MENZ ISSUES

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

A Brief Summary of Some Serious Flaws in the Domestic Violence Act

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:20 am Sat 13th October 2018

1. The DVA requires the Court to determine matters on the standard of ‘proof’ called the balance of probabilities. This may be suitable for legal decision making in some areas and perhaps for a strictly time-limited non-contact order in relationship conflict situations, but it’s inadequate and unjust when used to deprive or limit in ongoing fashion various fundamental rights of accused individuals such as the right to parent one’s own children and even to interact with them, the right to occupy one’s own house and to use one’s own possessions, the right to freedom of movement in the community, the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to maintain a previously determined firearms licence and possession of firearms and the right to withhold consent to participate in treatment programs.

2. This removal and limitation of normal rights is also done under the Act to a respondent’s associates simply on the basis that the Court believes, without adequate or any evidence apart from the applicant’s claims, that the respondent has encouraged those associates to act against the applicant in ways that would amount to domestic violence. I.e. the Act allows rights to be removed from people who have never done or even been accused of doing anything violent.

3. The DVA states that its object is to protect ‘victims of domestic violence’ but then fails to require a reasonable standard of proof that there has been any domestic violence or any victim.

4. The DVA’s definitions of domestic violence are vague and unlimited, including the phrase “but not limited to” and undefined terms such as harassment and financial abuse. No boundaries are provided around what can be defined as domestic violence, meaning that all manner of normal relationship behaviour can be and is routinely treated as violence.

5. The DVA requires the Court specifically to take into account the applicant’s feelings when making its determinations and orders. This further erodes objectivity of decisions and the already inadequate’balance of probabilities’ standard of proof.

6. The DVA purports to improve safety by banning communication by a respondent towards the applicant. This means that the respondent is prevented from expressing his/her feelings to the respondent and from discussing the relationship issues. This will result in pent up emotions likely to decrease the safety of the respondent. The primary DVA basis is fundamentally flawed. In effect, the DVA only protects already quite safe applicants from the inconvenience of having to hear the feelings and concerns of ex-partners etc who were never at much risk of committing violence. Those respondents who are truly at high risk of violence are much more likely to be pushed into extreme violence by being banned from attempting to communicate about the problems.

7. The DVA continues to apply the provisions of ‘protection’ orders automatically to children, although since the 2014 changes the Court is now more easily able to make specific orders enabling contact between the respondent and children. For truly dangerous respondents, having their contact with their children routinely banned even when they have never done anything violent to those children will only increase risk towards the applicant. The results have been that numerous homicides have been committed by respondents subjected to the injustice of the DVA when they may never have reached that extreme point without the DVA.

8. Similarly, the inadequate standard of proof and poor respect for accused’s welfare and rights inherent in the DVA also provokes stronger anger and resentment in respondents and actually increases risk to the applicant. This was all predicted from the outset of the DVA and time has confirmed those predictions.

9. The DVA requires the Court, except in particular circumstances, to force respondents under threat of imprisonment to attend and to participate obediently in feminist indoctrination programs called ‘non-violence’ programs. Aside from amounting to a form of periodic detention on the basis of no reasonable justice process, this is an appalling abuse of commonly accepted human rights around consent to treatment and freedom of choice. Even prisoners, convicted beyond reasonable doubt of actual crimes, cannot be forced to participate in programs. But not so for respondents under the DVA. When totalitarian states elsewhere do this stuff to their people, NZ governments sanctimoniously criticize them at the UN yet here they are doing the same thing in NZ.

10. The DVA allows temporary ‘protection’ orders to be made against, i.e. many fundamental rights to be removed from, respondents without notice, i.e. before the respondent is informed about allegations or given any opportunity to reply to them. ‘Temporary’ is open-ended because the DVA allows the Court to extend it as often as pleased for 3 months at a time, and in effect this often means fathers are restricted from all contact with their children for large proportions of the children’s development before matters are dealt with.

