MENZ ISSUES

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

Discharge of Protection Order

Filed under: General — telemachus85 @ 10:48 am Tue 6th June 2017

My ex partner took out a protection order and I challenged it as she accused me of several things but as it always goes I lost and it became final …. I breached the temporary protection order by communicating with her online and sending her texts as I wanted to assure her I meant no harm was convicted and fined for it.

From there on I decided I need to let it go as she is vicious and can just destroy my life so now it’s been 4.5 years I never ever contacted her or go in the area where I think I might bump into her. I applied to courts to lift the order as I have been in a steady relationship for last 2 years and have no desire to contact her anymore. I received a letter that she has engaged a lawyer and going to file a defence. What do you think are my chances of getting the order lifted as I just want to move on in my life. Is it worth contesting it or try again in 2-3 years time? I was advised by community lawyer that if 3 years have elapsed it is a good time in my case it’s been 4.5 years already… Any suggestions

36 Responses to “Discharge of Protection Order”

  1. DJ Ward says:

    Depends how much the protection order affects your life.
    If it affects your options for employment.
    Or something else that in real terms affects your life.
    Then it may be worth trying to get it discharged.

    If it has no effect on your life including psychological.
    Then it’s a worthless piece of paper.

    There is always a risk that you will accidentally bump into her resulting in your arrest.
    For that reason follow through with what’s happening.
    Attempt to get rid of the protection order.
    Just avoid spending money.
    IE don’t feed the parasites. (lawyers)

  2. Downunder says:

    The difficulty in applying for a discharge is that this order was given to the woman. It’s her civil order, by which you were criminally convicted, and criminally recorded.

    An application to discharge the protection order is a request to take it off her.

    Regardless of why you want the discharge, understanding that is a good place to start.

  3. dom says:

    Yes apply to discharge the protection order as it might take many months to even get to court , i was told by my lawyers she would have to prove why she needed it to remain , but after 3 years it was removed by consent , if you are dealing with a vindictive bitch then its time to remove the noose thats always ever present there,for your own sake and your future, bearing in mind that the court will possibly ask for both of you to come in and explain and be satisfied shes not in danger, which as you know is all based on how she “feels” nothing more, good luck !

  4. Downunder says:

    If you’re dealing with a vindictive bitch it’s time to remove the noose

    Getting rid of a protection order, doesn’t get rid of her. I can asure you that while I have lived without a protection order for 17 years, after 20 years I am still pursued by her and her band of legal demons – they are always willing helpers.

  5. dom says:

    @ down under, yes you are right, Once a vidictive piece of trash always a vindictive piece of trash, let me clarify what i meant,

    I meant, if you can get it removed , she has no / a lot less power over you anymore, when it comes to her “feelings” its a lot harder to get the police to bust down your door and leave you overnight in a cell for “technical breeches”

  6. hornet says:

    Walk away, second thoughts …..RUN AWAY don’t waste another day in the family court scam – you are well rid of her, get a trespass order against her if she continues to harass YOU ….. I did against mine and it worked a treat especially when the cops were turning up on her doorstep and not mine!!!!! Isolate and ignore – they really hate that …….

    Take care of those important in your life.

    Enjoy your new partner and don’t waste another second even thinking about the past.

    You can NOT change history, you were snookered by the system, lesson learnt – don’t ever go back for more – the system wants more conflict, don’t support it.

  7. Max says:

    Hello Guys thanks heaps!

    I have definitely moved away from her mentally as well as emotionally and have no desire to ever contact her. It was a very unhappy time for me. I requested incident reports from the police for last 4.5 years and it shows that she has not laid any incidents which proves that I have moved on and she hasn’t it seems like and she plans to contest it and defend.

    I have been seeking advise for community law which is a free service. As everyone has said I just want to get rid of that piece of paper so that she can not use it again to wreck my life. I mean when I breached it I was only fined so no prison or anything and I learnt a lot from that.

