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

Example of delivering suicide triggers – judge dale green

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 10:52 am Sat 25th July 2009

Good morning judge green, now known as judge clarkson.

I met you at a familycaught hearing at 10 am on 6th October 1992. I had applied for this hearing 10 months earlier, after my children were abducted from my settled care and then re-enrolled into schools in the mother’s area. Although I applied to the familycaught in good faith, you used every available delaying tactic, so that it could be said that the children were now in the mother’s settled care. Essentially, you manufactured evidence, to support the child abducting mother.

As I walked into the hearing, I had known for 9 months that the hearing would be a charade, could only be a charade, just a dishonest window dressing amateur theatre. The fact that you had left the children in her care and delayed access to a hearing for 11 months, made it clear that your decision about whether to return the children after abduction, had actually been taken when the familycaught received the papers, that is before the evidence had been heard.

The only information that your decision was based on – was that the abductor was the mother.

When I asked you, for my children’s relationship with me to be protected from child abduction, you said “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”. Her decision approved the abduction and set it’s consequences into concrete. Further, it encouraged the children’s mother to do the same again, two and a half years later. Her approach did not seem to me to be an act of integrity.

Your statement “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”, told me that you didn’t see any value in honesty between parents, or in protecting children from mother-abductors.

I couldn’t understand how a judge couldn’t place any value on honesty between parents. To bring up a child competently and with discipline, honesty is necessary to stop the children playing off the parents against each other. This is just as necessary between separated parents, as still married parents. Honesty between parents allows them to negotiate to make the best life for their children, by efficiently utilizing their resources. Dishonesty wastes resources, thus impoverishing what the parents can offer their children. Dishonesty between parents doesn’t develop children who can be emotionally competent as an adult, sustaining an intimate relationship.

How could a judge not value honesty?
How could a judge reward dishonesty?

It is only through honesty between parents, that parents can work together to provide consistent, effective and appropriate discipline for their children.

It is only through honesty between parents, that parents can work together constructively and productively, to bring up their children and give them the best.

Through your knowledge of “family law”, you appear to know nothing about real world parenting, discipline of children or family budgeting. “Family law” may exist as a legal academic subject, but it has less than no value in contributing to the parenting of children in the real world. “Family law” is simply irrelevant and destructive, in it’s impacts onto real world parenting.

“Family law” only has value to legal workers, for extending disputes and increasing legal workers extortionate charges to the families of children.

Your statement, “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”, also told me that you have repudiated your judicial oath.

The judicial oath is given in the Oaths and Declarations Act, available on and it says:

I, dale green, swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of District Caught Judge; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.

Your statement, “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”, also told me that you have repudiated your judicial oath.

I do appreciate your honesty, by saying this to my face, in your secret caught.

By repudiating your judicial oath, you have chosen to revert from judge green, to plain dale green. In the same way that you placed my children and I outside of the protection of statute law, you have acted outside the law and placed yourself outside the statutory immunity protection for judges, while acting judicially.

You have taken the responsibility for your actions onto your own shoulders. You tried to make me out as an outlaw, a person outside the protection of Parliament’s laws. You stand outside the legislation and you have also made yourself into an outlaw.

When questions of responsibility for the consequences of judgements arise, judges have found no personal responsibility on the part of the judge, when acting judicially, that is – within the law. However, dale green, when acting outside of your judicial oath, outside of Parliament’s legislation, then you must carry the responsibility PERSONALLY.

After 2 hours of hearing, with only 10 minutes devoted to parenting skills and resources, you then scoffed at your own conclusions about parenting skills and awarded ongoing custody to the mother-abductor.

You followed “judge made law”, not the legislation set down by Parliament, for all citizens and judges to follow. These previous judgements that you followed, are not available to citizens, as they are unpublished judgements. They are seen only by legal workers practicing in familycaught and judges. The judgements published by the legal publishers show only the judgements which comply with legislation. How is it, that there are two sets of laws, one available to citizens and one available only to judges and legal workers in familycaught for use in secret trials?

In a genuine common-law country, all judgements are sent to the legal publishers and they are free to decide which of these set new precedents and will be published. judge mahony discussed this when he met with Parliament’s Social Services Subcommittee, on 16th May 2001. Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahony appeared before the Social Services Select Committee. He was heavily criticised in the media for insisting the press be excluded.

The full Mahony document is available at:

Here is an extract from the transcript of his memorandum:

“I have accepted your invitation to meet with you to provide information and answer questions as far as I am able against an acceptance that the Courts and the Judiciary are independent of Parliament and its processes. So I have not come in any sense as being answerable to Parliament or the Committee, but in the hope that through sharing information I can be helpful.


Public confidence in the Courts is just as important as it is for the law making process through
Parliament. It is in that context that I have been concerned at recent criticism of the Family Court aired in the media insofar as it has been ill informed, exaggerated and couched in terms calculated to destroy the Court’s credibility, particularly when it has been directed at the personal and professional integrity of the Judges.


The Family Proceedings Act placed an obligation on legal advisers to ensure that clients were aware of the counselling services available and an obligation on the Family Court to promote conciliation.


(b) It should have specialist Judges who are legally trained and qualified by personality, experience, and interest to decide matters and direct overall activities of a Family Court.


(e) Strict adversary rules should be relaxed, as assured the more traditional forms of dress and address so that, when cases have to be resolved in Court, the hearing can be conducted in an atmosphere of relative informality. The aim of the Court should be to help resolve problems with the co-operation of the parties, wherever that is possible, and with a minimum of disruption in all cases.


All Judgments are sent to the legal publishers through my office. They have the editorial freedom to choose cases for reporting in the two series of Family Law Reports published in New Zealand.
Unreported Judgments are also available through the legal publishers and are frequently referred to in the Family Court manuals published by both Butterworths and Brookers. They are unavailable to legal academics and the Universities who teach family law and are free to scrutinise and comment on Judgments of the Court.”

“unavailable” presumably was a transcription error and should read available.

Although judge mahony claimed that all judgements are supplied to legal publishers and are available to legal academics, this simply is quite untrue. After I had received a reference to a case, in a published appeal K v C appeal against removal of child without notice Priestly 21FRNZ686, I searched for the original judgement, that had been appealed against. I asked a Professor of Law if he had the original judgement and he replied that he frequently has difficulty in obtaining familycaught judgements.

It is interesting to read judge mahony’s submission, as I believe that there is not a single page which is completely truthful and not misleading.

So judge green, where does your judgement fit into the issue of whether NZ is a genuine common law or bound by precedent country. I asked both Butterworths and Brookers, the two legal publishers operating in NZ, whether they held copies of the judgement that you issued in the hearing of 6th October 1992. I asked under the Privacy Act, so that they are required to answer truthfully. Both said that they did not hold this judgement.

