Fear Uncertainty and Darkness (FUD)
Instead of addressing the problems and looking for solutions, it seems that the beneficiaries in the existing familycaught$ system are distracting our attention away from the required outputs and a system for achieving them at a sensibly low cost.
Family Court Proceedings Bill Submission Kitset
Family Court Proceedings Bill Submission Kitset – Dark Side
I was woken by pain, to give an injection. As occasionally happens, it was hard to get back to sleep. I tried counting sheep, but got into the millions, without any sign of sleep. It wasn’t so pleasant as the drought has made them so skinny. I remembered the Right Hon. Frederick Dagg suggesting to listen to Parliament as being a good means of escape into the nether netherlands.
Being late at night and in the weekend, that was never going to work. So I looked at the Parliamentary website. Even with practically no-one looking at it, it was still running at a honourable, gentlemanly pace, downright slow even. Quite good when all you want is to get back to sleep.
The Law and Justice Committee has put most of the submissions onto it’s website.
Submitters fell into several predictable groups
end users of familycaught$ services – want service at unreasonably low cost
Citizens concerned for fellow citizens
Concerned for children being protected from darkness and fathers
Concerned for parents with mental health problems
Concerned for parents with financial problems (legal bills)
People who are employees of the familycaught$ industry – want service at unreasonably high cost
legal workers – judges
I could not see any social contribution in any of the submissions from the judges. Although much of their comment is sensible or true, given the present situation in NZ, their comments didn’t offer a single idea for improving the output quality or reducing the financial cost to Government and citizens. The truth, but very far from the whole truth. In other words, they were defending their performance and problems thereto, as being the best that could be achieved.
All of their ideas were based on self congratulations, claiming that they are well respected internationally (by people in the same trade as themselves). I cannot see how that should be read as any form of independent evaluation or endorsement.
I would see this as that they would not look at improving their quality or cost effectiveness. This being the case, they are the problem and not any part of a solution. They would need to be replaced completely, as part of the final solution. I am always suspicious of people who spend more time telling you how good they are, than working.
These judges have been dredging up the same, stale old promises for 30 years. Thus society must take heed that they are talking and promising, but being careful not to action these promises. After 30 years of wasted time, we need people who will put improvements and cost reductions into action. Dithering about has never been useful.
Fresh Ideas Aimed at Improving the Output Quality and Cost Effectiveness of familycaught$
Generally, the best submissions didn’t present any new ideas. In fact many of these ideas have been suggested through the last 30 years by familycaught$ judges, but for talking about, rather than doing! Many of the ideas have been well known for many centuries.
The Parliament website often runs rather slowly, so it can be very slow to work your way through to find the submissions that you are looking for.
To help you, I have put links in to the more interesting submissions. They are pretty much all dull as old dishwater, so to save you from having to wade through all of the repetition (especially in the legal worker’s submissions, lawyers and judges alike) I have highlighted the submissions that are a bit more original than the boring rest.
Grace Haden -Transparency New Zealand Limited investigator citizen
In her oral presentation, Grace spoke about parents dealing with familycaught$ being driven insane, ot to suicide and made unproductive by artificial stress in familycaught$.
Steve Taylor, Director, 24-7 Ltd Counsellor
A.M.Joanne Neilson social work student
AnatolyKern self represented father
Annie Meates citizen makes observaion about familycaught$ handling of DV
Anonymous6 brilliantly written observation of social value of familycaught$
Submission by Craig Jackson psychologist on the proposed changes to the role of the registered psychologist as specialist report writer to the Family Court
Oral submission by Craig Jackson psychologist to the Select Committee Supplementary
FAMILIES APART REQUIRE EQUALITY (FARE) Bruce Tichbon
Gary Owen Burgess self represented litigant
JeremyDaley of Harman’s Lawyers Christchurch Shaken and not stirred comments about Judith Collins Minister of something or other. Quite astonishing comments leaking out from a legal profession in almost as much crisis as street prostitution, which also needs upgrading.
