Family Court Womens Refuge murder series 3
The family court, women’s refuge and cyfs are the triangle of violence in New Zealand.
They are unaccountable, unrepentant and above the law.
The equation is, as always, the same:
A father in jail, mother dead, children left as orphans.
Is this what the family Court is for?
How many more deaths are needed before the politicians in the Beehive sorted out the evilness that the family court is?
What about all the fathers who commit suicide?
No Ms Henare, protection orders are producing murders.
Ms Henare, your dark institution as a rule, frighten women (education) telling them that if they stay in their families they will die.
Ms Henare, your dark institution as a rule threaten ‘stubborn’ women with removal of children if they do not happen to listen to your ‘good’ advice.
Ms Henare your dark institution and the family court have blood in your hands.
When are you going to publish the real statistics about the number of death and abuse sustained by parent solely after your intervention?
Please read on:
More needs to be done to protect at-risk women after a double killing in Porirua, Women’s Refuge says.
Police revealed yesterday that two women found dead in their bedrooms in a home in Titahi Bay on Friday died of “extensive head injuries”.
Joelene Rangimaria Edmonds, 21, had taken a protection order out against the man now accused of killing her and her 16-year-old boarder, Jashana Maree Robinson.
Ms Edmonds’ two young daughters, aged two and 14 months, were also found inside the Morere St home just after 11am on Friday. They were unharmed and are now with family.
The killings are the latest involving women who had sought court protection from violent men.
Women’s Refuge director Heather Henare said yesterday that a “huge percentage” of women who were killed in domestic violence had sought court protection.
“It continues to alarm me that often there’s been very relevant signs,” she said.
A 28-year-old unemployed man charged on Friday with the double murder appeared in Porirua District Court on Saturday morning. He is also charged with breaching a protection order in respect to Ms Edmonds.
The man, who was granted name suppression, was remanded in custody until July 7.
“Joelene had been in a relationship with the man who has been charged with breaching the protection order,” Detective Inspector Shane Cotter said.
Police wanted to speak to anyone who had information about their relationship.
Officers had spoken with two witnesses in relation to the killings but still wanted other people to come forward.
“Police are interested in speaking with anyone who is aware of the relationships that Joelene Edmonds has been in,” Mr Cotter said yesterday. He was especially interested in sightings of a male carrying a baseball bat, walking between Tawa and Titahi Bay on Friday between 6am and 10am.
Jashana, a pupil at Mana College in Porirua, had lived with Ms Edmonds for less than a week.
Ms Henare said she did not want to give the message to women that protection orders do not work. However, she said they were just part of the solution and that more needed to be done to protect women in high-risk situations.
Ad Feedback“When there’s a clear risk, all the bodies involved in that woman’s life police, family and friends have a responsibility to make sure that there’s a risk management process in place,” Ms Henare said.
“They [women] need to continue to seek protection orders.
“The court has decided that the person needs protection and that has to be taken seriously, and we have to ensure we are responding in the right way.”
She said protection orders were “there for a purpose” and were “not given lightly”.
“We as a community, we have to continue to hold people accountable to their violence.
“If we see something, know something, we’ve got to do something about it.”
Ms Henare welcomed plans by the Health Ministry to set up a death review panel which will investigate the circumstances around domestic violence deaths.
FAILURE TO PROTECT:
November 2005: Deborah Anne Rerekura shot dead in her Taupo home by husband William Rerekura, who then killed himself. Mrs Rerekura had a protection order against Mr Rerekura.
April 2006: Suzanne McSweeney endured years of beatings from her husband, former top detective Dave McSweeney, before he cut her throat. She had taken out a protection order against her estranged husband 10 days before she was killed.
2004: Sheryl Pareanga, a 33-year-old Glenfield mother-of-six, killed by her former partner. She had a protection order against him, but three days before her death, she complained to police about him breaching it.
Which just goes to show protection orders are little better than a useless piece of paper. They also are arguably a match to a fuse that fires a cammon already well primed. It is much better to get the couple talking. If one of the parties wishes to ….take direct action, I suggest Heather Henare would make a much better and far bigger target!
Comment by Alastair — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Protection Orders appear to me to duplicate laws that protect everybody anyway. I see the only difference that a Protection Order gives is to allow the Police to lock up anyone who ignores the Protection Order for 24 hours and also allows the holder of that Protection Order power & control over the home, furniture, vehicles and the children.
How many deaths can be attributed to the holder of that Power & Control over the children giving the impression to their partner that they will never see their children again?
These murders smack of “If I can’t ever see them again then neither can you”.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 8:01 pm
I agree with the theory that the only people protected by these orders will be those who were never at risk, from inconvenient communication and emotion on the part of the targeted person. For those who are at serious risk, protection orders are more likely to provoke the serious violence that otherwise could have been averted by a sensible approach to helping couples resolve conflict.
Comment by blamemenforall — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 8:14 pm
They are also a very effective club to punish men for the audacity of being born a male!
Comment by Alastair — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Whenever I read about a murder in the papers , i EXPECT it to mention “Domestic” and “Protection Order”. Do they really expect ALL men to just meakly leave their kids ? These idiot corrupt politicians and their police pawns, have caused thousands of deaths worldwide by these laws, WHAT DO THEY REALLY EXPECT ?
