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

Family Court problems for fathers.

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Julie @ 11:21 am Sun 13th January 2008

Are things balancing for fathers in Family Court proceedings as Judge Boshier (head Judge of the FC) tries to make us believe is a question I raised on another site that helps fathers through this difficult time. Here is an agreed comment back from fathers who work with cases.

My personal experience is that – here in Hawkes Bay – changes for the better are happening. Just recently for example, we (UoF – no lawyer) put together an application for a Without Notice Parenting Order and it was granted. I have to say that a couple of years ago, this would never have happened. We have also been far more successful in recent times achieving shared care.

It is important to note that Hawkes Bay is an area organised and the ‘Father’s Coalition’ and ‘Union of Fathers’ have protested outside the FC in numbers and were part of a documentary on TV. Not all areas are the same.

While I do have to give the local Judge credit for making an effort, there are still far too many problems and we are a very long way indeed from “have things balanced out”.

Here are some of the more obvious FC problems:

  • Fathers accused of whatever have to prove that the allegations are wrong. In contrast, my impression is that if a father accuses the mother (even if he has all the evidence), at best the court completely ignores the allegations and at worst treats it as him trying “to make her feel bad about herself” (i.e. he is using [a form of] violence).
  • I have yet to see a case where a person is charged and convicted for perjury for knowingly making false allegations in affidavits or in the court
  • Court staff are generally unhelpful in providing information regarding FC procedures to self litigants (perhaps this is a training issue)
  • It still appears that the FC makes sure that lawyers and psychologists make a lot of money (“in the best interest of the children – as long as it fills our pockets”).
  • Cases still drag out far too long.
  • There is still a reluctance by the FC to come down heavy handed on people breaching orders.
  • Much larger are problems with current legislation and practices affecting cases which go through the FC:

  • As a rule, protection orders still include children even if the applicant’s affidavit does not raise any concerns for their safety
  • No basis for equal shared care after separation
  • Legal aid is extremely sexist
  • DV legislation is extremely sexist
  • Child support is extremely sexist
  • DPB is extremely sexist
  • Paternity tests can still be blocked by the mother
  • Other major problems are the general views and perceptions of the public which came about through indoctrination by feminist propaganda:

  • Men are wife beaters, rapists and child abusers
  • Women who treat men like crap are empowered women
  • Women who abuse children have been abused themselves
  • Women who commit crimes do so because they had a rough past
  • Women need protection
  • Men need to take responsibility for their actions
  • Such perceptions influence decisions made in the FC.

    Another interesting comment made was about the above comment;

    Pete’s put everything very well.
    Being involved with Pete in the court in Hawkes Bay I back up his comments.
    The real problems down here are guys who go into the process using the lawyers. Virtually every guy using a lawyer for the process is coming off worse. Last year I did an informal telephone poll with local lawyers asking how many of them had achieved shared care for male clients in court.
    1 Lawyer had achieved it once. Here in HB around 7 guys have achieved shared care in the last 18 months without using a lawyer. Lawyer involved cases drag on and cost the guys thousands and usually lead to repeated court interactions.

    It’s mostly about guys being aware of the tricks bullying tactics and manipulating that virtually all of the HB Lawyers seem to indulge in. Which of course drags things out and means more money for themselves!

    New Zealand is not alone in the problems feminism is having on families and especially bias towards fathers.

    A British Court has ruled that a child is so purely the sole property of the mother that she can unilaterally decide to conceal its existence from the father (unless, of course, she unilaterally decides that she’d rather get child support from him).

    The court held that “the father’s rights were not violated because he did not have any to violate.”

  • The underlying legal principle is clear and simple: Women have rights; men have responsibilities!
  • Government figures in Britain indicate that more than 90 % of the time mothers are awarded residence (custody) of the children. Since 90% of divorce cases never get to court, it is presumed 90% of fathers are satisfied. The fact is, most men know the odds are stacked against them, and don’t have the money or heart to go through a debilitating legal process they are sure to lose.

    And this is the response from a feminist who left her calling card amongst the comments.

    Oh no, another tale of the put-upon white male. He has found an aspect of women”s lives that he can’t control, but fear not, he won’t rest until he’s rectified that.

