MENZ ISSUES

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

Groundless Protection Order

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Law & Courts — Had_Enough @ 3:21 pm Thu 25th April 2013

Hi All…I had a process server deliver an affidavit and protection order application at my door a couple of weeks ago. My mental ex is asking the Family Court to place a Protection Order against me protecting my daughter and her from me.

There is to be a judicial conference which I will be attending by phone next week. The part that pisses me off mostly is the fact that I hardly ever contact my ex and on the few occasions I do it’s just to ask if I can speak to my kids. She normally answers the phone and I normally say “can I speak to child A or child B please”. Other than that we don’t talk at all because I have found over the years that you can’t argue with a sick mind. No email contact, no facebook, no sms, Nothing!

The only grounds she seems to have is that I said, in a previous affidavit that went before the FC a couple of months ago, that she was mentally ill, which she is. I’m not so stupid that I would put anything abusive in an affidavit or Notice of Defense because the judge obviously gets to read all that. Her only justification for placing the protection order against me for my daughter is because she thinks that my daughter may have overheard me discussing her care at a Family Court Judicial Conference a few weeks ago.

The fact that my daughter should have been at school at the time doesn’t seem to have been taken into account but, if she heard me say anything, it would have been something like; Why isn’t my daughter being sent to school instead of being kept home surfing the Internet all day for the past 18 months?? Hardly abusive!! It’s obvious to me what’s going on here; i.e. she knows I’m going for custody of my daughter soon and a Protection Order would obviously cast that into doubt.

Just to put this into perspective, my current wife had a mental husband who regularly threatened her and her kids, sometimes with guns, and often beat them up. She was unsuccessful in getting a protection order against him even under these dire circumstances and even after the AOS were called out on 2 separate occasions!

SO WTF is going on here. Why is the Family Court allowing such a dubious case to proceed without any grounds at all?? Have they nothing better to do with their time? And, to add to the ludicrousness the Protection Order has been imposed without notice so in theory I am not allowed to phone my daughter at the moment. I live in Perth and my kids and their mother live in Hamilton so given the aforementioned lack of contact I have difficulty conceiving what’s going on here. Doesn’t an Applicant have to make out some solid grounds for a Protection Order these days??? I mean it’s not so much that she’s making stuff up, although she does, but her Application just doesn’t seem to justify any need for a Protection order other than her saying that she doesn’t like me saying she’s mentally ill in a previous affidavit as a Respondent.

I would appreciate some feedback re this. I don’t know what to say at the Conference although I have put in a Notice of Defense rejecting all her claims. Your thoughts??

85 Responses to “Groundless Protection Order”

  1. 2c worth says:

    You have to remember fc is bias against the man. Its alright if the women makes all sorts of accusations against you. But as a man, you have to be careful what you say in court even if you can prove it.

    You admitting ‘she was mentally ill’ will actually go against you. They deem this abusive towards the women. This is where the abuse of power comes into play.

  2. Had_Enough says:

    Maybe, but me saying she is mentally ill in the confines of a Family Court is not grounds for a Protection Order. I should add that the mother of my kids has the Dept of Education listed as a co Respondent. She’s taking out a protection order against them on my daughter’s behalf because they keep telling her that she has to send my daughter to school.

  3. CSA says:

    It is the way court works and will work until someone get one of those nice lying ladies convicted for perjury with several years of imprisonment.
    Relaxed attitude from family court towards perjury makes the whole system absurd show without any sense.

  4. Allan Harvey says:

    Had_Enough,
    Mate the FC is doing you a huge favour. They put her applications on notice meaning that they didn’t accept what she said as grounds for a without notice order. That means you have better than a 50:50 chance of avoiding a Protection Order. It also opens up an opportunity for you to share your concerns about the children which I suspect the Judge who declined her application also has significant concerns based on what they have read in her application.
    Don’t get annoyed at the process, face it, tell the truth focus on your children.

  5. Allan Harvey says:

    Had-Enough over 75% of Protection orders are granted behind the respondents back and they don’t have the opportunity you have. She applied behind your back and lost round one. You had a victory without even knowing it. Don’t blow that great start.
    The Court has no option but to hear her application. That is her right and the Court has no power to throw it out at this stage.

  6. Had_Enough says:

    Hey Allan, thanks for the feedback mate but the Court have imposed this Protection order without notice. It says at the top of the page:-

    Notice of judicial conference
    Domestic violence act 1995
    S13 without notice protection order

    I really don’t understand why this is happening. Protection orders are all about Domestic Violence and risk or harm to child
    Or mother. Nothing like that has ever happened and we live in different countries. The bar must be raised pretty low as far as having to provide evidence is concerned. She goes on about psychological violence which is utter crap because my only criticisms of her are on affidavits which I’ve sworn and are on court records. These affidavits have always been as a respondent because the ex is a vexatious litigant and is constantly harassing me through the FC and and IRD.

  7. nicky says:

    I feel so sorry for you reading all this …unfortunately people lie in the FC all the time to gain control and cause estrangement – & there is no accountability held against them either. Many lawyers have no morals and will write whatever it takes to gain what their client wants, often if their client has money that talks too. Speaking from a womans perspective it shames me some woman stoop this low – To you angry men out there [and I do not blame you one bit] … please remember occasionally a man will play these dirty tricks too- it happened to me – very rich ex hires brutal as lawyer blah blah blah = 10 years of FC bullshit to finally get the truth heard, orders overturned,dignity and relationships restored. Even so Nothing ever replaces the years we all lose with our children, and the years they lose with us – the children at the end of all the crap are really the true victims.
    Had_enough … never ever give up!! Do not let the bastards get you down !! And remember … one day your precious children will be adults and mark my words kids arent stupid – they will not thank her for this brutality towards you, or the loss of you it has heaved upon them. The Family Court in this country needs a rocket!! All orders granted based on accusations and ESPECIALLY ex-parte ones should be examined very very carefully by the judges who grant the orders and pass judgements based on them. It makes no sense this crap is going on in a country which professes innocence until proven guilty. I know your pain believe me … just please hang in there and fight back – one day your children will thank you.

  8. Allan Harvey says:

    OK so you got the normal treatment and have had the Protection Order served on you. Can you write to me off here as I would be interested to chat on a private basis? I assume you plan to defend it without paying huge legal fees?
    Allan.harvey@xtra.co.nz

  9. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Current legislation allows Family Courts almost unlimited power especially when it comes to protection orders. Alleged fear on the part of the applicant, whether claimed by the applicant or assumed by the Court, is all that is required. In practice, if a female applicant claims she feels frightened the Court will impose a protection order but when males say they are frightened (or even when males provide strong evidence of a pattern of violence by a female respondent) many Family Courts will decide the male shouldn’t be frightened and will refuse to make a protection order.

    The Ministry of Men’s Affairs wants to see major changes to protection order law:
    (i) We want the name of the order changed to a ‘non-contact order’ or something similarly neutral. The term ‘protection order’ is pejorative and encourages others (including criminal Courts) to believe that the ordered person has been found to be violent and dangerous when in fact no reasonable standard of proof was ever met.
    (ii) We want objective research proving that orders of this nature actually achieve any greater safety as they are designed to do, especially for permanent orders. If no such proof can be provided then the use of orders, especially permanent orders, should stop.
    (iii) We want orders to be extended to children only if there is reasonable evidence of risk to those children, not the automatic harming of children’s relationship with the respondent that happens under the law currently.
    (iv) We want any temporary order to end automatically unless a hearing makes it permanent, rather than the current situation that has temporary orders become automatically permanent in the absence of further proceedings.
    (v) We want a more robust process before any order (other than perhaps a very short, automatically expiring order) is made. An initial scrutiny of each application should ascertain that it contains at least allegations of a pattern of concerning behaviour on the part of the respondent and meets other criteria comensurate with the gravity of the order. No application should proceed beyond a short ‘just in case’ response (such as a short, automatically expiring order) unless it is accompanied by some potentially adequate corroborating evidence.
    (vi) We want the order to be about contact, not forcing a respondent out of his house etc. The applicant who wants to avoid contact should be the one to move out of the respondent’s home, area, workplace etc (unless the respondent agrees otherwise), the order then simply making it illegal for the respondent to attempt to contact the applicant.
    (vii) We want to make it illegal for the applicant to make contact with the respondent or to invite/lure the respondent into contact, except in writing, through a lawyer, JP, or according to some other defined process. Respondents should then be protected from prosecution for breaching the order if the contact was initiated by the applicant.

