MENZ ISSUES

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

At last!

Filed under: Law & Courts — Eric @ 1:27 pm Tue 26th August 2008

After 3 attempts and 6 years, I have finally managed to get my protection order discharged. No lawyer was used as I have yet to come across a good one. I tried several. Interestingly the judge stayed well clear of my legal arguments in his judgment.

Among other things I argued the NZ Bill of Rights. I also argued that the Crimes Act, the Trespass Act, and the Harassment Act provided plenty of legal protection for the respondent. I wish us men got better organised so that we could get a case up to Supreme Court level and have these arguments of mine set as a binding precedent for all the lower courts.

22 Responses to “At last!”

  1. Karen says:

    I would like to know exactly what it was you used to get the protection order dismissed, my partner agreed to one for a year so they could move on with access, two years later no access and still the protection order, we have applied to have it dismissed and are still waiting to hear if the respondant is going to oppose it

  2. Alastair says:

    Congratulations Eric. Lawyers are a waste of money. They seem only interested in lining their own pockets. You have achieved something, Stand tall.

  3. Eric says:

    I am happy to help anyone trying to get a protection order discharged. When did you make application to the Court for a discharge and have you received notification from the Court that your application has been received?

  4. blamemenforall says:

    Well done Eric. Protection orders are a travesty of justice, even the small proportion that we might morally agree are justified. That is because they treat an accused as guilty without proof and without fair trial, and they automatically harm children by restricting their relationships with their fathers (usually). Whether that harm is outweighed by the harm that would be caused by not interfering in the father-child relationship is the question, but we all know that in the vast majority of cases there is no reasonable evidence this is so. Getting PO’s discharged is simply another layer of injustice, because there are no clear grounds for doing so and many judges unashamedly claim that if such orders were necessary then they will continue to be so into the future. Protection Orders and the serious loss of civil rights they bring about are indefinite. The only other indefinite punishments our legal system employs are for heinous crimes such as murder and repetitive sexual offending, but even those require a fair trial and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Protection Orders are little more than a weapon provided so that women can conveniently damage, dominate, demean and disenfranchise men.

  5. allan Harvey says:

    there are lots of orders that need to be discharged. If we all tried at once it would collapse the system with new cases. I also have a successful discharge application I am willing to share with people. You can write to me at allan@uof.org.nz Well done Eric!

  6. vision says:

    Hi Eric, I’m wanting to file a discharge application too. My ex has used it to control my whole life here in Wellington. The order itself was given because i complained to IRD about her ripping off the system for money!! No violence nothing. She owns two houses , one’s a rental income property, has ownership of our business and earns income from that, and picks up the child support payments, I have bank statements showing the income form her businesses and then the money going in from the DPB she is picking up a $75k income and then the benefit on top. The family court said I shouldn’t complain and gave her a protection order, the complaints are a special condition. She has then used that to stop me going to social events in town. She mentions Protection Order to everyone, and every one thinks the worse, but then i have to explain that its about complaint action because she was taking money off the IRD under false pretenses!

    Can you send me a copy of what you did.

  7. whanga says:

    Awesome Eric
    You have inspired me to have another go at getting mine discharged.I have had it for 12 years and have made 3 attempts so far.There was never any violence of any sort,not even verbal abuse or threats.I would love it if you could send me a copy of your judgement so I can use it as a precedent.You too Allan
    Thanks

  8. allan Harvey says:

    Hi Whanga,
    I’m not sure I can dig out your e-mail address from my old computer. Send me an e-mail to allan@uof.org.nz and I will send you back my application. Judge said he had read it but was not prepared to discuss it. He then looked at her and said “We don’t need this order to continue do we”. She had few options and so it was dropped in short order at her request. When you read the application you will see why.
    Hey and I acknoweledge hitting her, I did 3 weeks time (on remand) and while inside mediated an agreement for weekly contact with children under supervision for 2 months, then every weekend contact for 3 months then a solid 7 weeks with me over Christmas and shared care at the start of the next school year. HJer biggets fear was I would murder the children in an aircraft accident but she was still happy for me to fly the children Gisborne to Tauranga and back every weekend soon after supervised contact ended.

