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

Another reason to avoid women

Filed under: Child Support,Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 8:04 am Sun 6th October 2013

We don’t see many Family Court cases reported on – every male needs to read this one. There are some hard lessons for the boys here within the realm of no fault divorce.

If anyone finds a link to the actual judgement can you please add the link in a comment.

While the article gives some information it also leaves questions unanswered.

The judgement shows arguments in the settlement included who should get money from an extensive wine collection, which had been consumed by the wife and friends since the separation; whether three watches worth $100,000 and jewellery worth more than $162,000 were gifts or not, and whether the wife should repay half of what her husband had spent on her since the separation.

I can understand why the guy is appealing.

Judge Grace did not agree with Vickerman that the wife should repay maintenance given to her after the separation.


  1. Thanks for posting this incredible story Downunder. The ridiculous situation in which men are made responsible for ‘keeping women in the style they have grown accustomed to’ is one caused by the Helen Clark femifascist government. Her amendment to ‘relationship property’ law allowing one party to take more than 50% was designed exactly for this outcome, for women to take as much as possible from men after separation.

    Another interesing aspect to this case is the emphasis that appeared to be placed on the man’s wrongdoing in having two affairs, and blaming one of the affairs for the woman’s failure to sustain her own employment. No-fault divorce seems to be a principle enforced to ensure women are not held responsible for their disloyalty or other wrongdoing, but when it comes to men their faults still seem to influence the outcome.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 10:35 am

  2. Why are you guys assuming that the husband was the only one having affairs?

    I understood that in surveys, NZ women indicated that they had a higher number of affairs than the number indicated by men in surveys and also that they generally had more time to cover their affairs, than usually the husbands had. In a word – opportunity to commit the crime.

    Affairs is just a distracting sympathy play, not a real issue relating directly to care of the children.

    I thought that the argument about economic disparity related to the “custodial parent” (this word was dropped out of Care of Children Act, but it mystically seems to still accurately indicate the manner that judges treat parents***) continuing to take care of the children after separation, but without support from the other parent.

    In the case under discussion, there is no mention of ongoing care of children, or that the father would not support the costs of the children, so it seems that this issue isn’t actually relevant?

    So the largest element of sympathy that got Parliaments agreement for this Act, is being used to drive through unequal divisions in cases where there are really no children being cared for? Isn’t this just fraud?

    Why is there so much debate over the big money, big house cases?

    The real action in terms of protecting vulnerable children, is the tens of thousands of small money, small house cases. In most of these cases, there isn’t really enough money there, to be able to comfortably divide it three ways (one for me (legal workers), one for the wife and maybe one for the husband…).

    The best way we could help these parents to care for their children, would be to get the familycaught$ insane monkey off their backs, by having a non-prejudiced, non-greedy, knowledgeable, competent, economical and skilful Family Court.

    Just by the bye, one man I know had a 70% / 30% split, relating to his 5 children. Two were quickly out of mothers care, as they flew the nest and the third within a couple of years. Four years after split, two of the youngest were back in his 100% care, by their own decision. So the basis for the unequal split soon became invalid, even completely in the wrong direction, but this issue has never been addressed! (I won’t go into the details of child support double dipping…. but these are relevant and necessary to understand the whole situation.) Anyway, he isn’t getting any child support back from his ex-wife, now that the situation has changed. He is in good mental health and doesn’t need it, so why worry?

    *** The manner that the judges treat the parents is largely based on who they assume will care for the children, not the actual facts of the particular case. Delusion is a major psychiatric problem.

    So, if we (familycaught$) wish to make fairly large decisions based on wild conjecture assumptions, then there really ought to be incorporated some method of rationally, safely, reliably and economically addressing these types of “legal errors”. These errors only occur, because the familycaught$ proceeds despite evidence, rather than sensibly based on evidence. Its reputation is not not be willing to listen, so often men don’t present the full set of facts, because they have confidence that the familycaught$ listens with dangerous prejudice.

    The familycaught$ obviously cannot economically or rationally address such simple problems, so why would anyone ever entrust it with the more important decisions? MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 11:23 am

  3. We made no assumption that the woman did not also have affairs, but only the man’s affairs were mentioned in the news article which implied that was the only infidelity the Family Court was made aware of, and it appears took into account at some level.

    The Clark changes to ‘relationship property’ laws allowing an unequal division of assets was not directly related to child care issues. The law was based on the opinion that one partner should be compensated with a greater than 50% share of ‘relationship property’ when:
    (i) due to putting aside a career in order to support the relationship (that might have included raising the relationship’s children) that partner is unable to earn as much as (s)he otherwise would be able to; and/or
    (i) following separation, that partner’s lifestyle is likely to reduce compared to the other partner.