So, when you know that you are acting outside of Parliament’s legislation, then you don’t supply the judgement to the legal publishers, as this would enable the public to see whether you were acting outside of the law.

The Interpretation Act defines how courts should analyse the meanings of a statute, if this is not already completely obvious and unambiguous. It is required that words shall have their common english useage, unless the term has a well known legal definition.

How to Understand an Act of Parliament 7TH EDITION by D. J. GIFFORD
Words used in an Act of Parliament (if they are not defined in the Act) are to be read as having the meaning which they had in ordinary speech (or, if they are technical words, then as having their technical meaning) at the time when the Act was passed:

When we look at the “legal definition” of “best interests of the child”, should this have the meaning taken by familycaught legal workers, or the meaning accepted by competent and successful parents?

The “legal definition” is based on a legal analysis of the family, an analysis no more sophisticated than who was born with male genitals and who was born with female genitals. This should easily result in treating like cases in a like way!, but is this sufficient to meet the term “best interests of the child”, as it is understood by successful and competent parents?

Clearly this “legal definition” of “best interests of the child” fails to include issues such as each of the parent’s skills, resources for parenting, support from family and friends and all of the cultural issues as well.

Although the “legal definition” is accepted by legal workers and familycaught judges, it is not seen as sufficient to do justice to “the best interests of the child”, by any competent and successful parent.

So, what are the consequences for the children when a familycaught judge goes off the rails, outside of the legislation set down by Parliament? The mother of my two children felt free to break familycaught Orders for access, hundreds of times through the following 12 years. I never applied to the familycaught for assistance at enforcing these Orders, as it was clear from dale green’s behaviour, that the orders and the familycaught could not be taken seriously.

I lost all remaining trust of familycaught judges and for all aspects of this Mickey Mouse caught. You saw me as an outlaw dale green, living outside the protection of the laws passed by Parliament. I see you dale green, as an outlaw, you choose to work outside the law.

The Guardianship Act gives both parents the right to take part in decisions affecting their children. You turned your back on this legislation. Following on from you, judge M D robinson also approved the next abduction from my care. By removing from me the ability to take part in decisions protecting my children, you acted to prevent me from being able to protect my children from their abductor mother.

The stresses of this lawless lifestyle and lack of parental discipline, led to my older son leaving school, without even passing 3rd form exams. So what, a lifetime loss of almost a hundred thousand dollars doesn’t even register to a familycaught judge, you just couldn’t care less!

I was slapped across the face by your statement, “I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children”. I realised that the “Alice in Wonderland” stories I had heard about the familycaught were true and that in practice I was going to be prevented from taking any part in the decisions relating to my children’s upbringing. This being to the point that you, dale green, saw fit to prefer the parenting of a child-abductor mother, over that of an honest father.

I had a suicidal streak throughout my childhood. Your expression of me as an outlaw, pressed these buttons again. I pulled myself away from these suicidal thoughts as quickly as I could, through the following 18 months. I tried to not look back. I dismissed it as my own troubled reaction.

I have an interest in suicide, as I know how many separating men (and probably women too) harbour suicidal thoughts, for some time during the separating process. Some of the triggers are “insensitive” comments made by family court legal workers, both judges and lawyers. I know that most people don’t act on these thoughts, as they have later discussed them with me.

I know that a large proportion of male suicides, are in the year or two after separation, so that the connection between men discussing suicide triggers pressed by familycaught workers and the significant number of suicides in the short period after separation is not just a coincidence.

I looked up NZ’s suicide statistics. It is terrible, when any person takes a long term solution, for a short term problem. Since the introduction of the familycaught, men in the age range 20 to 45 have been committing suicide at about x4 the rate in the previous 25 year period. Most of this increase occurred in the first 5 years after the familycaught opened for trade, since judges gained the freedom to operate under protection of secrecy. This is an increase in suicide deaths from about 2000 in 25 years from 1955 to 1980 to nearly 9000 from 1980 to 2005.

Keeping suicide in perspective, the average GP is involved with a suicide every 18 months, they are not particularly common. They have a similar incidence to road fatalities, actually a little lower. Road deaths are probably over-reported, as suicides are probably under-reported. Fortunately therefore, most of us do not have immediate family personal experience of completed suicide. This low incidence leads many in the public to not take this subject seriously, until it strikes very close to home. Then it is too late.

Much of this increase might be due to increased work stress and financial pressure to support families. This period has had it’s ups and downs, but generally there has been steadily increasing wealth. Through this 50 year period, there has been peacetime and substantial development in psychiatric treatments and medicines. These should have led to a significant reduction in suicides triggered by psychiatric conditions.

Careful analysis of road deaths, has led to safer roads and safer cars. Better emergency access to hospital treatment has also reduced deaths and the impacts of injuries. Improved driver testing, has also led to a reduction in road deaths. Between these two 25 year periods, there has been a reduction in road deaths of about 5000 people.

Why then, has suicide in 20 to 45 year old men increased by x4, through this period, especially through a period without major war? Most of the increase in the suicide rate occurred through the first five years that the secret familycaught first traded.

Was my personal experience of dale green and familycaught usual or unusual?

If it was typical, then dale green’s repudiation of her judicial oath and favouring of mother-abductors and similar activities by some other judges, may be resulting in many men and some women too, deciding to escape from NZ through suicide.

If she has behaved similarly with other men and perhaps one of them did decide to follow through on his suicidal impulses, then it is probable that Judge Green is a manslaughterer, quite possibly many times over. Gallons and gallons and gallons of blood may have been callously spilt, by her trying to prove her feminist credentials.

If my treatment was “normal”, then we could expect that similar treatment would be foreseeably likely to tip a significant number of the 5,000 men who are dragged through the familycaught each year, to consider and complete suicide. Even if only say 0.5% of separating men did complete suicide, then we would be seeing 25 additional suicides per year, which is in line with recorded suicides.
At 25 additional suicides per year, then since the familycaught started trading, at 500 suicides total, there would be an average of 4 suicides for each judge. Some judges may not have triggered any suicides. More dismal judges may be responsible for far higher than 4 suicides.

Now that I have looked back on my own experience in the familycaught, I see that even if I avoided the final solution, about 15 men each year may be falling into the man-traps set by these judges, acting outside of legislation passed by Parliament.

I am not saying that all familycaught judges behave in these ways. Probably, some judges deliver suicidal triggers much more than others. I am not accusing them of doing it consciously, deliberately and murderously. I believe that killing people in a foreseeable way is still culpable manslaughter, even when hiding behind the british tradition of judges not taking responsibility for their decisions. To the extent that these judicial behaviours foreseeably deliver suicide triggers, then there is personal responsibility.

