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

Steve Taylor’s press release

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — MurrayBacon @ 11:44 pm Thu 6th September 2012

This is Steve Taylor’s Press Release [about Judge Boshier and the latest Family Court Reforms] …… The percentages he quoted are from the Govt’s own report into the Family Court apparently.

Press release 5/9/12:

The call by Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier for more Family Court intervention for children in need in order to achieve sustainable outcomes is an ill-informed, laughable lament by a man and a system that has been deservedly sidelined by the new Family Court reforms, says Steve Taylor, Counsellor, Family Mediator, and Social Service Outcomes Researcher.

“The recent release of the proposed reforms for the New Zealand Family Court, tabled by Minister of Justice Judith Collins, are finally heading in the direction of sound international Family Court outcome evidence, however more weight needs to be given to the service user feedback component of the Family Court Review” says Steve Taylor, the Director of 24-7 Ltd, Counsellor and Social Services Outcomes Researcher. “What we don’t need is Family Court dinosaurs like Judge Boshier trying to get in the way of the evidence that the new reforms are based on”.

“In 2009/10 the Family Court dealt with approximately 58,000 families, 66,976 applications, and 14,895 requests for counselling (Ministry of Justice).
In the 2011 – 2012 Family Court review, a service user questionnaire was launched by the Ministry of Justice (“Reviewing the Family Court – A Questionnaire”), the results of which I would argue need to be given appropriate weight and attention by the Minister and the upcoming Justice Select Committee, given the data has been secured from those who have been most dramatically affected by the Family Court process, the service users” says Mr Taylor.

“It may interest Judge Boshier to know that service users are the most important stakeholders in the Family Court – more important than Judges, Lawyers, Psychologists, Counsellors, & Social Workers, because all of the aforementioned are simply guests within the process – the family system remains long after a case is closed, and long after the professionals have left the building. It is the voice of the service user, not a particular lobby or special interest group, that should be heeded above all others”.

Despite only 121 responses being received between 20/11/11 – 29/2/12 (a return rate that is perhaps an indication of how poorly the questionnaire was advertised and distributed), the results of the service user questionnaire nevertheless provide a revealing illustration of “what works” for people who have experienced, or are still experiencing, the Family Court process. What is revealing about the systemic service failure revealed below is that Judge Boshier presided over much of it, so for Boshier to now claim a desire for “sustainable outcomes” flies in the face of his abject negligence of same during his tenure:

“¢ 38% of respondents had a case still proceeding in the Family Court;
“¢ 79% of respondents had to attend the Family Court to settle a dispute.
“¢ 53% of respondents required a Court order in order to settle a dispute.
“¢ 61% of respondent’s lawyers had advised them to take Court action in the first instance.
“¢ 47% of respondents felt that their Lawyers were not helpful to them in their dispute.
“¢ 84% of respondents felt that Counselling was not helpful to them in their dispute.
“¢ 35% of respondents nominated none of the Family Court services as being helpful to them in their dispute (including Counselling, Mediation, Parenting through Separation, and negotiation between lawyers).
“¢ 46% of respondents found no relevance for a final Parenting Order.
“¢ 54% of respondents rated their Lawyer for Child as “not competent”
“¢ 51% of respondents rated their Counsellor as competent, while only 32% of respondents rated their Court-appointed Psychologist as competent (If Counselling is to face the axe in these reforms, then by this result, Court appointed Psychologists should be facing the axe even quicker than Counsellors, who are deemed by service users to be more competent than Court-appointed Psychologists).
“¢ 43% of respondents nominated none of the available Family Court professionals as being helpful to them in their dispute (including Judges; their own Lawyer; Lawyer for Child; the Court appointed Psychologist (who rated “0”); Counsellors; or Mediators).
“¢ 74% of respondents nominated preferences to dispute resolution away from the Family Court.
“¢ 82% of respondents nominated the Family Court process as having had a negative impact on their children.
“¢ 72% of respondents were very dissatisfied with the time it took the Family Court to settle their dispute.

“The long-overdue and welcome side-lining of Lawyers in family disputes; the introduction of family dispute resolution away from and apart from the Family Court; the dumping of ineffective counselling interventions; and the necessary reining in of Lawyer for Child and Specialist service providers will all go a long way to reducing service costs, whilst improving service user experience, says Mr Taylor.

“Judge Boshier is the champion of the old guard in the Family Court, an old guard that has now thankfully largely been retired out to pasture”.

Steve Taylor has been posthumously honoured by aNonyMouse legal workers:

[link to attacking site with defamatory statements removed by MENZ admin]

Steve Taylor has challenged these cowardly, spineless legal workers to debate these issues in public. I hope that they can rise to this apparently honourable challenge?

What do other consumers think about familycaught$ value for money performance?

It is only through good faith discussion, that social issues can be moved forward.

It is also very important to look for conflicts of interest and see how these could be manipulating people’s behaviour. Steve was accused of conflicted interests, but it seemed to me that the legal worker’s might be feeling the pinch as their conflicted interests manipulate their own behaviour?

When people hide their identity, then they are clearly acting to prevent the public from identifying their conflicts of interest. This surely must lead to doubt over their anonymous integrity, that seemingly cannot survive in the light of day?
Murray Bacon.


  1. Hi Murray,

    Could you please remove the link above to the anonymous attack site on me? I have an Internet Defamation Lawyer working on this, and they are in touch with WordPress regarding having the site taken down.