    There is a philosophical minefield underlying these arguments, but you can be sure that if this law is ever applied so as to deprive a woman of more than 50% of ‘relationship property’, its proponents would find that unacceptable and will probably find a way of arguing against it.

    In this particular case if the woman had continued her nursing career and supported herself independently, it is unlikely that she would have accumulated $1.3 million worth of assets. Yet somehow she is seen to be entitled to that much. The main issue appeared to be the fact that her lifestyle was likely to reduce post-separation. The idea that a separated partner should be held responsible in any way for maintaining the lifestyle of the person he separated from essentially denies that the couple separated at all, instead enslaving him to his ex-partner’s service. It contradicts any principle of a clean break.

    Oh well, with that bounty she won’t have to worry about reducing her lifestyle for a couple of years anyway. When her expensive wine-swilling lifestyle has used up these particular ill-gotten gains she will probably discover some other way to have her existence paid for.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 2:52 pm

  4. It is a little-known-fact that judges, whilst guided to award 50/50 of property after 3 years of any relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ [i.e. live in de facto, and non-live-in, where it can be shown there was a high level of shared space, including for example, a drawer of underwear at his place; having a key and free entry to his place, etc], can in fact award any percentage of property to either party where ‘exceptional’ circumstances exist.

    So a judge is fully entitled to award 70% to ‘her’. Or more.
    Or to lessen the 3-year threshold.

    Be not deceived. There are femi-nazi lawyer-sympathisers out there, who are quite willing to encourage ex-wives the length and breadth of NZ, to fight for everything [technically they will never get everything, as their bitch-lawyers will take a fair slice of the value in fees, as will you as you defend].
    Men: Do not assume that if you only ‘give in a little’ you will avoid a fight over child-contact, or otherwise retain your ship-wrecked relationship. Do not leave your homes. Do not leave your prized possessions. Possession is 99-tenths of the law. Do not give an inch.
    Your recourse? Well you can appeal to the high-court, but chances are, you won’t be able to afford to.

    Comment by Pretty in Pink — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 4:55 pm

  5. This is absolutely disgraceful.
    Please someone provide a link to the full judgement so we can at least get some of the facts rather than the typical, sensationalist styled Stuff article.
    I’m willing to bet she bummed around at home and did nothing for years as soon as the kids flew the nest. Can’t see how staying at home could possibly be ‘supporting’ his career. Presumably he would be able to earn just as much without her and be able to employ a housekeeper. She would therefore have made a conscious choice to not pursue her career.
    And just who is this guy Henaghan? I googled him and get the impression he [abusive comment removed by moderator as per the MENZ rules]

    Comment by jfrango — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 9:33 pm

  6. And another thing. It’s 2013 now. They separated in 2008. WTF?
    He should just flick all his assets overseas and bugger off.

    Comment by jfrango — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 9:36 pm

  7. jfrango asks:

    And just who is this guy Henaghan?

    Mark Henaghan is a Law Professor at the University of Otago.
    He does not make NZ laws, nor does he administer them. Abusive comments are not likely to win any hearts or minds to our cause.

    Note that this legal precedent is actually gender neutral; there will be some men (like myself for example) who might potentially benefit from this decision.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 10:02 pm

  8. Interesting idea this gender neutral thingimewhatsit. A distant relative of mine shared the use of her house with her new but old husband. They split, a few days after the mystical three years that marriages are now guaranteed to last for. When this guy put his hand out for half of her assets, the familycaught$ was able to miraculously leave it so that she still had enough to buy a house afterwards. Even so, moving down is costly and wasteful. Of course he still also has the house that he always had and never shared. He didn’t need any more money anyway.

    There is a moral to this story, as made obvious by where much of the money went – be a lawyer. I wouldn’t listen to such a hollow moral, neither would I encourage my children to listen to such a moral, or to marry anyone who lived by morals like these…..

    I don’t know of many men who have got off so lightly, after such naive kind trust.
    What a dark world we are building.. MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 6th October 2013 @ 10:17 pm

  9. Potter…that comment I made was hardly abusive!
    The guy dedicated a whole article in support of Heather Mills (google it). He might be a law professor, but I think it’s concerning when he says such judgements are ‘going in the right’ direction.
    This is just another nail in the coffin for the institution of marriage.

