And again,

It seems to me we need to expand the regime on all fronts. More protests in person and many more protests by letter an email.

However, protests gain attention but they don’t necessarily gain direct results. Protests can be seen as an energy-creating processes. More protests=more energy=more recognition. More recognition=greater attention. Greater attention=more substance for when the real fight begins. So let’s work at ramping up the frequency of personal protests and hugely ramp up the mail-campaign….Over the weekened I will get as many email addresses of as many targets as I can, and publich them here.

Your task…as writer….will be to send your story, unemotional, credible, factual, but evincing the vast pain you and your child(ren) have suffered, to all and sundry.

The real fight.

It seems to me the real fight can be sintered down to the fact the Family Court does not operate anywhere near normal burdens of proof. Yet it is a Court which should lawfully be constrained to deal with fact and not opinion. Sothat’s the final target…To have these Courts operate like a Court, not some arbiter of opinion.

My concept is to pick a losing case, especially one where it is demonstrable the CYFSterhood and LFC have effectively subborned the ear of the FC, and take this case to appeal at the High Court then, if necessary, the Appeal Court.

This is an expensive mission (hence the call to set up a fighting fund) but we must also know the rules of engagement. Does anybody know a really good Family Court lawyer (preferably a barrister) who will provide us with some pro bono advice? ….Albeit on th basis that on the day the actual fight begins we will pay him/her from the fighting fund.

Lastly, John P warned me against being too vocal here, because the CYFSterhood and sundry LFC monitor this site, and that he has seen letters to this site held up in court against the writer.

My position is:- I don’t do pussy-foot. If I believe I have a valid case of any sort, then I take it right out there and ‘Damn the torpedoes.’ Seems to me I’ll porbably lose round-two anyway, so I have little to lose. But even If I felt I might win round-two, by keeping my own counsel (staying silent) would help, my integrity wouldn’t allow it.

Nope. It’s fight time. And so, if any of you know of a possible pro bono lawyer, please let me know, pronto. Please assured him/her, they will not be working on my case. I simply need to know the rules of engagement…ergo the rules which control the FC.

Cheers
David.

Hi all,

Me, being a bit of a dimwit when the mood takes me (read often) the fact that Mr Satyanand is actually now the Governor General and not the Ombudsman, failed to take root in my poor adled brain.

However, the good news is this. I am in receipt of a reply to my email to Mr Satyanand, but of course from Beverley Wakeham, the new Ombudsman.

Sadly, her reply came as an attched TIF file which I can’t seem to copy and paste to here.

Save to say, although short on words, I sense a strong response. She has promised to take my/our concerns up with the head honcho of CYFS at the earliest opportunity.

As we know, and as I have suggested in a reply email, the head honcho of CYFS will do a Telfon job on Ms Wakeham because all she really has is my unproven words and those of Julie.

And so I have asked for four respite before she approaches the HH at CYFS, during which time I will collect as many stories as possible, have them attached to affidavits, and forward those to her offices.

So this is it. This is show-time. The clock is ticking. If we want to utilisie this rather surprise benefit, then I need your stories, and I need them pronto. At some stage I will also need you to swear an affidavit. The proformas for them will be sent to you, and then all you need to do is visit any lawyer or JP, or Court Registrar to sign them.

For those of you unsure of the nature of an affidavit….They have the same judicial power as swearing an oath to speak truthfully in a court of law. Ergo, they carry a lot of judicial weight.

Thus each account must be attached to an affidavit.

C’mon people. This is the time to open with a few salvoes. But I need your help.

Cheers
David.

Hi again,

It occurs to me that the CYFSterhood et al have access to unlimited money, whereas we victims do not…mainly because our taxes are being used by the CYFSterhood to fight us.

And so we need to establish a fighting fund.

John P. Will you put up your hand to become treasurer?

I would, but I know my limitations. Accounting is something I leave to my accountant.

