A transcript of some.

“You Sir, and your Alice In Wonderland court are a shameful act. We can but trust that Asher J’s reserved judgement will bring some sanity into this utterly insane environment.

Meanwhile, you may be assured that the protests against your staff and the sundry court appointed lawyers who work for peanuts and thus demonstrate they can’t hack it in the real world of practice, will both continue and escalate.

You have on your hands the modern-day equivalent of the French Revolution. It’s young and lacking force, but it’s growing.

Vive Le fathers! We have had enough.”

In honor of John Murtari and August being Child Support Awareness month in
America.

please redistribute:

International Day of Protest for John Murtari, Equal Parenting and Family
Law Reform – August 9

Members of A Kids Right ,
Fathers4Justice-USAand
Fathers4Justice-Canada ,
along with local parents will be demonstrating in Syracuse, New York on Wednesday, August 9, in support of passive resister John Murtari. Murtari is founder of A Kids Right and proponent of Equal Child Custody and a Family Rights Act.

Inspired by Gandhi, John refuses to cooperate with his captors while he is incarcerated for failure to pay all of his child support.

Murtari has not had any water or food since Monday, July 31. His health started to decline quickly and he was moved to a jail with better medical facilities. By Friday he was in a local emergency room with a rapid and irregular heartbeat. The demonstration will either be at the Syracuse City Jail, or the hospital. Most likely it will be the hospital. Let’s pray it’s not the morgue.
(more…)

Dear Sir,

I also wish to add my voice to the growing number voicing significant concerns regarding the way in which the Family Court system deports itself.

The first of my concerns regards that of the statutory requirement for substantive hearings to be heard within sixty days of the first interlocutory hearing.

On Tuesday, 2nd August, during my appeal of your minion, David Mathers’ judgements, much to my amazement, and that of Asher J, cases such as mine, which have dribbled on for well over five months are doing so simply for lack of funding.

I’m sure this is an excellent excuse in many cases, but in many more clever lawyers are using the underfunded court system to stretch cases, hoping appellants will simply give up.

Sir, your job is to ensure your court operates at the level dictated by statute, thus I am required to ask why you have not been doing your job. Why is there insufficient funding for the Family Court?
(more…)

Dont forget to send your submission to the inquiry into the Child Support Act 1991

This is a question from Star taken from that thread. Its a common problem with Child Tax so I thought I would offer some obsevations.

Have got 3 letters from IRD each stating the information on my salary has been provided by my employer.. fine that’s not a problem.. the error though is the quoted amount on each of the letters. They differ vastly with a difference of $15g’s between them and non of them are anywhere near my true salary. These letters are each dated within 2 weeks from each other Does this require a review?.. or some control here.. it appears the IRD/ CSA are playing games or just plain incompetent.

Starr I think what you have recivied is a reassessment.

A few years ago the politicians, after recommendation from IRD and above protests from reformers and anyone who could add, made a fundamental change to the Child Support Act in the way the child support income for the year was calculated.

The old way of doing things was to base your CS Income for this year on your taxable income from two years ago. (Note 2yrs still applies for most self employed people) Now they use your taxable income from last year. This is a nightmare for both paying and receiving parents.
(more…)

I submitted the following letter to the NZ Herald.

According to your article on 3 August, Dame Silvia Cartwright in her farewell speech described her hope in New Zealand for “…better health and human rights, especially for women and children”. Why should men also not be accorded better health and the same human rights as women? It is incredible that our society has been so captured by feminist ideology that the nation’s most senior statesperson believes it is acceptable to discriminate openly against men. Her statement is made all the more insensitive by the fact that men already fare much more poorly in health statistics than do women and men die more from most of the leading causes of premature death in developed countries.

Dame Silvia went on to make condescending jokes about her husband who has supported her through her illustrious career. This included a joke about his baldness. Imagine the outcry if a major statesman publicly made jokes about his wife’s sagging breasts or expanded thighs. One might contrast Dame Silvia’s speech with that usually made by a man. You are likely to hear him express heartfelt gratitude and respect for the wife who supported him.

