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

Soldier’s protest of the family court proceedings

Filed under: Law & Courts — Julie @ 2:43 am Sun 21st March 2010

A British returned soldier locked family court doors with chains, barring staff from entering their workplace, in protest of his treatment while serving his country. He says,

“I recently returned from duty fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to find that judges at Darlington county court had granted my wife a non-molestation and an occupation order of the marital home, this was all done ex parte in my absence whilst serving Queen and country overseas.”

“My wife has since moved her new lover in and has been denying contact to our 2 young children.”

“If this is how the courts treat a serving soldier based on a false allegation, imagine how they could treat you.”

“All my wife needed was to say there was a ‘perceived fear’ of what I may do when I found out about her affair, the judge said because I was a soldier I was ’obviously violent’ he then granted her an occupation order and has denied me going within a mile of our home.”

“I’d prefer to be fighting the Taliban than fighting the legal system, they operate in secret behind closed doors and the judges remain unaccountable for their actions.”

“I’ve already seen a Cafcass officer who has told me I’m looking at an occasional hour with my kids in a supervised contact centre, probably for at least the next 6 months.”

“Due to the sheer frustration and the delays in dealing with my case, I feel I have no other option but to protest in this way, so I decided to give the Judges a taste of their own medicine and ‘deny access’ to their court.”

“Perhaps while they are waiting for the chains to be cut, they might reflect on the damage they have done to my children in denying them contact with their father.”

“We spend billions of pounds fighting the Taliban; they have killed hundreds of my colleagues.”

“The family courts are responsible for at least as many deaths through fathers deprived of hope, taking their own lives, yet we actually support them through our taxes”

He was quite upset, but went on to say;

“The Taliban sneak about and plant I.E.D’s (improvised explosive devices) in the cover of darkness. These bombs not only kill soldiers but maim and kill children. I would say that family courts are just like the Taliban.”

“I left my family to serve my country, and to help other families live a life of freedom in Afghanistan.”

“My children have been maimed for life, just for like those children in Afghanistan that are caught in I.E.D explosions. They may not have lost limbs or have scars, but they have lost a father who loves them .”


  1. This Gentleman is a hero in my books…..!!!!!

    What a brave Man,and his statements are right on the Money….The more I see the results of this Extreme social engineering ‘Feminazi’ Feminism, especially in the so called ‘Family’ Courts …The more I hold Feminism in utter contempt…!!!

    Kind regards to all…John Dutchie

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 9:39 am

  2. What a wonderful and appropriate action by this brave solider. Imagine the publicity if disenfranchised fathers in this country were to organise a concerted effort to do this at every Family Caught across New Zealand. I would imagine these men would not have to wait until 5am like this solider did, but just lock the doors during a recess. I note this is an effective tactic often used by the environmental movement called a ‘lock-on’.

    I would imagine a defence for this type of action could be ‘Right of Claim’. It is the same defence the Waihopai 3 successfully used to get off charges of wilful damage by popping the spy base dome. They sincerely believed they were acting to save the lives of those overseas. To mount such a defence, a defendant need not necessarily be right, simply just sincerely hold the belief that they are.

    I imagine there may be fathers in this country who sincerely believe that our Family Caughts are causing men to commit suicide in increasing numbers and are anxious like me to prevent further such tragedies occurring. Who amongst us would not act to save someone’s life?

    Just a thought that occurred to me ….. of course it would be improper of me to incite people to break the good laws of our country and I just simply speculating for the sake of intellectual argument on this website.

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 11:40 am

  3. …family courts are just like the Taliban…
    What an insulting comment!
    Taliban wants kids to have both parents.
    Our courts want to bastardize kids and plunder men.

    Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 12:59 pm

  4. Reply to Gerry

    ‘Tongue in Cheek’….. ‘Good laws of our country’……Yes, if you are a Woman or a Mother here in Feminist N.Z..

    Kind regards John Dutchie

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 2:08 pm

  5. Think you would be pushing it uphill with the Right of Claim.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 2:10 pm

  6. What are the differences between the family courts and the Taliban? It’s all a bit subtle to me.

    Comment by Dave — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 3:20 pm

  7. ““Think you would be pushing it uphill with the Right of Claim” – with respect Scrap that is obviously not what the jury in the Waihopai wilful damage case thought. They admitted to wilful damage, but they simply hold the belief their actions saved lives. Even the judge disagreed with them, but the jury accepted these men acted from sincere held beliefs. If a man is going to attend a Family Caught hearing and you knew those procedures would push him over the edge and he may kill himself as a result, a person would have a justified defence in my view. Justice is more likely in a criminal court than in the Family Caught because criminal courts rely on the decisions of a jury, not an institutionalised family law practitioner who has worked himself/herself in line for a judge’s sinecure.