This raises the issue of the appointment of people with legal, but not judicial training, as judges. In choosing to accept the risk of appointing lay judges, we wear the additional suicides, triggered by these under-skilled judges.

I know that judges are taught to NOT personally take responsibility for their decisions. In the days of hanging, a mistake could amount to “legal” cold blooded murder. Who would want to face the responsibility for their own error or mistake, extinguishing an innocent human life?

If I assault my friend, who unknown to me has a weak blood vessel in his brain and he dies, then I will be required to wear the responsibility. There is a rule in common law, that “you take your victim as you find him”. In a similar way, in my opinion, when a judge says to a man (Judge Green to me on 6th October 1992), after this hearing and as its consequences for my children and I unfolded, I gave serious consideration to killing myself. I did not want to be associated with bringing up my children, through the type of relationships being imposed by the Family Court. I had decided to have children, to offer them the best parenting I could.

I cannot stand silently by, while this careless carnage goes on. Parliament never envisaged that these judges would act so far outside of the legislation, at such an unnecessary bloody cost to our community.

Judges acting judicially, are not held accountable for the consequences of their judgements. However, this protection does not apply when they act illegally, outside of statute law, as in your case dale green. Your responsibility is personal. As the consequences are not reversible, you wear this blood all over your hands, blood that can never be washed off. Over 20 litres of blood.

Listeners, if you have a family member, friend or work colleague who has killed them-self, please find out whether the familycaught judges may have played an active role in their decision to destroy their life. If so, was their decision affected by any illegal aspects of how they were treated by these acting judges? If so, who is the culpable judge?

It is necessary to look very closely at the file and all papers in it. Just looking at the judgements does not give a complete or honest understanding of what has really happened through the familycaught process. Usually blackmail and threats are verbal or implied. These legal workers are really cowards, of the lowest order. They never stand up to carry responsibility for their actions.

Please do not shrink away from this cold dark task. I am not asking you to face these bloody demons, for the pleasure of facing off with death, but to protect our still alive sons, daughters, family and friends. Lets find out who are the worst death-dealing judges, so that we can replace them by judges who are willing to carry out their job, legally and with family competence.

I invite people to communicate their good and less good experiences with dale green, the acting judge. What conclusion can be drawn from a wider sample of her practice as a judge?

Someone could suggest that only weak men, with severe psychiatric problems, would complete suicide. I suggest that these people are already showing in the suicide rate prior to 1980, the trading start of the familycaught. Many of our most creative artists, writers, scientists and teachers have fought some of their life with mental illness issues. Notwithstanding this, they have contributed greatly to the cultural life of our nation – probably more so than any legal worker in NZ.

Here I am only discussing the additional suicides. If I punch and knock to the ground my opponent and he dies, due to weak blood vessels in the brain, then I am required to carry full responsibility. I take my victim as I find him.

If a doctor takes a life through careless application of his craft, the courts are very willing to place the responsibility onto his shoulders.

I am only asking that our society place the same burden, the same duty of care onto our responsibility ducking judges.

Lets stop the unnecessary bloodletting. Lets respect all members of our community.


  1. Judge Dale Green, now known as Dale Clarkson, retired as a District Court judge in 2006, but still holds an acting warrant. She was a family caught judge for 18 years. At the time of her appointment, she was the youngest judge appointed to the bench. Her husband Dr Hugh Clarkson is an Auckland psychiatrist. In December 2008 the Government in its wisdom appointed Judge Green/Clarkson chair of the new “watch dog” organisation on lawyers aka the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. These days Judge Green/Clarkson decides the fate of dodgy lawyers, and no doubt she is kept very busy.

    If you complain about a lawyer to the Law Society and don’t like their response, (after all I question how any profession can be self-regulating) you can complain to the Legal Complaints Review Office and if they agree, they will refer your complaint to Judge Green/Clarkson and her Tribunal to consider.

    I offer to you Murray as some consolation that the good judge these days sits in judgement of her peers, not the poor unfortunate men who get dragged before the feminist governance of this country’s family caught system.

    Comment by Gerry — Sat 25th July 2009 @ 3:34 pm

  2. Dear Gerry,

    thanks for your commiserations! I had heard that Clarkson is now in a more comfortable role.

    Lest it be thought that I only think ill of her, I have heard her complimented, for identifying a lying mother making a Protection Order comlaint. I hope that I showed appreciation for her directness and honesty, about trivialising and bastardising her “judicial oath”. Her honesty saved me thousands$.

    It all shows that they write lots of good and lots of poor quality judgements. The biggest problem, is the right people only sometimes get the right judgement, its really only a lottery!

    The only people who get hurt, are those who gamble with somehing that they aren’t prepared to lose.

    I am sure that Clarkson could be a good judge for kennels and peerages, just as long as it doesn’t affect the lives of children.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 25th July 2009 @ 4:21 pm

  3. unless one exists why don’t we start a name and shame database on judges with the stuff like Judge Name- and quote”“I am not here for men, I am here to protect women and children” which will be taken notice of and possibly lead to accountability in judgements or even bar them from sitting in judgements with attitudes like so…

    Comment by karanjiharr — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 3:34 pm

  4. I imagine that all of the Mothers Court Judges would have the same attitude. Judge Green was just stupid enough to express that attitude during her little power-trip. Just turn your backs on them all and their wicked manipulations of men’s wealth to empower women and they’ll mean NOTHING! Anything that harms our children deserves to be spat on and then ignored.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 4:48 pm

  5. karanjiharr,
    judge green was honest about the reality of her values, ethics and “practices for weighing evidence”. Her behaviour does less damage, than “judges” who pretend to follow the law, but operate by defective values.
    These “judges” will only be held accountable, when enough citizens stand together and demand the holding of these individual “judges” accountable in public. Enough people to swing an electorate vote, so that the politicians are forced to act, despite their existing conflicts of interest.

    Enter conflict of interest into the SEARCH field, at the top left of this page and you will see many more examples. If necessary, use Menu Edit, Find conflict – to quickly search down the page.

    we could turn and look away, but these murderous “judges” are continuing to cut down and kill parents, about 4 per week. For their sake and the ongoing sake of their children too.
    Lets still the river of blood.
    Lets protect these people so they can enjoy their lives.
    These “judges” and legal workers aren’t empowering women, through legal-workers-aid they are robbing them too!
    Cheers, MurrayBacon axe-murder.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 28th July 2009 @ 7:33 pm

  6. This Thursday, Craig Jackson and I will meet with Dr Rajen Prasad. Dr Prasad is the Labour, Associate Spokesperson for Social Development (Family & CYF). Labour are in opposition in New Zealand government. Dr Prasad is a former Chief Commissioner for the Families Commission.

