Documentary on NZ Family Court
Radio NZ today played a documentary on the NZ Family Court and the 2014 law changes. It provided some interesting figures and raised (but did not ask) some important questions: We pulled out six issues arising in this documentary and discuss them here.
Issue 1: The encouragement of false allegations
Urgent applications (i.e. without-notice applications) have almost doubled from 600 to 1100 in the 3 years to June 2016, largely because making allegations of violence, abuse or risk now gets you fast-tracked and free Family Court process.
Labour MP Jacinda Adern said
“At the moment, in order to expedite your claim, often there has to, ah, one way is to demonstrate that there are safety issues involved…:”
Well no Ms Adern, no demonstration of anything is required, only allegation.
Ang Jury, Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge, said that the increase in the number of urgent applications reflects how intimidating the Court process can be.
“The forms are big and complicated, and many women would look at those and go “Oh my god, I can’t do this”, they want a lawyer. Now most legal aid isn’t available for on-notice applications, so, if they want a lawyer, really, um, they need to try the without-notice course.”
Ms Jury also claimed that
“What we’re seeing is that women aren’t necessarily identifying what they’re experiencing as abuse and are being put through the FDR (Family Dispute Resolution) process… so there’s not enough knowledge and understanding within the Court staff around the dynamics of violence and abuse.”
So these feminists seem to think it’s ok for women to make false accusations to get their way, and they should be doing this even more often by interpreting a wider range of normal behaviour by their ex-partners as ‘abusive’. Ms Jury’s ‘dynamics of violence and abuse’ of course involve the Duluth patriarchal power and control model, meaning that if any man disagrees with a woman that’s domestic violence.
Minister Amy Adams is certain the increase in urgent applications is not being caused by the changes, but by lawyers. In June, Ms Adams told a select committee
“Simply making an application without notice doesn’t mean it is heard without notice, so the lawyers and the client determine whether they’re going to try that track on, and actually judges are pushing back on a considerable proportion of them and are sending them back and saying “No, this doesn’t need to be without notice. Go back and through the front door.”
Well Ms Adams, we warned you about the incentive your government’s changes were going to provide for litigants to make false allegations. Some of the Family Court law changes were desirable especially in seeking to reduce the involvement of lawyers and in giving the Court more flexibility to protect the relationships of children with both parents. However, the decision to provide free and fast-tracked Family Court processes to those who allege violence, abuse and risk regarding their ex partner was a mistake and has led to huge increases in allegations. Of course lawyers will now advise their clients to make allegations of abuse, especially women who are more likely to be believed by judges on ‘the balance of probabilities’. What did the government expect?
An important question arising here that wasn’t asked in the program is “How many people have been prosecuted for perjury?” The answer will probably be “None” or close to none either before the 2014 changes or after. The Family Court has always excused perjury especially by women.
The program said that Ministry of Justice figures show that in the past 2 years fewer than 400 cases out of the 13,000 filed with the Court have been sent back through what the Minister calls ‘the front door’. So it’s not even true that without-notice cases based on false allegations are being rejected much.
Issue 2: Delays
Time delays usually result in children being deprived for many months and even years of the involvement in their lives by one parent, overwhelmingly often the father. In many cases the father’s contact with the children is restricted to an hour or so per week or fortnight of supervised contact, a demeaning experience that treats him as guilty of being a dangerous abuser even though there is no proof or even evidence of this beyond allegations.
Principal Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan said:
“We now have the highest volume of aged defended cases, that’s defended Care of Children Act cases over 2 years, the highest level we’ve had since 2011, so they’re climbing steadily.”
Judge Ryan is now sending a ‘floating judge’ to help out in the busiest Courts for a week at a time.
