Family Court Lawyers ‘Feral’
Steve Taylor, who is eighth on the Conservative list, and will make it to Parliament if the party gets 6-7 per cent of the vote, is vowing to advocate for “radical change to the fractured and toxic matrix that is the New Zealand Family Court” if he is elected. He also promises to name offenders who have name suppression.
Taylor said in his experience as a counsellor and advocate for Family Court users, “I have observed some Family Court lawyers to be a subculture of the New Zealand legal profession, an almost feral breed of people who seem oblivious to the damage they can and do visit upon vulnerable families and children, via their own self-imposed ignorance and corporate and collegial arrogance.”
A prominent Queen’s Counsel, Paul Mabey, said Taylor was not fit to enter Parliament.
Who was the little angel that threatened this magazine when the story broke Court of Injustice?
Related Post – Steve Taylors Press Release
… and for a bit of light reading try Jail for Texting
… and while we’re labelling people unfit, let’s not forget Mahoney’s Vacuum Cleaners
Sounds like a bit of a wide accusation from Mr Maybey – it would appear he has failed to prove his case.
Comment by Had_A_Go — Sun 14th September 2014 @ 9:22 am
Steve Taylor is amazing!
His comments may be wayout, by the standards of pigs at the Government funded trough, but I haven’t heard one concerned parent criticising him?
My earlier comments about conflicts of interest still seem to apply:
It would appear that maybe Mr Maybey has a lot to lose, if the familycaught$ and legal workers were ever reduced to working only for the value that they deliver?
When the Building Act was corrupted, by legal worker MPs, to restrict building inspections, requirements for clear plans and the guarantees made worthless, 90% of builders still build excellent quality buildings. If they hadn’t, leaky buildings would be a $200 billion problem, instead of only $20 billion.
May I suggest that when trustworthiness is required, get your builder to assemble your legal documents or check them for watertightness, or to check into how well your children are protected from stepparents…….
The maybes of this world could be kept for ceremonial duties, where trustworthiness isn’t needed much….
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 14th September 2014 @ 3:28 pm
Does anyone think the conservative will get 8 seats?
Plus, we already have radical change in the Family Court. I don’t think there’s enough information on the ‘new changes’ to make judgement. (IMO)
Good spin though. A lot don’t keep up with change.
Comment by julie — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 3:42 am
Hi All,
Thanks for the feedback.
The recent FC changes were cosmetic at best you simply had a bunch of FC Lawyers complete a three day Mediation Training course at AMINZ, and Voila! They are mediators.
The reality of the transition is that you have Lawyers ingrained in adversary who last about 15 minutes in a mediation desperately trying to mediate, not having the skill set to do so, and then reverting to adversarial type.
Families and children are still getting systemically brutalised – and yes, 8 seats is now a distinct possibility – it equates to 6% of the Party Vote – we’re tracking at around 4% at the moment, and increasing.
I now expect to be in Parliament by the end of the week.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 7:31 am
Mabey is the Lawyer representing this guy, who I have vowed to name first under Parliamentary privilege:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10237131/Police-mishandle-assault-on-11-year-old
Mabey thus has motive to try and shut me down.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 7:33 am
Steve Taylor, your motive to expose the man, you claim Mr Mabey represented, under Parliamentary privilege flies in the face of what MENZ stands for I would have thought. By doing so you clearly have not thought about the impact of naming this man has on the fundamental importance of protecting a father-child relationship. Clearly, the Judge takes the interests of the child into account, and other third parties such as any other brothers or sisters that might be adversely affected by lifting name suppression. You are clearly intent on ruining this man/father whose son deserves an opportunity to heal with his father and whose other children deserve the protection of the law. There is nothing to be gained from the “victims” point of view. Your threats are self-serving and will do more harm than good. In addition, in your professional capacity as a counsellor it is abhorrent that you show a history of reckless disregard for the privacy and safety of children who are innocent parties to your self-serving campaign.
Comment by Rynae Butler — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 3:55 pm
Thank you Rynae. I was hoping someone would take Steve to task over this.
It’s the last thing I wanted to see from him; it’s as vindictive and as unnecessary as removing prisoner’s voting rights.
For all that Judith Collins has done wrong (and she has IMO) she once said to me that interference in family relationships by the state doesn’t achieve a lot, and she is right, it doesn’t, and the suggestion that Steve would continue this under the right of parliamentary privilege isn’t helpful.
