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

The Quantum Court That Amazes Observers

Filed under: General — triassic @ 6:18 am Sat 7th October 2017

The father of a daughter whose mother illegally brought her to live in NZ has had The NZ Family Court deny his application to have the child returned to him in his home country. This is a Court that defies logic and the injustice dished out to the father is horrific. No one should be in doubt about the situation if the gender of the parents were reversed.

The analogy to the 80yr old mystery of Quantum Mechanics is pertinent. We know this Court consistently advises that a child is better off with two good parents and that the rule of law is a fundamental cornerstone of its existence. Yet, when one observes its outcomes, all known expectations disappear out the window. We find it operating on a different unexpected set of rules. No amount of logic can explain this observation effect and the quantum decision lacks any common sense. Even Albert Einstein’s great mind struggled with the Quantum theory effect. Thank goodness there is one major difference between the two examples. One occurs in sub atomic physics and one in a social institution. The Family Court is an institution set up by idealists with a well known ideology that seeks to favour the female gender. Whilst we can’t change the internal operation of an atom WE certainly can change the Family Court.


  1. So, after being a fleeing international criminal, given sanctuary in New Zealand, on the basis it is in the ‘best interest of the child’ is this woman now going to use the New Zealand authorities to obtain child support from the father.

    If a woman in this country killed a child we’d be outraged, but allowing this woman to indulge herself in effectively killing the father is just fine.

    This is the wonderful ‘outdoors’ environment New Zealand offers our children, but now it would appear it is available to any woman, from anywhere.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 9:16 am

  2. Wow a women rewarded for doing everything wrong! It’s not the fathers fault in any way that the relationship or attachment with his daughter has suffered. Our judiciary has however rewarded the “offender” for her actions then ignored an international law to support and protect that “offending”. If he emigrated to NZ then you can bet his contact will be reduced to every second weekend due to the attachment issues, then shock horror, a PO will quickly follow. Good buy daddy.

    Let’s hope a “not Family Court Judge” sees reason and deports this women, in handcuffs, back to Europe and the child returned to the loving arms of the father.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 9:58 am

  3. This is just shocking ,YET not surprising.
    What is the Hague convention for if not for exactly this reason?
    The family court judge needs to get a grip on reality as he has just shafted this poor dad.
    I am just so so sick of reading about these cases where dads do nothing wrong yet are the ones left to suffer.
    NZ family court is a shame and this case is a prime example of why.

    Comment by 11evilace11 — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 10:42 am

  4. Deport them both. Let their own country solve it legally. Otherwise it opens a novel new argument for illegal migrants. My kids are settled here it would be cataclysmic to unsettle them.

    Comment by prouddad — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 10:53 am

  5. The system is broken and needs fixed NOW.
    I guess i am one of the lucky ones in most respects.
    I have 8 year old twin daughters with a previous partner and when we broke up 3 months after they were born i did not get to see them till 6 months later.
    The problem the courts said was due to their young age i was effectively a stranger and i would need to see them in small increments until they got used to me.
    Their mother was suffering post natal depression and her family wrapped around her to keep me well away.
    So even though i was “judged” to be a good father and mother was mentally ill and on medication i still was not the goto parent for care at the start.
    It took a year before i was having them over night as i had to start with a few hours a week and then a day and then a couple of days ,i found this very very frustrating and unnecessary yet i had to bow down to the POWER OF THE COURTS because any frustration would have been seen as an aggression.
    Well after i got back into their lives ( the frustration took a very large toll on me and turned my hair grey in 2 months) and doing exactly as i was told by the court they now live with me and my new partner during the weeks and their mother is a weekend mother.
    What i found to be incredibly hurtful was that even though their mother had post natal depression i was expected to be unaffected and she became a victim and i was just a dad who was fine.
    They did not take into account that our prem twins who needed feed by syringe for the first 9 weeks were taken care of by me 99% of the time because mum was not in a capable state.
    For the first 3 months of their lives i was with them 24 hours a day and slept 2 hours if i was lucky.
    I hate the system as it stands now and while i have had a fantastic outcome and have their mother paying me child support and have my girls 85% of the time i have met many many guys that while equally good fathers have very limited access to their kids because the courts favour MUMS, and there is only so much people can take before they snap and nut off and when that happens access is CUT.

