New Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill – Now only one reading away from becoming law.
In a lot of cases children who want to see dad, they will have their say. That being said, lets get down to the real world. The worlds most cunning animal is the human. To head the above scenario off, a woman need only alienate the child before lawyer for child gets to interview the child.
In my view, if a child has been alienated by one parent, the child need only repeat what they hear from that parent and the other parent won’t be seeing that child anytime soon. No prize for guessing which gender does the alienation.
Where is the legislation to outlaw and call alienation violence?
Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill
The bill seeks to:
• Reinforce the expectation that a child should have reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their care and welfare.
• ensure that lawyers appointed to represent children in proceedings are suitably qualified to represent the child or young person and that they explain proceedings to their clients.
• Require lawyers to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes in order to minimise harm to children, families, and whānau.
• Reinforce the need for the court to recognise and respond appropriately to family violence, particularly the impact it has on children.
New Zealand National Party differing view.
The National Party does not support this bill because, while improvements to children’s participation are to be welcomed, this law would see more disputes in court and a more legalistic approach involving more lawyers. As many submitters noted, this would make things worse not better for children.
In relation to child participation, we would note we heard from multiple submitters that it is not in every instance in a child’s welfare and best interests to actively participate. For example, where it involves confronting trauma or significant family acrimony it can be harmful. Additionally, over-exposure to multiple professionals and to the court case can lead to a sense of responsibility for the decisions made.
We also agree with the related concern that this bill is proceeding without the benefit of research from which to develop an evidence-based model for children’s participation and guidelines about the circumstances where children should be involved.
This leads to concerns we have about lawyers for the child, given that this bill will lead to an even more central role for them. Many submitters raised concerns about the role and lack of training and lack of skills of lawyer for child when it comes to such important matters as child development and psychology or sexual violence. We agree with this concern. Other professionals with skills and training relevant to children could do a better job out of court.
More court process and lawyers are not the answer. Finally, in support of our view we point to the international practices we were made aware of during the select committee process. With this law, New Zealand will see more cases in court with more primacy provided to lawyers than in any of the several comparable jurisdictions we looked at. Almost invariably these jurisdictions use other professionals such as psychologists or social workers more than they do lawyers with variable training and knowledge of dealing with children.
I’m in favour of the bill. A focal point is to try and remove the adversarial nature and litigation aspects. LFC’s already have all the power. But they muzzle children and filter what they want through biased court reporting. Lawyers should be encouraged to seek agreements and cooperation outside of the court process. As most of us know, women use the court process to punish and seek revenge.
In a normal intact family there is a mother and a father encouraging the mind of the child.
How many different people do we now have in competition for the mind of the child?
In the end the same position will be arrived at once again.
The father is the only competent guardian of the child.
That’s how the fight ended last time too.
So let me get this right ….. L4C are now supposed to explain to their “clients” (read children) the proceedings in the Court. Yet when parents do this, they are punished for discussing “adult issues” and are told to lie to their children … ie. “I know you want to see me more but Mummy and Daddy are trying to sort it out”
I prefer to keep matters away from the courtroom, negotiate and have them red stamped by a Judge after the agreement. Without that red stamp, your agreement may as well be printed on toilet paper.
In my view, courtrooms are for people who can’t agree.
It is the questioning of the child who is in the current custody of its mother and her influence that concerns me.
LC4’s are like a box of chocolates. You can get an amazing one, an OK one and one that is a hard line man hater. What a nightmare that would be.
Dad has his say.
Mum has her say.
Lawyer for dad speaks.
Lawyer for mum speaks.
Service providers speak.
The judge speaks.
And now, the child.
All speaking, making no decisions.
Placing such a burden, of hurting others.
On the most innocent.
Just more, and more to fight for.
More chance of corruption.
Perfect, for racketeering.
I have today seen the dirtiest alienation tactic yet to be played in my case.
Got a surprise call from one of my children via their device, call was usurped by other parent within moments to seek clarification. Had a gut feeling something was wrong, and should not have answered. other parent regularly witholds contact using this method, so a call outside of ordered dates/times should have rung a bigger alarm bell.
Clearly seeking to foster distrust of child in me.
Call to establish why not there to receive child, child had a balloon.
In reality other parent misinterpreted order (9th time in as many weeks)odd for a person in administration for almost 20 years, to have such a failing grasp on the english language.
Child due to spend birthday weekend here in around 3 weeks, feel other parent wanted birthday weekend to self.