    The problem does not seem to be every woman who relates to some of the fine things feminists and women who work in the communities or those who took part in protests for better wages and such did in the past or do in the present. It is the man hating gender feminists and the ideology that they have suffocated Western Societies with.

    I have a female friend who I hold in high regard who is an old school gender feminist. She has 4 sons herself and is connected to other feminist women who have high positions in Plunket and so forth. When I spoke to her about the bias towards males and in particular fathers in custody cases she replied, “So now after 1000’s of years fathers want to be a part of their children’s lives! Well, tough”.


    1. Great post, summarizing the current situation very effectively.

      Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 12:29 am

    2. Thanks for making this interesting discussion public Julie.

      Two of Judge Boshier’s recent presentations:

      The Family Court – Towards Achieving Our Best Auckland family Courts Association 29th November.

      New Zealand Law Society Family Law Conference 8th November

      Comment by JohnP — Tue 15th January 2008 @ 11:10 am

    3. Should the “Auckland Family Courts association” and the “NZLS Family court section” not include representitives of consumers of their “Services”

      Comment by Alastair — Tue 15th January 2008 @ 11:24 am

    4. The Family Court of New Zealand is a cess pit of stinking corruption !

      Comment by dad4justice — Wed 16th January 2008 @ 9:33 pm

    5. I agree with the comment ‘As a rule, protection orders still include children even if the applicant’s affidavit does not raise any concerns for their safety’
      Being involved with the system for 8 years the bottom line is nothing has really changed.

      Comment by Graeme — Thu 7th February 2008 @ 6:50 pm

    6. Correct dad4justice, i have just come across a Family Court judge called L de Jong in the Family Court Northshore, this Judge would be the most biased prick i have ever experienced.

      Comment by Graeme — Thu 7th February 2008 @ 6:55 pm

    7. Just wondering. How bad is it if the father signs day to day care away (after the councelling sessions) to the mother? Its all done, but still a bit hazy. Her lawyer was getting irrate because he was stalling signing it and the lawyer was threatening to take him to court.
      (the stalling was because of her nasty txts and refusing agreed access)

      Comment by Sarah — Fri 8th February 2008 @ 12:10 am

    8. Hi Sarah, This makes me so mad that they are doing things like this. They should not be asking anyone to sign day to day care away.

      The counsellors at women’s centres are scaring females into going to court to get day to day care on paper. They say that the father could pick the children up from school and kidnap them because he is still a custodian.

      It is pathetic. A mother is a mother and a father is a father. Both are parents 100% to a child.

      Would you mind if I e-mailed you and got your story. I think this needs to be made public if possible.

      Comment by julie — Fri 8th February 2008 @ 2:42 am

    9. I am about to go through the system to apply for shared care of my children. I have so far been stopped at every post, from my childrens mother not wanting to do parenting counselling to lawyers who wont help when they find out I have to represent myself due to legal costs.
      Has anyone got any advice on where to turn to next???

      Comment by Robbie — Fri 17th October 2008 @ 4:18 pm

    10. Dear Robbie,

      Provide your location and then perhaps you can be aligned with somebody to provide assistance and advice as may be required.

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

      Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 17th October 2008 @ 7:22 pm

    11. Robbie
      The “Lawyer for Child” will ask your kids if they want you. If the mother has indoctrinated them, then the judge will simply ask her only what SHE wants, the Dad’s wishes are not taken into account unless your kids strongly wish you to be in their lives. This is the terrible reality of Dad’s position in NZ. If this is the case, you will only get to see your kids, one day a fortnight and you will have to pay child support. If your ex is malicious, she will stop the kids meeting you and the courts will do nothing, even though you have become a slave to the government. After several years, you will no longer be a parent, but a visitor to your kids, you may be “awarded” a few extra days. But the mother will always be able to stop them seeing you, the law will hardly ever punish the mother.
      That is the reality of the legal process, the government wants the mother to look after the kids, and the Dad to pay them for the DPB. Your best hope in this anti-male legal process is to make sure that the kids REALLY love you lots, never annoy the ex.

      Comment by Perseus — Fri 17th October 2008 @ 10:27 pm

    12. There was a great victory in the US courts for men yesterday,
      Equality laws in other countries (especially sweden) are being used to get men true equality
      In NZ, some sexes are more equal than others

      Comment by Perseus — Sat 18th October 2008 @ 9:03 am

    13. Hi:Can you e-mail me your phone number asap because i have same problem
      Similar with the case ,just need some help.thank you !

