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

Kill the Family Court Protests

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 2:07 pm Thu 28th June 2012

The first protest took place last Friday 22 June, to highlight the need for a rebirthing level of change to our family law and Family Court. A small but vocal group made this need clear to those involved with the Court and to many public passing through the area. A toy suction gun was used symbolically to target some of the many undesirable features of our Family Court.

The next protest will be next Friday 6th July in Tauranga. I understand the Family Courtrooms in Tauranga are now on levels 1 and 2 of McLean House, 26 McLean Street. This building is right behind the main Tauranga Courthouse at 46 Cameron Road.

In order for our family law and its administering Court to be a positive social force in NZ the level of change required is such that the present system needs to be discarded and replaced rather than tinkered with. So we call to kill the Family Court; it kills families.

How do we reject thee? Let me count the ways (or at least the first 21 that come to mind):

1. It is a secret Court. Secret justice is no justice. This unaccountability to society has enabled the Family Court for decades to prosecute a radical feminist agenda and in many other ways to damage children and their parents. There has been some legislated reduction in the secrecy but judges still have to give specific permission for any information to be released to the public, rather than excluding particular information on valid grounds. The terrible outcomes for children, permanent damage to parental relationships and the many suicides driven by this Court remain hidden from the public under its shroud of secrecy. The arguments used to justify ongoing secrecy are little more than slogans that do not stand up to close inspection.

2. It is fatally flawed from the outset to expect lawyers in the form of judges to be able to determine the best interests of children. They don’t have the training or knowledge to do so. Their privileged socioeconomic circumstances impair their understanding of reality for ordinary people. Although they sometimes seek advice from people with at least some relevant training in child development and interpersonal psychology, much family law is written to allow Family Court judges almost unbridled power to make whatever decision their particular ideological stance prefers.

3. Lawyers are used to interview children, to ascertain the children’s wishes and to report back to the Court accordingly. Lawyers do not have the training to do so adequately. To communicate effectively with children of various ages and to understand what the children are communicating requires (among other things) a deep knowledge of child development, psychology, projection, transference and counter-transference, communication dynamics, the effect of context and how to determine the influence of pre-inteview coaching and/or parental alienation efforts. Lawyers’ attempts to communicate with children are often experienced by those children as confusing, manipulative or abusive. It is not uncommon for children to deny they meant what the lawyer ended up claiming they said. Lawyers for child will usually take advantage of this role in order to influence the judge in ‘read between the lines’ fashion with that lawyer’s own opinion about either parent or what the judgement should be, and judges will often allow this influence by their esteemed colleagues regardless of the merits of those esteemed colleagues’ biased views. The whole process of ‘ascertaining children’s wishes’ is often redundant because the judge can ignore those wishes at a whim, e.g. by following the lawyer for child’s preference against the children’s apparent wishes, or by appointing yet another lawyer ‘to assist the Court’ to provide another way to ignore the children’s apparent wishes.

4. The claimed ‘principle’ that the ‘best interests of children’ are the Family Court’s priority is fatally flawed. It may sound like a laudable idea but it is unrealistic and in practice it’s a convenient fraud to justify whatever decision a judge prefers. For example, mummy’s happiness will often be prioritized as promoting the children’s best interests whereas in the next breath those alleged ‘best interests’ will be used to justify decisions that unnecessarily damage daddy’s relationship with his children.

5. Family Courts will often allow women to remove children far away from their loving fathers by claiming that the best interests of the children will be served if mummy is happier, more supported etc in the new faraway place. This of course is duplicitous in assuming that father’s devestation is irrelevant to the children’s best interests.

6. Related to the fallacious ‘children’s best interests’ priority is the (sometimes stated) idea that parents have only responsibilities and only children have rights. This underlies much of our family law but it is fatally flawed. Parents are doing the most important job in the country and they need to have strong, clear rights to do that job adequately. They cannot be responsible for their task if they don’t have rights enabling them to meet the responsibilities.

