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

Does anybody know?

Filed under: General — Eric @ 9:59 am Thu 15th May 2008

Does anybody know what percentage of protection orders issued are for the protection of men?

Also, of the protection orders issued to women, what percentage is for women without any children?

I suspect that not many women from a childless relationship apply for protection orders. Am I right on this?

I also suspect that it is women who are getting the vast majority of protection orders.


  1. This is what i believe:

    Most of the women are incited (sometimes under threat: threat to remove children
    from the family) by womens refuge to apply for protection orders. One only need to read the WR literature in their website to be convinced of that.
    They advice women to “keep the protection orders for life just in case” quite similar to “Because I am worth it” Once women are caught inside it is hard to get out.

    I find it despicable for a man to apply for a protection order.
    Decent men should not be about curbing other’s people freedoms and exposing their partner to horrendous abuse from a badly implemented DVA.

    I do believe that in circumstances of proven present and future physical violence that protection orders are necessary but never made final. They need to last for
    a period of one year maximum. If the it is being breached then it is extended for 2 years then 3 etc but never made final. This is nonsense. I believe that if someone is asking for protection they should be properly protected. This is not the case today. The protection is mere virtuality. Protection orders cannot stop a violent person intent on committing violence.

    The current DVA implementation are more to incite for violence with sometimes tragic outcomes.(Remember Pumpkin chiness girl case and numerous others we do not hear about). In most cases they result in family destruction and not rebuilding. The family court should inspire itself from what would a normal community will do when there is a family dispute.
    Fo protection orders to deserve respect they should only last one year unless proven violence occurs (breach of the order) after that.

    Comment by alma — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:05 am

  2. but alma, your good reasoning would mean that there would be no traffic left on the family court freeway (in way of defence applications) if common sense was to prevail…

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:31 am

  3. Your money is worth more to them, than their concern over spilling blood.

    Scrap put a lot of information into the following post:

    You will find more information, using the Google search at the top right hand corner of this page.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 12:23 pm

  4. Hi I agree, Blokes don’t apply for protection orders. I would love to know the stats too, I tried looking on stats NZ but can not find it there, I have tried all sorts of places, but it seems no one knows !! or should I say the government don’t want you to know.

    A protection order for life.. It a bunch of crap, yeah maybe a couple of years or even five tops. Remember if you murder someone you will get 16, 17 years in jail. How does that compare to a life sencetence of a protection order, esp when in most cases bugger all was done, or you couldn’t defend it. Its crap lets face it. It is well over the top, and if you were such a violent bloke, a protection order ain’t going to stop you. They just use the good old protection order to wind you up, promote stress and hope you just go away.

    Comment by paul — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 5:56 pm

  5. I am one of the lucky ones; despite flagrant accusations that I ‘might’ have sexually abused the daughter of the woman who formerly chose to be impregnated by me whilst choosing to be related to me by marriage, and also that I ‘might’ emotionally harm her child, that same woman forgot to apply for a DPO. The charges were dismissed by Her Honour, as having “no evidence”.

    This notwithstanding, I have paid dearly for my past sins, and fully concur with masculinist theorum regarding DPO’s.
    I firmly advocate that all citations of violence, be it sexual, physical or psychological, should be tried in a real court, with real standards of proof, and real penalties, quite seperately to FamilyCaught.
    Then for those found truly guilty, sure, let them be punished according to real law. For the rest, dismiss all allegations, and get on with the real business of FamilyCaught: Child rearing responsibilities.
    And for those making callous, spurious, malicious, false and otherwise untrue allegations, charge them with laying false complaints, and sentence them accordingly. (for substantive cases, OK, they might not be proven, in which case, the judge should have discretion whether the allegation was false. I rather suspect the number of allegations raised about the time issues of children are settled, would drop incredibly suddenly, as vindictiveness rapidly disapears in the shadow of the threat of jail sentence.
    Coincidentally, that same woman continues to regularly invite me to her house to ‘Contact’ her child. Not exactly what I’d call the action of someone who truly believed her own allegations.

    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 6:37 pm

  6. Let the family court try this:
    Protection orders lasts for 1 whole year. Just for the benefit of the doubt and weed out real violent people. 1 single year. If orders breached add one more year and etc etc…

    This strategy will not work for them. In no time they will run out of cases to handle and thus have to explain the treasury resources. Hard times. I challenge them to try this out. This will filter wrong applications and there will be no mistakes from the family court. C’mon kiwis of the family courts you like challenges? take this one. Protection orders to last one single year.
    Orders for lifes are abuse on children women and men. New Zealand deserves better.