Hi John,

I have taken the liberty to email you this release from Judy Turner MP, calling on an independent complaints authority to be set up for CYF complaints. I gained your email address from the MENZ website which I regularly check as a researcher for Judy Turner and United Future. I apologise in advance if you do not want this email, but I thought that given the large numbers of fathers (and some mothers) out there that have had care and/or contact with their child removed from them by CYF – for which the only way to contest any decision is to complain back to CYF themselves, that you may be interested.

United Future family spokesperson Judy Turner is calling for the creation of a complaints authority to provide an avenue for people who feel they have been unfairly treated by the Children’s, Youth and Family Services.

“CYFS have statutory powers to legally uplift children from the care of their parents where it is considered the children are at risk.

“What I have discovered is that while the Children’s Commission has legislative responsibilities to investigate complaints about the decisions made by CYFS as they pertain to children, there is no independent body that parents and other adult family members can turn to if they believe that they have been treated unjustly by the department.

“Like most other M.P.’s I have a steady stream of letters and e-mails from families who claim to have been poorly treated by CYFS, and while I am sure that not all of them would be upheld if subject to proper scrutiny, I worry about the ones that could well be genuine and for whom there is no opportunity for redress.

“By way of analogy, the New Zealand Police Complaints Authority handles about 2500 complaints a year.

“The Authority is independent and is staffed by 7 full time employees and costs just over $2 million per year to run. Approximately

• 50% of complaints are not upheld,
• 13% (on average 343 complaints per year) are upheld or are partially upheld
• The rest are neither upheld nor not upheld, but are resolved by conciliation or are dropped.”

Mrs Turner would also like the government to fund the Children’s Commission adequately for the investigative work it carries out now.

ENDS

Judy Turner is the deputy leader of United Future, and has taken particular interest and concern with outcomes relating to CYF cases and processes and the Family court. Last week she contacted Wayne Pruden to publicly greet and congratulate him when he reached parliament steps after his one-man hikoi, and met him privately in her office afterwards for discussions with him.

I guess I should enlighten you all as to the substance of the appeal.

The appeal was lodged on the basis that Judge Mathers’ judgement, in allowing CYP a S78, was wrong in law and fact on four points; the main point being the ‘level’ of the ‘test’ required before the court can issue an interim custody order under S78.

It is noteworthy that in fact my appeal was the first such appeal of this specific nature and so whatever the outcome it will have a profound affect on future FC decisions.

If Asher J finds in my favour then the level of test which Hooker proposed must be much higher than was applied by Judge Mathers.

Notwithstanding the S78 order was an ‘interim’ order, but only one of many ‘interim’ orders available to the FC.

It follows that if my appeal is allowed then the FC will be required, in future, to apply a relatively high test to all interim orders, but most especially those directing contact prohibition.
(more…)

Dateline: Canada
Author: Pit Bull
From: BC Fathers
Via: The Honor Network

The State Hits Up Dads Again, For It Needs MONEY!!

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled ex-spouses could face retroactive child support payments, if they fail to declare increased earnings. This will affect thousands of fathers across Canada.
In a unanimous: 7-0 vote . The top unelected court decided that fathers, in the vast majority of cases must report increases in income which will therefore boost their court-ordered payments.
“A payor parent who does not increase his-her child support payments to correspond with his-her income will not have fulfilled his-her obligation to his-her children.” “Parents have an obligation to support their children in a way that is commensurate with their income,” said Justice Michel Bastarache, writing the opinion for the Judges that earn well over the average salary of blue collar men.
Retroactive penalties will start hitting fathers across Canada, if they fail to inform their ex-partner about any changes to their income. Families are going to be scurrying around trying to figure out what child support should have been paid over the course of the last decade.
700,000 families could be affected by this decision. It has the potential to have an enormous financial impact on an enormous number of Canadians, keep lawyers making more money off families and string out the Canadian Government a little further avoiding the coming doom.

Pit Bull

It was a most fascinating, if not extremely expensive, day at the High Court having my appeal heard.

Justice Asher was in charge of being in charge. It became quickly clear that Asher J has one hell of a fine mind. He didn’t miss a thing in amongst the various attempts of opposing council to whitewash. Thus, whatever his decision will be will be acceptable because I am utterly confident that his judgement will be based entirely on fact and law.

