An Opportunity To Do Some Good
I am men’s activist engaged in a Victoria University review of family law.
Currently I am critiquing sections 7, 9A, 13 & 18B of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
- Section 7 relates to assets outside New Zealand.
- Section 9A defines when separate property becomes property of the relationship.
- Section 13 allows unequal sharing if extraordinary circumstances make equal sharing repugnant to justice
- Section 18B (as extended in 2001) gives court discretion to transfer money or property to compensate for contributions a spouse has made to relationship property after the relationship ended.
Is anyone willing to share their issues about those specific section?
I know that it is vital for men to support each other in dealing with emotions around the way we have been treated by family law. But this is not an opportunity to process trauma. It’s an opportunity to try to effect change. What I am looking for is dispassionate reasoned critique of any of those section, plus any suggestions for reform.
Timo
Timo,
the case I am assisting to construct as of today, has been established before the Court is directly centred on s.13.
It will be of significant interest to your study. I am advised with permission to make the information accessible to you when I get back down to Wellington from tomorrow.
My phone number is 0273902169. I cannot reply so if you get a message you would have to call again.
email [email protected]
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Timo,
The fundamental issue would be why a greater than equal split of property is required?
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 10:00 pm
My apologies Blad – I’ve just dumped my bulk folder and saw your message title as it departed into the virtual ether. Please resend so I can read – thanks.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 31st August 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Scrap,
that is not the case (ever)at all, unless you are simply qualifying the necessity for an exemption. Are you not then suggesting that there is never an exception to any rule?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 31st August 2007 @ 7:12 pm
The issue that could be given to Timo, if replying to my reply to the inquiry to reply, is that the term repugnance to justice is bound to the domestic violence rules s.5, although, and presently to be submitted to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner a statemetn made by a judge appears to abslove them of having entered into this responsibility with any form of commitment to the rule. The violence of the case is repugnant and commited by a male on a female and over an extraordinary period. I do not wish to provide any identifying information over this forum but do want to bring to the observation, the, I anticipate, the inability of the bench to excuse itself from adhering to these rules.
The effect, if handled with care can identify that in the benche’s hesitancy to perview violence as repungnant to justice, the values of estimation on the constiution of domestic violence become querstionable and thereby vulnerable.
At this point, there is then matured an entry profering a case on how women’s violence of alienating a non custodial parent needs redress both by the bench as thereby society.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Sorry, this study is now closed. My thanks to those who contributed.
Incidentially, I believe s18A tends to preclude consideration of domestic violence per-se as a s13 extraordinry circumstance, unless the violence has diminished relationship property.
Comment by Timo — Sat 15th September 2007 @ 8:23 am
Yes, that is the perception.
And thank you for your reply. To figure the point presented read the domestic vilence rules r.5, that is unless of course adademic studies, as I argue, are a continuum conflict on ordinary people they as forced to compete with the elite, concluding holistically within the realm of their own reality. I don’t mean to be rude, but when you are a member of the public who is disaffected wilfully by a bureaucracy and academia demanding in their arrogant splendour how marvelous, honourable and incontestably right they may be, all the while trading with children for their knowledge, I feel less inclined to weight what is said with PC or slick.
In all, I hope you would read the rule.
Cheers,
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 15th September 2007 @ 10:46 am
Rule 5 separates the court into criminal or Family Law Court Rules 2002 based cases from domestic violence. The legislation and presumptions as aboveits as quoted above consistent to the recent changes to the Property Relationships Act possibly cannot be exempt from the specific purpose (Object) of both the Domestic Violence Act 1995 s.5 or rule.5 of the DV Rules 1996. These provisions are paramount in their requirement.
The point, given the social environment and the challenge by groups such as fatherhood pretectionism, that the Bench has been provably neglectful of its responsibility to the public and general interest, for its incompatability to serve gender security; that which is fair, as of equitable gender functionality, should not be allowed to disolve for any form of aversion to secure such lore.
Children and human’s of the fleah, blood and emotion variety should not be subject to domestic violence in any form. If we have, then it is as much likely it is because the academics and the bureaucrats have not been up to speed with the purposes and objects of their rules and acts and those who invariably pay the price for such neglect, of course, is the wider public.
While I appreciate that such information is difficult to tie down and such allegations requires substance, probative, qualitative or quantitative in order to affect reasonable behaviour, a reply to this post, where I say it identifies a considerable problem in how the system works, would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 16th September 2007 @ 3:53 pm