7. The Family Court supports CYFS, the other leading family-wrecking agency in NZ. The Court will tend to believe social workers over parents and often acts as little more than a rubber stamp service for CYFS wishes. Vendettas by social workers against particular parents who have displeased them will often be supported by the Family Court.

8. Feminist ideology consisting to a considerable extent of false feminist propaganda has shaped our family law and this has resulted in a fatally flawed system. Much of that propaganda has been thoroughly discredited by subequent research but our family law is so fundamentally riddled with it that it is beyond repair. False beliefs underlying much of our family law and/or Family Court practice include: ‘mothers are better / the only necessary parents’ (the mother principle), ‘partner violence is committed mainly by men and against women’, ‘domestic violence is mainly done by men and arises from our history of patriarchy and men’s ongoing need to exert power and control’, ‘any expression of anger, frustration or disagreement by a man equals violence’, ‘women don’t lie’, ‘women are disadvantaged and need special support’, ‘mothers only care about the wellbeing of their children’, ‘male approaches to rearing and disciplining children are worthless and undesirable’, ‘after separation women deserve more than half of a man’s previously-earned assets because women have sacrificed so much in their role and women are disadvantaged economically in our society generally’, ‘after separation women deserve to be kept economically in the fashion they were accustomed to when the family was intact’.

9. The Family Court frequently practises misandry. To some extent it is required to do so by its empowering legislation, but much misandry results from the extent to which Family Court personnel have been captured individually by feminist propaganda. For example, any untested allegation of domestic violence when made by a woman against a man will tend to be accepted as fact and the Court will use DV legislation immediately to damage the accused father’s relationship with his children, to remove various civil rights from that man and to order the man under threat of imprisonment to a form of periodic-detention requiring him to attend and submit to feminist indoctrination centres with cute titles such as ‘Living Without Violence Courses’. Of course, threatened violence by the state supports the domestic violence industry. And all this often with no testing of the allegations whatsoever and indeed no communication to the accused man about the proceedings at all on a ‘without notice’ basis, and otherwise always with no fair trial and on the convenient basis of ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than any solid evidential requirement. Yet when men make allegations against women, the Court is highly likely to protect an accused woman and her relationship with children from orders or impact except in the case of the most compelling evidence. Also, the professional assessors (psychologists etc) employed by the Family Court have always been carefully selected to ensure they will promote feminist ideology over sound research-based knowledge.

10. The Family Court has a sinister and probably illegal arrangement that allows judges to decide whether a complaint against Court-appointed psychologists will go to the Psychologists Board. This means that litigants subjected to a psychologist’s assessment are deprived of normal levels of protection against professional misconduct, bias etc and psychologists who behave unethically continue to be used by the Court.

11. The Family Court practices economic plunder. It’s happy to keep accepting applications from women and their lawyers paid for under legal aid, then to allow men (who were the main economic providers in the family) to be financially ruined if they want to protect their children and their relationships with their children. Nice scam.

12. In addition to misandry, the Family Court has always shown bias against men/fathers and in favour of women/mothers. Family law is largely based on feminist propaganda to begin with, and Court personnel tend to be even more captured by feminist propaganda than the average person is because they are regularly subjected to training and seminars from feminist organizations but avoid men’s perspectives and wisdom. Often all professionals in a hearing are women and primarily support female litigants. Despite constant denials by the Family Court that it is biased towards women, many litigants have experienced such bias at first hand and the figures speak for themselves when it comes to the gender direction of decisions in contested cases.

13. The Family Court invites lies, false allegations and perjury. Even when strong evidence of perjury is presented the Family Court very rarely refers those cases for criminal investigation or prosecution. The Court’s responses in this respect are also heavily gender biased. When the evidence of a male litigant is believed to be false the Court is likely to berate that male and to make decisions assuming all or most of that male’s evidence is untrustworthy. Yet for women’s perjury the Court is more likely to excuse it and to sweep it aside whilst assuming everything else that woman said can still be accepted as reliable. Believe me, I have seen this happen with my own eyes. Yes, this does happen less frequently in the opposite gender direction.