    Has she got any grounds apart from the history to go on and tell the judge she wants the order to be in place ?? I was reading few recent case notes and judge said her fear is not a valid reason for the protection order to remain in place, there has to be an objective reason with tangible evidence for the order to not be discharged… please do shed some light

  8. Downunder says:

    I think there comes a point where it is not fear, but obsession.

    A morbid desire to continue the fight through the agency of lawyers and the court, because she is not able to do this through you.

    Not that you should try and say that, but hopefully that is the conclusion that is drawn.

    The difficulty as I am all too well aware, is that the incompetentant, irresponsible or purile behavior of some legal workers, leaves even the woman unable to extract herself from a situation where they are defending their own sillyness.

  9. Rocky says:

    Max, Can you list or quote the cases where you have seen judges make comments or rulings about ‘needing objective reasons’ or ‘what constituents fear’.
    I have tried once to get PO removed and want to lodge every yr, do the matter myself, till its gone. Ta

  10. Max says:

    Hi Rocky please follow this link –

    http://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/assets/unsecure/2016-07-31/2016-NZFC-1953-Raymund-Winslow-Burton-v-Kimbra-Poindexter.pdf

    I went to see the lawyer today and she said she was really surprised to see that she wanted to defend the order from being lifted. I got an incident report from the police that there has been no complaints filed by her over the last 4.5 years and it clearly indicates that she is being vicious now and not letting me move on in my life

  11. golfa says:

    #10 Max, I believe that Judge is the ONLY Judge who has jailed a Mother (twice, if memory serves me) for failing to comply with a Court Order to allow the child to see the Father.

  12. MurrayBacon says:

    The Poindexter judgement seems to have the parties actual names, yet has been put on the familycaught$ website.
    Is that due to carelessness by the judge, or registrar has put wrong copy on website, or has there been a change in laws?
    (Personally, I think that whenever the coercive power of Government is called into play, real names should be published.)
    Thieves and clowns……

  13. MrFatsworth says:

    These women, don’t like the changes to family court procedures, procedures that are well overdue, and still very slow in response to fathers being treated unjustly.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/91718890/family-court-strikes-back-at-the-backbone-collective

  14. Buster says:

    [email protected] 10

    Bloody brilliant and thank you for posting that one

    Absolutely A typical of f….. women using the system to deny access to children by the father.

    I think that its about time that the Family Court be made to go Public with outcomes and you will find
    A. the number of applications drop by 90%
    B. Claims of assault and abuse drop by 80%
    C. Time spent on custody issues drop by 80%

    If a bond is paid $2,000 -$5,000 to the court so if either party gets caught out for deception, deceit or provocation by way of false allegations then the opposing party gets the BOND.

    This is how you take away POWER from the system, however what will happen is

    Courts will become less congested
    Lawyers will not be able to make money
    Judges will be far more accountable
    Families will be under less duress

    Bingo – separation becomes a fairer and equitable objective.
    Fathers become more in tune with life and liberty, show structure and support to children as the burden of debt is removed.

    I also believe that if caught a second time-custody becomes imminent to the other party as the children no longer become pawns.

    Please don’t say ” Who can afford that” amount of bond!!!

    Easy – its called carrot and stick methodology, and if you love your kids then YOU WILL find a way

  15. Man X Norton says:

    Yes, most FC judgments are interesting and elucidating to read. Openness in our ‘justice’ system would keep us all aware of its operation and would reduce the incidents that lead to its involvement, because the public would become increasingly aware of what behaviours end up there, how those behaviours are interpreted in Court and the consequences. The Family Court’s default secrecy of operation is a scandal and the justification for this, the privacy of children and litigants, is of questionable merit. Aside from low accountability and other problems, such secrecy actually serves to maintain the tap of lucrative business for the FC and its profiteers.