    These changes would maintain any protective aim of the current law but would make it much fairer and less damaging to children. Why can’t our highly-paid politicians think sensibly and come up with improvements such as these?

  10. shafted says:

    Its nuts. ex gained (5 years ago) protection order against me. Hollywood would have been proud of her. Some years later, and after her stalking, drive bys, breaking into my house and assaulting me i applied for an ex parte order. ( months later we were sent to mediation). Obviously, my fear about actual events of violence and harrassment were not as worthy as her manufactured ones. On a different note, i observe (based on personal experience) that one we are first baked in the family court, we are often at our weakest emotionally and mentally. I had lost everything -money, kids, house etc and a month later was duking it out in court. Looking back, it was all a blur. I was awareof the proceedings but somehow not engaged. Anyone relate?

  11. Had_Enough says:

    Hi Allan,

    Thanks mate, I’ve emailed you some info. I’ve just been reflecting on my experience with the FC and it seems to me that they have done more to separate children from their fathers over the years than the actual mothers themselves. They allow protection orders for no reason, don’t enforce Parenting Orders when mothers breach and don’t regard fathers as important. They make me sick!!

  12. Scott B says:

    Spot on Had Enough. That is exactly what they do and let’s not forget the IRD, they make up amounts and charge you no matter what.

  13. Luther Blissett says:

    Shafted (#10): I can certainly relate to the traumatic devestation you described. My children’s mother trashed their family unit when they were still only 11 and 7. The anxiety, fear, anger, abandonment, confusion and sleeplessness caused real disability and I’m sure many men in that situation will have gone through similar.

    One thing I’m sure of: a presumption of equal shared care would reduce such trauma for most fathers, giving them some predictability and confidence that their most important bonds will be protected from mothers’ vindictiveness and/or ulterior motives. A more general faith that the state will protect the father’s welfare and rights as much as the mother’s and will allow the father to move on with his life in a financially viable way would also go a long way, but of course the opposite is true and this will be recognized by all but the most unaware men in this era so polluted by feminist selfishness and misinformation.

    In my opinion:
    – The law should protect people from making enduring decisions until at least 6 months after any separation.
    – The person wanting to trash their children’s family should be the one legally required to move out of the family home except by mutual consent.
    – Real estate agents should be restricted through a ‘non-vulture’ rule from presenting any offers or negotiating sale agreements regarding property until at least 6 months after separation of the property owners.
    – Family Court should be restricted from full hearings and to making only strictly temporary orders until at least 12 months after separation.
    – Lawyers should be banned from any approaches to the opposite party for at least 3 months after separation and even then they should be held to a code of empathy and non-threatening language in letters etc in acknowledgement of the vulnerable emotional state likely for the other party.
    – All formally assisted communications between the separated parties for the first 3 months should be restricted to counselling or mediation services required to treat both parties with empathy, respect and equality.

    The current situation for recently separated men often amounts to state-facilitated torture, abuse and exploitation, a nightmare of extreme proportions that causes a ninefold increase in men’s suicide rate after separation. That’s nine times the normal suicide rate for men when men already kill themselves much more often than women do and ‘being male’ is by far the greatest suicide risk factor across all age groups.

  14. Allan Harvey says:

    Luther
    your wish for
    Family Court should be restricted from full hearings and to making only strictly temporary orders until at least 12 months after separation.
    This is the current situation and virtually all car and custody orders are for 12 months only at first and they then expire after 12 months to a nothing situation.
    So called final orders are only a second step for cases that become difficult and where parties fail to reach agreement normally after 12 months has passed.
    However the effect is the same Mother principle still reigns supreme.

  15. Luther Blissett says:

    That’s reassuring Allan. I don’t think there is anything in law requiring the FC to give distressed separated couples a chance to become sane again (if they are ever to do so) even though FCs may do so at their whim from that particular interpretation of the children’s best interests. And I have seen protection orders become permanent much sooner than that.

  16. Allan Harvey says:

    Protection orders become permanent at 3 months after the interim order but your post seemed to be talking about care of children.

    I have seen a Protection Order issued, made permanent at 3 months, breached on multiple occasions, prison time served and care of children being on quite a different track. In this case Father had supervised contact for 3 months, progressing to every weekend contact for 3 months, and shared care within 8 months of leaving prison. Protection Order was eventually discharged about another 6-8 months later.

  17. Luther Blissett says:

    Well that’s good to hear too Allan, but the point I was making was that emotionally unwell people should not be allowed to be dragged by greedy ex partners or vicious lawyers into court for any decisions of significe to be made. And no, my earlier comment concerning this problem did not specify any particular kind of order but simply referred to full hearing and orders.

    Even if care of children orders are temporary initially, the fact a particular order was made can strongly influence future and permanent orders. Yes I know there will be exceptions but, for example, I have seen FC judges often enough stick to a particular view because to do otherwise would be admitting they got it wrong previously. Without some law recognizing the importance of considering separately the early post-separation period and requiring FCs to do so, it won’t necessarily be done in any meaningful way.

    You seem to be keen to defend the FC on the basis of a few of its reasonable policies and cases. Fair enough, but we have read horror stories enough here on MENZ over the years. Shafted shared with us his experience of being dragged into court when he was in so much pain he was barely in touch with events. FC should not be allowed to do that.

    And yes, it’s an important role on a site like this to provide correction and clarification to other people’s posts and comments but you have honed in on one sentence in my quite long comment without any response to the overall issue or any of the many other thoughts and recommendations in that comment. No support or mark of respect for anything. “Oh, he’s got one thing wrong, let’s show him the error of his ways”. This feels dismissive, critical and unsupportive. Unfortunately, this seems to reflect a frequent attitude here, or perhaps among men’s groups generally.

  18. Allan Harvey says:

    I accept your comments Luther.
    It was not my intent to ignore or belitle your post. My apologies for that insensitivity.
    I am concerned though that parents who are emotionally unwell or even suicidal may not be appropriate to be involved in hands on parenting while in that state.
    I am totally up for defending the FC as an arbiter of disputes between parents at war with each other. “When elephants fight the grass gets trampled.” Too often parents get so lost in their own personal stuff they forget that it is the kids who need them to focus on them rather than themselves and their own hurt.
    Unless elephants or parents can learn to levitate then the FC is the only arbiter for harmful to conflict to grass or children.
    I am on record as saying at those times often it matters not that the FC gets its decisions right or wrong, any decision is normally better than world war three for the children.