    I will introduce for him the end chapter of my story before it goes to parliament through an official complaint to the Ministry of Justice. I will prove to him categorically that the leader of Labour, Phil Goff, when the Minister of Justice signed off wrongfully on my application seeking the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, relative to my conviction for failing to attend a living without violence course. I did not attend the course because I was not violent. The allegations on the protection order did not warrant any claim that I was violent. It was easily discernable on the allegations that they were fabricated by a woman stretching credibility, relying on her own capacity to manipulate the listener to believe her claims of being frightened were credible.

    This case is similar to that of Richard Lay of Palmerston North. I have been his advocate going through the system of lawyer’s self regulation and he with my assistance has the first case that has gone before the Legal Complaints Review Officer. That result is simply farcical and should be laughed out of Court when I file on his behalf a judicial review. The date set for filing for that review, is in approximately two weeks. In the case the Officer modified the Manawatu Standard’s Authority’s decision to say that Richard’s case should be dealt with in the Family Court to say that the lawyer who assessed his circumstances was not required to investigate the relevant circumstances of a lawyer approached on domestic violence matters and was free from legal test. Her decision was contrary to the legislation. The senior lawyer in Wellington’s Community Law centre, Frank Handy, advised me passionately on hearing Richard’s story that “she is not allowed to write the law”.

    For the first case before the new Legal Complaints Review Office, public confidence should and can be stripped from the capacity of lawyers to self regulate. This will be proved.

    Murray, when I meet with Dr Prasad on Thursday, and present him with indefensible evidence about his party leader, where I have been done an incredible injustice under his signature, excusing court staff and judges from blatant lies, affecting me and my son and daughter over some nine year period, making us an exception from justice in a similar vein to what you describe, relative to a judicial comment in 1992 on the purpose of then family law system, I will ask him, whether or not I should commit suicide to bring the matter of the Families Commission inept response to meeting with Dr Vivian Roberts about suicide to the public’s attention. I can ask him why it is that Dr Robert’s information can be excuse from valid entry to the Commission’s archives, simply because he is known to associate with individuals like me and Jim Bagnall — even if he is not. I will ask him how I should best go about killing myself to demonstrate to the public what Phil Goff wrote, against the self explanatory evidence in that same document that proves me to be right and entitled innocence and the then Minister and his ministry to be wrong.

    Kind regards, Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 12:45 am

  7. Good luck Benjamin, I wish you well and please tell Mr Prasad I stand beside you. My experience and views are similiar. You are so not alone in this. Gerry

    Comment by Gerry — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 8:49 am

  8. I agree karanjiharr. I would add Judge Laurence Ryan of the North Shore Family Caught whose stock opening phrase to any men who come before him is “Do you have a problem with women”?”I would encourage all men to answer “no, I have a problem with the Family Court being gender bias”.

    Comment by Gerry — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 8:58 am

  9. i agree hwoever the database coulkd be another nail in their coffin when exposed to the public of their views cos no one wants to be treated that way next.. so their credibility and possible jobs could be in the line… lets make them cringe in fear..

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 6:51 pm

  10. this Dr Rajen is from Fiji. and basically a bencsniffer. i know him. He will only humor you but not take you seriously and brush your concerns off like cobwebs

    Comment by karanjiharr — Wed 29th July 2009 @ 6:53 pm

  11. Craig Jackson and I met with Dr Prasad as arranged. The meeting was convened in the “women’s room” in the old parliament buildings. The room is dedicated to women’s affairs. It is a small conference room. In the introductions Dr Prasad said he recognised my face from a pervious meeting I had had with him when he was the Chief Commissioner of the Families Commission. On that occassion where I was meeting independently with the Commissioner, Dr Prasad had advised me in response to my inquiries relative to discrmination against fatherhood that the interpretation of fatherhood is “parked”. Craig and Dr Prasad spoke freely discussing the issues for the meeting. I interjected advising that I had an issue to raise as well.

    Criag described for Dr Prasad the events leading to the protest outside the Families Commission. Dr Prasad said he was not familiar with hte matter. Furthering his dialogue with Craig Dr Prasad stated that in consistency with other arrangments with meeting him, the discussion would be confidential. He furthered this to say that he did not want to have a journalist in his face anytime after the meeting relative to the matters discussed. I suggested I would have to leave. I advised that this was consistent with the reason for the Commission rejecting meeting with fathers in coalition; and that this separatist action was why unions were formed in the first instance. I advised that the matter I brought to the meeting was significant and extraordinary and it impugned the leader of the Labour Party the Right Honourable Phil Goff. I produeced the document of contention and asked Dr Prasad if he recognised his leader’s signature. Dr Prasad appealed to Craig that the meeting was his meeting and should not be subjected to me hijacking the information. I replied, whether or not Craig agreed that the matter was about suicide and why men died this way and that the information I resented for him was “a bloody good reason why men would die”. I then left the meeting.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 12:44 pm


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 10:22 am

  13. Dear Ben,
    thanks for an on topic comment.

    Sad, desperate and alas – more common than most of want to admit.

    I hope that we can offer hope.

    The familycaught “judges” and legal-workers offer hopelessness.
    They put their own financial gain, before following Parliament’s statutes with integrity.

    As a society we can aim far higher than hopelessness. MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 2nd August 2009 @ 8:57 pm

  14. Thank you Murray,

    My frustration is that what I am doing is all very relevant. I am saying dads need to fight back. I am fighting back. Yet I get criticised for fighting back against the corruption by going directly at the source. I am told it is not relevant to father’s issues. This notion that everything will change because suddenly the world will see the injustice done to fatherhood is a fallacy. The public will respond when they see why and how the injustice is done. When the how and the why are proved then the argument of those who have been damaged will become profound. Yet I have to fight constantly against my peers proving to them (eventually) that direct action in a democracy does more to protect that democracy than any philosophical debate about its freedom.

    The two links below may seem to you irrelevant: Yet I promise you that they are not. Bevan Berg said to me poignantly once, “the only way we will ever get change is if we get someone into the capital”. Well, that is what I am doing. Help me to fight back for democracy. Then we will deal with how that democracy over so long has been allowed to feed off the back of a presently damaged and much depleted fatherhood.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 3rd August 2009 @ 11:30 am

  15. I can only assume, from your ignorant statements, inability to spell and poor grammar that you are not fit to raise children and that this was why the court elected not to grant you custody. I had no major difficulties when dealing with the family court, and as a result of their fair processes, have primary custody of my young children.

    Comment by Cathy — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 9:14 am

  16. #17 Cathy. Of course you did, you’re a WOMAN !

    Comment by golfa — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 9:20 am

  17. #17..attacking someones spelling and grammar online is a rather childish tactic adopted by mostly females..and of course your happy with the family golfa pointed out your a female and the courts are on your side to start with…you dont happen to frequent nzdating by any chance

    Comment by Ford — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 10:12 am

  18. many lies did you tell to manipulatre the courts?

