The Care of Children Act 2005
AND THE FAMILY COURT REVISITED
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:
- Were parents using the Courts to not consider their Childrens lives under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
- Were the Family Courts not considering the more than 80,000 childrens lives they processed under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
- Why was the pilot scheme set up in the North Shore Court?
- 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.
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.