    Comment by 11evilace11 — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 11:11 am

  6. Imagine for a moment, this young girl as a woman is given the opportunity to avenge the taking of her father by going back in time, and the judge find himself staring down the barrel of a gun, about to be taken out of ‘her’ court case …

    … or do we accept that children only need to be kept happy on a day to day basis, so their mother can be a smiling happy creature.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 11:16 am

  7. Actually, when a mother kills her child ‘we’ (meaning the country and the Courts) are not outraged but we have a special law called ‘infanticide’ that applies only to females and carries a small jail term which is hardly ever given.

    When a woman kills a child or colludes with actions that kill a child the collective ‘we’ tend to feel sorry for the woman. Just check out this recent article about the inquest concerning abused and murdered boy Moko. The article is a litany of excuses for the poor violent women involved whose lies should have been mind-read by the agencies who came across them, it was everybody else’s fault, the poor mother mated with a gang member who was violent to her and how could she ever have predicted that? Etc etc ad nauseam.

    Women are favoured, protected and specially treated in our society and Courts, and feminism has only encouraged this rather than seek gender equality.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 1:45 pm

  8. So, that would be Infanticide and Fantascide – kill the child or the father, what ever takes your fancy?

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 2:09 pm

  9. Deja vu…..
    This is exactly what the Hague Convention set out to protect children from.
    But the paramount financial interests of legal workers, means that contrary to the Hague Convention and NZ’s Parliament, cases will be spun for maximum legal unearned income off Government and possibly the parties too.
    New book: Have You Seen My Child
    Japan’s Support of International Child Kidnapping Continues – same as NZ…
    Child Abduction – Does the familycaught know what it is doing?
    International Child Abduction
    It is time for NZ parents to act directly, to protect their children from illegal acts of familycaught.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 7th October 2017 @ 7:09 pm

  10. The double slit experiment…..particles react differently when they are watched! We can change reality just by looking at it. I urge you all to watch the video on this narrated by Morgan freeman.

    The point I make here is criminals will also react differently when they are being WATCHED!

    Another important point here is that we see the our courts support those who are dishonest.

    We see a nz system which actually relies on dishonestty forcing many a good man (or woman on rare occasions ) to go to the corrupted family courts in NZ to prove their innocence…..also a great tool for governments to destroy people’s reputations with parenting orders by proxy. Your guilty until you have the time and money to put the record straight.

    Murray at #9 you are correct ….why do we see a European court recognise the problem of alienation and give the dad custody because of it, and yet as I have direct experience our nepotistic legal,system has a clear policy to NEVER give a dad fairness, ensuring he wastes his life and all his money trying to do the right thing to protect children from harm, but our system never considers that. Our system is not interested in protecting children, there is no money in that.!!!!

    I think I know this woman and her family . I will post more detail when I confirm. If the story as printed is true, she has lied to me and my family as well. What are the chances of that happening…..that we met her and know her……the gods are on my side……

    Comment by Hornet — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 7:00 am

  11. Oui, oui, manure!

    We’ve spent more than two decades fighting for a fair deal in the family court.

    Here is this woman not getting her 100% feminist control, going to another country and then continuing the fighting in a another court.

    If this were a bloke, he’d be in cuffs and on his way home.

    This only confirms the lies we have been expected to blindly accept:

    That the court wasn’t anything more than a sick woman’s crutch.

    That it would as promised, have reasonable regard for the father’s position.

    That it is women that are incapable of shared parenting, not men.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 7:29 am

  12. Watch the movie “obsolete”

    At about minute 30, we see reference to the Pruitt Igoe experiment in which families were given accomodation so long as FATHERS were NOT allowed to live with them.

    The entire community descended into anarchy and social decay.!!!!!!!! No father figure in the children’s lives clearly demonstrated in this social experiment that there was no discipline no values taught no protection. But many vulnerable children produced.

    As those wanting to destroy NZ and its people so they can take our vast resources ….exploit our nation ….they need social decay, poverty and homelessness and many vulnerable children and elderly to PREY upon as they destroy things.

