Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?
Lets support good parents (mothers and fathers), over abducting parents.
Should Kay Skelton and Dick Headley be prosecuted for the abduction, within NZ, of a 6 year old boy?
On the face of it, they are charged with a long term child abduction and this is just the final act in a 6 year run of holding the familycaught in contempt.
Child abduction does seriously affect the child. His schooling has been interrupted. His family and friend relationships have been completely broken, for 10% of his entire life and damaged for all of his life. It teaches very skewed values and experience about relationships between men and women, that lay down a nasty legacy for the child’s future relationships. The hiding and the dishonesty lay down intuitions of fear and evasion, that imprint the developing mind, to some extent. Children have a right to be protected from abduction.
The situation has imposed “wasted” legal costs onto the father and the long suffering taxpayer. (In this case, the costs imposed on the Police were not large, as they just waited for the child to give himself up. Only when the “abductor” is a father, do the Police put in much effort.)
However, before throwing the book at this mother and her father, the familycaught should seriously consider it’s own contribution to this debacle. By supporting the mother’s actions, up until the final hearing before the abduction, the familycaught has actively REWARDED the mother, for holding them in contempt. They may have tut-tutted with WORDS, but even the most dismal of idiots know that ACTIONS speak louder than words. The judge’s words were shown to be lies, by their ACTIONS which consistently rewarded her for her behaviours. Let the punishment fit the crime?
The most basic parenting course, teaches that for discipline to be effective, it must be CONSISTENT and reasonably quickly delivered! Let the punishment fit the crime. These judges consistently rewarded the mother, for holding court orders in abject contempt. Their behaviour allowed and drove her to continue being dishonest and manipulative.
Lets see these familycaught judges in the dock, alongside Kay Skelton and Dick Headley. I would suggest that they should get longer sentences than the direct actors. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Even more to the point, lets see these judges pay for remedial activities for the boy and financial recompense for the father and taxpayer.
Real judges, with the skills to perform constructively and cost effectively, as a Family Court Judge, would not say one thing and do another, in their judgements. The NZ public deserves what they get, for accepting the use of lay judges (without relevant professional level training) in familycaught.
Real judges would have successfully passed professional level assessments in courses covering:
1. Weighing evidence
2. Parenting skills
3. Assessing parenting skills
4. Assessing parenting resources
5. Family discipline
6. Family budgeting
7. Family mediation
8. Gender equity
Weighing evidence is important. If this first step cannot be got right, then all that follows is like a house of cards, there is no reality or strength or value in it. Accusations of violence or sex abuse are easily used in front of these “lay” familycaught judges, to support allowing the other parent to immediately gain total control over the children’s situation. It is only when the evidence is weighed correctly, that the punishment will fit the crime.
The important issue is not punishment for its own sake, but bringing the real life consequences back onto the perpetrator. Doing this, teaches people to respect each other. Not doing it, teaches people that they can readily do damage to others, their ex-partner, their children, other people and rely on getting away undisciplined.
In the end, damage of any sort in a parenting relationship dis-serves the children.
These subjects are not rocket science, on the contrary, people with these skills are happy to work for much lower salaries than familycaught judges are currently paid!
Before anyone prosecutes the mother Skelton and her father, surely we should prosecute the far more serious abductions ie international abductions?
One example is given in K v C 21FRNZ686. The familycaught judge, without notice to the father, lifted a CAPPS Order and put a woman child abductor onto a plane, with 5 children, for them to never be seen again. Judge Priestley overturned the familycaught judge’s DECISION, but as the children were out of NZ, his piece of paper only assuaged the father’s feelings. Why do this, when the NZ Legislation requires us to ACT against child abduction, to deter it by consistently prosecuting it?
Judge Priestley carefully did not give the name of the familycaught judge, to protect the judge from prosecution and protect the confidence of the NZ public, in the familycaught judges provided for them. The only identification is “Papakura Family Court”, but even this could have been falsified to protect “confidentiality”. By doing this, Judge Priestley and judge boshier become accessories after the fact, to that familycaught judge’s part in the 5 child abduction.
It seems that the familycaught judge was protected from accepting responsibility and from any remedial re-training or supervision?
Would you want to know that the judge at your upcoming hearing had previously removed a CAPPS Order and put a woman child abductor onto a plane, with 5 children, for them to never be seen again?
Or would you be happier to have this information withheld=hidden from you?
If you have a familycaught hearing coming up, write to judge boshier and ask him to assure you that the judge provided for your hearing was not the familycaught judge in K v C 21FRNZ686.
There have been about 250 children returned to NZ, under Hague Convention, in the last 20 years. Most of the abducting parents will have returned too, thus at a guess 100+ abductors (say 85 mothers and 15 fathers).
I am not aware of a single prosecution of any of these abductors.
The USA sometimes prosecutes and jails abducting parents who are returned under extradition, whether mother or father of the child.
I do appreciate that such a prosecution is a deterrent to abductors, that might lead them to take extreme measures to avoid capture. However, surely the most important issue is to deter abduction in the first place, as far as possible. This is why Parliament passed legislation making child abduction a crime.
International abduction is insidious, in that the chances of the return of the child are much lower than for abduction within NZ. The child is suddenly ripped right out of their entire community and dropped into some other. Fear of capture and lies pervade every aspect of the child’s life. Life becomes a lie.
The damage to the remaining parent (85% fathers) is usually quite cruel and most fathers (and mothers) in this situation get horrifying little support or assistance. Some of these parents are offered so little hope through meeting familycaught, that they destroy their own lives, even though they were not the abductor parent.
Recently, Sweden returned an abductor mother and her son to NZ. She returned in a blaze of self-released publicity and with a police escort. Even so, the NZ Police were “unable?” to catch and prosecute her for the more than year long abduction. (The daughter was not returned by Sweden, as they considered that she was near enough to 12 years, that she could decide to not be returned. The “legal delays” within NZ, led to this non-return. The legal delays, were very profitable for the NZ lawyers and familycaught judge involved and contributed to the non-return due to delay.)
The impact on these children was swept under the carpet and the mother was left free to return to Sweden. The social and financial costs to the father were not an issue for the familycaught. The “wasted legal costs” were not an issue to the familycaught judges and legal workers, they just banked them! The perhaps half million dollars down the drain, is of a similar order to a small arson or a 100 car conversions. Let the punishment fit the crime.
We may have no-fault divorce, but this does not mean that we have n0-responsibility for all parenting behaviour and misbehaviour. Our existing legislation supports putting responsibility onto errant parents. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Why are familycaught judges not doing it?
The only way that parents can be motivated to behave constructively, is when we have familycaught judges who have the simple basic skills to be able to weigh evidence competently and assess responsibility and parenting skills and then put responsibility onto the errant parent(s). This is called the principle of “public policy”.
If the familycaught would like to be taken seriously, then lets see them prosecute the serious cases of child abduction and accessory to abduction FIRST.
For prosecutions to be effective as a deterrent, they must be as speedy as possible, as suggested in Care of Children Act 2004. If these cases were prosecuted and child abduction dropped right off, the legal workers would lose over $10 million in income per year. Its a win-win situation for children, good parents and the public, to prosecute child abductors (but not for familycaught judges and lawyers). This conflict of interest is not managed professionally and this debacle just goes on without an end in sight.
It looks as though this will only be by private prosecution, so do we need a familycaught at all? What value are these familycaught judges successfully delivering, for their wage?
Lets not forget abductions within the same city:
When a father moves out of a family home, taking the children with him, to get the final day-to-day-care that he demands, then this is also a serious case of abduction. When a familycaught judge rewards this father, by giving day-to-day-care, to suit his new location, this father is being rewarded for using fait-accompli and manipulation. These situations usually put quite a lot of costs onto the other parent, the mother. A typical example may cost the mother say $100 for selling a house and buying a new house to suit the new parenting location and possibly costs associated with changing job etc.
It would be constructive, to NOT give the advantage to the parent that uses fait-accompli and for the familycaught to require honest negotiation. The negotiation should take place before the children are moved. Say for 5,000 separating couples per year, requiring honest negotiation would save parents collectively about $50 million a year in the first year of separation and about $5 million a year for each subsequent child raising year. All this, for only costing the legal workers $20 million a year.
Lets recruit judges who know what honesty is and why it is valuable. This is the only path to: Let the punishment fit the crime.
In the meantime, I will throw in $100 to prosecute the father of the abducted child, for not protecting his child from abduction and familycaught. He did not serve his child’s interests, by trusting the familycaught.
Neither did I, damit (conclusion in 20FRNZ604). Alas, I hold the familycaught in the same contempt, that it holds it own caught orders. My experience of the familycaught dreamworld is now several years old, but it does not seem to have moved forward in terms of protecting children from “image over reality” dishonest parents.
If anyone cares to read boshier in 20FRNZ604, if you are interested to see whether he honestly presents in his judgement, the essence of my application, then I can give you a copy of my application. I am happy for you to be the judge.
I offer judges green(now clarkson) and robinson up for prosecution, as active supporters of a woman child abductor (within city abduction – support after the abduction), in my own experience.
Lets build up a public list of familycaught judges who have actively supported child abduction (either by a mother or by a father) and try to return their profit from this. Please identify whether the support was after the abduction or prior to the abduction?
How many abductions have these judges been actively involved in?
The familycaught needs skilled professional management, from outside the ranks of the legal workers.
Lets get real judges in the familycaught.
My appreciation to honest good parents (mothers and fathers).
Murray Bacon
34 Valley Road,
Mount Eden,
Auckland.
ph 638 7275
Good words and well written. And if the NZ courts will not prosecute can they then be taken to the Internaional Crimes Court? I offer Judge Cunningham (Christchurch) and c4c Chris Robertson (Ashburton) who are active child alienators (abductors) and supporters of dishonest mothers.
Comment by wendy — Sun 1st April 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Add judge Vandaddlesen It was not good to remove the Children to another city while the court was still hearing this case. To late then judge.
Comment by Dave L — Sun 1st April 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Thanks for the support, to help make the familycaught work in accordance with Parliament’s legislation. Is it credible, to trust these judges to make decisions about children’s lives?
As well as looking at completed abductions, we should also look at near-miss situations, where a familycaught judge has allowed a parent, with a history of dishonesty, to take a child out of NZ. More to the point, we should learn from them!
In these situations, the remaining parent may be under huge (unnecessary) stress, while they wait to see whether the dishonest parent will in fact return the child, as they promised to the incredible judge.
I suspect that NZ has a large problem with judges gambling (with other people’s children). If there are 50+ completed abductions per year, to Hague countries, plus other abductions to non-Hague countries, how many times each year do familycaught judges trust known dishonest parents?
Trusting proven dishonest parents, to take children outside of NZ, should have gone out with hanging and castratos. In these situations, noone can undo a disastrous decision. Surely the luxury of visiting family overseas doesn’t need to be given to parents who have already proven that they hold their own promises and familycaught orders in contempt?
The public must be given the whole truth about the actions of these judges, so that the public can drive through positive change in the familycaught.
Only by bringing these situations into the light of day, can we learn and improve practices. This does not seem to have happened successfully under judges Trapski, mahony or boshier, as indicated by the many years of 15% annual growth in the abduction rate.
Thanks again for your support for positive change,
MurrayBacon
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 1st April 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Whats with you guys????Leave a comment and it disappears…Why..Self protection I wonder.
Everyone Must conform I wonder,,Sick if thats the case.
Time to recheck the balances if thats the case.
Comment by family — Sun 1st April 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Well done Murray,
You can add Judge Anne McAloon. She varied a Non-Removal Order (allowing my child to be taken to a Non-Hague country) while Custody Application was pending.
Comment by xsryder — Sun 1st April 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Calling for HandsOnEqualParenting from Conception
Prosecuting ALL who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES**
Removing ALL gender bias from law and Social Policy
Supporting the aims of the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition**
Will get the job done in an ounce of the time with few words
Instead we start yet another vague but well written wonder/rant and don’t bother with BOTHERING or supporting other initiatives that are well underway by giving them power to negotiate
Men are their own worsted enermy making it easy for Femi-FASCIST Women and Government to play their agenda and grow the **Empire of Injustice**
Feed the enermy guys while satisfying your intellectual thirst/egos. Plays into the hands of the enermy once again
Onward — Jim
http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 12:41 am
Yes thanks Murray you make some very good points. Just because a lawyer puts on a robe it doesn’t hide his or her spots. As long as judges are appointed from the most unethical and dishonest group in society nothing is going to change. The lawyers have hi-jacked the justice system. Judges should be selected from the whole community, not just this interest group of lawyers. With lawyers as judges, Dracula is in charge of the blood bank.
Comment by Dan — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 7:44 am
Dan,
thanks for your comments (and for reading a long post!). I disagree slightly, judges should be selected from people who have relevant and useful skills, as listed above and the courts must be managed by a group of people, selected from the community, with the ethics, values, skills and willingness, to MANAGE a Family Court.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 7:59 am
Jim,
In my humble view, the biggest obstacle to a fair deal for men isn’t those who post here, but those who don’t even visit.
Only a small number of men seem to be aware of the contempt with which society holds them. Most of those who are aware have been made so by family court decisions, divorce rulings and being assumed immediately guilty whenever police are called in.
The majority of men don’t even care, until it hits them hard in the face. Quite a few have a sneaking suspicion of their second-rate status, some have gone so far as to avoid women and marriage like the plague.
But it is this majority of men that have to be won over before the feminist state will change.
How do you win them over? By sites like this where men relate their true, almost unbelievable, experiences with the justice system. Where men propose reasons why this is happenning, and propose all manner of solutions. Where it is pointed out how the media is constantly feeding us with negative images of men and maleness. Where different contributors speak with different styles and so hold the interest of any passing reader.
I applaud your activism. I wish more men were telling it like it is. Everyone here is fighting the good fight.
Comment by Rob Case — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Dear Rob,
thanks very much for your comments. I don’t agree that we have a feminist state and that men are so downtrodden. Certainly, men are sometimes downtrodden by the caught system, but so too are many many women. Many of the problems are at least partially fed by the actions of the person themself. Lets keep an overall perspective. Lets listen carefully to complaints from all parties.
The NZ social security system has significant flaws, in terms of gender equity. For example, the child support act totally neglects all costs in a father’s household, for less than 40% caring. The mother is given first bite on the day-to-day care and may decide under the influence of the child support financial incentive, to keep the father’s access below the “magical” 40% limit. This is an unmanaged Conflict Of Interest, that would be managed if we had effective familycaught judges.
Similarly, DPB is usually given to women over men, and then the father is expected to pay the mother child support, even when they share care 50%/50% and have equal incomes and the mother gets all of the tax benefits. (I understand that the tax benefits have recently been shared, but the child support hangover remains.) This means that the government benefit given to a father (which has been calculated as minimum temporary ie not sustainable support), is reduced to give more cash to the mother, whose benefit is calculated as a permanent ie sustainable support, even when they have 50%/50% care! This shows that Parliament does not seriously consider that fathers care for their children and wishes to selectively support women to care for children. I don’t know why they act in this way, or even if they now why?? If more women care for children, should the idea of gender equity favour giving fathers more support, than mothers? If we were careful about passing only good quality legislation, then these anomalies should rarely occur and there should be workable mechanisms for resolving them, within the lifetime of a childhood! (This concept is given in Care of Children Act, but is honoured by being breached.)
While the majority of men take the attitude that it isn’t biting them, so why worry at all? we will never make much forward progress. We must remind many men, that it can suddenly come down around their ears, with precious little warning at all and also, worry about your children’s future.
Back to the caughts, the issue is whether the caught system is serving anyone, but itself? It certainly tries to protect legal workers incomes, but not all lawyers are anywhere near as comfortably off, as some people believe. Many lawyers keep up a front, but eek out meagre existence too. This is the gamble that they choose to take.
The big issue, is whether the caught system has a relevant and professional level of skill at weighing evidence and then making decisions based on the facts.
