Family Court Judge Somerville Retires
Perhaps of interest to the many fathers who were shafted and their children who were harmed by this particularly male-blaming judge.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
41 Comments »
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.
Its times like these that I’m disappointed I’m an atheist. If there was a God she would be big trouble in a few years time when she kicks the bucket and i might feel some joy. However the reality is that there is no judgement awaiting her or any other judge that is an asshole. Her Vicious, biased and misandric behaviour on the bench has great similarities to the destructive nature of Isis and Sharia law. I can only hope she has the most painful and horrible death possible.
Comment by triassic — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 12:56 pm
“After graduating with a law degree from Otago University, she worked at a private law firm until setting up her own all-women barrister & solicitors’ practice in Otago in 1987.”
So if a male went to get a job at her firm they would not be allowed too.
A judge that’s a human rights, workplace law breaking bigot.
What a suprise.
“Judge Somerville is a fellow of Knox College and founding member, former convener and an honorary life member of the Otago Women’s Law Society.”
Is there an Otago Men’s Law Society?
Nope, that would be sexist.
“A fierce advocate for women’s rights, she was founding member and president of the NZ Association of Women Judges until stepping down last year.”
Is there a NZ Association of Men Judges?
Nope, that would be sexist.
So what was her opinion about men’s rights?
Sounds like she completely ignored that.
They don’t have any.
“Judge Somerville said it was difficult for some people to accept a female judge was going to decide their fate.”
Don’t think so. Just any judge with a history of bigotry against men.
See above.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 1:30 pm
wow triassic, strong words reflecting strong feelings. Yes, unfortunately no god entity is likely to hold her to account and she will probably get much enjoyment in a long retirement with the wealth she and her husband will have amassed, content in the self-illusion that she acted for the benefit of many downtrodden sisters and repressed those ones from the bad, ahem, male gender (what use do they think they are to raising children anyway?).
We are fast moving towards awareness that will look back on this feminist era with the same horror we now feel when reminded of the Australian ‘stolen generation’ or the South African apartheid era. Arrogant femaleists diminishing the rights and value of the male gender. Unfortunately it only tends to be politicians who are prosecuted for crimes against humanity, not judges. And of course we are still in the midst of our own stolen generation and gender apartheid era; there’s a way to go yet. Rise up, become aware, vote.
Karma does have some applicability though, in the Dostoevsky manner at least.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 1:40 pm
3, rise up, become aware, vote…
Who can I vote for that will make the slightest improving difference to Mens rights?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 3:49 pm
re 4. Voices back from the bush: ANSWER = Vladimir Putin. Russia has just scrapped the Domestic violence specific legislation. Domestic violence is however still covered by the same laws which are there for everybody – assault, manslaughter, murder etc. What a revolution that family violence should be addressed for what it is. Hopefully the gender filter has been erased along with it.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 6:40 pm
Thanks Jerry, I guess as a New Zealand Man I should tow the line, shutup and realise that I dont matter. I should read the herald to be told how i should think , what I should care about, like pacifica women who all belong in leadership roles and the faster I can campaign to get them into these management positions the sooner I will be happy and we can all live in heaven on earth.
As soon as these women get total control of my thoughts and and my life the sun will come up in a new dawn.
There won’t be anymore domestic violence,(not against anyone that matters) once boardrooms are filled with women and transvestites.
It turns out that I have been descriminating against all women and minorities, I’m merely a white male priveledged asshole and I belong in a zombie state of shame, remorse and guilt, along with all my for-father’s, some of who fought and died for the patriarchy and their right to beat up their women.
In this new world children don’t need fathers anymore.
I probably shouldn’t be telling you this as I forgot to declare my priveledge to a woman somewhere for approval to speak.
For feminism, I should thank god everynight and hope that one day I might be sufficiently subservient to descend to hell where she knows I belong.
So labour, national, has anyone got a coin?
Suicides an option and increasingly popular, but so selfish of men these days..selfish bastards.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 7:39 pm
ACT is the only party likely to have any male-supportive direction. Their previous MP Muriel Newman is I think the only NZ politician ever to put forward a male-honouring bill, the Shared Parenting Bill calling for a presumption of equal shared care after separation. However, I don’t know about the current lot in ACT. Yes, ACT has other policies that many people might not agree with and that’s going to be the case with any party. If we are to support anyone politically we will always have to go along with some things we would rather not. Best thing then is to get involved with a party that has some important policies you like and work to influence the rest of its direction.