Such fund needs an adminstration to determine how the fund is to be spent. That means a few more will have to put up their hand to be administrators/trustees. And we need a fab name on the trust. I’ve got one of those.

It is easy to form a NP Trust, open an account in its name.

I’m not, for a moment suggesting any of us put bucks in, although any contributions will be welcomed.

I will put my hand up for being the marketing manager to help others attract funds. I don’t want to mention the method here….remember, let’s not forewarn the enemy….but with a bit of judicious effort I can see an average of $10k a week flowing into such a fund, within a ‘very’ short time-scale!

Fund-raising is easy when you know how. And I know how. :–))

John P. In order for us to keep our fund-rasing methodolgy secret from the CYFSterhood, we will need some form of security.

Do you run some form of address-verified process with contributors here?

By this I mean, is there some way we can sift applicants who wish to know the FR method to ensure we don’t have bogies applying?

Energy, people. That’s what’s required here. No more sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves. Let’s take the fight to the enemy, instead of allowing them to always bring the fight to us, on their ground.

We need hard data and money, and friends at Court. So let’s go after them all. They’re all there for the having, we just have to have the will to go gettum.

Remember Lisistrata???

Cheers
David.

Moose has asked what I intend to do with the data I collect.

Moose, at this stage, I’m damned if I know. But what I do know is; incontestable data has a nasty habit of biting the sanctimonious on the arse.

If I can collect literally thousands of unimpeachable accounts of how the CYFSterhood, the various LFCs and the Family Court have utterly unjustifiably treated men, women, and children, then I will have a vastly powerful tool with which I can, on behalf of us all (past-present-future victims of this vile regime) take to authority, in New Zealand and internationally.

Let’s face it, at the end of the day we victimised parents are the ones who feel aggrieved and trampled on, but the fact remains the major victims of this vile regime are our children.

And it is they for whom we stand, isn’t it?

So please, start sending your accounts. Names and identifying aspects will be censured should you require them to be so.

Send to [email protected] in Word or pdf format.

Cheers
David.

Hi All,

I met with John this morning. He talked about a range of matters which he is persuing but has asked that I keep these matters confidential for the moment. The principle being; no point in letting the enemy know the location of tropps and guns till one is ready to open fire.

What I can say is; we will soon be getting a very public champion.

So that’s all good.

He related the latest ‘joke’ doing the rounds: ‘Which is harder to get your kids back from? A rabid rotwieller, or CYFS?’ There’s no prizes for getting the answer. Personally, I was utterly offended at the thrust of this so-called joke.

However, one comment he did make which has rung in my mind all day was, ‘You major support base is in fact the rational women of New Zealand.’

Naturally, my focus has been steadfast on the small cabal of irrational women who are infecting my life and that of my child, at the moment. Thus it took me some seconds to realise he was right.

Ninety-nine percent of women in New Zealand are decent, caring folk who also care deeply for children. I guess John was trying to say that maybe we victims of the 1% are inadvertantly ignoring the support we could perhaps get from the hundreds and thousands of decent women out there who would be horrified to know what is actually going on.

The question is: how do we get the message to them?

Further, John asserted that what Jim and his group is doing is great and could well be expanded. I gather he was suggesting an increase in incidence rather than a descent into violence.

On that point, I have been somewhat disturbed at receiving emails from three different folk who suggested they were getting prepared to perpetrate violence against members of authority….and one of them appeared to be a woman.

Folks, such an approach will not help, it will severely hinder the march towards attaining equal status for men in the Family Court.

Today I have written to Simon Powers, Shadow Minister for Justice. I would rather keep the content of that letter private for the moment. Save to say, I shall keep casting my net till I find someone in authority who will take notice of our collective plight.

Cheers
David.

The promo for the TV3 News story “unfatherly conduct”, screened last night reads:

The fight for fathers to have equal parenting rights has moved too close to home for some family lawyers. A group of disgruntled fathers have taken to picketing outside the lawyer’s homes.

But the Law Society says their actions amount to intimidation, and they are targeting the wrong people.

