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

Not Sure

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 5:23 pm Thu 26th March 2015

I don’t know how to title this post.

Dive squad return to search for missing boy

It does need some discussion!

The Police Dive Squad is returning to Invercargill tonight as they search for a missing 11-year-old boy and his stepfather.

Mike Zhao-Beckenridge and his estranged step-father John Beckenridge have been missing for around two weeks.

They’re thought to be in the Catlins.

Car parts connected to the disappearance have been found scattered along Curio Bay.

Inspector Kelvin Lloyd says dive team members will deploy an underwater camera in the bay tomorrow.

He says it’ll be attached to a helicopter, and they hope this will help get visual confirmation of what may be in the water.


  1. Hi – I think man x said everything I was thinking on my post a few weeks back, there is certainly more than meets the eye on this case.

    Comment by goose — Thu 26th March 2015 @ 8:47 pm

  2. I don’t think it does need discussion at this time.
    I hope either step-father or boy have read and studied Ronald Jorgenson’s “accident / escape from parole in 1984.
    That I am sure is also the hope mum is holding onto in this case.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 26th March 2015 @ 9:09 pm

  3. Hopefully the boy and step dad are ok. There is more to this by way of background than meets the eye. The mother most likley deserves to know they are well (assuming they are) I say most likley because I assume that the mother is, sane and is capable of putting the child’s needs before her own. If she is a drug addled nut case or has serious problems then perhaps we need to look to the system and process as to why such a desperate act by the step father.

    Comment by Brad — Tue 31st March 2015 @ 11:04 pm

  4. The youngster is believed to be with his stepfather, who was unhappy with a family court decision, which allowed Mike and his mother move to Invercargill about a month ago.
    Mike Zhao-Beckenridge, 11, has been missing since March 13.
    Fairfax applied to the Family Court to access the Beckenridge judgment but Judge Christina Cook declined the application today. However, the judge allowed publication of her reasons, saying she needed to balance the welfare and best interests of Mike and his mother.
    The 11-year-old’s mother is considered a “protected person” under the Care of Children Act.
    Judge Cook said the court proceedings were not as a result of domestic violence but were under the Care of Children Act. A decision was made, following specialist advice, to change the care of Mike to his mother “due to findings that Mike had been alienated in the care of Mr Beckenridge.”
    Beckenridge’s car has been found submerged in rough waters below a cliff near Curio Bay, Southland, although there has been no confirmation by police if anything is inside.
    Judge Cook said Beckenridge – who has several aliases – did not fully participate in the court proceedings, hence the decision to transfer Mike’s care to his mother.
    “Given the whereabouts of Mike is still unknown and that the judgment contains personal details of the family, I am not prepared to release the judgment at this time.
    “My principal concern is that when Mike is located, the publication of the decision may create further stress and trauma. I am not satisfied that an order releasing the judgment will promote the welfare and best interests of the child. I am also of the view that the family’s privacy, and that of [the mother] in particular, needs to be protected at this time.”
    Beckenridge and his step-son have been missing since March 13.
    Police believe the car went over the cliff at Curio Bay and dropped about 88 metres into the water below.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 3rd April 2015 @ 1:47 pm

  5. The stepfather did not fully participate in the proceedings.

    Following specialist advice – the boy has been alienated.

    A couple of things come to mind, was the specialist advise a family court appointed psychologist?

    Why did the stepfather not participate?

    Clearly our first thought is for the 11 year old boy, for his care, happiness and wellbeing.

    A family court appointed psychologist once said, the mother has not bonded with the children, the father applied to the court to become the primary care giver, three months after the first report and two weeks prior to the hearing the same psychologist produced an update to the first report and it claimed that the mother had now bonded with the children (imagine that, in 12 weeks the mother had gone from not bonding to bonding yet with no professional intervention)Primary care remained with the mother and the time the children were in the care of the father was reduced. The children were a worse position with their education facility obtaining the input of the Ministry of Education Psychologist.

    The father wrote to their court appointed lawyer several times who did nothing, he couldn’t even get off his arse to call the teachers.

    Things became worse for the children, the father applied to the court to have the psychologist come back.

