The Protection Order weapon rises again.
It is only a few years back when we had fathers being jailed for sending a Christmas card or a Birthday card to their children, when there was a protection order in place. Now protection orders are being used to prosecute fathers who use their own websites to express their grief and anxiety at the loss of their children. You might ask why don’t we do the democratic thing and make a submission to parliament about this. Well back in the days of Christmas card prisoners I did just that. I made a submission to the social services select committee on protection orders. Normally you would receive a response to a submission, but in this case I didn’t, so I rang the clerk and asked if he had received the submission.
His reply “all I can say to you is that I have been instructed not to talk to you.”
Now you wonder why fathers protest outside private residences?
This raises a very interesting legal issue. Has a protection order been contravened if the child seeks out the website? If we accept (in only this context) that proactive actions by the estranged parent do contravene a protection order then it might be tricky for the child to “find” the website without the order being broken (by an email, text or phone call). BUT if the child googled and found the website then surely no case could be brought. There is also the issue of jurisdiction (also a key component of defamation cases) where did the alleged offence take place? If the child is viewing a website that is in the USA for example (where the webserver is located) then does the offence take place there? Is it illegal in that jurisdiction? What case law is there?
Comment by Alun James — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 11:40 am
As there are fathers facing such persecution at this time will their solicitors be actively defending these positions by asking such questions or will they simply try to illicit a guilty plea from their client
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 11:59 am
Bevan,
Is this just the one case (Paul’s) or is this a whole lot of fathers?
I am finding it a bit difficult to follow what your posts are actually saying because there seems to be bits missing that I need to understand.
Can you please be more specific.
Comment by julie — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 12:15 pm
There is nothing missing Julie. It has nothing to do with Pauls case. I was referring specifically to two other cases I am aware of, and I suspect there are more.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 12:23 pm
This reminds me of the terribly insulting anti-male cards I saw in WH Smiths and wrote to the nz Human Rights Commission about.
They responded saying it wasn’t a human rights issue!!!!!!!
Comment by Stephen — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Stephen and Bevan,
I am going to go out on a limb here. Nothing new but I am asking for you to give common sense and look at cases beyond them just having a ‘male’ involved.
And yes, you, Paul are going to hate me for this.
There has to be a line that one should not pass whether for the fact that they are males is not good enough to say, ‘Do as you like, take no prisoners (including children) for you are the ‘alpha male’ and you are ‘king.’
Personally, I wouild like to discipline Paul but he cannot be told. In fact he deletes everything his own children say because he is only wanting support.
Stephen,
This is bullshit for you cannot be so silly to think all men are wonderful. You have to work within some sort of boundaries.
Bevan,
You post about Child Support, yet I hear you refuse to pay it, yourself. If this is true then you should not post about it.
You know I am on your side here yet I cannot fight for your weaknesses. You cannot speak if you are full of shit.
Bevan,
You have so many strengths to use yet you let men that wan’t women to be less than them sway your judgement. Don’t listen to them.
I hear you are going into a debate with the lawyers on TV. I mentioned to the political busker who set it up that you guys should get some professional help but he doesn’t care and you guys don’t seem to care but I wonder if you have any idea how debates work. I suggest you get professional help with skills and for God’s sake you all need to shave. You look like damn hippies.
You Bevan have all the years experience as a police officer and you own your own business which I believe is successful. You need to mix with people like David who could totally help you make a difference. Bevan, you have to be an individual also. Not all of you are going to make it in politics and if you were to make it, I would hope you stood for more than men getting court costs paid back. You have a good chance to get in as far as I can see. You could help the small business man, help many men that you relate to but you should leave the child support to James for he has alot of wonderful strengths and if you don’t pay child support he must leave you out of it when fighting or making decisions.
OK, said my piece. Awaiting your replies.
Comment by julie — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Bevan,
I hope you can read between the lines on this for my comment may seem like it is running you down but infact i am not meaning to do that but rather get you to understand how much you can do.
Comment by julie — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 4:28 pm
You are confused about two things Julie — First is that there is a difference between paying child support and supporting your child. Yes I refuse to pay child support but I do not refuse to support my children, never have done and never will. In many cases paying child support is not supporting your children; it is doing exactly the opposite.
Secondly I have a sense of Justice. It is wrong to break the law, but right to fight for justice. It is people that put these two things on different sides of the fence that are the bastards of a decent society.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 6:17 pm
Dear Bevan,
Hmmm. Hmmm. This would be so easy if we were face to face to sort out but we are not and I guess I am not going to get a straight answer from you. (easily) ha, ha, ha. They trained you well.
First is first. What does this mean?
So that I get a clear picture please answer (a), (b) or ( c)
(a) You don’t pay child support because you have an arrangement with the mother
(b) You refuse to pay child support because you don’t get to see your child and if you did see your child you would contribute, or..
( c) You think child support is bullshit so you flatly refuse to pay it.
Comment by julie — Thu 31st August 2006 @ 7:50 pm
Julie,
I’ve no idea what your on about here –
Comment by Stephen — Fri 1st September 2006 @ 2:03 am
Stephen,
Fair enough comment. I met for the first time with Man Alive (I think you mentioned that you worked there) and I am impressed with what they are doing and future plans.