Judge Ryan says the Courts are failing to meet any of the time frames including those for domestic violence. However, regarding getting Protection Orders put in place, there are not delays; he said
“No, they have their own track”
That special track for Protection Orders is essentially a rubber stamping process. Applications can be filed on an afternoon and are then sent out to an ‘E-Duty’ judge for that day who could be anywhere in NZ. The orders should then be made and returned to the originating Court the next day or soon thereafter. This cursory process clearly is unable to evaluate the validity of the applicant’s allegations but simply produces Orders based on the right wording in the application. To make matters worse, that convenient track for making fast Orders does not extend to providing the respondents with any urgent opportunity to defend themselves against the Orders, Judge Ryan admitting that his Courts do not comply with hearing those cases within the required 42 days.
Issue 3: Arrogant assumption that the Family Court is useful.
Judge Ryan said
“A concern is there is a large volume of people who don’t get to Family Disputes Resolution (mediation) and don’t go to Court and we don’t know what’s happened to them. You cannot assume that thousands and thousands of people who would have before the reforms gone to the Family Court, who have disappeared off the radar, you can’t assume that they’ve settled their dispute. We don’t know what’s happened to them and it’s very hard to identify where they’ve gone and what’s happening to those families.”
Judge Ryan here seems to confuse his Courts with some kind of social worker agency that checks on the welfare of broken families. The Family Court has never followed up to check what happens to the couples and families it made orders for. The only time the Family Court ever knew anything further about litigants is when they returned with new applications. The Family Court never had any research process in place to measure the impact of its processes and orders on the lives of the litigants or their children. Men whose ex-partners flouted parenting orders often simply gave up in disgust having already experienced the male-blaming attitudes of the Family Court, but the Court knew nothing of that.
Really, little has changed there., Since the changes there has been no research to check if the agreements made through mediation have endured.
The documentary reported that since the changes children’s involvement and voice in proceedings have reduced. Their views used to be ascertained by lawyers for children but now that only happens in cases alleging violence, abuse or risk. The documentary did not investigate whether lawyers were ever capable of that role in the absence of significant training in child development and communication with children, or the extent to which they communicated children’s views honestly to the Court. Many men reported, and continue to report, that lawyer for children seemed to operate as another lawyer for the mother, and many children have complained that the lawyer did not accurately convey their views. Those issues were not addressed in the 2014 changes.
Issue 4: Lawyers want to continue their lucrative roles in family law
As mentioned above, Minister Amy Adams is certain the increase in urgent applications is not being caused by the changes, but by lawyers.
Law Professor Henaghan said:
“What happens is that even if it doesn’t meet the threshold … for urgent cases, ‘undue hardship and risk’ …judges will still keep it on the urgent track but won’t hear it an urgent case and set it down for directions which means then that the parties come in and, normally the judge will appoint a lawyer to represent the children to check out what’s going on and any issues that need to be resolved, and the lawyers will still remain involved. Some are sent back to the initial process but normally they will always try to keep a lawyer involved so, judges once lawyers are involved are quite keen to keep them involved because it keeps the process orderly and organized.”
Jude Ryan:
“Self-representing litigants are only adding to delays, and judges find it much more difficult to deal with unrepresented litigants.”
The Family Dispute Resolution Service (FDR) costs $450 for each party, i.e. $900. About 60% of cases are fully funded due to the litigant meeting criteria for subsidy, and a further 20% are partially funded. The question arises as to why the cost of this one session of mediation costs so much, more than the previous 6 sessions of relationship counselling (that included mediation). The answer is probably that it is largely lawyers who are providing the mediation.
Minister Amy Adams claims a commendable skepticism concerning the need for lawyers in dealing with relationship and family disputes. She said:
“It’s my clear view that if families can reach their solutions without lawyers that is a good thing. I know the lawyers are absolutely of the view that they should be in the room but as I said it’s not my job to deliver what lawyers want, it’s my job to ensure that this Court system and the justice system is working as well as it can for the families who need help…it’s not my view that the more lawyers you add to the situation the better and easier and cheaper the resolution is.”