  19. Anon says:

    Hurt people hurt people.
    The motivation is revenge, not because human beings are fundamentally evil, but because vengeance is part of the innate survival mechanics of a complex social species. The desire for vengeance is as old – or older – than humankind and to understand this complex and ancient response, we need to push aside our socially developed notions of revenge and look for its roots in order to understand ourselves and others. Reciprocity, or “tit-for-tat” is the basis of social relationships, manifesting even among our primate ancestors. Behavior that sabotages cooperation, so necessary for survival, will be punished. Chimpanzees experience retaliatory outrage for cheating behavior among their peers and will exact punishment. A similar retaliatory outrage can be traced throughout human history, but we call it a “thirst for vengeance.” The desire for revenge is an evolved outgrowth of our human sense of unsatisfied reciprocity, what today we consider a desire for justice. But notions of justice can be twisted and tortured to fit the needs of the moment and the demands of the social system. So too, can justice be twisted to address the internal economy of the individual. Economics is another contested social issue however if there has been some restrictions placed on the mother economically, then I would suggest you may want to think about how this is impacting on her overall in her need for “tit-for-tat” and possible area for negotiating on equitable outcomes for all. All the best otherwise.

  20. Too Tired says:

    Anon, surely you mean restrictions placed on the custodial parent not ‘the mother’ unless you are addressing a specific case where the CP is a mum. Just saying we don’t want to look un-pc aye.

    It’s not like all welfare parasites (sucking child support from fathers who would rather have their children than the bill) are all women. And even if they are mothers they certainly aren’t ladies. I’d keep going but hopefully you realise this is me saying be as un-pc as you wish.

  21. Anon says:

    I am referring to “the mother” in my response to #1 specificially where Had_Enough discusses “his” “mental ex” (I can only assume his “mental ex” is “the mother” of his child) who has asked the Family Court to place a Protection Order against him to protect his daughter and her from him.

    At the micro level of this family dynamics is another system of justice to transform a deep-seated urge for revenge – euphemized as retribution – the justice systems at the macro level, keeps such human urges within acceptable boundaries while continuing to work in the best interest of the most vulnerable in our communities and foremost in their minds is finding solutions to act in the best interests of “children”

  22. Rocky says:

    Clarification required on Protection Orders;
    How much room for interpretation is there for the Protected Person/Police ?

    I’ve read various posts about unjust Prot Orders and Police being too quick to judge act.
    Has anyone experienced the following or seen a clarification,
    A Protection Order is for protecting persons in seemingly specific locations – the Protected persons residence, business, etc, where that person often visits.
    Is it feasible for a Protected person to complain about a respondant being at any other place, any public place? (exclude any hint of harrasment,intimidation or in fact any form of actual contact)
    Example: A person (male) attends a local park, to watch a sporting event, attended by about 500 other people. This park is out of town and not normally frequented by either party.
    A person with a protection Order (female) granted in 1999 is also at this park. The Male is unaware that the female is there – pre police intervention.
    The Protected person sees the male (respondant), hides behind a tree, calls the Police to first remove the male, and when a ‘discussion’ about the rights of each party is had, is arrested and charged for breaching a Prot Order.

    The Complainant is relying on Para 1 (b) (iii) – without the protected persons express consent** enter or remain on any land or building occupied by any protected person….

    Question / Comment;
    Is the word ‘occupied’ solely describing the protected persons ‘normal’ residence,dwelling,house & block of land and that any Consent is only required for those specific locations ? OR
    Is the protected person entitled to ‘occupy’ a cafe in Westfield, or occupy a 40,000 seat stadium and merely by ‘being there’ is able to claim ‘occupation’ and make a complaint for a breach?
    Thoughts.

  23. shafted says:

    Not a lawyer but believe occupy would amount to place of residence. If you walked past, say, a shop, and deliberately walked in and confronted her, i would imagine that would be a breach (not under occupation-merely a breach of the order), however in the event that you run the argument you have on here, and in the absence of her having witnesses that say otherwise, i believe you will be ok. Good luck.

  24. Gwahir says:

    If the victim (Of a P/O) Accidently meets the applicant in say a supermarket that both normally visit is to say sorry and leave 🙁 They have to change their whole life style. In a matter I supported a few years back the victim had to drive through a town. The applicant lived 1 block back and could not see the main road from their dwelling, though times were presented to the court of the passing by. It was alledged that the victim was stalking the applicant. In defence a high scale map was obtained from the council showing that the closest the victims car got to the rear of the applicants section was about 120m. The matter was defended and dismissed the allegation though suggested to my friend that as there was no reasonable alternative route he did not stop, even for petrol in the town. Matter dismissed.

    As a P.S. my friend went on to gain day to day care of both children! and The X was allowed only supervised access!

  25. Allan Harvey says:

    #22
    When you have a protection order against you then it is your responsibility to not be in the presence of the other party.
    I often give the example you see your kids in the supermarket in a completely unplanned situation. If the parent is a member of the order of protection then it is their responsibility to turn and walk the other way. If the child says “daddy daddy it’s me” and makes a move to come towards him then it is the guys responsibility to walk faster and if the child still wants to reach their father then it is the guys responsibility under the PO to run.
    In the situation you describe above then going into a Westland cafe where she was present or even if she entered after you were there then it is the responsibility of the holder of the order to leave. In a stadium facility then probably it is not unnecessary to leave but going to another area of the stadium is probably sufficient. On a field of just 500 people then going to the other side of the playing field won’t be sufficient. If you went to the the stadium or the playing field because you knew the other party was going to be there or your child then that would be a clear breach of the order and it would not be surprising for you to be charged as such.

  26. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    But what if you were at a playing field of 500 people and did not know the applicant of your protection order was there (and there was no evidence that you had that knowledge)?

  27. Allan Harvey says:

    #26 then it is up to the prosecution to allege you did know and your intent was to watch or have contact and possibly intimidate the protected persons. It should be that the prosecution should have to prove this but in Breach cases the onus tends to fall on the holder of the order of protection to prove they did not have knowledge of the other parties attendance. Breach charges are very hard to defend is the reality of the situation.

  28. Down Under says:

    Breach charges are only hard to defend because they are not properly represented in court and that is an acceptance of a political position in the failed justice system we operate, not a consequence of law.

  29. Allan Harvey says:

    #28
    A significant problem with breach charges is that psychological abuse is not defined in the act. The criminal court then goes looking for definitions and finds them in FC judgements.
    Normally in the criminal court intent is important and that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    In the FC evidence is weighed on balance of probabilities and intent is not considered, it is based on how the “victim” feels, perceives matters etc.
    Hence for this charge it isn’t like any other in that Criminal Court is not working “Beyond reasonable doubt” and matters are being considered at a lessor standard than even balance of probabilities.

    I don’t really understand the point you were making Bevan. Lack of definition is certainly about law and a convoluted trail of difficulties follow this consequence.

  30. Down Under says:

    You just said the same thing without thinking about what I said.

  31. Allan Harvey says:

    Sorry Bevan I’m not understanding the point you are making.
    I’m talking about the practicalities of defending a charge in the criminal court. I assist many facing such charges and it is not an easy matter.
    I think you are talking about the politics of what the law should or should not be and the influences on judges in their decision making? Is that right?

  32. Down Under says:

    It is not entirely that – it is also a question of whether civil law or criminal law has superiority.

  33. Down Under says:

    And when you look at it from your point of view are you assisting those people in facing those charges or assisting in processing them.

  34. Allan Harvey says:

    I’m doing both Bevan. The system processes them but the faster they are processed then the faster they get contact with their children again.

  35. Down Under says:

    Some people go to court and say to themselves to hell with this I’ll plead guilty so I don’t have to deal with it, I can’t afford a solicitor, whatever.

    The situation you are describing is the court saying to hell with accused we are going to find you guilty anyway.

    Law is not there to get people; only dysfunctional management of the law does that. You live with a false belief that you are helping people.

    This issue is not new, if you look back you will see the practise was questioned many years ago when the Waitakere court started their Domestic Violence Wednesday processing factory – guilt by presence.

    This is where we differ in opinion. You in your little piece of the world on occasions help limit the impact of this process on a person.

