The use of Affidavits in Family Court
I do not think that the use of the affidavit is necessarily a good thing.
You take a couple that have split, family is separated from the man, the women generally has rights over the children and she does not want to communicate. Then she gets to release her bowels on paper, causing yet more bitterness, the man must respond bitterly too???
He has no idea what lies are going to be told in further affidavits and in the process of things, he must put forth his affidavit and then she gets to reply with all manner of BS, that then he has no ability to respond to, not even in a Conference, so yet another set of affidavits, sent out just before going to court and again she cuts his balls, right when he felt he was up to standing up for himself and his kid, it is blow after blow after blow.
I do not see the affidavit as constructive in a family process…it can be hellishly destructive, and then what purpose does that serve, only pockets of professionals that hound you along the dark court path. Years can go by and the professionals are still saying ‘yes, we must resolve this for the childrens’ sake”.. by this time this children are not such children any more, and what have they all learned…It does not matter apparantly as long as it is resolved in the end…what? in the end of time???
Supervised mediation must come before all of the shit process ensues. Regardless of a protection order. The emotion should be released before you can talk future resolutions for families…not carried on and swell to overflowing and continuing hatred, mistrust and no forgiveness to be had.
Hopefully it can end there and the family stuff gets sorted, before it gets taken over by lawyers, counsellors and other vultures of the separating family, no damn court process necessary.
Without an affidavit you would have no voice.
It is not any tool but a weapon if used wrongly or rightly.
But when used lightly, there is no telling what damages it can cause.
I was reading this morning about cases in Canada where they try to conjoin matter where family court meets criminal courts.
Essentially, parents use one court to defeat their presumed foes in other courts. SO when a family case becomes a criminal case some form of cross jurisdictional forum is created to address all the issues at once.
This of course does not fix the problem but reduces the chances of someone waiting 1 year + to be heard in the criminal court and when he has other pressing matters in the family Court.
Often , by the time you get heard you might as well give up and run to a better world.
Just Curious,,, you just said it though,,,
without an affidavit you do not have a voice.
We do have voices, we can be made to use those voices through real talk, hence the use of Mediation.
Mediation is good if both enter it in good faith.
That is true,,, but you would not want am affidavit written either if it were totally untrue. This is just destructive arguing via lawyers and the court process…and we all know how long that all takes.
We are forced to go to lawyers and the courts so why not force mediation.
Maybe this is what you looking for in NZ. Some form of accountability from all parties?
This should have preceded the above.
KEEP ALL THE ‘PROFESSIONALS’ OUT OF MEDIATION.
https://www.mediate.com/articles/EuroFam.cfm..okay maybe some professionals like this
About time this conversation came up
Finding my voice on here as well as my
Breath right about now.
….the only thing is…I don’t know about
I will just use keys words.
Control of conversation.
No phone call recorded.
Affidavits/parent with lawyer not
Allowed to talk except ONLY in office
Legally covered one minute next that’s all gone
Don’t know all legal rights 1st before been
A mum not even some lawyers knows without
Looking up there books
@ mama, all you say is right and makes sense.
But our reality is otherwise.
Where did common sense go?
Mediation is now the first port of call (unless you find a back door to court.)
But the people you may engage with in mediation may be walking affidavits.
They do not want solving of any problem.
They just want to infect the world around them.
All it takes is for someone to go to mediation and say I disagree.
If you do not return in 90 days they can access the courts.
So good faith is essential…
Another attraction of mediation is the confidential way it usually resolves business related conflict, with the parties signing confidentiality agreements and the inner workings of the business not ending up as a matter of public record. This is not usually the experience with litigation……. Deborah Hart. is on the Little panel for justice review. what she says here can apply to family justice perfectly.
Mediation is a process – often the only process – in which conflicts can be resolved rapidly, economically and at an early stage and often with an agreeable outcome for everyone involved.
Mediation with a trained and experienced mediator has the capacity to resolve a dispute on terms that the people involved want. It’s confidential and binding.
It empowers people to solve their own disputes. It provides tools to resolve future disputes. And usually it’s by far the most cost-effective option. What better recommendation could it have for business?
Mediation is used extensively in New Zealand following reforms three years ago that required most disputes concerning care and contact issues involving children to be mediated before access to the Family Court. Nothing was done at the time about property disputes that often go hand in hand with a split.
REALLY???,, mediation was not an option for us , ever,, the other party said,, I dont want to ever see this man ( father of child), ever again, nor his family, thems were the BRAKES!!
Mediation has the capacity to empower couples to reach their own agreements for their futures. People can choose their own mediator, discuss the issues that are relevant to them. And mediation is speedy. And cheaper. And confidential.
HOPE YET???, one would at least think that at the least he gets to be the father again, instead of the Perpetrator.
* Deborah Hart LLB is executive director of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of NZ.
People are not inclined to mediate if they are locked into a financial position.
Have to have custody to get the DPB
No, you can only have this many nights because I have already worked out how much child support I need.
If you have a look at Hansard you see Peter Dunne at the start of the last child support debate specifically forbidding debate including custody.