  9. Jim Bailey says:

    Great Stuff Eric,

    Be encouraged that you have won this round
    Be careful not to expand the system of Injustice
    Be careful not to inform the system how to build itself

    The real winning is to FATHER your Children in balance with the MOTHER
    The even more real winning is to cause a system that forces the checks that maintain the balance of Father and Mother input

    Put your main energy into Fathering if possible
    Put you next bit of energy into Equal Parenting your child/ren
    Put the next bit of energy into causing Preferencial Equal Shared Parenting, even better HandsOnEqualParenting from Conception to be the basis of NZLaw and NZSocial Policy

    If you have any energy left guild others thru the system

    Onward – Jim

  10. Scott says:

    That is fantastic. Congrats.

  11. bull en a china shop says:

    GOOD THREAD DUDE…
    I would just like to say that the “It’s not OK” T.V. campaign does not feature any women as the so called abuser, is this acceptable people ? (the public, lawyers and judges are therefore conditioned to believe that a woman can only be the victim – mind control – coming to a television near you soon)

    How do you think that helps a male on the receiving end of a Protection Order ? Yeah, Right… who cares…

    (thus lying by omission) is the key element in “It’s not OK”
    Where are the violent women in New Zealand for this television campaign ?

    “give him a fair trial and then hang him! …
    By default, all Protection Order applications should be inadmissable in a court of law on the basis of human rights concerns, where by the male sex is not considered an equal to the female sex according to “It’s not OK” mind control television.

    Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

  12. blamemenforall says:

    Yes Bull en. If protecton orders had to be based on fair trials one might argue that no fair trial is possible because the widespread propaganda any jury or judge has been exposed to in our society will have contaminated their views of any man before them. It would be interesting to see men use this argument when they are accused in criminal trials of assault etc. Unfortunately, for protection orders no fair trial is necessary. Family Courts are free to accept uncorroborated allegations even when some allegations from a particular applicant have been proven dishonest. Reality is “determined” to be so by a single judge based on “the balance of probabilities”, essentially whatever story the judge prefers. The judge’s views, undoubtedly contaminated by widespread feminist propaganda, is not balanced by the protections existing in the criminal Court against false convictions or treating an innocent accused as guilty. Strangely, those protections were discarded on the pretext that children’s needs are too important and immediate to bother with such time-consuming niceties. It seems to me that the importance of children’s needs justifies more attention to principles of justice, not less. And the compromizes don’t seem to have resulted in particularly fast or smooth process anyway.

    Be aware though that criminal trials are fast being eroded especially for crimes that men are more likely to be accused of. Successive law changes have sought to make it easier to convict a man of sexual crimes without better evidence, and current proposals seek to extend this greatly. The Family Violence Courts, based on the widely discredited feminist Duluth model, refer to complainants as victims and provide special support services, and generally represent a huge jump backwards in justice (see http://psychology.massey.ac.nz/pdf/Family-Court-Protocols_Apr2007.pdf). Our anti-terrorism laws appear designed in part to repress the expected civil strife that eventually will result from treating men this way.

  13. vision says:

    Hi My ex was found to have caused psychological abuse in the protection order case, but Judge Moss did not award an order to me because she said I would use it to vindicate myself.

  14. Scott says:

    You didn’t actually expect to be awarded one did you?

  15. usman says:

    cheers this has given me some hope. my wife wants to disgarge a protection order but her lawyer has made every excuse not to do so including ‘it cant be done’ and that the cost would have to payed up front as legal-aid would not cover it. can someone help us threw this please?how can she apply herself or put in a notice to discharge?

