CORRUPTION IN NELSON FAMILY COURT or HOLOCAUST IN HOLLOW COURT, Part 1
Part 1
Fact sheet:Â 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
- 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)Â 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)Â Â Â Â Â 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)Â Â Â Â 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)Â Â Â 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.
Care of Children Swction 133
If satisfied that it is necessary for the proper disposition of an application, the court may–
(a) request
for the purpose to prepare a written cultural, medical, psychiatric, or psychological report on the child who is the subject of the application; or
(b) direct the Registrar of the court to
a written cultural, medical, psychiatric, or psychological report on the child who is the subject of the application
How do you get past the Court ability to appoint who it likes? Statue would override practice notes I suspect.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 4:09 pm
You go Max.
Good on ya mate! Expose as much as you can of those crooked mongrels.
Take care though mate and pace yourself as thats a many headed beast your tangling with. From my experience they will just wear you down with endless drama on and on and on and on……………….
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…
Priceless! I applaud you for your actions.
In my case I found pointing out that a femily caught judge has made a mistake invaribly leads to a non positive result.
they are delicate wee flowers at the Femily caught who wilt at the merest suggestion of a hint that they might have got it wrong. Hence their need for secrecy.
I await your future postings, and again, GOOD ON YA!
Comment by mits — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 4:49 pm
MAX highlights yet another example of the gross incompetence and unprofessional practices of the so called Family Court.
Sure the Act entitles the so called family court to appoint whoever it likes. It also allows the judge to put as much weight on this report writer as they like.
Here in lies but one example of the flaws in this whole process.
By being secret and refusing to acknowledge flaws this system does not evolve to improve itself.
In an open system such flawed logic would be exposed and pressure applied to make process improvements.
Another fact that MAX alludes to is that when a father points out a glaring deficiency in the logic and process to the court, the court does not change things for that case. In a real court with real rules of evidence etc the report would be thrown out and a whole new person appointed. There would be a great deal of effort not just for fairness but to be seen to be fair.
In the case of the family court the opposite applies. If a father points out a glaring flaw in the process then all the players in the court process close ranks to punish and dismiss the father. Perhaps a few platitudes might be mentioned in passing for appearance sake.
The entire process is deeply and fundamentally flawed. I believe beyond a remedial solution. A coin toss would get better end results. Honestly – it really would.
We need to be teaching our teenagers and young men about this system.
Comment by Dave — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Yes
A coin toss would get better end results. Honestly — it really would.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 5:08 pm
My experiances with the fc to date echo the above, any mistake pointed out is either ignored, meet with platitudes or dismissed as ‘not my concern’. Classic, when I pointed out that the L4c was not acting in the manner perscriped in the courts own practice notes, the judge simple offhand ruling, was ‘it was not my conern to be satisfied with the l4c performance it was his, and as it stands he wasnt’ going to tell her to ‘do her job’….but thats the thing, she isnt doing her job, in fact she outright refusese to do her job!! closed, secret star chamber courts with zero public accountability, a pox on the lot of them I say
Comment by Sajer — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 5:43 pm
Dave and Scrap,
I agree, I would trust the toss of a coin more than a “judge’s” decision. (Besides, after the toss, the coin can be used again, at no additional cost!)
Dear MAX,
I believe that the strategic mistake, is to forget that the familycaught only hurts people who take it seriously!!
Accountability does not include hiding behind the skirts of a computer – who is trying to fool who?
Practice Notes are just suggestions, like the familycaught rules, they have no force of law and are honoured by being breached. The Practice Note about psych reports asks people to send their complaints to the familycaught (instead of the Psych Board). This suggestion goes quite opposite of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act:
This is an essentially illegal attempt to con familycaught customers into forwarding their complaints about familycaught psychologists to the familycaught shredder, where they can be disposed of at the least risk to the “psychologist”.
This is an unveiled attempt to hold back progress in the familycaught and all those with their snouts in its troughs.
Good family planning, in a country with a familycaught, involves having one or two children more than needed, so that if necessary they can be sacrificed on the money soaked altar of the familycaught relationship vandals.
Many “judgements also include duplicated phrases and paragraphs. I guess that they are just ’standard computer generated judgements’? Why then are we paying so much actual real money for these clown? (This is a disservice to computers, I am sure that given free reign, they wouldn’t do as poorly as these “judges”.
