There have been several posts recently where non-custodial parents have had difficulties in being heard at all in familycaught$.

One of the dishonest manipulations, for taking sole custody (the concept of sole custody was repealed in Care of Children Act passed by Parliament in 2004, but not familycaught$) is the without-evidence Protection Order.

Time has moved forward, the real world is progressing and NZ caught$ generally have moved backwards too. Leading the backwards charge, is familycaught$, by proclaiming itself a learning organisation. Sure, I have seen their ability to mangle money out of families develop into a Crusher level of skill. In terms of protecting anybody at all, I have only seen them protect their own paramount financial interests.

Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.

Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
Remember – Caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.

So the following experience is just to help non-custodial people (the concept of custody was repealed in Care of Children Act passed by Parliament in 2004, but not familycaught$) to deal realistically with familycaught$.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The guy who wrote this is an idiot – I know!
He wasted $800 on legal workers, through 20 years, due to lacking full knowledge about familycaught$. Would have got better value from sex workers.
The judge involved is probably the second or third best familycaught$ judge NZ has ever had. He has done far less damage than all of the others and I believe played a role in writing Care of Children Act, even if he couldn’t ever bring it into force. This Act was a significant advance in child protection, but other jurisdictions can show that in practice. I believe that his judgement is fundamentally misleading. People who read his published judgement, without reading the idiot’s application, would be easily misled. The first step to protecting children is honesty, not invoicing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If anyone has mental health difficulties after reading the judgement below the application, contact me and I will send you a photograph of a psychologist.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not suggesting that anyone should be dishonest with judges, or with any fellow citizens, let alone a fellow parent.
However, while dealing in good faith, it is wise to protect yourself from the harm that these people might be able to do to you, through their erratic, unpredictable, stupid, ignorant or irrelevant behaviour.

I do want the familycaught$ service to be successful in serving families and protecting children.
This can easily be done, using pretty much existing legislation, with only minor changes and many tens of thousands of deletions.
Judges would have to be honest, be willing to serve and have to take responsibility for their decisions.
They would be paid according to the quality of their work, not by the hour as at present. Unless their incentives are sorted out, they will never change their spots. In any case, by specifying that judges must have relevant skills, not a single existing judge could be retained in a reformed Family Court.
Submission for Review of Family Court
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________