False accusations are Disturbing
NZ best place to raise kids? Not any more, says top judge
There was nearly one incident of family violence every eight minutes during December and January. About 6000 children, more than half under 5, witnessed those incidents
If you are a female thats been beaten, or a relative of a female murdered by her partner then the above article may be of some comfort to you. However, if you are a falsely accused male of domestic violence and have struggled with the ramifications of this action then you may be justifiably disturbed by this article.
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier mentions caution in the granting of these protection orders but the article fails to point out the destructive nature of false accusations. I know from experience how a false claim starts a ‘steam roller’ that’s hard to stop. Every profession climbs on board to support the accuser, from doctors keen to assist by writing out certificates for damage that is not evident by anyone but the accuser, to lawyers who are keen to use the accusation to gain the upper hand in related matters. I don’t want men who beat their partners to get away with it either.
I don’t believe that the think tank on these matters is balanced. The article mentions that half the women murdered had protection orders in place.
Here is my input Mr Boshier….
- All accused, with a conviction of violence of any nature, to automatically be issued with Ex Parte protection order when requested.
- Those issued with protection orders to immediately be placed into counselling. This is imperative as they will experience stress levels likely to set off the very thing you are attempting to arrest. This immediate counselling needs to be set up specifically for this event.
- When women are found to be playing with this law and laying false or misleading accusations they should be punished far more severely than they are at the moment.
- The Law Society needs to be more involved in shaming Lawyers who clearly encourage women to lay charges of abuse as a tactic in their case. The integrity of family law is being devalued by the adoption of feminist ideology that women just don’t lie about these matters.
I notice that Judge Boshier made these remarks at a Hui. If that has relevance then it should be taken into consideration when issuing protection orders.
More Brilliant Propaganda by Boshier — The man learnt much from his Maoist friends did he not?
Why does my Phone and my advocacy reflect a very different picture Judge Boshier?
Jim
http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Recently, a woman was charged with Perverting The Course of Justcice for filing a false rape allegation.
I am in the process of causing the police to prosecute a woman for a similar thing. In this case, conditioning a child to make a false allegation (of which I now have clear proof, may I add).
What really grieves me is CYFS telling me that even if the case is proven, the allegation will stay on the CYFS computer because guilt has not been disproven?????
In other words the charges may have been proven false but they might still be true!!!!
David.
Comment by dpex — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Is it just me, or is this news today simply being trumpeted as further evidence that men are violent towards women, and there Helen Clark has felt the need to weigh in and make a meal of this.
When will we truly start getting the same treatment in the press, Family Court and even Government regarding violence committed by women on men.
And for the ill-educated, I mean all forms of violence, for example the entire realm of psychological and emotional abuse.
The same realms that the femi-nazi take great pride in convicting us men of, should we ever be guests on one of their ill-renowned courses on anti-violence.
For a full list of ‘violent’ behaviours, refer to http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz/understand01.asp
Only when we start recognising all forms of violence as violence, regardless of the offending gender, at domestic, Family Court, and Govenmental level, will things really start to change.
Comment by Al D Rado — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 5:49 pm
I feel for you dpex.
If the police have been involved, you will be on their records too, regardless of absence of any charges or conviction.
Don’t apply for any bus-driving jobs …
Comment by Al D Rado — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 5:50 pm
ex parte orders have become a joke…
and a powerful misused weapon in the hands of women. I have come across cases ( and with proof too) where women are coached by the local womens group to make false accusations of child abduction hence are able to get such orders in place and towards removing the father from the child.
i belieev prior to the courts making any such decisions they should investigate first rather than making such an order as:
1: it shows lack of duty of care to the other party against whom the order is made
2. it makes him feel like a criminal even though he has not done anything
3. it is UNFAIR…. Court is a placewhere people are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.
4. It will also reveal a lot on who is lying and who is not.
Comment by star — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Star, the answer from the system will be…”its only a temporary order, we don’t think your guilty yet so don’t be so sensitive!!!”
This is why I find this whole thing so outrageous, ‘WE,’ the average guy, find it repugnant that a man acts as a bully toward anyone else, particularly to a woman. So when we are ‘temporarily’ accused of such and thrown out of our homes and separated from our children for no reason is it any wonder that we become SENSITIVE, OUTRAGED, and even SUICIDAL????
I would like to temporarily take down their pants, shove a broom up their ass and tell them “you wont feel a thing, it’s only going to be temporary”.
These FUCK’s (Fools Under Corrupt Knowledge) who support these laws are destroying our society. I loath them as much as I loath bullies, male or female.
