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

Urgent: Precedents for Custody Retrials

Filed under: General — sharingiscaring @ 12:53 pm Wed 7th October 2015

Just found out that at 0900 tomorrow morning I must represent myself in an Urgent Application for the retrial of my Children’s Custody Trial which took place last week.

All my statements and that of my eight witnesses were disallowed* by the Court so a very one sided custody trial took place. Only the mothers evidence was heard and only her witnesses were heard.

Does anyone know of any precedents for retrials thank you?

Please help.
Sharing is Caring

* they won an application that all our evidence must be resubmitted and my lawyer neglected to mention it until the deadline had passed.


  1. Sorry can’t help but I suggest u get a real lawyer

    Comment by V.O.F.M — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 1:24 pm

  2. If you would like, give me a call on 6387275 and I may be able to offer some help.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 1:59 pm

  3. I have sympathy for your position.
    Some things can’t be fixed.
    I am not a fan of custody, believing in 50/50 shared care. Custody unjustly shames the failed parent.
    It is always important that the person who represents you ensures the integrity of you position in proceedings is fair.
    Clearly your lawyer has failed in this obligation.

    You could ask for a delay in proceedings so you can get a new lawyer, due to the mistake caused by the first one.

    Other things I have noticed, but I imagine a judge will not cope with the arguments.

    Bill of Rights
    Section 25 (relates to crimes, but the family court is the same, but wear a different skirt)

    (a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:
    That is an inherent fault of the court, but the ‘right to a fair’ part is missing for you. They have destroyed your evidence. (I assume on a technicality)

    (e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:
    You may be present but they have destroyed your defence in advance. The statement of a witness is not altered by the intimacies of a paper creating process.
    (f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:
    Did they destroy her witnesses as well? Are the conditions biased? Prosecutions can have witnesses, but the defence cannot, is not justice. That is a corrupt proceeding.

    27 Right to justice
    “¢ (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
    (2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.

    Obviously the natural justice standard will be missing from proceedings.
    Stop proceedings by asking for a judicial review of the decision to throw out your witnesses using (2).

    Pertaining to a custody proceeding (I’m not a fan, 50/50 please)
    9 Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
    “¢ Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment

    A custody decision between 2 people, who are not criminals that are banned from being near children always fails this condition. Disproportionate, and to have 0% to the other is severe treatment. None of us are perfect, and variance from this is subjective, sometimes corrupted by culture (morals). Or with men in the family court, just good old fashioned bigotry. Is it degrading to you that they are judging you on your ability to be a parent? Based purely on the competency of the other party. What if you (the same man) were in proceedings with a lesser female and win. If you win that example why is it you lose the first example? You are the same man. Custody fights are an idiocy, on that basis.

    Another technical issue for you.
    21 Unreasonable search and seizure
    “¢ Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.
    They have in effect seized your correspondence. Do you have access to it (witness statements) in court? Were you involved in the proceeding when they destroyed your evidence? That would be unreasonable. Like a thief in the night.

    I recommend you ring Murray.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 3:00 pm

  4. Where in NZ is the case?
    You can contact me on [email protected] if you are not in Auckland.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 8th October 2015 @ 12:34 pm

  5. * “they won an application that all our evidence must be resubmitted and my lawyer neglected to mention it until the deadline had passed”


    Indeed – and there lies a major problem within the current system.

    Comment by MrFatsworth — Thu 8th October 2015 @ 7:27 pm

  6. Dear Sharing is Caring, I notice that what you have written above is presented carefully, sensibly and cautiously.

    Rejection of affidavits or applications by familycaught$ isn’t common. I have experienced it once, when I submitted rather sarcastic documents. I felt they were justified at the time. Now that much time has passed and I have cooled off a lot, I wish I had actually put in my earlier, much more incendiary draft, where I called a spade a fucking spade. This all might make me sound like a nutcase. Let there be no doubt, I am proud of it.

    I knew that the familycaught$ works with no real accountability system, no real complaints system and is just there to take real money off real people who are too lazy to check it out first. So telling them what I thought, in no uncertain terms was my form of protest at their incompetence and attitude to ethics.

    I was able to observe that what I said didn’t matter anyway, I had nothing to do with the proceedings, except to supply a cardboard cutout of a man, that served to be the opposing party, so that a ‘earless “hearing” could be theatrically run and improperly charged to Government.

    My real affidavit was rejected and that then gave me the opportunity to submit my earlier, incendiary draft. So I was well pleased with the poor pitiful “judges” response.

    Anyway, it was only about my children’s custody, so I wasn’t really that worried, as I could see how much reality and how much surreality and delusions were involved.

    It is very important to stay grounded in real world reality and protect yourself.
    It is only your real money that they are after.
    Judge the whole process for real competence at child protection and real value for money.
    Have no pride, that is just showing narcissistic weakness and “they” will take full advantage and your real money. (If you are not happy about value, don’t give them your money.)

    If the Care of Children Act 2004 was ever brought into operation, these types of games wouldn’t happen and parents wouldn’t be pitted against each other, until the family money has run out.

    Then their lack of interest shows what is really the paramount interest.
    If there was any honour in familycaught$, they wouldn’t be so $cared of public expo$ure.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 9th October 2015 @ 10:13 am

  7. Dang Murray Bacon I couldnt have said it better. That’s spot on for the femily caught

    Comment by Mits — Fri 9th October 2015 @ 11:37 am

  8. I had nothing to do with the proceedings, except to supply a cardboard cutout of a man…

    That sentence could be taken that I am implying anti-male prejudice on the part of familycaught$ judges.

    That was how I experienced it at the time. Since then, I have seen quite a few married couples and solo women in the same, helpless, hopeless situation. Once someone has defined you as the loser in familycaught$, it is very rare to ever be able to climb out of that situation, in familycaught$ alone.

    When I was a teacher, I was told almost never make a totally negative evaluation. Even if you suspect that, never make the conclusion, as that closes you off to being able to see positive change and help support positive change. I worked to overcome my prejudices and I was still happily astonished at how true that advice was.

    My original assessment may have been wrong.
    There may have been other factors that I didn’t know about.
    People can change for the positive or negative. (It is nice to be able to be part of that.)
    Certainly, children and vulnerable people should be actively protected!

    He who destroys hope……

    I would say that the familycaught$ legal workers are with very few exceptions, the dullest and shabiest people that I have ever met in my life. I have met violent people, murderers, crazy people and manslaughterers and they were much nicer to deal with.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 10th October 2015 @ 11:33 am

  9. One of the few cases where the this rigid familycaught$ “loser principle” is fairly well documented in the public domain, is the familycaught$ handling of the Kay Skelton perjuries and abduction. (This is assuming that the old websites are still in existence?)

    The father kept approaching the familycaught$ in good faith and throwing money at them. (More money than most fathers earn after tax.)

    In return for him ostensibly doing what they seek from all fathers, how did they reward him?

    They kept on taking his money and maintained the situation whereby they could keep on taking his money.

    Did they stop for half a moment to consider the impact on the development and mental health of the child, whose existence they were taking advantage of?

    They kept on doing what the father was unwittingly paying them to do – ensure the ongoing abuse of his child. Customers need to be aware and wise, to protect their family’s paramount interests from familycaught$.

    Interestingly, it was only when the rort could no longer be hidden from the public (the police were asking for assistance from the public to find the child), that the familycaught$ took any measures to protect the child’s developmental interests.

    For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done.
    Old adage, but seemingly as true today, as when it was written in the blood of the wrongly executed.

    The existence familycaught$ is an IQ test of the NZ public. We are failing dismally.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 10th October 2015 @ 11:56 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