I am still wanting to do a big meeting with all the charity groups after I speak with the leader from Man Alive when he comes back from overseas next year.
The funny thing that I am finding is that I am not getting treated the way I have been told I would from men regarding CYFS or other places. And I don’t think it is because I am female.
I think we all have to realise that we do as human beings bring alot of trouble onto ourselves because of our actions and attitude. And on top of that i do believe some people’s behaviour can also bring down others who are doing things worth while.
I can and will be a bitch if I feel it neccessary and as long as get away with it. (Just a warning) The people that helped me crawl out of the gutter were mostly men and I tell you they were hard on me and kept lifting the bar. In turn I do the same to others for often it saves lives. But in this fight it is neccessary to walk the talk because anything that is false will get shown up at some stage and be more damaging than helpful.
Comment by julie — Fri 1st September 2006 @ 9:18 am
Dear Bevan,
Do you have any links to see these cases, or even news links so I can put together some articles and send them around the forums? The more you give the more modivating the article will be to action.
Comment by Intrepid — Sat 2nd September 2006 @ 12:59 am
Dear Julie,
I don’t hate you for ignorance.
One comment from my eldest son (age 23)on this website was deleted and my reply to him.
Perhaps you may in fact make a career in Family Law.
Paul
Comment by Paul Catton — Sat 2nd September 2006 @ 8:16 am
Bevan,
I have done a bit more learning over the past few days and I understand now that you will seek for the justice you believe in. On ‘Agenda’ this morning I learn’t that all parties are currupt, dishonest, lack morals and that one party is saying, “You live by your rules while I will live by mine.” Maybe that’s politics way of doing business. Everyone protests each other but will negotiate ‘Golden Handshakes” or ‘bribery’ to get what they want.
It is even more interesting with the conversation that is happening around me while I write this.
Do you know there is a group that are wanting to boycot the parties by encouraging no-one to vote and if they reach a cetain % the Government will be handed over to the queen.
Others say the catch is to find the least corrupt party to vote for.
Anyhow, I want to take back my challenge and stay away from politics.
Paul,
I haven’t counted how many comments you have deleted. They only came via e-mail because I had made comments on th same posts. I am no better than you to judge anyhow. But who cares, your family, son and other siblings may one day realise you are doing this now for the good of their future.
And from Bevan’s words you and others are doing it as a tool to grieve. The grieveing will pass and hopefully your family will understand.
Comment by julie — Sat 2nd September 2006 @ 10:38 am
Intrepid – There are no news links. They are people I have spoken to. They like others I expect are hesitant about speaking out as they are facing 6 months imprisonment from a criminal court rather than a raw deal from the family court.
I do not if there are others who have been interviewed but not prosecuted, or how many others have been charged. If the issue isn’t raised then these men simply slip through the criminal justice system as isolated cases. I am not sure how many guys ended up with prison sentences for sending Christmas cards; I’m just trying to get a head start on this one. Hopefully any others who are facing prosecution may stand up if they know they are not alone.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sat 2nd September 2006 @ 10:46 am
Julie, Paying child support has little if anything to do with finacially supporting your child. I can see you are struggling with this so let’s take a typical example.
Little Johnny is cared for 65% of the time by mum and 35% of the time by dad. Obviously Dad has to provide a house, bedroom, clothes, toys etc, the same as mum. Often Dad will have to pay most of the school costs and other activities as well. Dad has to pay all the costs of transporting Johnny between houses.
On balance dad has to pay for at least as much as mum, often more.
All these things that dad pays for are finaically supporting the child.
However Dad has to pay mum 18% of his gross income in “child support” in ADDITION to all the other costs. This amount is calculated on what dad earns – it has nothing to do with what it costs to support Johnny at all. There is no accountablity for this money. Mum can and does spend it on herself.
To make matters worse, in many cases this money goes to the government. The government pay mum the DPB. In those cases, none of the money is going to support the child.
Dad is actually paying more than 51 cents in tax on every dollar he earns. Then he has to provide for himself and little Johnny as well.
From this simple and common example things get even worse but we’ll keep it simple to make the point.
In NZ supporting your child is different to paying so called “child support”. In many cases they have nothing to do with each other.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th September 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Dave,
Good on you for challenging me about child supprt and financially supporting your child.
I should be more careful with my choice of words.
I totally agree with what you are saying.
Comment by julie — Tue 5th September 2006 @ 7:18 pm
There is a big problem with this. We have all been alseep for a long time. The information is not getting out to people about how serious Protective Orders are! There is a lot of information about how YOU TOO can be a victim. There are real cases for which a PO is neeeded, but there are a growing number of “AMBULANCE CHASERS” going on. People utilizing the system. This is tearing apart the families. I know in Texas, jails are BIG BIZ, a money maker. This whole thing is a money maker for the “SYSTEM”. Get people to file orders $$$, divorce $$$, counseling $$$$, lawyers $$$$, jail $$$. It is truly sick, what our world has come to. We are all victims, victims of our own creation. How can we stop this??? Let me know, i am ready. Lte’s not let this happen to one more person!
Comment by Christopher Sol — Sat 17th March 2007 @ 1:46 pm