Obviously, I can’t go into details of the issue but I can bring up some startling points.

1. The CYP Act, S200, says all FGC cases requiring a substantive hearing must have that hearing within 60 days of the first hearing.

Asher J was astounded this issue of mine has dragged on for nearly five months and was looking like dragging on for a similar term.
(more…)

Media release

Inquiry into child support reviews

Parents for Children has launched an inquiry into Inland Revenue’s administrative reviews of child support. Administrative reviews enable departures from standard formula assessments.

“Reviews are held in secret and publication is prohibited”, said Mark Shipman of Parents for Children.

Shipman said this system is hurting parents and children and that review officers are inventing figures from thin air without any justification.

“The numbers of parents seeking help with administrative reviews has skyrocketed. Inland Revenue claims that it is a simple process, when in reality it is a complex area of law.”

“Parents, mums and dads, are being financially crippled by the decisions of these bureaucrats. Proposed changes to the Act will make the situation worse, not better.”

“Politicians have failed to hold an inquiry into the Child Support Act 1991, and mums, dads and children continue to suffer by the application of a crude formula based approach. Parents for Children has begun an inquiry into the administrative review process as the first of a series of inquiries into the Child Support Act 1991,” he concluded.

ends

Contact Details

Mark Shipman 021-982222
Jim Nicolle 021-800586

Please make your submission as an email. For a postal submission 8 Copies are required – address details can be obtained from Jim or Mark on the phone numbers listed above.

Please keep your email down to pertinent points .The Inquiry Board members are donating their time voluntarily and have committed to read all submissions.

Please indicate if you wish your submission forwarded with the Inquiry report to Michael Cullen, Minister of Revenue.

Please refrain from swearing and abusive language. Inquiry Board members fully understand the level of dissatisfaction with the Child Support Act 1991 and its administration by the IRD

If you wish to make a verbal submission in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch or Dunedin you must include a contact address and telephone number.

Suggested Structure for a submission

Brief introductory paragraph providing contact details (address and phone number) and the
a brief description of your situation.

e.g I am a paying parent, I share care 3 nights a week, I pay for two children and have been doing so for 16 years.

Followed by the body of your submission.

Submissions Close 1 November 2006

For further information email [email protected]

Will someone pleeeease provide the goss for what happened on Sunday. I heard on the news today that the hose-lady was to be charged with assault with a weapon of Mass Watering.:–)) I have to assume that you guys are way above pressing charges.

Surely, in doing so, you all just join the ranks of the rabid PC brigade.

Cheers
David.

Why Labour despises the family
Daily Mail, 27 July 2006

When New Labour came to power in 1997, a battle royal took place within its ranks over the issue of the family.

In one camp was Tony Blair, who understood that family breakdown was the hole at the heart of British society and who wanted to strengthen the two-parent family. Ranged against him was just about everyone else, all of whom thought that every form of relationship should be afforded equal status. The Prime Minister lost this argument hands-down.

The result was the lame formula subsequently adopted by his Government that it supported marriage and every other type of ‘family’, too – a transparently verbal camouflage for a relationship free-for-all.
(more…)

Dateline: US
Author: Pit Bull
From: The Honor Network

Houston Mother Who Systematically Drowned her Five Children in the Family Bathtub Found not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Well here we have another example for two justice systems (one for men and one for women). “Equality” where are you now! Mrs. Yates benefit from the old ways for women yet again in our modern times, and you won’t hear anyone crying out for equality in the mainstream press.

“If this were a man” kinda seems tiring to shout out, for it has gotten so common with no one seeming to care about how unjust it all is. Yet stick it in your cap and use it to modivate yourself is your activsim.

Mrs. Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released on th public. She could have lived a life in prison if convicted, but I guess she is only a woman.

Her lawyers never disputed that Mrs. Yates killed her five children – 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah – by drowning them over serveral hours in a bathtub of their suburban Houston home in June 2001.

The shear terror of the children awaiting their turn in the tub, must have been set aside out of the women’s superior motherly love trumping any brutal male backward form of revenge justice. How’s that slogan for the feminists!

