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

Father lodges human rights violations complaint against government with UN

Filed under: General — Vman @ 5:46 pm Tue 9th February 2016

A father-of-two has laid a complaint with the United Nations alleging a judge’s decision barring him from taking his children out of New Zealand to visit their dying grandfather violates their human rights.

The man, an American who cannot be named under New Zealand Family Court rules, laid the complaint on Thursday under the Human Rights Complaint Procedure at the UN after a six-year international battle for custody of his children.

The family moved to New Zealand in July 2010 under the agreement that they would remain here for three years, but six months into the move he and his wife split. The children were ordered to remain in New Zealand under the Hague Convention, the man said.

“My grievance is with the court system and Parliament because they have implemented a violation for human rights for families. There is a systemic issue with the New Zealand Family Court system, and I would desperately love not to drag it through the press.

“Filing the complaint with the UN becomes my last alternative. I have tried to work with the political and judicial system and it’s fallen on deaf ears. I don’t think it does anything for getting my children home, other than raise whether there was a human rights violation.”

The basis of the man’s complaint is that a High Court order preventing him from taking the children to the US did not seriously take into account their cultural heritage. The family had no links to New Zealand before moving here in 2010.


  1. Personally I think the problem with this is the sexist decision making of the family court.

    The NZ family court routinely allows mothers to take children out of the country. But not fathers.

    Comment by Vman — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 5:50 pm

  2. The Family Court system is a economic system by the bullying government to flush men of their cash and to keep their nose to the grind.

    I don’t see how anyone or thing has the authority to intervene with your personal affairs like how the Family Court does.
    Your kids are your kids not the governments.
    The way I see it is that whoever wants out of the relationship is second in the queue when is comes to sorting what happens with the kids.

    This is why I have not had kids yet.

    The family Court is a direct result of feminism.

    Comment by mantrol — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 6:23 pm

  3. Interesting YTube video Mantrol. Its a global conspiracey. Personally I thing its a sympton of socialist ideology and too big governments. When the world’s financial ponzi scheme colapses and governments cant just keep growing on money they dont have there may be a move back to the protection of the family.

    The practices in Spain are the same in NZ except we thinely veil it with an appearance of due process even though everything is stacked against men.

    I have directly experienced false accusation and been dragged through the judicial process so my ex-wife could exercise her revenge for me having the audacity to remarry and have another child.
    The assumptions made by the NZ police are the same as in spain. You are guilty and everything they say is true and you are a liar, Any evidence provided to the contrary is ignored with a snear.

    It amuses me how men contribute the majority of the tax revenue that the state uses to persecute them with.

    I hope Trump gets in ahead of Hillary. If Hillary came to power i think we would see a rapid deteriation in male rights.

    Comment by Richie — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 8:36 am

  4. This is not a sexist issue.

    This has to do with non removal orders that either sex can apply for.

    It sure is sad and many, many, many parents are stuck needing the other parents consent to take children out of the country.

    If given the chance, many, many parents won’t come back. And that’s life.

    Comment by julie — Thu 11th February 2016 @ 2:20 pm

  5. Mantrol says, “The family Court is a direct result of feminism”.

    I believe this to be true and now that Helen Clarke is in the United Nations, I see she has done well in Africa.

    I was surprised to see editorials from African men saying, “We will be paying for the sins of our fathers” when writing about the change from elders dealing with marriage problems to the courts.

    Comment by julie — Thu 11th February 2016 @ 2:25 pm

  6. #4 Julie. The Father in this case isn’t taking it to the UN as a “sexist” issue, he’s taking it as a Human Rights issue.

    As an aside, I think Murray Bacon did a OIA request a few years ago requesting figures as to just which parent who was was doing the majority of kidnapping to other countries. It was Mothers. I concluded that it was Mothers because they have little to fear from the Law. Just ask Paul Catton.

    Comment by golfa — Thu 11th February 2016 @ 2:41 pm

  7. It’s by no accident that the family courts are the way they are.

    It’s all about male female nature and how the two work in a relationship.

    Add to this social conditioning.

    I’ve been helping a mate with mediation setting up a parenting plan, making sure she doesn’t emotionally manipulate him, catching her out on all her lies and logical fallacies.

    Never trust a word a woman says.

    A woman will just about always do or want things done that benefit her or make her look good.
    This includes using kids to get what she wants and will make you pay as the man for letting her get her way.

