SUPERVISED CONTACT IS STATE-IMPOSED PARENTAL ALIENATION. Supervisor agency says 80% of fathers simply don’t need supervised access.
Bettina talks with lawyer Michael Jose about our shameful supervised contact services whereas the family law system conspires with a malicious mother to teach the children that their father is dangerous. That the children might be hurt if that supervisor is not there to protect them.
Michael Jose says
I think it’s one of the key issues of the family court jurisdiction is the fact that it is rife with false or exaggerated allegations, and they’re simply not addressing them. So it becomes a bit of a rort.
The entire jurisdiction is destroyed from its original intentions because of how frequently false allegations are used, what impact they have and how there’s simply no ramifications for using them.
So one of the most common flows from that of course is there’s many different mechanisms of triggered by false allegations, but one of them is of course, the application of supervised access. And as we talked about, if it’s applied in the context of a low level or false allegation, in relation to domestic violence that doesn’t even concern the kids.
You might have a fabulous committed, hands on father that went from 24/7 access and independent care of his kids, suddenly, having lost that, and that can be lost for years and may never really be re-established in the same way it was when the relationship was on foot. And in the interim, supervised access is going to be applied.
Now one of the agencies that I spoke to over the years said that they reckon up to 80% of fathers that are on their books, getting supervised access, simply don’t need supervised access. It is considered to be another one of the processes in transition for them getting back or trying to get back meaningful access.
Now, don’t underestimate the application of the system that’s designed to protect the victims and to address risk when it’s applied incorrectly. And more often than not by abuser against the good parent, more often than not the father. That is in itself abuse, that system abuse in advance, and it’s incredibly harmful. So if you’ve got a great father that’s doing supervised access, they are getting harmed by that just as much as the kids are.
So it all adds up to overnight, that profoundly deep paternal relationship can be gone in a blink of an eye. It can be a fight tooth and nail for sometimes years. And then of course when those years pass, and everything that has happened still can be used against the father. It never goes back to where it was and never re-establish a meaningful relationship again.
There is a well known, Family Court preferred supervised contact centre in Auckland that ONLY accepts cash, won’t provide a receipt and frowns if you make an online bank payment.
@1 Report them to IRD. Tell IRD you were forced to pay cash, was not provided with a GST receipt.
Please name that agency here.
I have read about supervised visits, not having good outcomes.
As for men’s outcomes, it’s only a small part of events.
Many men lose out, at relationship breakdown.
The woman protecting income, getting custody.
The male forced, into still being the provider.
Men forced to only supervised visits, by the mother.
All happening, without the courts involvement.
So actual supervised visits, may be a small number.
But the real numbers, will be larger but unknown.
Not one entity, has the job of finding out.
Thousands more children, slowly not seeing dad.
Estrangement may be normal, for many children.
Those cases for men, may not see the courtroom.
No experience of indignity, of the supervised visit.
But just as damaging, just as wrong.
Maybe the fear of the court, made the males decision.
Yet we don’t see the mother, as being domestically violent.
Coercive control, must be a women’s policy and culture.
Dare not agree, or she will use the courts for certainty.
I’m thinking this would be a very good video for alienated fathers and some mothers to show their grown or higher teenaged children. Help them understand, explain what has happened to them and their family unit.
Yes, it may cause some harm to the parent who alienated you. But not nearly as much harm to your child, their wellbeing. Maybe explain to your child your intention is to put matters at rest and not to cause a problem with the other parent.
Thanks for bringing this to our collective attention – alienation of any kind has always been used to persecute and to cause harm to people.
The fact that I caught a lawyer for child in NZ covering up the expert evidence by the courts own appointed psychologist in NZ,the lawyer lying to the courts and covering up the expert identified severe harm to the child caused by the mother is in part WHY we were then targeted for character assassination to destroy our families complaints and concerns and CREDIBILITY.. The abuse in state care enquiry has exposed the tactics of the crown and NZ Govt and its agents if you were a victim of abuse of the vulnerable by the state or a witness to abuse of the vulnerable as we were – state agents attack YOU – using Private investigators and MSD to avoid LIABILITY and RESPONSIBILTY and paying out DAMAGES. Exactly our story. Read it all here https://www.reputationguardian.nz/
With the government wanting to be the sole arbiters of who is TRUSTED and how is TRUTHFUL = what happens when they get it WRONG – as they often do and restrict your access to commerce and transport into the future. @truthpass
It has been said this is a “cruel and unusual punishment” and primarily designed to ensure mother’s superiority and financial compliance.
The term, cruel and unusual punishment is taken from the 1688 Bill of Rights amendment to the Magna Carta, which was common law in Britain before the advent of statute law.
