Are protection orders more harm than good?
The woman killed in a triple stabbing on Auckland’s North Shore this morning has been identified as Heidi Welman Scott, 41.
She is the partner of Brent Scott, who is in custody after a police manhunt.
The other two victims, both of whom have been in hospital, are Welman Scott’s daughter, Taryn Welman, 22, and her boyfriend, also 22.
Police have confirmed Welman Scott had a protection order against the accused, who had been scheduled to appear in North Shore District Court this afternoon charged with contravening that order.
If the situation that occurred in Albany today is the sole basis for your question; shouldn’t the question be, what use are protection orders? A woman is dead; the system of court orders, paper work, petty bureaucracy and protection orders have failed her. Pretty much in the same way that that they fail to recognize a mans right to be a father to his children.
Comment by Bruce S — Thu 27th November 2014 @ 3:35 pm
It is well recognised that taking out a Protection Order raises the risk for this sort of mindlessness. This is a terribly sad situation for all involved.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 27th November 2014 @ 4:21 pm
look people protection orders achieve one thing a
child’s isolation with the person being served and
the rate at which they are is a sad state off affairs.
unfortunately protection orders are served too willy
nilly in most circumstances In which they are sought
and the feminazi use this as a tool to gain the ascendenciny in any dispute warranted or not for
financial gain, if these orders were assessed on their
merit rather than the latter and much more focus at
the front end was placed with the right team of people
then maybe such horrible things can be prevented.
the status quo is allowing this to happen as the current
law allows it to be taken advantage or instead of being
a very important tool to protect those at risk.
nuf said
Comment by V.O.F.M — Thu 27th November 2014 @ 5:33 pm
Yes, protection orders will provoke extreme violence, as was predicted by anyone with half a brain. Firstly, preventing (separated) partners from discussing their issues and feelings will lead to pent up frustration and overwhelming stress. Secondly, most violence is due to emotional threat (e.g. of abandonment or loss of contact with children) and by increasing the threat and tension this will increase the likelihood of violence or other poor-judgement behaviour. Thirdly, many protection orders are unfair, based on false, misleading and/or much exaggerated allegations often on a without-notice basis (i.e. the respondent has no opportunity to respond and doesn’t even know until the order is presented to him), and often used as a ploy to discredit the respondent during Family Court disputes, and the sense of hopelessness, unfairness and expectations of ongoing psychological abuse will then lead respondents to give up caring about their lives and further consequences.
Protection orders are effective in ‘protecting’ people (mostly women) from the inconvenience of having to hear and answer to the distress of a jilted partner, and perhaps from minor acts of anger by respondents who are not likely to become seriously violent, but they simply increase risk that truly dangerous people will become seriously violent.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 27th November 2014 @ 7:04 pm
This clearly shows us that tougher measures need to be taken to keep these monsters locked up or just disposed of all together. All the signs were there to be seen. Being a South African was a red flag, as we all know from Oscar Perstorius that this race of men should be kept clear of females, period. He appears to have disagreed with his wife in the past so at some point it stands to reason he would have to dispose of her to win the argument. He was also know to have the illusion that he had a right to connect with his son which any reasoning person would know was a dangerous and unreasonable thing. I just don’t understand why we can’t just ship these men off to Syria and let ISIS deal with them, allowing these women live in peace. Is that too much to ask?
Comment by Helen — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 4:49 am
If a woman is truly afraid of a man, then she will never get a ‘Protection’ Order as a piece of paper will not stop a truly dangerous man. If a man has no history of violence and only becomes violent after having his human rights and his children’s human rights removed by the imposition of a ‘protection’ order (normally without him having ever committed any crime of physical violence against the complaining or accusing or vindictive and malicious woman who want to use it to get rid of him and get his house and possessions and make his life hell and kidnap their children), then it does not take a genius to realise that the violence was caused by him seeing no other way out and being pushed past his breaking point by the cruelty and corruption and lack of integrity of women and the police and Judges.