However, Minister Adams’ comments may be more populist facade than true intent, because she did provide for lawyers to be involved as long as applicants made up allegations of violence, abuse or risk. She also allowed lawyers to be involved as mediators, and she said she is planning to ‘give more flexibility’ to the number of sessions available for mediation so that the process can continue to run rather than having artificial constraints.
Issue 5: Changes in demand for Family Court involvement and cost savings for the Court.
Any differences in cost of the Family Court since the 2014 law changes have yet to be measured but a report is due later this year.
There seems to be a reduction in cases, the documentary stating
“It’s clear that since the 2014 reforms fewer people are turning to the FC for help. In the 2 years before the law change there were 24,000 cases filed, but in the 2 years since the change the number of cases filed with the Family Court has almost halved to 13,000. According to Amy Adams that’s partly due to a flood of applications before the law change from lawyers wanting their cases heard under the old rules.”
So the lawyers got in while they still could but we will probably see the Family Court harm and impoverish fewer people in the future.
Issue 6: The underlying ideology of family law and whether it’s good for us, our children or our nation.
Professor Henaghan:
“Most research shows that for children going through a break up of their parents is a very traumatic and a major event in their lives, and all the research shows that children do suffer. So if we can make this process one where the parents can, ideally, get to a stage where we’ve got arrangements that the parents will accept, that they’re worked through, that they communicate with each other and the children feel supported and loved by both their parents, should all come out the other side alright, but if it’s acrimonious and fights and arguments and continuous then some children who are very resilient will probably still survive that but many children who are not so resilient that will cause impact for, you know, large parts of their lives which … we…want to avoid.”
So although family breakup harms children, the modern ideology is that we should facilitate and sanitize family break up as much as possible. It’s a bit like addressing the problem of murder by helping people to adjust more quickly to it. There is almost nothing NZ does to encourage families to stay together, to provide any support, encouragement or reward for that. Instead, our welfare system, relationship property laws and family law are all designed to encourage and facilitate family break up and making this especially attractive to women.
Well, there’s where the documentary took our thinking. It’s worth a listen. At least it did seek the views of fathers as well as mothers and did not unduly push feminist ideology as has so often been the case.
I viewed this item by Gary Orsum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBAMWt_yRPs&index=5&list=RDYLPvdIPwgJw
Any woman can behave this way and every man is vulnerable – will have his life wrecked, and so many men will help her do it. And of course, our Family court will enthusiastically abet the injustice.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 25th September 2016 @ 5:43 pm
Its almost like they don’t want you to have a family??
What help are the potential ‘perpetrators'(men) getting?
Feminism is cancer.
Comment by mantrol — Sun 25th September 2016 @ 7:21 pm
Ok guys, knowing what you know now and having experienced all of it which includes the children’s time with you and your’s with them, would you or could you do it (the family court and all the associated police, school, allegations, the turning up for access and them not there, the issues with the children and mother’s GP, the cost, complaints to CYPS, then trying to deal with the mother, the lawyers, the paper, the memoranda, submissions, affidavits, section 19, 29a, the counseling, the psycologists evidence, reports) again?
Really, could you do it, knowing what you know now, again?
Is his honor Judge Ryan wondering where the fathers went?
Undercover Principal Family Court Judge
Perhaps his honor might consider a disguise as your “run of the mill father” going through the process himself?
Let’s face it, the judge lead mediation was really great, I mean if you couldn’t get an agreement with a guy like Ian Mill as your mediator clearly someone is being intentionally obstructive, he was so good.
Six sessions of counseling how many times?
Someone is being obstructive.
The old Family Court was seriously good at providing the tools to not have to progress to a hearing.
Judge lead Mediation
Counselling
Comment by Simon grant — Tue 27th September 2016 @ 1:34 am
Sadly the guys who have done best in my experience are those who fled overseas at the first whiff of strife. They get called “Dead-beats” but their feminist equal is a supposedly hero. And to answer your question, yes I would do it again even though the costs are so high. It’s about the kids and my self respect coming from knowing I tried my very best for them, even when faced with monstrous corruption and menace. And I point out there is no such thing as a good outcome – just less-bad ones; and only if luck goes the way of you and the kids.