    When you say you are helping people – you are not. Your acceptance of the situation is like a woman saying “can you rape me faster so we can get this over and done with then I can go home and forget about it.”

    Acceptance is not acceptable. Breaking the law to manufacture an outcome is not acceptable.

    I’m talking about the practicalities of defending a charge in the criminal court.

    That’s not what you are talking about at all but at least you’ve talked yourself into the right answer.

    The system processes them but the faster they are processed then the faster they get contact with their children again.

  36. Anon says:

    “#29 so what I am understanding is that where there is a breach of Protection Orders, the criminal court hears these cases and not the Family Court where previously the Family Court may already have dealt with matters pertaining to previous incident reports such as parenting order breaches?

    In my view and based on my experiences, I do not believe FC evidence is weighted on the balance of probabilities, however I think it important you can expand on that by providing examples. I do not believe the FC bases its judgements and decisions on how the “victim” feels, perceives matters etc., on the basis that without evidence the way the “victim” “feels”” “perceives matters” can and is only taken into consideration in the judges “weighing up” what he has before him… which decisions are heavily weighed in favour of evidence. The issues I believe are located in court policies and processes rather than legislative terms.

  37. Gwahir says:

    The Family Court only “Makes” the Protection Order. Breaches become a criminal matter dealt with in the district court. Wish Breaches of Family Court Parenting Orders were handled the same way!

    It equally becomes ludicrous when a notice of defence has been filed and is subject to significant delays but the victim of the order is still subject to harsh penalties in the event of a breach!

    The solution ofcourse would be to suspend penalty until the validity of the order is finalised!

  38. kiranjiharr says:

    @ 36 then can you explain why a lot of affidavits filed with PO’s have the words” his action of sitting on the couch made me feel threatened; I felt fear, I beleieve he will hurt me by sitting on the couch” rather than actual facts,

  39. Gwahir says:

    Unfortunately The two courts operate on different standards. The Family Court is a civil ourt and operates on the balance of probabilities. There are no absolutes. The criminal courts however are judged on facts alone. The two have little common ground. If the Family court Judge in a PO makes a condition, you MUST comply. No “Try to” or “Feel it is unreasonable” 1t is pure & simple DO it! You can apply to the Famly court for a variation, or to defend the order as a whole, but until the judge gets around to considering the matter, you do it!

  40. Down Under says:

    I am no legal beagle but let me put this into the discussion. When a court order is made it is anticipated it will be obeyed and if it is not that is a contempt of court.

    If you are in contempt of a civil order you would need to pursue those proceedings on a civil basis. If you are in breach of an order of criminal law that would need to be dealt with on a criminal basis.

    The way I see it marriages are a matter of criminal law and the Family Court being a civil court doesn’t have the power to violate the criminal jurisdiction so this is avoided by section 30 of the family proceedings Act which specifically gives the power to the Family Court, so it is an exemption from the conflict of contempt.

    In a similar fashion making the breach of a protection order a criminal matter avoids the breach being a contempt of court, and it also distances the Family court from dealing with female contempt of court.

    Now if the Family Court can make a divorce decree without consideration for the criminal jurisdiction then equally the Criminal Court should be able to determine within its jurisdiction whether the criminal law has been broken in respect of a protection order.

    There is no obligation to seek any involvement of the civil jurisdiction.

    Why then in this case is the superior criminal jurisdiction pandering to the civil jurisdiction and why do we apply to different standards in the application of laws that are made to avoid the contempt conflicts.

    This is another loaded gun against men not created by bad law but by political interference within the justice system.

    The intention here is to make the man guilty of civil contempt without a hearing in the family court and without a legitimate hearing in the criminal court in relation to the criminal offence.

  41. Rocky says:

    Thx for the background.
    To the example tho – Gwahir writes; The criminal courts however are judged on facts alone.
    There are very specific words in a Prot Order. What measure of interpretation can be applied to “enter or remain on land or building ‘occupied’ by the protected person” ??

    AH #26 writes, Breach charges are very hard to defend is the reality of the situation’.
    The charge is ; While a protection order was in force against him, without reasonable excuse remained on land occupied by the protected person,without the consent of that person.
    Situation was a public place, not regular to either, without ANY knowledge of her presence!

    Shafted says, Not a lawyer but believe occupy would amount to place of residence.

    Prot Order wording is: (b)(iii) respondant must not; without the protected persons consent, enter or remain on any building or land occupied by any protected person,
    [meaning the protected persons property or dwelling???]

    OR, (b)(iv)Where any protected person is present on any land or building, enter or remain on that building in circumstances that constitute a trespass.
    [meaning you ARE allowed to be in the same supermarket-if you are not trespassing???]

    I take it to be that the 2nd paragraph in a Prot Order takes care of ALL other locations not referred to in (iii).
    With the logic of this charge (that the protected person can occupy any space and make a complaint) New Zealand is land. And as I’m a NZder living in Aust and travel to NZ to effect contact – she can (with this logic and a willing policeman) make a complaint! YES?

    Am I reading the distinction between (iii) and (iv) correctly, and

    Is the definition of ‘occupy’ from the dictionary (as “dwell in”) not fact enough for the burden of proof of the criminal system?

  42. Down Under says:

    If you are the occupier then you must have a legal right to the area you occupy and a legal right to exclude.

    You are confusing that with the dictionary definition of occupying a space. You won’t get anywhere with the law if you rely on dictionary definitions – it doesn’t work that way.

    You need to approach this by determining legal rights.

  43. golfa says:

    From memory, Paul Catton was charged with breaching a Protection Order when his ex showed up at HIS house. So it would appear that you have no “legal right” to be anywhere especially if the protected person decides to “occupy” it.

  44. Rocky says:

    Thx Down under – a good summary in one sentence.

    A charge has been made on ‘consent’ being the pivitol key to a case.
    (iii) says land and building occupied by Protected person, needs their consent (to be on their property – where THEY occupy) I’d agree.
    while it should be on
    (iv) which does not require/imply consent. It accepts a protected person could be present (on land or building) but one is ONLY excluded IF it is because you are trespassing (or proven to breach other parts of the order).
    One does not need a protected persons consent if you are on land or a building that you are not trespassing on.

    Is there any forum with the Police to check an interpretation of a law / order?
    I know the courts do this, but its after the fact. I would expect the NZPolice (as an employer) to have to school or train their employees on how to do their job.
    Similar to me in business having to train staff on the HEALTH AND SAFETY manual for the company.
    Does the NZP have a central point to verify their position OR is it up to 5000 constables variations depending on their mood of the day and what they think you look/act like?

  45. Allan Harvey says:

    Rocky et al,
    Be assurred the copers have very strict guildlines especially about DV matters. The general gist is if he is male he is in the wrong, arrest him. If he is male and has a protection order against another party then that should not happen and something has gone wrong in the system.
    The situation described above where people have been charged and convicted for remaining in their own home or property while the holder of a protection order has come to their property invited ot not and occupied it is certainly not unusual. Basically if they are there then the member of the order of protection needs to leave.
    The most absurd conviction I know of was where father was away from his home and mother came to his home and ranted and raved about footwear that was not returned after the last contact and she wanted it back now. The shoes were in the car with dad. Father’s new partner and her mother were at dad’s house. Partner and her mother felt extremely harrassed and set upon by mother who was ranting and entered the home without consent, infact after having been told to go away and not come in. New partner rang dad on his cellphone in a distressed state, she told mother that father wished her gone from his home as he would be returning to the property as soon as she had left (he was a very good chap who had multiple previous convictions for breaches and was attempting not to get any more). Mother grabbed phone from new partner (dad’s landline) and gave him an ear full about the shoes. Dad told her to ….. off.
    Guess what the coppers and judge found dad yet again in breach of PO and yet another conviction for him. I jest not.

  46. Luther Blissett says:

    Allan Harvey (#45): Thanks for reporting that case here. Utterly fucking atrocious and a demonstration of how inacceptable the protection order legislation is. What can the population do to fight against this appalling state abuse and terrorism against men? I can think of some ideas and we know that many men are moving closer to taking those actions.

    And if those peaceful, entirely proper actions don’t work very soon and very well, there are those among us who actually hope that Muslim or other terrorists will drag this misandrist western civilization into war and anarchy. Of course, we are all law abiding citizens and would never help such terrorists, but we will dance around the burning state buildings and on the graves of those who have waged this gender war against us.

    Our nation relies on the work of its men. Men are brave and strong and will not continue to allow themselves to be emotionally, legally and financially disembowelled by the governments they fund. Men are already committing suicide or rendering themselves incapable of productivity by harming themselves, becoming alcoholics and drug addicts at high levels, starving the state of their labour. They won’t stop there.

  47. Luther Blissett says:

    Given that alleged breaches of these male-bashing orders are dealt with in the District Court rather than the Femily Court, one assumes that it’s ok to publicize them. Let’s encourage men to get their stories, their accounts of atrocities, into the media. Perhaps they could be conveyed to the Ministry of Men’s Affairs who seem to put out lots of media releases.

  48. Down Under says:

    I guess this started with assistant whingers in the family court instead of lawyers and then moved on to stazi-type operations of the police that forgot about the just cause part of their job and lazy district court judges that suggest they are interpreting the will of parliament rather than the law.

  49. Ian says:

    To Nicky. Dont need a female perspective here. As far I can see you should F*&%k off

  50. bellboynz says:

    i been going through the same thing, my ex has manipulated the children lawyer and he refuses to sent the letters and information , weird thing when she put order against me on xmas i as getting sexual txt messages from her in great detail she also complained the courts and people i am coursing her stress not answering txt messages (hello I can not), i am meant to have share of my children under the parenting order yet she has breached it and my lawyer has not nothing, i don;t don;t know what to do now as not seen my girls in 5 1/2 months, her affs has even put my security clearance in the army at risk

  51. bellboynz says:

    i am going to the police station on monday to show proof her affs are false and file purjury and defamation case against her as well as a breach , my lawyer has done nothing as she is friends of ex lawyer and found chat in court, also putting case to lawyer group about conduce of the lawyer for child and ex lawyer

  52. bellboynz says:

    i agree Luther Blissett , i am so wanting to go to campbell live etc about it all children lose the fathers because of the ex’s and the court system doesn’t listen or look for proof on the claims they just go on by the word of the females, we need to tell everyone out there what is going on in the system tell the mps and gov that we good fathers and good men are getting screwed of relationships with own children

  53. bellboynz says:

    i agree Luther Blissett , i am so wanting to go to campbell live etc about it all children lose the fathers because of the ex’s and the court system doesn’t listen, they just go on by the word of the females, we need to tell everyone out there what is going on in the system tell the mps and gov that we good fathers and good men are getting screwed of relationships with own children

  54. Anon says:

    #49 I think that’s a really harsh statement and a comment which does not conform with the rules of this site.

  55. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Anon (#53): I agree with you. I thought ‘Nicky’s’ reply (#7) was quite good and I don’t understand ‘Ian’s’ (#49) abusive response.

  56. hornet says:

    had Enough – mate – sounds to me likes shes just getting some leverage over your accusing her of being mental……. (which she may well be), but if you tell her she is, then obviously as is always the case with females, they will then make every endeavor to throw something back at you.

    Maybe, and I mean just maybe, you call her up and say hey drop the Protection order bullshit and you will drop the allegations of her being mental. ( and if she keeps it up you will proceed to prove her insanity in your defence etc…….)

    You may get more traction doing that – at least more so, than you will from the family court circus……..where as we all should know by now – has nothing good to offer you, your kids or you ex – Family court is all about lawyers making money and nothing more……..the longer they can keep you in the game the better for them……..

    Hey just trying to offer an alternative approach to this – and knowing what females are capable of from previous experience…….

  57. Rocky says:

    Further to my previous posts, I wrote to my local District Police command and got 2 Candid, informative replies.
    Long I know – but it gives quite clear and surpisingly even handed answers.

    I wrote:
    Commander,
    Can you clarify for me a potential situation that your officers would have to rule on if called.

    I am a New Zealander with a Protection Order against me in favour of my ex wife. A recent threat was made against me to use the Protection Order in my opinion inappropriately. This also leads to a further ongoing confusion about each parties rights.

    I refer to a Protection Order wording;
    s19 1 (b) (iii) Without a protected persons express consent, enter or remain on land or building occupied by any protected person.

    [I take this to mean, one needing consent to be on the protected persons OWN land or building – not any land or building in general. They can occupy their own dwelling and cannot by definition occupy a park or a train stn?] And

    s19 1 (b) (iv) Where any protected person is present on any land or building, enter or remain on that land or building in circumstances that constitute a trespass.

    [I take this to mean that a respondant is entitled to be generally in a public place, when the protected person is there (or turns up later) if they are not trespassing. Eg; if i am asked to leave a BBQ and do not – that is a breach. If I am at a local park or a shopping center – that is NOT a breach]

    A specific Example sent to me by email from the protected person: Xxxxxx has just told me that you are turning up to the Army cadets Parade on Anzac Day.
    Do you realise I could have you arrested for breach of these protection orders should you do so without my permission.

    Sir, I would imagine you are tasked with training or managing many hundreds of Officers. So to circumvent interpretations from those many hundreds of staff, can I ask you that with NO OTHER mitigating circumstances/provisions in the Orders to consider,

    A. Would it be a breach of a protection order to be at a Public place (not
    trespassing) such as an Anzac Pde?
    If the answer to this is No.

    B. Can someone threaten to have another arrested for wishing to attend a
    park, a stadium, a supermarket?
    If the answer was Yes to A, then it may be feasible on that logic that any protected person could make a complaint that they did not give consent for the respondant to be in New Zealand (…..on any land)

    C. Do you agree with the suggestion that item (iii) allows a protected person to demand consent
    1. On their own property (land & building) only OR 2. they are entitled to this privilege throughout the entire country wherever they see fit?

    D. Do you agree with the suggestion that item (iv) allows a respondant to be free to be in any location that isnt a trespass? (say in a coffee shop in a
    mall – a protected person cannot walk past, not announce themselves and make a complaint to Police because they are now wanting to ‘occupying’ that
    area)

    Am I reading the distinction between a protected persons right to their own space in (iii) and how all other spaces are treated in (iv)?

    I’d like it if you could give me your (and I would assume your officers
    interpretation) not jargon or tell me to ask a lawyer, cos it’s gone too far then. I’d like to know what your expectation/interpretation of this is.

    In practical terms it’s as simple as – Am I allowed to be in a Park, minding my own business and not be subject to a complaint that ‘I needed someone elses permission’? In this instance I assume (iii) would not apply.

    Thank you
    Rocky

    Response 1
    Mr Rocky.

    Thank you for your query around the Protection Order application.

    Answers below are based on experience and are not a legal opinion (should you seek a legal opinion then I recommend you contact a lawyer) . They are also based on the scenarios presented with the brief facts given.

    A. Would it be a breach of a protection order to be at a Public place (not
    trespassing) such as an Anzac Pde?
    If the answer to this is No.

    Answer: No Breach – so long as he does not breach other conditions of the order.

    B. Can someone threaten to have another arrested for wishing to attend a
    park, a stadium, a supermarket?
    If the answer was Yes to A, then it may be feasible on that logic that any protected person could make a complaint that they did not give consent for the respondent to be in New Zealand (…..on any land)

    Answer: No they can’t – so long as it does not constitute a trespass ie the occupier wants them gone or doesn’t want them there and they don’t breach any other condition of the order.

    C. Do you agree with the suggestion that item (iii) allows a protected person
    to demand consent
    1. On their own property (land & building) only OR 2. they are entitled to this privilege throughout the entire country wherever they see fit?

    Answer:(1) Yes (2) No. There may be are some exceptions though as the scenarios and not finite. A place of work maybe considered as being occupied by the applicant etc etc

    D. Do you agree with the suggestion that item (iv) allows a respondent to be
    free to be in any location that isn’t a trespass? (say in a coffee shop in a
    mall – a protected person cannot walk past, not announce themselves and make a complaint to Police because they are now wanting to ‘occupying’ that
    area)

    Answer: Yes

    In practical terms it’s as simple as – Am I allowed to be in a Park, minding my own business and not be subject to a complaint that ‘I needed someone else’s permission’? In this instance I assume (iii) would not apply.

    Answer: Yes

    I Hope this helps.
    A Snr Sgt

    Response 2
    Hi Rocky

    In the first instance I am pleased you have asked for a simple, non-jargon reply as it is so important with legislation like this that we don’t get into the realms of simply quoting act & section as that can be confusing and overly complicated when the original legislation was meant to provide accountability, protection and safety for families experiencing challenges in their relationships.

    The spirit of the legislation is that the Protection Order provides an element of “enforceable” safety to a victim of Domestic Violence. The order aims also to redress the balance of power and control that undermines ALL Domestic Violence situations, and allows the applicant and any children involved to enjoy the freedom to enjoy day to day living and working unencumbered by the fear that they will confronted by the respondent. The more positive aspect of the Protection Order, as opposed to the old Non-Molestation and Non-violence orders, is that it enables the applicant to allow the respondent to have day to day contact which promotes either the ‘repair’ of relationship rifts or a positive “co-parenting” relationship where such ‘repairs’ are not practical or desired. At the end of the day the use of the Protection Order and its effectiveness in these situations lies with the applicant.

    That is a general overview of the principles behind Protection Orders, I will now address some of your more specific concerns.

    You are correct in your assumption that “occupancy” under this act relates to the place where the applicant and/or the children actually live or are “staying” and does not refer to “any place in NZ”. It also follows the applicant should they move home.

    However, other provisions in the act do offer protection in other “commonly visited” places in order to allow the applicant freedom of movement. For example if the applicant and/or the children attend a specific church, or school, or sports club etc at a regular time/days of the week and you were to turn up there at the relevant time/place, that would be considered a breach of protection order. If the applicant and/or children were to follow regular routes to school, work, sports etc and you were to intentionally traverse those same routes at the relevant times, that would also be considered a breach of Protection Order. So you can see how the spirit of the act works? Basically the applicant and/or children should be able to live their day to day lives without the fear of being confronted by the respondent.

    We cannot avoid EVERY POSSIBLE contact that might occur unintentionally. For example, the applicant may turn up while the respondent is at a train station, a shopping mall, or a supermarket (one that is not commonly attended by the applicant). Provided there is no direct contact with the applicant then the applicant has the choice to leave that place or remain and simply ignore the respondent. However, if the applicant is the one who is already present and the respondent turns up, it would be prudent for the respondent to leave to avoid allegations that they are “”¦monitoring, or harrassing” the applicant or “..Loitering or watching a place visited often by the applicant”¦”

    In relation to the Anzac Parade query, that would fall into the circumstances in the paragraph above; My first question would be, “Do either of you have a special reason, above the norm, for attending the parade?” For example, are any of the children part of the parade? Or do either of you have relatives who will be appearing in a more formal setting as part of the parade? In this case it would be inappropriate for the other party to attend knowing that they would undoubtedly cross paths. Ultimately, outside these considerations there is nothing to prevent both of you attending the parade but it is fraught with difficulties and potential allegations of abuse of the protection order, so if the situation can be avoided then it should be. Common sense should prevail.

    Sadly, in these situations most adults seem to lose the ability to communicate and make sound, sensible decisions that are in everyone’s best interests and are considerate of the other person’s point of view. The main winners in these situations are lawyers who are employed basically as mediators; and the main losers in these situations are usually any children involved, and of course the adults who once had a good relationship that is now imploding.

    I hope this has been of some assistance. If you need any further information or clarification feel free to either drop me a line or give me a call.

    cheers
    Supervisor – Family Safety Team

  58. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Thanks heaps for that Rocky (#56), very informative and interesting.
    I believe the Supervisor of the Family Safety Team needs a response covering the following matters, and I would be grateful if you would pass these comments on to that Supervisor:
    (i) The identification of a ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ is usually invalid in considering partner violence situations, shown now by the best international research to involve forms of violent behaviour by both parties such that each party is both an offender and a victim.
    (ii) There is no good evidence that protection orders actually protect anyone who was truly at risk of significant violence, as opposed to protecting safe people from having to observe the grief and pain of partners they have ditched.
    (iii) “The order aims also to redress the balance of power and control that undermines ALL Domestic Violence situations”. One presumes the writer meant “underlies” rather than “undermines”. The statement is parroting feminist ideology based on the unresearched ideas invented by the Duluth Centre. There is no good evidence that ‘the balance of power and control’ is a significant factor in most domestic violence. Instead, both parties are trying to control their lives and surroundings and get into conflict concerning this.
    (iv) The ‘power and control’ given legally to the applicants of protection orders is however commonly used as a tool of abuse against the respondent. The applicant (‘protected person’) can invite or lure the respondent into contact, then have the respondent prosecuted for being there. In practice what usually happens is that if the respondent displeases the applicant in any way, is disobedient or dares to express an opinion or request, the applicant calls the police who arrest and charge the respondent not for committing any real offence but for being in the company of the applicant even though the applicant initiated this contact. The law is based on the unfounded belief that ‘power and control’ is a causative factor in domestic violence, yet awards real legal ‘power and control’ imbalance to whichever partner gets in first in applying for a protection order, enabling the applicant to abuse the respondent. That’s a bit like saying “P causes people to be violent so let’s give P to other people so they can be violent back”.

  59. Anon says:

    (#57) I think some of your statements are very fair in that the Duluth Model of Power and Control is a significant factor in most domestic violence cases. However the Duluth Centre has also put out the Equality Wheel. If more people were encouraged to be guided by the Equality Wheel from a Restorative perspective, then I would think that there would be a lesser need for people to engage in power and control behaviour. I think that what we seek is equality in our arrangements based on reciprocal arrangements and where it has been proved that people struggle with engaging in and making changes to their lives, therefore becomes the issue and that’s where the criminal courts can step in if there are protection orders in place. It is all about social control rather than power and control from a top down and bottom up approach. So the Family Court theoretically is the middle managers who have to keep the peace and seek solutions to some complex issues in a rapidly changing world where there is less empathy and more violence. Communities need to start to change their ways of working and actively work towards peace in such conflicting times. It starts at the relationship level with families and communities of people and conflict resolution education and restorative justice.

  60. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Anon (#58): Can you direct us to any good research suggesting that “The Duluth Model of Power and Control is a significant factor in most domestic violence cases”? I doubt it.

    The Duluth model in fact was that “patriarchal power and control” is the cause of domestic violence, i.e. blame men. The Duluth Power and Control Wheel was written in gender specific terms in which the word ‘he’ is the only one used to describe the various behaviours claimed indicate the use of ‘power and control’.

    Many of those who work with domestic violence will presuppose that ‘patriarchal power and control’ is the cause and will see each situation in ways consistent with that idea. However, there are much better models that help to understand most domestic violence in much more accurate ways that are also more useful in working therapeutically with those cases.