14. The Family Court routinely punishes and damages children by wrecking their relationships with parents, usually their fathers, on the basis of untested allegations and under the assumption that any allegation of partner violence means the accused man presents a risk to his children as well. This is even the case for any claim by a woman that she might sometimes feel frightened even though the man has never actually done anything violent. This means that nearly all children whose fathers are accused of violent potential are harmed by the Family Court in order to protect that tiny proportion whose father would cause them violence. An analogy would be to make all Christchurch children live outside in the cold while aftershocks continue in order to protect those few who would otherwise die in a house collapse.

15. The Family Court and its empowering legislation have bought into a dogmatic feminist religion concerning ‘violence’. Even before Bradford’s no-force-in-discipline law, the Family Court supported CYFS’ self-styled ‘zero tolerance’ crusade against loving parents who saw any role for smacking. Of course, serious and/or deliberately harmful violence should not be tolerated. However, the Family Court’s absolutist attitude to ‘violence’ under a ridiculously broad definition amounts to superstition. It’s foolish to see minor or even moderate forms of violence as necessarily overriding all other considerations including the importance of a child’s family and relationship with biological parents. The nonviolence religion is also sexist in that it is primarily male forms of responding that have been defined as violent whereas many female forms of violence have not. The administration of this religion is further sexist in that men and women are treated very differently for exactly the same behaviour. Fundamentally, the nonviolence religion is hypocritical from a justice system that uses physical violence as its enforcement and that does emotional violence daily to children and parents through its decisions.

16. The Family Court often destroys what trust and rapport there might have been between separated parents.

17. The Family Court promotes immorality and defends people’s right to breach marital vows sexually and otherwise. This insidious influence on our society is the kind of thing that has brought down previous civilizations (but all those boring lessons from history are so male aren’t they?). And any complaint by a man about the woman’s infidelity, immorality or relationship unfairness will be defined as violence or harassment eligible for a Protection Order.

18. The Family Court has administered the trashing of the concept of marriage, rendered marriage disposable, irrelevant and meaningless through the feminist invention of ‘no-fault divorce’. When one breaches undertakings made in a real contract there will always be penalties of some kind. But breaching marriage vows or the verbal contract implicit in de facto relationships is more likely to be rewarded in the Family Court, especially for women who breach that contract.

19. The Family Court administers sexism in applying the ‘clean break’ principle. It supports mothers in achieving a clean break from their ex partner and a total absence of obligations towards the ex, whilst enslaving fathers to continue paying for her lifestyle. This is essentially male bondage and trafficking of men for their labour.

20. Family Court processes are cumbersome and often protracted, insensitive to the time perspective of children and leaving children insecure for large proportions of their lives. Protracted proceedings tend to increase the Family Court’s market share and the income of its practitioners.

21. The Family Court increases the risk of serious violence between litigants and it also stimulates suicides among litigants and children.


  1. ‘Kill’ the family court and toy ‘guns’..and i thought the idea and or suggestion of violence was frowned upon..seems ok for some but not for others
    Ford..gun polisher

    Comment by Ford — Thu 28th June 2012 @ 5:46 pm

  2. Hans, thanks for that rejection list. The anomaly I find unconscionable is how the state can sanction these levels of legislated abuse and not be held to account. Alleged (any form of) abuse is enough for you and I to be removed from the family home; yet the “family” court ministers atrocious abuse, at will, with precisely zero consequences. I think there are a few pieces missing from my jig saw puzzle here, or perhaps my logic circuits need a rewire.