Note that a number of MPs from various parties attended the Men’s Summit last year in Christchurch, and hopefully more will attend this year’s Men’s Summit at parliament buildings on 6th April. Some politicians are finally recognizing the public mood and that it will affect their election chances as shown in the US.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 9:07 pm
Hi Guys I see a lot of Rhetoric but nothing else? I share the same feelings but I DO something about it! I am in the FC again next month after 12 twelve years, 4 failed Protection Orders including this one coming up whereby haven’t seen the mother for 3 years. Had Judges McHardy, Hindmarsh Druce and now the infamous David Burns. I have had shared care for 9 years gentlemen so she still alienates but that’s okay because she doesn’t realise she is prep-ping her own son to leave for good as he is 14, brilliant.
NOW I NEED ONE THING, can somebody tell US where Burns Lives please.
Do NOT GIVE UP ! Watch the followings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdZIdg4dDLc
https://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/nz-open-letter-to-judge-mchardy/
http://www.kiwisfirst.com/viewers-say/
You must fight fire with fire and never be afraid to publish but only if you are RIGHT and not in retaliation. If you give up on your kids then you have “NO SPINE”
I am reminded “IT IS BETTER TO DIE ON YOUR FEET THAN LIVE ON YOUR KNEES”
Good luck and help with that request and I will show you what one man can do !
Comment by brent — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 8:48 am
View the links please like or don’t like and share as I am sure there are plenty of fathers who need our support and it gives confidence for them to continue okay
Comment by brent — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 8:53 am
By the way I have never been censored EVER as I sent all of these to the then PRIME MINISTER John Key , I got responses and the Family Court shat themselves otherwise I would be in jail.
They cannot do a bloody thing as there is no threats or intimidation except the truth. They threaten you by taking away your kids! They failed and then you take them to the High Court were like DRUCE and BURNS their decisions get SQUASHED. Now let me tell you HIGH COURT Judges hate alot of Family Court judges ( Same cloth just different ethics).
Comment by brent — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 8:59 am
The newspaper article didn’t mention that the judges were also retiring from any Government operated accountability (if there was any accountability when they were working anyway?). No other profession enjoys such protection against accountability. I guess it shows the extent to which the legal profession write legislation, despite the Rules of Parliament about conflict of interest.
Also curious, that legal work is one of the few “professions” where workers are required to work outside of their training. Judges decisions have a large degree of impact onto people’s lives, yet they operate far outside the ethical and legal constraints that restrict medical treatment provision and use of force onto patients.
An example, forcing male DV accused to attend DV courses of no proven value and some proven hazard, against the “patient’s” choice.
I hope a day comes where judges are worthy of the respect that they demand in their caught$. Oh for evidence to be taken seriously. For all of their apparent intellectual power, they achieve so little. A massive economic achievement, that fortunately few others in our society match.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 11:11 am
Same cloth just different ethics – maybe but I suggest not much different.
In the end, it comes back to “For evil to flourish, all that is required is that good men do nothing”.
This is as true for “judges”, as it is for anyone else. Actually more true. This is one of the justifications that english country judges use, in pressing their own pay demands. I would like that argument to succeed in protecting the public from the legal profession, as much as it succeeds behind closed doors in their pay claims.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 3:44 pm
The Family Court and social work sisterhood in Britain seem just as bad as in NZ. Their Family Court removed two children both aged under four from their parents even though the judge acknowledged that the evidence showed they loved the boys and would never intentionally harm them. The problem was that the mother would not follow social workers’ advice about feeding (but there was no mention that they weren’t eating enough) and to stop having the children sleep in her bed. The children had shown a few bruises and one broken wrist all of which were apparently accidental. The judge felt concerned for the children’s safety so removed them. Concerned for their safety with loving parents so he treated those children to a huge abuse that was guaranteed to harm them. Yeah, great thinking.
This decision appeared to be one mainly concerned with punishing parents for daring to stand up to social workers, most of whom probably had no children but rode in with a certainty that only comes from ideological indoctrination.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 7:45 pm
#13
My partner said that’s just crazy.
The power of the state is insane.
The number of times children fall over is amazing.
A broken wrist is believable as an accident.
It’s child abuse to sleep with little kids?
My partner does it all the time.
I think it was CYFs investigated them and the mother went piss off you know it all bitch.
The rest is history.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 8:20 pm
15, Sleeping with children is not safe for them, especially if they’re infants.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 9:20 pm
voices @15. Sleeping with children may not be safe for them but the huge majority of children who slept with their parents turned out just fine. More infants in the world sleep with parents than not and that has always been the case. The small risk involved in sleeping with parents is minuscule compared with the almost 100% risk of serious harm from ripping children from their parents and farming them out to foster care.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 9:38 pm
16, NZ has for many years had the highest rates if infant mortality during sleep.