11. Temporary ‘protection’ orders become final, meaning life-long (unless the Court at some time agrees to discharge the order), after 3 months by default if the respondent has not notified the Court that he or she wishes to be heard. However, the respondent only needs to be served the order, i.e. made aware of it at all, “10 clear days” before the end of the 3-months. If the respondent then doesn’t inform the Court (s)he wishes to be heard, the temporary order by default becomes final and permanent. Without-notice orders are made en masse and in routine fashion by a judge somewhere in the country on rotation who has never met the parties, on the basis purely of the paperwork so long as the requisite allegations are included (which the lawyers will ensure). That means the without-notice orders sometimes become permanent without any realistic Court scrutiny of allegations, without any cross-examination or judge’s examination of the accuser and without any need for corroborating evidence beyond the allegations. This all gives rise to huge injustice in cases where personal resources or circumstances of respondents impair their ability to deal with the system. If the DVA were based on any principle of fairness towards those accused, ‘temporary’ would be very short term (a few weeks) and would automatically lapse unless the applicant provided some corroborating, credible evidence of the respondent’s history and current risk of violence, and that evidence is scrutinized in realistic fashion.

12. The DVA, despite introducing a radically poor justice method for people to be found guilty of violence and punished accordingly, never included any requirement for evaluation of its effectiveness. It is not effective and we claim, on the basis of monitoring news articles since the inception of the DVA, that it has actually increased the most severe forms of domestic violence including homicide that it purports to protect people from.

These are only a few of the serious faults in the DVA. We claim that those faults were included and have been tolerated ongoing only because it’s mainly men who are disadvantaged.

35 Responses to “A Brief Summary of Some Serious Flaws in the Domestic Violence Act”

  1. JustCurious says:

    Wow MomA.
    I can now restore the conscious part of your objection.
    I will even add conscientious to make up for my own prejudice.
    This is good job, very well put.

  2. JustCurious says:

    Here is the typical police response and attitude

    Arrest first, question later

    Police response.

    The Police have a policy of arresting family violence offenders. For the Police, “family violence” includes: “… violence that is either physical, emotional, psychological or sexual. It includes people in all types of relationships; not just married couples, but those in de facto and homosexual relationships, children and other relatives of those directly involved in the abuse, flatmates or other people who share accommodation, and anyone in a close personal relationship.

    Lower Hutt Police family violence co-ordinator Senior-Sergeant Tim Castle says. “We try to take her out of the equation and proceed with prosecuting her violent partner, whether she complains or not – some women are just too frightened to lay a complaint because they are afraid of what the offender will do to her later.” This contrasts with earlier Police practice of prosecuting only if a complaint was laid.

  3. JustCurious says:

    I love the specificity in the comment.

    “We try to take her out of the equation and proceed with prosecuting her violent partner, whether she complains or not

  4. JustCurious says:

    https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj33/33-domestic-violence-and-pro-arrest-policy-p1-14.html

    Abstract

    Prior to the 1980s police in New Zealand, as in other Western jurisdictions, tended to adopt a minimalist stance to the treatment of domestic violence, with separation and mediation favoured over arrest. By the late 1960s, however, the “second wave” of the feminist movement had begun to have an impact on social attitudes, and from the early 1980s presumptive arrest strategies gained international popularity. Although research into the effectiveness of presumptive arrest has been inconclusive, New Zealand moved increasingly toward such a policy from 1987 onward. This paper discusses the progress and effects of various police initiatives in New Zealand’s fight against domestic violence over the past 20 years, and argues that although a policy of presumptive arrest sounds attractive, there are good legal and practical reasons why the police have continued to exercise discretion in the way the policy is interpreted.

