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

Email to Holmes

Filed under: General — dpex @ 8:38 am Wed 12th April 2006


As mentioned, Simon Moore….as did Jim… failed to mention two significant injustices occurring in the Family Court. The first is, the Family Court operates completely outside any standards of proof as is required in any other Court. Secondly, the Lawyers For Child, although they are ‘supposed’ to be representing the interests of, and the ‘wishes’ of a child, are now able to simply pretend to do so then use a ‘device’ to have ‘their’ opinions (when such contradicts the wishes and requirements of their client -the child) aired.

Expanding on these issues.

The Court receives reports from various parties, some by affidavit, and others via ‘so-called’ expert reports.

In both cases the contributors can make any claim they wish, true or otherwise, because there is no evidential test put to the contributors and, further, a malicious or deceitful contributor will never be held to account (ergo, lying does not attract charges of Contempt of Court).

Expert witnesses, such as the CYFSterhood, can load their reports with absolute bias against one party (normally the father) and absolve themselves from the responsibility of including repudiative information in such reports by asserting the party they are thrown under the bus has ‘groomed’ the repudiators to say the right things!!!! A typical example of this is where a mother accuses a father/partner of sexual abuse (for the purposes of furthering her journey towards getting custody and subsequent financial benefits). The child is interviewed. And when the child asserts the mother is simply lying, and that no such abuse has occurred, the report notes the child is ‘probably’ in denial!

Such reports can assert the father (particularly) is:- A heavy drinker. Abusive. Has dodgy thoughts about lawyers, is known to have sex with goldfish and dead people….you name it, and in the face of absolutely zero proof, the Court accepts the assertions.

The Lawyer For Child game is a very lucrative ‘industry’ which has evolved. There is a small cabal of mainly childless, and often lesbian, women who camp around each District Court waiting for a commission.

The law of advocacy demands these lawyers advocate ‘to their best ability’ the interests and ‘wishes’ of their client (the child). Adopting the former example of a child who refutes charges of sexual abuse, the LFC must advocate that. But in so many cases ‘they’ also side with the biased reportings of mother and CYFS. Thus on the one hand they harbour their own opinions (devoid of proof…it’s all based on feelings and endemic attitude) while lightly advocating the child’s claims and wishes. On the other hand, in order to have their ‘opinion’ aired in Court, they get the Court to appoint a Lawyer To Assist. This lawyer then is lawfully allowed to promote the beliefs of the Lawyer For Child!!!

This process could be likened to the likes of Peter Williams, QC, advocating for a client accused of murder, while believing the client is guilty, and having yet another lawyer act for him to tell the court Williams actually sides with the prosecution.

Throughout all of these ghastly proceedings, there is absolutely no burden of proof required before a judge will arrive at a decision.

Jim is correct. These people, collectively, have been, are, and will again, destroying families the length and breadth of the land.

Jim’s group, and many other emerging men’s groups (see are acting in their way because they have no other avenues left. All they are requesting is that The Family Court be obliged to act in accord with the rules of Burden Of Proof, where an accused is innocent till proven guilty. Whereas, at the moment, The Family Court simply presumes guilt or innocence and bases those presumptions upon utterly biased and frequently falsified reports from ‘all’ parties.

To bring this up-front and personal…. Your own wife/partner can take a snitch on you. Call the police and CYFS, accuse you of violence (you raised you voice once, in 1982) and have you removed from your own home with zero rights to contest the action. Once outside your own front gate you join the legions of fathers who are now outside (more or less permanently) their own families. Demonised and doomed. Maybe $100,000 of legal fees later, you might get supervised access to your children, but don’t bet on it. And then you will have to keep your hands in sight at all times lest you might sexually interfere with your child…as accused some years ago.

This entire system is vicious and inhuman. And the paradox is; the very people this vile system purports to protect are those whom are most hurt…..The children.

An example of the vast damage this system is causing is below. Be assured, this is one of just thousands of such accounts which have been collected.

NB: Folks, this inclusion was Julie’s story.



  1. Too long.

    Cut the crap and stick to the essential facts.


    Jim Nicolle

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 10:23 am

  2. Perhaps the problem is not so much the length of the article but rather Scrap’s attention span. I thought it reasonably informative.

    Comment by John Self — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 12:42 pm

  3. Perhaps the problem here is that its an email, not an article.(Email to Holmes – the title is a pretty obvious giveaway here!)

    Its about the message and the medium.

    John, take it that your off to a reading and comprehension course so you can determine the difference between an an article and an email!

    As you give so shall you recieve John.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 3:21 pm

  4. This kind of discussion is not appropriate here guys – it is hardly related to the page topic.

    Please desist.


    Comment by JohnP — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 4:14 pm

  5. I did indeed overlook the title of this posting… Holmes? Are you kidding me? As in the ZB chap with an ego inversely proportional to his height? He dropped off my radar screen quite some time ago…

    In any event, notwithstanding what it might be headed, is it really incorrect to refer to a published written item of sufficient length as an article? (Is the Child Support Act 1991, despite that title, really concerned with supporting children?)

    I withdraw and apologise.

    Comment by John Self — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 9:35 pm

  6. John,

    I also withdraw and apolgise.


    I apologise for being so blunt. Perhaps it would have been more productive to say I do not dipute the sentiment. I do think that you need to refine the message. That does not mean I do not support your aim, I hope the comments are taken in the vain they were intended.

    Dave, whatever you do, dont give up! Change will come, it will take time, but we will overcome!

    The right to parent your children, an equal sharing or rights and responibilities that protects a childs right to be parented equally by both parents.

    The bottom line is this must be enshrined in our law.

    The state is illequipped to provide a solution. That is unless anyone actually considers the current family and child tax law a solution (?LOL)

    Stay strong and keep fighting hard.


    Jim N

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 10:56 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