Usually these deaths are written off as SIDS.
Many are manslaughter, some are intentional suffocation but they are blamed on an unknown god.(they were so precious, god needed them in heaven)
The police turn up and do a death enquiry not a murder enquiry and many of the mothers get away with this and usually escape notice until they’ve killed three or more children.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-no-longer-a-mystery
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 9:47 pm
16, This article claims that safe sleeping practices have saved 3000 NZ Babies lives.
https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/CYMRC/NEMR/SIDS-prevention-Mitchell-Blair-NZMJ-2012.pdf
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 10:33 pm
voices @17: It is unclear what proportion of SIDS are due to sleeping with parents. Many SIDS die in cots away from parents and I have known two such cases personally. Moreover, it’s unclear what the risk is to any one child who may sleep with parents. Given the huge rate of such sleeping arrangements around the world this risk cannot be high. The risk seems to be increased significantly by parental drunkenness or sedative use. Even so, the risk cannot come close to risks of harm in removing children from their parents and putting them into foster care.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 10:39 pm
voices @18: Yes but that was from positioning babies differently not from having them sleep in separate beds. The researchers merely claimed that separate sleeping would save even more lives. They made no estimate of the costs of this to children’s emotional welfare or development in other ways.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 10:43 pm
20, We differ on this one. I think the risks of suffocation are significant when falling asleep with an infant.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 10:55 pm
#1 triassic
These people are in the end human, and they all don’t easily escape from this.
Some have break downs when maturity raises an awareness of the consequence of their action.
Some disintegrate into a lonely, miserable retirement.
Others realise that outside of a little mutual back slapping and self glorification they have amounted to little more than a failed career.
I would in the end never trade my humanity and suffering for the few gold coins the rest so blithely cherish
Comment by Evan Myers — Sun 19th February 2017 @ 1:12 pm
Hi all
sorry I don’t know how to start a new topic.
But, a good friend has recently been threatened by the L4C with a change of care should she not be able to or choose not to follow any future contact.
This is when the father lives in northern Europe and has never liver under the same roof as the child! And the child (a 6 year old girl, who has grown up with 3 year old twin stepsisters) told L4C repeatedly she did not want to travel to Europe! And the biological father has never sought day-to-day custody!
And the mother has legally sought to change arrangements. The father wants less contact days per year than what she suggests! It comes down to who travels where.
Should a complaint be raised at the Law Society? Or do they just protect their own.
Any suggestions/feedback welcome.
thanks in advance
Yours
Comment by Pritchards — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 1:08 pm
I had to deal with the issues of living in a different city than my child. The child traveled unaccompanied by plane too see me. It’s just how it is.
I had to deal with the doesn’t want too see me crap as well.
But actually he loved the flying so much that eventually he became a pilot himself.
What do you expect the L4C to say?
“Chose not to follow any future contact”
What would you say if the father decided that and did not return the child?
If the mother didn’t want these difficulties then she should not have had a child to a foreigner.
Or maybe she was hopeing he was just going to disappear, (plus child support).
So what if he has never lived with the child.
The mother chose him to be a father.
Did he choose not to be around or did she?
Did his visa run out and he had to leave?
There are physical and financial limits in long distance relationships.
Just be happy he wants to be involved.
Accomodate and end the court bullshit.
A few years down the track when the arrangements are a normal part of life you will wonder what the fuss was about.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 2:47 pm
DJ Ward
Thanks for the comments. Pleased to hear it worked out well for your child. Not so easy to send a 6 year old unaccompanied on a 30+ hour flight with at least 1 stopover. Airlines won’t look after a child for more than 1 flight. How far did your child have to travel?
I would not expect L4C to be threatening the mother with something that would clearly be devastating to the child, when the mother has done everything by the book.
He chose to have a child with a woman had lived in NZ for many years and wanted to stay there. And he pays about a quarter of the child care he would in NZ although his gross salary is over 130K NZ when he chooses to work 4 days a week. No other dependants.
You say so what if the child has never lived with him. He’s not even seeking day to day custody and lives on the other side of the world. Pretty big call!
Comment by Pritchards — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 3:50 pm
Pritchards, I think this sounds like a load of bollocks.
Comment by golfa — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 4:46 pm
Golfa
Please elaborate?