  5. JustCurious says:

    Just as MoMA Says:

    The Domestic Violence Act 1995

    In 1995, partially influenced by a Justice Department survey into domestic violence in New Zealand (Leibrich et al. 1995), the Domestic Protection Act 1982 was repealed and replaced by the Domestic Violence Act. Notwithstanding the flawed methodology of the background report (see Newbold 1995), the Act has been considered a significant step towards combating the realities of domestic violence in New Zealand. Central to the new law is the protection order. Since the law came into effect on 1 July 1996, any person claiming to be the victim of domestic abuse (known as the “applicant”) has been able to apply to the Family Court for immediate invocation of a temporary protection order. A temporary protection order prevents an alleged offender (the “respondent”) from entering an applicant’s property or neighbourhood, from contacting the applicant, from physically or psychologically abusing the applicant, from impeding the applicant’s freedom of movement, and from possessing any firearm. A temporary protection order can be made without notice, and unless legally challenged it becomes permanent after three months.

  6. JustCurious says:

    And for Mama… I would not trust their stats.

    But it is a direction in the right step. 🙂

    https://nzfvc.org.nz/family-violence-statistics

  7. mama says:

    6,,no offence JC,, but please do not send me to that place, it is just that I must spend only limited time in those spaces… and I do not trust their stats.

  8. mama says:

    and once again and always thank you for the research.

  9. Downunder says:

    . The DVA states that its object is to protect ‘victims of domestic violence’ but then fails to require a reasonable standard of proof that there has been any domestic violence or any victim.

    I see this statement as a conflict of legal processes.

    The Criminal Justice process is obliged to demand a standard of process, to the point of a case to answer before any case is heard.

    This is a Civil Tribunal hearing a claim processed by an Officer of the Court. It is a subjective claim processed by the subjective thinking of the Officer.

    You’re approaching this from a beyond reasonable doubt perspective, most men do.

    I don’t like what they’ve done either, and while this approach may attract the attention of male casualties because they can relate to this, it doesn’t help impartial observers grasp the difference.

    Here’s a link to the Court of Appeal Decision posted last July.

  10. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Many people on this site have no doubt been very badly hurt by significant prejudice against men that permeates the field of domestic abuse. This prejudice is what has caused me the most harm. As I have noted in other posts that prejudice (twice) almost drove me to take my life.

    As you will all (hopefully) be aware by now, Audi Alteram Partem means listen to the other side, and that is the fist limb of natural justice. I know how horrific it was for me to be abused, but if I am true to my pseudonym, I must also be aware of how horrific it is for a woman to be abused.

    It is often suggested that balance is important. I must then suggest that the original posting and subsequent comments lack balance. This tread is weighted to the perspective of the innocent man who is deemed an abuser just because he is a man and how unfair and harmful that is. That is my story and that, maybe, is your story too. It is a story that has been deliberately suppressed. It is a story that needs to be told and needs to be told frequently and loudly. But it is not the only story.

    The “balance of probabilities” is not the standard of proof used in granting a Temporary Protection Order under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA). It is far worse than that. No proof is required. Natural Justice is thrown out of the window and the applicant (alleged victim) of abuse is believed (pretty much) without question. From my experience this will be especially so if the applicant is a woman.

    In any civilised society we trade off our freedoms to protect the rights of others. We give up our freedom to drive our cars as fast as we like to protect the rights of other motorists to stay alive should we accidentally crash into them.

    The same needs to be the case with a genuine victims of serious intimate partner abuse. The DVA requires us to give up our rights to natural justice to protect the rights of the victims of domestic abuse. I, for one, don’t mind doing that. I’ve been a victim of intimate partner abuse and I know how horrible and life-threatening it is.

    But, and it’s a big but, we only give up our rights for a few days. A protection order can, on application by the respondent, be discharged. Then, natural justice will apply. Then, we can have a fair hearing. The standard of proof is (as with all civil proceedings) ‘on the balance of probability’ and not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as applies in criminal proceedings. This does not place the applicant or respondent, man or woman, at any disadvantage. The same standard of proof applies to all parties.

    MoMA is concerned about bans on communication because respondents won’t be able to express their feelings. The problem here is that (aside from false allegations – that can as above be challenged in court) the respondent was expressing her or his feelings with her or his fists. Some time out and/or undertaking a non-violence programme may give the violent partner time to cool down and reflect on their behaviour.

