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

Judge Judy on Fathers’ Rights

Filed under: General — Lukenz @ 8:58 am Sat 4th March 2023

This is a special message for mothers, bias feminist family court judges, and the legislators.

If you want gangs instead of families, carry on with your program.

If you want men and boys in prison rather than being productive citizens, carry on with destroying father’s rights.

If you want to destroy a families’ wealth by paying lawyers billions, the loss of dwelling and land rights and payout billions buying dwellings for your victims, carry on with your gender program to destroy father’s rights.

If you want poverty, our young committing crimes like ram raids, serious drug and theft to support that habit, pay the police, courts and legal aid, men who don’t earn and pay tax, carry on with your gender program to destroy father’s rights.

If you want to pay for medical staff, hospitals to house mental health victims that include both child and father. Carry on with giving men and their children mental health problems.

The destruction of family is the destruction of society. And when society collapses, revolution occurs.

Now we have had,

Black lives matter, Maori treaty rights, women’s rights, feminism, gay rights, save the planet matters.

When does father’s rights matter? When does a childs right to see dad matter? When does land rights matter? Or does that only apply to one race but not one gender?

12 Responses to “Judge Judy on Fathers’ Rights”

  1. DJ Ward says:

    Wow Lukenz, the Judge video is good.
    She also shows, judges are individuals.

    She repeated, you we ok him having the children.
    When things ended, he magically became bad.
    You chose him, to be the father.
    This is petty, the female feels entitled.
    Tactics being used, to get men to give up.

    Certainly the judge, is a very intelligent person.
    I liked the bit, when she mentioned other judges.
    Not making a decision, that she would make.
    Displays of emotion, can say everything.

  2. DJ Ward says:

    How does the crown, consider fathers.
    Stats on outcomes, looks like they don’t care.
    Fatherless children, is a policy of the crown.
    Nothing happens, when you don’t name the father.
    One must ask, is there evidence they don’t care.
    There’s an example, maternity leave.
    There’s an example, teenage mother schools.
    There’s an example, the police making parenting decisions.
    There’s an example, statistics of the family court.
    There’s an example, the absent father suicide rate.

    So they don’t consider fathers, in any policy.
    Government with nothing, no paperwork on men.
    No examination, of things done to men.
    No policy, from a men’s ministry.
    No entity, critical of government on men’s issues.
    No press release, from the Human Rights Commission.
    And no court willing to say it’s wrong, to have no representation.
    All the judges, are not blind.
    So the outcome, is therefore intentional.

    It’s not by accident, men’s issues are ignored.
    Judge Judy, may be a rare thing.
    Rare enough, someone made a video.

  3. Harold says:

    I was in the UK late last year. In major parts of London the population is 80-90% African. In other parts it is about 50% African. There are few English and the women are very ugly.

  4. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Thanks for these videos Lukenz.

    It’s interesting that this judge holds sensible views on the importance of both parents in the lives of children, that children are not ‘my’ but ‘our’, that the mother should not have a greater say over the children than does the father, that the importance and rights of a parent do not depend on their character, likeability or approval from the other parent as long as there is no legally defined risk to the child, and so forth. Other judges must exist with enough intelligence and knowledge to hold similar views, yet in NZ Family Court they don’t seem to or are not allowed to. The law is so femicentric, albeit largely in indirect ways, that judges find it difficult to make sensible decisions in the best interests of children.

    In both video selections mention is made of ‘deadbeat dads’. This I believe is a hate-speech term that deserves to be challenged at every opportunity. In fact, mothers are more likely to default on so-called ‘child support’ payments than are fathers, and when fathers are made primary day-to-day caregivers, mothers are more likely to abandon relationships with the children than are fathers in the same circumstances. Also, in the overwhelmingly most common situation in which mother’s wishes are given priority in our Family Court, her choice of child-care regime is often based on the cut-off criteria for eligibility for so-called ‘child support’ such that she won’t have to pay and she won’t lose any potential money she can get from the state and/or the children’s father(s). Even so, although the term ‘deadbeat’ might more deservedly be applied to mothers than fathers, it is pejorative and usually provides a misleading picture. For example, the very small proportion of mothers who lose primary care of children will often have mental illness or severe addictions that contributed to their abandonment of parental responsibilities. The same applies to some fathers who walk away from their children physically and/or financially, but many others have been driven away by nasty exes and/or their families, friends, new boyfriends or lesbian girlfriends. Fathers are often driven away by
    – threats or unpleasant behaviour at hand-overs of the children;
    – parental alienation including encouraging or threatening to encourage chidren’s false allegations, and
    – the constant prospect of the woman’s false allegations that will be treated as true in interim Family Court orders and will never need any corroborating evidence to become formally accepted as proven.