Currently in Britain there is a revival of interest in common law principles and a question as to whether politics has taken precedent over law.
Watch that space.
@6 Whilst I agree it is cruel, it is not unusual. Unusual means uncommonly rare. They hide this abuse of the childs relationship with the father by saying the safety of the child comes first. In reality the feminist court harms the child and the childs relationship with the alienated parent. Driving home in the child’s mind, their father is far too violent to be left alone with them.
The truth is occupation of the family home, possession of all things in that home now belong to for the sole use of the abusing parent.
One outcome is financial hardship for the father until he gives in to a property and maintenance deal.
Other outcomes include.
1. Serious violence and rage for the unfairness.
2. Suicide of fathers.
4. Endless over taxing of income at a time when that money is needed for a second dwelling, chattels, utilities, legal fees.
It is a recipe to rip children apart, all for appeasement and financial reward.
Do you ever wonder why school attendance is so low? Youth crime is so high. Ram raids? These problems do not come from caring, loving families who use their income to provide for children and their wellbeing rather than the lawyers, supervisors, psychologists, family violence program providers, tax collectors, the police who have to deal with the out of control crime, court staff, other ministerial departments.
@6 Whilst I agree it is cruel, it is not unusual. Unusual means uncommonly rare.
Now this is where you so often fail in your endeavours.
There are a number of definitions for unusual so you resort to a current English dictionary to emphasise your distress.
If you take this in the context of the Bill of Rights from which is came, we are talking about a punishment.
That punishment should not be harsher than what the law prescribes which is in the context of statute law or above that which a precedent had already determined.
Do you see what you did to yourself there?
This is something else that needs fixing up:
I think it’s one of the key issues of the family court jurisdiction is the fact that it is rife with false or exaggerated allegations, and they’re simply not addressing them. So it becomes a bit of a wrought.“
It was wrought with great skill etc. That word has no place there.
“Rort” on the otherhand you won’t find in some English dictionaries as it colloquial slang of NZ and Australian which has found more common acceptance in our versions of English – generally meaning a scam.
The next paragraph, given what is above now has a lot more meaning.
“ The entire jurisdiction is destroyed from its original intentions because of how frequently false allegations are used, what impact they have and how there’s simply no ramifications for using them.”
Does that make this a little clearer in relation to “the punishment”?
We are about to enter, the last month of the year.
School finishes, and workers get holidays.
Then Christmas, then ending at news year’s eve.
For men, how many face the legal system.
How many added to the thousands, who can’t see there kids.
Not even permitted, to send a present or get a call.
How many get supervised access, that can’t get arranged.
Missing out this Christmas, without them for the first time.
Again this year, will more men fail this Christmas.
Not handling what’s happening, doing something stupid.
Ruining there life, ruining others life.
For some this is no Christmas, not one to celebrate.
As for humans, it’s not a bad year.
Somehow, world war three didn’t start.
The virus, seems under control.
A massive volcano went boom, with few deaths.
How many years in a row, have looked like bad years.
How many ended, with the next year not looking good.
One without war or famine, without protest or strike.
Quickly whatever the events, that year also ends.
Hidden among all the bad things, is far more good things.
Change, is inevitable.
LukeNZ – you are right about supervised contact being a process applied as a formality. And yes, the longer the children have been apart from the father, the more damage the mother causes.
I was overwhelmed with emotion when I first saw my children after a year. I was so happy and yet sick to my stomach while I sat in a Barnardos early childhood center (My children were primary school age) with two supervisors watching and listening. I felt like a criminal. When the visit was over, I sat in my car and cried.
The one hour visits then became two hours. Then after advising the court that the Barnardos environment wasn’t age appropriate, I was pushed to Adapt and we were able to go to the mall, to the museum, to the Zoo etc – but of course under the watchful eye of a stranger who would write notes periodically.
And it didn’t matter that the Police investigation cleared me and concluded the mother had coached or influenced the children. It didn’t matter that Barnardos thought the mother was playing the system, it didn’t matter that Adapt saw how much the children loved me. The LFC maintained the mother’s narrative, the judge listed to the LFC and I was made to perform like a monkey in their little circus. And I did. And I would do it again for my children.
But I will never forgive the court for what they put me and my children through. It’s govt sanctioned abuse.
I liked your comment, ErasingDad.
The best examples, are from personal experience.
UN is calling for evidence on the concerns related to PARENTAL ALIENATION.
Submissions close by 15th December 2022 so get your responses in.