Think of it this way, lets assume the familycaught stopped wasting its time trying (pretending?) to weigh evidence and just tossed a coin, it is unlikely that anyone would ever notice the difference.
In most cases, both parents are reasonably capable and it doesn’t really matter (for the children) if the “judge” gets it totally wrong. Thus no matter how incompetent or irrelevant or downright stupid the judges were, the outcome would not actually cause major problems ie life and death.
What I am worried about, is that both judges and some legal workers work to escalate disputes and prolong them, to maximise the amount of turnover for the legal workers. This mediation style does cause severe damage, to parenting relationships and to family finances. It is also illegal under Family Proceedings Act. Have you ever heard of a doctor billing like this?
I have never heard of a tossed coin trying to extend a dispute! Thus the coin would be more trustworthy, on several levels. The coin would make a more cost effective and trustworthy disputes resolution service, than the existing familycaught “judges”.
A relevantly skilled judge would make judgements that would de-escalate disputes and be a basis for improving parenting relationships. This is nothing inspired, just old fashioned common sense, relevant experience and relevant knowledge (these would drive away any prejudice).
My criticisms of the familycaught could be generalised to District Court. All of the same problems relating to weighing evidence rear their ugly head just as much in this court. Errors in District Court criminal and civil cases can be laughed off much more easily than problems in familycaught cases. Poor performance in District Court, does lead to this court unwittingly driving the behaviours it is paid to deter. (This accidentally seems to create more work for them. Does this sound familiar?)
Family cases go on for the duration of a child’s upbringing, so that problems compound and compound and compound and compound and compound and compound… The familycaught is unwilling/unable to rectify most problems it makes, once they have been made.
As far as improving the caughts goes, while the majority of men take the attitude that it isn’t biting them, so why worry at all? we will never make much forward progress. We must remind many men, that it can suddenly come down around their ears, with precious little warning at all and also, worry about your children’s future.
Good quality courts, working under good quality legislation, would be predictable. People could arrange their affairs accordingly and would rarely need to have recourse to the courts. This would help even separated parents to manage their spending and get the best out of life, for themselves and their children. However, the familycaught isn’t satisfactorily predictable, it is more like sick, out of control gambling. I believe that this low quality is by their choice, for their personal profit. This is why I see familycaught barristas as highway robbers in stolen suits.
Lets aim higher than just using a coin toss, even though this would give a fair degree of improvement over the existing toy “judges”.
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Interesting comments coming from Men who have not Fathered their own Kids or Men-Tored others
Who are you making excusses for?
Who are you folk to suggest that we don’t live in a Femi-Fascist regrime when you did not stand?
Who are you folk kidding
Is it your reason to do NOTHING other than write good prose
Is it so important to you to seem reasonable that you leave your Kids in the hands on the X
Yes bring on the debate
Notice how there was no representation from Mens groups on Campbell Live tonight
I wonder Why?
What ineffective dribble will come next from those who failed their Kids?
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Dear Jim,
thank you for your ideas.
I am happy to trust that my children are my own!
I have cared for both my boys, when they were 2 1/2 and 4, for 3 months, while I worked full time. My ex-wife disappeared off on overseas holiday, through this time, so I didn’t get the promised help in weekends. To get my 40 – 45 hours work done, I worked to midnight or 1am most nights. I paid child support at about $960 per month for these pleasures and it was well worth being screwed over for this. Christine then abducted the children back, to retake custody. This was subsequently approved of by judge green.
Later, I took care of my older son, while working full time, for 18 months. This time I wasn’t so diddled on child support. Again, christine took back the older boys custody, when she returned to NZ, by abduction. This time judge robinson approved the abduction and rewarded with custody. Fait accompli by women rules supreme, with toy judges.
Jim, I don’t see why you are saying that I have not fathered my children. I have done it to the limits of what I could negotiate DESPITE the familycaught, not because of it.
It certainly caused me a lot of pain, when I heard judges saying in the media “Men should take more interest in their children” and behind closed doors they were acting to prevent me doing what they were asking men to do in public!?!?
You suggest that my comments are ineffective dribble and I cannot disprove you, for the present.
I am asking people whether they want to turn their complaints into a private prosecution, of the worst of these “judges”?
This will only happen when people provide sufficient evidence, covering all of the elements of the offense, that cannot be ignored by a court.
I don’t want to talk, I want to stop the RELATIONSHIP VANDALISM that they are doing, to women, men and children.
There are some fascist elements in our government, but I believe that it is not much useful to dwell too much on these.
Are you interested to work with other people to bring about positive change?
I can see your challenges, but I do feel that you could contribute more to this debate, than just these challenges?
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 2nd April 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Murray,
The deception in your head is now clear and sadly common.
Hopefully you and others will see below that I offer my challenge in friendship not only to you but to the 1000’s of good men like you on similar grounds
** You don’t believe we live in a Femi-Fascist regime yet you have been led a merry dance by your X
** You don’t seem to see the dance was funded – frustrated – elongated by a Femi-Fascist lead system
Why don’t you see it?
It’s clear in your writing? – read it
** You believe you have FATHERED your Kids yet you have hardly had any real influence over their upbringing?
** You believe you have FATHERED your Kids because you paid some so called **Child Support**? I. E. funded someone else’s Parenting not yours which is exactly what the state wants – The Femi-Fascist-Socialist-State uses the weaker vessel to Parent children so it can more easily manipulate them — The weaker vessel and those who support them see themselves as manipulators for the common good.
** You don’t seem to see the reality of your own quality clear writing
Murray your case is as awful if not worse than many others yet you pander to those who place you and your Kids in the downtrodden situation you are in
Your pain has lead you to under estimate the damage done to you and you’re Kids
You have and have had my deepest sympathy and support but for you to begin to propose ways forward from the foundations of such unclear thinking is not acceptable
Yet the way you propose is yet another good one and appeals to others – So called Child Support was proposed in a similar way – Covered the problem for a while – Still does with the majority.
If we keep opening up battle fronts we will get caught in the freeze not Helengrad
Hitler and his followers have learnt much from their and others mistakes so must we CHURCHILL.
Good men like you are wasted while they will not face the reality of why they are where they are at.
Leading others which you do well and could do a hell of a lot better if you evaluated things as they really are
BOTHERING those who damage our FAMILIES at their own HEARTHS where they damage us brought more stories into the media than any other idea ever has.
We achieve nothing until we get those who do the bidding of the Femi-Fascist-Socialist lead State on the run
Hitler and associates will commit suicide and or be undermined from within if their team is undermined and begins to see its destructive way is being exposed to the majority
The way forward is clear in my head
I hope the parables clarify
I and several others have seen it is pointless martyrdom to continue BOTHERING without support from many many more
I for one will not be putting the FATHERING of my Son in jeopardy when the majority are but SHEEPLES
We have been seduced rather cunningly into a blind rabble -/- talkfest yet again
Can we rise above good writing and talkfest – I am not so sure?
Onward – Jim
http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 3:51 am
As a 6 year vet of the Kangaroo court my list of cops , lawyers and judges is long so I try our politicans for assistance . Many non -custodial parents know what it’s like living between a rock and a hard place !!
This heartbreaking letter from the smarmy maharey arrived yesterday
Office of Hon Steve Maharey, MP
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
29 March 2007.
Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for your letter of 12 February 2007 requesting about which school your daughter J is attending.
The right to be given information relating to the education of your two daughters has to be consistent with the Privacy Act 1993 and any Court rulings that have determined whether or not it is permissible to release the information.
As you have stated that your children are Court protected, it is not appropriate for the Ministry of Education to provide you with the information you have requested. It is necessary for you to obtain legal advice if you wish to access the information you have requested.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Maharey
Minister of Education.
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 8:03 am
Should I go find out – fuck them all !!!
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 8:06 am
The armed offenders squad has only been called out 4 times to smack down a falsely accused father ,it’s great fun!! – lets make it 5 and be done with all the bullshit . The system is sick and totally unfair !!My daughters were happy with their loving dad for the first 8 and 6 years of their lives . I am shamed to be called a New Zealander!!
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 8:23 am
Have those with greivences sent the detials to noelles **Candidates for shame** and prepared your BOTHERING team for the 29th of APRIL
Has this forum become a Talk-Fest?
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 9:24 am
Murray,
I never suggested you have not tried to FATHER your Kids
You would not be on my radar if you had not
I am saying you where not there
I have said you don’t listen
I have said you don’t take a big enough picture into account.
I have never been asked by you how I have procured the FATHERING of my Son
Nor have I heard you ask others who do the job – Yet I am the only Kiwi I know with an **Equal** Parenting Order.
Many others have various forms of **Any share of Parenting**.
I have never seen a letter of support from you to encourage WINZ to obey the the Order.
Yet this is the last hurdle in anybodies climb toward HandsOnEqualParenting.
I have never seen you Men-Tor a Child
I have heard you critisize me and others who do FATHER our own and Men-Tor others – often 3/4 at a time.
Until you do find out and begin to tell the answers that have worked for others you pontificate
I don’t need to meet your Kids to know how effective you where/are you tell us in your writing
I chose to listen loud to those who BOTHER those who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES** and those who do the job of Mothering and/or Fathering – ALL others are pontificators
As I said to you the other day before you chose to log out of my system rather than take the much bigger picture into account with World-Wide comment-news-opinion constantly updated
You and those like you need to listen
Were you on any of the resent Marches?
CYFSWATCH – Family Integrity – Family First have taken the lead from us because we pontificate.
What support have you given Viv and team in their work with the **Families Commission**?
You used the excuse that you have not got time to read the many E-mails and in that you miss much
Those who listen only receive one summary per day and stay informed
You don’t listen – you – your kids and those who follow you pay dearly
You chose to take the high ground without credentials
I chose to check you so as to draw attention to the damage you and those like you do.
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 10:23 am
Murray,
Some interesting stuff. One of the problems appears to be that some Court orders, usually the ones made in favour of men such as access orders, are not routinely enforced. If your ex refuses to keep to the access agreement or order, you will need to apply again to the Court for an “enforcement order” before the police or anyone else will do anything. However, the orders that are more often made in favour of women such as protection orders will be enforced automatically without any further need for delays, hassle and expense. This is but one of the problems related to the abduction issue; mothers in particular know that little will be done quickly about their disregard for fathers’ rights (and for children’s rights to a full relationship with their fathers) and this fosters a belief that whatever they want to do will be supported by the Court, which is far too often true.
It is also evident that when mothers take off with their children to keep them from fathers, the police usually do nothing and the media see it as a non-issue, but when fathers do so it is labelled as kidnapping and actively pursued.
Hans Laven
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 10:59 am
Jim
Your attacks on those who don’t do things your way are not helpful. The last thing that the men’s movement needs is weakening through internal bickering and political ambition. Absolutist statements such as “All others are pontificators” will unnecessarily offend many who may be contributing in ways different from your own. Why do that?
Hans Laven
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 11:08 am
Hans,
I disagree – Men have gone in circles of powerless bickering and pontificating way before I entered the scene some 12 years ago
We have 300,000 some say 400,000 Kids without DADS and some of those without Mums to prove it
I see it as fact not attack
I repeat ALL who do not BOTHER those who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES** and or Father and or Mother their own Kids are Pontificators and thus add to the 300,000+ daily
Why do it – to do my best to make sure my Kids, My Grand Children and their peers don’t lose theirs to this heinous system we mainly pontificate about
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 11:51 am
So what exactly are you proposing Jim?
That we should all stop posting/commenting unless we’re active botherers, and discuss only bothering?
By the way, you convey your thinking and conviction far more clearly when taking a crack at we pontificators.
So give us some due.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 12:20 pm
My proposals are loud and clear at http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz alongside many others proposals and even more at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News the van makes it pretty clear as well
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Jim,
I am surprised that you have been able to judge the degree of influence that I have had over my children’s development. I don’t recall you meeting my children?
You have suggested that I simply left my children in the hands of x-wife, after abductions. In both cases I applied to the court and it was sooooooooooooo slow to get to a hearing that they left our children with her. (13 months first time and 11 months second time.)
I trusted the familycaught and tried to deal with it in good faith. This was despite what I had heard about it. I trusted it, mainly for lack of alternatives. I understood that the reality, was that the familycaught was delaying access to a hearing, from just the information in my application. That means that they delayed a father’s application, to manufacture new evidence that the children are established in the mother’s care, so that the final custody could be left with her.
>
It isn’t really “weighing evidence” when you have taken an active role in “creating” this evidence!
>
Months before I walked into the familycaught for the hearings, I knew that the outcome was set in concrete and that almost certainly the entire hearing would be a dishonest charade. The “judges” were as bored of going through the theatrical motions, as I was. I knew what the impact would be in the real world, for at least several years, but at that time I couldn’t understand why the “judges” couldn’t see what they were doing.
This might sound as though I am accusing the “judges” of prejudice, but I am not. I ask that we keep perspective. Having seen more cases since, the common thread is classical incompetence. These judges may be competent for land conveyancing, drawing up mortgages and suing for damages, but not for successfully solving family disputes. It is common for incompetent people to not understand what skills they are lacking. It shows up on Fair Go most weeks. People with a professional approach listen to complaints and study nearby fields of knowledge, to see what ideas can be incorporated into their own professional practice. I haven’t seen legal workers (lawyers and judges) display a professional attitude. I have seen it in a few legal academics in USA, but not among legal workers. They study “family law”, which is what passes in familycaught, but this is like driving a car with the windscreen blacked out and using only the rear vision mirror. It is backward looking.
To be fair, Parliament has allowed (but not required) the appointment of irrelevant people and given them legislation without sufficiently clear objectives and precious little values to work with. (Maybe there are too many lawyers in Parliament and the non-lawyers don’t speak enough in Parliament. We import legislation or home grow it and pass it without satisfactorily evaluating the quality before it is passed.)
I said that the impact on my family was not serious, in life and death terms. I have had the fortune to meet people who have had their family vandalised by the familycaught far worse than my own. I am humbled by seeing how well some of them have handled the unnecessary damage that has been thrown their way. These people’s example drives me to try to help fix up the familycaught and make it work successfully for all families, especially our children.
I know that sometimes the familycaught does do good. It’s just that their performance is erratic and unreliable, a sick manipulative gamble. I do not have enough experience to say that they do more harm than good, but I suspect that this might be so.
For example, an international abduction is of similar order of damage to a “pledge card” (funded without permission from the owners of the money held in trust), or about ¼ as damaging as a murder and investigation. Fortunately, the damage to my own family is at a much lower level than these.
The cases that tear out my heart, are the ones where CYFs has removed children from families and the parents are not even allowed access with their children and the international abductions. When I see that a judge has acted to enable an international abduction, when the abduction was clearly forseeable, then I do start to lose it.
Much suffering occurs in families of men and women who suicide while going through familycaught. Most of this is avoidable, by faithful weighing of evidence and complying with legislation and natural justice. Through all of this, women (mothers and daughters) suffer as much as men.
Funnily enough, my x-wife complains about familycaught, when she got everything she asked for. Surely we do need wise judges.
This certainly does not mean that I quietly accept such damage to my own family, people who know me can see that I am acting to get the familycaught to work competently for all of it’s customers.
If we don’t keep these situations in perspective, then we end up being no better than the “judges” that we are discussing and will never be able to contribute towards making the situation better for our children. If it is changed without care, we could easily make it worse.
I have learned a little in the passing of time, so that now I have more options available, than I had when I first dealt with familycaught. Lets get our teeth into the most serious abuses in the familycaught.
Cheers,
Murray Bacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 2:52 pm
This website has a relatively small readership. Please think through your friends that have been through one of the forms of child abduction and EMAIL to them, the URL to MENZ website or this page. Telephone them, if this is best.
Lets compare familycaught tricks and work out the cases that cry out for prosecution of child abductors and accessories (before and after the fact) such as legal workers.
Lets make NZ safe for children and their family relationships.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 5:47 pm
I rest my case
Shame I did not she this earlier
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 3rd April 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Murray,
Please name ONE NZ Judge that has been relieved of their Judge duties by your proposal in the last 100 years
Your proposal has academic and payback appeal only.
