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.”
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”.