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

Boshier will not meet Fathers Coalition

Filed under: General — UF @ 1:48 pm Mon 12th March 2007

So Judge Boshier will not meet with interest groups ie parents, despite medaition from the Families Commission?

Perhaps the Court needs to see itself more as the servant of the people, not the other way around?


  1. Don’t PANIC – We are well aware of BOSHIERS geasy SPIN Doctored games

    The Families Commission has cards to play yet and we have BOTHERING to do.

    See post 27 on Who am I

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Mon 12th March 2007 @ 2:01 pm

  2. Judge’s Refusal To Meet Parents Is Irresponsible

    Press Release by United Future at 3:13 pm, 12 Mar 2007

    Reports that Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier is refusing to even meet with fathers, is a needless slap in the face for these “key stakeholders”, according to United Future family spokesperson, Judy Turner.

    “I commend the Families Commission for providing an opportunity for these parents to discuss their concerns, and the Father’s Coalition for agreeing to suspend protest action in return for a meeting with the Principal Family Court Judge,” says Mrs Turner.

    “It is very disappointing that Judge Boshier is refusing to even meet with these fathers to discuss the issues of concern including claims that they are often bullied and threatened with the withdrawal of access if they don’t sign agreements.

    “Fathers are key stakeholders in the family court system — as are their children who are repeatedly having their right to a caring relationship with their Dad eliminated by the pattern of family court rulings.

    “If there had been a Ministry of Men’s Affairs for the last 20 years in New Zealand, issues like this where men feel unfairly discriminated against would have been closely examined — but there has not been and this area has been largely neglected.

    “United Future is currently looking at how a workable model of shared parenting could be considered, which presumes that children need significant contact with both their Mum and Dad unless proven otherwise on an individual basis,” says Mrs Turner.

    Answers to written question from Mrs Turner shows that day-to-day caring was shared between Mum and Dad in only 11% of cases in the year to July 2006, while granted to only one parent in more than 75% of cases. Mothers are six times more likely to gain day-to-day care than fathers.

    “These figures indicate that the Family Court is not interpreting the legislation as was intended by parliament.

    The Care of Children Act explicitly states that: ‘It must not be assumed that placing the child in the day-to-day care of a particular person will, because of that person’s sex, best serve the welfare and best interests of the child’.

    ‘The child should have continuing relationships with both of his or her parents’.

    “I think that father’s groups have a legitimate concern and it is saddening to see that the Family Court will not even meet to talk with these parents,” says Mrs Turner.

    Comment by UF — Mon 12th March 2007 @ 3:25 pm

  3. Thank you Judy Turner for a well thought out response to Boshier’s incredible and quite frankly, arrogant position.
    I can’t believe that he has taken this position after the Families Commissioner supported a meeting between parents and courts, and the good faith shown by the Father’s Coalition in suspending protests.
    Boshier’s refusal to meet parents will however enable the Families Commissioner (and many others) to have a much greater understanding of the arrogance that many good parents face in their pursuit of justice.
    The Family Court is not about children’s best interests, but rather a self serving, family destroying monster, led by an uncaring ignoramus.
    Family Court, CYFS and Men’s Affairs Ministry must become primary issues in the next elections.

    Comment by xsryder — Mon 12th March 2007 @ 4:28 pm

  4. Ooopsy daisy Peter. Just shot yourself in the footsy it seems.

    Suck it up!!

    Comment by Mark Lloyd — Mon 12th March 2007 @ 4:41 pm

  5. – NZ – BOSHIER rejects call for meeting

    – DON’T Panic

    – Get YOUR Electorate BOTHERING team focused

    – STAND Strong in YOUR Electorate — There is plenty to do in YOUR own ELECTORATE

    – Visit YOUR MP and Senior Bureaucrats

    – BOTHER them at their HEARTHS were they BOTHER US if they are part of the problem

    – GO

    – For those in YOUR Electorate that invite BOTHERING

    – Add Your suggestions and YOUR Story

    – 40 BOTHERED Storys

    – GO

    – Is YOUR BOTHERED Story here yet?

    – BOTHERING 25th March

    – NATION-Wide in most Electorates

    – This greasy Spin Doctor is nervous — Read below

    – The **Empire of Injustice** must be crushed

    – The TRUTH will prevail

    – Go **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** Calendar/Planner

    – ONWARD -Jim


    Judge rejects commission request to meet fathers

    By ANNA CHALMERS – The Dominion Post | Monday, 12 March 2007

    – Have your say

    Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier has rejected a request from the Families Commission to meet protesting fathers.