The proposal will teach the **Empire of Injustice** further skills to expand and defend itself.
The way forward in these matters is to recognise a much bigger picture and form law that prosecutes ALL who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES**
Yes ALL from the plunket nurse who makes it difficult for Dad to be involved – to the CYFT’s worker who takes a Child without the full picture – to a WINZ worker that knowingly provides for Mum but not Dad to do **Equal** parent – and perhaps most of all to MP’s who legislate Family destructive law and Social Policy such as CS – Care of Kids – DVA and on it goes
Pretending the problem lies only with Family Court Judges is ignorant of the vastness of our Femi-Fascist-Socialist Govt inflicted FAMILY Troubles.
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 4th April 2007 @ 7:59 am
I apologise to many people who feel that I am acting too slowly, to try to improve familycaught and NZ legislative process. I sure feel this frustration too, but I must also take care of daily life. This is why I am asking for you (every reader) for your help, to repair the familycaught.
It all comes down to respecting our democratic process.
When I have been depressed and thinking about “stop the world, I want to get off”, what has pulled me back has been hope. Sometimes, not very much of it. Some people may be able to see hope, in the issues that I have raised and in some of my suggestions about what we can do. I ask all of you to create hope, it isn’t too hard. It is better than looking at blood dried onto a knife, especially if the blood has some of your genes in it.
I have griped above about apathy among our voting populace, but I have also tried to suggest constructive ways that people can use to work together to make our country better, with least risk of making it worse. I believe that this is offering some hope.
In the end, my actions and inactions are small, it is what tens of thousands of people (voters) choose to do and not do, that will steer our destiny.
Please think about reading through people’s comments again, maybe you have missed a few things?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 4th April 2007 @ 8:57 am
Murray,
I totally agree with Jim B’s last comment.
The problem for men is that the feminist movement has through 30 or so years of spreading disparaging and demonizing propoganda about men created a society that in many ways discriminates and unduly stigmatizes men as the only abusive sex and therefore unworthy of assistance.
Now there’s a considerable amount of gloating that women are doing better than their male counterparts in getting degrees whilst having better health.
In such a climate where valuing men seems harder for modern day women to do than having wisdom teeth extracted sans anaesthetic I make it a point to give women as little as possible, and when I do act with generosit
Comment by Stephen — Wed 4th April 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Sorry about hitting the submit button….to continue…
when I do act with generosity towards women and it’s not acknowledged and reciprocated (this seems to happen regularly) I make a point of withdrawing future support.
This may seem far removed from the topic of child abduction, but I believe not. For every day and in a miriad of ways large and small we men can show as I try to that we won’t tollerate a zeitgeist of female privilege and male disposability which is exemplified by the way so many women alienate kids by taking them geographically beyond the reach of their dads whilst still expecting the father’s financial support with total impunity.
The more I see women acting like spoilt privileged princesses and using men the more I feel determined to counter by withdrawing support for women and giving it to men. In this sense it’s a zero sum game and if women get upset by this too bad. Some will misguidedly characterise this as selfish and unloving. To the contrary I call it tough love for women.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 4th April 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Does not apply in Godzown does it not?
““““““““““““
……………………………….
Onward – Jim
This post is far away from “Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?”.
Please continue the USA & NZ femi-fascism fight & discussion on the Handsonequalparent Warriorwebsite
MurrayBacon
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 4th April 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Murray,
Editing out the Femi-Fascist discussion is proving my point
You and anybody else who proposes solutions without examining as many options as possible is leading somebody atray
I don’t pretend to know more than your good self but it is clear I gather heaps more info before passing comment
The power to edit has gone to your head my friend
Onward – Jim
Further Un-Edited options at; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Wed 4th April 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Great this is all we need a grand shit fight on a public web site . It is little wonder this disjointed army is ineffective stuck in a quadmire of ego’s. Stop fighting each other so we can WORK together towards a solution !!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 9:41 am
If it doesn’t stop I am outter here !!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 9:43 am
Some of the comments were getting personal and off topic, sorry.
JimBWarrior has challenged:
Please name ONE NZ Judge that has been relieved of their Judge duties by your proposal in the last 100 years
Yes ALL from the plunket nurse who makes it difficult for Dad to be involved – to the CYFT’s worker who takes a Child without the full picture – to a WINZ worker that knowingly provides for Mum but not Dad to do **Equal** parent – and perhaps most of all to MP’s who legislate Family destructive law and Social Policy such as CS – Care of Kids – DVA and on it goes
Jim is painfully dead right, NZ judges show little keenness to accept responsibility for their own performance and they restrict public access to their work as much as they can get away with. For example, they are paranoidly scared (Baragwannath 2006) of allowing filming by reporters who don’t work for the large media companies (that the judges know are profit driven and thus the judges can readily restrain them).
Although, on paper!, there are now systems for disciplining judges, the essential issue is that these judges are quietly doing everything that they can, to slip out from allowing the public to measure their performance, let alone them carrying responsibility for their performance. Why pay a salary that assumes responsibility, when little is honoured? A surgeon’s slip can cost a life and a piece of reputation. A familycaught judge’s “slip” is carefully hidden away by their brother/sister judges (see K v C 21FRNZ686 as an example). Priestley, boshier, Hesketh and Beatty show that judicial accountability isn’t managed by the Chief Justice or Minister of Justice. Rather than moan, lets force this accountability onto them, as an action by citizens who care for our children and the world that they are growing into.
We can warrior among ourselves, till the cows come home, but I am suggesting, lets prosecute the most serious cases as private prosecutions.
The highest priority prosecutions, should be the most damaging cases, the judges who enable international abductions and the people who actually follow through and do these abductions. Surely the Skelton/Headley abduction is a long way down the priority list?
The private prosecution is an old English tradition and surely it is our duty as parents to follow through, when we can see that these situations are being neglected by those who are being paid to do this duty.
Even though familycaught judges mislead the public, by allowing profit-media to publicise cases of father abductors, the majority of international abductors are mother abductors. I have previously published NZ’s international Hague statistics, gained through Official Information Act request, if you have a copy, please EMAIL to friends, especially happily married fathers that you know who have young children. If you have a copy of Robin Bowles book Taken In Contempt, which gives about 20 brief examples of international child abductions, please share with your friends, especially happily married fathers with young children. Robin spoke on a Sydney radio station about her book, when it was released, this was how I first learned of the 85% mother / 15% father international abductors situation.
I ask you to forward (privately or publicly) cases to me, so that we can prosecute the most serious child abduction criminals.
I can add to Jim’s list of complaints, when I enrolled my son at a local school, they demanded to see a copy of custody papers. I showed them and he was enrolled. When christine took him back, hauraki primary school did not ask to see custody papers and just enrolled him! If they had, they would have seen that christine was in breach of a consent custody order and thus was visibly a child abductor. hauraki primary school seem to be proud supporters of mother abductors. Schools could ask to see custody papers for all enrolments. As almost all abductors are mothers, especially for within NZ abductions, if they were to ask only one gender of parent, then surely they should be checking carefully on mothers?
Similarly, Child Support provides financial incentives which may be abused through child abduction. In the USA, agencies are instructed to not support or encourage child abduction, by levying child support and paying it to the abducting parent. To do so gives financial strength to the abductor and weakens the efforts of the remaining parent to be able to sort the situation out. (As always, close the door before the horse bolts!)
There is no Federal mandate under title IV-D of the Social Security Act that requires IV-D agencies to enforce child support where a custody dispute exists. The State IV-D agency clearly has discretion not to proceed in providing child support enforcement services in cases of disputed custody, even where there is a State or Federal reciprocity agreement with the country in which the child is located.
In coordination with the Department of State, OCSE is available to provide guidance, information or assistance in any case that a State brings to our attention in which international child abduction is at issue. OCSE is strongly committed to ensuring that State IV-D agencies do not provide child support services in cases in which such services would unduly harm families involved in international child abduction.
Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of America’s children.
I believe that this act dates back to about 1975. Yet when NZ legislated in 1992, the issue of child abduction was apparently ignored, on advice from judges that abductors were mainly mothers escaping from extremely violent fathers. (Please read through K v C 21FRNZ686, to see how this works in practice. If you don’t have a copy, ask among your friends. For law to work well, everyone should have working access to legislation and judgements.)
Even with the NZ Child Support Act ignoring the issue of child abduction, the concept of public policy should make clear to anyone with an interest in child welfare, that child support should not be paid to child abductors. Knowing that this money will be paid, is probably an essential element of being able to go through with the abduction. Without it, the numbers of abductions would surely drop markedly. The NZ CSA is an active supporter of illegal child abduction and should be on the list of agencies that need to be prosecuted and jailed – if we wish to protect our children?
Paul Catton has given some info about his experiences with NZ CSA and how they handle child abduction:
http://familycourtnewzealand.bravehost.com/index.html
Please fire in your experiences with CSA and child abduction.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 10:31 am
Murray,
I think you’re absolutely right.
Judges who collude with law-breakers or are instrumental in the commission of crimes are easy marks for prosecution.
Private prosecution is an open option.
All it takes is the will.
Even if a prosecution ultimately fails, it will have both media attention and a salutary effect on all other judges.
Louise Nicholas lost her case and look where that led to.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Dear Rob,
thank you very much for your support. Apathy never won any kind of useful fight.
Humour? If you have children, you won’t be able to laugh.
We have just passed Saint Patrick’s Day. You may recall the history, Saint Patrick is the Patron Saint for Perjury. This is in honour of the spectacular rise in familycaught legal worker fees and number of familycaught judges, since he assumed the role as Principle FamilyCaught Judge and all sanctions were dropped (laws and rules on the books left unenforced, not desuetude but selective non-enforcement) in familycaught, even for men committing perjury. This was a masterful move on his part and the increased “litigation” has resulted in more jaguars and porsches being sold, than ever before. (Nobody has ever stopped to consider what these same dollars might have achieved in the paramount interests of the families?)
http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/june-july-2001/#Judge
http://menz.org.nz/News%20archive/mahonysssc.pdf
There has been much debate about dubious and partly relevant information being withheld from juries. We have a clean slate law, for hiding old minor convictions. We use retrospective legislation, to legalise government crimes. (Russia – the country where even history is uncertain, now add Soviet NZ to the list.)
We are living in a self-deceived cloud-cuckoo land, if we believe that these types of information-hiding measures and selective ignoring of laws can ever contribute to justice or protecting children.
A mature society weighs all evidence and understands its relevance and weight, not hiding some information and hoping for the best. Rigid Rules of Evidence can never handle the situation where information has both prejudicial value and some essential evidential value. This is why medical and scientific disciplines shoot forward and “caughts” languish behind.
The High Court has expressed concerns for fair trial, about the release of earlier judgements about Skelton. This is saying that the public cannot be trusted with the truth. Are they protecting children, the public, the Skeltons, or the judiciary? I suggest that by protecting the judiciary, they are un-necessarily allowing NZ’s appalling child abduction rate to keep on increasing.
This must be stopped.
Public and Juries need “the truth, the whole truth” – it doesn’t matter if dubious information is included – as long as someone advises on the evidential value ie how it should be weighed. Professionally trained judges would have this skill.
Hiding information just slows down the rate of improvement, disastrously.
Please discuss these issues with friends who might need to know the truth and be interested to protect their relationships with their children, far into the future.
Still, those in the know say that the familycaught really only hurts people who take it seriously. These people can sometimes be sucked in to paying out tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes even more), for a pile of paper that won’t even compost properly.
>
Enjoy the sacred peace of Easter, I hope with all of your family.
If you have funded your Easter, by taking money from families without delivering actual value – please give a thought for family members that will not see each other, due to the money that you have sucked out or the “legal work” that you have done.
Remember this when you look into the eyes of your children.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Murray,
I’ve just been looking through some of the docs at the judiciary’s web-site.
It appears all members of the judiciary enjoy ‘judicial immunity’, meaning private prosecution is probably not an option.
Complaints against judges can be referred to a commissioner, but that’s about it.
I’d appreciate commentary from anyone with legal expertise to further clarify the matter.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Dear Rob,
there are two distinct issues, suit for civil liability, eg claims for damages and prosecution of criminal acts.
Judicial immunity protects judges from liability, when they are carrying out their job, within the law. If it can be shown that child abduction is illegal, then this should not bar action. Civil claims for judicial actions within the law, would be paid by the employer, but then the damages would be zero anyway. This is classical judicial immunity under public policy.
Claims for actions outside the law would be the responsibility of the individual judge.
The traditional view held by judges, is that judges should have complete immunity, for legal acts and for both incompetence and criminal behaviours. This is really stretching the public policy concept of judicial immunity beyond breaking point.
This tenet may be a tradition of convenience for judges, but it is breaking down, as the real professions and judges too, are being made to face up to taking responsibility for their actions and the forseeable consequences. Legal workers are enforcing responsibility onto medical and engineering people and this is eventually coming back to bite them with their own medicine. So it should.
While child abductions are not prosecuted, they could try to claim that their actions in enabling abductions are not illegal? (Deseduate) Another defense for a criminal prosecution, is that the subsequent abduction was not forseeable. I believe that when a handful of cases become publicly known, this defense will be clearly shown to be untenable. Again secrecy seems to be protecting judges, rather than children and their protective relationships.
(The first hurdle is that private prosecution requires approval from Attorney General.)
In practice, there is a thin grey line, called judicial discretion. This thin line seems to wander around and maybe get wider, especially when government or judges are under examination. As you have mentioned earlier, good publicity is very helpful. Generally civil suits allow judges wide discretion, but there is a lot less discretion when prosecuting illegal acts, especially under the Crimes Act.
Happy judge hunting! Remember that you don’t need a license for this hunting and it is in season now.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Totally agree, EGOS at work here.
Comments by dads 4 justice, Not a good look on this site is exact.
Also Murray Bacon comments should be Heard.
JB has done his work, But does Not listen to other comments… For an on going strong men,& womens,Groups Concern for Children of this Nation.
Sad to Say Some Have lost the plot which Harms all Fathers, Mothers, parents Groups who are out there.
These people are more Dangerous, harmful to our future childrens wellbeing than we yet Know.
Maybe Women who dont want to be roped in as extras eg 4th 5th Wives need to be Heard also.
Comment by family first — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Not a good look for Minister of Education is say f..k in our highest court in the land . If I said it in Court I would be remanded in police custody . Double standard stinks and please post if you still want me on this site as I got many more sites that my comments are appreciated and effective .I don’t need any lecture from nobody and I will not remain on a list or group that tries to tell me what to do ! Simple – your call ?
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Murray,
While your heart may be in the right place , your belief that the matrix of Family Law can be changed by “prosecuting child abductors” is fundamentally flawed.
The only way to change the matrix of Family Law is to have representatives in Parliament who will change the law.
The classic example of this is the development of the New Zealand Labour Party and the leadership of Michael Joseph Savage.
No amount of litigation will produce effective Law change. Law change is effected by 121 representatives sitting in Wellington.
Prostitution bill, Lower Drinking Age, Civil Unions ….. where did these law changes occur? Parliament not the courts.
Note this does not mean you should stop what you are purposing, just acknowledge that its not going to change the matrix of Family Law. The only way to change the Matrix is to be in a position to make the law! However such action will create the counter hegemony that is required for the social change needed to support the total change of the legal system required.
Rob – why waste time seeking legal advice when you know the answer? The Judicial complaints commissioner is just another tick in the process box like the PCA and United Futures “cypfs complaints authority”.
Those who are the system will not change it without being dragged kicking and screaming to make the change.
DrP AKA Family First – JB is blunt and does not “tolerate fools gladly” but strip away the dross and look at the core of his message. Jim is promoting equal parental rights and responsibilities as producing the best outcomes for kiwi kids. Or do you hold that the current model produces the best outcomes? (NB Outcomes are quantifiable Interests are ideologically based)
As for Dad4Justice – he is one of thousands who have had their fathering/parenting destroyed by the matrix of Family Law. Like or dislike his comments, they reflect a societal view that the current political regime is focused and supporting oppressive state apparatus is focused on an anti family agenda driven by a flawed ideology.
