Part 2

When I first applied for contact a Counsel for Child (CfC) was appointed and straight away his first report was so biased that I had to put a complaint to the Court about it.

CfC realized I was new to the FC game and among other things he first tried to tell me that I shouldn’t apply for guardianship, it wasn’t important, I should just concentrate on contact.

On another day he tried to tell me that I could only have one Mediation Conference (I ended up having 3) and then we would have to go to a Hearing and file affidavits…. (Scare tactic, other party having lawyer, not me).

Then on another occasion I heard him talk to the other party and her lawyer in Court behind a partition wall and the other party complaining about me wanting more contact and CfC saying:

‘…. he would see what he could do….’(now it started clicking…).

A few month later he invited the other party to come along for an inspection of my property…(other party trying to hassle me with whatever she could…I told them all to get stuffed) when the Court Order said nothing about her being part of it/coming along…and he admitted that in a Hearing when he cross examined me and I ask him questions back and caught him out…and the Judge wasn’t happy about him usurping the court…

On another day CfC came into the Court room before the Judge had turned up and approached the other party and excitedly ask her ‘if she knew what had just happened to ‘JIM’ (name changed) on a sailing trip (Storm…)’ and when the other party and her lawyer embarrassedly tried to ignore his question I finally realized what might have been going on all that time:

A little research and investigation, because CfC use to live and work in a small town close to my home, and talking to a few locals and it turned out that ‘JIM’ , who he had talked about to the other party, was CfC’s long term ‘Fishing buddy’ and ‘JIM’ was also a long term friend (since child hood) of the other party (and known to my daughter as ‘Uncle JIM’).

So when I wrote yet another complaint to the Court telling them that CFC’s have had a serious conflict of interest for over 3 years (!) and that this was the reason for 3 years of biased treatment (plus trying to pervert the course of justice, usurping the court etc., etc.) the response from CfC and the Court made me realize the truth of corruption in the FC.

The reply from CfC to the Court was:

“While I strongly dispute the allegations made by Mr…, given his continual negative and antagonistic attitude towards me, it is probably counter-productive to continue in my role as counsel for …Would you please place this letter before His Honour and ask that I be removed…”

Have a guess what the Judge said:

“We will investigate these serious allegations… -NO.

“If these allegations are proven to be true CfC will face the appropriate consequences…-NO

“If these allegations are proven to be true we will retry the case as 3 years of serious conflict of interest of CfC has not given the child in question a fair representation in court… -NO, NO, NO.

The Judge said: “In the circumstances and at lawyer for Childs request Mr….appointment is terminated.

Please advise the parties that Mr..(CfC) has sought to withdraw and that has been granted.

Respond to Mr..(Me) as above enclosing a copy of Mr..(CfC) letter and indicate that I consider this an end to the matter.”

Talk about putting the reputation of the Court before the welfare of the child and the Judge sweeping a serious crime committed in Court under the carpet and not even to talk about giving the child in question a fair and just Hearing.

So Cfc ‘sought to withdraw’ but in actual fact ‘he was sacked’ by the Court because of his (repeated and way too obvious) interference with the Court procedure (usurping the Court…) and the Court realizing that he really did have a serious conflict of interest…. and supporting that conclusion is that he also lost his job with the law firm he was working for and was out again on his own.

But if they had told me and admitted to the truth then that would/could have impacted very negatively on the FC’s reputation so they covered it up/swept it under the carpet…nice and simple…especially since they have a lot of experience in that matter.

I kept on asking for an investigation… —NO, NO, NO!!!

I even considered getting a lawyer to take more action but no local lawyer was keen to take another local lawyer ‘to Court’ and ‘against’ the Court. (Of course I am not finished yet with them…)

And talking about ‘putting insult on top of injury’: I was to hear from 3 Judges, 2.CfC, 2.report writer etc., for the next 5 years that I was famous for having a ‘negative and antagonistic attitude’ (because CfC had used that as his excuse to ‘withdraw’).

Since CfC wasn’t working for the Court anymore I now complained about him as a lawyer to the Law Society (LS).

Those days (2005/6) the local Nelson Law Society (now: National LS) processed the complaint and because they all ‘know each other’ and/or ‘protect each other’ more ‘cover up’ was of course the logical result.

But interestingly CfC admitted now to the LS that “he WAS  friends with ‘JIM’” (to the Court he said “…I strongly dispute the allegations…”(eg..being friends with ‘JIM’ )) but he said “he didn’t know that ‘JIM’ and the other party were also friends” despite both having been friends with ‘JIM’ for years and years.

Anyway this meant that CfC now admitted that he had clearly lied to the FC in his response to my complaint.

One short extract from the response from the Nelson Law Society explains a lot about their style of ‘cover up’ operation, I quote:

“The practitioner did not comment on the allegations that he discussed ‘Jim’s’ sailing with the mother and her solicitor prior to a Judicial Conference. The discussion must have occurred openly. The committee does not find anything objectable in such a conversation, if it did take place.” —unquote.

So why does the committee not find anything objectable about CfC not even commenting on those allegations, when it is clear that:

‘If CfC talked to the mother about ‘Jim’s’ sailing then it is logical that CfC knew that the mother knew ‘JIM’, and THAT HE  THEREFORE  ALSO KNEW THAT HE HAD A SERIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, yet he carried on as CfC…

So logically the question needs to be asked: Is the LS so dumb/unprofessional/incompetent that they don’t realize what they are saying or do they think we are so dumb that we don’t realize what they are saying?

An investigation with the other party and her lawyer who were witnesses, plus ‘JIM’ all giving evidence under oath would be the 1.world approach to such a problem.

The Nelson LS did the ‘3.world approach’  instead…no surprises there.

So far for an insight into the operation of the Nelson Family Court and the Nelson Law Society.

More later…