    Ensuring dads never see their kids using the family courts is part of that agenda. Make no mistake their is a plan in play here and it needs to be exposed and shut down.

    Having lawyers for child paid by tax payers to ensure fathers are kept way from their kids is part of this plan. I have direct evidence of this. Creating vulnerable children for the parasites to prey upon.

    When my mother fell ill with a stroke I saw the same reaction by wealthy connected relatives and lawyers who do not need the extra money, but who are simply survey by greed and selfishness to,such an extent they will eat their own children and target their own families for their own personal benefit and gain.

    This is the social cancer invading our land as children and elderly are made vulnerable to keep a corrupted justice system and social services full of customers for a few to benefit from.

    These people will be exposed here shortly.

    You will read the companies and the names of those parasites currently attempting to profit from thsi scam.

    As I have seen ….criminals do not want to be caught they run from the truth. Let’s expose them and send them packing .

    Comment by Hornet — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 7:30 am

  13. It appears that the courts decision is based on the mother having a protection order, yet it appears she does not have one.

    Justice. Quantus @triassic?

    Comment by Evan Myers — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 8:20 am

  14. @12 Do you think a Feminist would call that experiment a failure or a stepping stone?

    Perhaps NZ Feminists regard the failure as a result of a lack of leadership and resources, and on a larger scale with a state umbrella it ‘might’ suceed.

    But in the other respect there will be those people that say, why worry, we can benefit from the mess, and without the cost of a war.

    Supporting Feminism or ignoring its consequences is a very cheap way to achieve the same result.

    Then again, and I’ve heard this said by foreigners; “Who really cares, it’s a little bit of dirt at the bottom of the Pacific, and you don’t have to live there.”

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 10:29 am

  15. The Hague convention.
    The Convention was concluded 25 October 1980 and entered into force between the signatories on 1 December 1983. The Convention was drafted to ensure the prompt return of children who have been abducted from their country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained in a contracting state not their country of habitual residence.

    The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed immediately before an alleged wrongful removal or retention thereby deterring a parent from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court. The Convention applies only to children under the age of 16.
    So she traveled around the world to find the most female sympathetic court on the planet. The orders that applied prior to the abduction are still supposed to apply. The child is supposed to have a prompt return to the nation were those orders were made. At no point has the judge here complied with The Hague Convention, no restoring of the lawfull custody order, no prompt return of the child.

    What’s the point of a Law if judges give it the middle finger?
    What should foreign nations do with our applications if this is how we behave?

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 10:47 am

  16. @DJ Ward … it’s pretty much like saying, the German courts suck to the extent this woman is a refugee.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 12:31 pm

  17. Or perhaps the New Zealand courts, hold some sort of arogant point of view that they are the international Feminist Court of Appeal.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 8th October 2017 @ 12:33 pm

  18. I happen to have had personal experience with judge Stephen Coyle when he was practicing as a family court lawyer. What a tosser he is. To make a statement that to return the child to her father would be an” intolerable situation” and “cataclysmic” for the girl, who now considered herself a Kiwi, is pathetic considering that Immigration NZ have a legal obligation to deport the mother and child on the basis of making a false declaration. Perhaps there has already been a back door deal with them to ignore this? Perhaps in the Judges chambers a deal has already been struck with the High Court to let the status quo remain? When it comes to protecting the wishes of mothers only a fool ignores the power of the “pussy pass”. Our system is corrupt and evil. I no longer have faith in it and can only take solace in the fact that I have daughters and no sons.

    Comment by triassic — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 12:05 am

  19. @18 smacks of political favours.

    Side step the family court and manufacture an avoidance mechanism to the Hague Convention through other Government processes, before the father pursues any other legal options.

    What this man is experiencing is no different to what fathers experience in this country – preserve on behalf of your children, dare to win, and be awarded the status of lifetime enemy of the state.

    I know the feeling.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 6:39 am

  20. Legislation in a NZ caughtroom is simply dishonest marketing material.
    It is there to lull the naive into a false sense of security.
    People in the know don’t take it or the legal workers seriously as lawyers.
    They can’t satisfactorily function as a legal system, but they are more successful than the mafia in entangling people and stripping their assets.
    The solution has to be in rendering these legal workers down into blood and bone and starting again.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 7:04 am

  21. triassic @ 18: Good observations.