    Programmes are better than gaol time, but if the programmes are based on the Duluth model then they will fail. Recidivism will be equal or often greater than doing nothing. That is however a problem with the programmes, not with the DVA.

    To suggest that the DVA precipitates familial homicides is a bridge too far. Deeply disturbed women and men have been murdering their children and partners well before the DVA and will continue to do so with or without the Act being in place.

    The research consistently shows that domestic abuse is mutual in 50% to 60% of the occurrences. When not mutual the non-violent partner is 50/50 female/male. Women though suffer about 70% of the injuries including death at the hands of their partner.

    When Police Safety Orders and Protection Orders are issued against women in somewhere between 30% to 50% of the cases, then that will be a sign that the DVA is being applied fairly. In the meantime some prosecutions against police for breaches of the Human Rights Act when they in bad faith issue PSOs against innocent men, and more men taking Protection Orders out against their female partners, will help level the playing field.

  11. Evan Myers says:

    A couple of days ago, Audi there was

    Nothing wrong with the Domestic Violence Act.

  12. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @12 My position hasn’t changed Evan. On looking through the Act I can’t see anything wrong with it. How it is applied is where problems lie. It is applied in a biased fashion because we live in a society that is biased against men. I suggest that the challenge before us is to change that bias, not to change the DVA.

  13. george simonovski says:

    I quite like Audi’s most recent post. The brain washed Judges.Police officers have to toe the imposed ” It is all men,s fault line ” Will tell you a concrete example from my Court hearing:

    When the applicant couldn’t answer my question why she doesn’t have any Statement/Affidavit from the direct witnesses of my ” loitering” the Judge leaped in her help and suggested that she ” felt pushed” by my three Affidavits from her direct witnesses and friends which said the Applicant wasn’t even thee .

    My three Affidavits were described by the Judge as ” me developing a tunnel vision when trying to
    get to the bottom of the things ” and that is how I psychologically abused the applicant .

    Can you imagine how I felt ?

    I guess that is what Audi wants to change. Good on you Audi . No DV Law can be a good one with such a distorted/gender biased Judges’ attitude . The Judges’ gender biased attitude can not be changed in one day because they see the aggressive feminists are winning in all fronts. Judges are not stupid , they will join the winning side

  14. mama says:

    When an innocent person is punished in any way, or humiliated, or even spoken down to, they are being seen as at least partly guilty. The other part of the guilt lies with the other party and with the system for its bias stance.
    When two adults disagree ,should it be taken into the public arena, both parties should do the ‘management/containment’ , decision around children should remain aside and treated fairly toward parties.
    The NEED to keep family out of court proceeding should be the ultimate focus.

  15. JustCurious says:

    @11

    MoMA is concerned about bans on communication because respondents won’t be able to express their feelings. The problem here is that (aside from false allegations – that can as above be challenged in court) the respondent was expressing her or his feelings with her or his fists. Some time out and/or undertaking a non-violence programme may give the violent partner time to cool down and reflect on their behaviour.

    interesting rethoric….

    (aside from false allegations – that can as above be challenged in court)

    There in lies the problem : having to challenge it in courts

    Having to challenge anything in courts whereby the system is broken and is bursting at the seams is the problem.

    takes between 15 and 20 months to have your day in court for a defended hearing.

    In the mean time, one is excluded from his life and his children.

    This is where the harm is done.

    Now all this could be addressed simply by making it mandatory that all cases of domestic violence must be dealt with within 21 days of date of prosecution.

    We surrender our right to natural justice but regain our right to be trialed without delay.

  16. Downunder says:

    #11 and #13

    Audi, I have as much faith in your thinking as I do in that of a stopped clock.

    As MoMA points out.

    5. The DVA requires the Court specifically to take into account the applicant’s feelings when making its determinations and orders. This further erodes objectivity of decisions and the already inadequate ’balance of probabilities’ standard of proof.