    Comment by Ford — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 10:15 am

  19. Reply golfa #18

    Your comment of “Cathy. Of course you did, you’re a WOMAN !”….Like to rephrase to this ” Cathy. Of course you did, you’re a typical KIWI WOMAN !

    And to validate this…Here you go Cathy …read this article …

    “Expats backlash against Kiwi women”

    “Just Me (North Shore)

    Maybe they are hiding away, scared of the pseudo-men the feminist emancipation turned the women into? By nature a man wants a partner of the opposite sex who exhibit feminine traits, have poise, and wants to be treated like a lady. Unfortunately those traits seem to have been ditched by a large percentage of kiwi women in favour of male mannerisms, which are not traits a man searches for in a partner. So ladies, instead of acting like abrasive men, do try being a bit more ladylike, you may just be surprised at the results.

    Stop looking down on men as simpleton seed-carriers and treat them with respect, and you can expect the same courtesy been returned. You don’t have to carry on like savages to prove your assertiveness. Let the man in your life feel important, and you can do this without being submissive. Don’t henpeck him, all you are then is a replacement mother, and that is exactly what they don’t want. A working relationship is all about give and take from both parties, without that you may as well break it off now.

    Fran O’Sullivan’s article last week on the so-called ‘man drought’ Auckland is experiencing has attracted a curious response that is somewhat revealing of larger societal attitudes in Kiwi culture. While O’Sullivan attempts to trace the long-term impact on the economy of women outnumbering men by 10% in those aged 35, a traditional age for settling down, more than 60% of the comments posted by readers are from men complaining about Kiwi women. Chiding our female population as ‘ham-bottomed’, ‘slovenly’, ‘drunk’ and ‘bad dressers’, these men complain that the impact of feminism in NZ has created a society of women that have taken up masculine characteristics. The answer, they assert, is for Kiwi men to engage in sex tourism overseas in cultures that they perceive as having more passive women – such as Asia, Russia and Britain.

    Kind regards …John Dutchie …Free at long last from Kiwi woman with there sense of “Entitlement”, and there “I am the victim” mentality….

    Comment by johndutchie — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 10:42 am

  20. #17 So if I could spell better the courts would let me see my kids? Enrol me back in school quick. I didn’t realise it was that easy to get custody. If only I had known earlier! Oh the wasted years.

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 1:15 pm

  21. The quiet march of feminist thinking in social media. (We’ll dedicate this one to Cathy – might make her feel more important.)

    A person that loses a partner is called a widow. A child who loses a parent is called an orphan. But there is no word to describe a parent that loses a child because the loss is like no other. So will you put this as your status for just one hour? I’m pretty sure I know the one’s that will. Think of someone you know or love who has lost baby or child or a grandchild, and take a few minutes to remember and honour their loved ones.

    A person who loses a partner is a widow or a widower. Notice the omission. Similarly an orphan is a child who has lost both parents. They are social statuses recognizing the possibility of social deprivation and need. Historically it would be parents who had NOT lost a child that might have been considered blessed. As sad as it is for any parent to lose a child I don’t accept that a bereaved-parent needs or should be given some form of social distinction. If you look at from a feminist perspective the suggestion is that in the world of women where only the mother and the child exist in their mind, what is being suggested here is that the social status should be replaced by emotional status but only considering that of a woman or her child.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 1:26 pm

  22. Cathy # 17 You clearly get off on childish comments. Here’s a few more for you:
    “What is the difference between a catfish and a woman who has manipulated and abused the Family Court process”? ANSWER: “One is a bottom feeding scum sucker and the other is a fish”! OR
    “Why are some women like laxatives”? ANSWER: “Because they irritate the crap out of you”.
    But my favourite –
    “I married a woman with very small feet”. “WHY?”. “Because she can get closer to the kitchen sink when she is washing up”.
    I look forward with bated breath to your equally puerile reply!!!!

    Comment by Who Cares? — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 3:21 pm

  23. W.I.F.E = washing ironing food and entertainment and alot arnt any good at those either

    Comment by Ford — Thu 8th November 2012 @ 5:29 pm

  24. Horrified judge [Clarkson] rescues children NZ Herald
    By Edward Gay 5:30 AM Saturday Dec 15, 2012

    Child, Youth and Family savaged for leaving kids with violent parents for nearly a decade.
    A judge has slammed the reckless actions of Child, Youth and Family workers who allowed four children to stay with their violent, abusive parents for more than nine years.

    Social workers failed to respond to 20 warnings that the children were being abused and neglected by their father, a convicted child rapist, and their mother, who left them alone in a South Auckland car park.

    The case has alarmed Family Court judge Dale Clarkson so much that she has referred it to the Children’s Commissioner.

    Jane Drumm, head of New Zealand’s largest anti-domestic violence agency, Shine, said she had never seen anything like it in her 15 years of experience.

    Judge Clarkson’s criticism, in a ruling released yesterday, was made after the mother and father both applied for custody of the four children aged 13, 9, 8 and 3.

    She determined that neither parent was able to care for the children, and ordered that the youngsters be removed from the home.

    But the judge’s more-severe comments were reserved for Child, Youth and Family (CYF).

    “Quite apart from the disappointing lack of protection of these four children, I am left wondering if this is indicative of CYF’s practice.”

    She said despite police, family members and teachers repeatedly bringing the case to the attention of the government agency, the children were left with their parents.

    “Because I consider that the deficiencies in CYF’s performance in this case have been so serious, I propose to refer this decision to the Commissioner for Children for further investigation.”

    Jane Drumm described the case as a “systems failure”, the like of which she had never seen before.

    At times, the children were left in the care of their father, who had a conviction for repeatedly raping his 14-year-old niece.

    They were also left in the care of their mother, who on one occasion left two of them in a carpark in South Auckland. A member of the public complained. Police responded two hours later and found the children with chicken, bread and juice.

    “On returning to her car, she [the mother] apparently showed little concern,” Judge Clarkson said.

    The woman told police she had been in the Manukau District Court to see her husband’s court case. At the time, he had active charges of rape, threatening to kill and assault.

    Judge Clarkson, in my biassed opinion, has made a self-advertising and self-serving attack on CYFs.

    This might sound heroic and sound like knight in shining armour riding a white horse, rescuing children from dangerous parents.

    In reality, a monkey or a politician could just as easily attack CYFs in public. CYFs have so many similar examples occurring all of the time, that finding similar examples is quite easy. (A real challenge would be to find an example where CYFs had in fact protected children from emotional neglect and physical harm.) Professor Dorothy Scott has pointed out that it is not possible to protect babies and children from harm, by removing from parents AFTER they have been damaged.

    The real challenge, should anyone decide to accept it, is to protect children from being abused, before the abuse has done them serious harm?