There is no lack of voice for women and no one prevents them from being heard.
One of the reasons for this website is that men have lost a voice and are not heard.
But you are right that this is about parents and families and not a gender divided issue. Kids need both mum and dad to achieve the best outcomes.
As to who as lost the plot look to those politicians who support silly sues anti parent and child legislation (AKA the anti smacking bill).
The biggest impediment to any change is the failure of modern men to accept leadership to achieve the goal.Instead thay are suckered into the belief that the politicians actually care. Its all been done before and what do we have! Another chat with a judge or a select committee inquiry is designed to divert energy and focus from action that will generate real change. It wont deliver equal parental rights and responsibilities!
Then there are the those turn themselves into leeches on the government tit(The essentially mens boshier speak on Family Violence while getting a fat check for the FC funded work is a prime example of this or academics who value there living over taking action.)
Rugged individualism will not deliver change, unity, accepting leadership and political power will.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Well said scrap it is hard for many alienated dads at holiday times when they are not allowed to love their beautiful children . I speak for thousands of men in this terrible country. Happy Easter and I have faith it will come right for all of us .
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 5th April 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Scrap,
I was asking for legal expertise on the whole matter of bringing a prosecution against a judge. If a judge can be publicly charged, then we have a method for getting directly at political change without the usual time-wasting that goes with it.
Consider the recent police rape business. I don’t know how much organising these women did to effect political change, or whether it was just dumb luck, but it’s clear they got right into the police, and the police are as hard a nut to crack as the FC.
Let’s say they had a plan to broadside the police, and it went something like this:
1) Put together a fairly large portfolio of credible charges to be brought against members of the force.
2) For public media purposes, choose one case from this portfolio for public prosecution. Make sure the defendant has no photogenic qualities, and that a large section of the public will empathise with the plaintiff. Concentrate on publicity – the verdict doesn’t matter.
3) As soon as the defendant is acquitted, roll out another charge from your portfolio and prosecute again. Keep doing this until the general public at large will suspect there’s no smoke without fire.
4) Pass a number of the charges in your portfolio confidentially to a political party before beginning any prosecutions. Politicians generally stock-pile anything they can get their hands on, but don’t use them until a situation arises that they can capitalise on for their own advantage. (Helen Clark’s ratings were being savaged by the Section 59 reaction, and suddenly a report 3 years in the making is ready for release. A report tailor-made to win back all the women voters she had just lost. Call me cynical, but her luck is just too good).
Now I could be reading too much intelligence and motive into what these women have pulled off, but as a method of arousing public sympathy and forcing political change, it worked.
It all started with a prosecution.
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 6th April 2007 @ 12:01 am
Rob,
The inherited system of English Colonial law has always protected judges from prosecution for “bad or unjust” decisions. You already know this.
It has been tried on at least two occasions I am aware of over FC decisions and the High Court has thrown out the prosecution and awarded costs against the litigant.
Judicial Immunity has been the subject of a law commission report . While I have not read all 196 pages I have read a chunk of it and it is clear that they don’t want any chance of judges being open to prosecution.
This is I understand the basis of the
Judicial Matters Bill
The Bill establishes new institutions, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel, sets out processes for the receipt and processing of complaints against Judges, provides for judicial immunity, for the appointments of Judges, and makes changes to the tenures of Family and Youth Court Judges.
Judicial independence from political interference by the executive is protected by the Judicature Act 1908 and the Constitution Act 1986. Most judges are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General. In giving this advice, the Attorney-General takes advice from the Solicitor-General and the Chief Justice or Chief Judge of the court to which the judge is to be appointed. Measures such as permanent tenure, judicial immunity, and the setting of salaries by an independent body all protect judicial independence. There is a general requirement for persons who hear and decide cases to be impartial.
Given all this I can see 0 chance of successfully prosecuting a judge. A point you have already made.
Regards
Scrap
P.S. Aunty Helen is still getting canned in the polls over section 59.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 6th April 2007 @ 8:28 am
I have made compliants about several New Zealand Judges to Judicial Complaints Commissioner ,four select committee’s, Families Commission and various MP’s only to be fobbed off . I guess they’re like our politicans i.e unaccountable for their conduct and wrongful actions . Who says kiwiland is not corrupt – yeah right !!
I might write to the Queen for assistance next I think ?
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 6th April 2007 @ 9:19 am
Dear Scrap,
thanks for your comments. For all of the apparent “warrioring”, we are very much all in agreement. The necessary actions are:
1. share information about effects of abduction with parents of young children, especially their fathers (Copy the DVD about child abduction effects to your friends, get them to read the documents also on the DVD)
2. share information about the numbers and risk of abduction – as above
3. share information about how well familycaught is presently handling this issue – please send to me
4. bring together our collective experience about abduction, to identify the worst judges who actively support cross-town and international abductions
5. start the prosecutions rolling
Criticisers are right, there will be problems, so what, lets get action underway.
I started this post, to persuade people to fight to protect their children from abduction, thus to act against those who enable, profit from and do these abductions, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. There is no need for these abductions to continue, lets stop it now.
Most of the public are blissfully unaware of the reality, until it strikes close to home. The public don’t know about the numbers and details, they are unaware of the degree of damage done and the limits to sorting out, remediating these situations after the event. Sometimes children are killed, in rescue attempts. The children’s trust for later enjoying adult intimate relationships may be damaged or destroyed, possibly forever. If you have information about these topics, please share it with your friends, especially still married folk, as they do need to protect their children (from their partner’s possible actions).
In addition to international abductions, cross town abductions bleed many $millions, mostly down the drain and some into legal workers pockets. This again is almost completely unnecessary, if the caughts worked with competence and integrity. There is an inherent Conflict Of Interest, which is completely unmanaged, as reducing these social costs then results in less money into legal workers pockets. Society MUST manage these COI, as the legal workers certainly CANNOT be trusted to manage it for us! (It sometimes seems that these legal workers are managing the Conflict Of Interest, for their personal benefit and to yours and my cost.)
I do see the political issues alluded to by others and I want these to succeed. But, please remember that while we are talking, just over a child a week leaves NZ illegally with barely 50% chance of ever returning. A hundred children a week are cross-town abducted. The social effects of these minor abductions might seem small compared to international abductions, but they are both serious enough and damaging enough to motivate society to handle them maturely and efficiently. Lets not be blinded by our “sacred cows” and put these situations under intelligent control.
YES, acting on abductions will lead to positive political change. This is valuable, but please don’t delay acting on child abduction, to discuss politics. Discuss politics by all means, just don’t delay acting on child abduction.
Scraps reference to Human Rights Commission website gives claims about protecting human rights by clear good quality legislation. This sounds good on their website, but we do need to look closely at several Acts and try to understand how they were passed, in their present form. The answer is they were not properly discussed and evaluated as they went through the Subcommittee stage, they were rushed through under the control of the party leader. This was a multibillion$ problem
under Muldoon and is near to a million child problem under Labour now. I strongly agree that we must carefully watch the Parliamentary process and check on its quality. I have put out an analysis of Parliamentary debate on the Child Support Act and compared what politicians said and what they did when in power. Searchable Hansard on internet makes it relatively easy and cheap for any of us to do. I hope that some talkers will do the same for Domestic Violence Act, Relationship Property Act and Care of Children Act.
I am working on a similar project, to assess the quality of weighing evidence, quality of communication, quality of personell skill and values, quality of time and cost management in familycaught. While this project is ticking along slowly, I don’t want to delay acting to clamp down on child abduction.
Please act to protect your children. When we are middle aged, we can sit back and relax and think, my children can never be abducted now. Well, your grand children might be, or your child may choose to spill their own blood, rather than follow through processes at the familycaught. Robin Bowles wrote her book about international child abduction “Taken In Contempt”, after she drove her french daughter-in-law to the airport and found out afterwards, that she had unwittingly aided an international child abduction of her own grandchild, to lawless France. She can still see the child, but at illegally high cost and knowing the extent of the pain to her son And all needless, through the dismal quality of the familycaught system.
Please act to protect the people that you love and also people that you don’t even know.
Thanks for your contributions,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 6th April 2007 @ 10:05 am
I guess I need to look at my own EGO in the MIRROR or at least question it. Sorry for being too out there. (especially to Jim) I have weaknesses to work on also.
Received final letter from Human Rights Commission and from the Chief Executive. Also with forms for other contacts and a path to follow.
Very nice thanking letter. They are aware of issues facing boys and men and are making a strategic plan for 2007/08 using the information I have sent to them as a guideline. (probably alongside other info) The information sent was from this site so the posting about all male and boys issues are of value.
From feedback from another major group it is OK for women to step up to the plate as mothers of sons for boys issues BUT it is going to take men to stand up for men’s issues.
Comment by julie — Fri 6th April 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Murray,
I am sure that when it comes to the fundamentals as to what is required (Equal Parental Rights and Responsibilities producing the best outcomes for kiwi kids {EPRAR}) we are 100% in agreement.
The difference lies in your faith that the system can be made to be held accountable and law change achieved by exposing the lack of accountability that will achieve EPRAR. (To sum up very long discussions!)
Parents for Children has persued this path as a trail of law change to address the issue of student debt and child support. (See previous posts)
The lesson that we have learned is that the law change achieved will not be the change required.In fact it will not address the problem!
This was a two year project that has shown that using the system as you propose will not produce the change required even when the courts agree that a grave injustice exists.
The why of this is that it is the officials who control the production/change of the law via a rubber-stamp Parliamentary process. The only ones who can control the officials are the politicians and Peter Dunne will always support the tax man 100%. parliamentarians always support officials as we now have a “muntant” Westminster based system with no accountability or responsibility.
You will likely spend at least 2 years on this project and achieve a law change that does not address any of your concerns.
That leaves finding another way to force change and that way is direct action and putting the matrix of family law on the election agenda.
Good luck Murray and I encourage you to try and achieve what you propose.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Dear Scrap,
my primary objective here, is to reduce the present ever growing international child abduction rate, by warning still married fathers, of the risks that their chidren are exposed to. (This does not involve law change, just people contacting their friends whose children are at risk and passing on information to them.)
Judges do respond to public pressure (despite their frequent claims to the opposite). Knowing that they are being watched and evaluated does put more pressure to NOT trust known dishonest parents, be they male or female. If we can instill an ever present threat of jail, for judges who actively enable and encourage international abductions, then fewer children will have to recover from the effects of abduction and never know their honest parent.
All of the evidence needed for a prosecution, is already lying around in people’s files, whose children have been abducted or whose children were taken out of NZ by a known dishonest parent. If the parent’s involved want such action taken, then they can consider making it available to people with the energy to follow the prosecution through.
As pointed out by Rob Case, even failed attempts at private prosecutions of judges, for enabling international and inside NZ abductions, raises public awareness of the problem, how little is being done by judges to address this social problem and the extent to which judges are enabling international abductions – under the guise – escaping from violent men. This is especially painful, if it later turns out that the father was not especially violent and that due to lack of professional level skill at weighing evidence, a major mistake has been made, that may prove impossible to rectify. Surely, judges cannot keep on using the same tired old excuses, for these mistakes keeping on happening? While we consider judges skills, we should think through all of the skills that a successful judge would need and compare the existing lay judges against this minimum acceptable standard.
Responsibility is the theme that runs through all that I have written in this post, parent’s responsibility, judge’s responsibility.
Successful familycaught judges would reinforce parents who act with integrity and responsibility.
When this is not done, parenting relationships are simply vandalised and legal fees accumulate against families. Is this in the paramount interests of children?
I fully accept your comments about the difficulties involved in obtaining positive political change, but is this a reason to not even try? Someone famous said, “because it was bloody well there”, I suggest this is a better attitude to solving problems, than bemoaning the difficulties.
I suggest that our biggest challenge to obtaining positive political change, is posing a clear alternative sufficiently well documented to show that it is workable. I know that people are working on this now. Your help would be appreciated.
The benefits can only come after well aimed action.
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Greeting All,
I have returned from a couple of wonderful days with my sister and her Family — Spent a few hours with Warren Heap and his family (He is most certainly in recovery) and a few hours with a grand Aunt.
I come home more determined than ever to stand and fight for the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
I was also acutely aware of Javan missing out on this 1/2 of his Family because he is with Mum.
I am sad to find my personal and practicle challenges have had little effect but glad to see others are requiring Murray to check what he is proposing.
Many of those at our family gathering are aware of my Cousin Wayne’s work Sanson/Palmerston North and of course his Parents have now come into the picture
I spent some time explaining this thread **Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?** on Mens issues and how some enjoy various forms of debate.
I shared that I had risked getting personal to expose what I think is wrong thinking on Murray’s behalf and my frustration that many would/are following the idea thru and thus wasting precious time and resources to get on with shaping new law and Social Policy to Prosecute ALL who damage our FAMILIES.
One of my sisters twin girls (18) suggested that **Families in Anguish** (They have heard me use the term many times) often hide in dissonance.
We discussed what that means.
I thought it appropriate to post here what we found on Google
**Cutting down the dissonance: the psychology of gullibility**
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/valhouli.html
Hope it makes a few more think a little deeper than academidic pontificating before they give more amunition to the **Empire of Injustice**
Onward in Coalition — Jim Bailey — JimBWarrior
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Murray please note I have not said do not try and do not work for change.I have also encouraged you to do so.
What I have said is that this method does not produce real change and the history of the fight for reform of the Matrix of Family Law shows this.
Surely it is obvious that well documented and analyzed data and information and solutions has been provided and ignored. It is ignored because it does not fit into the ideology of the current hegemony. (As Antonio Gramsci defines it, “The term hegemony describes the process whereby ideas, structures, and actions come to be seen by the majority of people as wholly natural, preordained, and working for their own good, when in fact they are constructed and transmitted by powerful minority interests to protect the status quo that serves those interest.”)
Take a look at the issue surrounding Paternity testing and resultant Births Deaths and Marriages registration amendment bill 2007.
This has been an extremely well organized and argued debate, which “we” have continuously won. Yet the result is an “expert” report form the Law Commission that supports the status quo ideology and Officials drafting a bill that denies a child the right to be assured that dad is really dad!.
What is needed and what you are doing with your action is the creation of a counter hegemony and be assured that I support such work.
The response to Silly Sues Folly is a counter hegemony and now a family movement promoting parents rights is creating and presenting its own intellectuals( note the term does not refer to academics) and alternative view of what reality is. A view held by at least 4/5th of the population compared to the 1/5 minority that support Sues folly. That support will cost dearly at the ballot box!
If you think I am discouraging you, you are shooting the deliverer of the message at the expense of listening to the message.
Do not give up but break out of your faith that the current system can deliver real change. That does not mean don’t keep fighting to hold the line.
What is needed is a strategic direction that brings about the counter hegemony and the new hegemony that will grow from this.In this we all play a part.
If you have some time read about Montgomery and how he forged the concept of a modern democratic army and his strategic innovations.
Keep up the fight Murray and don’t give up. I hope the question of support is clearly resolved.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Something serious to consider before hammering old ideas to change our current disasters in Family Law and Social Policy
Most current bureaucrats and many Judges have been appointed by the regime that has made it loud and clear that they do not value the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
We know they do their best to block us
If that is so and I think most of you will agree why do we continue to throw our resources at brick walls
We must advance new ideas thru parliament to bring down those walls
Tinkering with any existing system is mearly Sabre Wobbling
I still believe my simple strategy to be the most advantageous put forward so far
1. Bring HandsOnEqualParenting in as the basis of all family related Law and Social Policy
2. Bring law into place that allows ALL to be prosecuted who damage our **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILIES**
3. Bring law into place that blocks all gender bias and causes gender equality in total
Let the tinkering to form rules – laws for FC-CS-WINZ-CYFS be developed from that point.
Onward – Just a Dad, Grand Dad, Grand Uncle – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Dear folks,
I am sorry that I have maybe created a misunderstanding.