    Not accepting that there is a reality to feminist dogma and its social model is up to you. As pointed out here it is reflected in our law.

    Suggesting that the protection order is advanced on no evidence would naturally fit you into the easily excluded insane element of the men’s right movement (if there is such a thing).

    The balance of probability is not a singular burden of proof;

    In some cases it prefers clear and concise evidence and in others a preponderance of material.

    That is how the Feminist agenda is continually advanced and bias is established.

    That is nothing to do with the application of the legislation, it is the law

  17. JustCurious says:

    isn’t the balance of probabilities a series of extrapolations made to support speculations?

    The outcome 🙂 is a speculation as to whether or not the party could be found guilty.

    Since allegations are made, a man is guilty until proven innocent.

    So if there isn’t enough evidence to support the defendent’s claim liberty is given to a judge to impersonate a behavior specialist and express an opinion as to whether the reported incidents giving rise to the claims are factual and could have happened.

    However, unless the defendent can provide incontrovertible proof that the alleged incident did not happen in its entirety. The judge must express an opinion on what he thinks may have happened.

    That is why they say an affidavit must be responded to point by point.

    So after every point is tallied and weight given to each and conflicting testimonies reconciled, what is left is a balance of probabilities. Which is then turned into a decision.

    Essentially the judge is no longer a neutral party administering the law under oath and without fear but rather is practicing law on the bench.

    Now how do we get here?

    The courts are bursting at the seams. A jury trial in the criminal courts will take let’s say about a year, on average.

    To speed up the process, one elects to stand before a judge alone trial, instead of before a jury or peers.

    This effectively removes the balance of probabilities from the judge and vests the truth into the jury. But with the onus on the jury to appreciate all available facts and make up their own minds over what truly happened.

    However, because most parents simply want to get rid of this nightmare they thus elect judge alone trials. This is not by choice but rather forced upon their person by all the foreseeable delays and unknown factors, and the most important factor, their belief in their innocence and in justice.

    And they thus surrender their most important right (to be trialed by a jury of peers.)

    The Family Court as well as other courts do this under the pretense of privacy and the best interest of a child. But this in itself is not lawful nor fair and just. It is a lie.

    When you are charged in the criminal court, the dynamics are the same. It is father against mother or child against parent.And yet this is a public and open court.

    The dynamics are the same albeit consequences are worse in the criminal court where you might loose your freedom.

  18. Evan Myers says:

    #18 That all sounds a bit mumbo jumbo to me – especially the bottom line where you appear to confuse liberty with freedom.

  19. JustCurious says:

    @19 are you one of those pedantics?
    But you are right i could have written it in bullet points

    Abstract: 1

    1- Do not go to court
    2- If you have to go to criminal court
    ~~~~~~~do not waive your right to a jury.
    ~~~~~~~Otherwise the balance of probability exercise will be default
    ~~~~~~~and you might get convicted for something you did not do.

    Abstract 2:

    1-The family court is judge alone – therefore no jury
    2-Secrecy of family court is not justified as consequences are less
    ~~~~~than in criminal courts where consequences can be disastrous
    ~~~~~to one’s freedom and liberty of movement.

  20. JustCurious says:

    The obvious point being that balance of probabilities is only valid in judge alone trials.

    If you consider about 96.75 percent of people on this board are victims of either the familiy courts and of the DV Act in the criminal courts (where most parents are victimized due to their election of a Judge Alone trial)… can you see where the problem may lay?

  21. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Some (let’s say interesting) comments here.

    @15 Mama is concerned with innocent people being punished. But in a society that is ruled by law then sometimes innocent people will have charges leveled against them. They must be given support to defend those charges, but we have to accept that life is not always fair and innocent people may on occasion need to defend themselves.

    @16 JC suggests my comment about people expressing their feelings with their fists is “interesting rhetoric”. This site shows it’s passion in supporting innocent men. But let’s be a bit real here. The innocent female victims of brutal intimate partner abuse surely need our sympathy and our support as well.