    Comment by alma — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 7:30 pm

  7. I have been victimised several times by the Police because of the bullshit,totally trumped up Protection Order I still cannot get rid of 12 years later.For eg I was stopped recently for no headlight.When the cops saw I had a Protection Order they immediately fined me.No chance to fix it nothing.Of course i did not know the light was out.Same thing when I was arrested recently for Wilful Damage(got off by the way).Cops asked if I had any convictions.I said no.They said what about this violence on a woman back in 1996?I said there was no violence and no conviction.Just a bullshit protection order.Cops equate Protection Orders with Violence on Women

    Exactly Right Frank and Earnest the Family Caught should have no ights to impose Criminal Like penalties on people

    Comment by whanga — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 8:38 pm

  8. Hi guys,
    not quite on topic but an interesting angle on domestic violence.
    When my x discovered that I had applied for custody of our son, she rang the police and said I “physically abused” her. The police arrived in no time and after interviewing her, one of the officers came in and said “don’t worry, you’ve done nothing wrong”. Another officer spoke into his walky-talky and said “the call was a false complaint”, which it was. Yet despite me telling the officers that I was our son’s primary caregiver, I had applied for custody 24 hours earlier and that out son had just undergone open heart surgery 3 weeks earlier, and despite the police admitting that the mother was behaving irrationally and had made a false complaint, the police escorted her to a Women’s Refuse WITH MY SON! Of course once the WR was involved, it was all on. The WR matched my x up with a female barrister who is the female equivalent of Pol Pot, and even supplied my x with a body-guard (talk about gorilla!) to attend a hospital appointment for my son, lest I misbehave I guess.
    When I contacted the police for a copy of the police report, I was told that there was “no report”, and over the next month or so I made nuisance of myself because I was damn sure there had to be an incident report of some kind.
    Then one night I rang the police and said that Citizen’s advice told me that it was nonsense that there was no report, and asked to speak to a senior officer. The receptionist at the Hamilton station either mistakenly or sarcastically put me through to the Manukau watch-house in Auckland. The receptionist at the Manuakau watch-house listened to me for about 90 seconds, then said, “have you got a pen, here is the file number”.
    I then rang Hamilton Central Police station back and after reading out the file number I asked for a copy of the report. The Hamilton receptionist went quiet for minute then said “this is a Domestic Violence case, so you have to talk to officer (Smith?) about the report. I had to wait several days before the FEMALE officer came on shift and when I asked her for copy of the report she asked me what I wanted it for. I said I needed it for my Family Court case. The FEMALE officer said “there is nothing in the report that will help you in the Family Court”. I said “I don’t care. I just want a copy of the report”. The FEMALE officer then told me to apply for a copy under the Official Information Act, which I did.
    When the police report finally arrived (and my son had aged 6 months and me 10 years), it was a “Domestic Violence Report”. Not a “False Complaint Report”, or a “Wasting Police Time Report”, or even a “Being a Vindictive Bitch Report”. Worse, my name was recorded in the report as the “Perpetrator” and the mother was recorded as the “Victim”. The report didn’t say that the 111 call was a false complaint or that there was no act of violence, no threat of violence or even no incident of any kind, which may explain why the police lied to me and were trying to fob me off.
    Recently I was interviewed by a senior sergeant about an unrelated complaint to the PCA, and he questioned me in depth about my family court case and particularly about the day my x rang the police. What I didn’t know was that he is also a past victim of the FC, and he had looked through my file and realised that the report was completely wrong. He eventually pulled the report out and asked if I wanted to include the report in my complaint (ya hoo!). He went further to state that Domestic Violence stats are taken straight from police reports, and in that sense he was very concerned that, not only was the police report totally wrong and therefore would distort the statistics, but the actions of the attending officers was also completely wrong. I am eagerly waiting for the outcome of the CPA investigation.
    There is no doubt that the system is geared against men, and it hurts me to think of all the dads who are separated from their children by one bullshit piece of A4 paper with an asshole judge’s signature on it. We have to stop this madness somehow.

    Comment by xsryder — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:01 pm

  9. Protection orders, whether lasting an hour, a year or a lifetime, most often amount to state child abuse. This is because children are automatically included as “protected people” and thereby punished with a loss of (nearly always) their father’s full role in their lives. Further, protection orders are a blight on justice because the respondent is sentenced without proper investigation or trial to periodic detention at a feminist indoctrination programme. Very sinister stuff.

    I agree that something akin to a protection order might be justified. Anyone might justifiably be able to place a temporary legal boundary against another visiting or otherwise contacting them. The order should only relate to the person who applied unless good evidence is presented that children are at risk. The order should last 30 days and extended only with a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent has behaved violently and is likely to continue doing so. The order should not place any onerous requirements on the respondent, and all rights and possessions such as firearms should be automatically returned at the end of the 30 days. However, if a need to extend the order is proven, removal of firearms and other provisions could last for the entire extended period and the respondent encouraged, not obliged, to undertake suitable programmes.