Comment by triassic — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 7:23 pm
Here’s a statement from the Chief Family Court Judge that MENZ readers will probably agree with:
So what you do when you’re a government and your policies are clearly failing? You redouble your efforts of course!
Comment by JohnP — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 3:06 pm
The New Zealand Herald, obviously little more than a mouthpiece and purveyor of propaganda for the Femi-Nazis currently running (and destroying) New Zealand, didn’t deign to publish my letter, (or any other similarly opposing letters)… This was sent in the day Boshier’s BS appeared in the newsprint edition. (A lesser version of the story appeared on its website the previous afternoon.)
Accordingly, I offer the letter here, where I hope it will be hosted for years to come!
To the Editor of the NZ Herald, 28/03/2006:
Dear Sir,
Judge Peter Boshier is absolutely right: New Zealand is no great place to bring up children.
The point he misses is that it has become very markedly WORSE since the creation of the “Family” Court in 1980, and the whole armada of “Family” legislation that now surrounds it, including the highly dubious Domestic Violence Act.
The problem is that NZ’s Family Legislation, including the DV Act, is so crude and insensitive that it only escalates the problems it claims to address. It merely attacks the symptoms, not the causes of Domestic Violence and other family problems. It’s like applying acid to a wound.
The statistics quoted only prove my point. Half of the women killed already had Protection Orders. This is no surprise. Protection Orders are themselves violent, brutal and hostile. They alienate, they demean, and they destroy. They smash families and separate parents and children.
A woman applying for a Protection Order effectively declares war on her partner and her family. Wars inevitably lead to destruction and death.
It’s time we all woke up to this insidious source of social disintegration here in GodsOwn.
It’s time we abolished the Family Court and all the inhumane legislation that drives it.
Alan Candy
Auckland
———-
P.S. If you consider how many relationships breakdown and end in permanent separation every year in NZ, and tally that with the number of Protection Orders issued annually by the Family Court, and the number of “protected” women subsequently killed, I’m sure you would find that there is incontrovertible proof that taking out a Protection Order actually INCREASES your risk of being murdered by your (former) partner. If that IS the case, then don’t the families of the murdered women have grounds to sue the NZ Government, on the same basis as the families of the ‘RSA murders’ victims families?
Comment by Alan Candy — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 12:11 pm
“False accusations are Disturbing”
…
“False accusers are Disturbed”.
Comment by Al D Rado — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Just for the record… On 30 March 06, I e-mailed the NZ Herald – Letters to the Editor section — complaining about the fact that they hadn’t published any worthy letters challenging Boshier’s (IMO superficial, PC, pro-Government, pro-Intervention, authoritarian) comments on the New Zealand Domestic Violence problem, and accused it of bias and imbalance in not publishing my letter or one better. To my surprise, I received a speedy reply, explaining that they like to spread Letters to the Editor around, rather than hearing “the same voices over and over.” [This appears to ignore that much of what passes for News (and generates its income) comes from many of the same voices over and over…] The writer also pointed out that my last letter was published on 23rd March (2006), and that I’ve had a significant number published over the last two years — a “very good run” he suggested. The reply also stated they have had “very few letters on Judge Boshier’s comments” and concluded by advising that another letter would appear next day. (Whether in response to my complaint or not is unknown.)
As promised, another response to Boshier’s speech was printed on Friday, 31st March… Seems to me that contrasting the two letters gives a fascinating insight into the Herald’s political bias, and accordingly, I’ve awarded it the title of:
The New Zealand Herald’s Choice.
Here it is, also for the record: (No offence intended to Hugh Hughes.)
Raising our children
Congratulations to Judge Peter Boshier for challenging us with his comments on the plight of women and raising children.
His comments pose several questions. Do they highlight a problem of poor government, or rather a poor transfer of human values and attitudes to earlier generations?
Can new or tougher laws overcome the problem, or does it require attitudinal and structural change within society and us all to overcome the causes?
Will more effective support services (improved women’s refuges and protection orders and so on) by themselves lead to better social and human values, attitudes and interpersonal relationship in coming generations? What will be the future of our way of life if we just leave it to other agencies and laws to solve?
The trends highlight the inherent failures of the past socialisation of our young, and point to a future we will have to endure unless we ensure these issues are addressed.
Hugh Hughes, Mt Maunganui.