    Judge Ellis directed it

    I allege Judge Johnson changed the directions a month later and made findings with no evidence.

    The father applied in writing three times to have a judges conference.

    Four months later her honour judge Ulrich directed that the matter be referred to her honor Judge Johnson again. By then the boy had been having serious difficulties for 6 months after judge Ellis’s directions.

    The father sent the background to principal judge Boshier’s office.
    Judges conference in 10 days, extra time with the father and the same psychologist cameback 4 months later and said, the mother hasn’t bonded with the boy after all. Quick more time with the father.

    Counsel for the children; Peter Harrison – Harrison Law.
    The psychologist in all 3 reports; Joe Leach.

    Conclusion, the mother had not bonded with the boy in particular and the second report was simply to ensure that the primary care did not shift to the father.

    The children were in a stressed and anxious state for far longer than they should have been.

    Counsel for the child could have done something but did not.

    The court appointed psychologist reported bloody nonsense and I say this was what the court wanted in order to provide the court with the evidence to make a predetermined outcome that was not in the children’s best interest.

    Could it be a similar type of report/advise in this matter?
    Perhaps the stepfather didn’t participate due to a total lack of faith in the Family Court Process?

    Comment by flimflam — Sun 5th April 2015 @ 12:58 am

  6. Gents, Interesting feedback and all very close to the mark. I have lived beside the guy for the past 5 odd years and he lived soley to do stuff for and with his son. At last a story that comes close to the mark has surfaced but I really appreciate some of the comments above as I am sure John will whenever he maybe..

    Comment by Ant — Sun 5th April 2015 @ 11:02 am

  7. made findings with no evidence

    99% evidence-free or 100% evidence-free?

    As fast as medicine is trying to move to a situations where all decisions, if queried, have sufficient supporting research to back them up as being the best evidence based option.

    As fast as medicine is moving forward, the familycaught$, which prides itself on it’s evidence-free basis, drifts inexoriably backwards for everything, except invoicing……

    I suggest that the fathers who have lost all faith in the familycaught$, have generally been astute and well informed.

    Their actions don’t engender them to the dull public.
    However, I would like to know what Mr. Joe Public would do in the same circumstances?

    The worst such example of familycaught$ and District Caught judges only criticising where help was needed, was the Palmerston North mother of an autistic daughter (Casey Albury). She had exhausted all sources of help and was sent from pillar to post, to get help from someone else, anyone else….

    History shows that our society is very, very slow to learn from glaringly harsh situations which break many people. The Ashburton WINZ murders were by a frustrated homeless man, who saw WINZ support being quickly and freely given to women and he was left for many months sleeping rough and sleeping in his car, with no prospect of ever obtaining healthy, comfortable housing.

    It seems that many such incidents are required, before the underlying issues can ever start to be addressed.

    There is no appropriate level of response.
    Just ender-response and over-reaction.
    Most sheeples respond with under-response and the suffering is far extended, for themself and for all of the other people in similar situations.

    This suggests that to stoicly wait, in harsh and cruel circumstances, only increases many people’s suffering.

    Applying John Stuart Mill’s approach suggests that more people should quickly directly face the selective cruelty and respond with as much drama as is required to finally get an appropriate response.

    Do men bleed, if they are cut?
    Can men feel pain, if their plight is ignored and ignored and ignored and ignored?
    Why do some people think it is proper to ignore men’s pain?
    Equal rights, just they are not actually available for men?

    Time for me to go back to my jail cell….

    Love and kisses,
    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 5th April 2015 @ 8:44 pm

  8. De ja vu – I have the same feeling as when Kay Skelton’s boy was missing.

    The familycaught$ generally wanted to keep their heartless mercenary activities under wraps, but Judge Bashier did the sensible and constructive public policy thing and made the relevant judgements available to media.

    This was fairly quickly clamped down on, to protect the profitability of the corruptions in the familycaught$.

    Actually, if all of the judgements had been available to media, as the case progressed, all of the terrible things that happened around the child, could have been stopped and the child would have ended up with a much better upbringing. Also, Kay Skelton could have been saved from being tempted into perjury and the child would not have been denied his mother, due to her being in jail for a year.