    Many walk-away fathers are not deadbeat but dead-scared, worried about potential unfairness to them by the system, about their own mental health under those stressors or about their own potential reactions if they keep putting themselves into situations of provocation.

  5. DJ Ward says:

    #3 Harold

    Humans do form racial areas, where they live.
    As a phenomenon, it’s like it’s own subject.
    Even in NZ races, live in areas.
    It’s like a confession, humans are naturally racist.
    If you say a suburb even town, can you apply race.
    So it’s not surprising, if that happens in the UK.

    Sexual attraction, is a very strange thing.
    Personally I find, some races more attractive than others.
    And I assume happening naturally, my own race scores highly.
    So Harold you may find, some women ugly.
    Men of that race, will find them attractive.
    What you think is attractive, they find ugly.

    Then we judge individuals, we then judge ourselves.
    Everyone different, some attractive some not.
    What are we, on this ugly scale.
    And who decided, what’s ugly.

    An ugly person, can be a attractive person.
    When you look at there life, they are good.
    An attractive person, can be an ugly person.
    When you look at there life, they are bad.

    What should be, more sexually attractive.

  6. 2c worth says:

    #4. Your so right about this “deadbeat” carry-on. Did you see how her face changed.

    I haven’t seem my daughter since she was 9. Shes well into her teens now. At the time I told the family court (in person at court) that I still wanted to see my daughter and be apart of her life. Esp with what was *really* going on. I got the feeling the family court wasn’t interested in the truth. Couldn’t tell me why or even acknowledge why my access was cut from being full time to nothing. Even lawyer for child said I would be lucky to get any time. Yet I wasn’t allowed to know what “they thought”.

    There were so many accusations that many were taken as fact. Yet the “truth” was hidden. And as for being scared… yes that’s an understatement. For a few years I (and my wife – step mother) lived in fear. It was clear none of it was going to criminal court. So my right as a father or even as a person declined.

    Honestly I got more “abuse” from the state than I did from my ex. That judge judy video was very interesting and wish we had more judges like her that question “the status quo”.

    domestic violence is poorly understood by everyone (esp so called professionals). everyone has there own experience and I doubt any two the same. But there always seems to be this “must be the male doing it”. Yet how many times is that the actual truth. How many times has a woman (partner or otherwise) hit you on the face. Yet that seems to be acceptable. I remember calling the police many times not to mention the neighbors also ringing. Taking the matter the courts after my daughter was born with concerns over the mother. And yet there is this “cant be the mother” attitude.

    I don’t like being called a deadbeat dad. That’s far the truth but I have been warned if I make any sort of contact, I…. lets just say be breaking a court order. Which by the way I don’t even have a copy of in writing.

    #2. I couldnt agree more with your comments. It was like my ex could say anything and me having to always produce evidence. Whats evidence really?

    Watching the video there were a number of points raised. the importance of both parents. There is seems to be one thing people agree on these days. The courts (both criminal and family) are broken. There is little to no evidence what they are doing is helping keeping both parents involved in a kid(s) life. Matters drawn out over years. Just look at this “abuse in care”. child young on the rise. Yet who makes social policy? the government! They played a huge part and yet seem to be taking very little “blame”. Lets not get into this “blame game” now shall we?!

  7. DJ Ward says:

    #6 2c nice comment.

    I simply find it wrong, what happened to you.
    I was lucky, getting four visits a year.

    How can the crown have a law, that does that.
    Bans a parent, from being a parent.
    Isn’t that what happened, in Canada and Australia.
    The crown with policy, of de-parenting.

    We had a similar policy, for single mothers.
    The child was taken, for adoption.
    The state decided, they couldn’t provide.
    We can all accept, the crown was wrong.
    I have five half aunts, children of the policy.
    But it wasn’t bigotry, men lost the child as well.

    I have a brother, I have never met him.
    A child of that policy, I know not his name.
    My fathers child, as a teenage pregnancy.
    So my father as well as the mother, lost the child.