When he called the Family Court ‘feral’ I couldn’t agree more, but when he came out with the concept that he would shame individual fathers under parliamentary privilege, he is no more fit for parliament than a man who would apologise for being a man.
Now, I find myself forced to agree with Maybe, and I don’t appreciate him putting me in that position.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 4:33 pm
I agree with Rynae that threatening to expose this family “flies in the face of what MENZ stands for”.
I can’t see any way this could be argued to be in the boy’s best interest, in fact there seems to be a high probability that the relationship with his father would be damaged further by this action.
I support many of the principles promoted by the Conservatives, but this sort of “name and shame” policy makes then unelectable in my opinion.
I would love to see someone in parliament who recognises that “families and children are still getting systemically brutalised”, but Steve’s attitude suggests we would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 5:18 pm
#4 Steve Taylor,
May I ask you to list which churches don’t have the contract to mediate? I am thinking it might be smaller than the list of churches that do.
Also, if lawyers are mediating, then why are last year law students learning lawyers are not in the mediation?
Which Maori and Pacific Island groups have government contract to mediate? Are they going to use European lawyers if they are, as you say, using lawyers?
I don’t think you know what you are talking about, personally. But then you’re a politician and I am a mere community worker. lol Our wage difference alone should tell you would know more than I.
Comment by julie — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 11:31 pm
I should be fair and say I know we have mediator lawyers and have had for years. Separating parents, from my experience, use them instead of going to court. They are also popular in America.
I remember that men’s advocates were interviewed and had a say about changes. I didn’t, but Birthright did (their CEO was a mediator lawyer).
I think we need to see what the changes bring. National allowed every interest group (but not everybody) to help set up the changes.
I am not voting conservative by the way but I am not anti the party either, or Steve who I don’t know.
Comment by julie — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 11:41 pm
Fundamental to the issues you have raised is consent of the victims.
Naming under Parliamentary privilege would require victim consent to do so.
I have the victims consent to do so.
Same goes for Counselling: nothing happens without client consent, so there is no ethical issue at play here.
I suspect I’m also the only person on this forum who has access to the Court documents, and the people involved, for the cases mentioned in the media – so I’m also the only one in possession of the full story.
At the end of the day, one can vent powerlessly from the side-lines on issues of the day, or one can step up, and do something about the issues of the day, and do so within a forum that has real power to effect meaningful change.
I’ve decided to step up.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 3:55 am
Julie: Only one firm has a Govt contract to mediate under the new Family Court changes:
http://www.fairwayresolution.com/node/30
Here is a search list of ancillary service providers:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/family-justice/service-providers
Julie, I’ve been tracking the Family Court changes since they were first raised as an option by (then) Justice Minister Simon Power in 2011.
My advocacy for Family Court Consumers grew out of my own Private Practice (around 15,000 hours of face to face Counselling work), and 17 years working in the Social Service industry.
I don’t know what I’m talking about? Tell that to these people:
http://24-7.org.nz/practice-feedback
Comment by Steve Taylor — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 4:06 am
Well, this is interesting.
It is bad enough we have the Family Court legally crucifying the father, the IRD financially crucifying the father but now your want to add the political.
You’re definitely in the wrong party.
The coalition bottom line of the Conservatives is section 59. That puts you in direct conflict with your party’s main platform and with conflicting definitions of ‘family’.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 8:32 am
I’m impressed to see you promote “client directed, outcome-informed, evidence-based practice“, Steve.
However I’m unable to identify the theoretical rationale, or the research which supports “blame and shame” as a therapeutic technique. Can you please enlighten me?
I note this in a recent Guardian article Proposed family violence name and shame laws fall short, lawyers say:
Comment by JohnPotter — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 9:32 am
I feel out of my depth to be talking about ‘big issues’ that are dealt with by the executive body being government but I will at least gain experience if I dare take the risk, lol.
The way I see it, is that John Key is the the type of leader who pulls in all departments and all divisions to be a part of decision making.
To me, the executive body decided to make changes using reasons like, “These departments and divisions are not self sustaining. They need to be self sustaining for a smaller government, smaller government funding, etc”.