This is major part of the conflict.
I see,,, what a stupifying lack of care of family rights,,, or are there no such things.
Perhaps the way to view that is that the family you’re talking about is the nuclear family we all grew up with, mum dad and the kids.
The Family as in Family Law
is not the same family. More along the lines of the Feminist Family and what they want.
This word deception is something to be aware of.
Another example would be parent.
The real problem is once all is said and
Done, and the child has spent a few say
10+ years away, distraught, cyps give the
Sorry it should never of happened, who
Then is left to explain to the poor
Child everything – everything that you
Were exactly trying to not go through
That kind of torment with your child –
All over again for the both. It is very
Alienating for the child too when it
Isn’t always comfortable to even say the
Word mum/dad anymore as easy as it is for the
Child who wasn’t taken. But you know
It seems these things are not on anyone’s
“Checklist of things” before your phone call
Is about to be terminated or u get trespassed
For trying to make a valid point. Can dish
It out but can’t take it. Surely there’s
Another system out there that gives
Fixture to the everyday unexplained
To the fighting parents for their child
And the children for when they are crying
Because they miss each other i would think
It’s inhumane to keep a child and parent
From this when isn’t it resources that
Prisoners seem to have this kind of
Rehabilitation/expenditure for specialized
Needs, plenty of resources, time and money
Put into that system, – just saying.
And yet there’s a trail of evidence.
Maybe I’m asking for too much when some
People can’t even open there eyes.
….always better when words are out
Than stuck in my head for so so long.
Thanks men’s and i guess woman’s issues as well.
Looking at the affidavit in the broader sense of language I see something very different happening.
Language creates new words out of necessity, to describe new objects or occurrences. Looking through the history of language it is not hard to find a variety of examples.
Take a word like nosy or nosey which has two spellings. The word started life in English as nosy, meaning to have a prominent facial feature. Today it is more often seen spelt nosey, meaning to be putting one’s nose into other people’s business.
A similar process under Feminism has created a rapid but serrepticious change to our language. Words have already been and still are being redefined or given new meaning, within the administration.
The legalese of Feminist ideology.
We less often see jargon entering the affidavit process but it is there; for example “Men are emotionally illerate.” This is more inclined to turn up in court literature, establishing similar beliefs behind the scenes to that which we see in public – men must be assessed for their domestic and sexual violence risk (as posted in a comment recently)
Because we see a word we are familiar with we naturally give it that meaning we are familiar with.
The ideological transition in language is now so prominent that given an affidavit written by a lawyer, the average civilian would most likely not understand what it means. (Rather than says to the reader)
Being familiar with or able to read those words on a page does not make the reader aware of what the document actually means or the intention that the language holds.
In this confusion the reader is left to accept or trust the advice given in relation to the document.
A carefully written affidavit can say both what the reader wants to hear but tell the court something completely different. Likewise verbal submissions to the affidavit on the court day can extend this process.
This is a duplicity I saw on my first day in court. Realising what was happening I dismissed my lawyer in front of the judge and said I would speak for myself. The judge ordered the recording device turned off, and the tapes were apprently lost.
I am no longer involved in the process but doubt that this aspect has changed.
Being forced to engage in this process we (our protest groups) did develop some avoidance mechanisms.
We would not reply to the applicant and make ourselves the respondent – rather we stuck to titles.
He is the father, she is the mother.
We did not use words that had legal variations, such as ‘parent’ mentioned above.
We do not respond to the application but have this to say. This was particularly useful when dealing with one of those shouty little girls who some how got a law degree and thought typing a load of garbage to start a fight was par for the course.
The affidavit is a monster in disguise.
There’s a tendency to allow the assumption that because the process fails it is the fault of the participants rather than the system or its administrators.
There is another thing that happens in language in the juvenile to adult transition.
That group in many languages developes new words to share their private conversations with each other so adults cannot understand what they are saying.
In a similar fashion you see the Feminist administration taking a juvenile approach to social
development – they are playing their own silly little game without engaging with the population.
When they do engage with the population it’s political mischief or reinforcement of destructive beliefs.
Not to forget that you effectively have an adult with a vested interest in a political system writing an affidavit on behalf of another couple’s child.
Supposedly the impartial State Parent but more often described as second counsel for the mother.
I’m sure we all have our favourite quotes;
“I prefer not to give an opinion on this matter your honour as I would probably be considered a biased party.” … David Burns
I have been told during my involvement in the family court system that it is all psychological, so yes the words and phrases chosen are crucial it seems, lawyers fight fire with fire, we need to use water to quell this fire and take ownership of the real and important issues, mothers, fathers, children, respect and truth, otherwise the family court system WILL fail and justice WILL NOT prevail, fathers and children will flounder and another generation will add to all the bad nation statistics.
Spoke to an ex lawyer this morning and he said…( Currently the lawyers are attempting to persuade the government to keep lawyers involved in mediation processes whereas i personally believe they should be out as they impede successfully mediated outcomes most of the times.)