The reporter confronted Jim Bailey, head of the Hands-on Equal Parent Trust, with the accusation that they are scaring the children of some lawyers, but he answered:

They are scaring ours!

This is aimed more at personal — getting the lawyers to really think about what they are doing. They can play a big part in the management of keeping family together.

Hi,

As mentioned, Simon Moore….as did Jim… failed to mention two significant injustices occurring in the Family Court. The first is, the Family Court operates completely outside any standards of proof as is required in any other Court. Secondly, the Lawyers For Child, although they are ‘supposed’ to be representing the interests of, and the ‘wishes’ of a child, are now able to simply pretend to do so then use a ‘device’ to have ‘their’ opinions (when such contradicts the wishes and requirements of their client -the child) aired.

Expanding on these issues.

The Court receives reports from various parties, some by affidavit, and others via ‘so-called’ expert reports.

In both cases the contributors can make any claim they wish, true or otherwise, because there is no evidential test put to the contributors and, further, a malicious or deceitful contributor will never be held to account (ergo, lying does not attract charges of Contempt of Court).

Expert witnesses, such as the CYFSterhood, can load their reports with absolute bias against one party (normally the father) and absolve themselves from the responsibility of including repudiative information in such reports by asserting the party they are thrown under the bus has ‘groomed’ the repudiators to say the right things!!!! A typical example of this is where a mother accuses a father/partner of sexual abuse (for the purposes of furthering her journey towards getting custody and subsequent financial benefits). The child is interviewed. And when the child asserts the mother is simply lying, and that no such abuse has occurred, the report notes the child is ‘probably’ in denial!
(more…)

This is going to be short and to the point.

Some might wonder what happened when Mahoney moved on and Boshier moved in.

It is as simple as this –

With the introduction of the care of children bill the emphasis of information for decisions has moved from relying on the expert witness the psychologist, to censorship of evidence by the Council for child.

Here’s the bottom line – In this Government Department decisions are no longer made by the psychologist they are now made by the council for child.

In this court room Judge is still just another word for rubber stamp.

Judges who hide behind this political charade, and collect their pay without conscience, wouldn’t have enough integrity in their blood to pulse the veins of a fungus gnat.

I want/need ‘your’ story.

Please remember I am interested ONLY in dissertations filled with fact, devoid of emotion and ad hominems.

Read Julie’s story again. I say again. It’s raw power is in its lack of emotional pyrotechnics.

If we are to start making a difference we have to go at the ‘system’ with fact, not observation.

And so, I wish to create a fact-file. If you send me your story then you will do so knowing I will transmit it to all and sundry.

Just emember, by wishing to retain your privacy you will also water down the value of your input. In other words, if you have something to say, then be prepared to put your real name to it.

The CYFSterhood hide behind their annonymity and unlisted addresses and phone numbers. Not for us, people. It’s the ‘I’m accountable for my words’ time.

Let’s rock, people! There’s thousands of us. Our weight can make it happen.

Please send your story to [email protected], in Word format. Don’t forget to CC your submission to this site and anyone else you think might read it.

BTW: Who is in charge of the protest regime and how do I get onto he protest group? I’m in.

Cheers
David.

Folks, it seems to me that there is little point in simply bemoaning our positions. It seems to me we have to first discover our cause and then press it.

For better or worse, here’s my offering.

Any of you who wish to add, delete, modify, vary, or whatever, feel free to do so.

But we have to start somewhere, and so here’s my somewhere.

LAW CHANGES SOUGHT
(more…)

There is no time like the present to get started on the campaign.

As you will observe from the below, I have forwarded Julie’s utterly tragic case to the new Ombudsman. Maybe we will get no response. Maybe we will get more than could ever hope for. But we will never know till we try.

Fuirther, we need to start getting copies of Julie’s story to every recipient we can think of, media, the list mentioned in an earlier post.

So if your’re keen, people, get weaving asnd get posting.