I don’t see attempting to prosecute child abductors and their accessories as solving all of the problems in family law, I don’t see it as solving problems of child support.
I have only suggested a small side project, aimed at saving 50 – 200 children a year from international abduction, reduce associated suicides and aimed to reduce the number of within NZ abductions resulting in disputes which put lots of money out of families and into the hands of legal workers.
>
Trying to save these children can be done just by passing around information we have, to people we know who are at risk.
>
Whether we attempt the prosecutions, depends on whether the people who have suffered abductions or near misses wish to support, by providing the evidence.
>
It does happen that many of the reasons abductions are a problem, are similar to the reasons that many other issues in family law are problems, poor quality legislation and poor quality performance of judges. I have not suggested that prosecuting judges will solve the problems with judges skills or improve the quality of legislation already passed. I haven’t directly made any suggestions about improving the skills held by judges, although a problem defined is getting close to a problem solved.
I hope this clarification can reduce the apparent arguments, between people who I see as agreeing!
Thanks again for contributing,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 7:43 pm
This is a simple issue to me.
Would I prefer that Murray succeeds, or doesn’t succeed?
If I thought he had zero chance of carrying this off, why would that matter? I would still prefer that he prove me wrong.
He’s asking assistance from the willing.
The depth of thinking to his argument is evident in his writing. His energy and persistance is obvious.
If he manages to prosecute a judge for flagrantly ignoring, actually encouraging, one of the most serious offences in the law books, I would not like to think that I had tried to dissuade him. Even if he manages to break into the mainstream press and bring attention to this appalling injustice, he has done something hugely worthwhile.
So I say good on ya mate. Knock ’em dead.
Comment by Rob Case — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 8:06 pm
This is a simple matter to me also,
I wish Murray all the best, and victories in bit sized chunks are far more beneficial than no progress at all.
I am aware of a number strategies in progress that do not include ***bothering***, but which are currently making progress and raising public awareness. But because these strategies are not in line with Jim’s personal plan of action, he tends to dismiss them as “wastes of time and resources”, or worse, makes personal attacks on the characters involved.
I don’t gauge success by the number of stories in the media or hits on a website, but rather, how many MPs you can convince to enact law change. I’ve been featured in the media many times and always “positively”, but that’s no indicator of success. In fact my walk to Wellington was so positive that we had the opportunity to increase our support base through the roof, but sadly, the Fathers Coalition had no interest in listening to what the petitioners had to say.
What I am saying is….there is more than one way to bring about law change, and ***Bothering*** as a strategy is a long shot at best, unless numbers match or surpass the Anti-s59 Repeal Bill marches and ***botherers*** are prepared to listen and react to public feedback and also be prepared for later political and legislative aspects of the campaign.
I walked to Wellington, pushing a pushchair and Petitioning for an Inquiry into the Family Court, and late last year colleagues and I submitted written submissions in support. Just last week I went to Wellington to make an oral submission to the Law & Order select committee in support of the petition. But sadly, even though I’m pleased with what’s been achieved so far, and how an inquiry or at least select committee support for systemic changes may be just around the corner, I can’t tell many people about it because I know I will get attacked by the Fathers Coalition because what I am doing is not ***bothering***.
If you don’t believe me Jim, below are comments made by you in a single thread about Murray’s excellent proposal to prosecute judges.
“Instead we start yet another vague but well written wonder/rant and don’t bother with BOTHERING or supporting other initiatives that are well underway by giving them power to negotiate”’
>>>MurrayBacon: Following was repeats of content from thread above,
>>>deleted as personal attack on Jim by holding his own words against him.
>>>
Jim, I am bewildered that you could insert so many negative comments about a well meaning person and his idea in a single thread. “Your” way is not the only way, and others should not only be free to try other avenues, but you should support and encourage them. You refuse to listen to others, you constantly attack those who don’t follow “your” methods, and you are always trying to draw people from good internet forums involving good ideas and healthy debate to your own link over-loaded website, then brag about how many hits you get.
People like Murray, myself and others…..
1-are not the enemy, or traitors as I have been called,
2-we are not pontificating, but clearly some one is…. (Pontificate; – State ones opinions as if they are the only possible correct ones. Collins English Dictionary).
3-discussing ideas on forums before taking action is an excellent strategy,
4-our ideas and efforts are only rubbished by a small minority (the Bradford section of the movement LOL),
5-we have the capacity to “listen”, unlike ……………,
6-we are not driven by Ego as you often imply,
7-I was at both the Fielding and Wellington marches……where you?
8-others deserve a degree of respect for the work they are doing and the sacrifices they are making.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, now stand back and let others get on with their cat skinning.
Comment by xsryder — Sat 7th April 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Happy Easter to all back in NZ.
Nice post Mr Bacon, Swedish connection gave a chuckle.
For Scrap, Family Court and IRD are in a slight dilemna with regard to the oustanding child support I owe being all of $274.
The amount outstanding is payment required after abduction to Sweden.
It has been temporarily stayed by a suspension order with a “live” application for a departure order.
The twist, all other matters before the family court have been resolved amicably,and the Child Support issues should have been finalised at the same time.
It wasn’t and Family Court with IRD are scratching heads, Counsel to assist the Court has been appointed to find a way forward.
The way forward that I am plugging and which is under consideration by the family court, if counsel finds they have the jurisdiction, is transfer to the High Court for an evolution of law pertaining to fairness and natural justice through a Judgementary Declaration in respect of liability when abduction takes place.
If it doesn’t work, Wayne start walking to Dunnes, Taxi there for you isn’t it, Scrap? and Jim and I will come down in the war wagon, a bothering we will go!!!!
In all seriousness, Jim is right in the solution, but, Wayne is also right and Ben is also right and a great many others.
All of us have the solutions, regrettably the beast is thick skinned and deaf, it may die by a single blow but again it may be felled by a thousand cuts.
From Thailand
Paul and Opal signing out
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 8th April 2007 @ 2:05 am
Thanks for your encouragement Paul and Opal.
I apologise for cutting out some personal comments above. These discussions don’t need to go through this discussion thread. To be successful communication, these side discussions need to be two way and direct, ie in person.
Readers, please comment on the priority order that I suggested for prosecution of child abductors, how do you see it?
Are you happy with the present way that familycaught/police prosecute child abductors (if you are then there is no need for private prosecutions)?
Should we organise a march to request familycaught to enforce laws against all child abduction, that is on all cases, not just selectively prosecuting occassional cases that make it into the media?
Do you see judge’s present training and experience as acceptable?
Do you believe that familycaught works in an acceptable time frame, or should they get onto cases much more quickly?
What would you add to warning still married fathers of the risk that their children face of abduction?
What other actions can we take, to protect these children?
What other actions can we take, to ensure that the familycaught gives a good quality, cost effective, timely service?
Best regards,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 8th April 2007 @ 9:25 am
Wayne,
You are shooting the person who delivers the message and not listening to the message.Yes he is blunt, but thats the real world.
What Jim is telling you is that a Select Committee Inquiry will do tidily squat to deliver any real change (EPRAR).
What will happen is that the officials will get what they want and anytime a complaint is raised against the Matrix of Family law the stock standard answer will be “thats being reviewed by the select committee.”
It will dampen the discussion in election year and keep the grave injustices out of the election debate. Yet again.
Being honest about the likely outcomes does not mean that people do not support your action and do not assist you!
Eating The Chocolate Elephant [Youngblood,Micrografx:1994),the basis of your small bite approach, is not as simple as taking small bites, it is a TOTAL process management and re- engineering approach to “business improvement”.
It is built on benchmarking (Previous performance) and quantification of current performance. Its built on the philosophy of a guy called Demming and supported statistically by the work of Shewart.
The success of small bites is executive level support for change based on the voice of the process and listening to that voice.Listening to the process is solely for the purpose of identifying and removing or mitigating special cause variation.
In social change it is easy to mitigate opposition by using the “democratic process” and supporting apparatus to prevent social upheaval. Select committee inquires are a classic example of this.
How is this known? Because those who have been doing this for a long time have tried and quantified what the results deliver.
When someone comes along and says look I am going to change the face of the Matrix we share the lessons learned and they are discounted as : “you didn’t do it right, you weren’t professionals who understand the system, the time wasn’t right…..
So we have to let others come to the same conclusions and then face the reality that real change (EPRA) is only achievable by political power. Sue Braford, who you compare Jim to is actually achieving the change that years of lobbying could never achieve.
Support is a two way affair. Supporting someone does not mean that you cannot say that the outcome will not be what they want and the approach taken will fail. It would be a serious omission not to tell the truth up front! Sadly when one is honest its taken as criticism.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 8th April 2007 @ 10:39 am
Sorry about being repetitive, Scrap I do see what you are saying and I am not disagreeing. I am NOT trying to address the wider issues here, just to direct the right amount of effort towards protecting a vulnerable group of children, from a harsh and somewhat damaging upbringing, by a parent who wants to exclude the other parent and their family. This is my response, horror, to what seems like the people being paid to do it not actually protecting these children and denying in public that the issue is even serious, while they contendedly bank the proceeds.
The amount of effort I am suggesting need not take much away from the political front, that you are discussing. In fact, it might actually give some public impetus. Please see my comment 54 above.
On the political front, positive solutions need to be reasonably acceptable to a very wide section of our society. Put in a different way, they must respect a wide range of viewpoints. Solutions that don’t meet this standard, should never fly through the political process, as you have said. (This comment opens a can of worms, I know!) A big problem to solving these issues, is that many (most?) of the sections of people we are talking about, don’t have a good understanding of other people’s situations. This makes it extremely hard to start a productive discussion, let alone create a working consensus.
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 8th April 2007 @ 10:59 am
Murray,
Was actually replying to Wayne in my last comment 🙂
As to a pluralistic approach to politics , it no longer exists. That is the reality of the current system. What we have in our country is the tyranny of the few, supported by the oppressive State apparatus.
The politicians, officials etc do have a good understanding of the issues involved, but they have an ideology and a “democratic process” that ignores the issues because the process enables them to do so.
That aside for you to succeed in your goal you need to first identify the problem.
What is the root cause/s of the problem ?
There are a number of techniques that can be applied to identify root cause.
Have a look at http://www.couriouscat.com and consider the following tools.
1)Fish Bone Diagram
2)Interrelationship diagram
3)Pareto analysis.
4)Five Whys
These are summarized in the US Coastguard guides (easy read and idiot proof)in particular the Process Improvement Notebook
Part of the problem identification is to clearly map the process under investigation and be clear what outputs the process and interlocks (sub-processes) can deliver.
Remember the legal system that supports and condones these abductions is process driven and the outcomes can easily be measured.
You will find that this stage will take the longest time but definition and quantification of the problem accurately is the only way to identify root cause. This is not easy in complex interrelated systems!
Once the problem is identified you can show, via quantification if any improvement applied to the process is working.
This all fits into the PDCA Demming cycle. Once again curious cat has easy to understand literature outlining the continuous improvement cycle.
This is essentially the model that the governments policy analysts use but they don’t really have the statistical process control statistical skills to quantify the improvement gain and never complete the check/act phase of the cycle.
This then needs to be presented in the correct style for politicians and be robust enough to take the negative impact from their policy experts who don’t like the thought that mere upstart parents know better than them and there Master Public Policy tutors.
At the same time you need to be lobbying anyone who shows an interest and couching the issues and solution in your terms.
For example call it Court Sanctioned Child Abduction they will call it Hague Convention removals. Similar to MPS talking about beatings and thrashings in the silly sue debate and labeling it children’s rights cf to anti smacking and parental rights.
You need someone to manage the media its an art form and you need to listen to them. There is a good man for that in Wellington who will if nicely asked and actually listened to be a great help in promoting your campgain. (off list email)
Essentially you need a project manager, a project plan, risk and impact assessments and a competent team to implement the plan. Its not by committee its by leadership, teams wont always agree but they will work the plan and plan the work and disagreement will be internal. You must trust your team.
Hope thats some help in giving you guidance on a path forward.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 8th April 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Dear Scrap,
I thank you for the references, I will look them up. I also agree about the methods of investigation into the root causes, that you have listed.
In the mean time, I have suggested quite simple, low tech actions that most of us can easily take, that would allow parents (mainly fathers) to become realisticly aware and to protect their children from the hazards of abduction.
Any member of the public, reading or listening to profit-media, can obtain the impression that strangers and fathers are the largest abductor hazards. This simply is not true and as a result of this misinformation, most fathers are not protecting their children. familycaught judges know the truth, but they are “strangely” silent. Is this because the status quo is so profitable, that they don’t want to kill the golden goose?
Rather than just complain, I am asking each reader to:
1. think through your family, friends and workmates, separated and still married
2. which of them might be at risk of having their children abducted, if they were to separate? Essentially all?
3. pass on to the father and mother, NZ abduction Hague statistics, showing abductions and non-returns.
4. pass on Robin Bowles “Taken In Contempt”, so that they can have a glimpse of the consequences of child abduction
5. make a copy of the DVD about the consequences of child abduction and pass it on to the parents, so that they can see the results of being casual about protecting their children. (If you don’t already have a copy, talk to me.)
6. should married couples consent to non-removal orders, while still happily married? I suggest YES! I know it is unpleasant to face, but better safe than sorry.
7. Do you know people victimised by child abduction? Let them know about this campaign, to clamp down on abduction, so that they can consider if they wish to help.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon. [email protected] phone 09 – 638 7275
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 8th April 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Scrap,
Thanks for your response to my comment, and thanks for being polite.
As I see it, there is currently no viable vehicle for forcing complete systemic change in one go (save for civil war) or even driving home a message to the government that encapsulates the “complete” picture of current injustices metered out by family Law. Yet as I said, there are a number of projects being driven by individuals and small groups. Maybe you’re right in that an Inquiry won’t achieve anything, but I looked into the eyes of select committee members when I explained our current suicide rate and that this is what triggered Howard’s government to take action. I believe I left them with the right impression.
Unless there is the development of unity and an overall strategy between the various interested parties, individuals and small groups working away at bite sized chunks is all we have.
The reason I walked to Wellington; I was involved in some early Fathers Coalition protests, but after reflecting on my personal involvement and discussing the strategy with many other people, I came to the conclusion that we needed to conduct ourselves in a way that drew more support from the wider community. That is exactly what I achieved with my walk and petition. The make up of petition signatories was very similar to those who marched against Bradford’s bill. That is the sort of support required, but the Fathers Coalition has so far been unable to draw them out when required. I was given lots of advice by the public on how to achieve this, but that advice was “lost in translation”, shall we say.
I have even stressed many times that a better strategy might be a campaign to unite all the mens, fathers, parents and associated groups throughout NZ, in time for the next elections, and perhaps allocating two national conference dates, one just prior to the elections. No surprise….that suggestion got shot down too.
Telling individuals not to attempt to bring about change issue by issue (and attacking them for doing so), would be like telling the Chinese not to invent the abacus, the Germans not to invent gear-driven calculators and Bill Gates not to write DOS based software until we have computers with 3GH processors, 2GB memory and fibre-optic connectivity.
We need to do what we can with what we’ve got, and the Father’s Coalition do not have a holding stake or monopoly on strategies to bring about positive change for families.
Comment by xsryder — Mon 9th April 2007 @ 1:04 am
Editing out what one does not want in any discussion will keep progress in that discussion confined to the limitations of the editor, the gullible and those who hope he/she is right.
Now that we have several defending the orginal subject line it is clear why we make no progress.
An excellent writter looked into the eyes of a select committee and read them like knowbody who has gone before and the gullible listen
An excellent writter refuses to go beyond the shores of his personal experience and the gullible listen
An excellent writter knows what the man/woman in the street thinks and values it above what the many have gone before and the gullible listen
An excellent writter tells the gullible that the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** does not listen yet has know idea who or what that coalition is?
Sad really
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Mon 9th April 2007 @ 2:42 am
Wayne,
I sincerely hope that your submission does engender change, which is why I contributed input to it. My concern is that the change will be controlled by the officials as was the case in Australia.