    I am in favour of police issuing such temporary orders, as long as they first undertake some gender equality training to ensure they don’t bring anti-male discrimination into the process.

    It is difficult to understand how New Zealanders can tolerate current laws so devoid of justice.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:20 pm

  10. Lets make this our business, let us make money from this. We have to sue the caughts. And we need to stick together. Instead of us paying for separated lawyers we need one lawyer (hopefully a member) We need justice, and we should get it, with a good lawyer on board, as i would say a co op lawyer we would have enought money to pay for that lawyer, but we want compensation as well, for being put in the cells, costs, and stress. We want compensation for being innocent. And I am talking about serious compensation. Not a couplef hundreds, if a guy has been proved innocent we want a couple of million, this money will go back into to proving others innnocent. we could have a share holding so as we grow stronger we slowly get our money back. Fuck them if they are wrong they should pay and we must make them pay. We can do this untied we stand divided we fall

    Comment by paul — Thu 15th May 2008 @ 11:25 pm

  11. Hi Paul,
    Are you suggesting a class action or presenting one water-tight case as a preceedent? (should it be succesful)
    A class action could be messy, timely and worse, could result in huge costs laid against the group if the judiciary bites back. An individaul may actually be more successful because an individual can apply for a waiver of fees on the basis of financial situation or more importantly, interest to the public.
    The main problem will be that the judiciary will pull out every stop to prevent us being successful and opening up a flood gate of law suits. The same can be said for our friend who has been working his way through perjury. The judiciary does not want perjury charges carried against a FC litigant because that will set a preceedent that will affect almost every case that has ever gone through the FC. I Can imagine several hundred thousand mothers prosecuted for perjury and an equivelent number of dads paid damages or given public apologies….sorry, I must have dosed off there for a minute.

    Comment by xsryder — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 12:07 am

  12. I am in favour of police issuing such temporary orders, as long as they first undertake some gender equality training to ensure they don’t bring anti-male discrimination into the process.

    Wake up Hans, this is granting Police powers that they should never. Its conviction without trail. Your not talking about speeding tickets! You are supporting giving a Policeman the power to screw dads.No check or balance! As to gender equality training, its that Psychological bullshit that has given us this mess!

    A disappointing shallow and poorly analyzed position.

    Lets focus on removing the root cause, not applying a draconian measure that will not work to reduce domestic violence.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 8:53 am

  13. Scrap, I respect your right to disagree but I don’t appreciate the denigrating insults. Rest assured my position, although open to error, will never be either shallow or poorly analyzed.

    I believe that it might be sensible to allow police to grant a temporary protection order lasting for 30 days, not including children. The order would involve no need to allege violence or wrongdoing but would be anyone’s right to request for any reason. This order would not require the respondent to move out of his/her home, but the protected person will need to do so given it is his/her wish to avoid contact. A method for shared care (by default) or an otherwise-agreed care arrangement of the children during the protected period should be included on the order, covering how handovers will be made e.g. through a third party if the protected person wants.

    I believe that such a development would provide the reasonable function that protection orders were initially designed to provide (and sold to the public on); i.e. a quick, easy and effective way of gaining legal protection against communication or contact from someone we wish to avoid for a time. Such short protection orders will allow warring parties to cool down and will thereby help situations not to escalate to violence. Because its provisions will not be onerous on the respondent and will only last for a short time, this protection order is unlikely to increase the risk of violence as the current protection orders undoubtedly do.

    My proposed protection orders will in no way amount to “conviction without trial” because they will be based only on a person’s choice, involve no finding or judgement that either party has done anything wrong, and involve no punitive consequences except a short period of safe firearms storage (which any responsible firearm owner should arrange anyway during periods of high relationship conflict). Their existence should not be allowed to be used in other proceedings to imply anything about the respondent. However, deliberate breaches of the order would be criminal offences with no special protection for the offender. Just as it is illegal to be “in an enclosed yard” without the owner’s permission, my proposed protection order allows a person to erect a temporary legal fence to keep another person out of his/her life for a time.

    Politically, introducing a sensible form of protection order will allow the current version to be discarded completely. If longer term orders are to be used at all, these should be granted only on proper evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than “the balance of probabilities” which really means “however the Family Court judge wants to see it”.

    As for gender-equality training for the police, I think this would be an excellent initiative. Why would you object to police being trained to treat men and women even-handedly? How else are our police going to change their current custom of assuming a man is the villain and the woman the victim in nearly all cases regardless of the circumstances? Such training need have little to do with psychology, though it might be useful to have police explore their beliefs about the offending potential, honesty etc of men vs women and where those beliefs might have come from.