Besides, if you were to judge these “judges” by how well they serve their own paramount interests, then you would realise that these are successful, intelligent people. The delays, the poor quality decisions, the bungled procedure, these all put extra unwarranted money into these legal worker’s pockets.
They are succeeding!
Allowing the paying customer to choose their judge, would encourage customers to check out the previously delivered performance of the judge, before they met them in a caught room. Suddenly these people would then be able to apply the legislation successfully and efficiently and to actually protect children.
Cheers, MurrayBacon axe-murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 9:46 pm
No-one would choose any judges then!
Comment by Scott B — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Dear Scott,
you are dead right. In many cases, friends and relatives can offer advice, often better and cheaper than “judges” might tender. Why would anyone pay a legal worker, if they can get a better quality deal from somewhere else? Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 24th May 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Thanks everybody…
Comment by Max — Tue 25th May 2010 @ 10:31 am
As crazy as that seems, this is in fact what is occurring.
I didn’t really think about it in a family planning context before. In fact this is the stark reality.
Is it good family planning?
May be it is. May it isn’t. I haven’t decided. I’d like to know your thoughts.
My recommendation is to go with surrogacy if you are rich and to be a stay at home father if you are poor. I think these are likely to be much more successful than having kids with different mothers IMHO.
I met one guy who was paying child support to 3 different mothers. Not only did he have to work long hours just to survive, all 3 mothers were making it problematic for him to see much of his children. What sort of life is that?
Comment by Dave — Tue 25th May 2010 @ 11:41 am
Working long hours just to survive and difficulty seeing you children? Sounds like a normal life for a father in NZ.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 25th May 2010 @ 12:48 pm
This is a disservice to computers, I am sure that given free reign, they wouldn’t do as poorly as these “judges”.
Many Family Caught judges are tossers without the coin.
A least there would be some logical epistimology and an efficent process with computer judges.
I lament the reality that juruspurdence in this country is in such a sad state of decline.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 25th May 2010 @ 1:03 pm
I have a lovely situation in which the psych(o!) writer doesn’t now want to see me because I had wanted to record the meeting. She is going to interview my ex, her partner, her friends, but no-one from my side….
I have 2 chances of getting a result; fat chance and no chance…
Comment by noconfidence — Tue 25th May 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Yup no bias there, every story has two si…….. whoops sorry, you want to record our incompetance???,
NO NO NO cant have that.
Every story has one side that we need to hear from and that will be the side that doesnt feel the need to obtain evidence that what we are doing is wrong.
Been there Noconfidence. Feel for you.
As Murray Bacon wrote
I believe that the strategic mistake, is to forget that the familycaught only hurts people who take it seriously!!
Ballocks to the mongrels.
Comment by mits — Wed 26th May 2010 @ 9:10 am
noconfidence, This is a good outcome I think. Let her file her report. What you then have is a report that is demonstratively biased, unethical and contrary to required practice. Once she files her report and you read it you will have a whole host of options available to you.
Just a few examples:
1. You can sue her in a civil case
2. You can file a complaint to the P Board – which based on previous cases will be upheld and she will be fined $5,000.
3. There are simple ways to make it publicly known this is what occurred without you having to do it. This can be done in such a way that places extreme (but unacknowledged) pressure on the family court judge that hears your case.
4. You can apply immediately to have the report thrown out the the report writer censored by the court.
I can think of several more.
The point is that don’t let this freak you out. The Psycho is making a grave mistake. Don’t give in – insist on any interview being recorded.
Comment by Dave — Wed 26th May 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Same issue for me as noconfidence, I refuse to be interviewed by the appointed report writer without a recording, I’ve also refused my permission for my child to be interviewed (again, weird though that the court still ‘recognises’ my guardenship rights in that regard) or for a ‘home visit’ with myself, my partner and her children…its been dragging on since December last year when I first made this clear….catch 22 though it seems as the court won’t move ahead without the s.132
I assume you are suggesting Dave that the best position is to disengage from the interview process, how do you do that though if the report writer keeps sticking to a position that she cant complete the report without said interviews and the L4C tows the same line, given how much the fc judges seem to abdicate to the L4C’s (at least in my experiance)?…..no report, no further contact, no end in sight, more money down the toilet, more heartache…..