    Nowadays when anybody mentions the term ‘power and control’ in relation to cases my bs detectors immediately come out. It’s an idea that has gained so much undeserved acceptance that it functions similarly to historical beliefs that saw ‘She must be a witch’ immediately resulting in knowing nods of agreement and confidence that everything was now explained.

  61. Anon says:

    #59, I understand what you are saying:

    Why doesn’t the Duluth Model use gender neutral language to describe domestic violence and that this theory does not represent all of the realities from the actual lived experiences of people who are trying to think about their lives?

    According to well documented research, men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides. This gender disparity, and the continued underlying social, cultural and institutional structures that support it, would be unjust and undemocratic by not naming the social problem for what it is. While obviously society long recognises there are cases of domestic violence other than male perpetrated violence against women, even in those cases the perpetrator’s sense of entitlement to control or dominate another remains the predominant cause of violence according to the Duluth Model.

    When women do use domestic violence in their intimate relationships, their “circumstances” tends to differ from men’s. Men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional experiences. Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women all over the world who resort to violence either against their children or male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. That’s the difference. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a lesser effect on men compared to the effects of men’s violence against women.

    It is difficult to understand the complex process involved in developing what are now accepted explanations of “domestic violence” against women and men and it took many players in Duluth years of struggling with unresolved theoretic questions and disjointed concepts of designs that are familiar to many battered women’s movement which has traditionally struggled with the multiple intersections of women’s experiences with “oppression.” Racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, are all part of the pattern of violence related to battering. “¦ Battering cannot be eliminated in isolation from the effort to create social justice world wide, including the elimination of violence in all its forms.

    Using the Duluth Power and Control Wheel as a framework, this tool can broaden discussions of how oppression works and make connections between oppression at the individual, group, and cultural levels; to help support people begin to ‘recognize how their own oppression and their participation in the oppression of others strengthens men’s power over women in diverse contexts, not only in the home.

  62. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Rocky,
    thank you very much for your proactive and constructive approach to DV POs and the abuses sometimes made of them. I hope that the police’s attitudes are increasingly sensible, in the manner suggested by the reply from your local police.

    Reading the reply, I kept thinking of the abuse of Paul Catton, by his ex-wife and Henderson police. These abuses went on right through the district caught prosecution process. Paul did end up sorting it out, but in essence the police made sure that the process was as long and as abusive as it could possibly be made. So too did the “judges”.

    From talking to many men, I would guess that quite a few would have suicided in similar situations, while they were the subject of these casual, irresponsible manipulative games. Later changes of police policy or practice, will never bring these men back, for their own enjoyment of life, or for the proper enjoyment of relationship for their children.

    Do the women responsible care one bit? I think not, they are so off this planet, that they should never have been allowed to remove the children from the family home at all. They are self centred and impacted by erratic and poor mental health, so that they know not what they do. But they were allowed to do it! They were barely safe caring for children in a 2 parent home, but downright hazardous in a solo parent home.

    Manipulation might achieve short term “gains”, but at a severe long term price to all concerned. This is exactly what Parliament was trying to avoid.

    Do we move forward and just forget the suffering of these children, these men?

    Should we commemorate these wrongful, scattered, lonely, individual deaths, by dancing on the graves of familycaught$ judges, on one day a year, every day of the year?

    Presently, these men’s children are left to rot out a lonely existence, a poisoned shadow of the life they should have had, with relationships to two parents protected by legislation.

    We could set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to bring restorative justice?
    That would just feed the very people who had carried out the original familycaught$ grimes.

    It would be more effective and cheaper to just let free market forces come to play on the abuse perpetrators, at no cost to Government.

    Thanks, MurrayBacon.

  63. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Anon (#60): Your manipulative and dishonest pretence to agree with or ‘understand’ points made here when you are actually disagreeing with them, is patronizing and not welcome. You continue to parrot the feminist sexism we are all familiar with: “All domestic violence is done because the perpetrator is maintaining power and control over the victim”; “Women only commit violence to protect themselves against men who are battering them”; “Women’s violence towards men involves completely different dynamics from men’s violence towards women”; “Violence by women towards men doesn’t hurt the men very much”. Spare us please.

    I asked you previously to direct us to research supporting the claim that ‘power and control’ is a valid or useful way to understand all (or even much) domestic violence. You haven’t done so but continue to spout all manner of claims based on feminist ideology rather than on facts established by good social science research. That those claims have become so widely accepted no more makes them valid than was the widely accepted belief in witches in past centuries.

  64. Gwahir says:

    I seem to recall a piece by an eminent NZ psychologist totally debunking the Duluth system. The only place that t is accepted as reality is the extreme femists. Thinking people totally disregard it and it’s all encompasing generalities being treated as the specific norm.

  65. allan harvey says:

    That can’t be Neville Robertson you are speaking of then.
    He has on a couple of occasions invited people to meet and debate with him but then backs off and withdraws his invitation.

  66. Gwahir says:

    No it w2asn’t Allan. Istr that you may have been with me when we met the aforementioned Psychologist, and we certainly know that they are full supporters of Justice!

  67. nobody says:

    I still have the email from the duluth institute admitting that it is a feminist orientated model and therefore is not gender less!

  68. Rocky says:

    #61 Murray

    No, the Local Police DID NOT have the same opinion as these(Regional PR public/police liason) persons that wrote those responses.
    I had the defended hearing in the District court yesterday, the Local constable lied in court to attempt to secure a conviction.
    He defferred from a charge of my needing the protected persons CONSENT, because they saw the error of their ways with the OCCUPYING a local park meaning.
    They continued with the charge on the basis that I was trespassing – not on the protected person property,but due to not leaving a public place when the Police asked me to.

    The good news to all is that the Police FAILED on both arguements. Charges were Dismissed.
    The Judge (Hastings Dist ct) made it plain and simple that anyone minding their own business cannot be charged with breaching a Protection Order & a Protected Person cannot misuse an Order to inconvenience a respondent OR as a form of restricting Contact with eithers children.
    I was adjudged to be ‘allowed’ to be there without the need for the p.o’s permission (consent) & I did have a reasonable excuse to be there and wasn’t trespassing.

    The beat cops DO NOT know the law and attempt to interpret it in their own image – depending if they like the look of you or you argue with them. OR, if they feel oblidged to keep the protected person happy by making an arrest and driving home a prosecution.

    What I’d like to know is how much training to the constables get? &

    What the training manual says about interpreting and enforcing Protection Orders when a complaint is received?
    I will read and respond to your other emails as I can.

  69. Anon says:

    #63 Ministry of Mens Affairs:

    With due respect, laws related to domestic violence are implemented not by feminist
    reformers, but by lawyers and judges who do not necessarily share a feminist perspective or understanding of violence. Indeed, they are more likely to share understandings
    derived from the media, popular culture, and social and institutional discourses
    which are often at odds with the feminist account.

    Furthermore, I do not regard my comments and opinions as allegations or manipulative and dishonest and certainly I do not consider I was in disagreement with you or patronizing, that way of thinking with due respect I consider matters for your own personal reflections and affairs are concerned where freedom of speech and feedback is is regarded in Aotearoa New Zealand

  70. Anon says:

    #63 btw I refer you to some peer reviewed theoretical social science research (whilst remaining mindful the context of this blog relates to Protection Orders, any “facts” per se may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority and in law the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of Jurisprudence supported by well-established standards and principles).

    http://www.biscmi.org/jod/Gondolf_Duluth_Support.pdf

  71. Skeptic says:

    Oh Dear,
    The Duluth “Power and Control” model ended up being critiqued as being anti-male by none other than the women from Duluth who helped to get it off the ground in the first place.
    Not only that but they decried the ‘research’ it was based upon many years ago too.