    Comment by jfrango — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 7:10 am

  10. Jfrango – discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden on this site. If you want to continue to contribute you will have to follow the rules, same as everyone else.

    I don’t agree with everything Henaghan writes. It concerns me that he supports this decision. I even agree that it is another nail in the coffin, etc.

    But you must play the ball, not the man.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 9:10 am

  11. Dear jfrango,

    Professor Mark Henaghen is a kind, pleasant, helpful, I believe honest, sincere man.

    As a law professor, he is as relevant to social problems as burglars are to social welfare, or church ministers to managing a country.

    He comments in public, on legislation, but doesn’t have much opportunity to see what happens in caught$, or to follow the long term outcomes for the guilty person (all people in caught are guilty of something and if they aren’t, they should be), or for the victims. I assume that he spends a lot of time talking to lawyers, rather than customers of caught$. He has to sell law to his students…… why not try to sell it to the public as well?

    So his comments are little more than wishful thinking……

    I didn’t read your abusive comments, but I would suggest sitting around the law school with a large sign for law students, saying Repent that ye may be Saved, would have more useful impact than having abusive comments deleted off.

    More useful still, would be to compare Professor Henaghen’s comments about child abductions (Radio NZ a month or two back) in and out of NZ, with 2005 discussion report about improvements to Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child abduction.

    I have followed a few such cases and having watched them for several years, I believe that child abductors should be vigorously and competently prosecuted under NZ law.

    We should dump the Hague Convention, as it just represents money spent on legal workers, who sacrifice the outcomes for children, more maximum personal financial benefit. The Hague Convention’s main problems lie in the behaviour of NZ legal workers, judges and lawyers. It is window dressing marketing for legal workers incomes, but delivers mainly negative outcomes for NZ children.

    We need to look for other methods of protecting children from abduction, as legal methods haven’t worked satisfactorily. Inserting microchips into children appears to be the only reliable method of detecting breach of non removal orders, as both false and real foreign passports may be used to circumvent protections based only on a NZ passport.

    When our “protections” are so slack that almost 1% of all children born to a foreign born parent will be abducted internationally after separation, we have a huge problem, that legal workers are milking to their own benefit, but doing nothing useful.

    Professor Henaghen’s marketing machine is conspicuously silent on child protection!


    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 9:32 am

  12. Readers may find the following article relevant.

    Ex-wives missing out in compo law

    The rad fems have been working on this for years, and they are slowly getting there. Their aim seems to be to make unequal splitting the norm in favour of women (although on rare occasions it may favour a male).

    I know of one NZ case where a guy got 40% of the property, and custody of the teenage children. I know of another guy in Perth who got 30% of the property.

    The logic is perverse, the less the woman contributes financially during the relationship the more she gets in the property split. Oh, its all because of the children. Its not fair or logical, its politics. We are seeing the effects of effective lobbying and capture of Labour and National, academics (Henaghan?), government agencies especially the Ministry of Womens Affairs (annual budget of $5m odd and dozens of full time lobbyists) and the policy of planting rad fem judges into the family court, such as Jill Moss and others.

    Men have not played a smart political game over the past decades, and now we pay the price.

    Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 9:46 am

  13. Hmm…same journo, Sarah Harvey. Maybe she’s got an agenda?

    Comment by jfrango — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 10:06 am

  14. There is an economic disparity argument involving children after separation which is more the focus of the article you posted Bruce. If you do the maths from the information in the post this is a loss of career compensation argument post children.

    Whether the judgment is gender-neutral is not something that would be clear without seeing the whole judgment. The fact that the applicant could be male or female in the same is beside the point.

    Without seeing the submissions and the way they are received by the court men cannot be informed about their future and the security of their life work.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 10:21 am

  15. Dear Bruce, I object to you calling Professor Mark Henaghen an “academic”. He could be called a “legal academic”, but scholarship in law about families and protection of children, isn’t in the more rigorous academic sphere. Same of course applies for women legal academics. I apologise for trying to be picky, but…

    Some people try to run an argument, largely based on caring for children, but all the big drama cases, there are no children needing to be cared for. Look carefully at the arguments, overt and covert and weed them out carefully.

    In suggest that the arguments above are a smokescreen, to keep public discussion away from protecting children.


    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th October 2013 @ 10:43 am

  16. I’m in favour of treating mothers and fathers as equal parents. As soon as you get into arguments of who should compensate whom, who should remove the risk or disadvantage of one party, you get a battle that goes on forever. This is what we see here.

