MENZ ISSUES

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

s133 Reporting

Filed under: General — jamestuts @ 1:51 pm Wed 12th May 2010

This is my first posting to this site. My post is anonymous, solely to protect the identities of my family. I am a father/grandfather, and shall respect the aims of this site, at all times.

Some background. I have 3 adult children, one son has a current case with the Family Court. The situation he faces is complicated by a s133 report that appears at variance with the actual experiences of our family and other supporting affidavits. I have concerns about unethical behaviour. I may have a future agenda about a particular writer, but not in this post.

Postings to this site indicate that it is not uncommon for men and their families to be disadvantaged by possible misreporting by specialist writers.

My query to all members of this site. Would there be interest in a NZ wide survey/questionaire on “The Experiences of Men and their Families through s133 Reports”?

If there were sufficient interest, and it were considered worthwhile, I guess I’m putting up my hand for the work involved. I have no previous experience of any thing of this nature, and would require imput from others on the structure/content of such a survey,whom might be the best org. to present it, and the final destinations of it’s results. I am not seeking personal details, just any interest in the concept. My email jamestuts@yahoo.co.nz

Thank you
James

15 Responses to “s133 Reporting”

  1. Dave says:

    HI James – yes I would like to help.
    I have some knowledge of how such things should be run in order to be acceptable to critics.

  2. jamestuts says:

    Dave
    Thank you. I have no illusions about the amount of work and time this might entail should responses be encouraging. My email jamestuts@yahoo.co.nz

    Regards James

  3. Hans Laven says:

    Hi James. I used to do FC specialist reports and still do second opinions. I would be keen to assist in the research you propose.

  4. Pete says:

    I’d certainly know some people who’d be keen to particiate.

  5. Pete says:

    There is something really bizzare about S133 reports. I compare the psychologist job to write an S133 report with my own job to find problems in a software system.

    I’m a software engineer and the architect of a very large system that has litterally thousands of configurable parameters. Sometimes problems occur and I’m asked to investigate. I know how the system works inside out, I know how it behaves and how it lives, and there are only “thousands” of parameters which can have an impact, yet it can take me sometimes days until I figure out the cause of a problem.
    Surely though, my task pales in complexity when compared to that of an S133 report writer:

    – there must be millions of parameters shaping a childs being
    – they may at best experience an minute number of these parameters
    – those they do encounter may not even have a high relevance
    – they don’t know the child, the parents, the friends, etc.
    – they don’t know the environent these people live in
    – actual face-to-face meetings with the report writer are staged, artificial
    – the decisions they make can substantially affect peoples lives

    Unless they get paid for the size of the report, it remains a complete mistery to me how report writers can produce 30 machine-typed A4 pages of psycho bable about dad, mum and kid after seeing them for a mere flash in their lifetime.

    No mistery to me is why so many reports get things so wrong.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear James, the practice of the familycaught would greatly benefit from quality research into all facets of it’s operations. The familycaught cooperates only with a minimal number of researchers, who are conflicted by their employment by jUSTICE dEPARTMENT, so that the outcomes of their research can be controlled in advance, so as to not create reports that might impact onto the financial returns of the parties. lawyers and “judges”, but to give an illusion that research has been carried out.

    Quality research is prepared by posing a research question that could usefully impact onto the outcomes for the consumers of familycaught “services”.

    Coffee table book research, as prepared by jUSTICE dEPARTMENT researchers, researches issues that have little or no impact on the value of “services” to consumers, but issues which affect the convenience of service providers.

    Quality research then samples sufficient numbers of participants and attempts to reasonably accurately measure outcomes.

    Coffee table book research, as prepared by jUSTICE dEPARTMENT researchers, samples very small numbers of participants, often service deliverers, rather than consumers. The measurements taken, are usually opinions, rather than useful, valuable, relevant measurements of outcomes for consumers.

    I am not criticising the researchers. I am sure that they are as vulnerable to the need to pay for food, halucinatory chemicals and accommodation, as the rest of us. I am criticising the stultifying control exercised over these talented individuals, by their employer – US!

    If you follow through, as an “independant” researcher, the beneficiaries of the familycaught ie lawyers and “judges”, may attempt to discredit your research by saying that you are motivated by your personal family involvement. Don’t be put off by the beneficiary pigs with their snouts in the public trough.

    When you think about it, what researcher would carry our research into familycaught if they had no interest at all? i trust that your interest comes from your heart (rather than your wallet!).

    So, please go ahead with full energy and speed and don’t be put off by by naysayers, either “judges”, lawyers or anyone else. Be true to your own integrity and speak about what you find!

    If I can assist, please ask and I will do my best.

    Best wishes. Axe-Murderer.

  7. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Pete,
    your comments are sharp. When you are working, you are accountable to your employer, who can see the quality of your work and through paying you, can decide to exercise sanctions onto you. He decides whether to employ you and he is left with the outcome from your work, good or bad.

