MENZ ISSUES

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

There are ways around the Act

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 3:27 pm Sat 11th August 2007

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.

7 Responses to “There are ways around the Act”

  1. Hans Laven says:

    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 hans@xnet.co.nz, or by phone (07)5712435 or by mail at PO Box 13130 Tauranga.

  2. Ian says:

    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.

  3. Frank & Earnest says:

    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.

  4. Hans Laven says:

    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.

  5. Frank & Earnest says:

    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….

  6. Karen says:

    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.

  7. bruce says:

    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?

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar