Protesting Fathers
March 29th, 2006 at 5:41 am by David FarrarI have some sympathy for the argument that current family court laws and practises are not fair to male parents. There have been some horrendous cases of fine fathers losing access to their children.
However the tactics of “men’s groups” both in NZ and overseas sadly always go a few steps too far and they marginalise themselves.
Today’s example is handing out pamphlets and using a megaphone outside the homes of some Auckland Family Court lawyers.
Not only is the protest against the wrong people (lawyers don’t make the laws) but targeting people at home comes across as nasty and intimidatory.
In the UK it got even worse with a plot to kidnap the infant son of Tony Blair!
No tag for this post.
March 29th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Disagree somewhat david. Some lawyers are advising their clients to make false and unverifiable claims of abuse against their partners so that they will prevent that partner gaining any access. And that’s the point, these lawyers should be refusing to deal with clients if they know such allegations are false, not advising them to make such allegations. Such lawyers are very fair game as they are untouchable through the normal channels.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Ed that is a very bold suggestion and if true those lawyers would at least be facing disciplinary matters before the law society or even obstruction of justice charges. So I would be very surprised indeed if lawyers are doing what you suggest. Who would expose themselves to that kind of professional risk for a mere client.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Ed-do you have any evidence to back up your claim or are you simply making false and unverifiable claims yourself?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
The fact is that many false allegations of abuse are made during custody disputes. Unless there is strong evidence that abuse has taken place (and that the father is the abuser) lawyers should stay well clear of favouring one side or the other.
Remember Glenelg Health Camp and Ward 24, two notorious cases in Christchurch where dozens of mostly fathers were denied access to their kids based on the zeal of child advocates and so-called experts? Just because lawyers are “supposed” to act professionally doesn’t mean they always do.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Only someone who has never had dealings with the family court would write such a post.
In time this institution will be seen for what it is one of the most unjust and damaging institions in New Zealands history.
Close you eyes; keep them closed pretend NZ is a fair and just society.
You will have no idea until the feminist dominated family court works you over. Then it will be too late!
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Chris, of course it just a scurrilous rumour, as we all know very well, there are no unscrupulous or dishonest lawyers who would ever sink to such questionable tactics. Effective though isn’t it ?
However, to be fair, I would admit that advice may be too strong a word. Perhaps it is closer to conniving at, it is by no means impossible to imagine that one partner could find references to the effectiveness of the tactic from other sources.
I don’t wish to provide any details whatsoever, so this remains unsubstantiated and so be it.
I would also like to make clear that these allegations are in no way related to any of the people referred to in the article linked by David.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Ed Snack is dead right. Vitually all court lawyers have to coach their clients to make claims that can be ‘justicable’. Partly since most clients have only the faintest idea what really you can claim in court. Its usually done by making suggestions which only the deaf cant take a hint. Of course making claims that drag a case out mean more money for the lawyer, who arent interested in ‘simple’ cases.
Vote:But I remember a friend who wanted to get out of a marriage before the 3 years, the wifes lawyer pushed for counselling, which unbenown to him meant that even though they were separated, keept the marriage going past 3 years.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
The problem is the law that the Family Court operates under, not the court itself. And it is a little hard to see how we could easily do things differently, other than the obvious one of making the proceedings open.
As I understand it, the law requires children’s welfare to be paramount. There is no obligation to prove an allegation, once the allegation is made the court must look at balance of probabilities. So if one partner has an allegation against them and the other does not, the outcome likely to be best for the child is to award custody to the partner with no allegations.
If we were to change this principle, then we would have the situation where an allegation was made (say, of physical abuse), and the court would not take it into account due to lack of evidence (which there often would be). In a certain number of those cases, it would turn out that the abuse was real, and we would rightly ask “why did the court ignore those allegations, how was that in the child’s interests.”
It is a complex area, and not amenable to simple generalisations – whilst clear injustices do occur, the alternatives may create other, worse, injustices.
Personally, I would plump for:
Vote:– openness, which would discourage outrageous claims (but has a consequence that for some men, the claims would continue but would now be public – so if anything they are worse off)
– some refinement of the weighting of impacts on the child – we should attribute value to having ongoing contact with both parents, this value should be sufficient to outweigh the potential harm that could arise from an unproven and unlikely allegation (where at present the mere existence of that allegation would be enough to prevent joint custody).
March 29th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
David,
This would be the same law society that barred Peter Zohrab from the profession for his outspoken views on the plight of the NZ male?
Pffffffffffft!!