    JC is also suggesting that it may take 15 to 20 months for a defended hearing. In the case of the Domestic Violence Act if a respondent to a “without notice” Protection Order wishes to have that order discharged then section 47 (6) (a) of the Act requires the registrar to assign a hearing date as soon as practicable, and no later than 42 days after the application for discharge.

    @17 My previous nemesis Dowunder is starting to warm to me. He now thinks that I am perfectly correct twice a day. Thanks Downie! He though is regrettably incorrect in supporting MoMA’s asserting that the Family Court needs to take “feelings” into account. In fact they are required to take into account the applicant’s “perceptions”. A small but significant difference.

    Downunder and others are also quite hung up on the balance of probability proof that is used in the Family Court. It is seen as a bad thing when used against men. But it is a two way street. The ex may be claiming you are a bad father but you can win the argument that you are a good father using the same balance of probability criteria. Would people here prefer to have to prove that they are a good father beyond reasonable doubt?

    I do accept wholeheartedly that there are nefarious feminist dogmas that are badly hurting us. But I can’t accept that these are included in “the Law” in New Zealand, unless Downunder can cite statute and/or precedent where feminist dogma has been codified into law. Making allegations is one thing. Backing them up with documented evidence is another thing altogether.

    @18 JC suggests:

    So after every point is tallied and weight given to each and conflicting testimonies reconciled, what is left is a balance of probabilities. Which is then turned into a decision. Essentially the judge is no longer a neutral party administering the law under oath and without fear but rather is practicing law on the bench.

    Sorry, but I don’t understand how a Judge loses neutrality by tallying and reconciling?

    @21 JC is very concerned about “Judge Alone Trials” I’m less concerned about that. Judges are sworn to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour. Some of course keep that oath better than others, but I’d personally prefer a Judge over the randoms that may turn up on a Jury. Regardless there is always the option of appealing should justice not be done on the day.

  22. mama says:

    # Audi,,, Men who find them selves in the public arena when their relationship has gone awry, find that they are disregarded as far as the importance at maintaining their own very Fatherhood.

    Where is the family approach, to have to defend your right to be a Father is outrageous.

  23. Downunder says:

    Same scratched CD, New Player

  24. Paul Catton says:

    @22

    I do accept wholeheartedly that there are nefarious feminist dogmas that are badly hurting us. But I can’t accept that these are included in “the Law” in New Zealand, unless Downunder can cite statute and/or precedent where feminist dogma has been codified into law.

    Crimes Act 1961
    194 Assault on a child, or by a male on a female
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who—
    (a)
    assaults any child under the age of 14 years; or
    (b)
    being a male, assaults any female.

    196 Common assault
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who assaults any other person.

  25. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @25 Holy Crap! I bow to your greater knowledge Paul. You are right and I was wrong. That is discrimination against men codified into law. That has to be repealed!

    Downunder has referenced a post from 2008, so that and your comment gives me pause to think what I would have thought about that legislation 10 years ago.

    Ten years younger and without having been exposed to the frightening statistics on female perpetrated abuse I would have said “fair cop!” As a small child I was told to, “never hit a girl” or someone who wears glasses for that matter!?! I don’t know the provenance of that particular section of the Crimes Act, but if it came from 1961 it was more likely driven by male gynocentricism than feminism.

    I guess it is about abuse of imbalances of power – for which I have some sympathy. An ex-colleague of mine was a diminutive man who was regularly beaten by his gargantuan female partner. He held no power over her – quite the reverse – and that is why that section of the crimes act must go.

  26. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @23 Hi Mama.

    Some deeply disturbed psychopathic or narcissistic men (and, but less so, women) have killed their children as a perverted from of retribution against their partner.

    So Mama, imagine you are a judge in a family court application where the applicant is painting a picture that looks very much like the father is just such a disordered individual who is likely to kill his own children.

    What would you do? Defend his right to be a father? Or defend his children’s right to live?