    Comment by Bruce S — Thu 28th June 2012 @ 11:01 pm

  3. A very good post Hans. In 50 yrs time society will look back on this period in our history with disbelief and shame.

    The high court today stated that Kim Dotcom was badly treat by the police. We are told that such was the pain and humiliation of his experience of injustice (and I am sure it was) that Kim cried in court. I too cried in court, when I to overturn an exparte order throwing me out of my own home for no other reason than a ploy to break a prenuptial. I cried in court when my child’s mother won a court case to remove my child to another town 200KM from my home, in the best interests of the child of course. I cried in court when for three times over a 5 yr period the child’s mother made false allegations of a sexual nature against me in order to alienate me from my child. Each time I am cleared of the allegations (CYFS were great) but she retains the right to do it again as there is no incentive not to.

    As a citizen of New Zealand I was absolutely stunned that the government permitted an evil and vicious woman the ability to use the system to achieve real damage to both my self and my child. It left me so exhausted and depressed that I seriously contemplated suicide.

    The only time I have been in the high court was for an appeal from my ex to overturn a family court judgment in my favor. The family Court Judge found in my favor due to the exposure of an orchestrated litany of lies from my ex. The high court didn’t view me in the same light as Dotcom. They sent the case back to the family court in order that I get a second dose of the most horrible shit one can experience and I had to spend another $70,000 for the pleasure. To be a father and husband in the ‘litigation by an angry partner’ industry is to be a pariah. I curse the day I believed that to love my children could be a blessing. Do I want to kill the family court???? My killing instinct wants to go after something bigger than that, but the FC was born from it. It is the insidious and pernicious ideology of gender feminism. It hides itself in legitimate ideology and it is imperative that it is rooted out and identified as separate to feminism and equity between the sexes. Your post goes a long way to expose it.

    Comment by Triassicman — Fri 29th June 2012 @ 11:03 am

  4. Fantastic post Hans. I agree with everything you said. This must get a higher profile in the publis eye.
    I agree completely that the system is long beyond repair and only a completely new system would solve these issues.
    Triassicman your summary was excellent. I know how difficult it is to express all that hell so succintly.

    Comment by Vman — Fri 29th June 2012 @ 2:17 pm

  5. Reply to Triassicman#3

    You brought tears to my eyes Triassicman,very painful memories were brought back to me after reading your post…

    All what I can say thank goodness I don’t abode anymore in this Feminist cesspit called N.Z

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 29th June 2012 @ 2:57 pm

  6. Thanks for the thanks and thanks Triassicman for sharing your personal experiences under NZ family law. The list of unacceptable characteristics of the Family Court and its empowering legislation will help to focus my participation in the protests. Please come and support one or more of them if you can.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 1st July 2012 @ 11:32 am