    Bullshit is present in most disciplines, not just psychology. On the other hand, most disciplines including psychology have a lot to contribute when its practitioners and researchers strive to avoid bullshit.

    I am keen to hear criticism or comment about my proposal. However, please refrain from further abusive communication.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 2:13 pm

  14. The injustices involved in current protection order legislation are numerous and appalling. Another injustice is that of kicking a man at short notice out of his house on to the street to try to find somewhere else to live, without access to his possessions. He has worked to contribute to the ownership of the house yet our protection orders allow his rights to use and enjoy his property to be immediately and cursorily removed. Men are now treated much as slaves were when automatically treated as guilty and summarily punished on the mere allegation of a slave owner or any member of the gentry. Most New Zealanders still think that such abuse and injustice only happens in totalitarian states or in third-world countries with strong caste systems still in place, yet here it is well established in our democracy. Go figure. Better still, go vote.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 2:51 pm

  15. Hi hans,

    so we vote and vote and vote, do you really belive that MP’s are concerned about things like that. I have never seen it in there policies !! I see health, education, crime and monetary policy. I have never seen any fathers policy. Look who has the say, its the woman, men are to busy working to pay thier bills, it is the woman that have the time to set up groups. I am surprised that they have not yet introduced the subject “how to fuck a man in everyway” at school yet.

    Then we have Helen Clark ( or should I say Hell In Clerk )and her policy of families first … what a bunch of crap.. working for families, she has no kids, so what the fuck is she talking about. She has no idea. her husband is busy fucking the little boys in the street while she just wishes she had a cock so she could fuck us better.

    Lets face it we have a lesbian prime minister, who has no kids, wants a cock, we are just fucked. And then look at Cullen, Hellins little homo boy. He could not work out how to get out of a paper bag, let alone using it to write on too work out the financial mess he has made.

    We have a government that has no idea and so we vote, vote for what another government that has no idea !! We need to get in touch, and look where our money goes.. our taxes.. the major expense is the DPB, unemployment, and the sickness benefit. Billions a year are handed out willy nilly.

    I dont have a vagina, so I can not just pop out a baby and get the DPB, I wish i could because that is what I would do, I would get an income a state house and cheap medical treatment. I would have groups to talk to so I could complain about nothing. The list goes on I so wish I had a cunt, it is a right to print money.

    Lets face it the odds are stacked up against us, we need sex changes the DPB protection orders to fight this !! If you aint got a cunt then you are a cunt, so you will be fucked !!!

    Comment by paul — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 3:29 pm

  16. Paul – Vote for a party that has policies unashamedly seeking true gender equality, fairness and the protection of families. The Republic of NZ Party has such policies. Although a new party unlikely to get into parliament this election, the more people who vote for them the more our bigger parties will sit up and take notice of the groundswell. Unless that groundswell is shown in the vote, nothing will change except for the worse. Votes are still the best way of influencing government. Voting for either Labour or National, or strategic voting that will help either of them, is futile because neither seems to have any idea of the harm they have done so far. Neither has any male-friendly policies or any commitment to protecting family units or the right of children to be raised by both parents whether together or apart. Vote simply for the moral, ethical and social direction you prefer and this will send the clearest message.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 4:14 pm

  17. I am keen to hear criticism or comment about my proposal. However, please refrain from further abusive communication.

    Hans, you provide good humour.Your tactic that disagreeing with you is being abusive is one that you have used in other discussions. Reality is that in the discussion of temporary protection orders your position is poorly analysed and ill informed.Stating this is not being abusive its exercising freedom of expression and challenging your ill informed and poorly analysed position..

    Lets look at what you propose:

    1) You advocate granting the power for a State Bureaucrat, a policeman, to prevent association by applying an interim injunction that automatically applies for 30 days.Your caveats don’t change the reality that this Conviction without trail by any other name.

    1a) Such orders will require recording and enforcement this can only be achieved via the oppressive state apparatus. Breaching your protection order will result in sanction against an individual or there is no protection. Like the orders breaches will be recorded and the information maintained by the oppressive state apparatus.

    I believe that it might be sensible to ….
    I believe that such a development would provide the reasonable function…

    2)Your belief is just that a belief not fact. The debate on temporary protection orders must be based on fact not credo. Quantitative analysis that identifies root cause/s and real solutions are what is required not credo’s based on ideological positions be they feminist or masculist.

    3)As to the value of social sciences that is highly debated. Its an epistemological/ontological discussion and a contra opinion to yours, even if expressed in colloquial language is equally valid.

    Thats enough of my time spent on this.