Then, departments and divisions have to work out the details. I asked both IRD and the Family Law centre in Wellington to speak at a conference for single parents last November. Both said they were trying to get their head around ideas, imput (from interest groups, researchers, etc) and what ever else goes in the mix, so they were unable to present it. Instead I went with sociologists who shared great information, IMO. It wasn’t a loss.
Anyways, even when I phone now, I am told they are still ironing out the finer details.
Sure you can nit pick and find faults and you will be able to do that for some time. Yet, it would be more productive, IMO, to help with solutions.
……….
When it comes to imput from interest groups, I am wrapped the men are being included. That gives fairness, more options for justice, balance, plus. It’s a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 12:39 pm
This woman has permanent name suppression, what do you think Mr White Knight?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 4:35 pm
Sometimes mediating before the event can be more productive.
The rules don’t lay out basic rights.
Or how they can be removed.
Law is wishy washy, Meaning that even when the same thing happens in and to different court cases, the outcome can be different based on who the defendant is, what they look like, how good or bad the lawyers are, and how good or bad the decision maker is.
We had a law that said Equal Role and Responsibility.
I however learnt the hard way that the legal system can even turn that into bullshit.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 5:39 pm
#12 Steve Taylor
Thank you for your hard work.
It is your desire to act with bias for good.
Even if you were to fail, that is good work.
Have faith that your desire to be and do good, it will in the long run, create positive change.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 5:49 pm
#15 Julie
Is it better to put all the bad things on the table. Like costs and harms.
Or is to put all the good things on the table. Like benefits, and improvements.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 6:08 pm
#16 Downunder
The crown has the right to give name suppression if it likes.
Apply #17 #18 #19 to get the result.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 6:13 pm
#19 TMIA,
Just the fact you think one of these ways yourself, I like you.
IMO, neither of those are put on the table because people involved in decision making don’t know what happens to people in the long run. They don’t know the harm or cost or benefits or improvements. They simply care about ideology, ego, $$$, hate, … benefits to their own mental, psychological, financial, etc well-being.
Heck, some are outright dishonest and know their clients need what they won’t offer. (I said some, not all)
Soooo, which one do you think? 🙂
Comment by julie — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 7:54 pm
I just want to add to my comment #21 that in all professions is ‘science and art’.
I think once the decisions are made, once the mindset is set, then those working with clients will work out the even finer details (the art of it all).
………
I am sorry Steve for not following your links or what you are actually doing well. If John Potter and others think you are doing great, then I’ll take their word as men’s advocates.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 8:48 pm
Re #11 Steve Taylor. A fundamental issue is that you look upon parliamentary privilege as a cowardly opportunity to harm a family … a father-son relationship. Who are you Steve Taylor, to determine what is in the best interests of the child?
Contest the independent role of the judiciary and dump the importance of comity? God help us if you get in.
Where do you get the idea that consent from victims permits you to use Parliamentary Privilege – can you back up that proposition with any authority?
By victims I presume you mean to include a boy who has not reached the age of consent. Disturbing to hear a counsellor/so-called “social outcome researcher” /political wannabe exploiting a child’s vulnerability for his own benefit. But that’s no surprise when we look at your tacky track record of exhibiting photographs of someone else’s children to humiliate and viciously attack their parent.
Comment by Rynae Butler — Tue 16th September 2014 @ 9:26 pm
Hi Rynae:
Firstly: By linking to a defamatory, anonymous authors attack website, which has published alleged Court suppressed material, and that is now subject to a Police investigation, you have now exposed this forum to action by the Crown.
Secondly: A Press Council complaint is being submitted to the Press Council for the gross inaccuracy Tony Wall of the Sunday Star Times wrote in his first “hit piece” against me: there are multiple posters and authors at http://www.nzfamilycourt.com and I am not responsible for the photos, which were in the public domain, and form the identity icon of a publically available Facebook page. My Lawyer is also investigating the legal threshold for incitement against Tony Wall & the Sunday Star Times, as both my family & I have received threats that are directly related to that first article. These threats are now being investigated by Police, and at least one of them was from a person associated with the Family Court system.
Thirdly: The child is Gillick competent, and the testimony of same was accepted as legitimate court evidence, and even if they were not Gillick competent, parental consent is sufficient.
Fourthly: If any person here wishes to defend this behaviour, and argue that name suppression, and a discharge without conviction is a just outcome for this child, please post in defence of same:
“The offender, a Tauranga professional in his 50s involved in charity work, has subsequently pleaded guilty to charges of breaching protection and parenting orders by making unauthorised contact with his son. He will be sentenced in the Auckland District Court later this month.
