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

Family Court – Website Decisions

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Wingnut R @ 9:26 am Sat 18th March 2006

The Family Court website of pulished decisions is back up. Appearing are 30 new decisions. Nearly all appear to be delivered in August 2005 and are oral judgement decisions. None are the same are the 181 decisions that were removed last year. You may want to secure these onto your own computer in case the FC get it wrong and have to remove them again.


  1. Hmmm
    Don’t see my one here

    … yet …

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 18th March 2006 @ 4:40 pm

  2. I post without prejudice . Does anybody know if they have ever heard of a pro se family court litigant being able to get court summonsed C4C & police under subpoena provisions within the Domestic Violence Act ???Interesting proposition if any precedent existed ? Any info would be greatly accepted ?

    Comment by Peter Burns — Sat 18th March 2006 @ 7:11 pm

  3. This may be off topic, but the recent debate in parliament about getting rid of some MP’s seemes to me would be almost the perfect strategy to eliminate people from parliament who you don’t want there.

    Surley someone has noticed how Male MP’s and Ministers are slowly being phased out only to be replaced by Females ? Well I have.

    Take for example our new Police minister.

    A great move – to have a Female who answers to a Male-hating radical feminist in charge of the police, as the govt gets ready to invade our homes and families to impose thier radical femminazzi beliefs, and using the cops to enforce this.

    Comment by Moose — Sun 19th March 2006 @ 12:43 am

  4. [said very carefully, as a certain case is currently before the courts]
    What would an entirely female police force do for certain sexual activities potentially engaged with certain potential (at the time) willing teenagers?

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 19th March 2006 @ 7:47 am

  5. but why do we need the provision of a court, a judge and lawyer to be entitled to our intrinsic rights as parents; i.e. to have contact with our children when the two parents are separated; until this subject is debated in full, I have no urge to try and toe the line in her majesty’s theatre to obtain some form of contact with my 10 year old son after 8 years of no contact because a vindictive ex-partner has decided that a child does not need a father, until the father pleads his case, I had thought court jesters had been done away with many years ago, but no – us fathers are just the butt of every alcoholic judge and good for nothing lawyer to which we are destined to provide their income for as long as we let them. Revolt – refuse to go to court, refuse to go to lawyers,
    get a nationwide data base going for fatherless children and overthrow these mongrels.

    Comment by cwb — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 11:14 pm

  6. i suggest then that those that wish to get married; must first appear before a court, both parties obtain a lawyer and present their case to a judge to why they should be allowed to be married.
    And maybe in future, if they have problems with a separation, and access to their offspring come into question, we have a registry set up that is of an informal over the counter nature that allows instant access to ones children along the lines of a shared parent agreement that you can basically obtain within 24 hours.

    Comment by cwb — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 7:23 am

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