  16. Jim Bailey says:

    UsMan,

    Contact Jim Bagnall 09-815-0604
    Or
    See him at Mens Centre most Monday Nights
    http://menz.org.nz/support/auckland-mens-centre-north-shore/

    Onward – Another – Jim

  17. Paul Catton says:

    Dear UsMan,

    I would be happy to complete and file the documentation that your your wife requires to dicharge a Protection Order.
    It is wrong for “her lawyer” to say it can’t be done, however, if there are exceptional circumstances that perhaps involve other agencies (CYFS etc..), the advice might be it shouldn’t be removed.
    I can be contacted at the number below or by e-mail
    paulcat@xtra.co.nz

    Kindest Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09)271 3020

  18. renergade says:

    I have been on the receiving end of two judgements from judge jill Moss and both have been against the flow , One a protection Order which she awarded my ex after she assulted me and she gave me the right to extend it , it ran its six months and was discharged another I received today raping me again .
    In my opinion she awarded it to give my ex the upper hand in the custody battle , The end result was I have one child full time and the other around the 50% mark and my ex got a less than glowing report from the child phyc.
    I must admit the family court system is far from satisfactory if you are a male it seems to me you are on a hiding to nothing and repeatedly penalised for doing the right things for your children.

  19. Sarah Norfolk says:

    Hi,
    Could someone help me remove the protection order I have against my ex?

  20. MurrayBacon says:

    section 47 Power to discharge protection order
    (1)The court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the applicant or the respondent, discharge a protection order.
    (2)On an application under subsection (1), the court may discharge a protection order even though the order-
    (a)applies for the benefit of a specified person pursuant to a direction made under section 16(2); or
    (b)applies against an associated respondent pursuant to a direction made under section 17.
    (3)Where a protection order to which subsection (2) relates is discharged, the order ceases to have effect for the benefit of the specified person or, as the case requires, against the associated respondent, as if that person had applied for and been granted a discharge of the order pursuant to subsection (4).
    (4)Where a protection order-
    (a)applies for the benefit of a specified person pursuant to a direction made under section 16(2); or
    (b)applies against an associated respondent pursuant to a direction made under section 17,-
    the specified person or, as the case may be, the associated respondent may apply for the order to be discharged in so far as it relates to him or her.
    (5)On an application under subsection (4), the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge a protection order in so far as it relates to that specified person or, as the case may be, that associated respondent.
    (6)Where an application is made under this section in respect of a temporary protection order, the Registrar must assign a hearing date, which must be-
    (a)as soon as practicable; and
    (b)unless there are special circumstances, in no case later than 42 days after the application is made.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Note:
    1. “in no case later than 42 days after” has no practical meaning or impact onto the functioning of familycaught$.

    2. Read through the complete DV Act, as other sections may be relevant to some extent, for your circumstances. If you want to get your paperwork correct, then you also need to read through the Family Court Rules. In practice, for something as straightforward as removing a PO, any trivial rule breaches should not be an issue. The Rules do give blank forms, which help as a checklist to cover all of the issues that might be useful or relevant. (There is more common sense in the rules, than I have ever seen in a familycaught$ room.)

    If you ever forget the link above, just Google “legislation” and you will find http://www.legislation.co.nz. This Government website gives the text of legislation. You will need to know the name of the Act that you are looking for. You can download a complete Act, as a single pdf document, if that is useful.

    Look before you leap!

    Always discuss what you are wanting to do, with several different people having experience in caught$, more if familycaught$. To get useful comments and suggestions, you really need to show your advisers all of the original paperwork that led to the issuing of the PO.

    Legislation tells you what should happen or might happen, but you are really interested in what is likely to happen. familycaught$ legislation gives little indication of what might happen.

    If you are a lady wishing to remove a PO against your ex husband, then you are likely to get exactly what you want, when you want, with few questions asked.

    With a well written affidavit, then the removal can take place without a hearing and its associated delays upon delays. I think I can recall the process being complete in a few weeks, without any dramas and at negligible cost. If you want to spend more money, any lawyer is qualified to take your money. (Though I find that prostitutes give better value for money than legal workers.)

  21. Tascha says:

    Does anybody have an example of how a discharge of a protection order should be completed that they are willing to share? My husband is a respondent in a protection order which was made final over 9 years ago. We would like to apply for a discharge but without using a lawyer. Any help would be very much appreciated.

  22. Allan Harvey says:

    I have successfully assisted several people to have orders discharged, or varied.
    allan.harvey@xtra.co.nz

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