I still have more to read yet. Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Julian Price believes that it is possible to do away with CYFs and change over all parenting agreements to 50% / 50% shared parenting
Embarrassingly low quality submissions from overfed underworked [largely funded by] Government workers
(They are listed here, so that you can make your own judgement. I am not listing them as an indication of their value or merit. The low quality largely results from addressing a problem which spans human psychology, biology, child development, law, household economics and negotiation, using only skills from one narrow professional skill.)
Submission of the Family Court Judges of New Zealand
Submission by the Human Rights Commission
Mental Health Foundation
New Zealand Law Society
judge paul von diddleson
Christchurch Family Court Judges
Curious submission by Rachael Rotherham employed by McVeigh Fleming, presenting self represented litigants as submitting irrelevant material.
Well, I am starting to get drowsy from the boring submissions, just what is needed right now.
Sleep is rapidly taking over. It is always “spot the gaps”. What are the gaps, what do they mean?
Lawyers who did not make any submission:
In several cases where another lawyer from the practice had made a submission, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, that they might have contributed. Late at night, so I apologise if I have made any mistakes. (This list is not intended as advertising, in any way.)
Alister James QSO
Anna Jane Pollett
Anne Hinton QC
Bruce Corkill QC
Colin Pidgeon QC
Deborah Hollings QC
Dr John Gray
Dr Mark Gazley
Fran Taylor Boyd
Gerard De Courcy
Juliet van der Oord
Lisa La Mantia
Louis Te Kani
Marieke van den Bergh
Penny le Page
Rebecca de Farias
Robyn von Keisenberg
Stephen van Bohemen
Tania Williams Blyth
Vaioleti Ho Kum
Yuet Fah Wu
Cheers, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
Most of the secret submissions have not shown up on the website, in any form. Adam Cowie’s submission has also not shown up, despite the Committee stating that they would change their mind and allow him to make a presentation.
I wonder what the women secret presenters said?
It is hard to reconcile the relationship between men’s suicide rates and women’s suicide rates to the way Government says it tries to treat men and women?
It is always hard to spot the gaps.
Cheers – over and out – MurrayBacon silently creeping axe murderer.
This is an interesting section from Hans Laven’s submission.
I assume Hans that you are opposing this clause on the basis that it shows bias by giving one family group (the mothers) a preference and consequently you are seeking to have the families of the mother and father included by changing the word to groups.
The reason this would have been drafted in this manner is the legal definition of family. Family does not recognise mother and father, only parents who provide or care and pay for a child.
In other words, your interpretation of family recognises biological connection the law does not.
The use of the word family in this manner has been one of the most surreptitious and misunderstood political deceptions but it is not new – Hitler employed the same legal deception to promote his Aryan super race concept.
She did not mean that a biological family functions better in a community. Village, within her definition of the socialist agenda meant family as I have described above but I bet you a pound to a pinch of snuff that if you surveyed the world only a very small percentage would have understood this.
It is also not a new concept – Napoleon 111 did not like the idea and outlawed it by decree.
Even protesters such as Bob McCoskrie from Family First cannot get his head around this, which you can see in his media articles.
But this is the law and the law is based in definition and concept and while you oppose this Hans it will not be changed because your proposed change would be inconsistent with the law.
This is the nature of the civil society we are subjected to – the secular society rather than the sacred society that women desperately fought for, many without knowing what they were actually getting.
I highlight this point because it is a flash point or a point of conflict between public perception and what the law says.
Jim Bailey’s campaign was based on the natural biological family. Family First’s campaign is based on marriage but the political campaign is based on maintaining the law so that it can be enforced by Judges.
There is a much greater change required than that of putting an Ã¢â‚¬Ëœs’ on the word groups.
Thanks Down Under for your observation.
As far as I can see, “and pay” is quietly ignored by familycaught$ judges.