    I don’t claim that I can do that, by responding to notifications made by the public – after the abuse has occurred. Reacting to notifications guarantees that the babies and children have suffered serious harm, before the protective reaction can take place – if it ever does take place!

    I would like to know if judge clarkson believes that she can save children FROM harm, or can she just “save” children AFTER the damage has already been done?

    Safety of Children

    Child Neglect – minutes or months?

    Example of delivering suicide triggers – judge dale green

    The only way that babies and children can be protected from emotional neglect and physical harm, is by not leaving babies and children with parents who lack the skills and resources to competently care for them.

    Signs of change [in child protection]?


    I suggest that we protect children from incompetent parents and judges, by not letting the children be harmed in the first place. MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 15th December 2012 @ 4:55 pm

  25. judge clarkson ..a female and Jane Drumm, head of New Zealand’s largest anti-domestic violence agency, Shine,another female..cypfs workers more than likeley wonder men are pushing shit up hill,,get some males in the top jobs for fuck sake

    Comment by Ford — Sat 15th December 2012 @ 6:02 pm

  26. Dear Ford, what a terrible thing to say! I support you 100%, but the territory that matters most for protecting children, is the day to day care of these children. This is the very area where these relationship vandals have done the most to put children into harm’s way – by removing these children from the protection of their own fathers. I know that not all fathers are good for children, but the odds are at least as good with fathers as mothers… Cheers MurrayBacon – your fiendly axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 15th December 2012 @ 6:50 pm

  27. yes murray bacon its all about the kids..its a shame its not and in my veiw there are too many vindictive women in the jobs that matter most

    Comment by Ford — Sat 15th December 2012 @ 7:46 pm

  28. Dear Ford, I bang on about children’s situation, mainly because not enough people give sufficient attention to the children’s developmental and social needs. My main goal is for Government policy and Family Court to give competent decisions, that properly respect the interests of men, children and women, or share the cake between all parties. Pretty basic stuff I would have thought? Already taken care of in the judicial oath??? Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 15th December 2012 @ 9:50 pm

  29. #30..totally agree..all too often the kids become the pawns in the mindgames of separation and divorce

    Comment by Ford — Sat 15th December 2012 @ 10:19 pm

  30. A mother describes how the USA DHR Department of Human Resources drove her son to suicide, by continuously demanding money from her son. He was jailed for non-payment of their demands, leading to him losing his job, due to being in jail.

    The DHR didn’t express any thanks for him giving time to his children, just relentless demands for more cash and then having him jailed for non-payment. The cash demands were based on when he was in full employment, with no adjustment for later reduced employment.

    The type of respect that they gave him was – give us more money!

    The DHR behaviour, of seeing a father as a cash provider only, ends up being father abuse and child abuse. By acting to deny the child a relationship with his/her father, they are failing to honour a child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

    The DHR should be prosecuted for manslaughter. Many tens of thousands of such manslaughters, ends up just being murder.

    In the face of this treatment by USA Government, his suicide can be seen as a rational response to their harrasment.

    Don’t let this be your child, In Memory of Jonathan Edward Underwood
    By: Diana Underwood

    My interest in this group stems from my step son, Jonathan and I would like to share our family’s story.

    My husband died in April of 2010. His death was sudden and a tremendous shock to all of us, especially Jonathan. Jonathan lived with us and we raised from the age of 10 until he was 16. He, like some yong men do, left home to live with his girlfriend. The bond he had with his Dad and i continued to be strong, however, we had little to say that would influence him to return home.

    Two days before Jonathan took his life, he came and talked with me about how much he missed his Father and how he wished he had listened to us concerning his education and choices he had made in his life. I thought I had made him feel better about things but he was emotionally a wreck over the loss of his children and the back child support he continued to owe.

    Still the payments were demanded and at the end of each year his income tax refund was garnisheed for back child support leaving him with a $0 refund. He was not allowed visitation rights due to the courts and DHR’s conclusion of “anger issues” they believed him to have. Jonathan could not afford a car, rent (any place to live) utilities and never seemed to be able to find any type of work due to DHR’s reports of his so called “domestic violence” yet no one in our family ever saw him become violent and believe me with a sister like he had, who always punched him and picked on him, we would have known. He was raised never to hit a girl and i never saw him even come close.

    So Jonathan received disability for a year and then took his life. Now his wife and 5 children receive $500 a month or less. I think he waited 7 years just to receive his disability just to know his children would receive some support from him on a regular monthly basis. To jonathan it seemed that all anyone wanted from him was money – so he provided that for his children for the next 18 years.

    I honestly believe his heart was so smashed by our system that he thought his life was over and that he would never find employment with the charges on his credit report from DHR and the courts, along with his credit score. His credit rating was so poor he could not hope of owning a home or buying a car with the payments and garnishments he would have to pay for years to come. The alternative was to be arrested and jailed.

    Jonathan loved his Dad so much that when his biological Dad and Mom divorced and she took him to Missippi to keep Glen from seeing him I used my skills in credit and collections to locate Glen’s son. It took me three months. When we found him, we were able to get custody. No one underdtood how this young boy needed his Dad so desperately. I did, he had been through a lot of child neglect and his self esteem was extreamly low. So I realized, the formative years are crucial to children and both parents should parent their child. If Jonathan had been allowed to pay what he could and visit, the amount of his attention and love would have proven priceless.

    Jonathan, took his life on December 11, 2012. Part of the reason, he took his life, at least 90% of the reason, I believe was because he was unable to pay the child support demanded from him from the State of Alabama and was arrested for non payment which ultimately put him out of work. During 2008, work was scarce in his field unless he left Alabama.

    Even then, there were not many opportunities. Jonathan wanted to be near his children even if he could not visit them.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 9:03 pm

  31. Brash: I considered ending my life
    by John Armstrong
    John Armstrong is the Herald’s chief political commentator
    Updated6:56 AM Thursday Apr 10, 2014
    Former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash considered taking his own life “to end the pain” following the failure of his two marriages.

    Don Brash dealt with his low points by working hard. Photo / Greg Bowker

    In his autobiography Incredible Luck published today, the man who led the National Party for three years says the end of both his marriages had been “hugely painful” – and in both cases had led him “to the point of contemplating suicide”.

    In a warts-and-all chapter covering his personal life, Dr Brash tackles head-on his reputation for being a womaniser. But beyond arguing that men have an “extremely powerful biological urge to have sex”, he struggles to explain why he had extra-marital affairs which ultimately took a huge toll on his personal life and plunged him into a deep trough of depression.

    Acknowledging an “occasional” breaking of his marriage vows, the 73-year-old says he has not had a large number of sexual partners – and none at all before his first marriage.

    mcb comment:
    I am not taking any type of snide shot at Dr. Don Brash.
    On the contrary, NZ would be a safer place, especially for young men, if men share their experiences of life more openly, the good, the bad and the ugly.