    I would refer you to case law on Right of Claim. There are literally hundreds of acquittals on such a defence. It involves actually admitting doing a criminal act but citing a sincerely held belief for the justification. It doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong. In cases involving damage only to property (not persons) you have a pretty even chance of an acquittal on an act of conscience. I guess there is only one way to find out.

    As a law student I can not disparage the “good laws of our country”. I would point out that it is actually the courts that interpret the laws and judges have wide powers of discretion to do so. In criminal cases, however, they are bound by the decision of 12 honest men and women in the form of a jury and the sensible views of the “common man” (and woman) gets to poke its head in the door.

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 3:32 pm

  8. “What are the differences between the family courts and the Taliban? It’s all a bit subtle to me.” – With the Taliban, I’d say death is delivered a bit quicker than what the Family Court can arrange for you.

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 3:34 pm

  9. i rember my x stating in an affa davit that she was ‘worried what i might do with the kids’…x nominated my cousins place for supervised access…that happened once then x realized it was a huge hassle and made up more shit to change that situation

    Comment by ford — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 7:33 pm

  10. Claim of Right is a very limited defence. If you wish to try it out then by all means do so.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 7:44 pm

  11. What we need Scrap is men who are prepared to actually take action and not whinge and whine on this site and achieve nothing.

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 21st March 2010 @ 8:32 pm

  12. I just wanted to correct the nationality of the soldier. He is British as the original press release was issued by my colleagues in Real Fathers For Justice in the UK. I am involved in Fathers 4 Justice Canada. I have posted it on 3 of my Canadian blogs to further publicize the inequities and extreme bias of family law in western democracies.

    This soldier has great courage and is a true hero to his children for making another sacrifice after putting his life on the line for his country.

    Comment by Mike Murphy — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 5:11 am

  13. Reply to Gerry

    Interesting issue you have raised Gerry, you are very correct in your statement….. ‘I would point out that it is actually the courts that interpret the laws and judges’….But here in some aspects and just my humble opinion here,the problem with some of our so called ‘Laws’ are extremely badly written….this can lead to interruption of Law conflicts in courts…..

    Also, just to throw a curve ball at you Gerry,and it is meant as in no disrespect towards you….Just because its the so called ‘Law’…Does not make the ‘Law’ right…case in point,some my Dutch family were in the Dutch resistance in Nazi occupied Netherlands during WW2,tying there best to get the Jews out before they were sent to the extermination camps….

    It was against Nazi ‘Law’ to help the Jews,many of my Dutch relatives paid the ultimate price with own lives for trying to help the Jews in Nazi occupied Holland in WW2…. My wonderful Dutch Grandmothers sum it beautifully…The… ‘Law of conscience’…… preceded over Nazi ‘Law’

    Can I say to you Jerry,you as a Law student should read a controversial book called …’A City Possessed’…. written by a highly intelligent Lady called ‘Lynsey Hood’ this is all about the Peter Ellis case,Lynsey Hood goes quite deeply into Feminism and how Feminism as been hijacked by Man Haters ….Just my humble opinion,What happen to Peter Ellis set a serious and a very dangerous precedent concerning the capability of a Kiwi Woman here N.Z to just ‘point the finger’ at you as a Man or Father,and your Life as a decent Man.
    /Father is totally destroyed…..!!!!!…I will not mince my words here…Kiwi Woman know the Law is totally on there side and are not scared to use it in a vindictive manner…Hence I will not get involved with a Kiwi Woman…been there, and I have been badly burnt by a false sexual allegation,just like my ex Brother in law ,who also had a false sexual allegation thrown at him by his bitter Kiwi Feminism partner…and that one completely destroyed a family unit….!!!and was his ex bitter and twisted Kiwi Feminist partner charged with making a false sexual allegation…No….!!!!!!!

    Again,just in my humble opinion here in New Zealand,and it’s not only New Zealand that suffer from this major problem …Canada would be the worst in this area…
    As in the huge amount of false sexual allegation been directed and thrown towards decent,caring and loving Men/Fathers in the Courts and in the Family courts by there bitter and twisted ex partners who think its there solemn ‘Right’ to do so……

    Kind regards to you……. John Dutchie

    Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 7:57 am

  14. Oh, oh, my bad.

    Thank-you Mike Murphy. I am very sorry for getting it wrong.

    Comment by julie — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 8:32 am

  15. Totally agree that action is required, in fact have been involved with plenty in.

    But before you have action you must have a strategy – strategy is sadly lacking as most men can’t see beyond their own circumstances.(The whinging!)

    The Waihopai 3 had a very clear and cohesive strategy that was linked to tactical execution. They were not focused on their case changing the world, they were focused on changing the world.