But what a dream… the family court judge going through the system as if he was just one of us. But you know it would never happen honestly. Those celebrities who camp out over-night in support of the homeless – and those who swear to live on $2.50/day… well at best they are taking a light look into our deal. We need to make it work, not for a day or two, but every day, every week, and every year, while all the nobs gush on sanctimoniously. But I would do it again…. hopefully I would be smarter second time around. I never believed just how nasty and anti-family our hypocritical society really is.
Comment by Jerry — Tue 27th September 2016 @ 11:00 am
Well … doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity I believe so for me the answer is no , I wouldn’t do it all over again infact knowing what I know now I would have gotten the snip at the ripe old age of 17 .
IMO all boys should be given the snip at high school age to protect them from young sluts that want a baby as a career move .
Looks like the child support agency in Australia is up for an audit :http://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/paul-hanson-gets-her-wish-child-support-to-be-audited-20160920-grkvm9
Comment by Bunyip — Tue 27th September 2016 @ 8:15 pm
How sad that one of the greatest things, having children, is reduced to something that some of us would never want to repeat in NZ, that we would suggest to others, don’t do it get the snip.
For any Adams to suggest that the with out notice application and it’s misuse is the domain of the lawyer may be correct and it is not the responsibility of a judge to sanction the lawyers inappropriate use of the with out notice application.
It is then the responsibility of the law society via the Standards Committee true?
That self governing body backed up by that organization that by its own admission is three years behind in dealing with complaints that the Law Society does typically nothing about. That organization is the legal complaints review officer, funded by – the ministry of justice and the law society and designed to give us faith in the complaints process regarding lawyers.
So yes minister, let’s say it’s the domain of the law society (confident are we) backed up by the lcro if you are not happy with the law society outcome. So are we saying, yet again that the law society complaints process I’d bogus and broken, tantamount to a self policing body. But no have confidence, the LCRO will review your complaint if you escalate it to them – in about three years.
A broken process with out the confidence of the public it is there to support is simply as bad as the Law Society Complaints Process which was superseded in 2008 by the Standards Committee with the LCRO sitting above that. This new process was trumpeted as providing transparency, confidence to the public that the Law Society is not a self governing body.
Many would say – what utter crap and that the ineffectual complaints process and Lcro belongs on your desk Ms Adams. Blame the lawyers, but then perhaps consider the nonsense complaints process/Standards Process and in accessible LCRO and who’s job it is to restore confidence in the process.
As long as we have the existing process (end to end) including the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Standards Committee and LCRO as part of the over all Family Court Process who will have confidence in that we ask?
Many good Family Court Judges and staff must get pissed off by underhanded legal aid jockeys who ultimately help to propel the ok and decent fathers to bugger off, give up and tell others of their experience because the nett result is: mummy’s new boyfriend is free to abuse away and statistically does.
You want to Change that ?
Sharpen up the lawyer complaints process Amey
The judicial conduct Commissioner, well how can we have confidence in that, how many complaints has his office had? How many complaints have been upheld- is it 1800 complaints with one upheld? Change that process Amey
Get rid of the old guard court coordinators.
Change the complaints process for court appointed psychologists.
Come down on the misuse of the with out notice order.
Ensure that mother’s adhere to parenting orders.
False allegations are not ok with impunity.
Get the cops off dads back because mummy cried into her handkerchief.
Encourage good and ok dads, help us.
Then our child abuse statics will come down, mean time mummy’s new boyfriend only needs a penis to qualify to have more access with our children than us.
What a fuck up.
