Why not go without the child?

February 16th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A woman watched her grandmother die over the internet after a custody order prevented her from leaving New Zealand with her young son.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, wanted her son to see his great-grandmother in Malaysia before she died.

But the banned the pair from leaving the country because the boy’s New Zealand father believed his ex-wife was a flight risk.

“I had to watch her pass away over Skype. It was the most horrific thing because people who are dying respond to touch and she couldn’t even hear me,” the woman said. “I just wanted to be there with her. We were very close.”

So why didn’t she fly over without her son, and have the father look after the son for a few days?

The woman who missed her grandmother’s death said she had been to Malaysia with her son once before and had returned without issue. “I am not a flight risk. I just wanted to see my grandmother and wanted my son to see her as well.”

The previous time may not have been when they were separated. I don’t know. But the reality is that she chose to stay in NZ, rather than travel without her son.

Tags:

18 Responses to “Why not go without the child?”

  1. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    So why didn’t she fly over without her son, and have the father look after the son for a few days?

    It’s a tragic story, but you are right. I’m picking somebody who moans about this sort of thing is a lefty and think all the bad things that happen in life are somebody else’s doing. I wonder if she though for a moment how she had created her own situation rather than blaming the court for enforcing the law of the land that she also probably relies on to get child support etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Fentex (656 comments) says:

    Is someone saying this is a problem with our law? If it is an unfortunate and undesirable occasional consequence perhaps we might introduce bonds to reduce flight risk in such circumstances? Perhaps allow such people to post a materially valuable bond of sufficient value to relax fears they would flee and lose it?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Fentex

    I don’t think somebody fleeing the country with their child is likely to care too much about what they are leaving behind.

    Imagine if Winston Peters became PM, a lot of people would grab a bag and their family and just go knowing that all existing assets will be worthless by the time he’s done being popular.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (2,932 comments) says:

    I smell rats all over the place in this article. It amounts to be a general attack on the Family Court from a female perspective. Generally the Family Court is attacked from a male perspective.

    Arguably the mother has been let down by the antics of other parents in the past who have taken children overseas for what is supposed to be a short trip, then stay put overseas requiring the excruciating processes of the Hague Convention for Child Abduction at great expense to the taxpayers of both countries involved. So it is little wonder that if (say) the father who has ‘contact’ (used to be called ‘access’) does not wish the child to be taken overseas, the Family Court is unlikely to allow it, and the passport and immigration systems have been modified to help ensure Family Court orders are not flouted.

    So this seems to be a general protest from a group of women who have not got their way with the Family Court with this particular case highlighted to try and engender public sympathy.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dime (8,746 comments) says:

    Nut job

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Psycho Milt (1,974 comments) says:

    The Herald reports that not everybody gets what they want in a custody dispute. Well, duh. Are we meant to be shocked? Outraged? I don’t even make it as far as “mildly surprised.”

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Put a mark on the wall!! For once a mother didn’t get her own way in the Family Court About time judges stopped treating everyone but the mother as second class citizens. Good on the Court for seeing the father’s side FOR A CHANGE!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thedavincimode (6,102 comments) says:

    Is this a story?

    Is it even worth comment?

    Oops. Buggar.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    “Why not go without the child?”

    Good question. But an even better one: Why couldn’t our fearless “Herald” ask that obvious question and report the response?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Malaysia isn’t a Hague convention country either so if mother chooses to stay it’s anyone’s guess whether the child would ever be returned. If mother had a case she could have appealed rather than running off the granny for a fluff piece with all the insight of a blind man in a dark room.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    And “banned” that’s so imprecise as to amount to a lie. Although, sadly, I suspect it’s a desperate attempt to be sensationalist combined with gross stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. lolitasbrother (337 comments) says:

    As an aside NZ matrimonial law has come a long way since the 70′s , when men had few rights.
    The value of a farther was little .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lolitasbrother (337 comments) says:

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. gump (1,228 comments) says:

    @lolitasbrother

    “As an aside NZ matrimonial law has come a long way since the 70′s , when men had few rights. The value of a farther was little .”

    ————————

    Prior to the 1950s, men in NZ had an absolute right to any children produced during a marriage. Mothers had no rights to child custody without the permission of the father.

    This is a legal fact. Please feel free to verify it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. lolitasbrother (337 comments) says:

    yes gump, the 1950′s situation however was reversed.
    I really only wanted to say that this obvious case of attempting to take a child away from that child’s Jurisdiction,
    was managed by the Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Why not go without the child?

    Well, shucks, I don’t know. Maybe because families are *complicated*. Who knows, really? Could be anything. Maybe the father was beating him up. Maybe his new mother-in-law was nasty. But nice try on the moral indignation front – I can see you’re a qualified family assistance psychologist with *all* the information required, as presented by one article in the NZ Herald.

    Non-story.

    Reminds me, actually, of that traffic cone one of yours – “Why have these stop-go men when you could have auto traffic lights” which resulted in 30 comments of “there are good reasons – just because you don’t know what they are doesn’t mean what’s happened is stupid”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Duxton (543 comments) says:

    “As an aside NZ matrimonial law has come a long way since the 70′s , when men had few rights.”

    Now they have even fewer…..

    Great to see the buzzy-bee earring brigade get a knock-back, for once :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lolitasbrother (337 comments) says:

    New Zealand is a lucky Country in that we have a unicameral voting system and we can do things very fast.
    But we have also an independent judiciary, and that Judiciary swept itself through the seventies to todays high ranking status,
    because it is truly independent.
    The Marriage judges seem to be doing good work, it is much more even than it was before.
    The Custody passport considerations are critical judgements

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.