In 2002 another jury found Yates guilty of murder in the deaths of three of her children. Due to erroneous testimony she will be out and about before long, and count on someone blaming a man or the church for her badness.

The old ways or the new ways seem to be used whenever a woman need them, while men get a mix of their own old and new, but always to their lose.

The current focus of the Family Court is on ‘best interest of the child’. This, I would say, is something that is very difficult to determine. Also it ignores the presence of the parents, both mother and father and since the mother invariably ends up with the child, this makes the Family Court appear to be anti-father.

One possible remedy for this is to have the Family Court focus on the parent-child relationship. For every child in question there would be two parent-child relationships, one with the mother and one with the father. At the start of family court proceedings, if mediation fails, and it looks like the court will have to make a decision, these relationships would be assessed by a psychologist. The aim of the family court then would be to preserve parent-child relationships, while at the same time attempt to resolve disputes. Lawyers would be instructed to remove all references in affidavits that attack the spouses parent-child relationship. Parents would be given firmer instructions than at present about denigrating the other parent in front of the children. It is inevitable in most family court disputes that there are feelings surrounding marital separation to deal with and these often overflow into the area of parent-child relationships. The family court should emphasize and educate about the need to keep these separate, maybe providing parents with workshops run by organizations such as ParentLine.

Benefits of the parent-child focus:

The court would be required to recognize the importance of the parent. This is especially beneficial to fathers, who, with the current focus on the child, tend to miss out, and feel that the court is anti-father. Getting on side with the father means that, the chances of material and emotional support from both parents and not just the ‘custodial’ parent is more likely. It also makes the chances of shared parenting work better. Ultimately it has got to be better for the child if both parent-child relationships are preserved, not to mention being better for the father and mother.

Features:

The parent-child focus would require the parents to work on having the (negative) marital issues that separate them be countered by the (positive) parent-child relationships that draw them together (or at least draw them to their children). Parents have to learn to separate their relationship with the ex-spouse from that which they have with their children. The family court is a large enough institution to create the culture for this to happen.

The parent-child focus would require some complex assessments and psychological involvement in order to guide the court. It would be hoped that time currently spent on time-wasting adversarial contests could instead be used for this task and that parents would learn to be better parents as a result of the process.

DATELINE: US (Grand Ledge) & IRAQ
Author: Scott Rees
From : F4J (US)
Via: The Honor Network

By SCOTT REES Staff Writer

GRAND LEDGE – For the past week, Joe McNeilly’s phone has been ringing off the hook. He’s been contacted by newspapers, radio shows, and even the major television networks.

That’s the way he wants it.

McNeilly, a Grand Ledge resident and specialist with the Army National Guard, said he believes he lost custody of his 10-year-old son, Joey, because he was in Iraq for 15 months.

“This is the awareness we’ve needed. It’s great,” he said. He said he’s already been approached by other soldiers in the similar predicament.

However, the boy’s mother and his ex-girlfriend – Holly Erb, of Mason, her lawyer, and the Friend of the Court, say McNeilly lost custody because of his parenting skills.

The court referee’s report found that Erb had established a custodial environment for the child while McNeilly was deployed.

A hearing set for Wednesday, Aug. 24, before Ingham County Family Judge Janelle Lawless was postponed. A new date has not been set.

The custody battle has spurred a media blitz locally and nationally and attracted the attention of local politicians. State Rep. Rick Jones, introduced legislation this past week barring courts from using soldiers’ absence for active duty against them in custody hearings.

Jones said t 15 to 20 similar custody issues state-wide have arisen in the past three years.

“Do I expect this legislation to help me? No … but somebody needs to do this. This will help our fellow soldiers who are coming back,” McNeilly said.

Before his deployment in January, 2004, McNeilly and Erb shared joint custody. The child spent one week with his dad and one week with his mother, who also lived in Grand Ledge at the time.

Erb had petitioned for full custody of the child seven months after McNeilly joined the National Guard in 2003.

