Folks, it seems to me that there is little point in simply bemoaning our positions. It seems to me we have to first discover our cause and then press it.
For better or worse, here’s my offering.
Any of you who wish to add, delete, modify, vary, or whatever, feel free to do so.
But we have to start somewhere, and so here’s my somewhere.
LAW CHANGES SOUGHT
Child Removal Warrants.
1. That no agency or employee of or contractor to such agency may remove any child from any authorised caregivers care unless clear and corroborated evidence supports the absolute necessity for such removal.
1a That the level of evidential corroboration be of a quality which would stand the test of examination and/or cross-examination in a Criminal Court.
2. That the Court may allow passage of such warrant only after being properly satisfied a prima facie cause has been properly established.
3. That a prima facie case cannot be predicated upon the unsubstantiated and/or uncorroborated word of an informant/accuser.
4. That, in any event, the warrant-applicants must be able to produce to the issuing Court suitable evidence (photographs/videos/audio recordings) demonstrating the child, subject of the removal warrant is in clear and present danger.
Parental/Caregiver Removal or Protection Warrants.
5. That no agency or employee of or contractor to such agency may remove, or have removed, any authorised caregiver, or established partner of an official caregiver care unless clear and corroborated evidence supports the absolute necessity for such removal.
6a. The word of a complainant, where such word is unsupported by any
physical evidence that a child/children is in clear and present danger will
be deemed insufficient reason to process a removal or protection order.
6b. In the event the complainant believes he/she is in present and clear danger
from the accused, that informant will voluntarily remove themselves from
that site of danger.
6c. In the event the accused is also a lawful caregiver of any child present at
the premises of the complainant, then that child/children will remain in the
care of the remaining partner unless the proof detailed in (4) above is
6. No Court may issue a Protection Order until the Applicant has
demonstrated, to a level of proof satisfactory to a normal Court of Law
that such protection is warranted.
7. Where an allegant is proven to have been the providor of false allegations; for malicious purposes, then that allegant will be properly tried and subject to the same level of punishment as the accused may have sustained had the allegations been true.
8. In the event an allegant can demonstrate such allegation(s) were made as a
result of supposition, but in the face of apparent evidence, then the
Court may waive penalty but the Court will immediately presume the
allegation(s) to be ill-founded and thus of no consequence.
8a. The Court must be required to be diligent in its examination of an
allegant’s testimony, and must give a weighting to the possibility of
falsity where no corroborative evidence exists.
Damage To A Child.
9. It must be a Court-presumption that at the time of any notification, allegation, or accusation of damage to a child, that such damage has already occurred.
10. In the even clear and unequivocal evidence of such damage is presented to the Court, the Court must be required to accept the testimony of the child.
11. The Court must deem allegations of a child being in denial as insufficient reason to repudiate the any part of the child’s testimony.
13. Unless clear and unequivocal evidence can be produced by the allegant that a child/children would be in substantial danger from contact with the accused, and where no evidence substantiates the words of the accuser, then the child will be allowed to elect the contact time with each parent, which the child chooses.
14. In the event the child is sublingual by age, or deficient by virtue of affliction, the Court will enable equal caring rights unless clear and unequivocal evidence suggests the child/children will be in clear and present danger from contact with one or other caregiver.
15. In the event one caregiver prefers to relocate more than 20 kilometres from the place at which that person lived when various caregiving orders were made by the Court, then it will be entirely the responsibility of that person to either revoke access rights or pay all costs attributable to having the child/children collected and delivered to the other caregiver.
Court Appointed Lawyer For Child
16. No lawyer may be appointed Counsel For child in a particular area-Court to represent more than four children in any one calendar year, and no more than eight such children in any three calendar years.
17. No lawyer may be appointed Counsel For Child within New Zealand, in any jurisdiction, where such lawyer has been advocate for more than twelve such children with the previous three years.
18. The Lawyer For Child is to be disallowed from petitioning the Court for a support Lawyer to represent the views of the Lawyer For Child. The Court must view this tactic as a repudiation of the Lawyer For Child’s fiduciary legal requirement to represent the wishes of the child.
19. The Court must rely upon evidential testing and may not rely upon any unsubstantiated testimony from any party.
20. Such evidential testing must meet normal standards of justice where the accused is deemed innocent until proven otherwise.
21. The Court must acknowledge that on occasion fairness in law may not be fairness to a child, and that such child/children may well be in some form of danger from a caregiver, but until such danger is unequivocally proven, the Court must find in favour of the accused.
A civilised society cannot allow supposition to ruin the lives of people.
The current actions and attitudes of those in power (CYFS/Family Court) are becoming reminiscent on 13th century ducking-stool justice, 17th/18th century Inquisitions, and 20th century pogroms.
In all such times, guilt was predicated upon utterly fatuous grounds.
Injustice is but just an opinion away in a system which weights opinion above fact.