Comment by Simon grant — Tue 27th September 2016 @ 10:31 pm
My observation is that most men don’t believe it can happen to them. They have great friends and are such good judges of character. Further they are brainwashed into the idea that only men are violent. And yes many men are violent, so these guys see what they consider PROOF that the brainwashing is right. But then much male on male violence is misjudged chivalry, defending some unworthy princess who has been manipulative or telling lies. When I try to wise such guys up, they consider me insane. But then the occasional one happens past having discovered the truth – only it then too late for him and his kids.
My previous admission that I would do it again was based on the idea that (like most of us) we did not encounter the system before having offspring. Then its too late, and kids do need protection. There are no courses I’m aware of which wise young males up before they go out sowing wild-oats. So I agree, nothing is going to change. Isn’t it child abuse to bring male babies into the world? I think so. Imagine all were aborted – soon wimmin would either get the safe, happy loving completing world they say they crave, or they would find the stupidity of their behaviour and also have to suffer the consequence of species extinction.
I went into a New World supermarket the other day. A mum with two youngsters – the elder being female. The female simple shoved the younger boy over flat on his face on the tile. He lay motionless and silent, so I think he was out to it. Mum bent over to check up on the lad while the daughter was euphoric, dancing around gleefully at her success. Mum told her to say “sorry!” but was ignored. That girl may become some unfortunate lads squeeze in the future.
My youngest working at child care has discussed the violence and sexualisation of youngsters, and even those under fives. Let them be violent and hump eachother, but somehow they will be expected to do neither and be nice to when they grow up. This is the culture our hypocritical PC rulers have imposed on us. The continuation of veiolence and sexual behaviour is actually encouraged it would seem.
But like Bunyip, if I knew what I know now – but before unzipping my fly, I might have joined him in line for the snip. That would not just save me, but also prevent kids going through it too.
Comment by Jerry — Wed 28th September 2016 @ 8:22 am
I think it is safe to say that raising a family here is a bad idea. Not unless laws change, culture changes, and people start treating each other better.
Comment by Yeah, Nah — Wed 28th September 2016 @ 7:56 pm
Has anyone else had PTSD symptoms ?
After dealing with the IRD’s child support agency since my early twenties I can’t help but think I’ve been left suffering some sort of psychological disorder from the stresses they have caused me over the years .
Comment by Bunyip — Thu 29th September 2016 @ 5:01 pm
PTSD – I’m sure we all get it some way or other. Me – not the IRD, but CYPs and family court etc. I have no suggestions about a cure. Al Jazeera has an item up at present relating to treatment using the drug “ecstacy” with psych intervention – but I can’t see how that affects reality? – the world has to be just as ugly whenever the hallucinations abate. It may be an escape, if only temporary. Government causes PTSD, but is reluctant to fund treatment.
Comment by Jerry — Thu 29th September 2016 @ 5:47 pm
Counsel for the children. Scum bag low life or professional with integrity and his clients interest foremost? You decide!
Counsel Recomended an independent change over venue run by a conviceted fraud steer, drug dealer who told the father” I will make sure you don’t get access to those children” ex psycharatic patitients were living there. The father was expected to drop off two infants there.
Counsel did nothing about this for two years.
Counsel by draft or dictation had the children’s and mothers GP send him letters saying: ( counsel has been questioned about this on two occasions before two judges) Counsel may feel that he has perverted the course of justice, who knows?
The children were stressed due to overnight access with their father, the level of access is compromising their attachment or their primary caregiver who is their mother.
The GP was Ruth Brown who had never seen the father with the children.
The second letter
I will not see these children when in the care of their father
Dr Ruth Brown
This action from senior counsel for the children stopped overnight access which was not restored until almost two years later.
Counsel made an application to be reappointed as the gatekeeper of the medical records (essentially) by using. Memorandum seeking clarification. The father was not able to receive a copy of this application until directions had been made ( go figure, confident dads?)