Also for the record, my Oxford Dictionary defines plight thus: “n. a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation. ”
I wonder what is the appropriate noun to describe the situation of men and fathers (and their children) experiencing separation and divorce in present and future New Zealand under a (Government-run) system which promotes and apparently condones and even encourages abuse, lies, malice, perjury, injustice and institutional violence against them?
Comment by Alan Candy — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 12:58 pm
He is at it again
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 23rd March 2009 @ 8:22 am
The very worst type of domestic violence is the imposition of a ‘Protection’ (attack) Order in NZ (and all other contries) by corrupt child-abusing Femily Court lawyer/judges at the request of psychotic mothers or corrupt government ‘child services’ staff.
Only sociopaths kidnap children and only sociopaths and the brainwashed think it is acceptable in any case.
Any logical person who has access to stats will realise that children are in far worse danger when they are removed from willing biological parental care.
Femily Court is a scam, as is ‘government’. We have all been conned. Please wake up to the child abuse that we have been brainwashed to condone. Thousands of children have been held hostage by Protection Order for years and alienated from their fathers without just cause.
Comment by phil watts — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 6:59 am
Absolutely correct Phil. There will be many cases in which the intention of a protection order is justified but in my experience these are in the minority. There is no good reason why such orders are not subject to rigorous evidential scrutiny especially before being made final. Protection orders have seriously damaged the mental health and lives of thousands of NZ men and their children. They were designed to be a feminist weapon against men and the FC still facilitates their use as a weapon that turns out not infrequently to be lethal. The FC also practises blatant sexism in the ways it deals with male vs female applicants. Aside from all that, they have never been effective at protecting anyone who was at real risk of serious harm, or proven to bring about more protection overall than provocation. They are a major travesty of justice and this needs to stop.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 11:42 am
@Ministry of Men’s affairs
The sexism you describe may not be so glaringly obvious to a lot of people. In my experience the majority of people I encounter treat sexism as a joke – woman choosing cars based on colour – style of joke.
I don’t want to make assumptions but from the way you write I suspect you would be expecting a more definitive interpretation which would describe the courts failure (be it inept or deliberate) to:
1. recognise any right equally
2. apply a dispassionate level of dignity to each party in the proceedings
3. to recognise both genders as being of equal value both to society and to their children
And also the courts behaviour in:
1. applying a different standard to the same traits or behaviours
2. applying different expectations and disparate demands of each gender
3. applying assumptions as typical of a gender
That’s just a short list that could be expanding and improved, with a bit more thought, I’d be happy to see anyone add to it below.
If there was a case for sexism to be taken seriously in New Zealand, the Family Court would be the most blatant example available, although with its predominate secrecy (along with the flippancy applied to sexism) I doubt the majority of New Zealanders would have an awareness that would allow them to see it in this light.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 2:20 pm
Downunder (#15), I would agree with those comments though not all FC judges will be the same. From what I have seen, a male applicant for a protection order against a female has much less chance of having the order granted than the other way around. Damaging a mother’s relationship with children seems to be treated as much more undesirable than for a father. The male applicant will need to provide considerable evidence for any chance of success whereas female applicants seldom need to do more than sign an affidavit containing unevidenced claims. This is how some of the forms of sexism you describe actually play out when it comes to protection orders.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 7:42 pm
Probably the most interesting point is that the protection order automatically applies for the benefit of the children, so what that really says is that court is not there for the ‘best interests of the child’ but for the interests of woman, in particular, the failed women.
If you want evidence of this look at the Case of B v M which tested the concept that a protection order applied to a child as a matter of consequence rather than a matter of protecting the child’s interests.
The red nosed pisshead that that heard the case ruled that the former was the law and the latter should be referred back to parliament, if a change was required.
It’s there is black and white if you want to look at it, that it’s a women’s court, not a family court.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 8:45 pm
To be fair to the judge, it was parliament that wrote the law and that law required the FC to apply protection orders automatically to children. That provision was changed to some extent last year.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 8:54 pm
To be fair to the fathers of New Zealand, the judge could have interpreted that law as he saw best, for the benefit of the child, that’s what the court system does.
Moma seems to have changed her tune and started defending the Family Court.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 9:35 pm
Even if the principle changed to some extent last year let’s not forget the overriding principle WAS as parliament insisted the best interests of the child.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 10th January 2015 @ 9:41 pm
Actually, I’m not sure how much anything has changed. The Domestic Violence Act continues to include the following:
This really seems to give judges little leeway, though I agree that they often seem to find creative ways of managing the legislation in ways that favour women and they may well be capable of doing so on behalf of the best interests of children.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 11th January 2015 @ 10:04 am
dEAR downunder and Ministry of Mens affairs, you have missed my fairly obviously stated point that ‘Protection’ Orders are illogical and seem to still believe that the ‘courts’ are necessary and judges are just misguided.
