demonstrates the type of thinking which underlies the whole dysfunctional culture of the Family Court. Actions are either legal or illegal; judges are supposed to understand this sort of thing! While I don’t personally agree with protesting outside private homes, I find it most disturbing that a senior Judge believes that there is a grey area between legal and illegal where he can legitimately weild his considerable coercive power.

In this murky realm of feminist jurisprudence traditional concepts of justice go out the window, rules of evidence are disregarded, and the whole process can be blatently manipulated behind the scenes. No-one is accountable, there is no effective way to object. No wonder the NZ judiciary has become an international laughing-stock!

“It has all the hallmarks of personal vendetta by individuals who do not respect the legitimacy of the court,” he said.

Wrong on the first count your Honour – it’s a political struggle and it’s a movement, but correct in the last part of your observation. The NZ Family Court is not respected as legitimate by a large proportion of the population. If you are incapable of reforming the institution so that it does deserve respect, you should resign and make way for someone who can.

Over half way through the article, the Herald finally reports on someone from a Father’s organisation: our regular contributor Bevan Berg.

Union of Fathers spokesman Bevan Berg said the group would continue to protest and would target more judges if necessary, until a full Government inquiry was held into the Family Court. He accused Family Court judges and lawyers of “serious breaches of conduct”.

“It’s likely we will continue and will be outside the homes of Family Court judges and lawyers whose names appear within our circles with monotonous regularity,” he said.

The protests were about the “misapplication” of the law and centred on the access of fathers to their children.

While Family Court proceedings were opened to media last year, in practice its proceedings still largely happened behind closed doors, Mr Berg said.

“A lot is happening in the process leading up to the hearing, all the media are getting is a whitewash.”

The judges targeted were obviously uncomfortable, Mr Berg said. “I think anyone would be uncomfortable if there were protesters outside their house.”

Boshier makes another very revealing statement at the end of the article:

“The tactics of publicly distributing confidential case material that could lead to identification of the parties is very concerning,” the judge said.

Yes there is is a considerable amount of confidential material circulating – someone needs to educate Judges that keeping evidence suppressed is no longer an option, now that this interweb thingy makes it so easy to share information. Has the Union of Fathers ever used the material to identify and manipulate a party to a legal case whose name should have been secret? No, it’s the feminists who do that. Is Boshier seriously worried the Union of Fathers intends to? I suspect not.

I think what he is worried about is the mounting evidence of systematic abuses of human rights by his Court that might one day be seen by impartial and non-feminist judges – there’s always the danger our Appeal Court will be staffed by Australian judges some day!


  1. Brothers, have absolutely no doubt that action and confrontation is required. You have been second class citizens in a feminocracy before the law since the late sixties. Sometimes we aappear to achieve theoretical equality but it is not so in practice, you are counted as the lessor parent. Do not be dissuaded by a pompous
    legal opinion. The law has never been fair, if you want firness you must fight and fight. I advise men to give only a few years service, that is enough. I wish all of you well as father parents.
    Paul Scott

    Comment by paul scott — Tue 9th May 2006 @ 11:54 pm

  2. John,
    I’m proud to count you among my friends. Well done in saying it how it really is.
    Boshier had his chance to change things at the femily caught to make it fairer for kids and thier dads and screwed up bigtime.
    Like you say it’s a whitewash in courts up and down the country.
    It’s also quietly, cunningly being ommitted from media attention by the femocracy who are all about empowering women and to hell with everybody else.
    But like you allude to there’s this freedom of speech amongst netizens.

    To all those struggling to get justice in and out of the femily caughts I send my ardent hopes of justice prevailing for you and your kids someday.
    I echo Paul Scott’s sentiments – fight and fight. Only one real caveat to add – it’s not something to give up on after a few years. Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella would say after a few years – well that’s it, I’ve done my stint. No. You push for a lifetime if necessary, and your unrelenting pressure sends a message to you oppressors – You have taken our kin but our spirit is constant and unbreakable.
    Generations to come will be thankful you stood up to the feminazzi bullies.

    Comment by Stephen — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 1:33 am

  3. Astounded! I thought New Zealand had surpassed the idocy of ‘Parenthood’ genda specific? My belief had been that New Zealand was a front runner in equality. I have been gone for a number of years and have been a victim of International prejudice, as a Father in America for more than 10 years, I have four children and very soon the youngest will be eligible for a passport! The children live with me and I pay almost half my net income for child support, to a defunct Mother. For the last three years almost $1,000 a month has been Monopoly money for the childrens Mother….Three husbands later in less than four years and the last shot his head off after 10 months! But she is a fine example (Of course) of a GOOD Mother!

    Damn fine mess this World is in.

    Comment by Michael — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 5:07 am

  4. I agree Michael this world is in a really bad state of affairs and believe me will not get any better.

    My husband is a victim of Child Support abuse !!!! He does not work and was assessed at paying $1500.00 per month… Hows that for justice!!! He has not seen his 2 boys for 4 years this August and why should he pay for the up keep when he does not even no which school they are at or what they look like any more..