    The FAM-2010-079-000128 case referred to in comment 10 was interesting in many ways. Firstly, the protection order was imposed without any physical violence but was on the basis of threats to kill. Sure, that’s serious and a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment up to 7 years (which many people seem not to know). But realistically, most threats to kill are not genuine intentions but expressions of high frustration and anger. Such threats are often throw-away comments in conflict situations, and if made by someone who has no history of committing violent acts will often be no more significant than the slamming of a door. The criminalization and ability to punish regarding such threats may be justified but the idea that they necessarily amount to psychological violence justifying the need for a ‘protection’ order is invalid, ideological and will often result in institutional child abuse through depriving the children of a full relationship with their father. Of course, when a woman in an argument with her ex says “I swear I’ll kill you if you say that again”, the FC will be likely to view that as a throw-away comment and will be very unlikely to impose a protection order against her.

    The FAM-2010-079-000128 case also appeared to demonstrate the anti-male sexism routinely practised by our police. They were prosecuting the father for breaching a parenting order! How often to we hear of mothers being prosecuted for breaching parenting orders, something they nearly all seem to do and believe they have a right to do? When a father goes to police about his children being kept hostage by their mother contrary to a parenting order, preventing him seeing the children as required by that parenting order, what do police typically do? “That’s a civil matter sir, and you will need to get the Family Court to issue an enforcement order before we can do anything.” But it seems when a mother complains to police that the father has breached the parenting order, police get on their white-knight steeds and prosecute the father. Even though the father is in the weaker parenting position and the mother herself has breached the parenting order by limiting and interfering with his ordered contact with his children. Incredible.

    However, FAM-2010-079-000128 does provide further evidence of the changing tide, in this case the FC attempting to nurture, protect and respect a father’s relationship with his children and calling out the provocation, vindictiveness and low sense of responsibility for bad behaviour shown by a female litigant.

  16. martin says:

    telemachus85 – I’m in agreement with hornet – keep the beast wear it with pride and buy yourself some new tyres or a new car depending upon what you were intending to spend. You can always crash the car into a wall if you change you mind – same result.

  17. allan harvey says:

    I have a small campaign in the Wellington area seeking to discharge 10 Protection Orders. We are learning with each hearing. Allan

  18. Max says:

    #17 Allan please share your email and other contact details please

    Would love to hear the learnings and experiences please.
    Thanks heaps

  19. Max says:

    Hi Guys,

    So acting in the advice of the Senior lawyer from community law.. I filed my affidavit for discharge on 2nd May and the assessment date was set for 31st May when I heard from the court that she only strayed to act on it on 17th May and have seeked a counsel and the counsel has seeked extension till 15th June. 15th June came and went and they have failed to file an affidavit/Notice of defence and the reason given by the registrar was oh they didn’t get in time the Ministry of Justice report with regards to when I breached the order I.e contacted her via online and text messages5 years ago and was also made a passing comment that if you have a lawyer system favours you more and the judge has given them the weekend to file the affidavit now. How unfair it is and the justice system is so biased anything I can do or challenge ?

  20. martin says:

    Max, are you talking about challenging her defence based on the technicalities of late filing etc? If this is the case I wouldn’t bother – she will likely get a defended hearing as that’s just the way it is. I would stick to your application based upon any hardships it carries – evidence of discrimination in work, having to avoid her street, etc, etc and of course the length of time it has been since she has raised anything with the police.

    I’ve only skim read the thread, but why was it you wanted the PO lifted again?

  21. martin says:

    Hi Max,
    It’s really up to you – having a PO doesn’t mean you won’t get citizenship ( am I correct ?). I don’t want to sound condescending but a PO is for life in NZ, unless you go to court. The fact that you ex wife is opposing it is more significant than you staying away from her and wanting to move on unfortunately – I don’t write the rules.
    Having said that, going to a defended hearing doesn’t necessarily mean she will win. If it was me, I would emphasise that you have avoided any conflict with her for 5 years. Can you tell me why she is opposing it?

  22. Buster says:

    The Department of Internal Affairs will definitely have access to that information Max, Immigration and probably one other because it is lodged with the Police.

    If you want citizenship then find out from the Police by making a request for information on you, then go from there.

