13 Comments »

1. 

   We’d all love to know who the moronic Family Court Judge is. Confiscating diplomatic passports ? How dumb can he/she be ?

   Comment by golfa — Sat 21st May 2016 @ 1:41 pm

2. 

   No surprises there. McCully is an idiot and as for the Family Court it is a feminist Court under the thumb of feminist politicians who I shouldn’t need to name. The key here is to get rid of that “pony tail pulling flag waving” idiot and the rest of his party from the beehive.

   Comment by JONO — Sat 21st May 2016 @ 2:32 pm

3. 

   Unbelievable! Not only did not respect the Diplomatic Immunity but confiscated the Diplomatic Passports. On top of that, I wonder how much did this case cost to taxpayers? Court fees, solicitor for children, legal aid, psychological report.

   Comment by John — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 3:45 am

4. 

   It might have cost the country a lot of money, but a lot of barely (if at all) earned money was put into legal worker’s pockets!!!!

   Henaghan said if the father was frustrated, he had a right to be.

   “I can understand the anger of the father because the hearing was done without notice and even though the Family Court didn’t have jurisdiction he had no time to overturn it.

   “By the time he was proven right in the High Court the diplomatic immunity had expired.”

   But he cautioned against criticism of the Family Court judge in the case.

   Judges had to make tough calls on short notice and the default was to put the dispute in a “holding pattern” until both parties could be heard, Henaghan said.

   “It’s between a rock and a hard place. Technically they got it wrong… [but] in fairness to the Family Court their instinct is always to do what’s best for the interests of the children.

   “The court’s best instinct is not to say ‘We don’t have jurisdiction, whatever, we’re not handling it’.”

   “Of course, that became fateful to the father.”

   What it comes back to is:

   1. legislation has negligible influence in what goes on in familycaught$,
   2. evidence has negligible influence in what goes on in familycaught$,
   3. supposed accountability for supplying misleading or false evidence to familycaught$ is illusory,
   4. when the familycaught$ gets it wrong, it is everyone else’s cost, compensation for harm is never given,
   5. when the familycaught$ get it wrong, it is their ill gotten gain,
   6. it is one rule for fathers and another for mothers,
   7. mothers might think they gain from first encounter with familycaught$, but in the long run they are more screwed and screwed more ways than fathers..

   In my opinion, this sequence of events show that the familycaught$ is totally unfit for purpose and could never be made workable, with present staff.

   Although Professor Mark Henaghen might point out serious faults in familycaught$, he refuses to consider that they might not be in children’s or parent’s interests! I wonder if this commentator has a conflict of interest, that colours or even corrupts completely the value of his judgement?

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 7:49 am

5. 

   We’d all love to know who the moronic Family Court Judge is.

   It’s in the article. Judge Mary O’Dwyer.

   Comment by Ted — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 9:00 am

6. 

   Good synopsis Murray @ 4.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 9:23 am

7. 

   Wow. This is an appalling example of feminist law creating a Kangaroo Court in a banana republic, or in this case a banana monarchy. Note that the Family Court judge who first ruled ex parte to empower the mother, in circumstances where ex parte orders would not have been legal even for NZ litigants, was a FEMALE judge; the sisterhood sticks together.

   Professor Henaghan’s attempted justification of Judge Mary O’Dwyer’s Family Court suggests that he thinks it’s in the children’s best interests to be deprived of seeing their father for over a year! Henaghan refers to the ‘fateful’ events that led to the father’s frustration and anger. Don’t you get it Professor? The father’s frustration is not the main issue here. The issue is that It’s seriously damaging to children to have their relationship with their father damaged by our Family Court. But our Family Court routinely behaves as if full relationships with mothers are essential for children’s best interests while full relationships with fathers are not.

   Note that the name of the country offended by this debacle has been suppressed on the spurious claim that releasing it would lead to the identification of the children. Just another attempted justification for the unaccountable operations of our secret Family Court.

   Note also the news article’s reference to the Malaysian Diplomat case. That case was actually handled correctly by the NZ authorities at first. Sexual assault allegations are not among the few alleged crimes for which diplomatic immunity can be overridden. Given the exact nature of the allegations which didn’t involve any real sexual assault at all and which came from a known feminist activist who actually assaulted the diplomat in the first instance, this case should never have proceeded.

   Interestingly, another diplomatic case was referred to as well, that of South African High Commissioner Zodwa Lallie who was accused of breaking NZ employment laws. Being female, she was not required to face Court and, unlike the Malaysian male diplomat, her country did not send her to the wolves but instead supported her right to assert diplomatic immunity.

   Note also that the police broke the law by keeping the children’s passports, but they also are not being held accountable. In typical fashion, police operated as white knights on behalf of the mother.

   NZ is sinking so low under feminist jurisdiction that men, even foreign diplomats, are routinely treated with contempt, used as fodder to feed the insatiable feminist appetite for power over men.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 10:35 am

8. 

   Incidents such as these are no invitation to parenthood to young men. Of course there are so cases that we never get to hear about.
   I tell my boys that I would like grandchildren, but given the lack of legal process in NZ and many other countries, I don’t recommend having children or even taking the risk.
   There is quite a good retort – if you want grandchildren, go have them yourself!

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 4:40 pm

9. 

   #2. Pray tell who you would put in power that will do a better job for Solo Fathers.. Any one left of centre is a fucking nut case and misandry is their second name.

   Comment by Bruce — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 10:26 pm

10. 

    Is anyone able to indicate the diplomat’s nationality?

    Comment by Peadar — Sun 22nd May 2016 @ 10:53 pm

11. 

    Yes
    Like many cases it is more complicated than indicated here.
    Three nationalities are involved with only one involving diplomatic status.
    This is an open forum and is no place to discuss specifics.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 23rd May 2016 @ 11:28 am

12. 

    Murray Bacon: My emails keep bouncing back. Have you changed your email address Sir?

    Comment by Peadar — Sat 28th May 2016 @ 1:01 pm

13. 

    yes

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 28th May 2016 @ 6:39 pm

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.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