A dead body was found hanging by the son, in the children’s mother’s garage,
Counsel did nothing, not a bloody thing, mummy’s garage, that’s ok, how tragic – er um, for her. What about the children? The who? ( welcome to the family court process, nz style)
Counsel for the children and counsel for the mother began working for the same firm. That’s ok apparently, nothing to see here.
Counsel for the mother number 8 made a with out notice application to have the children removed from the fathers care after 6 years of shared care. A family court judge granted it.
The father didn’t see the children for 8 weeks. New counsel reported that the children were sad and angry at not having sen their father for 8 weeks. The judge spent half a page banging on in her directions about how appropriate her previous directions were ( the ones which made the children sad and angry and removed shared care after six years)
When we say this stuff we are regarded as perpetrators of conflict.
Why can’t we be regarded as aghast?
Wanting to demonstrate aspects of the process others may well endure?
As illustrating the hopelessness of bothering to try to father children?
The mother gave evidence that
The highway 61 bar in paraparumu is a nice place
They have discount drinks
They have an open fire
I have even dome waitressing there.
Brin, he’s a nice man, he makes go carts out of nothing for the children (Brin Thompson) gang member
Affro, he’s a man, who’ been to our house ( gang member who goes to your children’s house, how do you feel?)
Clearly she had problems, most likely class A drug use. ( the mother, not her honor judge Ulrich)
7 months later 8 gang members were arrested for serious drugs charges. ( operation fantail)
Did the court/ police put her (the mother) under servaliance, threaten to take her children off her and place them with the father unless she cooperated (informed) these children should have been in the care of the father but did they get used as a chip,in the game?
Was the children’s well being traded?
Are the Webb sights fathers go to put before the court with out us knowing? Some think so.
Comment by Simon grant — Fri 30th September 2016 @ 12:51 am
Simon Grant,
Wow, who was this C4C?
Who was the judge who heard the mothers evidence?
Why would the websites fathers go to be monitored and put before the family court, surely this would be evidence and everyone would see it.
Comment by Perplexed — Thu 6th October 2016 @ 9:34 am
I find it really disturbing that this can all be broken down to men against women. I am a woman who has been through the ‘Family’ Court system and believe me it is just as bad for women. My ex had hardly anything to do with his children for nearly three years after we separated – if I hadn’t invited him round for dinners and let him spend time with them in a house I was paying the mortgage on he would never have seen them. He was drunk most of the time after we parted and would often turn up drunk and abusive in front of the children (I would calm him down and attempt do deal with it myself instead of involving the police, which I later came to regret).
When he entered a new relationship with a woman who couldn’t have children he insisted that the children come and stay with them (he had previously refused to have them). My daughter who was 11 at the time and had just started to go through puberty didn’t want to stay over. We reached an agreement at mediation that she would go out with him whenever he had the boys (every other weekend – his choice)and drop her home at the end of the day – he refused to see her for four months despite me contacting him and trying to arrange access. He was punishing her for not doing what he wanted and after four months he simply made her go via the court. She tried to tell her lawyer that she didn’t want to stay and why but she didn’t listen. The system is awful and I am sick of parents – both male and female whining on about their needs and disguising them as ‘what’s best for the children’. Listen to your children and stop being so selfish. As for one of the comments on this site about ‘gold digging mothers’, I was a stay at home mum and I didn’t ‘fit in’ my kids. I worked damned hard at it – putting any chance of a career on hold – in order to give my kids the best chance in life. I went without and put them first always. I’ve just finished a degree in order to be able to provide the very best I can for my kids (because it’s damn clear that their father won’t).
My experience of IRD and child support is a joke – the money I get doesn’t even pay for my groceries ($200 a week) – my kids all attend Guides and Scouts, go on school trips, have piano lessons and 2 of them have tutoring which I pay for they still need clothes, shoes, a roof over their heads, heat and electricity, days out, trips with friends, taxiing around (car and petrol), doctors visits . . . . (I go without myself in order to pay for these things).