Protection Orders are a lie by women and police and Judges. Only sociopaths could have signed them into statute law and only sociopaths and psychopaths would impose them on fathers and children.
Comment by Phil Watts — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 6:14 am
Ps: i see Helen #5 exposed herself as one of those sociopaths who lack empathy or logic.
Comment by Phil Watts — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 6:15 am
‘Protection’ Orders are the most extreme domestic violence that you can get. ONly evil or stupid people would think they are a reasonable answer as they are given without a trial by jury of peers and without any common law (real) crime being committed.
Comment by Phil Watts — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 6:19 am
I know a woman who lied about being hit and even admitted it in court and 6 Femily Court lawyer/Judges still let her keep her ‘Protection’ Order against her children and their father and she has held them hostage since -early 2012-when she obtained the ‘Protection’ Order without notice or any chance for her ex-husband to defend himself. She has breached countless promises and ‘Parenting Orders’and has prevented any free conversations or communication betweeen their children and the father they love. They wrote at point of marriage break-up that they wished to live with each parent 50-50. The corrupt 6 Judges and corrupt paedophile ‘lawyer-for -child’ Chris Dellabarca (who has refused to keep their children safe by video recording his interrogations of the children as repeatedly requested by the father, and ignored by the mother and all lawyers and judges as well), have totally ignored their wishes for many years. Any views the children give after any time of being kidnapped by the police and their mother is a result of Stockholm Syndrome, and cannot be relied upon. The only remedy for Parental Alienation is to reverse custody asap. In order to rescue these children.
Does anyone wish to help campaign for these kidnapped children?
Comment by anonymous — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 6:31 am
‘Tougher measures’ as recommended by ‘Helen'(#5) will only increase risk and violence. In a separation if both parties feel confident the system will treat them fairly, their respective perspectives will be shown understanding and their relationships with their children will be protected and equal, then there will be much lower risk of violent reactions. Violence almost always results from a ‘fight or flight’ instinctual response when under threat. For men, the emotional threat of separation is huge. They face the loss of their assets (even those earned prior to ever meeting the woman who now seizes them legally), their parental role with their children, and a family court / police / cyfs / feminist gossip system that they know is likely to side with their ex-partner and to cause the man great damage. ‘Tougher measures’ will only increase the emotional threat and tendency to react violently, beyond what protection orders are already doing in this regard.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 8:14 am
I think Helen #5 is taking the mickey guys, for a start s/he uses long words and someone who truly believes that nonsense would have the IQ of a pea.
Comment by Daniel — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 11:45 am
@#5 Nelson Mandela is a Man from South Africa too….Nobel Prize winner.
Comment by kumar — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 12:00 pm
Once upon a time I believed protection orders were there to protect women from genuinely violent Men. That was before one was used (based on lies) to try and take my daughter away from me. I can honestly say the most antisocial, violent thoughts that have ever entered my mind were all in that 32 day period where my daughter was “protected” from me.
Just as partners learn the buttons to push in order to upset and wind each other up the family court system has developed Protection orders to be the ideal tool for provoking, engaging and enraging deeply seated instincts for fathers to protect their offspring. It seems bizarre anyone can jump on youtube and view a documentary on the instinctual behavior of any animal species you want. Yet we somehow can’t as a society get our heads around the triggers that provoke domestic violence in our own species?
Surely anyone can see the change that happens in most men when we become fathers the first time, I was blown away by how it changed my priorities. Yet society chooses not to see the instinctual reaction towards a woman using lies, police and courts to take our children away will be no different than if it was a wild animal trying to drag the child off to eat?
Comment by Richard Cruice — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 12:00 pm
Refuge ladies with white fibbon have entered the work place via PSA. Be careful guys. They treat bullying and sexual harrasment. The other day I also saw a poster via PSA promoting refuge and their white fibbon appeal.
Comment by kumar — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 12:03 pm
Well said Richard, it will be interesting to see what the real story is in this latest sad saga. But I bet we won’t hear the man’s version of events in the media.
Comment by Daniel — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 1:24 pm
The answer to the topic heading is clearly YES. We have so many examples now!
