Auckland barrister blows chance of becoming Family Court Judge
Anthony Morahan writes in the NZ Herald that much of the comment on the murder of Bradley and Ellen Livingstone of Dunedin seems to have consisted of calls for punitive action.
Anthony Morahan: Punishing dead men will do nothing for families.
He says that women can do anything, including violence. He refers to NZ research that shows women are just as likely to resort to violence as are men.
Doesn’t he realise that this is heresy?
Lawyers aren’t supposed to publicly acknowledge that the Family Court is used to exert female “power and control”:
Protection orders are often made against fathers who are accused of being “controlling”. But women often seek protection orders to control men or to punish men for not paying what the mother considers to be enough child maintenance.
He notes that facilities which support men, such as the Father and Child Trust, struggle for funding.
He makes what seem to me to be some very sensible suggestions about protection orders:
A protection order should be granted only where there is need, not as a punishment or to give one parent an advantage over the other. Protection orders should not be used to cut off contact between parent and child. There should be arrangements for continued, but safe, contact. Protection orders should not remain in force indefinitely. A protection order should expire unless, on review, there is a demonstrable need for the order to continue.
Comments are open on the Herald website.
Anyone remember this –
Judge attacks Family Court laws
03.04.2004
By PHIL TAYLOR
Some children’s relationships with their parents are destroyed unnecessarily by inflexible family laws, says a senior Family Court judge.
In a strongly worded speech this week, Judge Jan Doogue said laws introduced 10 years ago lacked the sophistication needed today.
She said the laws were “social experimentation”, and hinted they were introduced without thorough evaluation.
Speaking at a child and youth law conference, Judge Doogue called for measures to ease the negative effects of the laws while proper research was done into their impact.
The laws – the Domestic Violence Act and section 16B of the Guardianship Act – tended to alienate the parents, generally fathers, who had lost custody, she said.
This often began with the serving of temporary protection orders, and became entrenched by delays in having a court hearing.
The law required disputed orders to be heard within 42 days but, said Judge Doogue, who has presided in the Family Court since 1994, that seldom occurred because of lack of court time and staff.
The result was that banned parents could go months without seeing their child at a critical time, jeopardising long-term relationships.
A study of the Domestic Violence Act in 2000 found that all 15 males respondents who discussed access arrangements were no longer in contact with their children or saw them rarely.
This, Judge Doogue said was “worrying”.
“They were embittered about the effects and implications of the legislation.”
The Union of Fathers lobby group said the judge’s comments were a realistic acknowledgement of what was happening in the Family Court, and agreed it needed to be much more closely looked at.
“Something like 400,000 children live in disrupted families,” said national co-ordinator Bevan Berg.
“If we don’t deal with that rationally and sensibly and put in place the best plans we can to cater for the impact on those children, you can imagine what’s going to happen down the track.”
The laws came about as a result of an inquiry in 1994 by former Chief Justice Sir Ronald Davison into the Family Court handling of a case in which a father killed his children.
Sir Ronald concluded that a new social philosophy was needed to deal with domestic violence.
He acknowledged that the law might deprive some children of a close relationship with a parent but said he could see no middle course.
Judge Doogue said the laws had “de-normalised domestic violence” but lacked the flexibility to fit many cases now coming before the court.
Supervised access had been regarded as way of balancing a child’s right to be safe and a parent’s right for access, but this sometimes worked against the best interest of the child.
Judge Doogue made nine recommendations, including more research, better resources, a call centre operator dedicated to family cases and steps to overcome language-based misunderstandings.
Mr Berg said the blame shouldn’t be laid at the feet of “one person who thought he had a good idea”.
It should be remembered that hundreds of people were involved in shaping how family law worked.
Acting Justice Minister Margaret Wilson said she not seen the speech and could not comment.
DOOGUE’S VIEW
* Judge Jan Doogue says family laws are “social experimentation”, lacking in sophistication.
* Parents who lose custody, generally fathers, tend to be isolated.
* Banned parents can go for months without seeing their children.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 7:44 am
Judge Doogue is essentially lying.
The legislation that she refers to, gives judges too much flexibility.
In my opinion, the truth is that judges have made narrow interpretations of what the legislation says. This is to protect themselves from adverse media comment, if there should later be any violence.