McNeilly said he agreed to temporarily give the mother full custody of their son and was told the issue would be revisited upon his return. Instead, the court referee recommended against restoring the original agreement and instead gave McNeilly visitation rights for every other weekend and on holidays.

In a recommendation, court referee Louis Belzer expressed concern over e-mail correspondences between the McNeilly and his son during his time in Iraq.

Belzer said the e-mails display a much different relationship than a typical parent-child relationship, and more as a “counterpart to share his military adventure.”

Belzer wrote, “I also question the nature of some of the correspondence relating to how to kill people in multiple ways and then indicating that ‘next time someone touches you and leaves bruises on you, I’ll be ready.’ ”

Belzer said McNeilly seemed more of the disposition to be a friend and buddy rather than a parent.

McNeilly said his statements were taken out of context and he was merely telling his son that if anyone hurt him, he should come to his father.

As for sharing his life in the military, what young boy hasn’t played with G.I. Joes, he asked.

Belzer’s report stated McNeilly was married in January, 2004, while in the military and on active status, residing with his wife and three step-children in Grand Ledge.

The referee’s report said McNeilly made a general reference to spending part of the time with his wife, and also time at his parents house and his sister’s house. He denied marital difficulties.

The referee, in his recommendation to the judge, determined that Erb would provide Joey with a more stable environment as she now resides with her husband, a step-child, and a new child by her husband.

“Them pulling him out of a consistent environment (in Grand Ledge) of six years. That doesn’t make sense,” McNeilly said.

McNeilly filed an objection to the recommendations claiming incorrect procedural information regarding the temporary order, the referee stated information incorrectly, and biased direction of the friend of the court against men.

McNeilly also stated the referee failed to mention and take into account Erb’s negative actions. She was the defendant in the case.

He claims Erb intentionally made it difficult for him to keep in consistent contact with his son, not responding to e-mails and phone calls inquiring about grades and his son’s well-being.

“Why do I have to go through this? Why does anybody have to go through this? I mean, we’re parents,” McNeilly said.

“Give me time with my son, I’ve earned it,” he added.

21st Century Dear Joe Letter Might go like this:

Dear Joe,
I’ve found another bloke and I’m taking your kid. Dad stepping on an IUD isn’t good for a child. I’m really concerned about the child.

You can now get a paternity test at 5 weeks into a pregnancy:

www.australianpaternityfraud.org

The best way to secure yourself against paternity fraud is to either get the test done or to get a written statement from the mother that she has absolutely no doubts about the paternity of the child. In other words only she knows for certain whether or not she has slept around, been raped or visited a sperm bank during the possible conception time. Those who rile at what Meredith did to Liam may find it worthwhile putting energy into getting this test made available to men free of charge. That would be a good and positive cause.

You cannot change the past. DNA testing is new technology and what we know today we didn’t know ten years ago. All historical cases of so called paternity fraud are likely to be treated with caution and probably a certain amount of clumsiness and with mixed results by the courts. Only when DNA testing is a day to day reality will the issue ever be clarified.

The Magill case failed partly because it opened up a Pandora’s box of endless possibility with regards to litigation against private deceit. The tort of deceit is supposed to apply to commercial relationships. Because a marriage certificate is a legal document it could be used to bring a tort of deceit against a man who commits adultery and this is far more frequent than misattributed paternity. That is the kind of precedent that the original decision would have set. The only winners here are the lawyers. What is needed is new legislation to apply to private matters such as paternity fraud and the latter can only apply when it is beyond doubt that paternity has been misattributed and the only surefire way of achieving that is through a DNA test. Again, championing such a cause would be a positive step to take.

The existence of the DPB means that women have the choice of keeping a child if it was not fathered by their partner and he chooses not to formally adopt the child as his own. Until all men stop committing adultery, women cannot be expected to stop having children out of wedlock (which is not likely to happen anyway).

All in all, this focus on paternity fraud and biological fatherhood is only going help to reduce birth rates further below the less than replacement level that they are now.

Prior to DNA testing there was no way of knowing for sure that you weren’t the biological father of your children.? DNA testing has opened up a whole can of worms that society has yet to learn how to deal with.?