    But today, you can ask a question.
    Men legislated losing all contact, vs women losing all contact.
    How can they explain, the results.
    Certainly then the Guardianship act, was a crime.

    I am certain, they can’t answer the questions.

  8. Try2law says:

    Interesting takes. Section 4 (3) of the Care of Children Act 2004 states:
    “It must not be presumed that the welfare and best interests of a child (of any age) require the child to be placed in the day-to-day care of a particular person because of that person’s gender.”

    I know mothers paying child support, fathers with Protection Orders and everything in between. I feel like the newer generation of family lawyers especially work against the biases above, but I do know lawyers with a “mother is always right” perspective.

    4 visits is not enough and is commonly only seen in Oranga Tamariki “Home for Life” type arrangements. Even then, it is not enough.

    Remember, a Parenting Order is not forever. If it has been more than two years, I’d recommend finding a lawyer well matched with you and having another look at it.

    Even if a father is not on the birth certificate, they do have rights. Which is a common misconception. Often we see women saying “well, I didn’t put him on the certificate so he has no rights” but that is absolutely wrong.

  9. DJ Ward says:

    I don’t doubt, what your saying.
    That on the surface, things can look ok.
    You do have examples, of males winning.
    There is examples, of the crown protecting men.
    But a few examples, does not make a culture.
    What then are the statistics, for proof.
    Is the outcome, anything like 50/50.
    What percentage of custody cases, do women win.

    But how do you have rights, if you don’t know.
    You are not told your a father, so there is no court.
    The fathers that do know, can go to court.
    Anyone can actually, like immediate family.
    The paternity fraud father, knows nothing.
    Some not named fathers, will know nothing.
    There rights are stolen, they have no rights.

    Not a single woman, has that happen to them.
    What’s that in NZ, maybe 8,000 per year for men.

    All comments like yours, ignore the child’s rights.
    The argument becomes about the adults, not the child.
    Nobody demands the child’s right, to a correct birth certificate.
    Like the fathers, the newborn can’t go to court.

    Who’s your daddy, is slang in NZ culture.

  10. Try2Law says:

    I do understand what you are saying. And, the rights of the child are absolutely paramount, both in legislation and practise.

    Obviously with the way the pregnancy and giving birth works, it is possible that a child can be born without the father’s knowledge. However, it is an easy application for a father to make with the Court if he suspects he could be the father.

    I’ve seen adults file in Court to correct their birth certificate and to have their legal father recognised. The rise of DNA testing, while potentially problematic in its own way, is helping people also find their families.

    And yes, a lot of father’s do have 50/50 or even day-to-day care. It definitely does happen.

  11. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Try2Law @10: The rights of the child are absolutely paramount in legislation and practice? Is that the right to have the child’s relationship with his/her father seriously damaged on the basis purely of allegations from mother? Or the right to have a large proportion of the child’s life disrupted through drawn-out Court proceedings? Or the right to have the child’s relationship with the father decided on the basis of a hopelessly inadequate standard of proof regarding allegations? Or the right to have life decisions made by the Court with no follow-up research into the consequences of those decisions? Or the right to be interviewed and have wishes assessed on behalf of the Court by some lawyer who has no formal qualifications in communicating with or understanding children? Or the right to have the child’s communications misrepresented by said lawyer who is allowed to behave like an extra lawyer for the mother? Or the right to have the father’s economic welfare, and therefore the child’s future economic welfare, wrecked by Court expenses in addition to ridiculous laws that allow a woman to take half his assets simply for having lived with and supported her for 3 years or even less? Not to mention the economic damage caused by being banished from his home office through a ‘protection’ order based purely on a woman’s allegations?

    The rights allocated to children through family law bear little relationship to children’s welfare or best interests. Our family law abuses and harms children largely because it is based on feminist propaganda and mistreatment and exploitation of men, but those working in the system blind themselves to that.

  12. Evan Myers says:

    The rights allocated to children through family law bear little relationship to children’s welfare or best interests. Our family law abuses and harms children largely because it is based on feminist propaganda and mistreatment and exploitation of men, but those working in the system blind themselves to that.

    System workers don’t see the outcome of the family situation as their fault.

    They see the success of the court case as an objective success.

    Best interests of the child is dictated by parliament not the court.

    Change the law, change the court.

    Mother superior will continue to rule while Feminists, Lesbians and Green Party misfits rule parliament.

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