This was fairly well known before the DV Act was passed into law, but the NZ Government proceeded anyway.
Quality of the Decisions made in Preparing the Domestic Violence Act
In addition to the probable consequences of passing the DV Act being known before the Act was passed, good legislative practice would ensure that new legislation is carefully monitored through the first few years, for effectiveness, cost to operate and also perverse effects that it might cause.
The Justice Department has prepared several reports on the DV Act, none of which meet minimum standards as an evaluation of social policy. They have been low budget, short duration studies, that never had any opportunity to be a full evaluation. The writers met with women and legal workers (and practically no men).
Surprisingly, when Government asked for submissions about the DV Act in 2008, they were careful to point out that they didn’t want any type of first principles analysis of the effectiveness of the DC Act. (Like head in the sand?)
Such an evaluation is presented in my submission in 2008 and the evaluation part of that submission is given in the post started by scrap:
Protection Orders – The Quantitative Figures
Certainly, if one of my children had suicided or murdered in response to triggers through this Act, I would have great difficulty just talking about these issues.
The solution to these issues was also laid out by the original police arrest studies (see top link), apply common sense measures, based on real world evidence and in proportion to the events that had occurred. This is just a repeat of the notions of natural justice, which is a legal concept older than christianity…… It probably goes further back than Hamurabi?
MurrayBacon – uncontrolled axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 1:30 pm
Helen,
Regarding your comment about the Father wanting contact with his Son, and anyone can see that’s wrong (or words to that effect),are you for real? Have some of us moved that far from reality? Also, you speak of this particular man as if you know him, do you? If not then shut up.
I can tell you from experience that Woman lie freely in the Family Caught, and all the Lawyers, Judges etc know it. As long as this disgraceful system of Child “support”, Protection orders and the Family Caught continues, there will be more cases of violence. The Child Support gravy train needs to be stopped, I don’t pay $1000 a month for my ex Wife to buy a new TV, bottles of Wine etc and spend nothing on my Children, she is a disgrace. Child support will backfire on Woman big time. They will become dependent (already are) on Men to provide them with a living, and they will just get lazier and lazier.
Comment by Jibby — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 3:15 pm
Dear Helen, women also get emotional if they are rightly or wrongly denied access with their children. Evolution gives these strong emotional reactions to both parents, for some good reason.
Their frustrations may be taken out with an external focus, or with an internally directed focus. These feelings may be quite strong, as Juliette Gilbert unfortunately told us.
So, strong emotional reactions are not just the province of men. Maybe men are more often treated in this way, this unequal sharing of the burden of being victim to caught$ malpractice. This doesn’t make women superior in any useful way.
I suggest that wrongful denial of access is dangerous in many ways and shouldn’t just be used as a way of “generating” legal “work”, by breaching the 42 day “rule” in the DV Act. Certainly Parliament was concerend about wrongful denial of access, sufficiently to insert a clause to protect children’s interests from that danger. Like any legislation, it is only as good as the enforcement. Men don’t enforce this clause.
The familycaught$ is lost, when it comes to protecting children’s developmental interests.
The familycaught$ is sharp and as ruthless as piranha when protecting their own paramount financial interest$.
47 Power to discharge protection order
(1)The court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the applicant or the respondent, discharge a protection order.
(2)On an application under subsection (1), the court may discharge a protection order even though the order-
(a)applies for the benefit of a specified person pursuant to a direction made under section 16(2); or
(b)applies against an associated respondent pursuant to a direction made under section 17.
(3)Where a protection order to which subsection (2) relates is discharged, the order ceases to have effect for the benefit of the specified person or, as the case requires, against the associated respondent, as if that person had applied for and been granted a discharge of the order pursuant to subsection (4).
(4)Where a protection order-
(a)applies for the benefit of a specified person pursuant to a direction made under section 16(2); or
(b)applies against an associated respondent pursuant to a direction made under section 17,-
the specified person or, as the case may be, the associated respondent may apply for the order to be discharged in so far as it relates to him or her.