The term paternity fraud is? incorrect since 9 times out of 10 the woman cannot know for sure that a child is not the supposed father.? This reflects the judgment made? in the Australian High Court when Meredith Magill made her successful appeal against the previous $70,000 litigation.? To assume that all cases of misappropriated fatherhood are fraud? and that the mother is at fault completely lets off the hook the male who is invariably involved in all these cases.?

Actual statistics of misappropriated paternity are hard to quantify.? The link at http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/statistics.htm? might give some idea.? Basically for most of humankind men have been bringing up children for whom they are not the biological father.? They have not been experiencing any devastation or stress because they haven’t known.? What they didn’t know didn’t hurt them.? Now that we have DNA testing we suddenly have this male insistence that the only true father is a biological one.

The existence of DNA testing changes everything.

We have to approach child birth from a completely new angle.? Some ideas can be found here

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/The_Age_Secrets_Lies_26NOV05.htm

What all this should make clear is that the current child-support payment system, which assigns payment obligations on the basis of biological paternity, not parenting commitment, is tragically flawed. Regardless of whether the father suspected, knew or had no idea that the child he was parenting was genetically unrelated, and notwithstanding however culpable his female partner’s behaviour was in creating that situation, the law needs to recognise and affirm men’s value to children as parents – and people – not sperm donors. Playing the biological card not only undercuts research findings that affirm the importance to children of having an active male parent in their lives, but lends support to the insulting claim made by a sperm donor interviewed on Four Corners last month that he, not the man who invested 20 years of time and love, was his daughter’s “real” father.

After the Magill case, this is where the law is quite likely to go.

And this too:

Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. If they feel unable to sign on the dotted line without conclusive proof that they are the biological progenitor, they should be offered a DNA test free of charge.

However, once a man does formally accept social and legal responsibility for a child – either with knowledge of their genetic paternity or in the face of a fully informed waiver of that knowledge – their status as the child’s legal father should rightly be set in stone. No DNA skeletons rattling out of the cupboards at a later date should affect what they legally owe their child or, hopefully, how they feel about the kid who calls him dad.

This site is supposed to be supportive of the need for? children to have a father? present in their lives.? I would expect nothing less than a positive response to these ideas from fellow posters.

?

?

By: CARLY CRAWFORD

“It’s probably a scare tactic — someone trying to scare me out of defending the appeal,” he said.

I guess they will now emotionally rationalize this into the Mr. Liam’s fault with some mental gymanstics of some sort! Oppressed minorites are always blamed for those who abuse them. If you get angry your an angry white male, if you take it on the chin again and again you deserve it. This is a no win game preached by those who want us to fail. We need to ignore them and unite the moderates and radicals and call out the pretenders (Kent).

Are a New Zealand dad and a victim of misattributed paternity?

Would you be prepared to share your story, this can be done anonymously, with a reporter from a major New Zealand daily news paper?

Email [email protected] with a brief summary and your contact details.

Regards

Scrap

Dateline: Australia
Author: Soli
From: Dads On Air
Via: Honor Network

Down Under Takes On Whole New Meaning

The High Court is confronting that issue right now. Liam and Meredith Magill were married in April 1988. A son was born in April 1989. Unknown to her husband, a few months later Meredith began an affair with a man, having unprotected sex until early 1995. In July 1990 a second son was born. Then, the next year, a daughter. After separating, Meredith admitted to Liam her concerns over paternity. A few years later she agreed to DNA tests. Liam learned that the two younger children were not his.

He was left devastated, suffered chronic depression and was unable to work. He sued Meredith for the tort of deceit, claiming financial compensation for his pain and suffering, but not for money spent on the upbringing and maintenance of the children.

While the Victorian County Court found that Meredith had deceived Liam when she nominated him as the father on birth registration notices, that was overturned last year by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The High Court will now decide whether the tort of deceit will hold Meredith accountable for her actions.
(more…)

A shared parenting bill was presented to parliament in year 2000. Many people supported the bill yet it did not get the chance to go through all channels to make a new important law.
Many people took to public areas to support the change. In fact alot of people got together to express concerns for the rights of children regarding fathers, meetings were being held everywhere to gain support and the journalists spread the word through media.