    Comment by Carol — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 3:19 pm

  5. Carol,
    My condolensces to you and your husband.
    Rest assured there are many fighting to change exactly the kind of scenario you outline.
    Keep pushing.

    Comment by Stephen — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 3:39 pm

  6. reading Carols case, I have heard that child support does not have to be paid per month, but gets ‘ticked up’ so at the end of the 18 years or so, the father could owe hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is this true?

    Comment by Tonyf — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 4:24 pm

  7. Carol,

    You simply cannot afford to let that blatantly corrupt decision go unchallenged. You must either take it to court yourself, or get a lawyer to do for you (get legal aid if necessary). Stephen and Tonyf are exactly right; this sort of thing has been going on for years – assessing liable parents on the basis on income that they’re not actually earning, that the CSA knows they’re not earning, that the CSA knows can’t in fact be paid.

    The debt thus simply accrues, until it gets to a level where such is the amount owing, they’ll go after your family home to recover it (by which time the bulk will actually be penalty payments). And all on the basis of income that the liable parent has not earned, an income the CSA has plucked from the clear blue sky.

    This has gone on with the connivance of, probably at the direction of, the head of the CSA – David Udy – what a truly disgusting sack of a shit he is – as well as various “family lawyers” who conduct administrative reviews on behalf of the CSA. I simply cannot understand how those review officers who are lawyers can look at themselves in the mirror or have any professional self-respect given decisions, the likes of which you have experienced, they are parties to.

    You should also look to publicise your predicament – there must be a journalist out there somewhere who would do well to tell your story and others like it.

    I wish I could help you. Good luck.

    John Self

    Comment by John Self — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 7:54 pm

    Justice is not being served, hence the right to protest.
    Could it be any clearer Mr Boshier ?
    (& I do not have a law degree to arrive at that conclusion after 8 years of no contact to my 10 year old son)

    Comment by cwb — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 8:27 pm

  9. rememember; DADS ARMY, who do you think you are kidding mr boshier, if you think us dad’s are done, we are….

    Comment by cwb — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 8:30 pm

  10. The dads who will stop your little game,
    We are the dads who will make you think again.

    So who do you think you are kidding….

    They don’t like that cold steel up em, they don’t like that cold steel…..

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 10th May 2006 @ 10:55 pm

  11. you guys out there, if you are called into IRD for an administrative review for child support and you happen to get Mark Miller reviewing your case ….walk out as he is the biggest sack of shit you will ever have the misfortune of knowing.
    He better not pass me on the street!!

    Comment by judge dread — Thu 11th May 2006 @ 12:08 pm

  12. grin and bear it, but never fear it…

    (i’ve clocked up $36,000.00 + in child support payments over last 7 years with no contact to the child over the last eight year’s whatsoever, and boshier tell’s us individuals that we have no respect for the legitamacy of the court ???)
    keep beating the drum’s lad’s, can’t quite feel the earth a shakin’ yet…

    Comment by cwb — Thu 11th May 2006 @ 4:24 pm

  13. Remember to protect your assets and income base. If you establish a Trust or a Company, swine like Boshier can not take it from you. The feminazi movement is with us for a long time yet.
    Look after yourselves brothers. The best fight is the fight you can’t lose. Form a company. Put your house in your Trust. Then take the rotten family court system down.
    paul scott 021-560566

    Comment by paul scott — Thu 11th May 2006 @ 7:16 pm

  14. If you establish a Trust or a Company, swine like Boshier can not take it from you.

    Err, not good information, Paul.

    Family Court Judges regularly undo trusts, distribute company assets, and ignore pre-nuptual contracts. Note that you will also be responsible for at least half your ex-partner’s debt (such as a student loan) at time of separation.

    Effective opportunities for protecting your assets are limited. Best bet is to only choose a partner who has higher assets and income than you!
    Remember: the partner who contributes least gets most.

    Comment by JohnP — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 10:57 am

  15. We are in interesting teritory here John, and I challenge you to give me one case where a properly set up Trust [ which can only be challenged by High Court] has been effectively side stepped by a scumbag lowly family Court minion judge,
    Any lower Court family judge who attempts to dismisses a Trust is out of his reach. Anyway the funds and property can not be reached through normal Court orders against an individual. We dfon’t actually give these morons our Account numbers.

    Paul Scott 021-560566

    Comment by paul scott — Fri 12th May 2006 @ 7:09 pm

  16. I don’t have details of actual cases on hand Paul, but read what the Property (Relationships) Act says:

    44C Compensation for property disposed of to trust

    (1) This section applies if the Court is satisfied—

    (a) that, since the marriage or the de facto relationship began, either or both spouses or de facto partners have disposed of relationship property to a trust; and

    (b) that the disposition has the effect of defeating the claim or rights of 1 of the spouses or de facto partners; and

    (c ) that the disposition is not one to which section 44 applies.