Comment by Pritchards — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 4:48 pm
Because no NZ Judge would make a Order that requires a 6 year old girl to travel to the other side of the World to visit her Father. A Judge may make an Order reducing the Child Support a the Father has to pay in order to fund HIS visits to HER. And to suggest that a L4C can threaten a Mother with a change in custody is laughable. They have no such power.
Comment by golfa — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 5:06 pm
Thank you Golfa
Pretty much what I thought.
Just a bit of clarification, the L4C suggested the judge right the new court order so that change of care would be considered if the mother would not or could not comply with any travel requirement to Europe.
Just intimidation given the mother has complied with everything to date.
Time for a complaint to the Law Society perhaps
Comment by Pritchards — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 5:39 pm
PS last Judge had made an order for a then 5 year old girl to travel to the other side of the world. Father had to pay for it and mother managed to find a trusted family friend to take the child over.
The father had her for 7 days… and worked for 4 half days……interesting….
Girl has developed some behavioural issues since the trip
Comment by Pritchards — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 5:54 pm
Sounds silly just for 7 days.
You would think he could take 3 weeks holiday and have quality time together.
She could go direct to Dubia and he could meet her thier.
Sounds like a communications breakdown.
The L4C is telling you what he/she intends to advise the judge.
IE the mother is not complying with the present orders of the court.
I can understand your frustration having a difficult to comply with order.
That however is not grounds for a compliant to the law society.
If it is impossible to comply with the order then apply for a new one.
We don’t recommend giving lawyers more money.
This is the intent of thier actions.
Make you want to go back to court.
Again, and again, and again.
Suggest you settle your differences with the father. Be reasonable and find a workable solution.
It’s in everybody’s best interests.
All children have behavioural issues. They grow out of them and get new ones.
Good parenting is a cure for the bad parenting.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 26th February 2017 @ 7:47 pm
CJ Ward
Thanks again for the comments and suggestions. Fully agree best for all to avoid court.
7 days is pretty short. As mentioned before he worked for half a day 4 days out of 7 last time. Strange.
Comment by Pritchards — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 2:34 am
Pritchards wrote:
When you first registered on MENZ I sent you an email to make sure you were a real person and not a spammer, but I did not get a reply.
I have now granted you author capabilities, so next time you log in you should see where you can start a new post.
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 6:15 am
What a load of horse shit, move back to bloody NZ and be a proper father, I got nothing but contempt for ass-holes who think that a child should have to travel because the parent lives 30 hours away. You didn’t mind when you stuck yr dick in? did you.
Comment by brent — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 8:51 am
From what I’ve seen of this Pritchard story, I am unable to form an opinion and so observe from the fence. We do not have the father’s side of the story. I suspect there is more to this than I am geting here. For me it does not add up.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 12:03 pm
brent – He is from Northern Europe and has family ties there so understandably is not willing to relocate. But he is an ‘all care no responsibility’ kind of chap.
Jerry – what doesn’t add up?
Comment by Pritchards — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 12:11 pm
#34 Brent
Your opinion is an old fashioned misandrist dillusional concept.
IE that men fully consent to all pregnancies.
That is far from the truth.
If a female when asked, says she is on the pill but is not.
She has committed the sex crime of indecent assualt.
He under the law is not responsible for the child.
It is however your misandrist view on the issue.
That prevents males getting just outcomes in these situations.
Or law changes that formalise and define consent for pregnancy.
Why doesn’t she move closer too him?
She chose to get pregnant!
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 12:20 pm
Pritchards says @36: I keep my mind open when I have incomplete data. As far as I am aware, I do not have the father’s version. Also so many fine folks have spun such stories about me. Many were convincing, although still quite untrue. So how do I know your view is reliable. So far as I see it, I am being asked to consider someone I don’t know, and have never experienced as being inerrant, and some other person who has said nothing to be errant. Thats not how I work. I think everyone here would want a fair independent hearing on balanced evidence for themselves, so why skip that where others are concerned?
Comment by Jerry — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 3:04 pm
#38 Jerry
Fair enough. I don’t think you are as impartial as you like to make out, but whatever.
#33 John Potter
Thank you
Comment by Pritchards — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 6:13 pm
That judge , the one who retired , broke my spirit. Broke my children’s spirit
Broke my mother’s spirit . Broke my all friends faith in justice
Broke my support peoples faith in justice . Knowingly .casually. swiftly . Effectively .
I believe that there exists, in life , an eventual rebalancing of good / bad .
Comment by The is devil she — Mon 9th July 2018 @ 8:37 pm
..and she , I mean he , i mean , well she did it with a smile on her face . Never forget that look for as long as I live .
Comment by The is devil she — Tue 10th July 2018 @ 12:52 am