    In the familycaught, the psychologist is employed or controlled effectively by the “judge” or caught registrar. (The psychologist is paid with taxpayer’s money, but the taxpayer is not present and able to protect their own interest. Even if the taxpayer showed up at the familycaught counter, they would not be allowed to inspect a handful of psych reports and to then decide that they were not worth paying for!)

    If the “judge” and registrar honour their duty to the taxpayer, to get good value for money, then the public interest would be protected.

    However, in a closed and hidden environment, where “judges” act to protect their privacy from being accountable to the public, then there is a recipe for disaster.

    In this case, the cost is carried mainly by the children, whose protection has been sacrificed.

    Accountability, or the linking of responsibility to freedom to make the original decision that creates the benefit or cost, improves efficiency and reduces waste. It also helps to ensure that organisations continue to adapt to changes in their environment.

    The English familycaught is an excellent example of the possible outcomes, when their is no effective accountability. They are drowning in semi-relevant but good looking paperwork and creating more paperwork to solve this problem! By comparison, the NZ familycaught looks fairly good… This is not a compliment.

    Non-accountability, or blind trust, becomes a fertile breeding ground for lack-lustre performance, incompetence, failure to improve with time and outright corruption. One such example of corruption, is the control and manipulation of the list of approved psychologists, out of sight of the public. Not actually illegal, but clearly unethical and against the public interest and in particular – against children’s interest to be competently protected.

    The first step towards working accountability, is visibility or public access to information. When “judges” refuse to honour the Official Information Act, they keep the judiciary in disrepute. These principles are fairly old and in general terms, were well understood by the ancient Egyptians. Funny how some of us can keep on forgetting, when there is money to be taken?

    You are right about the complexity of human families. In all practicality, the monkeys in the trees and zoos get by without a familycaught and to me, this suggests that we would do well to consider their example…… I trust these monkeys more than I trust lawyers pretending to have sociological research skills, such as sir ron davison. (Funny how he wanted to be paid at lawyer’s rates, for doing incompetent sociological research…., while he drew the universal pension as well….)

    If we give lawyers/psychologists incentives to rip us off, then we shouldn’t act surprised when they do what we are paying them to do!

    The sensible thing to do, would be to allign the payments to “judges” and lawyers, with how well they are serving their employer. To do otherwise, is to stab ourselves, in our wallet and our children.

    Keep on biting thieves and cutting into corruption!
    Cheers, Axe-murderer.

  8. jamestuts says:

    Dave, Hans, Pete and Murray.
    Thanks all of you. You all indicate, that there is interest in my initial post.

    I invite you to indicate what you see as some usable parameters to focus the scope and intention of this process. What questions and areas would be useful to see addressed. What skills you wish to bring to the idea and would wish to focus on.
    I am totally new to the dialogues that occur on this site, but you all seem familar with each others posts.

    Hans, I know of you through a recommendation outside of this site and looking at previous posts. You would seem to be eminently qualified to help define the areas to address.

    I see the process as very open source with no one owning it.But I willingly commit to the time involved and would endeavour to be an efficient compiler and conduit for any contributors, and to act with integrity.

    I have emailed my first draft thoughts to 2 people,it is open to total change and edit, it is only a beginning format and does not define intention and could result in more negative responses than would be desirable.
    My email jamestuts@yahoo.co.nz

    My thanks, James.

  9. tren Christchurch says:

    I will second the opinion of Murray.
    I had an S133 report done on my family after a memo by the children’s lawyer.

    This particular lawyer is vicious an lies as she breathes.

    My experience with the report writer ( a psychologist ) was not that all bad comparing with what I read here and elsewhere on the subject. The conclusion of the writer was that I loved my children and we should be reunited as soon as possible without supervision. That brought an end to the supervision

    I did send an email to her telling her that all in all the report was fair. I tend to encourage people of good will and faith within this savage system of the Family Court. However inside the report there was a little an assuming statement
    where she was accusing me of causing my wife’s stress disorder. You can only notice that statement if you were looking for it. Now, all my affidavits and correspondence with the Court, I was accusing them of causing that disorder as well as my children evident trauma ( They had to see psychologists). My wife was threatened with prosecution and the children removed from her if she did not leave me and sought a protection order (Women’s refuge were fishing then for clients to please aunt Helen -She was told i am dangerous)

    I am of the view that psychologists as used by this devilish system of destruction (Family Court) are intellectual terrorists.

    For this read Is Freud a fraud? http://www.france24.com/en/20100423-row-sigmund-freud-psychiatrist-philosopher-michel-onfray-twilight-of-an-idol-jackson

    They are not independent
    they are paid by the Family Court

  10. Dave says:

    Let’s consider the possible/desired outcome(s) of this exercise and use that to determine specifics of the task.
    1. Most research of the kind proposed will conclude that fathers feel the report/process was biased and disadvantaged them. The family court will respond that fathers often have this perception but in fact there is no bias – just a perception of bias. We need to anticipate this risk and design things so that this dismissal is unsupported.