The problem is that profit media make a big windup about an injured or killed woman or child, especially if the perpetrator was male.
The media exposure is not related to the amount of death or damage, but to the degree to which the death or damage correlates to the prejudice that men are more dangerous as parents.
Judges do not want adverse media exposure.
As a direct result, they ignore the vast number of small bits of relationship vandalism that they do, by abusing men through the DV Act, by causing illegally long periods of time where fathers (and quite a few mothers too) are denied contact with their children.
Illegally long periods – Parliament set out 42 days as the maximum delay before a proper hearing after awarding a without notice protection order, on the unchecked claims of one party only. Although Parliament intended that on only very occasional situations, should that time limit ever be breached, it is breached more often than it is honoured. Read Hansard in appendix. All of this, in legal workers pursuit of their paramount financial interests.
This is an example of Government not prosecuting itself, because it isn’t comfortable prosecuting your own people, “they are one of uzz”. This problem drifts on and on and judges use it to try to blackmail the Government into giving them more funding. This is a bit rich, when they could solve this problem in weeks, if they wanted to. They take more money by breaching the 42 day rule, than by honouring it. If judges were regulasrly jailed for manslaughter after breaches of these rules lead to deaths, then there would be an incentive for them to follow the 42 day rule!
Hundreds of thousands of bits of relationship vandalism adds up to more damage, than the familycaught$ ever does any good.
This shows up as “children left behind” at school. No use beating up teachers, when some children enter school substantially unable to learn. There was a letter to editor in The Listener pages 6 and 7 18th January 2014, where Sandra Iverson, remedial reading teacher, said that 35 years ago remedial reading teachers could teach 12 students per year and obtain recovery into normal schooling. Nowadays, remedial reading teachers can only teach 6 or less per year and that the rate of being able to be successfully returned to the normal schooling stream is much lowered. No amount of Government beating of teachers can undo parental neglect of babies and children, much of it resulting from fathers driven out of homes by selfish, child support maximising, personal freedom maximising mothers and their colluding “judges” illegally dishing out baseless “protection orders”.
The relationship vandalism also shows up in NZs suicide rates and demand for mental health services.
Incompetent meddling in families may not leave immediate bruises and scars, that show up in profit media stories, but the consequences in wellness, happiness, quality of adult intimate relationships, mental health, scholastic ability and working ability take a huge toll on NZ, that is apparent in national statistics.
Our judges shie away from public discussion about the quality, the legality of their performance and their value for money.
At times, they act aggressively and dangerously, quietly behind the scenes, to chill and stifle informed public discussion about themselves. My fiend Evgeny Orlov recently found to his high personal cost.
Yet it will only be by honestly informed public discussion, that these problems will be resolved.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 8:29 am
I agree and I also wish courts see proof. My ex got order with no proof and falsely putting stuff in. Now she uses it all affs and the lawyer for child will nit contact and she gives false stuff to him. I kive in hell due her dalse stuff and no lustening it destroy a man being and relationship wuth kids. She poison my kuds minds because she blocked me seeibg them because she wsnts control my lufe and because I am in a relationship
Comment by Aaron Bell — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 8:42 am
#1. What Judge Jan Doogue says in public and the rulings she makes in our secret Court are POLES apart.
Comment by golfa — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 8:58 am
Anthony Morahan wouldn’t be much use as a familycaught$ judge. Much better that he be appointed as Principal Family Court Judge.
Under the present rules, the principal judge has very little power to make change, positive or negative. Certainly boshier had very little impact on the behaviour and performance of the other judges, similar to all of the previous incumbents. Anthony Morahan would be too wise to step into that situation. (I believe that boshier contributed to the Care of Children Act 2004 and will be well remembered for that. If this Act is ever brought into operation, then it will have a positive impact.)
If Anthony Morahan was given the power to discipline judges and make changes, I am sure that he would be a very good appointee. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 9:38 am
Well said, Anthony Morahan and well researched, maybe one day the PC twats will realise that a piece of paper will never stop anyone doing something plain stupid and that in many cases it actually seeks to make things much worse with tragic results, What happened was wrong and terrible but this was totally avoidable and continues to happen on a almost weekly basis, the family court really needs to take responsibility for its abuse of power by women seeking to further alienate good fathers from their kids using any tool available and the farcical whims that it blindly follows while it further wrecks family’s lives and allows this to happen
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 9:59 am
and its not just months with out seeing your kids its years in some cases, causing irreparable damage.