Whatever buddy.
http://menz.org.nz/2006/no-fathers-mens-lawyers-are-allowed-in-new-zealand/
But I do agree that sometimes protestors (all protestors) dont come off looking that flash.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Oh I don’t know….. I’m considering travelling to Dunedin and standing with a megaphone outside the home of the case officer handling my ACC case to try and get some results. Seems like the only way to force a hand really these days unless you can start with a pile of cash to get yourself some legal assistance.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
“This would be the same law society that barred Peter Zohrab from the profession for his outspoken views on the plight of the NZ male?”
I take it by “Outspoken” you actually mean “Hilarious”?
Vote:April 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Talk about nasty and intimidatory – wait until a lawyer suddenly tells you, that you can’t see your kids and a hearing is more than a year away.
A complaint by a father to the Law Society is a waste of time.
I think you have missed the point of the protests. The protesters are drawing attention to the very poor outcomes for children.
You can’t seriously believe the lawyers have no responsibily for the huge number of poor outcomes for children. If you really think that, you have a great deal to learn about how the Family Court actually works.
Many of the lawyers being targeted are politically active through the Law Society. This organisation has a long and consistent record of lobbying against changes that father’s groups have been advocating for.
The main Act and it’s predecessor which governs who should care for the children is not so much the problem. The way it is interpreted and practiced is a disaster. Father’s want law changes to give meaningful guidance to the court.
Perhaps you should come and look at the location, size and quality of these houses before you criticize the fathers.
Further more, fathers and their supporters have been working through all the offical channels for many many years. In terms of outcomes for children, what has improved?
Please share with us what you think fathers should be doing to bring about changes.
Vote:May 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I was recently at such protests in Hamilton, and have to say firstly that I had many other things that I would have rather been doing.
Vote:I support the protests only because after 2 and a half years I am still waiting for a Family Court custody hearing.
The mother’s lawyer, the mother, some of the judge’s, the psychologist, registrars and even Legal Services have behaved unscrupulously, or lied, or placed endless barriers before me, and generally done all they can do to prevent the continuation of the care arrangements that existed prior to my x-partner leaving and taking my only child.
Ironically, it was my own lawyer’s behaviour in the beginning that made my situation turn sour, and my numerous complaints to the Waikato Distrcict Law Society have fallen on deaf ears. Prehaps this is becuase I discovered in a newspaper last week that the lawyer in question is now the president of the society.
It is unacceptable for lawyers and judges to be accountable only to other lawyers and judges, with no external monitoring or scrutiny, and behind a vail of secrecy. This is the crux of the problem. Becuase of the secrecy that exists in the Family Court process, a parent who observes first hand, or is adversly affected by the shocking behaviour of these persons who should operate with the highest integrity, especially where children are involved, can do nothing.
Personally I have put my position to the Priciple Family Court Judge, Solicitor General, Minister of Courts, Ombudsman, and many past and present members of parliement, yet nothing has or can be done, even though local and International laws have clearly been broken within the walls of the Family Court.
I beleive that a Commission of Enquiry is the only responsible thing that this government needs to do to stop the madness that is the Family Court process, and extend justice and fairness to all, for the sake of our children.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
I was recently at such protests in Hamilton, and have to say firstly that I had many other things that I would have rather been doing.
Vote:I support the protests only because after 2 and a half years I am still waiting for a Family Court custody hearing.
The mother’s lawyer, the mother, some of the judge’s, the psychologist, registrars and even Legal Services have behaved unscrupulously, or lied, or placed endless barriers before me, and generally done all they can do to prevent the continuation of the care arrangements that existed prior to my x-partner leaving and taking my only child.
Ironically, it was my own lawyer’s behaviour in the beginning that made my situation turn sour, and my numerous complaints to the Waikato Distrcict Law Society have fallen on deaf ears. Prehaps this is becuase I discovered in a newspaper last week that the lawyer in question is now the president of the society.
It is unacceptable for lawyers and judges to be accountable only to other lawyers and judges, with no external monitoring or scrutiny, and behind a vail of secrecy. This is the crux of the problem. Becuase of the secrecy that exists in the Family Court process, a parent who observes first hand, or is adversly affected by the shocking behaviour of these persons who should operate with the highest integrity, especially where children are involved, can do nothing.
Personally I have put my position to the Priciple Family Court Judge, Solicitor General, Minister of Courts, Ombudsman, and many past and present members of parliement, yet nothing has or can be done, even though local and International laws have clearly been broken within the walls of the Family Court.
I beleive that a Commission of Enquiry is the only responsible thing that this government needs to do to stop the madness that is the Family Court process, and extend justice and fairness to all, for the sake of our children.