I too have looked into the eyes of select committee members and even had agreement from them that the situation is unjust and appalling.
I have DVD where Sue Braford and Muriel Newman openly admit that they agreed the situation was unjust but the officials stifled there attempts to change the law on Child Support assessments and student debt repayments crippling parents.
Your vision of a united front of parents seeking reform is very much one I hold dear and one that I strive for.
Contact me off-blog and lets talk about your ideas.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 9th April 2007 @ 8:28 am
The discussion above has ranged over the wider issues, which really are outside of the limited scope I was initially addressing, quickly improving the protection from abduction that we give our children.
Extracts from “Taken in Contempt”, by Robin Bowles:
This book is dedicated to my grandson,
who is growing up in France,
and to his father,
who has joined him in exile.
Thanks especially to my first-born and much-loved son, not really called Alex, who agreed to let me tell some of our own story; and my husband Clive, who helped me through the worst of the pain with his strength, support and encouragement. He never wavers.
>
THIS is a book that needed to be written. International child abduction is a problem that bedevils family courts throughout the world. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction is an attempt to address the problem. It is far from perfect but it is better than the anarchy that prevails in relation to abductions from non-Convention countries.
This book recognises this and also graphically describes the system of private abductions and counter abductions that occur where the Hague law does not apply or is not applied effectively.
All abductions have a detrimental effect upon children but this system of private ‘justice’ has the potential to do great harm.
The Family Court of Australia maintains a 24-hour service that is primarily directed at the prevention of child abduction. Similarly the Australian Federal Police pay particular attention to this problem.
As the book recognises, the Attorney General’s Department in Canberra also has dedicated people working to assist parents to recover children that have been abducted either to or from Australia.
However, Courts, judges, police and public servants are not perfect and some of the people in this book are quoted as being highly critical of all of these groups, including some judges of the Family Court of Australia. Their criticisms may or may not be correct. It very much depends upon the perspective, and the perspective of people involved in bitter family law disputes is often not very objective. While I do not necessarily agree with all that is said in the book and in particular the criticisms expressed of my Court,
it is not immune from criticism and I consider that the author has done the public a service in directing attention to the harrowing and difficult problems associated with international child abduction.
The Honourable Alastair Nicholson, AO RFD
Chief Justice
Family Court of Australia
DURING my research for this book, I have been inspired by a number of ordinary people describing extraordinary events. These people, who were strangers to me, have volunteered to tell of their most personal feelings, to alert, to educate, to entreat, to share the agony of losing their children through abduction by a partner they trusted. Some of their stories have happy endings, but not many. Many spoke to me through tears and bitten lips. Sometimes they have been angry instead – or as well. All are different, but it seemed everyone had a common goal in agreeing to speak to me. All of them said, `I want to contribute to your book. I want to warn parents this can happen to you.‘
On 11 March 1999 it happened to my son Alex.
I wasn’t shocked when he first phoned me, as I knew his wife had gone. That morning, while Alex was at work, I had willingly driven Catherine and their eighteen-month-old son to the airport, knowing that Catherine’s father was dying and believing my son had agreed that she should go to her father’s bedside. But once he read me the note she’d left, I realised this was a different situation altogether. My pain and grief were compounded by my guilt at having participated. Trust is so easily abused. Suddenly we had become statistics. My son had become a ‘left-behind’ parent, and
our family had changed for ever.
These abductions plunge the left-behind parent into an abyss of shock, despair and bewilderment. The emotional trauma is sharpened by the prospect of having to contend with an unfamiliar political and legal system, usually with no knowledge of the law or international niceties. Just identifying sources of help can be difficult.
Emotional, financial and personal resources are often stretched to the limit.
During the first shocking days or weeks, left-behind parents discover that they must do all of the running, as possession is nineteenths of the law. They also struggle with the realisation that (as often happens) the abducting parent could be telling their children all sorts of untruths about why they left. They imagine the abductor saying the left-behind parent is dead, or didn’t want to come along,
I hope the stories of the people who have taken part in this book will help in some small way to raise awareness about this injustice being perpetrated on children all over the world. These are not children from Third World countries. They are the children of our neighbours, our friends – even our families. The stories I’ve heard represent immeasurable heartbreak.
Lady Meyer knows of one US father and one French grandfather who committed suicide because they could no longer cope with the injustice and the unrelenting pressure. As Logan Clarke says, `It is a wicked crime.’
And what of the effects on the children? When the abducting parent sets out to turn the child against the other parent, the resulting inner conflict can be devastating for the child. As Lady Meyer describes it:
A common thread in all too many cases is the sustained, vengeful effort of the abductor to deprive the other parent of contact with the child to the maximum degree possible. The aim in fleeing one judicial system to another is to permanently reverse previous custody decisions and destroy the other parent’s relationship with the child.
When parents abduct children, they are obviously not going to speak well of the other parent, saying that he/she still loves them and wants to see them. On the contrary, the children are told that their other parent is a bad mother or father, who has abandoned them and could see them at any time if only he or she wanted to.
>
>
On 26th of October 2005 I, Murray Bacon, sat at the back of a caughtroon at Manukau District Court, with judge adams and legal workers gray cameron and simon jefferson discussing whether to send a Declaration to Sweden, saying that a boy aged 5 and a girl aged 11 had been illegally removed from NZ.
I expected 5 or maybe 10 minutes of discussion, as the issues at a family level were simple, clear, unambiguous and obvious.
Over 2 and a half hours went by, as these people discussed the removal from NZ, which preceded the passing of the Care of Children 2004 Act, the possibility that the Swedish Government and Courts might not act on this letter and therefore possibly it should not be sent.
How could this discussion go on for so long? The issues were being discussed as if this was the first ever Hague application to leave NZ. I knew that this was not true, as NZ has averaged about 50 applications per year, so through several years there had been several hundred similar applications.
Several months later, I heard that the Swedish Appeal Court had ordered that the son be returned under police escort, but that the daughter was near enough to 12 years, that she could decide to stay in Sweden.
Thus the time delay waiting for the “hearing” in Manukau, plus the delays for the judgement to be released and the letter finally be sent, had allowed the mother-abductor to keep the daughter in Sweden, despite the Hague Convention.
http://familycourtnewzealand.bravehost.com/abduction.html
It felt to me that the issue was being stretched out, to justify larger bills. I’m told this hearing cost the NZ and Swedish Governments close to $20,000, apparently only for disadvantage to these children.
As a citizen, I cannot be silent, about what looked to me to be featherbedding to provide financial support to legal workers, at serious cost to the quality of care for children.
Familycaught judges decry child abduction in public, but under cover of secrecy, their actual behaviour is largely one of encouragement, enabling and support. Parents and grandparents must defend their children, despite the familycaught.
If we want to contribute to reducing NZ’s appalling rate of illegal child abductions, we must act at a personal level (despite the familycaught) to warn parents to protect their children from this scourge.
We should also put pressure onto the legal workers, to perform their jobs with due skill and integrity. If they are unable to provide a competent, skilled, cost effective service, then taxpayers SHOULD be protected from paying them!????
The Conflicts Of Interest that occur in the “legal” process are not being managed by the present “Chief Justice” and the present “Principal familycaught judge”, thus the management of these conflicts of interest must be performed from outside of the legal workers community, by people with the skill and integrity to do this. This is not difficult to do and is essential, if we want the familycaught to ACT!!! against child abduction. Concepts of quality control and performance auditing, have been used successfully in competitive industries for half a century (as described by Scrap above). If we want acceptable performance from caughts, then these management tools must be used in the management of the caughts. Although there is some knowledge of these techniques among legal workers, management of the caughts have been careful to never apply them for the advantage of the NZ citizens or the protection of the most vulnerable of NZ’s citizens. Our caughts will only move forward under their own initiative, when access to judges is by well informed customer choice, influenced by cost, on a competitive basis.
Lets do it for all of our children. I am making a call for action, not for more talk. Please just do it!
Best regards,
Murray Bacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 9th April 2007 @ 11:57 am
Murray,
Awesome that you raise this issue in a public forum like this.
I think Hans L has exposed what I perceive as the major issue with the “Men’s movement” in New Zealand (and, for all I know, the balance of the world).
This is the internal bickering and cheap shots at other Men who push a slightly different barrow to mine.
Your belief that the people we really need to be talking to are the ones who do not post here: the general public who have no experience of our judicial “system” and the various government agencies which support their efforts to de-Parent Families.
I must admit, when I saw the sheer volume of comments, I was in two minds as to whether to continue and then Rob C said that you are looking for people who are WILLING to assist in some way.
So, without prejudice, I willing to offer my assistance [in the form of my time] to get the message out to John and Jane Public.
Stay healthy and happy,
Mark Shipman
Comment by Mark Shipman — Wed 11th April 2007 @ 10:30 am
Thanks Mark, for your offer of support. Please pass on “Taken In Contempt”, to people whose children may be at risk, also the NZ Hague abduction statistics and K v C 21FRNZ686.
I have been contacted by a father with two young children taken out of NZ and we will be meeting in the next few days. I hope that the action is now underway.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 11th April 2007 @ 10:49 am
Subject: NZ – Kiwisfirst.com – Challenges NZ-Judiciary
Good one Vince
Go http://www.kiwisfirst.com
Onward in Coalition — Jim Bailey — JimBWarrior
Founder – http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
And – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News
Opt-In -/- Opt Out -/- OPTION – (LINK)
Get serious or get out
or Go http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/44279.html
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sun 15th April 2007 @ 6:42 am
This thread was started, when it looked as though Kay Skelton would never be held accountable for her role in abducting her son away from his father. Since then, a highcaught date was set 11/11/2007 – and drifted into ancient history with no action!!??
>
It has since become obvious that Kay Skelton has previously been an international abductor. If she had been required to face the consequences set out in NZ legislation, then I am sure that Jayden would have been spared the second abduction that entertained us on the TV News. Thus, the familycaught leniency, refusal to follow NZ law, resulted in Jaydon suffering the second, long drawn out abduction.
Thus, the familycaught’s leniency and refusal to follow the law, has had real and fairly serious consequences for Jayden.
It has no doubt also played a significant part in persuading other mothers that they can get away with abduction and even if court, they would never have to face any consequences at all.
Thus the child abduction rate is increasing, due to the public knowledge of the judge’s refusal to allow prosecutions of these women abductors.
The Police put a lot of effort into running to ground, father abductors that intended to deprive the mother of access for a few days.
It appears that they take no action, or negligible action, to protect children from mother international abductors, that intended to deprive the child of it’s father – forever!
The typical father within-NZ abduction costs about $10,000.
The typical mother international abductor costs NZ Government $250,000 to $500,000.
Work out for yourself, who the police really should be chasing.
However, if the police know that the familycaught judges will just “spring” the woman abductor, then the situation degrades to chaos, for our children.
These child abductions put many many $millions each year into the pockets of judges and legal workers, for no value to children or parents at all. Taxpayers should protect themselves from being bled like this, for no value – just for increasing the abduction hazard faced by their own children.
It is cheaper to prosecute a few cases and reduce the number of abductions that “happen” to our children. Its certainly better for the children, to really deter child abductions, by mothers or fathers.
Are these amateur (lacking professional level training to be a judge) judges just dipsticks ?
European judges have basic lawyer training and go on to judicial training for a further 2 years. They CANNOT enter judicial training, if they have more than one years experience working as a legal worker.
Think it through – why would European Governments place such a requirement? What do we lose, by appointing judges with say 5 to 15 years experience working as a legal worker (and no training relevant to working as a judge) ?
>
Half a year has drifted by, without Kay Skelton’s prosecution proceeding!
If anyone has any knowledge of why Kay Skelton hasn’t seen the inside of the dock, please inform readers?
Maybe there is a good and legally acceptable reason?
At present, it just looks like one law for women and one law for men. I am not talking about the written laws, they have no effect in NZ, it is what really happens inside familycaughts that actually affects children and their relationships.
This contempt for NZ legislation doesn’t protect children.
Why throw the police at the 15% of abductors and help the 85% of abductors who are more dangerous to children’s upbringing?
If this is true, then men need to know the truth and make alternative plans.
>
Does this sound familiar with the familycaught’s role in protecting children’s relationships with their fathers in general?
>
The issues about whether father’s relationships with their children should receive similar protection, to mother’s relationships with their children is rather polarising, unfortunately.
>
As I see it, good parents are willing to share their children, actually WANT to share the children with the other parent.
Lets be careful to distinguish between MOST mothers who DO respect children’s relationships with their fathers and the small minority of mothers who vandalise their child’s relationships. (Relationships with fathers and with their father’s wider family too.)
Thus I am sure that the majority of mothers do not have much sympathy with insecure hazardous mothers, who would try to vandalise their children’s relationship with the father. (I mainly see the familycaught as hapless relationship vandals, as they furtively act in secret to protect these mothers from facing the consequences for their actions. In doing so – they are sacrificing the children, to their greed for money.)
>
When it comes to listening to evidence presented in familycaught:
There are none so blind, as will not see!
?
Jim Bagnall and I tried to hammer these issues on Youtube, in time to invite parent’s to protest outside Kay Skelton’s trial (that never happened):
>
Lets prosecute child abductors3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4QTwtiymA
>
>
Fathers anguish over abduction3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GKsrqiMnrk
>
>
Reading the Australian Family Law Act 1975 brought home to me how far NZ is behind Australia. Our familycaught opened for trade in 1980, alreadt 25 years behind. They can’t even copy.
With every new innovation by the NZ familycaught, we seem to fall even further behind! We would do far better to just copy Australian legislation, it would be much safer for our children too.
>
It’s time that all NZ men, act to protect their children and make Family Law an important erection issue….
>
Don’t Vote – it only encourages them!
>
Apathy Rules OK, said the sheep, just before it’s throat was cut and it was fleeced.
>
Please don’t drift, until you find out your own children are gone….
>
Removal of children from the marital home, without the informed consent of the other parent, should be illegal, if done by either parent. This is where the familycaught winds up the stress and breaks down trust between parents (and creates its asset stripping opportunities for personal profit).
>
Honest negotiation was never started by unilaterally removing children, to get the familycaught fait accomplii advantage!
>
Best regards,
Murray Bacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 16th March 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Judge Boshier has given a speech about the future of the familycaught at Victoria University Wellington.
Judge boshier does touch onto many real issues.
However, as a person who has seen familycaught in action on about 10 occasions, his conclusions and claims are off this planet and lost in the smoky unreality of self delusion and/or hallucinogenic drugs.
This may not be so obvious to people who have not heard one of these familycaughts in action, or listened carefully to people who have been through it. Even now, I still at times have difficulty believing stories that people tell me, about what has gone on in some familycaught!
No wonder the public often refuse to listen to their friends or family who have been extruded through familycaught. One day we must all wake up.
Before you read his speech, please note that the familycaught has always had several methods to enforce its orders and to prosecute or admonish those who flagrantly breach its orders.
Thus the problem about enforcing familycaught orders has always been in the sheepbrains of the judges. Even worse than the lack of enforcement of orders, has been the lack of understanding inside the judges – of the real world consequences that obviously will flow on from the familycaught refusing almost completely to enforce it’s own orders.
As a consequence of knowing that their orders wouldn’t be enforced, judges have got into the lazy habit of not producing judgements of good enough quality – that they COULD be enforced. (In any case, if the judges often get the facts wrong, how could the resulting judgement hope to have any value for anything?)
Whilst Judge Boshier likes to draw attention that orders were enforced onto Kay Skelton, he is ignoring the even more important issue of HOW LONG it took, before the familycaught started enforcing its orders for the protection of the boy. I suggest that by spinning only part of the story, judge boshier is disastrously demeaning the credibility of every judge in NZ.
The most important questions are:
How much harm has been done, in the wait for enforcement?
What remedial actions are being taken, to ameliorate the damage caused by this long wait for competent judgement?
Who is paying for the remedial actions?
(the people who caused the delay in judicial competence or someone else?)
I suspect that much of the required remedial actions are not in fact taking place at all?