Research into genetics of parental relationship behaviours strongly underlines the impact of biology. Inheritance does not control future behaviour, but it is usually about 50% contribution, varying for different behaviours under study. Attempts to ignore our biological reality are doomed to partial success at best and countrywide social disaster at worst – for example present familycaught$ performance.
I have come across my own submission on the Parliament website:
or the submission as submitted is available here.
I like to think that I have covered the same breadth of topics as Grace Haden, but in more detail about making them workable in a real organisation. In the end this is necessary, for reforms to actually deliver advantage to consumers, socially and financially. MurrayBacon.
If you look at this from an arrogant lofty point of view, judges enforce obligations to care for and fund a child. Parent is a non-descript entity, conscripted to function according to a code of law. The law doesn’t deal in emotion, yet we let it rule the family.
Down Under, when the “law” is running on a human animal, then all decisions are finalised in the emotional parts of the brain. Training may reduce the impact of emotions in some situations, but the impact is never zero. When decisions will later be reviewed by many commentators, there is some pressure to put in the effort to put sympathies aside. Sympathy is easily manipulated if the judge isn’t given the whole story. Manipulators are allowed to thrive when protected by secrecy and no working accountability (eg prosecution of perjury).
Watching familycaught$ in action, I am not sure what they are trying to do? The only consistent correlation that I can see, is mercilessly maximising their financial return$. They are often casual about gathering information, despite the inquisitorial powers given to them by Parliament, many many years ago.
Accurate input data just doesn’t seem to concern them or matter. This is why presently, I believe that a coin flip would deliver the best outcomes for children. Coins don’t wear out very fast, during flipping service.
If “law” was to run on a computer, then we could set the degree to which emotion and sympathy would be allowed to influence the final decision. I guess this is about 5 or 10 years away, but possibly much closer. The cost of legal work will be much lower, but generally of higher quality.
Which would you prefer to trust?
open court judge
secret caught judge
I have studied this and a coin flip would actually produce better results for everyone. Everyone except obstructive mothers and the divorce industry, that is.
Having been a mother who fought 7 long years to keep my children and my self safe I too could be classed as a steroid women. But I did what I had to do to keep me and my babies safe. Now sadly I support without question the father’s of my grandchildren for the same reason. The law cyps and my family see me as a traitor. Good luck to them as my grandchildren come first as did my children. More grandparents need to speak up there is no shame in having a voice, our grandchildren and men deserve thi god given right.
In contested Care of Children custody cases: Anything other than 50/50 Shared Care of Children unless a REAL (JURY) conviction for abusing your own biological children is CHILD ABUSE!!!
Hear hear Phil Watts #11
The definition of child abuse needs to be reviewed. A child deserves to be able to have contact with all members of their family. Women have been empowered to use their children as assets. This is CHILD ABUSE! Until the court’s and Lawyers acknowledge this the battle that men undergo mentally and physically will never end. Reform is required and urgently if our future generations are to be whole well developed individuals. Sadly the hidden agendas of others effect all outcomes. Children need to be paramount at all times as they are our future citizens, lawyers, doctors, leaders of our nation. We are there first teachers. What are we teaching them? The 10 commandments need to be part of every day life, part of decision making, legislation if our battlefield is to be closed down. 100% shared care for mothers and father’s is a realistic outcome, when weapons are laid down. Qualitative outcome for all. 🙂
Beautifully said, Louise. Care of Children Act 2004 does make that clear, but not to judges? Thanks, MurrayBacon.
I agree with the mother who fought to keep her babies safe I am doing the same fir my granddaughter, urgent interim order signed by a judge without any background and the unbilogical father was having contact 3 to 4 times a week. Because my daughter after the case was clused due to her having to sign a parenting order under emotional duress as my granddaughter was kidnapped fir 14 days, judge held onto the warrent if arrest which the police was waiting fir. Then a month later case gets reopened again and because my daughter reap resented herself lawyers both child and other get really nasty and going fir full custody thus legal system is just that only a dollar sign on the child’s head