    The only “winners” from the secrecy, were the legal workers.

    Are we going to soon see (again) a child’s unnecessary suffering and loss of a good upbringing, legal workers milking families blind and a father being denied authentic access to familycaught$ protecting the relationship with his child?

    Time for action, for a real Family Court, as envisaged so long ago by Judge Trapsky, Judge Inglis and Judge Bashier? (bless their cotton picking socks!)

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 5th April 2015 @ 8:57 pm

  9. missing=not saying the blunt truth.
    He had been abducted by his mother, to vandalise his relationship with his long suffering father.

    The dangerous mother was vandalising her son’s identity, to serve her own crazy, perverted interests.

    Funny how the familycaught$ seems to so often side with relationship vandal parents. As far as I can see, they are only relationship vandals themselves.

    But it does not have to be this way……

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 6th April 2015 @ 12:40 pm

  10. Thanks to all for the comments and thinking. Especially Ant (#6) for personal knowledge relevant to this case and for the Sunday Star / Southland Times article that essentially highlights how unnecessary and sexist the police response was in turning this into the debacle of a nationwide fox-hunt. We can be grateful that some news organisations remain willing to exercise their limited freedom to inform the public in the face of the general trend towards feminist indoctrination.

    Allan (#4), what was the source of this news item you appear to have posted? Your information provides some interesting insights into the workings of the Family Court under our family law. Firstly, it refers to the mother being a ‘protected person under the Care of Children Act’. The only reference to the term ‘protected person’ in that act was in relation to people such as refugees from other countries, so that could be what that’s about. Can anyone shed any light on this?

    Secondly , Judge Christina Cook said

    Beckenridge – who has several aliases – did not fully participate in the court proceedings, hence the decision to transfer Mike’s care to his mother.

    This is significant. It tells us that one of the main reasons that care of the child was transferred to the mother was because the stepfather did not ‘fully participate’ in the FC proceedings. So it’s not the ‘welfare and best interests of the child’, but the degree to which a parent plays the FC’s game that determines the Court’s decisions. This criterion will be yet another part of the process in which anti-male sexism plays a part, in that any perceived lacking in a man’s cooperation will be treated much more seriously than the same from a female. We have often heard accounts from men highlighting these issues. A father shows some disrespect to Lawyer for the Children, or doesn’t bend over backwards enough to fit in with the lawyer’s appointment times etc, and that lawyer then turns against that father and uses her/his unjustified influence in further proceedings to shut the father out of his children’s lives. Or, a father refuses to submit to ‘assessment’ by some (feminist, arrogant) Court psychologist and this is then used to justify wrecking his relationship with his children. Our family law does not include special provisions to protect litigants or children against damage caused by (a) over-emphasis on protecting children from alleged risks that are a default assumption unless and until safety is proven (in medicine, this approach would lead to heart surgery by default unless some minor alleged symptom is proven not to indicate heart disease), and (b) personal reactions from judges, lawyers and psychologists biasing them against either or both parents. Such problems can be predicted for any institution with power, so it’s surprising that there seems to be no recognition of those risks and their potential to cause serious harm to our children.

    Also, what did Judge Cook mean by ‘fully participate’. This may well have meant that the stepfather refused to meet the psychologist. Surely, if careful decisions to benefit the child were the aim, the Court’s people could have worked with the stepfather to obtain the requisite level of participation. Unfortunately though, any reassurance that the Court will give a father a fair hearing will be most unlikely to be justified.

    Also interesting is that the psychologist in this case decided that parental alienation had occurred, and that the Court accepted this as another reason to change day-to-day care to the ‘alienated parent’. How many men have had their children alienated against them by vindictive or selfish ex-partners, only to have their claims of alienation dismissed by the appointed psychologist, or ignored by the Court, or even the very concept of alienation disputed on the basis of the professional literature? But when it’s a mother who claims to be alienated, anti-male bias means the Court people are much more likely to agree with her and to allow this to influence decisions about the children.