Naturally upset child ended call without saying goodbye, obvious to author parent that child was setup with view to fail from party less concerned with his psychological well being.
Other parent recently had urgent application shat on by judge, earlier in the week. And will understandably feel the pending shift in power and the loss of that power imbalance other parent has been high on for some time.
Perhaps counsel for applicant should have been urged to clarify clients misunderstanding prior to the weekend instead of filing vexatious litigation. Talk about seeking conflict. And demonstrating in front of child.
Why such a rogue tactic? Presumably as (clever) judge recently invoked fcr 416ua while giving sole leave to c4c to raise safety concerns and that other parent likely now feels powerless that wont be heard in the interim.
I will be another week before I can console my child, hopefully I can smooth this over. Child not 5 yet.
Other parent has opposed contact voraciously for 12 months and only very recently got things running in that respect, after being forced by the courts.
@6 There are a few reason why your X withholds contact. In no order.
1. Power and control.
2. It punishes you.
3. It hurts you to know your child is hurt.
4. To make your child estranged from you.
5. It allows her to stay in the family home.
6. It allows her to hold on to all the items in the family home.
There are many tricks, not answering the device, her in the background just waiting to record one word out of place. Not being on time.
Keep diary. Keep an account.
In the end, your child will come back to you. It is however the lost childhood that will never been regained.
The court must keep contact going. They know this is important. You should let the court know what is going on. It can build up over time and result in more forced contact.
@7 Thanks for responding. “Solace from a stranger”
Power struggle – check
Punishment – Check
There is no doubt in my mind hurting child to hurt me is a tool other parent might use.
Device only makes calls, briefly, never is to receive. Other parent always lurking in shadows.
Other parent definitely wants child to have less contact, last 8 weeks spent using childish lawyer trying to force “changes” on interim order.
“Sand and seashells” content of recent urgent application for judicial conference. Yes read that right.
Child is clever and often ends calls the moment other parent begins to interfere. Witnessing power struggle developing between parent and child as child seems to resist being controlled, child very much like Dadvocate. Very strong bond with child and Dadvocate that other parent is unsuccessfully trying to undermine, hence brutal attack with balloon as chosen weapon. Symbolic interference. Other parent has very fragile sense of self, and sees child as extension of her or even personal property.
Diary – Check.
Am under impression the court wishes not to humiliate other parent as have been very accepting of weak reasoning for “mistakes” yet I see the “between the lines” references from His Honour to his observation of other underhanded tactics not referenced here.
I remain adamant the behaviour should come under open scrutiny, but her mental health might not hold out.
I’m a self litigant and have impending RTM to be convened, is there someone I can talk to in private about what happens next ?
#8 If you are in Auckland …. I suggest you attend the Auckland Parent’s Support Group. Meetings are held every Thursday at 6.45pm in the Melville Cricket Pavilion, Melville Park, 18-20 St Andrews Road, Epsom. There is plenty of parking at the north end of St Andrews Road. And a Lawyer is present. Bring a pen and paper because you’ll be given the best advice from seasoned Family Court victims !
#9 Thanks for the heads up, I am further down the South Island.
I’m not the best speller but I see the word “Psuedo” is spelled incorrectly on your website. In the past I’ve used a service like SpellAlerts.com or SiteChecker.com to help keep mistakes off of my websites.
Very Nice post!
It was exceptionally helpful! I heartily impressed by your blog and learn more from your article, thank you so much for sharing with us. Parental Alienation Canada keep doing awesome, You will get well-informed data about it here.
The lawyer for child (LFC) system concerns me. I’ve just lost all contact with my daughter as a result of our LFC. Going back to Court to revise a parenting order we had a new LFC. The LFC is very active with the local womens refuge (on board etc) and certainly a stereotypical man hater type. My daughter advised her she is fine with both parents but as she is suffering mental health issues LFC pushed that mum is the ‘safer’ person to talk to. The night before Court I was advised (quite late) that LFC was now changing her submission and wanted all contact between me and daughter cut (quote “until her mental health stabilised” – have a great relationship with my daughter’s counsellors who have never raised any issues of danger from either parent and in fact been very encouraging and supportive). At court she promised Judge further evidence would be obtained. All contact was cut – I haven’t seen my daughter for 2 months now. Ive been pushing for this “evidence” but it has never happened – i even spoke to the people the LFC was supposed to get the evidence from (counsellor and school etc) and they haven’t been contacted. At a recent directions conference my ex – (daughter’s mother) agreed to me resuming contact with my daughter (publicly anyway). My daughters counsellor also is strongly supportive of this and even offered to assist with this. However LFC again strongly opposed this. I have my son week-about and we have a great relationship. LFC has advised Court she is ‘concerned’ about him. I feel like throwing in the towel but know I have to stay strong to stop her trying to do the same thing with my son.