    I favour the way this situation was handled 30 years ago, the ‘disadvantaged’ parent got 3 years of support from the other parent to get themselves on their feet (eg the ‘disadvantaged’ party could use this time to get a degree or other job training) then they were on their own (clean break principle).

    The system is being jacked up to where many marriages are terminated after 3 years (to get the property claim), yet the expectation of support is extended to a lifetime. Why are so many fleeing marriage and family – destructive government policy and law.

    Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Tue 8th October 2013 @ 8:53 am

  17. Like most in this forum, i have given much thought to how the system could be improved. No system will result in fairness for all. I (nothing new here) think that there should be a presumption of equal and shared care unless there is agreement between the parties for otherwise. Unfortunately, at present, a father’s desire for this is met my a confetti of affidavits claiming all sorts of terrible behaviours are exhibited by the father. As far as child support is concerend, i have a real issue with the mother (or father if care with him)benefitting from a father’s salary increases in perpetuity. Surely child support increases should be limited to the increase in living costs and not linked to father’s success after marriage failure?
    I also have an issue with support after the age of 19. In my case, i have paid child support for many years for a son who is shortly to turn 19. I know for a fact that mother will offer no support to the child when he attends university. What responsible and loving parent would (if able to prevent it) send a child into the work force with student debt etc. I will assist with fees and the like. It feels like moral blackmail. Pay and pay an pay and then pay some more because i (the mother) am not legally obliged. Didn’t seem to have a problem with overseas holidays etc all these years. Just don’t prioritise a future for the child as quite so important.

    Comment by shafted — Tue 8th October 2013 @ 10:34 am

  18. Many a true word said in jest –

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 11th October 2013 @ 1:43 am

  19. A gold mine collapse trapped one miner (male of course) under a large beam. He said to his colleague “Help me get this beam off my leg will you? I don’t want to lose my leg. I’m not even married yet and nobody will want a one-legged gold miner.” His mate replied “Well, Paul McCartney did!”

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 11th October 2013 @ 8:59 am

  20. #18. Brilliant !

    Comment by golfa — Fri 11th October 2013 @ 9:35 am

  21. #18 Awsum

    Comment by kumar — Fri 11th October 2013 @ 11:10 am

  22. #18…link no longer working. 🙁

    Comment by kumar — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 8:40 am

  23. Relationship Property Law

    Lets look at what lawyers in Parliament can do for lawyers outside of Parliament.

    “Agreements must be in writing and both of you must seek independent legal advice”
    “The court can make an order dividing property even if the couple has entered into an agreement on how to divide their property. The court can set the agreement aside if it would cause serious injustice, for example because it if it is unfair or unreasonable.”

    “13 Exception to equal sharing
    ⦁(1) If the court considers that there are extraordinary circumstances that make equal sharing of property or money under ⦁section 11 or ⦁section 11A or ⦁section 11B or ⦁section 12 REPUGNANT TO JUSTICE, the share of each spouse or partner in that property or money is to be determined in accordance with the contribution of each spouse to the marriage or of each civil union partner to the civil union or of each de facto partner to the de facto relationship.”

    So what does all that mean. mmm

    Seek legal advice, make an agreement that you and your independant Lawyers agree on, then get a Judge to throw it all out for some other reason?

    What was the point in procuring the services of the Lawyers in the first place?

    Maybe whats mine is mine, and whats yours is yours.
    Or whats mine is yours, and whats yours is yours.
    Or whats mine is yours, if you weed the garden or do the dishes when I dont.
    Or whats mine is yours, if you trick me into believing you love me, so I stay. Get out now Len Brown ‘before your wife takes half, and the extra takes the other half”
    Or whats mine is yours, if you trick me into believing the child is mine, so I stay. ‘read lucky number 13’
    Or whats mine is yours, if you trick me into believing you were on the pill, ‘I dont know what happened’ so I stay.
    Or whats mine is yours, if I slave at work so you can get an education, then sack me when your’ve finished. ‘read lucky number 13’
    etc etc etc
    Or I should just live a life with nothing, then at least I will know your not a sexual predator. Aided by sexual predators, who profit by creating an erratic and irrational law, designed by intelligent people so you live in fear.

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 22nd July 2014 @ 8:22 pm

  24. LAWYER

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 22nd July 2014 @ 8:56 pm

  25. mgtow is the way to go, as soon as ur in a relationship she qualifies for a hman rights removing ‘Protection’ Order.

    Comment by Phil Watts — Wed 23rd July 2014 @ 2:40 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