by John Potter.                     Photo: Judge Patrick Mahony

Minutes of meeting compiled by Warwick Pudney are here

I thought that the meeting with Judge Mahony was generally constructive. He appeared to listen intently and took a lot of notes. I imagine that by now he will have a pretty clear picture of what fathers are unhappy about.

He did not give much away about his intentions however. My feeling is that he is genuine in his stated desire to find ways to enable both parents to be involved in the care for their children. What I couldn't assess is the degree to which he feels able to make reforms. I am sure there is pressure on him from groups who have a very different agenda to us.

One thing that has become clear as a result of this meeting is that he and the Court have little credibility with a sizeable proportion of the fathers' movement. Angry voices on the megaphone in the car park outside were heard throughout the meeting.

Judge Mahony acknowledged that the social scene today is very different from when the current law regarding custody and access was written in 1968. He sees the job of the Court is to find a way for both parents to be involved in the care of their children. It is not about the rights of one parent against another, instead the focus is on the best outcome for the child. He admitted that "difficulties with the enforcement of access is really troubling to me". He said that because the Family Court is not a criminal Court, they cannot enforce their judgments. He suggested that this is up to the police and that fathers should try making a complaint to them if access is frustrated.

Legislation expected early 2002 to reform access and enforcement of access orders

In Australia April 2001 a new law was introduced which requires "major role" parents who obstruct access to undergo compulsory training, fine, jail, or community service.

A conference of judges in the UK is looking at ways to improve enforcement of access (universal problem, getting worse).

He indicated that mandatory parenting courses may be introduced.

Judge Mahony acknowledged that closed courts are an exception to principal that Justice must be seen to be done. This allows families to deal with their problems privately, as children in particular have rights to privacy. As far as Family Court judges are concerned they would be just as happy with open hearings as long as vulnerable children are protected. Mahony wants an urgent answer from the government on this question, hopefully by early 2002.

He realises men needed better information when served with a protection order.

While he cannot interfere directly in individual cases, he is always prepared to listen if men send their stories to him for review.

Twenty-eight issues to address report due March 02. includes possible reform in the area of procedures e.g. earlier intervention, mandatory parenting courses -- looking after children cooperatively.

Dave Ryan of the NZ police said that he supports the idea of a seven to ten day temporary protection order. He also noted that many men do not understand what the orders mean, and their first reaction is to contact their ex-wife to discuss them. Dave suggested that respondents should be entitled to a free hour of counselling to explain the implications. Judge Mahony commented that under the pre-1995 law a protection order was made for a finite time of around three to five weeks after which a hearing determined whether it should be made permanent or automatically discharged. He said that very few orders needed to be made permanent.

Lawyer Robert Brennan concluded the meeting by drawing attention to the "corroding effect of a man's soul when he experiences injustice." He discussed the social contract and pointed out that we cannot expect men to have allegiance to a social system that has failed them. He said: "To take away the prospect of hope leaves them permanently alienated."

Minutes of meeting compiled by Warwick Pudney are here

Pictures page one                                                                     More pictures on page two