All authority is an illusion that we have been fooled into thinking is necessary or justified. No man or woman has the right to destroy the children’s right to 50/50 care. Only the truly arrogant think they know better than the biological parents and have the right to decide.
Only God or the earth has the right to decide.
‘GOVERNMENT’ IS A MAFIA PROTECTION RACKET WE HAVE ALL BEEN CONNED INTO BELIEVING IN.
Comment by phil watts — Sun 11th January 2015 @ 12:20 pm
I don’t think we would get too far without some degree of authority existing in society.
Realistically it is a question of when authority is legitimate and when it isn’t.
I agree with you Phil that the authority being challenged is not a necessary or legitimate authority, and as Moma pointed out, its use has done more harm than good.
As Murray Bacon commented here even if the Family Court had been a good idea it was soon captured by self-interest.
Over the preceding 50 years we’ve changed from being a predominantly sacred society to an increasingly unstable secular society.
A society without Godhead is governed by self-interest rather than ordinance of principal but they both have their extremes which eventually descend into a violent outcome.
That to me comes about when there is no ability to challenge authority and that is what has been taken away from men in a Feminist environment. During the Clark government the High Court even ruled the Family Court a specialist court and refused to hear appeals.
This does not only arise in the sense of an individual also in our parliament which has not been a functioning parliament for many years now, it’s The House of The Bitch, not one of government or democracy.
Compliance without question is expected of men. We’re expected to exist at the whim and self interest of the females. How was the 2014 year for men?
It’s a finite situation – and how much longer before it comes off the rails completely?
Comment by Downunder — Sun 11th January 2015 @ 1:38 pm
In trying to lay blame between Parliament and familycaughjt$, for the actions of familycaught$ is a circular argument and probably achieves little.
Parliament might sign off on legislation, but it almost always is drafted according to recommendations that have come directly or indirectly from familycaught$ judges anyway.
Parliament is the only group of people, who have the authority to discipline familycaught$ judges, even though they claim The unwritten Constutation prevents them from taking responsibility for supervising the familycaught$. While they refuse to accept and honour this duty, then the familycaught$ is free to do anything it likes.
The only force holding familycaught$ back, is public disclosure of what it has done. This force is weakened by threats from judges to parties, about what they can do if the truth is told to the public. These blackmail forces include manipulation of the custody of children, so most parents are easily scared off.
Given that familycaught$ is adept at mis-weighing evidence, ignoring evidence, refusing to accept evidence and perhaps a little prejudice, then it is free to take any actions quite against legislative intent. So the actual wording of legislation is important only for legal academics and is just misleading to parents.
The Primary Caretaker Theory
The Primary Caregiver Fraud
To some extent phil watts is right, a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting would satisfactorily protect most children’s interests. (In my opinion, it would also protect many mother’s long term interests too, but really that is for them to decide.)
However, there are quite a few separations where there is a significant disparity between the parent’s mental health and upbringing resources. In these cases, equal shared care may not be in the children’s best interests, so the presumption may need to be rebutted in these cases. I have the impression that women’s groups are not very keen on any changes, that would more effectively protect the children’s interests, as distinct from their own?
Certainly, starting off with a rebuttable presumption of equal shared are, is the lowest legal costs method of resolving these situation. So it immediately becomes obvious, which affected group of people wouldn’t support a system working to achieve lowest legal costs and most social advantage?
Only if parents fight hard for a more efficient and effective method of protecting children’s interests, will positive change ever occur.
A comparison of the skills of child protection experts and legal worker$ shows to what extent they might be capable of protecting children’s interests? The legal worker$ skills and training is in paperwork and invoicing as much as they can and chasing down their “debtors”, so little or no relevance to real world child protection. Look at family law conferences. Again almost all of the focus is on money, not children’s welfare. Such papers as mention children, few are child focussed and even those offer no practical guidance on actually protecting children’s developmental interests anyway!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 11th January 2015 @ 1:41 pm
This is where political parties fail. Self-interest rules over fundamental wisdom, and politicians stop doing the job intended of them in a democracy, although I would willingly concede that individual politicians in the case of Rome, equally fell victim to the demands of women.
The patriarchal system in that respect becomes an interesting interfailure epoch.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 11th January 2015 @ 3:51 pm
@Phil – The best question put to you might be this:
If the world doesn’t need a government or another messiah, then what does it need?
