Part 1

Fact sheet:  Cover up by 3 Judges, Law Society, Judicial Complaints Commissioner, of serious crime committed by 2 Counsel for Child. Illegal Specialist Report Writer, corrupt 2.report writer, deceiving of report writer by Counsel for Child, blackmailing of parent by Counsel for Child with contact to child, sanctioning by Court of unlawful action by Counsel for Child, Court deceiving the public for at least 9 years, Judge violating Law of Court…. and more

1. Lets start with the most clear-cut violation by the Family Court in Nelson:

An illegal Specialist Report Writer who has been writing S133 reports for the Family Court for 30 years.

It all started with a ‘Psychologist’ writing a report for the Court.

When I read the finished report it included a statement of me supposedly having assaulted the other party (caused ‘injury with intent’) in the time since the report writer had interviewed the party’s. Long story short…there was an incident BUT no such a charge by police.

The other party had rang up Counsel for Child (CfC) and he had rang the report writer (as was proven later in cross examination of the report writer) and told him the lie/deceived him (part of Court/Judge initiated/sanctioned persecution of me for having e.g. exposed previous CfC of crime committed in Court …and for complaint about Judge…. more to that later).

I of course complained to the Psychologist Board (PB) and to the Court.

Now here comes the interesting bit…the Psychologist Board wrote back to me saying:

“Mr. Parkhill is NOT a registered psychologist and consequently does NOT come under the jurisdiction of the Health Practitioner Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCAA 2003)’, which is the governing legislation for registered psychologists in NZ.

The Board is therefore unable to deal with your complaint….

The PB also wrote to the Court asking them to change the letters they send to party’s because in it it incorrectly stated, “The name of the registered psychologist is Wayne Parkhill”.

The Court then wrote to me saying, I quote:

” Firstly I should apologize for the glaring mistake in the letter we send to you…In this letter we identified W.P. as a registered Psychologist.

This mistake occurred simply because the fast majority of Specialist Report Writers are in fact registered psychologists! Hence our computer generated letters simply routinely put “registered Psychologist” into our letters.

In this instance W.P. is of course a specialist Court report writer and has been since around 1980. In this case thought he is a registered Family Therapist, not a Psychologist. His qualifications are the same standard as that of a Psychologist but simply in a different discipline… On top of this…. as well as meeting all the criteria to be an approved specialist report writer for the Family Court.

I should add that this fault is entirely our own. W.P. has never presented himself as a psychologist.

The Psychologist Board has taken this matter up with the manager of the Nelson Court and quite rightly asked us to change our process in regard to the template letter we send out in regard to W.P. Needless to say we certainly changed the letter that goes out to people when W.P. is doing reports”

-unquote.

The Court also wrote to the PB saying, I quote:

“I confirm R.R.’s recent advise to you that, while the letter send is a ‘standard computer generated letter’ our computer system does allow the Family Court to change the text to suit the individual requirement of the case… In this case our checking/audit process did not pick up the error in the letter to Mr… Processes have been put into place to ensure that this does not happen again”

-unquote. !!!
….his qualifications are in a different discipline…

….we did not pick up this ‘error’ for 20 years….

….meeting all the criteria…? ….is a Family Therapist…! ….must be a registered Psychologist!!!

2.  So, of course we now need to first go to the ‘Practice Notes-Specialist Report Writer’…: It states clearly under Paragraph 12.1, also 13.1, 13.3, that “The Report Writer MUST be a registered Psychologist (with a current practicing certificate….).

3.  The reason for a report writer having to be a registered psychologist with a current practicing certificate is of course that (apart from the logical reason being that only then can he write a psychology report):

a)  Only then does he come under the HPCAA 2003 (…Competence Assurance Act….) which gives the public the assurance of the competence of the Specialists Report Writer and to protect the public from report writers who’s competence cannot be assured.

b)   So that in case of a complaint about a report writers report, the PB can deal with complaints that relate to: see Practice Notes, paragraph 15.5: “…complaint…. going beyond the process of the Court and raises questions about professional conduct or ethics…, this may include…. incompetence…the Board…will typically deal with these matters”.  (See also paragraph 15.2, 15.4, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, 15.11)

Because only a professional agency with the adequate skills to assess that professional competence of a psychologist can deal with ‘questions about competence’

(Even if it requires a Judge to refer that complaint back to the PB).

4.     Furthermore, after my complaint about the S.133 report and the untrue statement about me supposedly having assaulted the other party, the Court ordered an update for the report/new report from the same report writer despite the complaint about his first report NOT having been processed.

5.      Now, the logical conclusion about all of this is:

a)      The Court has been having an report writer who is a family therapist writing S133 reports since 1980, when the Courts own Practice Notes for specialist report writers state (valid since at least 2001) that the report writer MUST be a registered psychologist…meaning all Court cases for which W.P. wrote reports are invalid….

b)     The Court has been deceiving the public since at least 2001 and is still deceiving them because their Court information pamphlet ‘Specialist Reports in the Family Court’ (page 11) and their website states under “What if a parent is not happy about how the report was prepared?” that “If it’s a psychological report, they can complain to the Psychologist Board”.

c)    Of course it is also logical that the Court ON PURPOSE DIDN’T TELL anybody for 30 years what the real job description of W.P. was and WHY: If they had, lots of party’s would have complained about the serious violation of the Courts Practice Notes.

Equally logical is that the Court knew about employing an illegal report writer because they knew that he wasn’t what he was suppose to be according to the practice notes (12.1, 13.1 and 13.3) for ‘Employing report writers’ and ‘Criteria for selection’.

The presiding Judge at the time tried to confuse me with some complicated Court paragraph explaining the details about some law but I got on top of that and was able to point out his mistake in ‘misquoting’ one paragraph and ignoring another paragraph…. but of course with no positive result…

I wrote (2007) to the Minister for Justice (then Mark Burton) about this issue. He of course referred it back to the court.

I wrote to Boshier and he said the report writer was qualified despite him clearly not being….

…..more later.