    He said the Family Court was not a political body that could negotiate. It upheld the law on behalf of all New Zealanders, and people unhappy with its decisions could seek to appeal against them.

    His rebuke follows a call from chief commissioner Rajen Prasad last month for judges to meet the disgruntled fathers, who say the Family Court’s rulings are biased.

    Dr Prasad said at the time that commission members were “really able to really understand what the men’s group was saying”.

    The men’s protests made headlines last year when megaphones and placards were used at boisterous rallies outside the homes of lawyers, judges, psychologists and Parliament’s Speaker, Margaret Wilson.

    After Dr Prasad’s offer to broker a deal, the Fathers Coalition “suspended” a protest planned for last month outside Judge Patrick Mahony’s Wellington property.

    The commission said it would continue to meet the fathers’ group.

    Judge Boshier said he had not been contacted directly by the commission about the meeting. “If people are concerned about the law or the way the system operates, the appropriate forum for change is Parliament.

    The Families Commission may be a channel for those views but it is not a role that the court can undertake.”
    He said he would continue to meet bodies like the commission “from time to time” as an opportunity to be updated on issues of public concern and improving the court’s administrative efficiency.

    “These meetings are a useful dialogue but they are not a means to influence how the court decides the outcome of cases.”

    The Fathers Coalition did not want to comment on the court’s decision till it had heard from the commission.

    Onward in Coalition — Jim Bailey — JimBWarrior

    Founder –
    And –

    Comment by JimBWarrior – HandsOnEqualParent

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Mon 12th March 2007 @ 5:12 pm

  6. As part of the delegation team that meet with the Families Commission ( 21st Feb) I would to like thank Rajen Prasad for personally accepting my tragic and extensive chronological document relating to my major family court depressive episode. I would like to also thank Judy Turner for her inspirational words and I would like to apologise for not taking you off my email list, however I can guarantee you that I will work with good government on family issues. I find it appalling that Peter Boshier will not meet with us, as many like myself have exhausted the appeal process available within the judicial system. I think it pertinent to post something that Don Brash wrote me in 23 March 2004 which endorses the hopeless situation many dads face —
    “ Thank you for your letter concerning family court matters. Regrettably, as you have already written to the Governor —General, the Attorney —General, the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Children (who are appropriate people to investigate and progress such matters) I am unable to assist you further.”
    How long will mainstream kiwi’s tolerate this sustained and cruel attack on fatherhood which is extremely detrimental to children and a stable society ?

    Comment by dad4justice — Mon 12th March 2007 @ 5:19 pm

  7. I checked through the internet about meetings that Boshier has attended in the last couple of years. These include a meeting in November 2006 (called a “public workshop”) organised by Pacific Women’s Watch NZ, in conjunction with Unifem NZ, National Council of Women, Soroptimists and Zonta among others. He was the only male speaker of five attending.

    He attended a meeting in early 2006 at Te Unga Waka Marae where he talked about how many women were killed in domestic violence over a conveniently selected sensational period (Nov 20 to Jan 3!) but failed to mention anything about male victims of violence.

    Meeting of the Centre for Children and Young People in Byron Bay in May 2006.

    Australian Institute of Family Studies conference in Dec 2005 regarding the issue of women and children as victims of domestic violence.

    Save the Children meeting on 17/06/05 where he supported the Bradford Bill and denounced the use of reasonable force.

    Adelaide Conference on Family Violence in Feb 2006

    Series of meetings with the Psychologists Board in early 2006

    Meeting with Plunket and Office of Commissioner for Children in support of the “Littlies Lobby” on 1/10/04

    World Conference on Children’s Rights in Capetown (he and his colleague cost the taxpayer $14294 for this particular jaunt) in 2005

    A Waikato Domestic Violence Hui on 1/03/07 (I couldn’t find out who organised this).

    So Boshier rubs shoulders with lots of women from the domestic violence industry and contributes to ongoing misinformation and male-bashing in this area. He meets with Pacific women, in Maori hui and with women’s groups but refuses to meet with fathers’ groups.

    He obviously does like to attend meetings if they involve travelling around the world on the taxpayer. Perhaps he would attend a meeting with fathers if this is offered in some expensive, exotic international resort.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 13th March 2007 @ 3:25 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