    I don’t envy in the least the huge burden of responsibility placed on Family Court judges.

    Commentators on this site mostly only see things from the side of the innocent man/father. But there is more than one side to all the stories told about domestic abuse.

  27. JustCurious says:

    I think what you are missing Audi is empathy and experience and these two cannot be faked.

    @25 Holy Crap! I bow to your greater knowledge Paul. You are right and I was wrong. That is discrimination against men codified into law. That has to be repealed!

    🙂 Thank you for that, that was my best laughter for today.

    That has to be repealed!</

    aye aye. captain let’s do that… and welcome to reality.

  28. JustCurious says:

    Commentators on this site mostly only see things from the side of the innocent man/father. But there is more than one side to all the stories told about domestic abuse.

    not commentators but victims of unjust laws.

    Not just men but the whole populace has felt the teeth of this vicious system. And the hurt is very much the same. So to be called a commentator suggest a certain remoteness that only you can claim.

    Some deeply disturbed psychopathic or narcissistic men (and, but less so, women) have killed their children as a perverted from of retribution against their partner.

    And here I thought we were trying to dispel the feminist fallacies!!!/???!

    Regardless there is always the option of appealing should justice not be done on the day.

    Of course there is such an option. And of course there must be such an option. Remember, you are not meant to be there in the first place? And here you are recommending another serving.

    First serve may have cost you between 8 and 16K. An appeal? … hmmm … sure…why not… let’s tally the time, effort, energy… cost…unknown outcome… and the balance of probabilities that if you failed the first time and yet, was innocent, you will have first to establish what went wrong during the hearing and further be able to prove your innocence, again. wow, An appeal is such a great idea. I love it. what, another 20000?.

    But let’s not digress and follow your rethoric backwards

    The ex may be claiming you are a bad father but you can win the argument that you are a good father using the same balance of probability criteria.

    I think the point of this exercise is lost on you and as mama points out

    Where is the family approach, to have to defend your right to be a Father is outrageous.

    …thanks mama… that sums me up.

  29. Kiwi Keith says:

    Audi @27: this contribution seems tainted by a bias in my view.
    For a start, curious things can happen to a good man’s thinking and perspective when he finds himself unexpectedly having been pushed through the looking-glass into a feminist male hating world which condemns him for everything while excusing females for everything they do or don’t do. You see the same rules do not apply equally on both sides. A guy who has always assumed “a fair go” can be up-ended by this. No, I am not defending it, but I do not believe that those fathers were necessarily always like that – but were overwhelmed by irrational injustice and hopelessness. Also if for example a father thoughht his ex might parade a procession of “uncles” through the lids lives (bedrooms) well that can mess a guys mind too. And yes Audi – I have had to deal with this myself. No, I’m not saying that on average males are worse than women around children – but they are no worse and no less trustworthy. According to some stats however it could be argued that males are a tad better for children – presence of the bio father does give children a statistical edge – solo motherhood for example. However your example never the less portrays the stereotypical feminist model where the father is perhaps not positive for the children, and that there is no problem with the mother. Also that the judge is unbiased – and in this world I think many judges were born into a feminist world, feminist perspectives and have to apply a legal system demonstrably skewed against males, and male-ness. For these reasons, I am not with you in your @27 contribution. It is not in the children’s interests to start out with some belief that by default, children are better off and safer with their mother or other women. Many fathers sacrifice all and even their lives for their children. They do this while lacking the legal support, the financial support, and having no refuges, and very few non-biased advisory agencies. There is no network – which is why any group, even one which is busy splitting hairs is important. Something might grow out of it.
    This world has no shortage of negative opinions about masculinity, and men are used to being assumed guilty without a hearing of any kind – #MeeToo for example. And for many of us those false allegations, which I can attest do not serve the children’s best interests either. Winning by telling lies is not a good example to set for children.

  30. Evan Myers says:

    To suggest that the DVA precipitates familial homicides is a bridge too far. Deeply disturbed women and men have been murdering their children and partners well before the DVA and will continue to do so with or without the Act being in place.