Incidentally, it is the clear, concise, unemotional nature of Julie’s story which gives it its raw power. It is this way in which we will get best results. Not by ranting and raving.

The Ombudsman
Mr Anand Satyanand.

Dear Sir,

Although the following subject may not come under your purview or authority, but I am writing to you on behalf of thousands of families in New Zealand which have been, are being, and will be utterly destroyed by the current regime of CYFS; and example of which is noted below.

Sir, we desperately need a champion, some outstanding person who has the ability to gain the proper attention of those in authority who presume they can ignore the ordinary folk.

During a television interview detailing your investiture as Ombudsman, your wife made a remark about the massive value of children (I’m afraid I cannot recall the exact phrase). The energy of her comment gave me some hope that indeed she may graciously agree to become our champion.
(more…)

TV3 News ran a story on 2nd April about the need for a statute of limitations.

They interviewed Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith (wife of MENZ Admin JohnP)

Photo: Felicity being interviewed on TV 3 news.

The call is endorsed by the doctor who launched a support group for men who claimed they had been wrongly accused of sexual crimes:

Dr Goodyear-Smith:

“If there is no corroborative evidence, there is no way to distinguish who is telling the truth [or] whose memory is accurate and therefore you can’t find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the reason we need a statute of limitations.”

Heather Henare from Women’s Refuge disagreed:

There is no threshold for women and children who have been abused – they know what’s happened to them and it’s really important that we believe woman’s stories and we support them.

I am glad for the realness that this site is bringing in. I have wondered why it has attracted me, since I am a female. I don’t care for the anti-feminist movement but I do care for others that walk like I have. And I am a feminist in the fact I want female to be equal to male. Equal not more than.

Anyhow, my CYFS journey started 11 years ago when my 2 sons were only 3 and 5. At the time my marriage was on the rocks. I had gone to a women’s refuge out of town. You see, my husband and I are addicts but in recovery. I had allowed my children to stay with strangers but fantastic strangers (Maori and White New Zealander) for 8 weeks so I could get myself together. At the end of it I took my children home with me to my husband. We had to attend a CYFS family conference out of town because the Women’s refuge boss was on the board of CYFS. It was meant to be an easy meeting but I was at the time on the Methadone Program and this CYFS was not very understanding of it. They went to court behind my back and told the judge they didn’t know where I was. But they sure did. The only reason they got away with that is because while stressed out about the meeting, I had left my bag with money at a shop. They offered to get me money from WINZ cause they were connected and I could go home for the night but the children had to stay.

You can imagine how devastated I was to learn that my children were gone when I returned. Straight away I hired a lawyer. But things were so slow and my bill was $3,000 just for the first month. The lawyer told me my options were to spend approximately 3 years in court or give them what they wanted and get them back earlier. I chose the shorter time. During my young children’s stay with caregivers out of town they were being physically abused. No one denies that but no one did anything.
(more…)

As a result of the excellent suggestion, I have arranged to meet John Tamihere at 9:30, Wed 12th.

I’ll let you all know what happens.

Good on you Julie. Excellent suggestion.

Keep them coming people. Let’s get some energy into this campaign.

Cheers
David.

Good heavens.

That was a quick rersponse from the karmic system…or whatever you prefer to name coincidence. From today’s Herald.

Have a look at www.thecouch.org.nz.

Already we have a fresh opportunity to become movers and shakers.

It seems to me that not only can we join in with the information collection system, but we can also work hard at getting ‘our’ issues into the survey mix.

Cheers
David.

The adage, ‘The squeaky wheel gets the most grease,’ is, perhaps, an injuction we should all start to press with some vigour.

It follows the CYFSterhood have their extraordinary power because they chased it and had sundry pieces of legislation passed into law becase they just kept squeaking. Word, by line, by law, they got their own way.

In other words they worked with lobbiests who took their case to parliament.