If a HIGH number of men did this, faced with the TERROR of such laws, SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE !
Comment by Ian — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 9:38 pm
I could have put this quote anywhere, and this being as good a place as any, I hope it might inspire some here to keep speaking up.
“It is very difficult now to understand the atmosphere of intolerance and fear which then surrounded the issue.…I was very often a lone voice. I was often congratulated on my courage by people who did not dare to raise their own voices. I felt nervous myself. There was genuine fear about the consequences of speaking out. Whatever I may once have innocently believed, I learnt long ago never to believe the pious claim of liberals that they ‘disagree with what I say but will fight to the death for my right to say it’. By and large ~ there are honourable exceptions, certainly ~ I have found caring persons of advanced liberal views to be among the most intolerant and unpleasant of our fellow-citizens, and all too ready to resort to personal abuse and character assassination.…The atmosphere has changed. The public now does not hesitate to criticise foolish, ill-considered…proposals… Caring tolerant non-judgmental people still unthinkingly label the public as…rednecks, but that cheap personal abuse has long been discredited.”
David Round (law lecturer, University of Canterbury)
“Reflections on the Treaty”
NZ Centre for Political Research, Guest Forum 26 June 2009
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 1st July 2009 @ 12:39 am
I have always felt that women use these orders to instigate rather than to protect. No female sees a protection order as a means to protect herself, its a tool for character assassination.
in fact if one considers the procedure of protection orders and the violation thereof one can quickly see that no physical protection is made available to anyone only punishment to an offender.
Comment by sol — Wed 1st July 2009 @ 1:26 am
I have always felt that women use these orders to instigate rather than to protect
My ex-wife (of 7 years ago)will admit that I’ve never been violent towards her. How did she manage to get a Protection Order against me then? Because they pass them out freely if you have the approved genitalia. My ex-wife has at least FIVE Protection Orders against her separate victims.
Abusive, violent and controlling women KNOW that they can have ultimate Power & Control over their partner by lying to right people.
Too often Protection Orders are sought to further abuse their targeted victim. A Protection Order is a tool that is used to punish men.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 1st July 2009 @ 8:13 am
Totally agree with you. I add, once they see how successful they are in getting the protection order it prompts them to lie to family court, child support etc.. Protection Orders teach these women to hate us rather than love us. The result is lots of money for courts, child support, police, attorneys etc.
Comment by sol — Wed 1st July 2009 @ 9:34 am
They lie in family court etc anyway with or without, before or after a protection order. It is always up to the father to prove why he should be and wants to be in the childrens lives, how mental is that?
Comment by Scott B — Wed 1st July 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Hello everyone, it’s me again. Uni is going well andi am enjoying it.
NO OFFENCE INTENDED…
This is the thing that exercises my point. If a boy or man commits a murder, they are locked up for ever, fair enough though. But when a girl or women does the same thing they are given psychological help and a lowered sentence. Girls are told to be empowered but sexy at the same time, they want sexual promiscuity but moan at boys’ at the same time. When Celia Lashlie wrote her book about boys’ growing up (He’ll be okay) she wanted to say that there needs to be positive boy power as well as girl-power, insteed she was moaned at by people saying “why isn’t there an equivilant for girls”?
Here is the reason why, there are TONS of coping with preganacy for girls’ and feminist rights and girls are est books. Girls rape too, girls sometimes force sex on thier partner just for sympathy, and why are boys always potrayed negatively in the media? because it is the ones’ wrecking it for the others. If all men are rapists, does that man you’r father,brother,uncle,grandfather,teacher,associate(s) is/are one too?
if you want your girl-power then start with the boys, please, we are not all raping pigs. Stop falling into the extreemist hypocritical media-fuelled feminism, and make up yourown mind. You want a loving relationship right?
Comment by Benjamin — Fri 3rd July 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Battered men are as numerous as battered women
It appears both sexes are equally scrumptious when battered lightly and cooked in frying pan on high heat. Add salt and pepper, serve battered men and women up with side salad and fries.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 3rd July 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Like I said, It’s the ones’ that wreck it for us. MOST boys and girls are lovely. But alot of them have fallen into this sexist boy/girl dominancy. In one book in my libraries sociology dept. someone has written “just another w****er” in the front coverof a book called: Back to Patriachy! I hope the had actually read the book, and understood where it may be going.
I don’t blame girls or boys for continued swinging feminist/chauvanist sexism, but the mass media, and commercial generalised radio. And what happened to the acknowledgement of the bnet stations, Channel Green and Channel Z? Or has do we have to remind each other of who Nirvana, Deftones and At the Drive In et al are?
Comment by Benjamin — Sat 4th July 2009 @ 4:33 pm
So true… and the other fact such arrogant girls don’t understand is that, by doing such things they are ultimately screwing their own lives. Once a girl starts having this attitude that she can do anything to a boy with the HELP of law she would end up doing the same thing again and again and again and ultimately by the time she realizes she is left alone in this world!!!
They don’t understand that the Law is not actually helping them but screwing their lives….
Comment by Men At Risk — Mon 6th July 2009 @ 1:05 am