There are ways around the Act
Sent from a NZ father via Jim Bagnall
In the past Marriage Guidance Counselors have supported me but this has had no effect on the Court. I now have a new two year old relationship. Things are working now how they are meant to be and things are falling into place.
The public needs to know about my struggles. Some things should be private but some things should be known by the public about our Family Court legal system.
So I want to share my desperation with you. I want to show how my children are being treated and most of all I want the public to be on a learning curve about the so called Family Court.
After 4 years I finally won a judgment for my Children to have contact with me. But Counsel for the Child applied for a stay of Judgment backed by a University based psychologist and Counsel for mother, of course.
These Litigation guardians are challenging the Family Court Judges’ competence, authority, integrity and Impartiality. If it’s up to the Litigation guardians, these children will never have a father. The Litigation guardians persuade the children to fear their father. They persuade the children to disregard the Judge’s decision.
Looking forward to seeing your father after nearly 4 years of constant brain washing is crushed by the Litigation guardians portraying him as some sort of mean person. Now I may not ever see one of my children who has serious health problems.
They stayed the Judge’s judgment, they appealed the Judge’s judgment (at my and tax payers expense) and now we are looking at serious money for me to defend the appeal in the High Court. In desperation I have to withdraw in an effort to ensure that my children in my x-wife’s care are not subjected to more psychological abuse and pressure from these so called professionals.
So with a sad heart, I withdrew my application to contact my children after having been given a judgment to do so. Will the children ever know the truth about my withdrawal?
The University based psychologist told me after the judgment that “there are ways around the Act” I am now witnessing one of these. How many more will there be?
So the Litigation guardians want to keep separated parents on their angry negative money-go-round. That is their real agenda. These so called professionals should have no involvement with families in difficulties.
I don’t have the right to publish names but you have a right to know what really goes on in the Family Court. The Family Court is no place for parents at war because one parent can use children against the other.
I would be very interested to learn more about this and to discuss it. As a psychologist myself I am gathering ammunition to challenge from within the profession psychologists who write unethical, biased, feminist-flavoured reports for the Family Court. I can be contacted via my email [email protected], or by phone (07)5712435 or by mail at PO Box 13130 Tauranga.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 11th August 2007 @ 11:42 pm
I agree with you JohnP.The litigation guardians are challenging anything and every thing they can.See my story under 73 on Admin Review advice.Crown Law are directly involved to help IRD get as much as they can by endeavours to change existing law which in my case has already been tested in the High Court by previous cases eg Johnson v Com of IRD and IRD v Aspinall.Because these cases did not go IRD’s way they have set me up through the Admin Review system telling me that the Review Officer can’t make a decision so I must take my application to the Family Court then sabotaging me and having it transferred to the High Court.I think the Family Court Judges are running scared in my case and have passed it on to a higher court Judge to deal with. The Legal Fraternity needs to take a long hard look at itself.
Comment by Ian — Sun 12th August 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Actually, I had a Section 59A pshyc write a report that seemed to favour me. Low risk he said. LOW RISK. Still not enough. Femi judge still ruled that I might rape – sorry, a sexual interaction – my kids. Don’t know why they order the report if they then simply ignore it.
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Sun 12th August 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Yes Frank & Earnest (reminds me of a duo of musicians who call themselves Fitch and Ramus). I have never heard of a Family Court judge finding in total contradiction to a psychologist report that favours the mother. If anyone is aware of such an instance I would like to know. However, I have been told of a number of cases in which that has happened regarding reports that support fathers’ cases, and yours is another. One judge didn’t like a Section 29A report I prepared after a very thorough assessment, and so ordered a critique to be done by a female, feminist psychologist who, surprise surprise, disagreed with my findings and discounted my warnings about risk that the mother’s mental health issues presented to the children. The judge then eargerly used the critique to justify ignoring my report and she made a decision increasing the risk to the children and highly punitive towards the father. Incredible but true.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 13th August 2007 @ 2:36 am
Nothing surprises me. Have you ever performed risk assessments at the request of Family Court victims, without a court-directive? Do you know any reputable pshycs in Wellington who can do the same? I fancy obtaining a further one I can present in my next set of procedings….
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 14th August 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Can anyone please tell me if they have had experience with the pilot “Parenting Hearings programme”. My husband and I had no resolution at counselling with his ex wife so we have now hired a lawyer and just signed an affadavit that will be sent to the f/court and then the ex wife apparently has 21 days to respond to it so we can start the mediation process. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Comment by Karen — Thu 30th August 2007 @ 9:29 pm
I am placed in the position of having to request a psych report to gain a shared care arrangement after the children changed their views on wanting shared care. Had excellent report by lawyer for the children, went to mediation, met by a blanket refusal to shared care, to be fair despite the judges best efforts. Low and behold 4 weeks later when re interviewed children no longer want shared care.
Any advice on how to proceed to ensure that the mothers manipulation is exposed?
Comment by bruce — Wed 26th September 2007 @ 7:02 pm