    Some deeply disturbed psychopathic or narcissistic men (and, but less so, women) have killed their children as a perverted from of retribution against their partner.

    So Mama, imagine you are a judge in a family court application where the applicant is painting a picture that looks very much like the father is just such a disordered individual who is likely to kill his own children.

    Both from above.

  31. Evan Myers says:

    I think what you are missing Audi is empathy and experience and these two cannot be faked.

    … and you have to admire his persistence?

  32. MurrayBacon says:

    There is discussion above about parents murdering their own children in spite.
    As discussed, this dynamic has always existed, both in men and women. This is a factor in infanticide, where mothers are presently given more “tolerance” than fathers.
    Evolutionary biology is forgotten, in trying to take a “rational” approach. Somewhat similar behaviours are seen in many species, when the parents or the whole species are under extreme threat. Modern understanding of animal decision-making would challenge the use of the word “spite”. That is a cerebral rationalisation, of what is much more a behaviour based on hormones, fight or flight, childhood trauma and survival instincts. These all wrongly brought into play in the extremity of the non-proportionate games being played, for keeps.
    Depression issues are also largely ignored, where it appears that supporting both parents offers the most constructive and life saving and lowest cost approach.
    The king hit custody approach is a form of testing parents to destruction. If they fail the test, the legal worker “deems” them to have always been an unsatisfactory parent. Thus the king hit was “justified”, by events that had not yet happened at the sentencing! This same integrity is often used by judges in CYFs cases – I know they have a new name on an old organisation.
    This non-proportionate response has the same integrity and intellectual basis as dunking witches into rivers. If they drowned, they were innocent. If they lived, they would be burned at stake. Judges in those days had hard hearts. Nothing useful has changed. Perhaps more of a way of disposing of women who may have been made pregnant, that shouldn’t have?
    Social science research in USA warned that extreme, heavy handed removal of either parent would in some cases precipitate extreme violence in a very small proportion of parents.
    In other words, the police arrest studies recommended a proportionate response, similar to what is recommended in sentencing manuals all around the world for all other offences and is also seen as an essential part of natural justice.
    Proportionate doesn’t allow for differential sentencing based on sex.
    Proportionate response does not allow for standardised “solutions” irrespective of the facts of the individual case. With standardised solutions, judges would not actually be required!
    However, some one eyed feminists cherry picked this research and pushed for a king hit approach to managing the custody of children.
    As well as breaching natural justice, that is quite against the developmental interests of children. Maintaining a workable relationship with both parents, is seen as being almost always in the interests of the children.
    The police arrest studies were completed and results released, before the Domestic Violence Act was drafted. So we have no excuse for drafting dangerous and defective legislation, after the publication of the conclusions of the police arrest studies, other than laziness and stupidity.
    The greatest sin of all, is to be continuing with this act, without competently and broadly evaluating how well it is working in practice.
    The police arrest studies are fairly readily available through library requests. Or if you would like to read a cut down summary, I included them as appendices in a submission made to a review of the DVAct, many, many years ago.
    https://archive.org/details/SubmissionRegardingNzDomesticViolenceAct
    In other words, I am supporting MoMA, but in stronger language.
    There is a better way!

  33. JustCurious says:

    Yes, I admire his bravado at playing with fire.

    But what i admire most is that he does not shy away from speaking his mind.

    Of course his opinions tend to invalidate our common individual experience of the law and system, both biased.

    And incidentally emphasize his own ignorance of the real issues.

    But that is good. Imagine him as a judge, or a cop or a social worker…

    The psychology is already here..

    The question is how well can we help him see the other side?
    Our side and the human factor?

  34. MurrayBacon says:

    #30 I initially didn’t believe the stories about feminist training for family caught judges after appointment and before taking up duties.
    As I now understand it, it is a one week training course and does exist. It is presented without challenge to it’s integrity.
    So maybe judge’s behaviour isn’t so surprising, when this is taken into account?

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