The boy told police that after a dispute over a phone in November, 2012, his father slammed his head twice on to the concrete floor of their garage, dragged him up some stairs, banged him against the walls, dragged him across the lounge floor, sat him down and slammed his head on to the kitchen table.
He ran from the address, went to his grandmother’s house and was taken to Tauranga Hospital with bruising to his neck and arms and swelling and bruising to his head.
He also complained of headaches and sore eyes and according to his mother, still suffers headaches, nausea and fatigue”.
Fifth: Parliamentary privilege is absolute – the authority is the 1908 Legislature Act, S 242.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:17 am
John: You commit a logical fallacy in your post, illegitimately welding “therapeutic technique” to “just outcome”.
You also affirm an ideological bias via your reference source – a Lawyer.
If you are going to attempt to attack me in a specific role -then be specific.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:20 am
Down under; You seem to wish to raise a defence for the father.
He has pleaded guilty to the assault, and his sons’ testimony convicts him, even if the Police and Court couldn’t get it’s act together to do so.
I have posted the media commentary of what occurred:
I’m now eager to hear your defence of same.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:24 am
John, if father – child relationship restoration is your goal, then perhaps the first thing the father could do is go and apologise to his son, and overall stop acting like someone who doesn’t actually value familial relationships at all?
Humility is a great healer.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:28 am
Downunder: I don’t care about the gender of the offender – name suppression laws in this country need to be radically reviewed.
Comment by Steve Taylor — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:29 am
The Internet trolls “anonymous” poster is this guy, Mr Grant Norman King, who as a result of me bringing him to justice, would I suspect now qualify as NZ’s poser-boy for fraud:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10081333/Judge-backs-bloggers-fight-against-fraud
Comment by Steve Taylor — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:55 am
I hardly need to reply, you’ve said it for me.
The Gillick Decision is a House of Lords decision in which the court held that ‘parental rights’ did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor.
It related to consent [to medical treatment] and more specifically came about because of contraception, but it also said this:
Comment by Downunder — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 7:29 am
Thank you for your responses Steve. I have removed the link to the nzinternettrolls website posted by Rynae Butler as I consider it does nothing to advance this particular discussion.
I know very little about the Tauranga father you are threatening to expose, and what I have read suggests that there may indeed be something dodgy going on.
My issue is with what I perceive to be the Conservative Party support for publicly blaming and shaming as a method of dealing with family violence. My concern is that this is the top of a slippery slope that leads to lynch mobs and witch-burning.
I am also uncomfortable to find myself in the position of agreeing with a Family Court Lawyer over the views of someone like yourself who is a perceptive and experienced critic of the way justice is administered in this arena.
I agree with you that there is a conflict between the principle of evidence-based “therapeutic technique” and “just outcomes”. I suggest it is you who are confusing these two different roles.
For over 20 years my wife Felicity Goodyear-Smith has criticised feminist counsellors who manipulate their clients in order to advance an ideological agenda. She writes:
Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 8:26 am
I wasn’t actually raising the issue of gender but rather the seriousness of the ‘crime’.
If there is a problem with suppression laws, then that is a matter for debate, not an excuse for you to use particular persons you find objectionable (rather than the situations that you find objectionable) as fodder for the abuse of parliamentary privilege to raise the issue.
I would think it likely that someone doing this would be regarded as a ‘feral MP’ and referred to the privileges committee.
I haven’t read the parliamentary rule book, but given the nature of the extraordinary power of parliamentary privilege, I am quite sure there are some recommendations that you’ll be advised of in the unlikely event that you should find yourself in that position post election.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 8:38 am
Reply to # 11 Steve Taylor “Naming under Parliamentary privilege would require victim consent to do so.”
Please cite the authority in support of the proposition you make regarding the relevance you allege there is between victim consent and parliamentary privilege?
#32 DownUnder – well said.
Comment by Rynae Butler — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 9:26 am
That is a conflict I have encountered many times and an answer that has eluded me for many years, but I have never considered the possibility of it being an irreconcilable difference.