    (2) If this section applies, the Court may make 1 or more of the following orders for the purpose of compensating the spouse or de facto partner whose claim or rights under this Act have been defeated by the disposition:

    (a) an order requiring 1 spouse or de facto partner to pay to the other spouse or de facto partner a sum of money, whether out of relationship property or separate property:

    (b) an order requiring 1 spouse or de facto partner to transfer to the other spouse or de facto partner any property, whether the property is relationship property or separate property:

    (c ) an order requiring the trustees of the trust to pay to 1 spouse or de facto partner the whole or part of the income of the trust, either for a specified period or until a specified amount has been paid.

    Comment by JohnP — Sat 13th May 2006 @ 12:06 pm

  17. yes, the front part of the section outlines that there must be intention and assumes there is matrimomnial property at the front end of marriage.

    However agree, it costs money to overthrow, all the more reason to act early and decisively,
    when you say NO to the State you need protection, guarantee, I’ve done it.

    Comment by paul scott — Sun 14th May 2006 @ 3:53 pm


    Failed Principal Family Court Judge reinvents himself and will appear on Q and A tomorrow morning.

    Link to White Ribbon

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 11th May 2013 @ 5:30 pm

  19. Sunday Q and A 9.00 am this morning.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 7:54 am

  20. I am in full agreement with Boshier on this.

    Comment by Anon — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 11:46 am

  21. Protesting in this way by targeting individuals is nothing more than bullying tactics and racial discrimination. Nothing more than fuel for vendetta and in my opinion what is it that you are teaching your children other than teaching them how to learn how to bully others. You ought to think less about yourselves and think more about your children…childish behaviour. Try protesting to government or are they too big for you that you can’t handle it?

    Comment by Anon — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 12:02 pm

  22. Former Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier on how to tackle the family violence plague.

    When you hear this failed person talk you can see why the Family Court failed. Now he is taking like a failed politician; you need me because I can invent statistics.

    Having this person’s view of domestic violence out in the open might help New Zealand understand just what this person is responsible for and as head of the White Ribbon Campaign; well they may have just the right person to completely discredit it.

    You can also see this person is an absolute control freak – he thinks he is one step short of God.

    Controlled aggression

    He wants courts to have the power to legally define every aspect of human behaviour, especially male human behaviour.

    Thank God he is has been reduced to running the White Ribbon campaign instead of the Family Court.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 12:56 pm

  23. Anon (#20 and #21): The White Ripoff Campaign is a campaign of anti-male hate speech and misinformation. The fact that Boshier acknowledges but tries to excuse the misinformation simply highlights his hypocrisy.

    Boshier said:

    While this evil is perpetrated by both men and women, White Ribbon is proud that it stands as a campaign that speaks to men. It offers men the opportunity to take responsibility to end the violence and change the behaviour of other men.

    So you Anon are in full agreement with Boshier? We could rewrite his statement as follows, in which case it would be more justified based on factual statistics:

    While this evil is perpetrated by both Pacific Islanders and White People, White Ribbon is proud that it stands as a campaign that speaks to Pacific Islanders. It offers Pacific Islanders the opportunity to take responsibility to end the violence and change the behaviour of other Pacific Islanders.

    So would you be in full agreement with Boshier on that? And would you support government funding for the Pacific Islander violence programme to the exclusion of any programme targeting White People’s violence or showing concern for Pacific Islander victims of violence? If not, what’s the difference? If the statement and a White Ripoff Programme would be seen as unacceptable if applied to Pacific Islanders, Maori, Christians, Muslims or Schizophrenics, why on earth would it be seen as acceptable to treat men in such a misinforming, discriminatory and patronizing way? Because men are second-class citizens and it’s ok to treat them with any degree of abuse. Anon, we’re glad to know you’re in full agreement with misandrist sexism, discrimination and abuse.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 1:46 pm

  24. Talk about the mother’s day meltdown for TV1.

    Boshier goes straight into political mode, political discussion and into currying political support – the interviewer turns up a total lack of objectivity – smiles and nods and doesn’t even bat an eyelid.

    It would have been cheaper to let a nodding-blonde dummy do the interview than pay a wool-blind sheep if that’s all you are going to get from the interviewer.

    What was her name?

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 2:23 pm

  25. To be fair if I am going to call Susan Wood a blonde dummy I should at least show this.

    Her intro takes up the first 26 secs.
    Bouchier’s opening statement to 36 seconds.

    And then this from Susan Wood.

    How did you get that number? That’s a huge amount that we are not talking about.

    Here the interviewer asks Boshier a question, doesn’t get any answer to that question, then provides her own answer which is not an answer to the question.

    Where did they find this women – in a supermarket staring a juice packet that says concentrate?

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 2:43 pm

  26. Ok, so let’s drop the labels and do a bit of psycholinguistic analysis here.

    Here Wood is using what we term in English as, ‘a tag’.

    This is something fairly distinctive to the English language that we learn as children and it can occur in many different forms in adult communication but in this case tagging a question in this manner is typical of the way a mother would raise a child.

    Child: Look Mum, look what I did.
    Mother: Oh my goodness how did you do that? That is so clever of you.

    This childlike endorsement is set up in the first verbal interaction between these two and sets up a childlike comfort zone for Boshier where he can tell Mummy all about it.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 3:34 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