      Comment by MM — Fri 16th January 2009 @ 4:53 pm

    14. Hi MM, e-mail is on it’s way.

      Comment by julie — Fri 16th January 2009 @ 6:58 pm

    15. Same happened to me. I was harrassed until I showed up. Then they gave me 35% of the nights care (so I still pay maximum and just under shared care). Judge Sommerville was condescending throughout the “mediation”. When I said I want my children to experience a parent going to work his response was “what, like a real parent” and it was grins all round between the mums legal aid rep, mum and the judge. I represented myself and had no idea what I was doing.

      Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:40 pm

    16. me too please … I am being bled dry.

      Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:43 pm

    17. Perseus,
      There was an Obamination today as well as the victory for men.

      Check to see how the Obaminable showman is paying off his campaign victory with more pork for the femmies.
      Sorry I can’t provide a link at present as the website seem to be playing up a bit.

      Comment by skeptik — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 10:04 pm

    18. You people do not know what the fuck you are talking about!

      You have obviously never taken into consideration the reason why the MOTHER has concerns – have any of you even stopped to ask????

      The courts are now favouring men more than women in custodial issues. My ex partner was abusive, physically and mentally and do you think the courts care about that???? They do not – they are willingly forcing me to hand my little girl over to a sexually perverted, aggressive and manipulative man. They don’t care about what kind of person he is… biggest hope is that he never subjects my precious one year old daughter to the obscenities he exposed me to in the extremely short time I was with him.

      Comment by Me — Sat 27th February 2010 @ 7:47 pm

    19. Me said

      they are willingly forcing me to hand my little girl over to a sexually perverted, aggressive and manipulative man

      And what do you think he will do to her ?

      What do you consider an obscenity ? We all have different moral values.

      Comment by noconfidence — Sat 27th February 2010 @ 8:10 pm

    20. Did you use that foul language and your disgusting description of others around both your ex-partner and your child? If you ex is guilty of some kind of crime then you should report that to the Police.

      We ALL know what we’re talking about because we’ve ALL experienced the biased Femily Caught for ourselves. The MOTHER of my child also had delusional concerns however they were ALL based on her selfish obsession to cause me harm and had NOTHING to do with our child. She lost custody and that was the correct verdict for the sake of my child. Your nastiness might gain you the same results if you’re not careful.

      I wonder what how your ex-partner would describe you after living with you for a short time? I wonder how you would feel if your ex-partner kept your daughter from you because he hated your guts?

      Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 27th February 2010 @ 8:13 pm

    21. This is a bit rich, coming on to a site working towards equality and having a go at members because me, me, me, didn’t get her own way.

      The first thing you should do is drop the ‘me’. This is a site that puts children first, not mothers.

      The second thing you should do is cut out the aggressiveness. You can try and communicate a better way.

      So what’s the issues?

      He’s sexually perverted?
      What does this mean? Porn? You had sex in strange positions?

      Manipulation isn’t against the law. I’m sure you tried to manipulate also.

      Aggressiveness? To whom? Is the person he is being aggressive to also being aggressive to him?

      Do you get child support? If you do, do you think it is fair you want to say on the one hand he can’t be the father because it doesn’t suit you, but on the other hand you’ll force him to pay you money.

      Comment by julie — Sat 27th February 2010 @ 11:59 pm

    22. Boy, the site is attracting some interesting people these days isn’t it?

      Comment by Scott B — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 6:59 am

    23. this is it in a nutshell!!

      (accuser)the one who tells the story first is believed 100% in the eyes of the enforcers
      (accused)the poor person who has had there world tipped up side down then must spend thousands to fight this family court circus,and the police if your as unlucky as me as death threats and firearm and drug allegations will be used,you will be locked up instantly,house gets raided,and you now have to fight the lies not from just your ex,but the cops,and then the family courts!!!
      not bad considering you had just found out an hour pryor to this the guy who was sleeping with your now ex partner behind your back,
      so scared of getting what he deserved runs to the cops and made those false statements!!!

      Comment by hayden — Sat 3rd July 2010 @ 5:54 am

    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