    Disagreeing with you is not abusive communication and I wont be bullied by such spurious claims.

    What you propose is to grant powers to the oppressive state apparatus that will see men convicted without trail and kids separated from dad.

    It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and you are maintaining its a seagull. Sorry Hans temporary protection are a duck and a lame one at that.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 10:36 pm

  18. Scrap, I often admire your contributions but here you misrepresent my proposal and indeed my post. For example, why do you claim that kids will be separated from Dad when I specified that shared care would be the default arrangement and any other arrangement would need to be agreed by both parties at the time the order is issued?

    I do understand that many men have been shafted by the current system and are skeptical that anything short of revolution will change things.

    I play no tactic to suggest that disagreeing with me amounts to abuse. If I complain of rude communication it is not because someone has disagreed but because they have been rude. In disagreeing there is no need to insult my point of view by describing it as “shallow” and “poorly analysed”, especially in a knee-jerk, hostile and patronising response that makes no case for either of those claims. However, if that’s the way you prefer to communicate, I’m sure I can manage to give as good as I get.

    Your next post provides little more in the way of good argument than the first one, though I thank you for avoiding the same degree of insult.

    Just because you decide to call the temporary protection orders “conviction without trial” doesn’t make them so. As I said, no evaluation needs to be made of either party. Just as it is one’s legal right to build a fence around a property one owns to keep others out, this provides a legal right for anyone to put a fence around their person. This would be done by either or both genders and would automatically be provided. It’s nothing at all like a conviction.

    Yes, it would require bureaucracy to record this order. So what? There is no other way of limiting another person’s contact with you across all your environments. You seem to imply there was never a problem that protection orders attempted to solve. The fact is that emotions run high, people are highly sensitive and people behave with poor judgement at times of relationship conflict or separation. There was a need to provide protection against inappropriate behaviour that might normally be quite legal, e.g. parking outside your house and observing your movements, driving past and looking in to check on you many times per day, accosting you at work or during your other activities and trying to continue arguments, making subtle threats that could not be proven to be threats and would not amount to criminal behaviour, having others behave in threatening ways towards you.

    Yes, I offer a suggestion and give certain opinions about likely benefits of that suggestion. My opinions are based on some experience and knowledge of facts. If you disagree with my opinions why not explain your reasoning rather than arbitrarily dismissing them simply because they are my opinions? Your command that “the debate on temporary protection orders must be based on fact” seems meaningless as well as authoritarian. What facts do you think are needed?

    You dismiss my suggestions without good argument but you have offered no alternative except some vague stuff about “root causes and real solutions”. Root causes of what? Go on then, tell us all what you think are the real solutions; bless us all with your superior wisdom. Or you could just keep going on about ducks and imagine that resembles good reasoning.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 17th May 2008 @ 2:33 am

  19. to: Scrap_The_CSA – your a good writer scrap, you keep to the facts, thanks.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 19th May 2008 @ 7:43 pm

  20. Oh great stuff bull… And what facts has Scrap brought to this discussion? Can you point to any?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 19th May 2008 @ 7:54 pm

  21. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it’s not a seagull. I think this says it all in scraps words, brilliant stuff, don’t you agree hans…

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 19th May 2008 @ 10:01 pm

  22. Yeah right, as the Tui billboards say. Keep taking those pills.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 10:00 am

  23. Hi guys,
    Ive watched this debate grow over past days, and I’ve got to say, scrap I urge you to reconsider Hans’ comments on Protection Orders, this time consider it from the point of view of someone who hasn’t gone through what you have gone through.
    There is no doubt that the police have got to take some action if they are called to a family home on a domestic violence complaint where there is no obvious signs of violence, conflicting stories, and one party wants further protection.
    Our primary concerns are that whatever action the police take; it must be a tempory measure, it must not force either parent from the family home, and it must not impact on parent/child relationship and responsibilities.
    It is clear that Hans has spent much time developing the sugggested law changes, and I have no doubt that he has considered the changes from all points of view, drawn from his years of knowledge, research and discussion with victims of the current regime.
    Fundimentally, if Hans’ suggestions had been set in legislation years ago, particularly the presumtion of equal shared care, none of us would have gone through what weve been through, and we (including our children) would all be way better off.
    I’m not totally dismissing your arguement scrap, but sometimes we become so angry and negative about certain aspects of Family Court, especially where we have been particularly hard done by, that we become blinded to any suggested reform short of total abolishion. Abolishion of any part of the Family Court system will first require alteranives, which require discussion, developement, legistlative changes and trials, a lengthy and costly excercise that will be less likely to be acceptable to any governemnt, during which time the existing system has to grind on anyway.
    It would be far more responsible and productive to sugest realistic changes that can be accomodated quickly, rather than campaign year after year for something that is unlikely to be paletable to those who have the ablitiy and will to modify the existing system.
    I’m trying to put myself in a mediatory position here, because discussion and points of view are important aspects of process improvement, but we have to be reminded sometimes that we are all on the same side and fighting for the same outcomes. It is posible to convey a different point of view without putting down others, and that is something that we as a group need to work on, because unless we are able to unite and work together, we are doomed.