Inputs should be sent by e-mail by 15 December 2022
E-mail subject line:
Input for SR VAWG’s report on violence against women and children in custody cases
The UN is calling for”
focus on the abuse of the concept of “parental alienation” and related or similar concepts.
Meaning, the focus is on evidence of cases were allegations of parental alienation by women influenced the outcome of the case.
In other words, the focus is on parental alienation being violence against women and girls.
14 down under – which is WHY we as FATHERS and MEN must send in Evidence identifying how Parental Alienation of Fathers from Children is a tactic used by women to cause harm to both the child – and the father.
I don’t like to say that you are wasting your time but it’s not the UN that is calling for submissions.
The author of the request is a special rapporteur, an independent person with the designated task of proving a specific point relating to women and girls.
Not much different to the special rapporteur who arrived in New Zealand and said, that we treat our indigenous people better than anyone else in the world but still need to do better.
What indigenous people? Those who still maintained the language and customs from their home lands to such an extent that an interpreter from a Pacific island who had never been to NZ could communicate with them and translate into English for Captain Cook?
I didn’t set out to start that argument on this post rather to point out the predetermined agenda.
The same could be said of the current Royal White Wash loaded with partisan hacks rather than a Royal Commission headed by an experienced judge.
It’s important to add, that I’m not suggesting the answer is to do nothing.
On the contrary, what I have learned over the years is it’s better not to play their silly game.
Where we do make the most progress is seldom in reactionary activity but in proactive initiatives.
The first rule of business is knowing when to say no. That way you don’t waste your time. Translated into the broader political spectrum we end up with form submissions. Just copy and paste this as a protest.
It’s the return of the silo world that surfaced in the 1800s and gave rise to the world “Tribalism” where Western Society became a mix of contesting groups rather than a functional unit.
When we see the meltdown in democratic process I think people generally expect a quick transition to a banana republic Zimbabwe style outcome without realising we’ve been through this process of tribalism before.
Admittedly it was resoved eventually in a world War and while we are in our own unique position that doesn’t mean the rest of the world in following us into our own unique mess.
The UN study, does look like a predetermined study.
We know it happens to women, so they have subjects.
Each country each harming women, in some way.
They may look at extremes, with mothers losing custody.
The study group, may inherently be biased.
Those harmed and only them, asked to participate.
Only adverts for the study, at places like women’s refuge.
I doubt 10,000 random women, will be questioned.
It happens to women, but what is the real statistics.
There will be no placebo, as part of the study.
What’s the result, of a non alienated relationship.
How different is the outcome, from the bad relationship.
There will be no opposite study, looking at men.
When a women alienates, are the outcomes the same.
Is law acting to help alienating, despite gender.
If 80 % of fathers made to participate in supervised access because of false allegations then 80% of the children of those cases have been placed in the custody of an incompetent parent.
What is it that’s happening to women that you are concerned about @20.
Parental alienation, is not a gendered behaviour.
One can assume the genes for offending, are not sex associated.
Men are offenders, just as much as women are.
If we think alienation is wrong, that decision should be genderless.
If we only look at women offenders, we ignore male offenders.
They see society as only women victims, no male victims.
We can predict the result, of the UN study.
Parental alienation exists for women, so something should be done.
The study has to ignore, the behaviour not being gendered.
The outcome for victims by gender, will not be measured.
The study aims to expose, bad outcomes for women and girls.
Boys are not considered, in the conversation.
In both instances impacting on our family – it was Women who used the child and alienated the child from the father and or the son.
In both instances it was Women who harmed and exploited the vulnerable child or a vulnerable widow for money – and used alienation as a tactic – when caught they both engaged in Gas lighting and lying to avoid investigation or prosecution for this harm – the lawyers protected the abusers in both instances and encouraged conflict for money – they cared NOT about the harm to a child or a woman. In fact what is worse in our story is that a lawyer for child lied to the courts and covered up the harm to the child to ensure conflict continued – the lawyer for child never once put the best interests of the child first – and in the second instance a lawyer lied about the widows mental health and sought to exploit her property interests in becoming sole trustee with greedy real estate relatives. And again the abusers were protected by lawyers and not once was the vulnerable widow protected – cowards and bullies preying on the weak and vulnerable and our NZ lawyers protecting them at every turn. The abuse in state care enquiry has exposed the same concerns where LAWYERS were caught and Lawyers then sought to prevent the police from investigating while engaging private investigators and MSD to target victims of abuse and witnesses of abuse – to discredit them – this sad fact is now public knowledge. That is the concern we now face in NZ and we need to talk about it. Encouraging Alienation has been a tactic used by corrupted and dishonest lawyers to ensure conflict continued for money.