Even now, Kay Skelton’s announced prosecution for within-NZ child abduction has never taken place.
More importantly, she was never even charged with her earlier international abduction!
Reality is a crutch for people who cannot handle drugs?
We need familycaught judges, who have wisdom that is respected in the real world, rather than the smoky hallucinatory self-referential self-congratulatory rooms of the familycaught.
I am not saying judge boshier is the worst judge, on the contrary I believe that he is the best familycaught judge (since Judge Inglis and Judge Trapski retired years ago).
His heart is sort of in the right place, but when he twists himself to protect other judges from public accountability for their actions, then boshier is at his very worst.
I suspect that judge boshier’s strange and dangerous to himself behaviour results from the lack of statutory levers that he has, to try to manage his group of judges. He just doesn’t have the tools to do his job.
This was previously demonstrated by Judge Trapski more than a generation ago. Without any improvements in the law, judge boshier still accepted the job. He should have known what he was letting himself in for.
Boshier seems to be learning the epithet:
Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
And he is certainly getting repetitive lately!
In the fullness of time, maybe he can get a job in the reruns of Alice in Wonderland, if there are no problems with proteinous plaques on the brain.
I find judge boshier’s claims so misleading, that I believe they are deceptive, manipulative, black lies rather than “white lies”. The public are increasingly being shown the truth about the familycaught. It seems they are reacting to the revelations, as they slip out, very slowly.
It is also a question of alternatives. While the familycaught can force both parties to take part, through threats, extortion and coercion, it only takes one party to force honest people to deal with familycaught.
This monopolistic power should only be given by the Government, to people who honour the trust placed in them and who have the integrity and stomach to be publicly accountable. Judge boshier is showing that the familycaught lacks these attributes, in spades.
Perhaps we should be looking carefully at options for Court systems, where the judges DO NOT have monopolistic power, where they compete for work on the basis of well informed public opinion, their charges for service and quality of service. The less successful ones could then freely choose between starvation to death or begging.
When judge boshier can discuss in the same sentence enforcement of orders and judges clothing, his world is that of clowns, not gowns.
There is a need for a working familycaught system, based on honest negotiation and competent enforcement, not on extortion in the best interests of legal workers.
Most people feel that respect is earned through showing wisdom and integrity, not demanded through wearing irrelevant strange clothing and threats of financial extortion.
The problems with the familycaught are in the heads of the existing judges.
The problems can only be safely repaired through complete replacement of these “judges” by people with relevant professional level training to be appointed as judges.
This would not be expensive, it would save a lot of money for the Government.
Do it once and do it right.
If I have made any mistakes above, please draw my attention to them and I will be pleased to make a humiliating public correction. ph 09 638 7275
>
>
>
Dominion Post
Wednesday, 23 April 2008200804230500
Judges ready to jail parents
The Family Court is getting tough, planning to crack down on people who
breach protection and parenting orders, its top judge says.
The move follows concerns the court has become so informal that people no
longer fear the consequences of breaking the law.
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier unveiled yesterday a series of
changes to formalise court proceedings – and indicated he was prepared to
jail parents who did not respect the law.
Judge Boshier has asked the Justice Ministry to investigate having police
prosecute people who breach parenting or protection orders to help drive
home the message that legally enforceable court orders must be obeyed.
“I think if people understand that breaching court orders results in
interaction with police they might think it is very undesirable,” Judge
Boshier told The Dominion Post.
“One of the complaints that’s made by users of the Family Court is that
sometimes there’s no proper consequences if a person breaches an order, so
they wonder what the point of coming to court is.
“I think it’s legitimate that people, by the time they get to the court
order, should expect it will be implemented – no ifs and no buts.”
To formalise Family Court proceedings, judges would resume wearing robes,
courts would be made bigger and lawyers would have to stand to address
judges.
In a speech to a public law seminar earlier yesterday, Judge Boshier said he
also wanted better courtroom security, because he “drew breath” every time
someone opened a briefcase in court.
He indicated that he would not hesitate to jail parents if they broke the
law during custody disputes.
Kay Skelton was jailed for 13 weeks for contempt of court after refusing to
divulge what she knew about her six-year-old son’s whereabouts. Jayden
Headley was snatched from a Hamilton library in August 2006 before being
returned to his father in January last year.
“I guess … she got the message,” Judge Boshier said in his speech. “We’re
trying to say to people: `This is a court where you are entitled to expect
consequences and you’ll get them.’
“I think there’s the risk that we’ve been so informal it’s led to a
misunderstanding of consequences.”
The Family Court deals with 66,000 new applications each year, covering
cases such as custody disputes, protection orders and mental health orders.
But it has come under fire from aggrieved fathers, who picketed judges’
homes in 2006, claiming the court was biased toward mothers and cloaked in
secrecy.
Judge Boshier said yesterday that the court had taken “a battering”.
Fundamental changes had been required to make it more credible and
efficient.
The Family Court Matters Bill, now before a select committee, would allow
more media scrutiny of cases, promoting openness.
There were also moves to reduce delays and promote more efficient justice
for Family Court users, though tensions remained around granting protection
orders based only on allegations without all the facts. “The court cannot
guarantee to always get it right,” Judge Boshier said.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 1st May 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Almost a year has gone by, since a High Caught trial date was set for Kay Skelton, regarding her 6 month abduction of her son Jayden.
The date has gone by, with no public explanation of why she has not been prosecuted.
Even more glaring, is why prosecute her for a 6 month within NZ abduction, when she has never been brought to charge, for her previous international abduction??
In the 12 months that have drifted by (with these ineffective judges still being paid despite their failure to perform), the judgements that Judge Boshier posted on the familycaught website, have been quietly scuttled, as if they had never been posted!!!! Even Google cache has forgotten about them. They are still around in the real true world, so if you would like to know the truth, about how well the familycaught protects NZ children from abduction, seek and yee shall find.
Historians used to say “Russia – the country where even history is uncertain!”
well – we alas can add soviet NZ to the list….
This failure of the police to bring prosecutions of women abductors may be largely due to the lack of stomach of the familycaught “judges” to allow these prosecutions to proceed to conclusion.
All the while that the familycaught sits on its hands, more children are being internationally abducted, at an increasing rate. The refusal to prosecute is feeding these international abductions, so that they are increasing at over 15% per year, more than a child per week. The concept of deterrence, to protect our children, is being scuttled by these “judges”.
In the last year, while Kay Skelton has been smirking and laughing at these placeholder “judges”, a further 50+ children have been abducted.
In the past year, I have heard a lady High Caught judge say that caught orders are to be obeyed. I have also heard the NZ solicitor-general say the same in the High caught at Auckland!
I now just laugh at these two-faced hippocrites, as I have never yet seen a familycaught order, which was subsequently enforced. (I have heard about a few being enforced, but not in my personal experience.) On the contrary, in my personal experience, the “judges” have refused to enforce every order that I have ever asked them to enforce. Not only that, but they have then gone on to change the orders, so that the order just breached, was now what was required!!!???? Eat one bite and you can grow taller, eat another bite and you can shrink back again…
Our children ARE still worth protecting!
I have had the experience of listening to the IRD barrista saying in High caught, that abduction isn’t harmful to children and therefore, it is acceptable that IRD (spousal and) child support assist and subsidise women abductors by continuing to take (spousal and) child support payments from the father and pass them on to the abductor mother. I felt physically sick after hearing this speech.
I realised that it was because the very people who I expected to act constructively to protect children and deter future abductors, were in fact working against the protection of our children and prepared to state this fairly publicly. I believe that it is these ethics, that feeds the apparently high suicide rate of IRD CS staff. They should not be put into this position, by the Government.
Please ask your local politicians what they are doing to protect our children from abduction, internationally and also from the matrimonial home?
Query them, to separate out talk from action.
It is only by many members of the public showing them, that we care for the protection of our children from one eyed parents, female or male, that we can improve the protection that we give our children.
I do suggest that you take a little time out from everyday life and listen to a few hours of what happens in our caughts. Judge for yourself, the quality and value of what is going on in them… If you are not satisfied by the quality of what is going on, then you cannot protect your children’s future by being silent.
Our children’s peaceful childhood should be protected from abductors.
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 29th June 2008 @ 9:44 pm
This UK website provides some information, to help left behind parents handle abduction:
http://www.mensaid.com/abduction/
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 8th July 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Hi guys, yes, anyone that steals a child from their parents should be prosecuted, i feel they should be executed, stealing a persons property is really bad but to steal a persons life is playing with fire, i am going to get my wifes children back if it is the last thing i do because it isnt just my wife getting hurt but it is also her children and those peices of scum who told all those lies about my wife and stole her children are going to be sorry for what they have done
Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 8th July 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Hi Hadi and others,
Take care that revenge does not disempower your parenting. Focus on the kids, history cannot be re-written, trying to right old wrongs will destroy you. Look forward not back.
There is significant wisdom in Chris Jones example as he gets on with the task of parenting Jayden.
It would be good to see Kay Skelton before the Courts but given the last 12 months don’t hold your breath. I wonder how the Police or Justice might explain the prosecution of the Northland accomplisces but the lack of progresss with Kay and Dick Skelton.
Lets keep up the good work of encouraging parents so that more children are not abducted.
Comment by allan Harvey — Tue 8th July 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Revenge is sweet though AND WHAT IS REQUIRED !
Comment by Martin Swash — Wed 9th July 2008 @ 12:29 am
Doing nothing will get us nothing
Comment by Martin Swash — Wed 9th July 2008 @ 2:02 am
For me, this thread had six purposes:
1. let married parents see that that they have to protect their children from abduction by the other parent, that the familycaught does precious close to nothing to deter illegal child abduction. (Actually, it aids, supports and enables child abductors to break these laws.)
2. to persuade still married parents that these risks are far higher than profit media indicate to the public ie about 60 – 200 children abducted per year
3 to let still together parents see that once abducted, they have barely over 50% chance of seeing their children again if they are the mother and significantly under 50% chance of seeing their children again, if they are the father.
4. let parents see that familycaught operation is more related to financially milking abductions, than protecting children from abduction.
5. That the deterrence function of prosecuting abductor offenders is almost completely dead and this is driven by the defective and dangerous personal values of these familycaught “judges”.
6. to persuade left behind parents of abducted children to look at the quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness of familycaught operation. When they have considered these issues, to consider making available the evidence that they hold, to allow a group of people to drive prosecutions of “judges”, when their behaviours have been clearly outside of NZ legislation.
It will only be when the NZ public take their own personal responsibility for enforcing the laws of NZ, that these laws will be enforced competently and effectively, for the protection of our children.
Competent enforcement of these laws will never happen by accident.
At present, no left behind parents have offered their evidence, to use for prosecuting “judges”, so it seems that they are relatively satisfied with familycaught performance? I cannot understand how they could be happy, but I respect their choice.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th July 2008 @ 10:20 am
Judge their values by their actions, not by what they say.
The familycaught has now released the abductors with minimal punishment.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/5221600/boys-abductors-avoid-jail-terms/
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 18th December 2008 @ 5:14 pm
This must surely have been written by a feminist?
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 22nd October 2010 @ 3:44 pm
It does seem pretty out there. 🙂
Comment by julie — Fri 22nd October 2010 @ 10:02 pm
It seems our children need effective protection as much today, as they always have.
Kay Skelton was eventually prosecuted for child abduction, even if the penalty was only home detention.
The “general rule” that NZ caughts don’t prosecute perjurors or (women child abductors??) has been broken!
It seems that the caughts treat perjury as more of a crime than child abduction!!!????
One policeman was recently prosecuted for perjury, just one!!!
Has that restored your faith?
It seems that the caughts need a lot of help from the public, to get their relative values right.
Justice delayed is pretty much justice denied. Certainly, delayed punishment is relatively ineffective, as any good parent knows.
Mother-given-jail-term-over-DNA-deception
Please help our caughts to do the job that they are too well paid to do. These people need everybody’s help, to understand what they are meant to do… They are lost and just walking to the bank….
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Sat 30th October 2010 @ 5:45 pm
One swallow doesn’t make a summer, but the Skelton case I think does reflect quite a significant shift in the Family Court under the current legislation. A few years ago she would probably have been favoured in all Court decisions even if her deliberate fraud and perjury were discovered. There is somewhat less tolerance now for mothers who can be shown to degrade father-child relationships.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 30th October 2010 @ 11:17 pm
Dear Hans,
I sure hope that you are right, that there has been a better understanding by familycaught “judges” that some degree of discipline is needed, when parents breach familycaught orders. Listening to people’s experiences in familycaught leaves only a small amount of highly diluted optimism.
Unfortunately, I suspect that you are being too optimistic and the public disciplining of Kay Skelton more represents putting on the best possible public image, when the situation has spun outside of their capability to hide the truth from the public. Judge Boshier was more willing than “the rest” to show some public accountability, but “the rest” pulled him back into line.
I seem to recall Andrew Wooton saying about the familycaught “you lift a rock and shine in a bright light – you will see cockroaches scuttling in all directions”. At the time I thought he was being rude, but now I have seen and heard more about familycaught, I think he was being far too kind towards them.
I simply believe that “judges” are as bad as lawyers at manipulating cases for optimised personal financial benefit. They are really the lowest rung of beneficiaries, just dismal legal-workers!
Children’s protection could be be paramount, if their accountability included the bright light of public access to the truth.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 11:41 am
NZ Herald has just published an informative article about international child abduction. It doesn’t detail mother abductor versus father abductor statistics, but otherwise it is an excellent article.
Thank you very much Abby Gillies!!!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795699
The text is copied below, but the graphs haven’t come through……
Last year, 170 Kiwi children were abducted by one parent and moved inter-country. Abby Gillies looks at the rights of the mum or dad left behind
Grant Cossey has moved back to the United States so he can be near his two sons – his wife Erin took the boys from New Zealand after the couple’s relationship broke down. Photo / Supplied
Three years ago, Grant Cossey and his family were living the Kiwi dream.
After spending several years in the US, the Northland man, his American wife and their sons Theo and Miles – then aged 4 and 2 – moved to New Zealand for the lifestyle.
They lived in a beachfront home in Whangarei, the boys were adapting well to Kiwi life and the family was involved in the community.
Cossey, a business coach, and his wife, a stay-at-home mum had a good relationship, he says.
But on May 11, 2010, the couple had what he describes as a “mild argument”, and what followed changed his life forever.
Later that afternoon, while he was at work, he says he received a text from his wife saying she was leaving, and taking their sons.
“By the time I got home, she was gone. She drove to Auckland, got on to a flight that night and flew out of the country, never to come back again.”
His family had disappeared. The battle for custody has cost him $70,000, he says.
“It’s heart-wrenching. It’s completely exploded [my life].”
Last year 170 Kiwi children were abducted by their mum or dad into or out of New Zealand without the other parent’s consent.
For the partners left behind, the fight for the return of their children – or just the right to have custody decisions made in their own country – can turn into a drawn-out battle with devastating emotional and financial impacts.
Each year, on average 100-120 parents apply under international treaty the Hague Convention to have a child aged under 16 returned for a court appearance in their home country to decide where they will live and who has custody rights. The convention aims to protect children from the harmful effects of their removal by ensuring they are quickly and safely returned home, but both countries must be signatories to invoke it.
More than 70 countries belong to the convention, including Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the US.
The treaty is guided by the principle that the home court is best placed to make custody decisions because they have access to all the relevant information.
But although the treaty can assist with the return of the child for court proceedings, it does not determine if they will stay there permanently.
About 70 per cent of Hague applications made by New Zealand parents involve Australia.
Internationally, about 2800 parents make return applications each year, including Cossey.
But after months without progress, the 41-year-old moved back to the US to remain in his sons’ lives and agreed to have proceedings held under US jurisdiction. His New Zealand application has been closed.
“Thankfully I am able to legally reside in the US permanently, otherwise I would have lost all contact with my children by now,” he says.
Each year about six parents whose children have been abducted seek help from Whangarei lawyer Rob Harte, who specialises in family law.
