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

The Care of Children Act 2005

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 8:21 pm Sun 26th February 2006


By James Bagnall

Having been a McKenzie Friend 86 times appearing both before and after the new Act came in force, how if at all has the Family Court changed?

Strangely, under the Act a pilot scheme has been set up in the North Shore Family Court. Publications and DVDs also have been widely distributed, the central theme of which is how parents should consider their childrens lives and futures.

Obvious questions are:

  1. Were parents using the Courts to not consider their Childrens lives under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
  2. Were the Family Courts not considering the more than 80,000 childrens lives they processed under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
  3. Why was the pilot scheme set up in the North Shore Court?
  4. If things were fine under the Guardianship Act 1968 why the need for a pilot scheme and why the propaganda distributed nation wide?

Even under a pilot scheme the same lawyers and to some extent the same judges are involved in all the Courts in Auckland. So do the judges and lawyers behave differently in different Courts according to whether it is a pilot scheme or not? And are children marginalised from their fathers more in one court than another?

The lawyers especially and the judges to some extent still have the same financial adversarial interest in the Domestic Violence industry and they therefore retain the same femi-dollar agendas, the same legal intelligence to that end, the same lack of child development qualifications and a new Act that allows them to follow the same agendas as under the old Act. They inflame situations as before.

Example 1. Some prominent North Shore law firms still use allegations of sexual molestation, with no evidence, of children by their fathers to marginalise and alienate their children from them. All done legally under section 59-62 of the new Act with no criminal charges but with the same results as if there were.

Extended enriching litigation ensues. For who? GREED? ANTI CHID? ABSOLUTELY!

Example 2. Some Counsels for Child deliberately promote the child they represent to stay in an abusive relationship with their mother in spite of the child’s dad applying for custody. When things get worse after 2 years or more of abuse they then recommend a Care and Protection order in favour of CYFS. Some of these Counsels for Child end up working exclusively for CYFS. CORRUPTION? ABSOLUTELY!

Example 3. In other Court jurisdictions, for example Henderson, self litigants are refused McKenzie friends in Judge led mediation, whilst both the child and the mother are represented by lawyers. GENDER BIAS? ABSOLUTELY!

The pilot North Shore scheme however does put pressure on both sides to think of their children. Judge Ryan in Judge led mediation conferences does his best not to discriminate and further more the North Shore Family Court office has developed into an efficient friendly machine for self litigants, male and female.

The Human Rights Of Children

Sections 59-62 of the new Act allows violations of children’s human rights to continue. These rights violations are perpetrated by ruthless greedy lawyers some of whom can be found right here in TAKAPUNA.

A Constitution

We need a constitution that enshrines childrens human rights. The right to have two biological parents. The right not to lose one parent through false allegations.

The Care of Children Act 2005 still allows these HUMAN RIGHTS abuses to CONTINUE.

6 Responses to “The Care of Children Act 2005”

  1. Bryan says:

    Great Article James……having been in the courts recently in order to have my daughter returned after she was taken away to another city without my or the courts permission I have this to add to your article.

    There remains in society and therefore in the Judiciary an “expectation” of men. This expectation is that of hunter and provider. Feminism has done a great job of getting women into the work force to the extent that they now operate in areas where they appear to be quite inept. Men have generally not yet been accepted as care givers. Are there defined skills for this job that makes the presence of high testosterone unsuitable?

    Who will place men into the “care giver” role against the mother’s wishes? Not often judges….why should they take the risk of a bloke screwing up? “what if?” screams loud in court when the mother’s Lawyer talks.

    Male Judges are likely to be even more reluctant as they themselves will no doubt experience dissonance with the concept that a male can be equal and sometime superior to a female in this role.

    I have experienced some very wise Judges in the court however I believe that the skills required for a family court judge are unique and that real change will only take place when “men’s studies” are developed and are a part of their training. We are so different from women in our approach to bringing up children with regards to priorities that if only one criterion is viewed fathers will always be disadvantaged. Child safety is a priority but who defines that????

  2. cwb says:

    why the hell do we have a commissioner for children ? cindy kiro i think, it’s a bloody disgrace they can not see the obvious, childen being denied there basic human rights all in the name of the GRAVY TRAIN COURT. Even victims of war under the geneva convention can obtain better access to their family members, which makes BoULLSHITER, (boushier) worse than Hitler effectively speaking allowing the GRAVY TRAIN COURT to run it’s Dr Mengele programs here in Godzone without any media or public concern.

  3. cwb says:

    First the West Germans and then the U. S. and Israeli governments sent teams of investigators to Sao Paolo to provide expert assistance. All the teams of government experts concluded that Mengele had died in Sao Paolo in 1979.

  4. cwb says:

    i have never come across greater scum in my life time jim, than the un-family court lawyers and un-family court judges that i have stood before. I rebuked their unworthy judgement’s without incident on all accounts, I refused to attend anger management, I refused to accept access with supervision, I refused to appeal my case, I refused to accept 3 hour visitations, the the judge then only looks a fool, as he is in real life any way, and I lived another day
    to which just made their efforts a waste of tax payers money.

  5. triassic says:

    It is also suspected that he had a sex change and drank an elixir halving his biological years. He then immigrated to NZ as a refugee and established himself in politics. He has since cloned himself and infiltrated into the civil service.

    Now that you have this knowledge you must keep quiet about it. If talking to a civil servant it pays not to mention the WAR.

  6. cwb says:

    mums the word

Leave a Reply

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