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

Government reveals changes from 2018 Family Court review will take up to 10 years.

Filed under: General — Lukenz @ 2:14 pm Sun 16th October 2022

In 2019 a Government report prompted change to the family court system. Andrew Little said “There are incredible delays in the family court and particularly where children are concerned, that’s not fair. The children can’t sit around for 12 months waiting for their parents to sort out their issues, that’s too longer period of time for a child.”

Today in the news, I note on a lazy Sunday afternoon. RNZ reports,

The Ministry of Justice said it is implementing recommendations from an independent review in 2019 but “transformation of family justice is a five to ten year project”.

News Link 16 October 2022 Here

I suspect Andrew Little, a long term senior cabinet minister, will say “that is an issue for the current minister of justice.”

Other links here.

5 April 2018 Link here

Justice Minister Andrew Little tells us government already knows what the problems are. Link


  1. It’s a political trick, to promise so far out in time.
    There is a promise to eradicate possums, but little action.
    Certainly you can’t predict the actual date, of the last killed.
    What a sad day, has the possum not also made this place home.

    Could you predict, changes to a court ten years out.
    If you knew the solution, wouldn’t it be done immediately.
    Logic says, they had no solution.
    So far in time, would they still be minister.

    Does a promise of ten years, become the next ministers promise.
    Or do we just get new policy, with ten years to complete.
    Eventually it balances out, with nothing changing.
    Certainly there is lawyers incomes, and whole industry’s with staff.

    It’s a brave minister, to make a three year promise.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 24th October 2022 @ 7:58 am

  2. The family courts biggest error, is standard of proof.
    Say a protection order, becoming permanent uncontested.
    No standard of proof, is actually applied.
    Proof can exist, with real evidence of abuse.
    But the whole application, can also be exaggerated or false.
    The law still acts no matter what proof exists, or doesn’t exist.

    If the protection order, is contested.
    Then the balance of probabilities, is used.
    So again it never asks, for things to be proven.

    Your doomed if your male, if they have proof of anything.
    And subject to proceedings, even when they don’t.
    Women gambling with weighted dice, betting on an outcome.

    So until standard of proof, is improved.
    What’s argued about, can’t improve.
    You can say anything, if you don’t need any proof.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 1st November 2022 @ 8:19 am

  3. #2 – I agree there are process problems in the Family court. Lies and hyperbole from women are tolerated because there is a belief that women will not come forward if they think they will be punished for perjury.

    I also think without wholesale changes of family court judges and lawyers, not much will change. The laws are quite clear and suggest equal rights between mothers and fathers for both parenting and property. But there is a pungent bias against men because the system is run by people who have been in this industry for over 20/30 years.

    Even if you prove the lies and hyperbole are wrong and turn the tables, the dice are still loaded. Those of us lucky enough to run the gauntlet and survive, if you dare try to prove the court was wrong, the regime will quickly try to close the process down. Their ammo expended they put a silencer on yours and proclaim the parents need to move on for the sake of their children. You are left in a ditch with nothing but what seems to be a pre-recorded message telling you not to die in there over the small things.

    Comment by ErasingDad — Thu 3rd November 2022 @ 6:06 am

  4. Perhaps time to create a Judge the Judges website like the Sensible licensing Trust have done (but for the Family Court)?

    Comment by ErasingDad — Thu 3rd November 2022 @ 11:42 am

  5. Protection orders, can result in bad outcomes.

    4500 cases, 3000 becoming permanent.
    It doesn’t say, what the other 1500 cases are.
    Are they all defended, all being discharged.
    How many were just not accepted, application rejected.

    How many of the 3000, were not at all defended.
    Just due to cost, or there not being a reason to.
    The men are given no advice, about the orders effects.
    Not how it actually effects them, just a warning of arrest.
    Why defend if it’s just a girlfriend, without children involved.

    No doubt most cases, would have some justification.
    3000 works out at 1 in 10 men, in a lifetime.
    Which is half the violence rate, from longitude study.
    But it’s no guarantee, that they were violent.
    An accusation is enough, thinking he may act is enough.
    There’s no actual justice, in a system without a trial.

    Without advice, not understanding the consequences.
    How many males, has the system failed.
    A protection order, is more that just a bit of paper.
    At least that what feminists, want people to think.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 10th November 2022 @ 9:15 pm

  6. DJ Ward: The 1500 protection orders that did not become permanent are likely to involve a much higher proportion of temporary orders against women than are the 3000 that were made permanent. Temporary protection orders (should be called Persecution Orders) are readily made against men in cursory fashion by a daily duty judge who could be anywhere in the country, based on the paperwork that just needs to tick some of the requisite boxes. Applications by males against females however appear to be given much more scrutiny and are more often rejected from the outset. When it comes to making them final, all the gynocentric beliefs and practices of the Family Court come to play and it’s unusual for any woman to be burdened with one for long. You will find it very difficult to find the statistics about this anywhere though; clues to such gender discrimination are carefully suppressed through the processes of secrecy in this Court and are not calculated or published in government statistical provision.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 11th November 2022 @ 10:14 am

  7. Changes are proposed, in another court.

    It could apply just as easily, to the family court.
    A cheap court, for low value property arguments.
    Rather than lawyers, and endless battles.

    Apart from providing staff, for such a change.
    It’s very easy, and very quick to change court rules.
    Just by defining limits, justice is different.


    Why the need, for such a court.

    I am not the type of person, who can steal from another.
    And I guess many people, are just like me.
    They couldn’t consider, a plan to rip a person off.
    But somehow it happens, with con artists.

    They see success, when they steal.
    Somehow emotionless, towards the victim.
    Even thinking they deserve it, for being gullible.
    Somehow the thief, gets a boost to ego.

    Some with endless court cases, continual victim creation.
    As if they can’t consider, an honest method.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 26th November 2022 @ 9:35 pm

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