If parents put their kids at the heart of all their decisions and made care arrangements that their children wanted then the totally screwed up, truly awful family court process could be avoided. It solves nothing.
As for PTSD – I have suffered from it due to the hell I was put through by the system not to mention my ex writing to my parents and slagging me off to everyone he possibly could. I have a permanent twitch and doubt I will ever get involved with anyone else due to the hell he put me through. Their are dreadful women I have no doubt but their are dreadful men also. Mostly though I just think there are a lot of hurt, angry people who need to be treating each other with a lot more understanding and respect.
Comment by Louise — Mon 10th October 2016 @ 6:56 pm
And a rotton to the core Government agency making money out of it .
Comment by Bunyip — Mon 10th October 2016 @ 9:41 pm
13 Louise, you sound like a really good mum who has delivered lessons and interests for your children. You have encouraged the children’s father to participate but he has blown it.
Most fathers who have to participate in the Family Court are not going there because their children’s mother invites them In to her home so that he can be involved with the children. That sounds like a helpful and cooperative approach where by you are putting the children first.
I can assure you, that has never happened for me and there are mothers, women, ex partners who will gladly use the process to frustrate, impeed and stop access with the father as much as they can and more. There are lawyers, psychologists and more process to burn off even the most dedicated fathers. Eventually it does work.
Comment by Simon — Mon 10th October 2016 @ 11:44 pm
I hear ya! My kids had an awful lawyer for child who couldn’t work out what was going on so blamed us both – If the truth didn’t fit in he simply lied. I was lucky and the Psychologist was a lot more helpful and actually helped to calm things down. The trouble is it is not in the lawyer for child’s interests to calm things down – conflict pays! It isn’t just men who get beaten down – women do too. I did everything I could to be reasonable to my ex. I’d been a good wife and took so much pride in being a mum and always put the kids first. When we separated I promised him we would always be friends and no matter what he would always be the children’s father and that we would be a family. Unfortunately that didn’t fit with the new girlfriend’s plans. Seeing a report written by someone I barely knew and who clearly didn’t bother to listen to the kids made me ill. It was like being in some awful nightmare – and it’s no good talking to people because people can’t believe it. My own mum couldn’t believe it until she came to stay and was here when the lawyers report came in – she was convinced they had sent the wrong report and tried to make me call the court to tell them there had been a mix-up!
I was naive enough to believe that the kids having a lawyer to represent them was a good thing but it was obvious to everyone – even the court coordinator – that the kids lawyer didn’t like me. If that happens you are screwed – man or woman. They are supposed to represent the kids but the truth is they pick a side and run with it. They don’t care about families, they are their for the money – have a look at what some of these lawyers earn in legal aid fees, it’s disgusting. I have a female friend who things didn’t work out so well for and she is constantly denied access to her children by her ex for no good reason. They were supposed to share care 40/60 but he has slowly eroded it, alienating her older boy who she now barely sees. It’s happening to all of us not just men, not just women.
I do think that a lot is motivated by hurt over the break-up of a relationship. Anger at what is seen as unfairness of situations. It’s bloody hard. I truly believe that the kids need to be at the forefront of every decision – did I want my ex around for dinner? Of course not – but my children did. We don’t talk now and the kids have lost out. I don’t know what the answer is but the family court system doesn’t work and the definition of madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting something different. If you go to court expecting resolution then you are kidding yourself – all it does is piss people off even more and make the situation a whole lot worse!
Comment by Louise — Tue 11th October 2016 @ 3:51 pm
A lady onece told me that she loathed her ex and children’s father so much she was concerned at her attitude enough to change and she worked hard to accommodate this guy.
I take my hat off to this woman and to you for putting the children first. Men who do not embrace that opportunity give those who have had to battle for every second of access and have had to deal with repedative complaints to the police, protection order applications time and time again, access frustrated, homework books lost (on purpose) sports and activities sabotaged give the majority of guys who go through the family court a bad name.