    Comment by xsryder — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 10:43 am

  24. any kind of protection order is unnecessary, crimnal court has enough scope to address a domestic incident

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 1:33 pm

  25. It is fascinating that intelligent men in a society built on the presumption of innocence promote protection orders as an option. Not only are they promoting protection orders, they are proposing that they be issued like a speeding ticket.

    Bull is correct if there is violence deal with it through a criminal court with a criminal standard of proof.

    I will take time to reply in depth at a later date as family matters prevent me from doing so at this time.




    Hans’ comments on Protection Orders, this time consider it from the point of view of someone who hasn’t gone through what you have gone through.

    Your assuming – you are wrong.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 4:55 pm

  26. Hans you are a good guy but the idea of a 30 day protection order issued by the cops is a shocker.Any kind of a protection order without a criminal hearing to actually prove something wrong has been done is inequitable sorry.

    Comment by whanga — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 5:26 pm

  27. why not just let parking wardens hand them out(protection orders) for god’s sake, pay within 30 days with your cash if its a parking ticket or pay within 30 days for loss of your self respect for a piece of useless paper c/o Her Majesty, oh please…BOTTOM LINE – ALL PROTECTION ORDERS THAT ARE ISSUED BY A FAMILY COURT BELONG IN THE GARBAGE, PERIOD !!!

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 6:53 pm

  28. I have no problems with protection orders between consenting adults. HOWEVER
    the use of orders to screw up parenting for one party is the great abuse of our present system. we have the present 42 day clause which is a joke, 30 days and issued by cops would be just as bad. New status quo, Dad doesn’t have much involvement in kids lives, goodbye dad. In my view no more than 3 days should go by before the matter comes before a judge if children are to be included in orders.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 7:07 pm

  29. I wish people would actually read what I wrote. I think my idea could be a way forward that would get rid of the current injustice, while meeting sensibly some of the needs that led to the introduction of the DVA. Children should not be included unless this has been justified with a high bar. The term “Protection Order” has been tainted with the injustice we have all come to know, and a new name would be in order. But a temporary right not to be approached by a particular person seems to me to be a reasonable thing. There is no need to prove anyone has done anything wrong. We are allowed to build locked fences around our properties whereupon unauthorized entry is a criminal offence. There is no reason why we should not be able to build a legal temporary fence around our person, particularly when we are in high emotional conflict with someone.

    I ask that people read what I wrote and consider it rationally. But I can only ask, not expect this to happen. That’s life.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 7:34 pm

  30. Hi guys, i just wanted to say last week a caregiver took a young child whom is in their care late at night to a doctors surgery with a broken arm after climbing on a climbing frame but no questions were asked, does the parent of this poor little girl not have the right to know of her childs injuries? if she had died what would happen?

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 7:47 pm

  31. As Bull has commented Criminal Courts have the power to issue restraining orders,non-association orders and god knows what else.Defendants have the right to be heard about these matters.Family Courts issue them willy nilly without notice and often even if they only last for 40-50 days that is enough for the victim of a protection order to have many bad things happen including destruction of their relationship with their children,name ruined with friends and relatives,work colleagues etc.At the very least the without notice orders should be stopped immediately.Actually in reality Interim protection orders often last for up to 3 months as it takes time to get a date for a defended hearing

    Comment by whanga — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 8:59 pm

  32. I don’t see an answer to the original question?
    I am attending a function where John Key will be present. I want some stats to try and gain his attention with:
    1 there are x,000 separated families/men affected by current FC legislation
    2 Significant social problems that society faces today have been attributed to the prevalence of the one parent family
    3 The current child support system creates a financial incentive for one partner (usual;y the mother) to take(kidnap) the children and deny shared care.
    4 If National announced that they would change the law to a default position of shared care on separation unless the parties agreed otherwise they would probably pick up x,000votes on this one issue alone.
    Any one have or know where to get the statistics from?

    Comment by Bruce — Tue 20th May 2008 @ 10:19 pm


    The churches’ leaflet urges local churches to act directly by “supporting activities at a lower decile school in your area, volunteering your time to help with some form of family support or youth work, or being a good friend to families who may be isolated or in poverty”.

    It also encourages them to ask politicians two questions:
    “Do they have explicit policies about lifting children out of poverty?