Feel free to author a post.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 11th January 2015 @ 6:48 pm
Hi Downunder, i am not aiming any of my comments at you, as agree with almost all your posts, just answering ur question….
Again, i thought the answer was obvious bro, it needs less arrogant parasitic mandarins pretending or even worse, actually thinking, they know better than others what is best for them and their children, and more observance of personal parent and child human rights especially that of 50/50 care by willing parents. as i stated.
I’m not sure what u mean by author a post, sounds scary, and i am a man of few words as most are superfluous. And people tend to over think and over complicate due to arrogance and ego. when most problems and solutions are simple and obvious. but solutions make most peoples jobs redundant so they ignore solutions.
thoughts?
Comment by phil watts — Wed 14th January 2015 @ 10:14 pm
@Phil I didn’t take anything to be specifically directed at me but I was particularly interested in your comment around authority.
I’ve mentioned that in a couple of the other recent comments I’ve made as well, which you may not have read. I think it’s an important aspect of the discussions we have on Menz and it is not a thread I can recall coming up before.
For men in our ‘situations’, it’s only a problem if you don’t have a solution. Many men simply walk away, others choose to own the problem and try to find a solution. That often incurs further damage with the solutions that are imposed on us, as you say by authority.
Comments on Menz are often based on individual situations and experiences rather than observations of life. They can appear sententious to those people who haven’t shared a similar experience.
They’re discussions we need to have, for many and varied reasons.
Making a comment is reactionary. Putting up a post can be viewed in different ways, as expressing an opinion, wishing to be seen as adopting a position – it may seek to inform or it may seek answers or inspire discussion, but it is far more valuable.
As scary as that can be, men need to do this. We have no choice but to become our own media, present our position. It is seldom if ever discussed in parliament or presented in the media – I would go as far as to say censored by the media.
I encourage people as much as possible to write a post rather than just comment – so much is lost in the comments, because people often deviate from the thread of the post into other discussions.
Visitors to the site are more likely to read a post than a comment. You may remember me making that point when I did a post about your ‘refuges for men’ comment.
You may be a man of few words, but you’re not, quite obviously, a man of few thoughts.
I would like to hear more about your opinion around authority but in the form of a post. I think it would be a valuable discussion.
If you look at the top right on the side menu, you will see a ‘contribute’ section and a link to authoring a post.
I look forward to reading it.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 15th January 2015 @ 9:11 am
Phil, your comments are valued. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 15th January 2015 @ 9:44 am
Interesting also is that it is now 2015 and this is a 2006 post, with some interesting comments going back a decade, but has much if anything changed?
Apart from Boshier being shuffled sideways to the law commission and his warped philosophy finding a new home at White Ribbon.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 15th January 2015 @ 10:48 am
Downunder and phil watts – spot on, especially the observation about time drifting by, with no positive changes occurring……. this is the guts of the issue.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 15th January 2015 @ 1:13 pm
Give the judge in any court a COURTESY NOTICE. This COURTESY NOTICE will make the judge PERSONALLY LIABLE for ANY wrongdoings. This COURTESY NOTICE has been used ‘this way”in South Australia (Geelong) :https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9s0wCXTk54DFc6VQ3dPs3Q in a police versus vs his son (I think) in which Robert Fletcher (father) gave the judge a COURTESY NOTICE. The judge DISMISSED THE CASE and of course the 6,000+ AUS $ fines. The COURTESY NOTICE can be used much much more.
Comment by lazza osmond — Sun 18th January 2015 @ 7:03 am
I think this guy’s advice is crap, and watching his videos is a waste of time.
My guess is that it would go down like a cup of cold sick in the NZ Family Court.
I couldn’t find any evidence to support Lazza’s claim about this tactic actually working in an Australian Court.
It takes Fletcher four 10 minute videos to explain the concept of Courtesy Notices. but I got bored about half way through the third.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DWYrD5JXio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTYthr6SzA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzsvVKbu8yM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dN848jFoO4
Comment by JohnPotter — Sun 18th January 2015 @ 10:17 am
Yes Mr Fletcher’s ideas are a lot of bollocks.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 18th January 2015 @ 7:38 pm
This is a good read.
Comment by Evan Myers — Wed 26th September 2018 @ 11:42 am
“I notice that Judge Boshier made these remarks at a Hui. If that has relevance then it should be taken into consideration when issuing protection orders”…….
yes!
Comment by mama — Wed 26th September 2018 @ 12:51 pm