  7. Wow, this post is so spot on with so many points describing precisely what I have been through over the past 5 years!
    I am an honest hard working tax paying NZ father whose life was turned around 5 years ago when my ex decided to leave and move in with someone else. These things happen, but unfortunately this new boyfriend was rather well known to the police for serious drug related and assault offences which I found out early on when they tried forcing their way into the house and the police were called. Obviously I was not particularly pleased with my ex having custody of our then 2 year old boy, especially also as she was acting rather out of character at the time as I suspect aided by drugs. Hence the start of a 3 1/2 year custody battle through FC to finally get what I believe is the best for our son- that he spends the majority of his upbringing in my care.
    We also have had the issue of relationship property. I am a very fair and honest person, and right from the outset I went over our finances and made a very fair offer to my ex, however unfortunately her greed got in the way and she wouldn’t accept unless it was nearer her ludicrous figure she pulled out of her head. As it was impossible to satisfy her greed we have ended up again going through the FC for the past 5 years to get this matter resolved.
    In all my hours spent trying to figure out how the system could/should be improved, the main point that keeps coming to the top is how through all of this the only winners really are the lawyers (yes I know in a lot of cases the mothers win too, but in the long run do they really win?). In my case, my ex has had the benefit of a long running campaign funded entirely by legal aid. She has had a multitude of lawyers representing her for reasons I do not know. Meanwhile I have not been entitled to legal aid because of my income. Despite remaining in the family home, we had massive debts borrowed against this place, and with the recession occurring at the same time as our separation all of my income has gone on trying to avoid bankruptcy. I employed the use of a lawyer for the first year or so, but when the bill got to $50k I simply had to put a stop to it and self litigate.
    I am proud to say that in the end I have got to be the main caregiver of our son, but it has cost me a huge amount of money, stress, depression, etc etc. I have had to defend false domestic violence charges and accusations sent to CYFs etc. Meanwhile I myself have been assaulted by her, she has abducted our son from my care, she and her new partner have either not turned up to or failed random drug testing, I have been stalked and abused to the point I have obtained a protection order against her (although this doesn’t stop the verbal abuse). Her new boyfriend has assaulted her on at least 3 occasions and despite her getting her own protection order against him she has still got back together with him. Common sense would tell you that the best place for our son would be in my care, so why would it take so much time, effort and money to get to this? I am astounded that my ex could do all these things and it still be a battle for me to get to be the main caregiver. I doubt it would have been the same the other way around…
    And then on the relationship property front, unfortunately I lost this one as the judge was rather biased towards my ex. The main problem I see it was that I went into the hearing not as well prepared as I thought I was, which would have been a lot different I am sure if I had a lawyer. As well as this, my ex is not as honest as I am- in fact, despite me proving a multitude of ‘facts’ in her affidavits were lies, in the judgement the judge sided with her. Go figure. I am sure I have valid reasons to apply for an appeal, but quite frankly I cannot afford to not just financially but mentally as well. I guess the main thing I am quite horrified about with this decision is the complete lack of anything to do with how this outcome would be beneficial at all to our son. I am sure (and hope!) the bulk if not all of the settlement is going to be paid directly back to legal aid services, all because my ex was greedy and wouldn’t accept a very fair offer at the beginning.. No regard was taken whatsoever to the fact that I am now (and have been for the past 18 months) the main caregiver of our son. Likewise our son was also a beneficiary of the trust that owns our house, yet this was not taken into account whatsoever. And one final point- how is it that the judge can take 6 months from time of the hearing to come up with her decision, yet expect you to raise an awful lot of money as settlement in 60 days! Where is there any accountability for the judge? I would love to invite the judge into our house and get her to sort out this mess, but can’t imagine that ever happening! Thankfully I have family who are going to lend me the money until such time as I can sell the house, but if I didn’t I would be absolutely broke,out on the street with no money no house and a child to look after.
    So, how to fix the FC…
    Well, IMO I believe the main thing that needs to occur is for lawyers to be banned from FC proceedings. This would have to save the taxpayer and individuals miilions of dollars every year, money which should be staying in the families and supporting the children, rather than going towards lawyers and their holiday plans.
    In place of lawyers there should be employed the highest standard professional counsellors and mediators (I am sure this would be vastly cheaper than the amount taxpayers waste on legal aid lawyers). I have had to deal with 2 counsellors during my FC experience, both of which could see through all the rubbish quite clearly and quickly (in contrast everyone knows how it is in lawyers best interests to drag matters out). These mediators would be able to make professional ‘recommendations’ to the individuals involved, recommendations based on their professional opinions as well as on the law. Issues would be able to be discussed on a much more personal level rather than under cross-examination. If agreement is made, then these would be written up into some form of ‘understanding’ between the parties which would have some form of authority (in case of breaches). In the event there is no agreement, then and only then would the matter would proceed to a hearing in front of a judge. The recommendation would still hold a lot of weight at the hearing (to prevent vexatious litigants). This would hopefully be a way to streamline the whole process, ease the burden on the FC, and cheapen the whole process.
    My case is just a small one when compared to the thousands out there, yet has taken 5 years and $100,000’s to settle. This is totally unacceptable. C’mon, judges and politicians, something seriously needs to be done!

    Comment by Oneofmany — Mon 23rd July 2012 @ 1:13 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