    Just remember, your ex knows then so does her lawyer!

  23. Max says:

    Hello Martin,

    I am aware of the PO staying for life but I just want to move on and close that unhappy chapter of my life and have nothing to do with her even if I accidentally bumped into her I don’t want her to use it against me.
    The reason why she is opposing it is based around 2013 events and there is nothing new around it. It’s historic for last 5 years there has been no contact or any sort of confrontation as I have moved on and clearly she hasn’t it seems like. If it was discharged internal affairs looks at it more positively than if it was still there. There is nothing in terms of any incidents or anything to suggest that ongoing protection is required by her

  24. Max says:

    I have received a written letter from the police suggesting that there has been no incidents at all reported by her since 2013 which clearly states that there has been no further contact or any intention from my side to do anything with regards to her and not do I want anything to do with her.

  25. martin says:

    Max, I tried for 2.5 years to get rid of mine, and it was only dropped when she consented to have it dropped. All cases are different so good luck with it. Even if you get it dropped, it doesn’t take much for her to get it back again.

  26. Telemachus says:

    I was successful at getting the order discharged represented myself. No lawyer.

  27. voices back from the bush says:

    28, Well done, tomorrow is a new day. enjoy the fresh air.
    thanks for updating us, very pleased for you!
    I’m sure its unnecessary to add, DON’T DATE CRAZY BITCHES AGAIN!

  28. DJ Ward says:

    Congratulations.
    Good work as representing yourself isn’t always that easy.
    There’s an old saying.
    He who makes the same mistake twice is ……..
    At least your experience will help lessen the chances of you falling in the same trap again.
    Also if you find yourself in similar circumstances with a female magically turning feral.
    We have a first in first serve legal system. Don’t be afraid of using it to protect yourself as females will jump at the chance of abusing it if you don’t.

  29. Downunder says:

    @30 that’s a little harsh.

    Once is a mistake, twice is forgivable, but three times is stupidity.

  30. Voices back from the bush says:

    30, Yes first serve system is true from my experience also, police are unable to consider if they are mistaken, the accuser=victim, the accused=offender.

    I was told repeatedly “the only reason we would open the file is if we decided to charge you again”.

    When police are involved, the seccond mouse gets no cheese.
    He is just the bait for the sis-tem.

  31. Downunder says:

    @32 When you look at the role of Police, and how that has changed in the last 40 years, we might also consider this.

    Before women got the vote one of their political catch phrases was something along the lines; Children, Prisoners, and Retards, are the only others not to vote.

    When you look, at the introduction of our Bill of Rights, which effectively took away women’s equality and gave them, like children, special status under the law, women become children of the state, and this is reflected in the behaviour of Police.

  32. Telemachus says:

    I was an amateur representing my self and her lawyer got hauled over and over again by the judge. Finally after so many truth has prevailed! It was hard to live with the fact that my character was maligned again and again by a vicious person. Finally someone in the Justice system however flawed it may be has seen through the fabricated lies.

  33. Downunder says:

    I was just a father and got a Jewish judge.

  34. DJ Ward says:

    I represented myself and got a judge who wasn’t a family court judge. He was asking legal questions to my ex’s lawyer because he didn’t have a clue.

  35. Downunder says:

    I had the same problem as you with one of the series of judges I had.

    She, the opposition tried the, I know the book.

    Poor bastard had a nose redder than Rudolph and whiskey bottles for eyes. He didn’t need me to dump on his morning, and he started throwing law books around, when I said, “That’s not what the law says, your Honour.”

    The registrar had her hand over her mouth, and she was shaking with humour, trying not to wet her seat.

    We just sat there and waited for him to work it out, then he told her to go away and think about it.

  36. Telemachus says:

    Would just say if you are honest do not give up! When I went to file my affidavit. The registrar at the reception rolled her eyes and said no use fighting this and the orders don’t get discharged. Tempted to file a formal complaint about her attitude and judgement but who cares! Good luck people

Leave a Reply

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