In doing so you immediately see the world from a different perspective.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 9:27 am
I fully support Steve, and after re enrolling for the first time since I was 18 years old, I am almost 40 now, my voting location just happens to be in Newlynn, so quess whos getting my first vote in over 20 years, STEVE TAYLOR, I hope they get in as labour and national have made mockery and slaughter of men and family through the pitiful NZ family court and the latest cosmetic change to the family court made absolutely no difference before and after and I speak from my own recent experience, The family court really is a useless as an ejector seat on a helicopter ! Go Steve.
Comment by Dominic da Silva — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 9:39 am
#24 Steve Taylor
you have now exposed this forum to action by the Crown.
Imagine the crown having to take on this site in a real courtroom.(cackle, cackle)
We should be allowed to retract if the mistake is an honest one don’t we.
Brave men can apologise for their mistakes.
Was it a political opinion?
Comment by The man in Absentia — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 5:46 pm
The irreconcilable conflict between evidence-gathering and therapy has not been understood – it is not possible to serve Hippocrates, the Healer, at the same time as Hammurabi, the Law-giver.
Prosecutions, Revenge
Defence, Avoidance.
Sin, Guilt.
Verdict, Justice.
The point is to maximise the gains for both parties.
It is balanced.
But you can bias it for good
Fear(law giver) god, god is love(healer)
It is an endless emotion.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 6:01 pm
Off topic, is there anyone who can help with a case that needs a response within 24 hours that was served today (Saturday morning)?
The mother abducted the children to Australia and they have been returned but she continues to makes allegation after allegation and he has answered them one by one which has been happening for over a year. While he answers them, he shows up the lies like revealing photoshopped evidence and things like a policeman helped her abduct the children, and on and on and on and on….. it goes.
This one is saying an off duty cop phoned the police 2 years ago and made an allegation saying he saw dad beating up one of the daughters while driving. An on duty policeman saw his car and pulled him over. He wrote ‘nothing further to investigate’.
Now 2 years later, dad has been served with a ‘without notice application’ on Saturday morning saying he has 24 hours to respond. Is there anyone who can help today?
Also, CYF has been phoned over and over again with allegations and one by one he has had to answer to them while fighting to get his file and IMO, it is unbelievable what things they can now come up with.
The 4 girls are 6, 8, 12 and 14. Initially, the mother robbed the father and ran to Australia because she was in trouble with the serious fraud squad. She just walked out and left him the children when they were very young, even one in nappies.
Then, 3 years later, she wanted to see the children and dad flew them to Aussie to spend time with her. She decided she didn’t want to give them back and since then she just makes life a living hell and makes as many allegations as possible while using all different courts so they can’t put the pieces together. Now they want to completely wipe all the past documents and start again because she’s been exposed too often to make allegations stick.
Can someone help, please? [email protected]
Btw, all psychologists reports say dad is fine. Rape allegations, grooming allegations, hitting kids allegations, etc, etc, etc have all been dealt with as they come. It’s such a mess with lawyers acting very badly too.
Comment by julie — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 10:46 am
The dad above is fearful he may make a mistake even though he has answered this a year ago. He thinks they are looking for a technical error, or to provoke a word or sentence that can be used against him.
The problem, simply, is that other people, police and lawyers are also getting into trouble for fraudulent documents and their part in helping the mother. Everyone is trying to care for themselves so they don’t get into trouble.
He needs someone just to show him how to answer this the right way. Normally he doesn’t get to answer accusations this way. Normally the children are interviewed at school, etc and he has social workers at his door, etc. I am referring him to Paul’s news.
Comment by julie — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 10:56 am
Can anyone advise what has happened to lawgate and cyfswatch?
Comment by mopardad — Sat 3rd January 2015 @ 9:24 am
Steve Taylor is a mere cyber bully. He affects the lives of people by cyber bullying and making outrageous false allegations. When my daughter was 14yrs old he stalked her at a horseshow like a snake hidden between the grass just for a pic for his website. Presently got his sights set on us again has made threats to us how capable and dangerous his bullying can be. He hides behind his role as a counsellor to bludge off government funding to finance his cyber bullying. Be warned. Steve Taylor is dangerous and I’m so glad Colin Craig and the Conservative party deemed him unfit to stand for a parliamentary role. His behaviour needs to be stopped. Regards Karina and Mike Edmonds.
Comment by Karina and Mike Edmonds — Mon 1st February 2016 @ 10:43 pm
Thanks for taking the time to warn us Karina and Mike.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 6:56 am
Comment by Downunder — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 7:44 am