Comment by Sajer — Wed 26th May 2010 @ 9:28 pm
What I propose is to allow the psych to observe you with your child. They should report that you have a good bond. Just don’t allow her to interview you without a recording.
I am surpised they are observing your guardianship right to prevent interviewing your child. Very interesting. However eventually the court can simply over rule you if it wants to so I don’t see much point in this. What you could do is insist a non-biased person be present when your child is interviewed. It really depends on the age of the child. For a young child it wont really matter since a young child will not able to understand the consequences of anytihng they say. For a teenager it is quite different.
Comment by Dave — Wed 26th May 2010 @ 10:17 pm
The familycaught Nelson has clearly been using misleading and deceptive conduct and thus a remedy would lie in a prosecution, under the Fair Trading Act:
Fair Trading Act
http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/DLM96439.html
Fair Trading Act:
9. Misleading and deceptive conduct generally
*
No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
Compare: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Aust), s 52
“Judges” often like to slide out, from being subject to legislative requirements, themselves, so lets look into this particular situation:
4. Application of Act to the Crown
*
(1) Subject to this section, this Act shall bind the Crown in so far as the Crown engages in trade.
(2) The Crown shall not be liable to be prosecuted for an offence against this Act but in any case where it is alleged that the Crown has contravened any provision of this Act and that contravention constitutes an offence, the Commission or the person directly affected by the contravention may apply to the Court for a declaration that the Crown has contravened that provision; and, if the Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has contravened that provision, it may make a declaration accordingly.
Compare: 1975 No 113 s 20B; 1979 No 140 s 12; Trade Practices Act 1974 (Aust), s 2A
In other words, no penalty can be put down onto the crown. However, this applies only when they are acting in good faith. So it seems that the individuals responsible can and should be prosecuted, under the Fair Trading Act.
I guess that the most important issue is – were W.P.s reports of marketable quality?
I believe that you said that he got his basic facts wrong, so that this leads to a conclusion that the reports would not be considered to be of marketable quality. (Possibly they might meet the average standards of a NZ familycaught report writer, where perhaps there are no enforced quality standards….??)
Critiquing a Care of Coconuts Act s133 Psychologist Report
21. Demanding or accepting payment without intending to supply as ordered
*
No person shall demand or accept payment or other consideration for goods or services, if at the time of the demand or acceptance that person–
o
(a) Does not intend to supply the goods or services; or
o
(b) Intends to supply goods or services materially different from the goods or services in respect of which the payment or other consideration is demanded or accepted; or
o
(c) Does not have reasonable grounds to believe that that person will be able to supply the goods or services within any specified period; or if no period is specified, within a reasonable time.
Compare: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Aust), s 58
This clause could be applied to the familycaught services generally, or to W.P.’s services in particular.
Food for thought and for positive action.
Maybe if the familycaught isn’t fair trading, they are just “Fear Trading”?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 27th May 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Awesome info, cheers.
Food for thought Murray, food for thought.
W.P. actually wasn’t at fault since CfC deceived him with the info he gave.
And i think because an updated report was ordered after they realized W.P. had the ‘wrong’ information for his first report that report wasn’t anymore based on misleading and deceptive information.
However the fact still stands that CFC gave misleading and deceptive information to CfC.
And the fact that the FC has been since 2001 and still is giving misleading and deceptive information in their information pamphlets and on their website about that ‘complaints about psychology reports can be lodged with the Psychologists Board…’ because W.P. is NOT a psychologist and therefore the PB can not process complaints about his reports.
Any more thoughts on that Murray?
Comment by MAX — Fri 28th May 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Dear Max,
I have heard people joke that psychologist reports are used for turning hearsay into “evidence”. I believe that this is what you are saying in this situation. (Not as good as turning lead into gold, but just as good if you are a legal-worker.)
By signing his/her report, the psychologist is supposedly assuming responsibility for its accuracy, relevance, completeness and non-misledingness. Thus, if the psych was conned by a c4c, they are the fool, as they signed their report.
A good quality psychologist’ report should state all of the sources of information used, the methods used to draw conclusions and then the conclusions.
Often they don’t clearly describe the input data used, so that it becomes impossible to track where (by whom!) the error was made.
There is some truth that psychology is not a science, thus their reports should not under any circumstances ever be accepted as expert witness in any caught.