This is plain criminal stupidity by the family court and lawyer for child allowing this rubbish to happen, they have a huge weight of blame to shoulder.
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 10:02 am
@ Murray, I don’t dispute that Judges in the Family Court have always been inclined to do what ever they like regardless of the law.
However you also can’t dispute that when protection orders have automatically applied to the children, then there has always been a problem with the legislation.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 12:06 pm
So, its the mother’s fault that the father murdered the kids? SERIOUSLY?
Comment by Skymaiden — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 1:23 pm
@ sky maiden,
Can you not read ?
No one is excusing him for doing this at all, he is the one that pulled the trigger , but he is gone and so are 2 kids.
This is simply an exercise to find out why, try to understand and try to point out how it can be avoided from happening time and time again for nothing.
Even if it helped one family it would be worth it.
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 1:36 pm
#9 No. And no one has suggested that either. Except maybe you.
Comment by golfa — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 1:37 pm
@#9. Father only pulled the trigger. There are other accomplices & conspirators which include the female court, female lawyer,female judge and the female child psychologist and the female child lawyer and the female mother,female refuge..i mean the whole female feminine gang…and for them females come first.
Comment by kumar — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 1:38 pm
“Father only pulled the trigger”??? Well, guess what. If he hadn’t pulled the trigger, the children would not be dead!!
Comment by Skymaiden — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 2:15 pm
Dear Skymaiden, a constructive approach to analysing disasters, looks at all of the ways in which the disaster might have been averted.
Although it is easy to point blame solely at the person who is dead (this is a form of bullying), we can learn more useful and workable ideas for saving lives and suffering, if we look also at all of the contributors to the disaster.
I am interested to know whether the mother of the children had submitted affidavits, including false claims about the father. Such behaviour is commonplace within NZ society. I would guess that at least 30% of affidavits submitted by mothers contain substantial false, ie perjured comments.
Although many men tolerate this perjury, some don’t and in a small number of these cases, may react with violence.
Most women don’t see perjury as part of parenting in NZ, so why do some women see perjury as an essential part of NZ parenting.
Through perjury, they can easily and readily manipulate the NZ familycaught$ process, to limit the children’s contact with their fathers?
This damages the quality of upbringing that the children receive. It also frustrates and depresses the fathers who are subject to these supposedly illegal perjuries.
I am curious why you only wish to discuss blaming the father-murderer?
Do you have some difficulty with looking in to the judge’s contributions, or the mother’s contributions to these murders?
I suggest that people who want the best outcome for children, would look into all of the contributors to killing of children, whether they were killed by their mother or killed by their father.
Also, look into all of the issues that impoverish children’s upbringing. Probably the largest single instrument of damage to children’s upbringing, are those who restrict children’s relationships with their non-custodial parents – mostly poor parenting mothers and parenting ignorant judges.
Anyway, Skymaiden why do you hide your true identity behind a nom de plume?
Most NZ mothers are happy to respect children’s relationships with their fathers, are you in the dangerous minority?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 3:37 pm
Dear Downunder #8 one would hope that we pay judges for wise judgement. Judges claiming that they have no flexibility is just disingenuous denial of their responsibility and accountability.
The DV Act has many, many problems, in the way that it is being applied. As you mention, one issue being automatic inclusion of children, when a mother has asked for the protection order.
Another issue is the failure to bring perjuring applicants to account,in particular when the application was made without notice to the victim.
Another issue is the issuing of protection orders, without requiring any real evidence and then leaving these protection orders in place for years. Parliament expressed serious concern that this should never happen, but has then ignored the thousands of complaints as it happens frequently.