(5)On an application under subsection (4), the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge a protection order in so far as it relates to that specified person or, as the case may be, that associated respondent.
(6)Where an application is made under this section in respect of a temporary protection order, the Registrar must assign a hearing date, which must be-
(a)as soon as practicable; and
(b)unless there are special circumstances, in no case later than 42 days after the application is made.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The familycaught$ only hurt$ people who take it seriously.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 4:40 pm
Perhaps what may be missing here is the way in which we assist men when they get protection orders against them. Women however go to places like women`s refuge where they receive specialist help from qualified social workers and get professional assistance in moving forward. Men get their mates and male groups(mostly of which have no to little funding and therefore cannot afford to supply their clients with any professional help)who are not equipped to assess or apply necessary therapy, critical for accurately locating problem area`s. Without locating these potential problem area`s and therefore lack of accurate help leave`s these men exposed to not dealing correctly with their emotion regulation which may lead them to behave anti- socially ( which may present in many differing way,such as violence, alcohol and drug abuse etc. If we get them professional help out the outset then we may save heartache, money and lives!!
Comment by RGD — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 5:48 pm
The attitudes of many of the men here are disturbing. I know this family personally. This man has been threatening for a long time before the order was put in place to take the boy to South Africa and keep him there. The home and income was not “his”. Far from it. This order was not unjustified. It WAS far too weak. He should have been locked up long ago and the family kept out of harms way. They were living, trapped by a violeny abuser. People should get the facts before talking nonsense.
Comment by Male human being — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 6:42 pm
I agree with what “Man X Norton” says.
Many protection orders are unfair, based on false, misleading and/or much exaggerated allegations often on a without-notice basis (i.e. the respondent has no opportunity to respond and doesn’t even know until the order is presented to him). This happened to me personally, almost breaking up my very happy 16 year marriage to my beautiful wife as well as tearing me apart from my 4 daughters. That people, is CYF’s organising a protection order against me.
Comment by BEW — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 6:58 pm
Male human being (#21): Nobody here has claimed they know anything about this particular family or details of the case, and nobody has tried to draw conclusions based on this case. Most here will offer sincere condolences for the tragic outcome. The comments here have referred to protection orders in general and in some people’s specific cases they have shared. If you are trying to tell us that none of our comments, observations and experiences concerning protection orders are relevant to this current case, then thanks for letting us know.
However, we note that no murder was committed until after a protection order was in place. As has been written in this thread, protection orders are especially risky when the respondent is dangerous. In this particular case a protection order may have been justified (although in many, probably the majority of cases they are not), but that doesn’t mean it was useful; on the contrary, the results speak for themselves.
If this man was a violent abuser then we assume he had been convicted for violence in a criminal court, with proper due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt. If so, then he could have been locked up. But if you are suggesting that people should be locked up for actions they might or might not do in the future, then I cannot agree that is just or civilized. And if we are to lock people up for ‘being threatening’ then that should apply equally to women who make threats.
Although we know nothing of the background to this case, a few things you have informed us about give cause for concern. Firstly, if there was some attempt to take out of the country a boy that this man had father-child type bonds with, then we are not surprised he experienced this as a huge emotional threat and came out fighting. Whether or not there is a court order allowing it, international abduction of children is abusive.
Secondly, you mention a ‘home and income’ that was not ‘his’. I assume you mean that it was owned by the woman prior to their relationship beginning. So did he get his share under our (admittedly unjust) Relationship Property Act? Presumably not, given the protection order that would have required him to stay away from any relationship property he may have been entitled to. It’s interesting how women feel entitled to seize half or more of the assets that a male partner owned but they feel very aggrieved when the shoe’s on the other foot. When women have more assets they much more often tie them up with private ‘pre-nuptual’ agreements, and even when they don’t the Femily Court usually finds ways of bending the law to ensure the woman doesn’t lose her pre-existing assets. Protection orders are often used in that process, to discredit the man and have the court see him as deserving less. We’re happy to hear that none of that was involved in the current tragic case, though we’re possibly not convinced without more information.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 28th November 2014 @ 11:13 pm
And here we have a few comments from a close friend of this man suggesting he was struggling emotionally with the loss of his family and whatever treatment he was experiencing from the system. Sadly, I suspect the friend said a lot more about how this man was treated but very little has been reported in this article, which reverted later to a focus on the victims and an appeal for people to give money (fair enough, except that it would have been good to understand more about the offender and the factors contributing to the tragedy).