    Do they have clear policies about provision of social services to help children in need?”

    Mr Turner, a Christchurch Methodist minister, said the Working for Families programme had been geared at low and middle-income families.

    Comment by cb — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 10:51 am

  34. Hi scrap
    Re;post 25 “Your assuming – you are wrong”

    I’m sorry to have assumed that you have been hard done by in the Family Court process, or that you have been involved in the Family Court at all. I assumed that you had been hard done by and that Protection Orders were involved, given your obvious distaste for Protection Orders and willingness to shoot down anyone suggesting changes to improve them.
    If you haven’t had any experience with protection orders, be that negative or positive, from where do you draw your knowledge and obvious disdain for protection orders? Please understand that I’m not trying to be checky here, but rather, I would like to understand why Hans’ rational and well thought out comments attracted such negative and personal responses.
    Re post #26 “Any kind of a protection order without a criminal hearing to actually prove something wrong has been done is inequitable sorry”. Note that the Trespass Notice serves a useful purpose in law, and similarly a protection order could do the same if significant changes were made.
    And “Hans you are a good guy but the idea of a 30 day protection order issued by the cops is a shocker”. I was my son’s primary cargiver and there were no protection orders, yet it still took almost a month before I was able to to see my son. If Hans’suggested protection order changes had been adopted back then, I would have been better to get a protection order against me because contact with my son would have been included in the protection order.
    Just something to think about.

    Comment by xsryder — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 11:32 am

  35. Hi Bull in a china shop
    I refer your comment #24 “any kind of protection order is unnecessary, crimnal court has enough scope to address a domestic incident”.

    Are you suggesting that where a parent is fearful that something might happen and rings the police, a criminal court hearing should automatically follow?
    If so, would this be a police prosecution or would one of the parents have to apply for protection in a criminal court?

    Comment by xsryder — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 11:47 am

  36. Comment by bull en a china shop — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 12:54 pm

  37. By the way, i do not have any protection orders on myself, i take a stance of boycotting the family court at my own expense, i will have no further part of its corrupt dealings.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 12:58 pm

  38. Hi xsryder..
    Comment 35.. What do you suggest??

    I have to agree with other against Hans as automatic orders as this has potential to ruin a persons standing in the community through insinuations. Once damaged This is irreparable even if he is proven innocent beyond doubt. IF anything these orders need to be backed up by proof. Hans is not doing anything different from the current system apart from glossing it a bit while still advocating for the current system in place.

    ” suggesting that where a parent is fearful that something might happen and rings the police” and what if the person is crying wolf just cos things did not go her way due to her being in the wrong?..or is trying to get even?? what then? You still advocate that the innocent should suffer?

    How will what Hans has suggested protect the innocent and the situation above in real life?

    Comment by starr — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 4:36 pm

  39. So it seems that hardly any of you people have actual experience of a Protection Order.Its great you are discussing it but I wonder if you have 1% of an idea of what they do.After 12 years and counting and still no regular telephone contact with my daughter,when I did absolutely nothing wrong, I can tell you that they are no picnic.
    It has been so long that I had actually got used to it and did not give it much thought to it until I read the comments on this site a couple of months ago.I just kind of accepted that it was my lot and I had drawn bad cards at the table of marriage or something.
    2 attempts at getting it discharged after 7 and 9 years ended up costing me heaps of money for my ex wifes bullshitting lawyer`s fees.i certainly will not be trying that again while von Dadelson is still a Family Court judge in Napier.In 3 and a half years my daughter will be 16 anyway and our relationship no longer under the control of the Helenist regime
    xsryder you have said that you would have had contact with your son included in the protection order.
    This is the opposite of what Protection orders do.They prevent you not only contacting the other parent but also the child.This means phone,letter,Christmas presents,visiting the school the works.
    At one stage after considerable court action I got supervised access to my daughter for 2 hours at a weekend.I had to drive from Auckland to Napier to do this.Then I went there and the mother did not show up with her.This happened 3 more times.She bragged to me that her lawyer said she could do what she liked.When I complained to the Court they did nothing.Of course the mother had told my daughter each time I had not turned up for the access.This is how fathers with protection Orders against them get treated.And how their relationships with their children are manipulated by this government and its systems.
    I am sure there are thousands of fathers and some mothers with stories like mine.