In the alienation process daughters are the weak link.
Once the mother has successfully alienated a daughter that sets up a dynamic where the daughter doesn’t want to be alone and will begin to isolate the son.
The perpetual hate machine doesn’t stop.
#13 Kstar. I suggest you put in an Application to remove the L4C and ask for a replacement. If you are in Auckland, I suggest you attend this meeting on Thursday night. “Meetings are held every Thursday at 6.45pm in the Melville Cricket Pavilion, Melville Park, 18-20 St Andrews Road, Epsom. There is plenty of parking at the north end of St Andrews Road.”
Bring pen and paper because you’ll be given a lot of information and you won’t remember it all as your head will be spinning !
Sometimes you just have to shake your head, and go WTF.
A lawyer for child, who is openly tainted.
IE represents female perspectives.
Represents women, in a paid capacity.
Then given rights, in a court of law.
To be the Judge, that the Judge surrenders to.
And recommends banning a parent, from a child’s life.
Even the Taliban, would think that unjust.
And there a bit crazy on the Justice stuff.
Sounds like theft of your rights, corruptly.
There is a striking difference of course.
The Taliban, prosecute for known lawbreaking.
It doesn’t matter, if the laws a little bit crazy.
Or that the punishment is cruel, and inhuman.
Like banning a person from being a parent.
Without any standard, of justice.
Far worse than the Taliban.
The justice is cruel, but honest.
Here, justice is cruel, but dishonest.
And I remember.
From a wise mans, sacrifice.
In Iran they stone mothers.
In New Zealand they stone fathers.
What part of NZ do you live in?
That LFC is nothing more than a thug. A criminal by humanity standards. Getting her qualification for the sole purpose to cause families, loving dads a mess in their lives.
Kstar, you are a good man, you are a good father. Don’t give up fighting for your daughter. She needs you to fight for her. Never surrender her rights to a dad who loves her. She is relying on you to stand up.
The LFC has zero concern for the future wellbeing of your children and should be replaced. Contact
Golfa as soon as you can.
#13 – I have been through a similar experience. I was prevented from seeing my children for over 9 months. The LFC (Lisa Halford) has done nothing but create barriers. While you can try to get the LFC changed, the other way is to turn the tables. It takes a lot of patience. I actually filed a discontinuance because of the LFC’s biased behaviour. I have an LCF (Long Cause Fixture) judge now as the case file is immense. I think having an LCF judge is key. They can see patterns of behaviour from the other parent and counsel over time. I was getting no where with the continual coin toss of judges for each conference/hearing. Some judges will hide behind the LFC. I’m thankful now that I will always have the same judge who actively engages the LFC in support of my relationship with my children. Hang in there, push for an LCF judge if you can. Your counsel will advise the pros/cons of changing the LFC. It doesn’t always work.
We used to call them, judge managed cases.
In retrospect having been through the whole 9 yards for the best outcome I wouldn’t do it again.
Sick bitches don’t get better through the process, they only get sicker and more destructive.
If mothers behave this way there really is only one resolution. If they’re not sick enough to lock away them fathers should get full custody.
#20 – You are right. The other parent will get away with a hell of a lot of provocative and hostile behaviour. Don’t even dare to try and get justice or retribution. The system simply doesn’t allow that as an outcome for men. It’s a hard choice whether or not a man stays within the family court mincer. I have slowly begun turning the corner and that’s only because I have a judge who won’t tolerate nonsense, not even from the LFC. The judge understood my reasons for wanting to discontinue, (hostility from the mother, no support from the LFC, a broken system, financial drain etc) but the LFC tried to weaponize it as if it were evidence I didn’t care for the children. The Judge didn’t want a bar of it and knocked the LFC back. 8 judges have been across my case so far and this was the first to have reigned in the LFC. The judge also told the mother that she would be holding her to account for making sure I was given every opportunity to rebuild my relationship with the children after being separated for so long.
I was blown away.
I admire you guys for your perseverance.
I only had 2 events with the courts.
First attempt to stop me seeing my son.
Was sorted out with an interview with a lady.
I got one visit a month out of that, process.
Ignored from the beginning.
Then a second time with a day in court.
Defending against a protection order.
And permanently stoping me seeing my son.
And stoped the attempt.