Judges issuing baseless protection orders properly brings the familycaught$ into public contempt. Then these judges deny all responsibility for their actions. Such judgementless judges should be returned to the legal profession, they are valueless and clueless as judges.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 4:28 pm
Here’s a link to the facebook page of Galvin Law, wendy galvin lawyer for child (or lawyer against childas some say), note the anti father slant and the white ribbon ads
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Galvin-Law/214434441961901
Comment by Stats — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 5:04 pm
Dear Murray Bacon,
I honestly don’t care if the woman was the worst person on the planet. Shooting the children, who are not at fault in any way, is a monstrous act.
As for ‘talking about a dead man is a form of bullying’ in regards to a man who murdered his children and then (cowardly) committed suicide, is laughable, at least. Speculating about the mother, is NOT bullying?
What is disturbing, is that you are referring to this as a common case, has this ever happened before?
As for my nom de plume, what exactly is the issue with that?
I have no way of knowing if your name is real, and I don’t see why it would matter, anyway.
“Most NZ mothers are happy to respect children’s relationships with their fathers, are you in the dangerous minority?”
Really? I am disrespecting the relationship between a murder/suicide ‘father’ and his dead children??
Comment by Skymaiden — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 7:21 pm
@Murray It was draconian legislation given to a secret court.
One is as guilty as the other – neither has taken responsibility and neither wants to.
Yet, while it is so unusual for the occasional person to occasionally speak out about these issues, if you do the numbers, there are far more lawyers and judges than politicians who have braved any professional or political wilderness, when it comes to proffering genuine observations.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 7:27 pm
Dear Skymaiden,if I ask the question in another way…
If you as a parent were told that should you submit an application containing false accusations about the father, that the father of your child would have about 0.1% probability of suiciding and possibly also murdering your children, would you proceed?
(Probably the odds are about the same, if the sexes of the parents were swapped, but there are fewer cases with fathers making false allegations about mothers, so it is not possible to estimate odds.)
I suggest that a responsible parent would prefer to just submit an honest application to familycaught$, as most mothers do.
To me, it appears that most mothers are honest, but about 30% put their lifestyle desires far before their children’s welfare.
Gone too soon: Kids who died at hands of parents by Simon Collins – lists many fathers and mothers who have killed their children:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11188259
Cases not listed in the NZ Herald article and overseas examples:
Rosemary Perkin Nelson mother murdered her 3 daughters to prevent them having access with their father
Mother appeared to have suicided and killed her children Caroline Jane Malins Blenheim
Mother suicided and murdered her child at the same time postnatal depression Cynthia Wachenheim USA
Mother suicided after being denied access for 18 months USA Juliette Gilbert
Leanne Maree Marks sentenced to two years and nine months in jail for the manslaughter of her daughter, Shontelle. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/tony-stickley/news/article.cfm?a_id=143&objectid=3549018
Greg Hutchings and Eeva Dorendahl Australia
Sarabjit Katir and Kamaljoit Singh Otahuhu
Janine Thomson Woman who killed autistic daughter Casey 17 years old
Kim Kathleen Flowers and Dominic
JenniferBerman AlexanderBerman JacquelineBerman Florida
Mother died but her 5 year old son survived with terrible injuries after jumping off 100 metre cliff, at Robertson’s Lookout at Mt Keira, north of Wollongong.
(Kathleen Folbigg was convicted of murdering her 4 children, but it is more likely that her children died from SIDS, due to a common genetic defect. Thus although she may be listed as a murderer, the conviction is probably unfounded.)
The lists above simply show that parental depression and familycaught$ excessive stresses, can on occasion result in murder of children. Rather than pointing fingers at either mothers or fathers, I am suggesting that society can responsibly take some accountability and offer more appropriate supports to parents and where necessary remove children from mothers or fathers who are dangerous or lacking in parenting skills.
In my opinion, parental murders is in total a smaller and less important issue, than the total impact of protection orders resulting in long term damage to parental relationships. This is why I try to suggest that we are not putting in sufficient resources, to undo the ongoing damage being done by the plundering familycaught$
My nom de plume may be tracked to earth, near the prison. Which prison do you live near to?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 9:45 pm
Skymaiden, suicide is the result of an unhealthy mind. A healthy society promotes healthy minds by looking after it’s citizens through just laws. Woe to a society that ignores justice for ALL. The fact that murder-suicide is so scarce in NZ intrigues me. The monsters you refer to kill for pleasure or gain. Murder-suicide is always about injustice. Expect more of this for sure!