All this while we watch the same old drivel contained in submissions from counsel. Conflict is the name of the game for c4c “what does c4c do when there is light at the end of the tunnel ? Submit there’s more conflict.
What does council for the child do when there is no more conflict?
Find some then submit that there is more conflict.
What does C4c do after that? Make a submission to parliament banging on about how their involvement will most likely lead to a more speedy resolution for parents.
How’s that?
Comment by Simon — Tue 11th October 2016 @ 5:46 pm
‘Making separation work’ is colluding with family devastation and the child abuse this causes. Often it also ends up feeding the predatory Family Court.
If a woman chooses to trash the family unit she and a male partner started, I would encourage that father to walk away, immediately and completely withdraw his involvement regarding her and the children. I would like to see even more discarded fathers stop work, stop contributing to the nation, become beneficiaries or inmates. That will hasten the end of our state-sponsored feminist family wrecking. Under current law and policy, NZ doesn’t deserve men’s participation. Strike comrades!
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 11th October 2016 @ 6:48 pm
#16 Louise. You were obviously given the wrong advice by your Lawyer and you should have sought advice from a “Wimmin’s group”. They would have advised you to accuse your ex-husband of abuse in your very first affidavit to the Court. You see, the family Court is not terribly interested in evidence, your accusation would be enough to strip him of all contact with his children. His path (and yours) through the “system” would have been very different. He would have had a Protection Order preventing him from even so much as texting you or the children to wish them Happy Birthday and he would have spent tens of thousands of Dollars trying to prove something that only you and he knew didn’t happen. All that you would have been required to do to keep sole custody of your children would have been to maintain the lie.
Now while this may seem to be a callous thing to do by a reasonable person like yourself, I’ve lost count of the number of men who I have spoken to who have had the exact scenario happen to them.
Comment by golfa — Tue 11th October 2016 @ 9:36 pm
Hi guys.
I’m looking for a link to an article on Ang Jury where she talks about creating protection orders on men who have not been violent.
Can’t seem to find it but remember reading it a few times.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 2:20 pm
I think she said a Protection Order was a good idea for every woman, just in case!
Comment by allan harvey — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 8:22 pm
Hi DJ Ward @20: I think it was this radio broadcast. In a part of the radio article discussing people’s applications to Family Court for any matters, Ms Jury said that many women find the forms they have to fill in complicated and want a lawyer to help them. However, she says, most legal aid isn’t available unless it’s a ‘without notice’application (i.e. involves allegations of violence), “…so if they want a lawyer, really, they need to try the without-notice course”.
‘The without-notice course’ is not a legitimate thing. It only means misusing a provision that was intended for situations when it would be dangerous to make a normal on-notice application because of the respondent’s likely violent reaction. If a without-notice application wasn’t really necessary but is made with ulterior motives, then it will be based on lies or exaggerations (= also lies) about the respondent’s violence or dangerousness.
Ms Jury here admitted that many women misuse Family Court in this way, she appears to condone this and no doubt she and her sisterhood encourage it.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 8:26 pm
Thanks. Definately the same subject matter.
I was thinking of another one. A print interview with Ang Jury. She specifically talked about Women’s Refuge helping women create protection orders even if the male had not been violent. North and South magazine or something similar.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 9:06 pm
I think the quote is about 10-15 years old
Comment by allan harvey — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 9:16 pm
This is something I came across very recently with Oranga Tamariki trying to get a woman to apply for a protection order as a manipulative or precautionary measure. That may well be another source of the court overflow.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 9:19 pm
@23. I forgot to read the main post for this thread, which was all about the very radio documentary I spent time looking for to reply to your request! Yes, I don’t know the article you’re referring to.
Isn’t it incredible that the head of this heavily government funded organisation Women’s Refuge feels able to admit openly to encouraging perjury in our Family Court, smug in her certainty that nobody will hold her or her lying women accountable?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 7th August 2018 @ 11:53 pm