    The people who have the power to change the law are the Cabinet – not the judges, not Dunne nothing, not your local mp and definitely not the court!



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 9:53 am

  16. gerry…stop whining

    Comment by ford — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 11:57 am

  17. Ford your ‘articulate’ contributions to this site speak volumes for themselves. By the way “affa davit” is spelt affidavit and “made up more shit to change that situation” sounds like a convincing legal argument to me (not). Sorry whose whining here?

    Get active and stop using this website to denigrate your former partner. It simply lends argument to those who incorrectly say this website exists for biter men who want to bag ex-wives, girlfriends and women in general.

    What have you done to put your money where your mouth is? I have a trespass order from the Family Caught.

    Comment by Gerry — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 4:51 pm

  18. you have a trespass order?…thats nice…i have a bitter rancid taste in my mouth and its not the taste of cash…and ur put downs over my spelling etc dont bother me…just shows me what ur really like

    Comment by ford — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 5:28 pm

  19. and i know a smartarse prick when i see one

    Comment by ford — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 5:28 pm

  20. “i (sic) have a bitter rancid taste in my mouth and its not the taste of cash…” …if you choose to give away your favours freely Ford rather than selling them, that is entirely your business, but let’s not discuss what you do in your private life on these pages eh? I am as broadminded as the next person but really!

    And that is Mister Smartarse Prick to you please.

    Comment by Gerry — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 5:49 pm

  21. Just ignore him Ford. He’s practising to be a lawyer. He criticises your spelling while in the same post spells bitter incorrectly. It was obvious to me that your post ‘gerry…stop whining‘ was humour. His poor attitude isn’t lost on some of the readers here. Maybe he’s very young?

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 22nd March 2010 @ 9:20 pm

  22. They say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks – the average age of our group is 43 but thanks anyway for the compliment. None of us are practising to be lawyers, just two of us happen to be doing law degrees to empower themselves instead of limiting their efforts to just complaining on this web site. We offer free legal advice to men in the Family Caught where we can and act as McKenzie Friends, but we do not hold outselves out to be lawyers or have desires to be such. Having a law degree does not make you a lawyer. We are instead involved in peaceful non-violent direct action to further fathers’ rights and a knowledge of the law obviously helps. We started with one or two committed people but have grown into a closed tight-knit group with a common cause. We act.

    Comment by GerryMen — Sun 21st November 2010 @ 10:42 pm

  23. …just two of us happen to be doing law degrees to empower themselves instead of limiting their efforts to just complaining on this web site.

    You have no idea what others are involved with besides posting content on this website and of which you interpret as complaining. Do you consider yourself to be a clairvoyant too?

    …the average age of our group is 43 but thanks anyway for the compliment.

    If I was 43 but my behaviour gave someone else the impression that I was very young I wouldn’t interpret that as a compliment. It wasn’t meant as a compliment. Please forgive me for confusing you.

    two of us happen to be doing law degrees to empower themselves instead of limiting their efforts to just complaining on this web site.

    That’s great. Some of us feel empowered with just being human but if you need something else for you to feel that empowerment then I’m totally in support. Each to his/her own.

    We are instead involved in peaceful non-violent direct action to further fathers’ rights

    Excellent, but please try to understand that fathers might be at different stages of recovery from traumatic experiences that could well be beyond your own imagination and leave the personal attacks against men to the feminist extremists.

    It might help you to scroll up and read: – promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience –

    Comment by Wayne — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 10:05 am

  24. Wayne we are confused, as you appear to be taking credit for the posting of another identity. We are sick of fathers in general getting a bad rap because of the behaviour of a small minority of men who do crappy things to their families and which society and the media then uses to generalise and label all of us, but we are not sick of NZ. Our children are here and of us would think to leave them no matter how crappy the situation becomes for fathers. But that is the limit of our confusion. If the sarcasm in our previous posting escaped you, we can’t help that.

    Two of founding members have been involved in the men’s movement since 1987; two other members belong to another regular men’s group and two others are former members of another group. We have a weekly levy which goes towards the costs of our members attending such events as the Essentially Men Workshop but not all of us choose to participate. We are as well informed about other groups and movements as we can be. You know nothing about us and cannot make such comments.

    We take our philosophy from Harvard Professor Gene Sharp’s “Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential” of the Albert Einstein Institution which tries to provide activists with the best resources available on strategic nonviolent action. If you are interested there are almost 200 forms of non-violent action any individual can take, we are sure there is one there suitable for you.

    Some of us are doing law degrees not to ‘empower us as human beings’ but to empower us in the Family Court. Any man who goes into the Family Court not prepared to learn and fight by their rules is dog tucker. Your empowerment as a ‘human being’ isn’t going to stop the Family Court screwing you over or when you get arrested by the cops for exercising your civil rights.