They are lifting their science, so that if is possible that they could in the future be reasonably accepted as expert witnesses. Observations can be very subjective. This is why their interviews should be routinely videoed.
There is much disagreement on the principles of human behaviour. Thus it is important that their reports stay within the limits of their competence, as a profession and as an individual practitioner.
Trying to get anyone in familycaught to accept responsibility:
All very reminiscent of the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz – which way did they go? The scarecrow points left with his left arm and right with his right! Again, which way did they go? The scarecrow now points left with his right arm and right with his left. This image always comes to mind, when a consumer is asking for accountability after the event, from anyone with their snout in the familycaught trough.
Standing back from the detail, it becomes apparent that in many situations, errors in psych reports are inconsequential, as the “judge” often doesn’t listen to them anyway. In many cases, the “judge” may disclaim responsibility for their own errors, as they were just following advice given in the psych report. This is where the suggestion comes, that psychologists in caught, are just scarecrows paid to be there to take the blame, if it gets out into the media.
I suggest that you focus mainly onto the major source of wrong and poor quality decisions, the “judge”. Look at the relevance of their training and experience to the “work” that they attempt to do?
In looking into these issues, it is important to understand and not forget the incentives that these people work under. Ineffectual and deceptive consumer complaints systems, that protect the “providers” of services. Increased payment, if they can extend and wind up disputes.
Faulty “judgements” are likely to lead to further appeals, thus manipulating one or more parties to open up their wallet to ongoing extortion.
All of this is really a consumer intelligence test.
These systems for squeezing out resources from parents are operated just below the threshold of consumer complaint by knife and rifle.
The important issue is that worried consumers provide alternatives to the use of familycaught services, with higher quality service and lower cost to use. Incidentally, we will probably save a few lives along the way too, why not?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 28th May 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Dave;
Sorry but
1) – not possible as family court would suppress details
2) – P board would, as it has in the past, use the reasoning that it is a family court issue and they wont get involved
3) – Interested, would like to know more…
4) – Not possible. I had a previous report made where the pyschologist asked me to email my ex something and when I did, wrote in her report that I can’t stop emailing my ex! I made a complaint to the court on grounds on unethical behaviour. Both family court and P board were not interested. So not a chance of getting ‘justice’ – I don’t believe it exists anymore.
I’ve not backed down on my request to have the interview recorded so ther psychologist has told court they will not proceed unless I do not attend – court has accepted this and thus the seeds of another injustice has been sown.
Comment by noconfidence — Sat 29th May 2010 @ 9:31 pm
As a psychologist who used to do FC reports (until the Court people learned that I was sympathetic to the fathers’ movement), I was quite prepared to have interviews with parents recorded. I did point out that, although I was very happy to have the recording of my questions, their answers and to be accountable for how I reported and interpreted the responses, the most important problem with recording is that it could inhibit or affect the parent’s own responses. When people are being recorded they are likely to be more self-conscious and perhaps contrived, and this might cause them to misrepresent their true positions and feelings. If that causes inconsistencies between what the party says at vaious times during the interview, or between what the party says and other evidence available, then that may serve to discredit them or to raise suspicion.
However, if any party is confident they can flow freely and represent themselves accurately while being recorded, then I would support them in insisting they be allowed to record the interview.
As far as complaints against psychologists go, the Psychologists Board is currently considering an agreement it has had for some years with the FC that all complaints be considered by the judge first, and only be sent on to the Board if the judge thinks this appropriate. I disagree with this policy. People who have felt inhibited from making complaints because of this policy, or who have had their complaints sidelined by the FC, might like to tell their story and opinion to the Psychologists Board. For further analysis of this issue, see recent articles and letters in the NZ Law Journal.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 11:56 am
In relation to Hans’ comment about complaints against psychologists. Readers may be interested to know I made comments on this website about the complaints processed being in the hands of the presiding judge and stating I was writing to the Psychologists’ Board expressing my disagreement with the current complaints process.
My comments were picked up by the Caught-appointed psychologist and quoted out of context by the psychologist in her report to the presiding judge in my case. The psychologist neglected to state I was objecting to the complaints process and presented it as if I was objecting to the psychologist and the judge! Maybe I should have!
Comment by Gerry — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Still reckon Murrays Coin Toss is more reliable than a pyschologist
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 5:05 pm
Me to
I reckon murrays idea of a coin toss beats any of these trick cyclists reports.