    Press Release this morning 7/9/12

    Gutless anonymous Family Court Lawyer attack “indicative of attitude towards Family Court Consumers” says Counsellor & Family Mediator.

    A Counsellor and Family Mediator is calling out the anonymous Family Court Lawyer who labelled Family Court Consumers “violent parents, drug users, and nut-bars” on a national radio show on Thursday 6/9/12 during a live interview.

    Steve Taylor, Director of 24-7 Ltd, was being interviewed by Leighton Smith of Newstalk ZB in response to a press release Mr Taylor issued in response to Judge Peter Boshier’s comments on desiring more Family Court intervention for families (press release below, with link to Ministry of Justice report that informs the press release).

    During the show, an anonymous Family Court Lawyer wrote to the show, attacking and attempting to defame Mr Taylor for speaking up, and then attacked Family Court Consumers, many of who have had very harrowing experiences within the Family Court process, labelling Family Court consumers “violent parents, drug users, and nut bars”.

    “To label Family Court Consumers “violent parents, drug users, and nut bars”, and to then imply that service providers to the Family Court were somehow wholly functional and possessed the wisdom of Solomon flies in the face of the Family Court Users Review conducted by the Ministry of Justice 2011 – 2012. Such a statement is sadly indicative of the attitude and contempt that many Family Court Lawyers hold towards service users, and affirms that a Family Court Lawyers first loyalty is to the Court, second to their professional collegiality, and third, to the client they are being paid to represent” says Mr Taylor

    “As a Social Services Outcomes Researcher who has studied Family Court Outcomes and Reforms both locally and internationally, I am happy to debate any New Zealand Family Court representative on the issues I have raised: however it seems that the best the Family Court industry can muster in response to me is anonymous attack letters to radio shows – which is both cowardly, and pathetic”.

    “My message to the anonymous Family Court Lawyer is this: “Instead of engaging in ad homonym attacks on me and Family Court Consumers, how about fronting up and debating the issues with me – and don’t forget to bring your name with you next time” says Mr Taylor


    Ministry of Justice Report:

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 8:27 am

  2. Not so brave when not in a Court room or behind a bench, are they?

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 8:28 am

  3. The anonymous lawyer’s cowardly outburst is indicative of that profession’s gutless status. They are a self fulfilling prophesy: I know someone who undertokk a mediators course at Waikato University and he was disgusted at the way law students are brainwashed by their law school teachers to believe in the rightness of the FC stance and status and to consider fathers in particular as violent, dead beat scum while at the same championing the interests of mothers.

    I went through the FC and knew nothing about their “service user questionnaire” and I know of several others who have been likewise ignorant of its existence. Had that paper received wider circulation I suspect the adverse statistics would be greater. I would love to sit alongside Steve Taylor (as a non custodial Dad) and debate with that anonymous goon.

    Comment by Non custodial Dad — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 9:33 am

  4. “I know someone who undertook a mediators course at Waikato University and he was disgusted at the way law students are brainwashed by their law school teachers to believe in the rightness of the FC stance and status and to consider fathers in particular as violent, dead beat scum while at the same championing the interests of mothers’.

    What do you expect from an institution opened by Helen Clarke looking like a cross between Darth Vadar and a kind of pale zombie complexion type Sigourney Weaver in Alien 1?
    Her shoulder pads were so big and hair so short I thought she was a quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys at first glance! Definitely dressed to intimidate.
    What do you expect from an institute initially overseen by another Socialist Feminist ideologue Margaret Wilson?
    Jeepers and on the same campus as Socialist Feminist sychophant Neville 1 in 4 Robertson and the Marxist dykes next door in Wimmin’s Studies, ‘Counselling’ Services and the sexist Wimmin’s Room.

    I’d be surprised if your mate DIDN’T see students being brainwashed into worshiping the femily caught$ there. The place when I saw it was an aberration.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 10:46 am

  5. Press Releases have been picked up:

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 10:47 am

  6. Dear Steve, I apologise for putting up the Hate Speech website link. I took it as a right of passage and honour.

    The caughts have always seemed to me to be a deranged mental hospital, but which withholds competent treatment, from employees and customers alike. I know a few sane people go through them too, but most are ‘violent parents, drug users, and nut-bars’. I would not be so kind for the employees though!

    My son disclosed that he was thinking of studying law. I strongly believe that parents should not influence their children’s decisions. I let a day go by and then begged him to do any career on earth, but law. To my infinite relief he settled on a job with integrity.

    I hope your lady friend can get proper professional treatment, for her financial situation as well as her mental health.

    Congratulations, thanks and keep up the good work! Best regards, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 11:29 am

  7. Hi Murray – all good. Thanks to the website admin for removing the link. When I discover who my “legal lady friend” is, I will let everyone know.

    Still no takers from the Family Law Division to front me in open debate on the issues raised.

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 11:59 am

  8. Have now written to the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, advising her of the newslink and story. I will be releasing another press statement on Wednesday of next week, naming the Lawyers and Psychologist to the case, if no-one has owned up by that time. If the culprit won’t come forward, then I will simply bring all of them into the public arena. Feel free to join us at!/pages/New-Zealand-Family-Court-Stories/195310380525508

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 10:36 pm

  9. I’ve found the female Family Court Lawyer who sent the letter to Leighton Smith and who attacked and defamed me on air, and who also commented on a sub judice case – on Wednesday, I begin the process of ending her career.

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Mon 10th September 2012 @ 8:45 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