    We are linked with the American Coalition for Fathers and Children through one of our members who is from the States. This is an organisation that achieves in America what we only talk about on this website. Our members are all in various forms of ‘recovery’ as you put it. Their involvement in this group is part of that recovery instead of just lashing out bitterly against ex-partners and resorting to misogynistic language. If someone criticises us that doesn’t make them ‘feminist extremists’. It is so easy to simply write-off criticism by such a label when actually the vast majority of women are not misandric. Men should be ready to be their own critics instead of blindly trying to make family court issues into a gender based argument. There are bad fathers just as there are bad mothers.

    Nor is it is not a competition over who has had the worst traumatic experience…no one has the corner on this market and it is arrogant to lay claim to understanding knowledge of what others may have experienced. Some of our members have suffered experiences worse than many, but we know of others (including women and children) who have suffered more. We need to acknowledged that while women can behave badly, so too in an extreme way can some men.

    You talk about ‘recovery’ — lucky for you, how does anyone ever recover from losing their kids and role as a father? If someone wants to throw mud at us, we’ll throw it back. We don’t roll over, we get even. It’s the fight that helps keep us alive and is our ‘recovery’ not bitterness and personal attacks. You’ll be surprised how ‘empowered’ you may start to feel.

    Comment by GerryMen — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 11:26 am

  25. Sorry for confusing you once more. I am SickofNZ but posting using the name given to me by my parents. I’ve tried posting using my original username however those posts automatically go to ‘spam’.

    I am aware of some of Ford’s history and considered your reaction to him to be inappropriate. That is my opinion. I apologise if that bothers you.

    I am sick of New Zealand. When I emigrate it will be with my children. My oldest daughter emigrates in mid February with her three children. Shortly after that my youngest daughter will emigrate with her two children. I’ll join them both with my dependent son. I won’t be leaving them but rather, I’ll be joining them.

    I won custody of my children after battling my ex-wife and her feminist State supporters and without ending up as dog tucker. You see, I’m not suffering from losing my children at all. I’ve never been violent towards my children or my ex-wife. I was empowered prior to that custody battle. My parents saw to that during my upbringing. As much as I believe your advice could be beneficial for some or even many, it has no practical meaning for me. Can you help a winner?

    I’ll not remain contributing to a society that allows someone to attempt to kill their children on multiple occasions, to drug and poison and conspire to murder their partner and never be charged with any crime. That is not a society I wish my children or my grandchildren to live in, and they won’t. It’s as simple as that!

    Comment by Wayne — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 12:30 pm

  26. We are sick of fathers in general getting a bad rap because of the behaviour of a small minority of men who do crappy things to their families and which society and the media then uses to generalise and label all of us, but we are not sick of NZ.


    With all respect, I don’t see how the bad behaviour of a small minority of men should be responsible for fathers in general getting a bad rap. We don’t allow the actions of patched gang members to dictate law for all Maori, nor do we suppose the actions of a few violent and abusive women to prescribe society-wide assumptions on all women.

    If another man behaves abominably, it is no reflection on you or me.

    You are right about pointing the finger at societal attitudes and the media. In my opinion, these are the real problems. They are such a problem that there’s every evidence that they are in fact causing the behaviour in some men that then attempt to characterise as typical of the rest of us.

    There is no way I will accept blame or responsibility for another man’s actions, and I won’t allow others to induce any guilt. That they even attempt it shows how poorly they respect us.

    Comment by rc — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 12:54 pm

  27. All your points are valid, but the experience of our group is that once in the Family Court as men we all get tarred with the same brush.

    There appears a perception that if you are a man and are accused of abusive behaviour, the onus is on you to prove to the contrary, whereas in a criminal court the onus is to prove the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

    The media and the courts and the PC brigade hammer home the stereotypes associated with domestic violence all the time and all men appearing in the FC suffer. The issue seems to be the lower level of proof in the FC – if you have ever been before the Family Court you will know the judge decides who he/she finds more believable.

    Comment by GerryMen (not the Man) — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 1:05 pm

  28. if you have ever been before the Family Court you will know the judge decides who he/she finds more believable.

    Although I can only speak from my own experience in the Femily Caught, and I guess some of the testimonies from others, I believe Judges deliberately go out of their way to find the mother believable to the detriment of both fathers and children.
    If it wasn’t for the fact that I had made recordings and presented irrefutable evidence of my ex-wife’s violence and dishonesty I’m sure I would have lost custody.
    One just needs to view the statistics of Femily Caught results to see who Judges prefer to find more believable.

    Comment by Wayne — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 2:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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