    It’s easy to guess why the judge in this case doesn’t want the proceedings to be scrutinized by the public. The sexism and inadequacy would be far too obvious to anyone with half a brain.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 19th April 2015 @ 11:48 am

  11. Post 4 comes from a Southland times article.
    The wording is directly from the news story.
    Mum had a protection order against the step-father is my assumption hence by definition there are s60 issues under Care of Children Act (2004) and especially the amendments of the last few years.
    This case is interesting. Clearly the boy is very comfortable with his step-father but our legislation is not very considering of the step-parenting role and if no biology exists then Court is very unlikely to consider day-to-day care or even contact against the biological parents wishes (read alienation if you wish).
    I suspect that is the “bias” in this case in the Family Court being about biology rather than neccesarily sexism.
    However the Family Court provides much evidence from it’s decisions that it takes a slanted opinion. Last stats I saw was 4% of cases that went as far as a judges decision day-to-day care went to the male parent and just 11% of decisions resulted in a shared care decision.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 19th April 2015 @ 2:55 pm


    Children who live with just one parent after a family break-up suffer from more problems such as headaches, stomach aches, feelings of tension and sadness than those whose parents share custody, research has found.

    A study carried out in Sweden compared how children were affected by living with both parents, only one parent, mostly one parent, or by dividing their time between both in joint custody – and found that children in the latter category suffered from fewer psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent.

    Youngsters living with both parents in a nuclear family set-up had the lowest score of all on the Psychosomatic Problems scale – which also measured issues such as children’s concentration, difficulties with sleeping, dizziness and loss of appetite.

    The proportion of children who said they “often” or “always” had the different symptoms assessed on the scale was highest among those who lived with just one parent.

    Overall, girls reported more psychosomatic problems than boys.

    The study authors said that joint custody has become more common in Sweden in recent years, rising from about 1 per cent to 2 per cent in the mid-1980s to up to 40 per cent of children with separated parents in 2010.

    Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show the number of divorces in England and Wales in 2012 was 118,140, affecting just under 100,000 children under the age of 16.

    The researchers, who analysed 150,000 children aged 12 and 15 in Sweden, pointed out that several previous studies have established children with divorced or separated parents are more likely to suffer emotional problems and social maladjustment.

    “The practice of joint physical custody, that is, children spending equal time in the respective homes of their separated parents, has become more frequent in Western countries over the past decade,” they said.

    “At the same time, there has been an increase in self-reported pediatric psychosomatic symptoms. Child health experts have argued that joint physical custody imposes stress.”

    The study, led by the Centre for Health Equity Studies (Chess) at Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet, is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

    Comment by Kumar — Tue 28th April 2015 @ 2:05 pm

  13. Bergström, M., Fransson, E., Modin, B., Berlin, M., Gustafsson, P-A & Hjern, A. (2015). Fifty moves a year – is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children? Accepted for publication in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
    I suspect this is the paper mentioned.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 28th April 2015 @ 6:26 pm

  14. These authors have an even more apt study from 2013.
    They conclude;

    Children who spent equal time living with both parents after separation reported better well-being than children in predominantly in single parent care.

    The study is available for download at

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 28th April 2015 @ 6:50 pm

  15. we have had a same incident with judge Christina cook alienation apparently when the parenting order was being followed not only was jusge Christina cook involved in this incident but Debbie bryan-lamb and the so called childs lawyer shelley gray now clapperton.

    Comment by andy — Wed 13th January 2016 @ 10:30 am

  16. In the Becenbridge case the judge released some information suggesting the father was alienating the child.
    Clearly the child was happy to leave school, and go with his step-father against the decision of the Court. The child was of secondary school age and able to make decisions but the family court felt it better he be in his mother’s care despite her relocation of 200kms. The end result has been tragic for all. Even if the boy and his father are living outside New Zealand both have suffered loss and ongoing fear that will impact greatly on their quality of life.
    Alienation is never helpful to children. Unless there are extremely unusual circumstances the best parent after separation is BOTH parents.
    If you are saying Andy that you are the alienating parent then stop. If the other parent is alienating then you being their for your children, and not critising mum, will be helpful to them. That is the most positive action you can take in a difficult situation. I wish you well in doing what is right even though that may be extremely hard.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 14th January 2016 @ 12:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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