    Comment by whanga — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 7:18 pm

  40. Whanga,
    to address your comment “Its great you are discussing it but I wonder if you have 1% of an idea of what they do”, yes it may seem that I am out of place debating protection orders when I haven’t had one against me, but I assure you that, through my experiences with this and other forums, men’s support groups, a four year FC tour of duty, walking to wellington with a pram covered in protest signs while simultaniously listening to hundreds of nightmare stories about FC cases…yes I do have an idea of what protection orders do, and that is why I have made it my purpose to do something about them.
    Fair comments. I can’t help but think about the Trespass Notice and how it works. When a person is handed a trespass notice, it is intended purely as a temporary protective measure, and does not go on your record, nor does anyone know about the notice except those immediately involved. The Trespass Notice means nothing unless the terms of the Notice are broken; there is an understanding that the person issued with the Notice is innocent, and remains so unless the terms of the notice are breached. Protection orders should work exactly the same way, but also factoring in what Hans was saying about the inclusion of parent/child contact, equal share parenting and the person who needs protection would be the one leaving the family home (perhaps even tempoarily until matters have been dealt with). If this were the case, I see no reason why the police can’t issue an “order”, but it would be more like a cross between “Personal Tresspass Notice” and “Equal Share Care Parenting Agreement” than the current protection order. Does that help?

    Comment by xsryder — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 9:53 pm

  41. Protection Orders should be a last resort action and properly investigated by the issuing authority (currently Family Court) for people who are / had been in a domestic type relation with others.
    Children of a relationship should never be included in the Order unless they also have been subjected to undeniable abuse.
    Children should remain in the family home until a mutual agreement or judicial intervention overides initial emotion.
    To counter the position that Hans has put forward

    Just as it is one’s legal right to build a fence around a property one owns to keep others out, this provides a legal right for anyone to put a fence around their person

    They can quite easily do that themselves by walking away from any situation causing dispute without the need to further escalate matters seeking an abitrary type of enforced intervention.
    Even nagging wives now fall under the term of being psychological abusers if you apply the legislative interpretation.
    If a male or female physically abuses their partner the code of criminal law can be applied immediately with their arrest if their is sufficient evidence to warrant such action.
    Failing the lack of any evidence, any disgruntled partner has the opportunity to break the shackles that bind the relationship and walk away from the relationship, then seek an equal parenting order which should be the status quo in Family Court.
    Having children removed to womens refuges by unhappy mothers or fathers being unjustifiably arrested under acts of policy provides no real solution but further acts as a catalyst for further long term all inclusive family destruction.
    A pertinent question to ask would be,
    What is the ratio of Protection Orders issued to applicants with children as opposed to applicants without children?
    And the underlying result might then convey that it is mostly about having total control of children (perhaps for financial gain), further power over a non custodial parent usually the father (for numerous reasons which can include bitterness, vengence sheer bloodymindedness or a coercion by financial stakeholders in the extended Family Law corporation).
    I had been subject to the restriction and punitive actions of a Protection Order.
    I had also then been physically assaulted by the Protected people.
    However there is no such order against me now as I it has been discharged, correctly so.
    These are not matters that should be theoretical extensions that form part of a wider social experiment.

    Kind Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09) 940 6236

    Comment by Paul Catton — Wed 21st May 2008 @ 10:22 pm

  42. Hi Paul.
    Good comments, particularly interested in your point about the ratio of cases where there were dependant children. Can anyone on this list shed any light on this?
    Perhaps the police shouldn’t attend domestic violence calls at all, rather a rapid response team that can assess the situation and offer some on the spot mediation, counselling, sobering up, first aid, guidance….whatever, and only call the police if there is evidence of violence or the potential for violence.
    Naa…forget that….the feminists will infiltrate that too.

    Comment by xsryder — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 1:18 am

  43. Hi guys, i just wanted to let you know their is a place you can go if you have young children or teens who want to have their say. [email protected] ph 3096967, and they are situated in Auckland Central

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 12:23 pm

  44. Good comment XSryder except in real life when a person is handed a trespass notice.. the community sees a person who has done wrong regardless…. The implied judgenment is there already.

    Now relate this to a domestic situation the implications are much more damaging than a common trespass notice… the social status of the innocent as I have stated before is ruined and often irreparable… how will the ‘freely’ handed out protection order SAFEGUARD against this??

    My focus is application of these orders in real life.. not legal implications because it is the real situations which dictate whats happening out to the innocent and how much suffering they go through regardless of what these orders may state. I am sure you are familiar with whats happening out there already.. so the question remains how will such orders help safeguard the innocent??

    Comment by starr — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 3:24 pm

  45. Hi guys, sorry about this, we live in West Auckland, just found out petrol is $2Litre and the whole of Avondale township is closed off due to road works which caused a very expensive trip just to get a bottle of milk from the only dairy we know is open

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 10:31 pm

  46. I have never heard of a protection order being issued to a father and his children. In fact I have never heard of a protection order being issued to a amale applicant.

    Comment by Dave — Mon 26th May 2008 @ 4:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Skip to toolbar