The abductions typically follow a relationship breakdown between an international couple where one parent wants to return to their home country with the children, he says.
In many cases the children travel to visit a parent and never return.
“There tends to be a winner and a loser and that’s very tough. It becomes a very high-stakes matter so it’s very upsetting to people.”
Harte believes the Hague Convention works well to successfully help parents have a child returned home for court proceedings.
And he says New Zealand has the best system in the world for legal support, government support and turnaround time for court proceedings.
For parents who lose a child to a non-Hague country, a desperate situation can become almost impossible.
The number of children abducted to non-Hague countries is unknown.
They are at the mercy of the court where their children have been taken, and the chances of success are much lower, says Harte.
“You just about weep for those people, that’s awful.”
One such case is that of Northland woman Mihi Puriri, who has been locked in an eight-month custody battle with her estranged husband in his native Algeria over their daughters Iman, 5, and Assiya, 2, and son Zakaria, 1. The family travelled to Algeria in August because her husband Mohamed Azzaoui said his father was gravely ill.
But on arrival she discovered he was not, and her husband took the family passports, according to her London-based family spokesman.
Ms Puriri remains in the capital of Algiers fighting for custody of her children, who continue to be held captive in an apartment in his hometown of Mostaganem, says the spokesman. “All of a sudden the rug’s pulled out from under your feet because the child just doesn’t come back. If you couldn’t deal with that in another country you’re absolutely lost,” says Harte.
For the children abducted, and their families, the effects can be devastating. “It’s pretty dramatic on some kids – it depends on the child’s resilience.
“You’ve got to assume that some of them are going to be pretty badly affected by it all,” he says.
Days after the alleged abduction of his children, Cossey flew to the US and traced them to their grandparents’ house near San Francisco, where they continue to live, with their mother.
It was a tearful first reunion, he says. “The kids didn’t know what was going on. The entire event was pretty traumatic for them.”
He now sees them two days a fortnight, under supervision. “It’s disgusting. It’s the most invasive experience that you can possibly imagine.”
His estranged wife has also filed charges of domestic violence and sexual molestation of the boys against him – allegations he calls “ridiculous”. His wife did not return calls from APNZ.
Other couples are able to reach a resolution, such as a case in which the safe return of a child was successfully negotiated between the parents and Harte without court involvement.
In another, an American mother took her child to the Netherlands and then to the US. After a year-long fight, the Kiwi father successfully had his child returned to New Zealand.
Harte advises parents to prevent the situation before it happened.
Parents living in separate countries and sending children on visits should put a consent order in place outlining that the child is on holiday and will be coming back.
If a relationship breaks down and a parent fears their child could be abducted they can get court orders put in place to alert Interpol if they try to leave the country.
Cossey believes the Government can do more to help parents whose children are abducted and believes anyone travelling overseas with their children should be required to at least present a letter of consent from the other parent.
He has filed a petition to the Superior Court of California for full custody of his sons, but holds little hope of the outcome he wants.
“My fear is that the legal system here revolves around status quo and they treat the kids as possessions that are currently in the mother’s care.
“I think kids need both parents, and no matter what your relationship is there’s only one thing that matters in the whole environment – and that is the kids.”
High profile custody cases
* Kaikohe woman Mihi Puriri is locked in a custody battle with her estranged husband in his native Algeria over their three children. She claims he has been holding their two daughters and son captive in an apartment in Mostaganem since last August.
* Bruce Laybourn has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and received ongoing consular help in trying to bring his son Dylan, 5, home after he was was illegally taken by his Turkish-born mother, Gulsen Nil Laybourn, in 2007.
* Northland mother Kay Skelton and her father Dick Headley were convicted over the five-month abduction of her son in 2006 as part of a bitter custody dispute with the boy’s father. Both pleaded guilty and were sentenced to home detention.
By Abby Gillies
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 6:38 pm
Murray (#85): This article avoids any gender analysis and implies that there is some gender balance in child parental abductions. But my understanding is that it’s mainly mothers who do it. Isn’t it interesting that for situations where men do any degree more wrongdoing than women this is highlighted by journalists or even treated as exclusively an issue of male wrongdoing (e.g. domestic violence), but for matters in which women are the more frequent perpetrators (e.g. child abduction, baby murder, DPB fraud, making false allegations of domestic or sexual
violence) or in which men are the more frequent victims (e.g. suicide, death from most major illnesses, workplace deaths and serious injuries, homelessnes) journalists fail to mention the gender balance and carefully create an impression that the problem is more or less equal for women too.
I suspect that the only reason there has been an article on this was the Puriri case, a rare case in which the father ‘abducts’ the children internationally. In fact, although he may deserve criticism for his action it’s not quite an abduction typical of that done by women to try to get the father out of his children’s life. It seems that the father wants the whole family to live in his home country but she doesn’t want to, and it seems more an issue of mum and dad disagreeing about where to live. It is difficult to tell though because Ms Puriri’s accounts of events have been contradictory and apparently unreliable. It has been amazing though
how everyone (government representatives, media, public) quickly rise to a frenzy of moral outrage as soon as a father does something even remotely similar to what mothers are doing frequently. NZ Embassy personnel mostly abandon fathers whose children have been abducted and media mostly ignore such cases or in the rare cases they do cover the mother is usually portrayed as justified in rescuing her children from their father.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 7:35 pm
Dear Hans, a few years back 85% mothers and 15% fathers. (30 years ago, more fathers than mothers, maybe 60% 40%. Feminism has encouraged women to ignore things that get in their way, such as laws and act to protect what they see as their interest, even if they are actually child abusers.)
Unless Abby Gilles asked about mother/father, then the info she would have received (under Official Information Act) probably wouldn’t have made this clear to her.
In looking at these uncommon events, I always try to do a “visibility analysis”, to see who has access to knowing what is going on and how good their information is. At about 200 international abductions per year that are notified to NZ authorities (so the actual figure could be much higher? if non Hague abductions could be counted in), then most “judges” would see about 1 to 2 international abductions per year among their caseload. Perhaps more in Auckland and larger cities and less in countryside.
However, many of these outgoing abductions will not be visible in familycaught$ papers, so it would largely be through legal-workers informal contacts that they might find out about outgoing abductions. Inside NZ or incoming to NZ abductions would usually show up in familycaught$ paperwork.
Thus, it is fairly easy for an uninterested or disinterested “judge” to turn a blind eye and be fairly insensitive or ineffective at dealing with these cases.
Of course, it is even more difficult for a member of public to get a good idea of what is going on. Given that dramatic cases tend to make headlines and mother abductions are not viewed as dramatic, then as a society we tend to deceive ourselves. This is a serious problem with profit media, who are driven by entertainment value, not social education value.
It is only by the public having an accurate, honest knowledge of what is going on, that the public can make decisions about what type of country they want NZ to be and act on this. Secrecy is the refuge of scoundrels and child abusers.
Thanks, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 1st April 2012 @ 9:00 pm
Reply to Murrybacon#72
your comment of the following
‘I have had the experience of listening to the IRD barrista saying in High caught, that abduction isn’t harmful to children and therefore, it is acceptable that IRD (spousal and) child support assist and subsidise women abductors by continuing to take (spousal and) child support payments from the father and pass them on to the abductor mother. I felt physically sick after hearing this speech.’
A question for you MurrayBacon, was the IRD Barrister a Kiwi women…?
N.Z Government departments are pure heaven to our beloved Kiwi feminists to carry on with there hidden feminist agenda,and if you think I going over the top with my opinions on the feminists agenda….
Read below from what I found on ‘Register-her
‘Offender’s Name: Gina Barecca
Offence: Bigot
Consequence: Fame and Fortune
Date: 10/7/2011
Location: Mansfield, Connecticut
Country: USA
reference
Gina Barecca is professor of English literature and feminist theory at the University of Connecticut, and a bigot. Professor Barecca used her column in the Hartford Courant to promote the exclusive taxation of men. In her article titled “Send Men The Bill � They Made The Mess” She claims men are are responsible for the decline of culture and infrastructure and hence should be taxed more. Barecca takes this further and demands that while men are punitively taxed, women should not be taxed at all.
According to Barecca : “Everybody wants to tax somebody else: Tax the rich, tax the fat, tax the bald, tax pet owners, gum chewers and those who like manicures. I would like to offer a different solution: Let’s tax men. In fact, let’s tax men a lot, more than they’re already being taxed, and let’s not tax women at all.”
A tax based on individua’s sex is ethically equivalent to determination of guilt based solely on ethnic profiling. It is the position of the moderators of register-her that this is bigotry by it’s most fundamental definition.
So,is this what western feminists have in mind for there next stage of there brave new order of western European society ….next it will be ‘re training’ camps for Men…Don’t laugh to hard Gentlemen, remember what happen in Nazi Germany with there so called solution to the ‘Jew’ problem’
Murraybacon,I do believe you on what you had witness in our so called Justice system…Having myself experienced,witness and observed with great detail the blatant gender bias ‘pussy pass’ political/justice system in N.Z
Kind regards to all John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 2nd April 2012 @ 3:42 am
men made the mess?do women ever take responsibility for anything?
Comment by ford — Mon 2nd April 2012 @ 8:52 am
reply to Ford
…L.O.L…Yes Ford, your one liners do sometimes pack one hell of a punch..well said Ford..
However Ford on a serious note here, the Asian country where I am now permanently abode…And believe you me Ford…I am at peace now,happy and contented, dating a wonderful Asian lady doctor,and best of all… I am away from the feminist hell hole that N.Z as truly become….
Asian women do not think,act,or behave like western Kiwi European women They have not the attitude of ‘Its your fault because you are the man’ mentality
I hope day Ford that you can travel and really experience some Asian culture ..It will open up your eyes on how rotten western European society as become…
Tongue in Cheek Ford… Please give that website that used belong too my warmest regards to them butch fat foul mouth with there ‘sense of entitlement,because I am the victem’ to them beloved
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 2nd April 2012 @ 9:09 am
whoops hit the wrong key..Tongue in Cheek Ford”¦ Please give that website that I used belong too, my warmest regards to them ‘butch’ fat foul mouth, with there ‘sense of entitlement,because I am the victem’ to them beloved Kiwi women
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 2nd April 2012 @ 9:10 am
NZ Herald: Huge rise in child abduction cases By Heather McCracken.
Good article, but really this is just a steady increase through the last 30 years. The article doesn’t let the public know that 85% of abductors are mothers. As a result, men need to have this information, to give them some chance to try to protect their children from abduction. NZ familycaught$ judges work to mislead men, to unprotect their children from abduction.
Looking back, nothing has changed.
familycaught$ judges apparently facilitate and sponsor many abductions. They even assist mother abductors to evade accountability and keep advantages gained through abduction of their children.
The only workable redress for most men, is to not have children in NZ, until the familycaught$ has been repaired. NZ men are slowly becoming more cautious and this trend needs to continue, until parents can sensibly trust familycaught$.
Unfortunately, Judith Collins is looking only at cost reductions, not any actual repairs.
Dear old Professor Henaghen is partly right, but he conveniently misses the main point. In his sanitisation of familycaught$, to protect them from the public knowing the truth, he is ignoring that neither mothers or fathers can sensibly have trust in familycaught$.
If ADR was to be given a fair opportunity, then appeal to familycaught$ would be removed altogether. Then parents could negotiate to protect their children’s interests. A wider set of options would be available to parents, to solve these disputes, as they could build working accountability into their agreements.
This would enable children with family overseas to meet, know and love all of their family, without losing contact with their family in NZ. Presently, we deny many of our children full access to their culture, to protect the paramount interests of legal workers, in particular familycaught$ judges. This is quite wrong.
Set these judges free, to earn an honest living, or better still starve away to just what they are worth.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 4:33 pm
Dear John Dutchie #88, the lady gave her name as Maria Deligiannis. I made a mistake that she worked for IRD. I think she was a legal worker for Crown Law, working for IRD. I hope that she doesn’t have children, as such attitudes appear to me not conducive to developing healthy children, cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 6:54 pm
Important article to bring here Murray but I don’t agree it was a “good article”. It gave voice without challenge to Prof Henaghan’s claims 1) that the cost of women going to FC for permission to abduct their children overseas was so high and legal aid was now so stingy that they had no choice but to take off without permission, and 2) that the majority of those women were escaping from family violence and that there was a “growing literature saying that a lot are leaving for good reasons and they had no option but to leave”.
Yeah, I can imagine who is churning out any ‘growing literature’ in the direction that Henaghan claims; it’s the man-hating feminists with their shoddy, unscientific ‘research’. And the only truthfully informative things growing are the Pinnochio noses of those lying.
Why wasn’t Prof Henaghan challenged to back up his claims with credible evidence?
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 9:00 pm
Murray,
You say – ‘The only workable redress for most men, is to not have children in NZ, until the familycaught$ has been repaired. NZ men are slowly becoming more cautious and this trend needs to continue, until parents can sensibly trust familycaught$.”
I agree 100%.
Here’s some inspiration for those brave men on that noble journey.
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 1:49 am
Dear Man X Norton, Why wasn’t Prof Henaghan challenged to back up his claims with credible evidence? You would have to ask NZ Herald that question. Being practical, an issue such as child abduction cannot usefully be discussed in 657 words, so I guess that the main purpose is to provide sufficient entertainment and feel-good, to support the advertising. I am not attacking NZ Herald in particular, as TV give stories in 123 second bites and that is limited to even less educational content. As a result, it doesn’t seem important to worry about balance, when it is hard enough to get the entertainment, advertising and profit right. If the public don’t put enough coins into buying NZ Herald for social and democratic quality information, then investigative journalism withers away to match the price being paid.
Back to Professor Henaghen, he is an academic lawyer and although he spends a little time in familycaught$, I would guess he isn’t in much better position to know what goes on in familycaught$, than any of us or MPs either. He has the added disadvantage compared to us, that he has common training with the thieves in familycaught$, so that he is more easily deceived by them. Although academia is meant to be about critical analysis, understanding all participants viewpoints and searching for alternatives, Professor Henaghen’s comments seem to show him as very trusting of what he is told about familycaught$. How sweet? I am sure that he is doing well, for a lawyer.
By comparison, parents who are not so badly ripped off by familycaught$, are those who are pragmatic, can chose who they will listen to and they do their homework, before they are trapped. By way of example, I was talking to a businessman and his story of dealing with familycaught$ was quite worrying. He didn’t sound too concerned. Of course, money isn’t the biggest issue…………
I asked why, he said well I never put all of my eggs into one basket. I knew that they couldn’t take everything that I had. He had hidden enough assets in trusts and overseas accounts, that what the familycaught$ did to him was only nuisance value. As he said, I only did what all (I guess he means most??) of the lawyers and judges do with their assets. When I needed it, it protected me in the same way that it protects them from you. Just good common sense, don’t trust the ********.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 11th June 2013 @ 7:41 am
This case is good for looking at the emotions, of child abduction.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/300444794/our-family-is-whole-again-cleo-smiths-mother-says-after-abducted-fouryearold-is-found-alive
From a parents perspective, I have called the police.
As my similar age child, went missing.
Once you realise, you don’t know where they are.
Panic starts to set in.
The search begins, and fails.
It’s extremely frustrating not knowing what’s happened.
Once you get to calling the police.
Nerves are broken.
For me my wait was short.
My son found, taken from the property by a young boy.
No nothing sinister.
I came close recently with my son.
The search nearly over.
He played hiding go seek, in the stare well of the car.
It would of been nice if he told us, he was playing.
Still a roller coaster of emotions.
Even a moment of elation, when you see them again.
My experience, nothing compared to these parents.
I have followed this case from the beginning.
So hearing she is alive, and with the parents again.
I felt a little of that emotion, hearing the news.
I think the punishment should be harsh.
While taking into account, he didn’t murder.
What then of the parent, who has there children, taken in custody battles.
Forced uplifts.
Children taken into care.
The lost custody battle.
The ignored, agreements.
The protection order.
What emotions, will they experience.
And where does responsibility lay.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 3rd November 2021 @ 3:23 pm