Comment by Mits — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Hans, I have never really understood this argument. The psychologist is going to report what is said to the court and all parties. The psychologist, the court and all the other parties are going to view these comments as if the parent was aware they would all read selected things they said. (Even though this is never explained to the bewildered and hurting parent at the time).
But then the psychologist claims that people might not talk freely if it is being recorded.
On top of that, these psychologist reports are usually very biased against the father. Or more correctly they are biased in favour of the mother. The psychologist’s report is not a positive thing for the father or for the children. Often it is positive for the mother. Your own experience supports this in that once they found you were sympathetic towards fathers, you were out of a job.
Hence in my view the father should provide the psychologist with very little data. This means the psychologist has next to nothing to draw any conclusions and any conclusions they do draw probably can’t be supported.
Please note. I can’t stress this enough! The current system is not the least bit interested in the true state of affairs or the best possible outcome. The way it works is to find what it considers the least bad outcome. It does this by searching for ways to justify limiting the father’s involvement with the children in 95% of cases. In the other 5% it does a similar thing to the mother and then claims this as proof it is not biased!
The only way it will order a shared care arrangement is if it has exhausted all other avenues to turn father into a visitor.
Jesus Christ would not get a positive report from one of these psychologists.
Hence it is up to the father to prevent the psycho from coming up with reasons to exclude the father. Hence my advice to let the psycho report on your loving bond with your child but nothing else. There opinion on anything else is guaranteed to lead to a negative outcome for the child and in the vast majority of the cases for the father.
In all the cases I have ever heard about in all these years I have never ever heard of a psychologist that had nothing but praise for both parents and a recommendation that they be encouraged to work together to parent their children. You would think this would be a top priority for all but the most extreme cases involving proven violence etc. However you would be naive and wrong.
Comment by Dave — Mon 31st May 2010 @ 12:15 pm
Reality is that recording is today a normal practice that helps eliminate distortions, interviewer bias, sudden loss of memory and verify accuracy.
Dave Henderson,were here to help, would have been unsuccessful in exposing IRD without his recordings.
Reality is that Physcholgy is a social science and has severe limitations. The main limitation being the lack of acknowledgement of the bais underlying psychology itself.
Toss a coin you are likely to get a better result , have a more transparent process and remove human bais.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 31st May 2010 @ 1:07 pm
Murray B. …Quote: “These systems for squeezing out resources from parents are operated just below the threshold of consumer complaint by knife and rifle.
The important issue is that worried consumers provide alternatives to the use of familycaught services, with higher quality service and lower cost to use. Incidentally, we will probably save a few lives along the way too, why not?”
Yes Murray, i agree, it IS one of the important issues…. that WE provide ALTERNATIVES to the use of FC services that are of HIGHER QUALITY and LOWER COST.
And we need to investigate and develop those alternatives TOGETHER creatively…
Have you got any ideas of what those alternatives could look like…
Worth starting a whole new threat…one day…
cheers
Comment by Max — Wed 2nd June 2010 @ 12:36 pm
this sucks i too have had injustice done to me through the nelson court. my child was not returned to me after access and i held custody of the child for 4 n half years with 6 months contact from the father.
the child was not returned to me.the father has a prison term of 2 yaers for p and speed.. he has charges of assult and intimadation towards myself, my children and the police.
i call to speak to my daughter and discuss her and i get threats of a protection order against me…
it sickins me that this is the reason why our society is screwed up and our inocent children are affected by these people playing god with our children.
the father has a head injury too. he has thraetened and intimadated me and put 4wd sexual gestures as little as a month ago.
then he goes back to his lawyer and tells her i am harrasing him.
it is wrong. my daughter had a loving routine stable home.extended siblings and family she is denied from now due to the father. it has seperated my family unit again and after 7 years of having my family back my world has now been destroyed by one man and the legal system again.
it seems today that the more you are kurrupt or money you have is all that matters.
no report of the child has been done whilst in my care, i have lost everything.money my world my daughter as i know it, all my assettes furniture i have nothing left.
i have to walk away cause even the legal aid has walked away and treated me worse than a dog. i have no rights. i was a mother who bent over backwards, walked 15km a day pushing my daughter to kindy. her father refusing to help or care for her when i was nearly hospitalised. but that was used against me but he didnt mentioned he was to busy not leeting his girlfriend down to pick her up from pole dancing.
who interest was comming first.
nz court system is kurupt.
recent proceedings
Comment by lyn — Wed 13th July 2011 @ 1:44 pm
Lyn at 29. I have for some time stated here its time FATHERS and MOTHERS united against this corruption – This Lawyers private benefit party called the family caught – has for too long fked with kids and good parents.