We, the general public, remained ignorant of the slow, creeping climb of CYFS to their current power base. Moreover, only a small proportion of the population is directly affected by CYFS and the actions of the Family Court at any one time. Consequently, the energy-base required to make things happen is constantly morphing from those who are unaware they are about to be distressed, to those are currently, through to those who have been distressed but can no longer suffer the fight. It is largely only the middle group who need/want to fight.

There is no Ministry of Mens Affairs, and there is no Ministry For Family Affairs. Maybe it’s hightime we had both.

We have the wife of the new Ombudsman. A TV interview with her left me in no doubt she is ‘very’ child oriented. Maybe some letters in that direction could help.
(more…)

Like any political leader Helen Clark is the moderate face of the organisation. It is the common mind that is of most concern, and in this case the seriously sick people are in the back room. Sad for one young women who got close enough to hear these people think aloud. Her response – I’m leaving this country and I’m never coming back. The maturity of this bright young mind is a saving grace for the individual, but sadly for our country, there goes another of our brightest and our best.

It has been the experience of some men to leave – an act of self preservation, of some men to die – an act of desperation, of some men to capitulate – an act of self interest, of some men to retaliate – an act of righteous indignation, of some men to observe – an act of apathy, of some men to accept – an act of resignation, and of some men to resist the advance of copybook fascism, but there is a glimmer of hope for our society when we see that women are beginning to understand this insanity.

Lets hope amongst those bright young minds there is a new generation of women who have better a understanding of what is required to maintain a successful society.

Regardless of gender, leadership of totalitarian thuggery always ends in misery and suffering.

You got your hooks in the bank account and chains on our lives
You call yourself woman, oh please don’t insult our pride
Enough of your PC rubbish – pink think’s just a mind full of hate
You changed the rules – bitch law got us married to the state
You know best, of course you do
And you got your way – now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.

You took our daughters and poisoned their minds,
They grew up gruel instead of kind.
You took our sons, and filled their hearts with hate.
State mothers designed their fate.
You know best, of course you do
But we can’t trust you now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.

Is that women we hear roar
or gimcrack girls and socialist hoar
Gynecocracy, the female fascist state
That ain’t equality – it’s Godzone burned by hate.
You know best, of course you do.
But we can’t respect you now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.

If words are our weapon and our aim is straight
We will shoot down the high flying witch and those that keep the gate.
For the love of our children and men and women,
Our country’s lost like love between fathers and the state.
You know best, of course you do.
But we’ll fight you now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.

OK, its time for your bedtime story…..once upon a time a girl called Goldilocks went into the woods for a bit of fun and ended up having naughty sex with three Bears. This wasn’t the first time for Goldie and before long she and the Bears were having a good time. Goldilocks and the Bears were inventive, always suggesting new and perverted games. One of the Bears added his specialty and did wee wees all over her. Goldilocks did not like this and said so. The stupid Bear thought that unadulterated naughty sex meant no rules, and therefore was surprised that Goldilocks did not like it.

Many years later Goldilocks got married and then became depressed about her behaviour years before. Why had she debased herself and behaved like that she asked? With some help from caring, loving folk from the sisterhood, Goldilocks became aware that she had been seduced into that lifestyle. Yes, the answer for redemption and a return to a happy life was for someone else to pay the price for her sin. The Bears should pay that price she was told. “Bears are oppressors of our sanctity, without them you would be white as snow” they screamed.

However, there remained a problem for Goldilocks. In order to have the Bears pay she would not be not able to reveal her complicity in the fun and games. She would have to be seen as Snow White. ……

Now that’s a completely different story!!!!!!!

Inside New Zealand – TV3 at 8.30pm, Thursday night, 6th of April showed a program titled “Give me my children back.”

I had expected that a post would have been written about it. It hasn’t been I believe, because it hits too close to home for so many males. I personally think we should talk about and I welcome males and females to also comment that normally just read what others have to say. This program has hit home to all parents that are seperated.