Comment by Kant — Thu 30th January 2014 @ 11:47 pm
Problem is it the women use courts to control the man , but not only that they break them and the spirits, image this a man separated that’s a hit in the face, they take kids more hits if block contact more hits this whole time he is isolated then say she puts in false claims in courts and gets order then it is a kick in nuts and every letter from courts more kicks and he paying $250+ each time he also kicking himself as and hurting self because not seen kicks now if he is baited to contact her (my ex did) then he gets breach and more kicks, he looses job, so more beatings as no money coming in plus prob not able get benefit, he feels alone, worthless, bruised beaten black and blue the marks are not visible but internal.
So what is first step? it took many things to snow ball out of control.
I been there and broke no I didn’t kill my kids we all break in different ways, But I can not remember 3 days of my life due to it, I am lucky I had someone watching but what help is there for men, women have help everywhere and it advertised on tv for them but men there is very little apart from stop abuse.
Comment by Aaron Bell — Fri 31st January 2014 @ 8:38 am
Why do we not band together to make change there is so many of us we have ourselves to blame for putting up with this crap my story is the same no where to turn no one to help.
Comment by mailman — Mon 3rd February 2014 @ 8:58 am
mailman i agree with you, lets write the stories down so people and see even publish them, not only people see but also to encourage other men if we could have some stories with a happy ending
Comment by Aaron Bell — Mon 3rd February 2014 @ 10:53 am
What would happen if men all over the country all rose up at the same time, in one place, with evidence, and exposed the family court. Will they all go to jail, or will it do some damage to the system?
Comment by Rachel Rolston — Tue 4th February 2014 @ 8:58 pm
24 interesting and valid idea Rachel. However we need more than just men, we need women too. We also need adults who went through this as children. Grandparents too.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 4th February 2014 @ 10:07 pm
How about someone set up a Facebook page called Expose the NZ Family Court or similar?
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 5th February 2014 @ 1:50 am
26 would have to be protest like 81 spring bok tour for politicians to listen but without the violence facebook page is a start
Comment by mailman — Wed 5th February 2014 @ 7:08 am
familycaught$ customers are telling their stories, in ever increasing numbers:
New Zealand Family Court Consumer Website
Consumers Voice New Zealand
UK Guardian: My partner abducted my child: the parents left behind
To attempt to counter negative publicity (truth) about the quality of their work, the Family Court of NZ website makes artificially selected, modified, changed, decisions available (but without any of the background information available).
In practical terms, these decisions can be dangerously misleading to members of the public, as these decisions don’t tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. This website can only be seen as self serving, “marketing” information.
One example of the extent of deception in these decisions, is the way that parental abduction is not honestly shown to the public. In practice, about 85% of the abductors are mothers. You cannot see that fact in these decisions. The horrifyingly high level of abductions, when one or both parents have strong connections to countries that are not Hague Convention signatories. These decisions also mislead by not showing how ineffective the “legal system” is in returning illegally abducted children or the very high costs in attempting to obtain the return of illegally abducted children.
In this propaganda war, it is difficult, bordering on impossible for members of the public to discern the truth about what goes on in familycaught$.
It is difficult for people who have been through familycaught$ mangle to tell their story in a way that the public find credible. Their stories are so unbelievable, that the public find it impossible to believe, even when it is the story of a family member and they already know half of the facts.
About 2009, Mike Wilding asked people to contribute their stories. He had been given an assurance by the then Minister of Justice, Hon Simon Powers, that if he sent in stories about people’s experiences with familycaught$, that he would investigate them.
At least 6 extensive stories were submitted, on CD. Printed out they would have been about 9 cm thick. Mike’s letter and the stories were then returned to Mike, with Simon Power refusing to accept them, as some of them complained about familycaught!
As time passes, the almost hundred suicided children and thousands of suicided parents are buried, eventually the public will wake up.
Then it would take just as long for familycaught$ to rebuild the trust of the public. But they will never be given the chance, they will be replaced by honest people, prepared to work and deliver quality service.
Both the familycaught$ and the Ministry of Justice will have nothing to do with handling complaints about the quality or cost of legal and judicial services. The Judicial Complaints Commissioner may as well be called the Judicial Complaints Hider.