    I thank Dr. Don Brash for being open and possibly exposing himself to deprecating comment. I hope more men can follow his example.

    Our culture has become much more image, marketing focussed in the last 30 years and this barrier to open and honest communication costs our young men and women dearly and in the end, all those that love them too.

    More open sharing of the relationships between actions and consequences can often save others from falling into the same holes.

    Openness is the very antithesis of familycaught$ style scoundrel protecting secrecy!

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 10th April 2014 @ 9:49 am

  32. Xwife who drove husband to suicide wants to hide her actions and values:

    Last testament of a loving father abused by the family court system and alienated from his children

    Chris Mackney: suicide note read by a lady on AVFM

    judge supports Xwifes attampt to hide truth:
    Notice of Copyright Infringement and Privacy Violation

    Here come the lawyers to AVFM, yet again by Paul Elam

    The following article shows how wide the control that the judge gave, to remove Chris Mackney’s publications. It gave her the “legal right” to control even materials he had written before she had ever met him at all! The law isn’t even an ass. Funny how the legal hearing didn’t even need to hear anything from Chris Mackney’s side of the story… Not even a dishonest charade.
    Men’s rights activists dispute woman’s copyright claim over ex-husband’s suicide note

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 16th May 2014 @ 9:48 am

  33. Brethren excommunicated father suggests 5% of denied access fathers suicide?

    This is a sample from a very difficult to sample population, so it provides useful data about the proportion of access denied parents who complete suicide.

    As the sample is small and unverified, it does need to be used with due caution. Nonetheless, still useful data, in the surprising absence of official data!

    Such data is essential for competent management of familycaught$. The absence of such data, shows that the judges have no intention of allowing competent management to take place, not even by accident.

    ‘I can’t talk to my wife and son’: Ex-Brethren man reveals shock ‘separation rule’
    Published: 9:29AM Monday May 18, 2015 Source: ONE News

    Robin McLean, of Wellington, spoke for the first time about how he was excommunicated from a local chapter of the religious group several years ago.
    He said he went public because of about 40 others “in the same situation” and on behalf of two who committed suicide in the 1980s after being excommunicated.
    “[The last time I visited] my youngest son answered the door and I told him, ‘I hardly recognise you’. My boy had changed into a man. It just shows you, all the wasted years.”
    When Mr McLean began challenging the Brethren’s rules, the church “excommunicated me, just like that”.
    The last sentence seems faintly reminiscent of familycaught$ ?

    What happens to fathers who challenge the knowledge, skills, relevance, ethics, integrity, competence of familycaught$ judges?

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 30th May 2015 @ 11:42 am

  34. Mothers as vulnerable as fathers to suicide, on total denial of access.

    Old news, but seems relevant on this thread….