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 29th November 2014 @ 8:33 am
To summarise- ‘Protection’ Orders are illogical:
“If a ‘Protection Order is ‘needed’ then it will provoke more violence,
If a ‘Protection’ Order is not needed then it will provoke more conflict and possibly violence from previously non-violent persons,
as removing all human rights of (normally) a father and his children and kidnapping them from him will push most loving parents over the edge to suicide or violence or trauma of some sort.”
Comment by phil watts — Sat 29th November 2014 @ 8:36 am
I am sick of all this pussyfooting around issues and preaching to the almost converted.
I never shouted at or imposed my will on my wife in over 20 years of marriage and never struck her or hurt her or our children in all those years. She is the only parent my children are scared of.
Yet she was helped by her cop mates and their lawyer/judge mates to get a permanent ‘Protection’ Order against us allowing her to ‘legally’ (statute law) but unlawfully (common natural justice law), kidnap our children and prevent any free communications since feb 2012.
Anyone who does not protest against the child abusing anti-Family Court and CYF and ‘Protection’ Orders, is an accessory to the child abuse and male abuse of 3/4 of the population by the female and elite portion of the population! Get out in the streets with signs or you are an abuser!
Comment by phil watts — Sat 29th November 2014 @ 8:50 am
Good comments Phil. Given the abuses and emotional torture that you have been subjected to, you have done very well to maintain control. Keep up the good work in directing your pain and anger through legally permitted channels. Too many men have been pushed over the edge, and it looks like this will increase with the directions now proposed by the feminazis.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 29th November 2014 @ 10:11 am
If we play their game, we will never get justice. The police, lawyers, Judges and pollutitions are all working for the elite 1% and always have. It is only the brainwashing that has improved to make us think that justice exists.
Justice only has a chance of existing in commmon law courts set up by the slave class and in trial by jury by the slave class. Until we set up these courts our children and their fathers will continue to be abused and driven to ‘crime’ and suicide.
Common Law is the only true law, everything else is a mafia scam. We have all been conned.
Comment by phil watts — Sat 29th November 2014 @ 4:50 pm
http://equality.limewebs.com/?p=1#comments
Feminism is a elite government sponsored con to remove the human rights from men and childen using the inate narcissism of females. Females know this and if they were interested in fairness and justice and wished not to abuse children then they could have changed the system at any time in the last 40 years.
Comment by phil watts — Sat 29th November 2014 @ 4:52 pm
Friend of the accused.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 30th November 2014 @ 7:40 pm
Thanks for that Downunder. The article is wrong of course in claiming that White Ribbon Week aims to end domestic violence. Firstly, it’s not a campaign about domestic violence per se but about violence in general towards women. Secondly, it’s interested only in stopping violence towards women so is not trying to stop the majority of violence including domestic violence that is towards men.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 1st December 2014 @ 12:22 am
It’s a homicide investigation of course, but what would be interesting is an individual facing criminal charges for complicity, where the same corollary could be applied to the Family Court.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 5th December 2014 @ 6:42 am
Update:
A man charged with murdering his wife and attempting to murder his stepdaughter and her boyfriend has pleaded not guilty and will go to trial.
Albany man Brent Scott appeared in the High Court at Auckland today charged with murdering his former partner, Heidi Welman Scott, 41.
He was also charged with two counts of attempted murder for stabbing Taryn Welman, 22 and her boyfriend Matija Miletic, also 22.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 17th December 2014 @ 9:09 am
Domestic immolation:
Comment by Downunder — Wed 17th December 2014 @ 9:13 am