MENZ ISSUES

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

I wont let your son see you and I’ll have a $3.3m chalet with that:

Filed under: General — Vman @ 11:16 am Fri 11th June 2010

In the most recent hearing of the matter, before judge Christine Dawe in Adelaide, the wife made her claim for $278,000 a month in spousal support backdated to 2005.
She also wanted a $24m property settlement, including a $3.3m chalet in Switzerland, and $1.2m a year to pay for four full-time carers (her family members) for their son, who has autism.

Inside Australia’s most expensive divorce

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/monthly-alimony-bid-fails/story-e6frg6n6-1225878155992

There have been 28 hearings so far.

“The father, whose declared income is $300,000 a week, and who has been living in Hong Kong with his new wife since 2008, has been fighting in court since 2007 to see his son.

The court has tried to set up meetings, but the wife has failed to deliver the boy, saying he becomes extremely anxious when told he must see his father.”

7 Responses to “I wont let your son see you and I’ll have a $3.3m chalet with that:”

  1. Dave says:

    The reality is that the only thing remarkable about this case is that:
    (a) it is in the press
    (b) the amount of money.

    Other than that is is just standard operating procedure as far as I can see.

  2. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Its cases like this – the o.01% exception in terms of wealth that are used to “create” the precedent that the rest of us get shat on by.

    Regards

    Dcrap

  3. tren Christchurch says:

    Imagine a sensible judge telling Her: no handing over of child no penny worse you go to jail. But the ‘sensible’ judge knows what is best to his peers (mafia) fat cheques.

    … saying he becomes extremely anxious when told he must see his father.

    Is there an L4C in sight?
    Is there a Family Court Psychologist in sight.
    Advance Ustralia Advance…

  4. gwallan says:

    The court has tried to set up meetings, but the wife has failed to deliver the boy, saying he becomes extremely anxious when told he must see his father.”

    If he hasn’t been seeing his father then the father cannot be the source of the anxiety.

  5. Dave says:

    Well anyone that knows the slightlest thing about child development knows that frequent and regular contact with both parents is crucial to the welfare of the child. Anything else is vastly less important.

    What is the point of haivng a family court if it can’t make such an obvious priority? Surely all procedings need to be put on hold unil this child is assured of an ongoing quality relatiosnhip with both parents? I am amazed that anyone has to point this out to a “family court”! How much more imcompetent can you get?

    From what we know it seems this child is being set up to fail in 2 ways.
    1. the mother is setting the child up for PAS it would appear. I expect these stories of anxity are false. At the very least she has obviously created great damage to the bond between child and father simply due to the amount of time apart from each other.
    2. the mother and her family are not parenting the boy to be able to deal with the real world. A spoiled young prince is going to have all kinds of issues and difficulties as an adult.

    Some things occur to me.
    It seems to me the court’s hands are forced in this matter. There simply isn’t any future for the boy’s relatioship with his father if he says in his mother’s care. In that case the option to leave the boy with his mother would have to be considered as wrost case option.

    If the boy is to stay with his mother than a drastically reduced child support arrangement would be more appropriate in this case. The “cottage industry” around this boys every material wish needs to be prevented. The father’s suggestion is probably closer to the mark. At least until a different mindset about raising the child is evident.

    Payments above the nessities would have to be tied to successful contact between the child and the father. That seems to be an impractical solution from the court’s point of view. Although perhaps a review after 2 years would not be too onerous.

    A careful look into the feasiblity of the child being raised by his father needs to be undertaken. We don’t know all the circumstances but it seems this might be the least harmful outcome for the child. It would need to include frequent and regular contact with the mother. However this is obviously far more likely to occur than visa versa.

    If the father is able to live in Australia and conduct his business from that country then I would say it is a no brainer. The child lives in Australia with his father and spends ample time with his mother. Probably the father would make frequent business trips when the child could stay with his mother any way.

    If the father has to spend most of his time in Hong Kong then on balance it would seem the child might have to live there with his father. However the mother claerly does not need to work therefore would be able to visit the child in Hong Kong frequently at the father’s expense. The child could spend much of his school holidays with his mother and her family in Australia. Clearly that is vastly preferable than the current situation and outlook.

    Certainly if the genders were reversed this is exactly what the “family court” would rule.

  6. Max says:

    A big problem many of us (our children!) face:
    If the mother has a young child most the time, then she CAN brainwash the child into disliking the father, especially since most the time the Court doesn’t do anything about it. (Meaning not doing the job WE employ and pay them for)

    As a previous Governor-General and NZ High Court Judge and later on the Court of Appeal Sir Micheal Hardie Boy’s once commented: “Some women do not understand the importance of father’s, believing if the marriage is unhappy the children are better off without the father”.
    He also expressed his disapproval of women who “out of bitterness and a thirst for vengeance, deprive their former partners of access to their children”.

  7. Dave says:

    It is not news that some women have these beliefs and behave this way.
    So why do we have a “family court” if that body refuses to acknowledge when this is ioccuring let alone step in to correct that behaviour?
    It seems to me to be a rather pointless organisation. It doesn’t do the most basic functions one would expect of it in terms of outcomes.

Leave a Reply

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