I myself woke up this morning and cried for a little while because of the impact it had on me. I am a parent and I feel guilty for what I have put my children through and how I have played a part in my ex’s depression. (I know he has made mistakes but I only take responsibility for my own). I just want to say thank-you to Ian and Stephen for being real and honest on the documentary. I am aware many men live this every day and I am aware many women live this every day.

If we don’t talk about it because it is “too hard” and put it in the “too hard” basket then we are just as bad as the government officials and the law. They don’t deal with this either because it seems “too hard.”

Photo: Steven Jelicich filmed at Men’s Centre North Shore support meeting.

Inside New Zealand’s documentary has brought more to life than just a messed up system. There are so many people that are still keeping these issues hidden because of embarrassment. It will be through each others support that we stay strong and learn that it doesn’t make us bad people. Have courage to admit you have make bad judgements women (and men) and help change the future for the next generation. Have courage to be real men and women and express how you feel.

A leaflet about the Louise Nicholas rape trial, circulated in Wellington today, has been referred to the Solicitor-General and the police.

The leaflet was handed out by women at Wellington railway station and referred to matters suppressed at the trial at which one serving and two former police officers were found not guilty of a variety of sexual offences against Mrs Nicholas in Rotorua 20 years ago.

The accused men were Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and former officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton who faced a three week jury trial in the High Court at Auckland.

Mr Schollum’s lawyer, Paul Mabey, QC, said he had referred the leaflet to Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, and the police.

“It’s in their hands,” he said.

“All I can do is bring it to their attention, which I have, and they’re the enforcement authorities. It’s up to them what they do.”

A spokeswoman for the Crown Law Office said the matter was one for the police.

“It is a breach of a suppression order, which is a criminal offence,” she said.

She also suggested that Mr Mabey could go back to the court that imposed the suppression order.

“It’s a serious breach,” she said.

The spokeswoman said she had heard the women had given out about 1600 leaflets so far.

No-one was available for comment from Wellington police.

Hey! These girls probably have children to look after. Just leave them alone you big bullies. They are only trying to help one of their sisters from being seen as a conniving, spoilt, lying bitch.

I just can’t wait to see how this will be handled. It’s going to be so tough for the Police to come down heavy on the four little women who just don’t believe there was a fair trial. IMO the police had political pressure put on them to prosecute in the first place. A lot of people in high places would not have been happy with the “peoples” decision.

Does the public have a right to know the suppressed information? These are the interesting and intriguing areas of the justice system. I am sure it was important that the jury didn’t see it. In sex cases there is traditionally lots of material that cannot be used as it evokes strong emotion rather than sober facts.

However, now that it’s out there I want to see it’s contents………….

Update: If you know how to research, peterellis site will tell you more than the Wellington pamphet will.

The March 2006 New Zealand Reader’s Digest has an article titled ‘Big Boys Don’t Cry’, which has a list of resources that includes this web site!

It says (not very accurately):

Lots of links and an online forum. Runs support meetings in Auckland.

But hey, who’s complaining? Welcome to any new readers who arrive by way of the Digest!

The article is worth reading, and male-friendly:

Although emotions have long been considered a female trademark, men report feelings as often as woman, and describe their experiences of emotion similarly. In an analysis of the emotional intelligence of 500,000 adults, men rated just as high in emotional awareness. In studies of married couples, husbands proved as attuned to their mate’s stress levels as wives – and just as capable of offering support.

A second article, ‘I love you mate’, explores the relationships men have with each other:

“Men often know one another’s deepest feelings by a look or a nod, not by talking.”

Seems Muriel (ACT) has a firm grip on the situation. From her latest newsletter (New Zealand Centre for Political Debate):

“With the Domestic Purposes Benefit already incentivising the massive breakdown of the family, these more recent changes are making the situation worse by giving rise to more unstable, transient relationships. It is therefore little wonder we are seeing an escalation in child abuse and domestic violence as well as the fall-out from the breakdown of stable families – marginalized fathers, alienated children, and excluded grandparents.