You see as PARENTS united against this crap – we will take it down. This includes all the thousands of parents – good mums and dads currently being shafted by IRD with this child support sham – govt sanctioned property theft. Who allows a debt to balloon to 2.5 BILLION with most of that being penalties – unless of course it benefits you to do so, so you can borrow against the debt……….in other words there is NO Inventive to help parents or to reduce the debt………..
I have heard from far too many mums and dads being targetted for money – with NO RESULTING SERVICE being delivered which actually helps them or the kids. I dont know of any other service industry which gets away with this……….
MY own experience for this post in brief.
Mother mind fks child for ten years. Deliberately Deprives me of access and makes any time unpleasant.
Breaches court orders and goes unpunished.
Psychological reports which I had to initiate and pay to get ( even though justice rules state lawyer for child is supposed to initiate proceedings)
most of my costs were fighting the opposition by the mother and her parasitic lawyer – because they clearly did not want the report and its findings.
Surprise surprise the report – two detailed and invasive reports actually following home visits and interviews with the child – identified the Serious Psychological harm the MOTHER had caused the child – and to this day the family fraud has DONE NOTHING about it.
NO rather they allow the mother to remain primary care giver and allow her to then contest the findings. An independent report initiated by the fking family court……..whats the point of it being impartial and independent if its then open to attack by the parent it identifies as causing the harm to the kid – it makes NO SENSE at all.
In fact LYN as with you – my new wife and I have walked away in disgust in order to have some sanity and quality of life…….protecting what we have left and our other children from this insanity.
Ps – when I asked he lawyer for child why they thought it was OK to sit back and watch there client be harmed – why did they not intervene – the response was – ITS NOT MY JOB – they are complete dogs. they do not give a toss about the kids welfare – just there bank balance.
Comment by hornet — Wed 15th May 2013 @ 11:15 am
#31. Good to see you back Hornet my friend. Whilst the maggot continues to slither and slide i want to tell the forum somethign positive. I was always told by family and friends that ‘they will come back to you”, and i used to think B…S…. I now have my son back with me. He was smoking pot daily and angry and almost impossible to manage. Well now he is clean and beginning to behave like a responsible human being-beginning only-it’s still a hard road. You see, mum had all the answers and dad was a mere appendage to fund overseas trips and new wardrobes for her. well now the boy has boundaries and love and accountablity. Funny i was able to offer that when at one stage the family court ordered supervised visits. The younger children are also enjoying their time with me and i note that their compulsory phone calls to mother are less intense than before and that the children are learning to laugh. I am not naiive-it will continue to be hard. I have never bagged her to the children and tried to be a constant in their lives. It has nearly been at the detriment of my own sanity. But i am still standing and the kids are beginning to work it out for themselves.
Comment by shafted — Wed 15th May 2013 @ 1:35 pm
Dear Max,
as a “worried consumer”, my HIGHER QUALITY and LOWER COST suggestion is here.
I am still working details of this concept, which was originated by a USA marriage counsellor in 1987.
If you have any corrections and/or better suggestions, or comments, please hit me with them. (Sorry about the extreme violence, it just keeps coming out.)
Alternatively, if the present familycaught$ system was to keep on running, as pitifully pleaded for by almost indigent Judge Ryan, then the following capitalist ethic accountability system would be one way of straightening out familycaught$, using funds from satisfied customer$:
A couple of years ago, I read a USA idea for providing accountability services, for services that are provided only with non-functional or dysfunctional complaints services eg NZ familycaught$. (Note: This concept was not from the USA marriage guidance counsellor, that I mentioned above, but I think the idea was on a USA website, I cannot recall, as I wasn’t interested at the time.)
The group run website (a bit like Silk Road) bitcoin pays readers for updated photos of staff of The-System, data about where they are currently living, the openness of their assets (ie are they hidden in trusts). Any website user can enter names of staff that they would like watched and set prices to be paid for photos and relevant information.
