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

Vindictive Partners

Filed under: General — miss mug @ 4:12 pm Wed 29th March 2006

Far too many MENZ members will be aware of the ease with which the Family Court, Legal Aid Services, CYFS and various social and medical services will provide support without adequate investigation into the veracity of the need for such support.

My quandary is not that it is so freely available, but that it is recklessly squandered to the extent that an onlooker can only be gobsmacked and appalled.

When a spouse has been plainly dishonest with the most outrageous lies for a period of years, to the degree that serious harm is occurring to the children involved, not to mention the abuse inflicted upon the innocent partner and their family, one can only wonder at the competence of the decision makers involved.

Even after such obviously malicious abuse of the system and all parties involved, the offending partner — having rightly lost custody — remains on a benefit even though young and able-bodied. This enables an offender who has practiced everything from child abuse, defamation, harassment, benefit fraud and perjury to escaped any form of accountability.

Instead of the devious malice aforethought practiced by this person getting the recognition and retribution from the law that it deserves, a soft-option acceptance of the possible presence of a delusional disorder has allowed complete exoneration! The person concerned is now free to embark upon renewed efforts to prove the custodial parent unfit and is doing so with gusto.

What action would MENZ members suggest to get the latest outrageous example of this that I have seen out into the light of day?


  1. I Believe we have to start writing to the Judges in the Courts.

    If an avalanche of letters, all cased in reasoned tones, assailed the judges, then they cannot help but begin to consider the issues.

    Interestingly, at least in Waitakere Court, the judges are male; males who as equally exposed to the vile and vindictive efforts of CYFS and venal wives. Or their children are so exposed.

    How, for example, would Judge Mathers react if he found himself ‘considering’ a vile accusation against his own son?…Presuming he has one.

    I think an intensive letter campaign…although not the bomb to break the damn, may well prove to be the straw which broke the camel’s back.

    But it will take reasoned persistence, not vociferous diatribe.

    BTW: Contours have refused me admission to their hallowed halls; which is a real great pity because, as I stood there, doing toe-to-toe stuff with the receptionist, an uncountable number of absolute spunk-muffins passed through the portals.

    I’m sorry God, but being a mere male, filled with mere male thoughts about wimmin, I sure would rather watch them than the sundry sweating men at my gym. :–)) You see, God, if I started getting off on the men at my gym then I’d be tagged homosexual, and we know where that will lead, don’t we God?

    I’m considering my next steps. :–)).

    Comment by dpex — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 7:24 pm

  2. International Crimes Court if NZ Courts are unwilling or protecting the individual you can ask them to step in. Bombard them with the corruption, someone has to do something. Have a rellie who works there and he has been amazed at how our courts are run.
    Hubby has an ex who lies all the time, very easy to catch them out. Have recordings of counselling sessions, threatening phone calls, mediations, the works, all to be published soon. Courts know all about it but refuse to do anything, or ask her to explain herself. Even after she attempted kidnapping. At some stage it will all catch up to them.

    Comment by Jadie — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 8:04 pm

  3. David – It’s a nice thought to believe that writing to judges would result in any significant outcome. I’m pretty sure that in thier profession they have to keep a very low profile, even though they have so much control over the public !

    IMO Use of the media would be the most effective strategy.

    All the media needs is something they believe is worth sensationalising and glorifying, and they will be all over the matter like flies on s**t.

    In short; I reckon we should make use of the media just as the radfems have done to brainwash the public.

    If this could happen, and the judges could see the public outcry at the malicious abuse of the system (sif) then they would HAVE to change thier ways.

    lol @ contours !

    Comment by Moose — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 12:52 am

  4. thanks for the responses. david, i have lived my life believing that protesting in the streets is rather unseemly and that it is always preferable to go through the correct channels, presenting one’s argument in a reasoned and logical fashion. this has proved to be about as much use as a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.
    jadie, i am very interested to follow the situation to which you refer and to see how much of this situation is exposed and by whom.
    i’m with you moose. the media are our best hope. i believe the latest situation i have seen and am still having to deal with would make the grade. it is interesting that in his findings the judge in this matter stated that he accepted that the woman concerned genuinely believed what she was claiming but that she was mistaken. i note that the judge in the louise nicholas vs. schollum, shipton and rickards matters gives the jury the same options, either that nicholas was a victim or that she was mistaken.
    perhaps i have been robbed of any last vestiges of charity by my experiences with vindictvie women, but my feeling is that either these women are genuine victims or they are vengeful liars who have abused the courts to wreak revenge and should be dealt with accordingly. it’s called accountability.
    otherwise the accused, although exonerated, are left with the anger and aftermath on their own which in my view is yet another dose of abuse.

    Comment by miss mug — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 6:03 am

  5. Its great to see more people realising that NZ Law and Social Policy has been destroying the Biological-Family for many generations.

    Countless Parliaments have given us Law and Social Policy to make the FC – CYF’s – WINZ and deeper into bureacracy instruments of this fact.

    I look forward to more of the APATHETIC Kiwis turning up to Activist Activities, writting letters, working the select committees, etc.

    Onward – Jim –

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 7:55 am

  6. They can because they can. We all know the problem but this behaviour must be recognised as ’emotional abuse’ against child for with holding a balance in care. The Child may not show the scars as they don’t know any better like physical abuse which is obvious. But the statistics will show the results of poor up bringing in the years to come. I expect I will need pick up the peices when my child partially develops as a person because she has not been allowed a close relationship with her Father or other ‘victim’ parent or even grandparent.
    The Domestic Violence law is being reviewed and I was angered by the continued reference to the men against women and children angle of the news. Emotional abuse through vindictive bullying should be recognised as violence. Vindictive parents must be held accountable for their actions immediately.

    Comment by Father simple — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 10:06 pm

  7. I agree 100% with Father simple.

    It is simply too easy to label false accusations at fathers in Family Court procedings. This can be simply a matter of bringing up comments made by the father over 15 years before the child was even born!

    If a father is assessed by a suitably qualified professional, e.g. a court appointed psychologist, as LOW risk of harming his children (sexually, emotionally, physically), then I see no reason whatsoever that:
    (1) any mother who genuinely held the best interests of her children at heart, and
    (2) the Family Court itself
    should not WELCOME the opportunity to have the father actively involved in parenting.

    That the Family Court doesn’t, is evidence of sexual discrimination, and makes a mockery of the very (legislated) process set up to protect children – that is, having the parent phychologically assessd.

    That the mother doesn’t, is evidence of a vindictive stance not based on any real risk, but rather an ongoing desire to preclude the father from an active parental role in the life of her children.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 7:41 pm

  8. I think it is fair to say that there are a significant number of such women who lack sufficient mental health to conduct what we might call a normal life. They in the past might have been institutionalised, (which may not have been appropriate), but acknowledging there point of view and accepting their behaviour, and their ability to be custodial parents, because they cannot maintain a relationship, is not only a joke, it is one of the most significant child abuses in this country.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 2nd April 2006 @ 6:15 pm

  9. I like that perspective on it. I have to think about that and get back after I have had a chance to think about it more.

    Comment by Womens Health — Sat 22nd April 2006 @ 1:40 pm

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