Just this week, New Zealand’s top Family Court judge said that violence in the home is blighting the country’s image as a good place to raise children. Yet I do not hear the Judge — or any of the other professionals who work in this field – calling for a change to the policies that are driving this social collapse.

And, with Labour’s new family welfare package coming into effect today, resulting in 350,000 families receiving income support, we urgently need to review the wisdom of massive government interference in the family, before more lives are damaged or lost.

A new publication released by the British think tank Civitas this week, examines the wisdom of state interference in the family from an international perspective. In her book Family Policy, Family Changes, Patricia Morgan compares the state of the family in Sweden, Italy and Britain, and concludes that families thrive in countries where there is less government interference.

In Britain, where an anti-marriage agenda is being strongly promoted by the public service, universities and government funded social agencies, family problems are rife, with Britain topping the league tables in several of the most worrying indicators of breakdown, including divorce and teenage pregnancy. In Sweden, where a comprehensive social engineering programme has transferred many family responsibilities to the state – to a degree unseen outside of the Soviet bloc – there are even higher rates of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation than Britain.

Italy, however, has effectively had no government intervention into the family, and is still the home of the traditional family unit. Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, including teenage pregnancies, are extremely low. Cohabitation is so rare as to be difficult to measure. Young people live with their parents until they get married, and, for most women, marriage will represent their first living-together relationship”.

from Joy Liddicoat (NZ Law Society) on the other hand comes this:

“Imagine a woman arriving home with her flatmates to find her ex-boyfriend forcing his way into her house and killing her in front of them. These cases are real. While the full stories are yet to be told, these are just two cases where women in this very city have been killed by their former partners.

But when these things happen they are not just a tragedy for those involved. They strike a deep chord of fear and hopelessness in all of us. Research in New Zealand shows that the most dangerous time for a woman and her children is when she separates from her partner. Yet Muriel Newman’s recent article in the Evening Post would have us believe that the risk of violence and even death when couples separate is a fiction invented by vindictive women who maliciously want to deprive their former partners of access to their children.

In fact, such violence is a reality for all of us and especially for the thousands of women and children who seek to escape family violence each year in New Zealand, as women’s refuges throughout the country will attest.

New Zealand has strong and effective domestic violence laws for a very simple reason: to keep all of us safe. The Domestic Violence Act also aims to make sure that violent partners and parents who want to can take steps to change their behaviour (such as by attending counselling and programmes to take responsibility for their own actions). Almost without exception men who attend and complete these programmes say they are a positive experience.

Yet research from women’s refuges shows that most women go to great lengths to stay with their partners even when there is violence. They get protection orders because they want the violence to stop and they desperately want to believe their partners when they tell them that it will. Yet women who stay with violent partners, who try to keep their family together, are blamed for staying. Now Muriel Newman would have us blame them for leaving”.

actually, a mate of mine who attended an anger managment programme said he found that almost without exception the men who attended the programme he went on, including himself, found it complete garbage and sat around rolling their eyes and shaking their heads.

Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Debate would be a good website for victimised fathers to make themselves heard.

http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

shipton, schollum, rickards…NOT GUILTY.

Access to Court Records – Call for Submissions.

This project is reviewing existing rules providing access to Court records and developing principles to govern access to Court records, the retention and archiving of records. It is considering the appropriateness of a single code providing rules for all jurisdictions.
Draft Consultation Report
Published 29 Mar 2006
Access to Court Records — Draft Report for Consultation The Law Commission’s draft report Access to Court Records is now available for consultation. The Commission makes recommendations for the rules and principles governing access to court records, and other information held by courts. The Commission welcomes any comments on the draft report and the recommendations made in it. The closing date for submissions and comments on the draft report is Monday 24 April 2006. The draft report is available by clicking on the heading. If you have any inquiries, please contact Janet November ( 04 914 4801, [email protected]) or Rachel Hayward ( 04 914 4811, [email protected]).
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/ProjectGeneral.aspx?ProjectID=119

Terms of Reference [47 KB pdf]