There was a further suggestion that some users would set an anonymous price for anti-health services for staff of The-System, for example for reduced life expectancy and perhaps a higher anonymous price for very slowly and painfully reduced life expectancy.
An independent contractor (same concept as an IRD Review Ossifer?), might see the offers on the table and decide to cash in by realising the requested contract anti-health services. Even just waiting for such anti-health services, might be stressful and reducing of enjoyment of life and life expectancy. Maybe the offered prices would not yet be sufficient to persuade any ethic-less contractors to realise the anti-health services, so they could just watch the current offers, seeing if several offers could be realised in one hit, for the total available payout. The integrity of the group website is ensured by escrow agents, so there is nothing wrong with it. It would operate to highest legal-ethical standards, in an american accent, nobody would die too quickly.
Similarly, the people for whom the accountability services were being provided, could watch the sums on offer and laugh at them, while they were small! (Their children could watch too and perhaps put in a few quid, if they needed to cashup their inheritances. I would guess that Principle Judge Ryan would have put in a bitcoin or two for his old boss, if such a system was running at the time.)
I guess it was hearing about John-Helen Key-Clark’s casino gamble, that reminded me of this website system. Yes, we must get modern!
Only ever gamble in familycaught$, with wives and children that you can afford to lose, or even want to lose.
Anyway, I am starting to froth at the mouth and my moaning and griping is becoming intolerable, even to me. I guess all of us moaners should go to a railtrack and lie down in a group together at dusk on the tracks, to get safely away from our own moaning noises?
How much space is there under a train carriage, or under it’s wheels?
Is it safer to be at the start of the row, in case train derails and you get left out?
Are fast trains better than slow trains?
Who actually pays to clean up the mess?
Are Kiwi Rail reliable?
As Judge Ryan said, Don’t knock a system that is working so well!
I think that familycaught$ treats many women worse, than lots of the men on this website.
I think that the running costs of familycaught$ could be quite quickly brought down to a professional level, by my proposal in the submission. More to the point, parental suicides would be greatly reduced, much to the benefit of the children. The quality of children’s upbringing would be much higher and happier.
The costs of having so many legal-workers on sickness benefits and in jail, would be easily paid by more of the children being able to work and pay tax and their parents working better and paying more tax.
Does anyone have better, more practical solutions?
Cheers, MurrayBacon – cheerful, psychotic, chemically fuelled, derailed axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 15th May 2013 @ 3:51 pm
Great news shafted.
We all hope they will come back to us, and not just to yell at us, repeating the mothers lies and delusions.
Comment by Scott B — Wed 15th May 2013 @ 7:08 pm
Thanks Shafted, yeh been a while, had to have a break from ranting…… hey great news on your son – hope the email advice I sent helped some with the drug problems.
Isnt it rotten how the system allows this cycle to play out – I was told that eventually the kids grow up, think for themselves and make decisions for themselves.
Clearly by this time the Legal / Justice system has no interest in them – because the lawyers can no longer charge parents a fortune to see them.
Good luck Shafted. Enjoy every moment.
Comment by hornet — Thu 16th May 2013 @ 8:48 am
Like i say-not naiive-just enjoying the brief hiatus from the un-ending shit that has been coming my way.
In their infinite wisdom, the courts and my ex determined that they knew all the answers and that i had, basically, zilch to offer. Then ensued permissive parenting with no boundaries, and the inevitable decline into daily marijuana use. I adopted a loving but zero tolerance policy. It has been hard with trench warfare the first couple of months, but now i feel i have the makings of a decent young man on my hands. This despite constant chastisement from mother that i was too harsh/that he was bitterly unhappy etc. well he is happier now that’s for sure.. Not being cocky-cautiously optimistic. Yes Hornet, thank you for your help. He is actually beginning to be honest with me about all sorts of things and that is a start.
What the courts and my ex fail to understand (despite noises to the contrary) is that children need both parents in their lives and the balance that provides. By marginalising men, the womenfolk feel empowered to call all the shots and there is bugger all you can do about it
Comment by shafted — Thu 16th May 2013 @ 9:32 am
Great website you have here but I was curious if you knew of any forums that cover the same topics discussed in this article?
I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get advice from other experienced
individuals that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me
know. Thank you!
Comment by dwi defense in East Providence — Mon 16th June 2014 @ 1:18 pm