It can only be by open consumer sharing of experiences, that these major social problems can be sorted out. The costs are not just fraudulent legal charges, but the ongoing social costs of neglected children, who are impossible to educate properly and who never get to enjoy life.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 6th February 2014 @ 7:15 am
Link back to Mike Wilding’s request for cases:
Submission to Minister Justice – different time delays for litigants
You will see that my recollection was a bit wrong.
The big problem is that careful investigation of complaints is tedious, slow and very expensive. This is one reason that Government doesn’t want anything to do with investigating people’s complaints about malpractice, incompetence and corruption by judges. Besides, to find a complaint was justified would then result in damages claims against Government – even more expense. Best to just bury smelly complaints and hope that the smell can go away.
Similarly, the public would rather spend their time (and money) watching escapist films, than working through detailed familycaught$ case files, to protect their children.
Nonetheless, the only way that these expensive social problems will ever be solved, is by laying all of the evidence out, where the public can see it.
This would allow people to request disqualification of judges, when they could present examples of wrongful or criminal conduct by the assigned “judge”.
This would also support people to understand where their own cases had gone off the rails.
Unfortunately, most parents, at some time of overstress, dump their files, making it practically impossible to ever seek proper redress. If momentary breakdown doesn’t destroy the file, then loss during moving, or leaky garage roofs can also destroy files.
Laying out files in public would also allow people to assemble joint action cases under the Fair Trading Act, against the Government and in extreme cases individual judges acting outside of legislation.
This is why the familycaught$ bend and stretch the secrecy clauses in legislation, to intimidate weak parents from acting to protect their children.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 6th February 2014 @ 6:03 pm
Small (but lots of them), silent (because it’s a ‘statement’ in itself) protests around the country outside Family Courts, coinciding with Universal Male Suffrage Day on December 19. On the same day launch a website with well-researched cases that evidence everything that’s wrong with the system – i.e. scam protection orders, alienation of fathers from their children, male discrimination, irrational (or unlawful) and harmful judicial decisions…
Small, silent, but effective… especially if you’ve given a heads-up to a few friendly reporters and written the article for them ahead of time so they don’t have to put any real thought into it themselves.
If the general public or the polly’s don’t care, maybe it will provide food for thought and some information to men who go through the same thing but think they’re the only one’s it’s happening to.
All publicity is good publicity if it’s well manipulated. Just a thought.
Comment by Rachel Rolston — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 7:23 am
Small will not get the attention we need.
Comment by Scott B — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 8:56 am
Small definitely won’t get attention but big will probably get the wrong sort of attention. The media portray small men’s protests as a couple of disaffected nutters and larger protests like Nazi rallies, I’ve seen it and I’m sure you have too. Someone could set themselves on fire in front of the court and the media coverage would be sympathetic if it was a woman and totally negative if it was a man – but please nobody test that theory out.
Comment by Daniel — Wed 12th February 2014 @ 1:44 pm
I agree with #27
Comment by kumar — Mon 17th February 2014 @ 2:54 pm
Nobody enjoys being complained about, integrity starts where easy denial leaves off.
Mother of baby swapped at birth says hospital mocked her
Last updated 07:57, December 3 2014
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accepting accountability is the true measure of professionalism.
Our familycaught$ judges don’t come anywhere near to minimum professional standard$.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 7th December 2014 @ 3:35 pm
#26 Skeptic,
I asked Dominic De Silva to set up the Facebook Page NZ Men Fed Up With Family Court early this year and at last count it had over 17,000 followers.
Comment by phil watts — Wed 10th December 2014 @ 8:53 am
That’s not correct, Phil Watts, the good thing is that I was commenting on this very post (which all can see) to which I received the reply’s in January well before “skeptic” in February suggested someone in post “26” set this type of thing up,
I also am not happy with you putting my personal details on this page without my permission after that personal tirade you unleashed on me which I took photos of, and cannot believe you said that.
I have put many thousand of dollars and time into the project and one day you will understand that , especially seeing as you have set up the same site with “founder” on the end of it.
As I said I wish you all the luck in the world Phil, but don’t talk crap, seriously.
Comment by dominic — Tue 3rd February 2015 @ 11:24 am