Today and back then alot of people in parliament and those who work behind the scenes in law, research departments, etc agree that the Guardianship Act and Custody Act are old and out of date to today’s society.
Fathers are not just finance earners, not to their women that want time with them nor to their chidren that rely on good loving and caring parenting from them.
(more…)

This process of appeals to the High Court fascinates me.

It seems to me a judge becomes a judge having demonstrated a slightly greater degree of legal understanding than a mere lawyer.

Then said judge (with the aid of a lawyer to assist the court) comes out with a judgement which the mere lawyer finds (on several points) wrong in fact and law.

The mere lawyer then has to ask the judge who made the erroneous judgement for permission to appeal the judgement.

The mere lawyer sets out the grounds for the appeal.

The judge, having seen the ‘possible’ error of his ways allows the lawyers application to appeal against his own judgement.

Surely, this process is a farce? In fact a grande farce!
(more…)

I really wish we could all stop swapping spits about the minor details when the bigger picture needs so much energy.

But there’s another issue which kind’ve interests me. I see on the board tonight there have been 810 visitors to this site, yet the comments are coming from about four folk. Does that mean you four have each visited the site 202.25 times each, or are there a whole bunch of visitors who, for one reason or another are looking but not commenting.

Question: why visit and not comment?
(more…)

Thanks to the community groups being shown on the right hand side of this screen, we have so much more information.

Here is something interesting to look at thanks to ‘NZ Father & Child Society’ website. And ‘www.scoop.co.nz’

family-court-statistics-2004

Families Commission has also done some research into One child, Two homes. by Paul Callister and Stuart Birks

Gee, Stuart Birks does a few statistics and research.

Stats and research can be found here www.stats.govt.nz

People, causing the current internecene arguments for and against the DPB was not the point of my mailing ‘Says It All’.

The whole point was to bring attention to three seperate but vitally connected issues.

Issue 1. DPB offers a solution to the often morally moribund who simmply cannot be bothered getting out of bed to earn their daily bread.

Issue 2. The only way (mostly female recipients) can get it is to gain custody of the children involved.

Issue 3. The prospector of DPB (mostly female) are able to tell almost any lie and have such accepted by the Family Court to then gain DPB.

I believe, for better or worse, that in many cases the fleeing woman would be quite happy if the departing male was allowed complete and free access to the kids and to help manage them. But unless the prospector can demosntrate ‘she’ ‘must’ be the main guardian of the kids, not 50/50, then she won’t get DPB.

And so, in order to get DPB ‘she’ must demonstatrate that ‘she’ is the only fitting guardian. And to do that she ‘must’ throw the father under the bus.

There is a fourth point…and is probably the most iniquitous in Jane’s dialogue.

That was the advice she received from her lawyer that she must ‘not’ make a federal case out of her claims because, in doing so such would go to the District Court (at the very least) and in that environment, real proof is required. Whereas, as she says, in the Family Court, anything goes.

Further, Jane’s income of a grand a week was made up of sundry benefits, I gather totalling about $450 pw, plus accommodation benefit of $200, plus all of her little sidelines plus the income she got from her new live-in.

But this seemlessly immoral woman made the point which I find the most insufferable. She said she didn’t realy care about the kids, she just wanted her life-style and that the kids were just a part of the building blocks for that life-style.

And so we come full circle to my mail from The Shower. We have to find a way to make the Family Court require real evidence, not hearsay, opinion, feelings, crap, etc.

I ask you. How could legislators water down common principles of law (Innocent till PROVEN guilty) in the Family Court, then stand in the light of day and assert the new rules are fair and just?

The answer is, they cannot.

Surely, it is this issue, not the afore mentioned internecene arguments about DBP which MUST be our focus.

All I ask is that the FC be required to require proof positive before acepting any allegation. Simple as that.

And lastly, I say again. There are some genuine cases of serious need for DPB. I don’t have a problem with being a part of the funding for them (as a tax-payer). My problem is, I want the recipients to ‘prove’ beyond reasonable doubt that they are so entitled. And surely, if the partner is a genuine bad-arse, proof must be readily available.

Cheers
David.