    Of course you’re not allowed to talk about or even mention the ways of the woman because that makes you a sexist misogynist pig.

    Comment by mantrol — Sat 13th February 2016 @ 7:49 am

  8. it’s simple. 5050 parental right or its kidnapping attempted murder child abuse torture crime. Jail those who breach our rights and we are no longer slaves to the mafia calling itself ‘governement’.

    Comment by phil watts — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 4:16 pm

  9. Searching for child abduction in the search pane at the top right of each menz page, gives:

    Treating non-abductor as though they were the abductor Germany
    (This page illustrates what happened to the USA father, he was treated as a potential abductor, when mothers are at least 5x, maybe even more likely to end up being the abductor. But judges tacitly support them and hinder fathers.)

    Japan’s Support of International Child Kidnapping Continues

    UK Govt warns fathers about child abduction risk

    Child Abduction – Does the familycaught$ know what it is doing?

    Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?

    Mother Hazard Father Hazard

    I haven’t been able to find the post where I presented the NZ abduction statistics mothers versus fathers. In the intervening 15 years, nothing has changed about mothers versus fathers, just the numbers of both has slowly increased……. more well paying “legal” work!… overseas holidays, children growing up impoverished, in cold, damp, rented homes…… Where is the children’s interest ever considered, let alone put first?

    Here is the link to Mahony’s not open to the public speech to Parliamentary Subcommittee. He mentions all sorts of statistics, but not abduction statistics! Then his actions go on to ignore any constructive conclusions, even from the statistics he has quoted! He was a smooth marketing man, even if he never saved a child? More to the point, many was the time that the children’s interests were sacrificed, for the unearned advantage of legal workers.

    I still think that NZ should take child abduction seriously, after all these years. The subject turns sheep into vulnerable legal customers, then into impoverished ex-legal customers. If such skills could ever be used to help children……

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 17th February 2016 @ 8:57 am

  10. Unfortunately as soon as a family arrives in NZ it can be immediately ‘trapped’ from leaving indefinitely by an at times corrupt family court. They dont give a damn about whats best for the child, and follow an ‘at all costs’ simplistic policy of keeping families together and in NZ.

    All I could suggest is looking closely at what avenues might apply in this case to successfully defending a Hague Hearing and trying to get out of NZ like several hundred parents with kids try each year. They nearly all get sent back from Australia… unless valid grounds to defeat Hague Convention.

    Comment by John — Thu 18th February 2016 @ 11:21 am

  11. John (#10). I don’t think the Family Court follows any policy of keeping families together. It supports the actions of various family-wrecking institutions and its lawyers usually destroy anything left of working parental relationships after separation. The Family Court however will sometimes prevent one parent from removing children to another country away from their other parent. That is in fact a rare instance in which the Family Court does seem to prioritize the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, its rulings are unequal on the basis of the gender of the parent applying to remove the children. When that applicant is female, the Family Court often confuses the best interests matter, resorting to a belief that as long as mum gets her way then that must be best for the children.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 18th February 2016 @ 11:37 am

  12. When that applicant is female, the Family Court often confuses the best interests matter, resorting to a belief that as long as mum gets her way then that must be best for the children.

    When the complainant is female, the Criminal Court often confuses our constitutional rights, resorting to a belief, that as long as the woman gets her way then that must be in the best interests of Justice.

    Thank you Man X Norton.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 18th February 2016 @ 3:06 pm

  13. Child abduction is a problem that can only be solved in family’s interests, by giving constructive incentives for parents to respect each other and work honestly together. Coincidentally, this is exactly what is needed, for children to get the best that their parents can offer them, developmentally and financially too. Border protection of children from abduction is an important factor and needs to work as effectively to protect fathers, as for protecting mothers from being “left behind victims”.

    Although constructive parenting incentives will prevent 90% of abductions from occurring, there still needs to be a working system of resolving abductions that have occurred, based on integrity, not scraping money off the victims of the abduction. There is very little wrong with the paperwork of the Hague Convention. The corruption is in the behaviours of “judges” and other legal workers, who spin the system for their maximum unearned income, very much against the interests of honest parents and children.

    As Andrew Wotton said, sunlight is the best cure. And this is why the familycaught$ so aggressively resists accountability and public open access to information, to protect their interests.

    Using children as pawns, to milk parents, is the lowest commercial tactic that exists, worse than bank robbing, prostitution, or being a lawyer in general.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 20th February 2016 @ 8:56 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