Winning the holiday weekends, and 3 weeks over Christmas.
If that’s winning.
And payed my child support.
So my battles were small.
Only having to restrain a conversation, in court.
Just to get my win.
Forced to be the beggar.
I have lost my need, for restraint.
Please Sir, Can I have some more? Legal Aid works just fine. One Barrister I know earns over 400K a year on legal aid. What are your experiences of the Legal aid system?
As someone who pays their own way through the family court system and the ex uses legal aid, I believe it is unfair to force a party into financial ruin while the instigator is given a blank cheque.
If anything, if one party uses legal, the other party should also be allowed. How much of legal aid is ever paid back? I can’t find any stats on that?
While the all women law firms, claim they can get 100% success, in getting legal aid.
Men get this.
“She said she knew of one parent who couldn’t get legal aid to seek custody of his children so had given up trying to represent himself.”
Which is the point, to ban men from contact with children.
Laws, made by lawyers, for the financial benefit, of lawyers.
And based on predatory behaviour.
As you said, those with legal aid can do anything.
The working fathers, disqualified.
Applications continuous, until they win.
Eventually the father, will have nothing left.
The lawyers enriched.
The crown supporting, as policy, the asset stripping of men.
And pretty much only men.
You don’t get 94% decisions, in one groups favour.
Without that resultant being organised, as policy.
Support females, persecute males.
Cross ones fingers.
Hope the male fights back.
Make decisions, that are bigoted.
Make certain the male remains a 100% Child Support payer.
Cross ones fingers.
It even works when the female, is full of hate.
And will not allow even 1% contact.
Give the male, a little contact.
Cross ones fingers.
A new accusation will be made.
Legal aid supported.
Remove the males rights.
Cross ones fingers.
It’s like a blatant organised criminal group.
Using children to extort money, from fathers.
The mothers got the free legal aid.
And pretty much everything else for free as well.
Supporting them, but nothing for men.
The article, is about wanting more money.
It’s a lawyer thing.
Generally the motivation, for being a lawyer.
0% of the discussion was about, what they support.
I doubt any became lawyers, because they wanted a better society.
The money, the only issue.
Might I also add that it should be a given that Legal Aid is paid back if there is a property settlement. Presently only a fraction of legal aid is paid back. That’s what creates the deficit in legal Aid funding. It becomes free money to carry out litigation followed up with a sob story by the applicant to get out of paying it back.
This of course is to remove so called financial barriers for the applicant (normally women) from litigating. I believe it just fosters a crucible of lies and false allegations.
The aim of feminists is a 100% win rate in the family court.
Only outcomes for women, considered.
Only services for women, considered.
In no part of the article, are men considered.
We have shown endlessly, mothers are paramount, in every situation.
“It disturbs me hugely that the lives of our children are clearly of no paramountcy in this system,” former Māori Party co-founder Dame Turia said.
Did someone notice that they don’t actually care about children.
“The Family Court celebrates its 40th anniversary this year; its arrival in 1981 marking New Zealand’s first attempt at a therapeutic, or solutions-focused, court.”
Men have nothing to celebrate.
It has systematically, destroyed the role of fathers.
To a money only role.
“It has suffered many years of criticism and several reviews, even triggering the attention of the United Nations that recommended a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the treatment of women in the family court system.”
So looking at the profoundly supported gender, is needed.
The persecuted, excluded gender.
The endemically, rights removed gender.
Males, 100% ignored.
“At the time of that announcement, Judge Taumaunu said the specialist Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court would be rolled out to the Family Court; providing addiction treatment options for mothers whose dependancy issues have led to, or threatened, the removal of children.”
So only mothers considered, as needing help.
The vast majority of male wins, relate to dependency issues.
Itself a tiny percentage of cases.
The parenting gap, astronomical.
The problem must be fixed.
The new service, aimed at getting 100% of decisions.
In favour of mothers.
What an absolute joke. The family court is run by women for women. Men going through the system know and feel this every day they are separated from their children, punished for being the primary provider through crippling child support and spousal maintenance payments.
Crikey, this site is active and still has a bit of chat!
FYI phone, personal, email and DadzKare Group support…
0800563123 Tauranga 0275965021 Wgtn 05082255323
Christchurch 039822440 Group on Wednesday 10am..
The Auckland DadzKare Group is in Zoom..
DadzKare Zoom Group Weds Nov 17th,
Join 7-9pm Zoom Meeting:
Phone only, Dial by your location:
+64 9 884 6780 New Zealand
Meeting ID: 824 7127 8538