    Fail.

  72. shafted says:

    yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn Dulth model.

  73. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    theoretical social science

    Might as well cast the runes or read the tea leaves.

  74. Rocky says:

    Who holds the moral high ground?
    Female commentators should put caveates, or write about both sides of the fence!

    Sydney paper on Sunday (Annabel Crabb);

    “In a report released on Friday, based on interviews with 24,000 women, the World Health Organisation concluded that more than a third of all women will be physically or sexually abused at some point, usually by someone they know”.

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-expectations-we-have-of-women-who-are-assaulted-20130623-2oqey.html

    Huffpost late last week;

    “Female victims are often the focus of initiatives against domestic abuse.
    But according to a 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control, more than one in four men in the U.S. experience rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and one in seven men experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner”.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/domestic-abuse_n_3473001.html?1371745806&ncid=webmail13

    Add in the variables to statistics & not in the least attempting to be provocative,
    How many women use the current social stigma/bias to unnaturally claim abuse (to themselves or children) to further their cause?

    How many men DO NOT report spousal abuse because of the ‘absurdity’ of the notion and live with the effects of it (incl false allegations) during and after a relationship?

    Fair’s fair.

  75. MurrayBacon says:

    Thanks Rocky, the CDC 2010 report is available here.

  76. jacquie says:

    I am a woman. My ex is using a protection order against me. i don’t know what to do. After many years of abuse i finally got the courage to tell him to leave me alone. Within days the protection order arrived. He is hurting me and my children but there is nothing I can do. I don’t know what to do. I was in the proess of getting a tresspass order against him but the protection order arrived first. Now I’m a siitind duck with nothing to protect me or my children. I don’t know what to do. I tried fighting it by countering with my own protection order but I could only get legal aid and was let down seriously by our legal system. Judges don’t like counter claims. I have tried to ask the polie for help a number of times but they have basically said that they can’t help me until he basically physially harms me. I am sorry to all you men who have been falsely accused. It is not good.

  77. Pretty in P:ink says:

    Jacquie, there is always more to q\a story. You say your ex obtained a protection order over you. Given this must be an incredibly rare event for Family Court toi issue, there must be a LOT more to the story.
    There are protection orders, so you are no longer living under a single roof. There were plans for a trespass order; which also prevents living together (no one, man or woman, in their right mind, would try to live under the same roof with someone who has a trespass order over the other).
    I strongly suggest you simply cut your losses and go your own way. Start proceedings for 1/2 of the property (if anything), and accept that in 2 years, you’re free indeed.
    In terms of the children , you label them as yours. that is your first mistake. I presume he is their father; They are not yours; they are BOTH of yours. Through your lawyer negotiate 50/50 shared care.
    If the issues between you and your ex-husband are so great that you cannot exchange children at each other’s homes, then use a supervised access third-party venue to exchange the children. Else use the local police station. It covers BOTH of you against allegations of violence and improper behaviour.

  78. Warren Payn says:

    I battled the system over protection orders etc..custody..and still trying to sort property..2 years and 4 months so far..I am now officially divorced..yippee.. Property settlement is possibly going to end up in a hearing all because my ‘ex’ has played the system very well and keeps dragging the process out and of course ‘WANTS EVERYTHING’.To date has cost around $40k..
    Protection order..made permanant..sorry..but had a female judge that my lawyer advised me that she would already have made a decission before our ‘hearing’. he was right, totally believed ‘ex’s’ spiel.Judges summary report based her decision on ‘maybe’s and possiblies’..
    Custody/Parenting order…Had a brilliant Judge for this.HE did not take ‘ex’s’ rubbish and granted me a shared care order and effectively removed the power of protection order off my son.
    Property settlement..still waiting.
    I have an elder son and at time of ‘without notice’protection order being served, he was 16y/o and elected to live with me. from that day til now, he has constantly been rejected by his mother and on numerous occasions has had Police ‘set’ upon him by her. My son, now 18y/o, has not understood why his mother has rejected him and on 23rd Dec 2014 he was served with a b/s without notice protection order by ..guess who?? merry xmas son… so we will now have to defend against this being made permanent because it will isolate the 2 brothers when the younger one is not in my care but also makes eldest son a easier target for the mother to attempt to have breached..I know full well this will happen as it is exactly what she did to me.
    I will also be contesting the Parenting order and applying for Full Custody now. I now have a long list of reasons as why this needs to happen.. and of course have gotten to know a wee bit about the ‘system’.
    On a different note..I have a friend who’s wife is,what I believe to be, maybe going to have him served with protection orders. All the signs are there..creating situations, scenarios,demeaning him in front of the children etc..an accidental ‘bump’ gets blown out of proportion as being a ‘purposeful act’..and so on.. setting the scene..
    Q..I am sure I read somewhere that if you suspect there may be going to be a ‘without notice’ protection order going to be lodged..that you can notify the Courts and this will stop the without notice being ‘rubber stamped’. If this is true??what needs to be done and how do you go about it??

  79. Downunder says:

    This situation was discussed recently here.

  80. phil watts says:

    How can any sane person possibly read this and not realise that the National and Labour Party are corrupt and that a high percentage of mothers are psychopaths?

    The amount of possible remedies is narrowing down day by day……if injustice is endemic then what is the solution?

  81. phil watts says:

    my children have been held hostage for 3 yrs due to a bullshit ‘protection’ order.

    I have never even imposed my will, hit or even shouted at my wife, i may have shouted at my kids when they were about to do put themselves or someone else in danger though…

    Does anyone want to help me fix this corrupt system?

    phil.r.watts@gmail.com

  82. Helen says:

    I have a question. The applicant has been phoning the respondent.
    Is contact only banned for the respondent and not her? She can ring, txt, email, whatever she likes?
    In which case, how does he avoid contact when she persists?

  83. golfa says:

    #82 Helen. The Applicant has pretty much all the power. She can phone, text, email to her heart’s content. The trick is to not take the bait and reply. Apparently you are allowed to reply (but not initiate any conversation.) But the best advice is to put the phone down if she calls and not answer any texts. This will frustrate her beyond belief ! But you will be safe. Next thing is to keep a record of all her texts and phone calls with the date and time. Then, go to the Police with your notes and apply for a Restraining Order under the Harassment Act 1995. See here …

    http://www.howtolaw.co/take-action-against-harassment-392101

  84. golfa says:

    #83 oops Harassment Act 1997.

  85. JBM says:

    I ‘m a realist. My ex wife (3 weeks ago) has played the professional victim for as long as I can remember. She has systematically broke me down over the years to validate being the victimized and avoiding any responsibility for her actions. With 7 children born into our relationship from 2006-2015 I thought we were a pillar, I was wrong.
    Due to gender disappointment we stopped at our 7th boy and her self worth deteriorated it seemed, her incessant need to play the professional victim meant that she would escalate the arguments, put downs and antagonistic behavior and began to devise a plan to estrange me from the family and use the “abuse” card. This involved using ‘Godzilla’ aka the family court. One call to the police on a bogus setup and I was issued with all the protective cover she needed to stonewall me an eject me from my reality and life as I knew it and my boys suffer the long term pain of growing up in a fatherless home.
    So yes, this was nothing but a choice, one big argument gave the professional victim the ammunition to hatch her plan. People do what people do for vengeance. I was insignificant in her selfish endeavor. The kids are hurting, I’m numb with pain and she’s is left with feeling like she is in control to further abuse the children’s emotions and me in the process. Good luck with that, I too have a life to live and a plan for my future with my boys. My kids will know who their dad is and I have no choice to have love and compassion and become a patient man, something that is very hard for me to do at the moment!

Leave a Reply

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