    The case seems a good example of how ‘the best interests of the child’ principle is simply a fraud that allows judges to make up anything they want. Where are the calculations showing that this child’s interests are best served by allowing mummy to keep daddy out of her life? Why would going back to Europe be ‘cataclysmic’ and ‘intolerable’ for the child? Many children move between countries and they adjust to such changes. However, the research is very clear that children are much less likely to adjust or to do well after losing the role of their father. A genuine application of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle would see the child returned to father as soon as possible with encouragement for the mother to follow and to participate in a shared nurturing arrangement.

    Music lessons? Surely music lessons can be continued in Europe? This really shows the ‘best interests’ principle up for what it is!

    The argument that the mother is now the ‘primary attachment figure’ is just another layer of fraud to allow ‘the best interests of the child’ to be used as an excuse to favour this mummy. If, as the article states, the father was the primary attachment figure in earlier years of of the child’s life, that attachment will endure and the relationship will easily re-establish. And the father apparently has a history of promoting the child’s relationship with both parents, unlike the mother. The mother’s selfish cruelty will compromise her relationship with the daughter and, as her Courts at home found, reduce her parenting capacity.

    One wonders where the limits lie in Judge Coyle’s Court concerning unlawful abduction. If someone abducted their neighbour’s or brother’s or cousin’s or friend’s child to some unknown place and the child was doing ok and came to develop an attachment relationship with the abductor, would Judge Coyle order the child to remain with the abductor? If a captured child developed Stockholm Syndrome would that attachment cause Judge Coyle to order continuation of the kidnapping? One might argue that Coyle’s decision was based on the superior rights a mother has regarding a child to that of a neighbour / sister / cousin or friend. However, if parental rights are the criterion then what about this father’s rights? No, parental rights weren’t the issue, a claimed primary attachment relationship was and if Judge Coyle is to be consistent we would expect him to order any abducted child to remain with the abductor if a primary attachment relationship had developed with that abductor.

    Of course, Coyle would not make such orders and that’s because the real reason for his decision was favouritism towards this mother because she’s a woman. The ‘best interests of the child’, as always, functioned simply as a pretext for the Family Court’s white knight rescuing of this damsel from the consequences of her bad behaviour. In Coyle’s world, as is the case for our Family Courts generally and their empowering legislation, women must be favoured and mothers are more important than fathers. Blatant sexism underlies this decision, one that excuses and rewards a woman for breaking the laws both in her home country and NZ, and for abusing this child through father deprivation. You can rest assured that Coyle will never make a similar decision when it’s a father who breached previous Court orders by abducting a child away from mummy.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 12:48 pm

  22. Sexism may be visible and describable.

    Blatant sexism isn’t what underlies this decision or most others.

    Let’s be blunt.

    This is a civil court, but not a court of law.

    It is a state court meeting the expectations of its master. These judges are writing the judgements that are expected under any set of circumstances.

    That is not sexism, it is corruption.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 1:09 pm

  23. To clarify corruption:

    The attainder prevailing: The forfeiture of estate and extinction of civil rights.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 1:19 pm

  24. I do know this woman…it would appear she also lied to me and my family …. This below from a woman we know who also knows this woman…..

    We have unity here… Man and woman… Father and mother in agreement that what this woman did to her child was wrong and yet we also see united agreement that the NZ family courts are wrong and corrupted in their determination… The question now must be … WHY? I believe they are still pushing a colonial suppression agenda to destroy dads and have simply extended this persecution to include all races of father … Especially any father who will defend his rights and demand answers !!!!

    Comment by Hornet — Thu 2nd November 2017 @ 8:49 am

  25. From a mother…to me…Referencing Family court… trying to make claim that returning to Germany would be more disruptive to child’s life. But bottom line is father has equal rights and what she did is illegal and unjust. I couldn’t bare to not see my children for years because of the other parent withholding them/ keeping them hidden….

    Comment by Hornet — Thu 2nd November 2017 @ 8:51 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