    The Suicide of Non-Custodial Mom, Juliette Gilbert

    By Joy Henley
    When I heard the news that Juliette Gilbert committed suicide in a hotel room in Oregon last week (June 29, 2007), I was stunned by this tragedy. Word quickly spread about the suicide among non-custodial mother’s groups.
    Allow me to tell you about my dear friend, Juliette Gilbert.
    You may know her as “The Fugitive Mom” for kidnapping her son Sky, and taking him to New Zealand. They resided there for approximately 3 years. I knew Juliette as a nurturing mother who loved her son with all of her heart. She was someone’s mother, daughter and grandchild. She was artistic, she considered being a Christian Counselor and she loved the great outdoors. None of these things brought her as much happiness though, as her son Sky. She loved him more than anyone and anything on this earth.
    Juliette served her time in the Kitsap County jail, reported for Probation Services and jumped through every legal hoop and channel to see her son after returning to the U.S. She understood what she did was wrong. Still, she was not allowed to see him. For approximately 2 years and 2 months–until the time of her death, she did not see him.
    Who is accountable and responsible?
    She did not feel free to discuss much about her life because she was always afraid it would effect getting to see Sky. She shied away from a reporter who wanted to interview her. In some ways, she must have imagined if she kept her mouth shut, it would help her see her child. She stayed silenced. Other than a paper she wrote about her abuse–which gives a clear, shocking indication into why she fled with her son, she kept quiet. The media has had a field day with this mother and I cannot recall reading many positive things.
    Juliette quietly tried to re-build her life. Most of her letters from jail, emails and phone conversation were tinted with ramblings about her son. He was clearly her reason to face each day. She tried to have hope. She told me it was quite painful not even getting to see him. It is especially frustrating that she did her part–served her time–reported for Probation Services, etc. and still could not get near her child.
    At the time of her death, I have been told that mother and son still had not seen one another. As I previously mentioned”¦approximately 2 years and 2 months later. There is no excuse for this.
    Subtle Alienation
    In custody disputes, it is common to hear “professionals” such as therapists refuse to allow the absent parent contact with the child. Common phrases are, “it would be detrimental to him” or “it may harm him.” So a subtle alienation occurs. The alienation is somehow more acceptable because it is done by professionals.
    I believe people should have tried harder to make contact between this mother and son happen. Juliette would have settled for supervised visitation (she told me this) just as long as she could see her Sky. What did people think she would do in a controlled, monitored, supervised environment? Take her son and flee to New Zealand? What could possibly be the reason this did not happen? Could it have been so difficult to give this mother a ray of hope?
    The Continuance Game
    We have become case numbers in a revolving Family Court door. Court appointed evaluations, astounding legal fees, manipulations and maneuvers, outrageous allegations”¦ it’s all there. So are the continuances–the court dates that are “postponed” or ones that will never happen. Among us insiders, we call the “Continuance Game,” a way of working or manipulating the system.
    Somewhere along the line, the “professionals” who seem to know everything about us–from what is best for our children to the inner thoughts in our minds, have lost compassion. That “human factor” is mysteriously missing. Why is it a total stranger can spend 50 minutes in a “therapy session” with our children and be an expert as to which parent is the “better” parent? Why not look at how BOTH parents can be involved in the child’s life and create a workable plan? Anyone with common sense can see that Juliette Gilbert was not treated fairly.
    Suffer the Children
    From the child’s point of view, he was with his mother for three years. Didn’t people think Sky might miss his mother and want to see her? People cannot make a mother disappear from a child’s heart. Sky could not possibly turn his feelings for his mother off, like a light switch. What about what Sky wanted?
    From my point of view, children should know both parents, if it is at all possible. Especially when that child has a history with that parent. A picture that sits in my living room of Juliette and Sky – taken in New Zealand, shows a mother and son who appear happy.
    Abuse of Authority
    What people do not know was that Juliette asked for help for a year and a half before that day she took Sky and disappeared–a year and a half. People let her down and did not properly do their jobs. She was not believed. She wrote to me that she had to “convince” people she was abused. It is not like she did not try.
    Because of Juliette’s drastic action and taking her son, I never saw her as fragile or being unstable. If anything I saw her as determined and trying to protect her child. Although I would never condone or support parental kidnapping or custodial interference, I always told her that she did what other mothers only discuss.
    How many mothers have I known who wanted to flee with their child because they believed the other parent was abusing the child? Too many to count.
    When the courts fail to protect our children, nurturing mothers take the law into their own hands. I have heard many mothers discuss taking their children and defying court orders. Some pondered “going underground.” Still, Juliette took drastic action. She did what the rest of the mothers could not.
    Courageous Mother or Law Breaker?
    While some of us did not know where our children slept at night, or if they were enduring another black-out rage from their alcoholic fathers, Juliette had her son right with her. If I had her courage, perhaps my own situation with my children would have been different.
    I can tell you that it would be very unusual for a mother to go to such lengths as to take her child to another country and become a fugitive, remain “in hiding” for three years, and face jail or prison, if she did not feel she had a valid, very good reason for doing so.
    Stereotyping Non-Custodial Mothers
    There is a strong stereotype about non-custodial mothers. The reality is that many of these mothers became non-custodial mothers because of controlling, manipulative ex-spouses.
    Many of these women were primary caretakers of their children before the divorce or separation, and they were educated and stable.
    Many watched in horror as the abusive parent was awarded custody.
    How does this happen?
    Women can lose custody due to:
    –False allegations;
    –Being financially depleted especially when the ex has more status;
    –When Guardian ad Litems fail to remain neutral and in the best interests of the child;
    –When the attorney does not show up at court and a “default” is entered;
    –When the Judge does not consider all of the evidence–especially in abuse cases; and
    –Other reasons.
    Roaring Costs of Custody Battles:
    I am always amazed when mothers say,
    “That would never happen to me,”
    “There is no way he would get custody– he’s a drunk” or
    “I would fight for my child.”
    I ask them what they would do that these mothers did not do. I ask them if they are independently wealthy, because last I heard, a roaring custody battle costs upwards of $50,000.00! If you can fight for custody today on $50,000.00, you have a bargain deal!
    Where did we ever get the idea that justice is perfect?
    When my attorney and I used to enter the courtroom door, my attorney used to wink at me and say, “Let’s hope the Judge got up on the right side of the bed this morning.” There is no place for humor in the courts, let alone sarcasm.
    Suicide is not always foreseeable:
    I did not see Juliette’s suicide coming. Sometimes we cannot foresee a tragedy- even one of this magnitude.
    In my 20+ years of working with and supporting non-custodial mothers or mothers living apart from their children, I have never known someone to commit suicide. I also have never known someone to run out of hope, or die of a broken heart. I can only imagine what went through Juliette’s mind when she took her last few breaths in that hotel room. It will haunt me the rest of my life. She should not have ever reached that point.
    When Does the War Stop?
    Even in death, negative comments are still made about Juliette Gilbert.
    One person even had the audacity to contact me and make the statement, “it’s too bad because now–since she killed herself, her ex-husband WON.”
    Can’t people see that there were no winners?
    There is a little boy in this scenario who did not see his mother for the past approximately 2 years and 2 months, and now he will not see her for the rest of his life.
    We must take something positive from this. If we do not, it somehow seems like Juliette’s death was in vain.
    We have a lot to learn and Juliette’s death speaks volumes over what I could possibly write.
    When is the “fight” too much?
    Do we forget in all of our litigation that sometimes people are human and do not have the emotional reserves to continue the fight? That sometimes, we are held in this life by what seems to be a thread, and we can just “snap?” Instead of alienation, I only wish people had taken steps to promote a relationship between this mother and child. There should have been progress in a positive direction–not a negative one. We must do everything in our power to see that a tragedy like the one that happened to Juliette Gilbert never happens again.
    Author, Joy Henley
    Email: [email protected] / Web Page:
    Joy Henley is a Published Author and Newspaper Reporter. She has been a Social Worker for 25+ years, and a Family Law Advocate for non-custodial mothers for 20+ years. She educates people about Parental Alienation, (PA) Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Hostile Aggressive Parenting. (HAP)

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 30th May 2015 @ 11:45 am

  35. Fluctuations of suicidality in the aftermath of a marital separation: 6″month follow”up observations
    Naoko Ide, Kairi Kõlves, Diego De Leo

    Griffith University in Queensland appears to be the only organisation that directly studies impacts of familycaught$ preying on young families. Professor de Leo leads a group of researchers working in many areas, including impacts of marital separations.

    I would guess that the majority of the researchers in the group over time are women, so this does partly put the lie to some of the complaints that women are not doing their part to support men. Men, do your part.


    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 28th July 2015 @ 12:17 pm

  36. Thanks Murray

    Great research showing male suffer more at relationship breakdown. 6 months later things even out a bit.
    Interesting, although small sample, males attempt suicide more than females, which is different from the feminist presentation of the issue.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 3:35 pm

  37. From a woman’s perspective, I empathize and sympathize with the many unfortunate experiences presented here. The problem is, of course, that feminism is a poisoned chalice. The march of the vadges has led our society inexorably down a toxic path of political correctness, social engineering, multi-kulti, tolerance and diversity, and a proliferation of genders and gender pronouns. Today in 2017, their fetid offspring, the social justice warrior, attempts to rule. Along the way, they have been aided and abetted by vapid and egocentric vadge enablers such as Dale Green. These vile women adore feminised men, the touchy feely type commonly referred to as “cucks”, because they pose no opposition to their feminist agenda and socialist indoctrination. They feel threatened by even the suggestion of male testosterone once the sex act is over. Domination and subjugation is their game, and they enjoy the power and authority they can exert over men. They are truly abhorrent creatures and can be found in every walk of life. My advice to men who find themselves in these terrible situations is – walk away. Don’t look back. The mother of your children will poison their minds against you. Accept this truth and start a new life. If your child ever develops enough independent thought to contact you when they are an adult, so be it. You only get one life. There is no heaven, there is no hell. But you will live a hell on earth if you fail to seek happiness elsewhere. You have an inalienable right to a meaningful existence. Ultimately we are all responsible for our own destiny. If your children get lucky, perhaps they will realise this for themselves one day. Don’t overthink it, just move on…

    Comment by Gee Brunnen — Fri 10th November 2017 @ 2:37 pm

  38. If we all disappear our children suffer.
    I feel that the drama I created, the learning I gained, the journey I walked makes a path less rocky for my beloved children.
    It is not a competition, children can love both mum and dad 100%.
    Kia kaha, find support, work together, support each other.
    Unless we stay in the system nothing will change.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 10th November 2017 @ 3:33 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