    2. I think the fundamental problem with the entire system in general and report writers in particular is that the outcomes for the children are never dealt with. There is no monitoring, accountability, responsibility or learning going on as a result.

    3. I think a survey of this kind needs to start by finding out the eventual outcome for children once all the report writers and lawyers have been paid and the parents left to deal with the consequences. In Australia 40% of cases the father eventually gives up entirely and/or see the children 4 times per year or less. If the result is NZ is similar or worse then this is a travesty for our children.

    4. Then we might consider how did the report writer contribute to the eventual outcome?

    5. Then we might consider specific areas/aspects about the report writer and the reports that should be investigated.

    For example I am convinced that in most cases a report was not required and only caused harm to the parents relationship with each other and no doubt an unjustified reduction in time the kids spend with Dad. I believe in most cases the judge is simply looking for ammunition to try to support the decision already more or less made before the hearing occurs.

    Another specific issue is the inability for the psychologists to properly define the methodology they have used.

    Then there are a great many breaches of ethics.

    Plus a host of other issues before we even get to the content of these reports.

    Obviously the scope of any research needs to be careful;y limited so all these things need careful consideration before setting the goals of the research.

  11. jamestuts says:

    Hans, I would most value your imput. Your experience would be most appropriate. and I would appreciate your contact jamestuts@yahoo.co.nz
    Regards James

  12. jamestuts says:

    Dave this is reply to you as, my thinking has been sharpened after your thoughful last posting.
    Pete and Murray the same applies to you both.
    All your comments have all been instructive. Thanks to all private mail recieved.
    However.

    I am going to move my imput to this discussion to a closed forum.

    I sincerely thank everyone for their contributions, and assure you that the idea will be pursued, and hopefully will result in a usable positive result.

  13. Pete says:

    Hi Axe-murderer, very well put. I particularly like your spot-on Sir Ron Davison comment.

    But the judiciary is appointed by the executive, the executive is appointed by the legislative where the majority of members owe this privilege to big money. This closes the cycle.

    How do you brake it?

  14. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Pete,
    thank you for your comments. In my booring bloodsoaked opinion, you are DEAD right. The guts is that too many MPs are legal workers and they fail to honestly declare their conflicts of interest and go on to vote on issues in which their judgement is clouded and corrupted by conflict of interest. True, the conflict may be “future-possible”, but nonetheless “almost certain to deliver taxable $” although the tax might never be paid….., thus genuine CONFLICT OF INTEREST”.

    Take the example of “Sir” Douglas Graham. Sometimes thought of as a wooden rocking horse. Retires as a munster of the crown. Then accepts role as “director” on a finance company, to lend advertising credibility to people who skim read the prospectus, instead of analysing the basics.

    The people who offered him the post, as a “wooden rocking horse finance company director”, were skimming the finance company…. Extracting cash in good times, such that there would be nothing left to even consider skimming from in hard times. “Sir” douglas graham didn’t notice that he was being employed as a shrunken wooden head token, in the manner of the wooden face at the prow of a boat…..

    Legal ethics don’t even come into the equation…..

    Sir graham’s reputation was skimmed, in the same way that he thought he was skimming the owner’s of the finance company. It seems that he was really skimming the investors, not the company owners that he thought he was skimming….

    Technical difference, or is it enough of a difference to result in jail time, for “Sir” douglas skimming graham?

    You be the judge!

    Just because something is the law, it does not at all mean that it is serving NZ society. If our “judges” and bottom rung legal-workers assume this, then they are happily deluding themselves, as they take the profits.

    The cost is to society, they are just sucking in the public, if they persuade us to believe that the law is always right.

    The law is as right, as the quality and completeness of the MP’s declarations of their conflicts of interest!!!!!!!!

    It is always right, only in the sense that legal-workers will always screw a $buck, by enforcing a law, whether it is serving NZ society of not.

    If you forget this, then you are just an easy sucker, like any gullible waiting to be stripped to the bone.

    The bigger issue, is “Sir” douglas graham’s promotion of the dv act. Since 1995, this has been worth about $2.25 billion to legal-workers. I would guess that it has spilled 30 tones of father’s blood. Pretty good deal, for the mistresses of legal-workers, not so delicious for the children of suicided fathers or mothers…..

    Lets try to enforce accountability onto these blood suckers. Late is better than never.

    Cheers, Axe-Murderer.

  15. jamestuts says:

    This is a repeat of the intention of the 3rd comment.
    Thank you to everyone, please no offence, all contributions have been helpful.
    I am moving my imputs to this idea to a closed forum, as it seems more appropriate when strategising effective change to not broadcast all the details.

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