Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Brothers win right to not see father

Talking about ludicrous law that frustrates common sense and often obliterates human dignity take for example the Care of Children Bill. My beef with this spurious legislation is that when allegations of domestic violence or child abuse rear up, nothing requires the Court to make any inquiries on its own initiative in order to make a determination on the allegation. This has opened the door for a gravy train of professionals, while the forced respondent to proceedings is a martyr and his children pawns in the PAS game. The Family Court is a horrible place !

My 14 year old daughter has written an affidavit that I will present to the corrupt Family Court of New Zealand explaining to them how much she hates them after putting her and her younger sister through hell for seven years !!!!

Peter Boshiers Family Court is a Court of Criminals !!

Boys spurn contact with father

By JENNY MACINTYRE - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 21 October 2007

Two young boys have made New Zealand legal history by successfully overturning a Family Court decision forcing them to spend time with their dad. It is the first time such a ruling has been made.

The Auckland brothers, aged nine and 13, went to the High Court to appeal a March 20 Family Court ruling that laid out plans for gradually increasing the time the boys spent with their father.

The Family Court ruling had been made despite expert evidence that the boys had been subjected to psychological damage by previous contact with their father. One expert witness, Auckland University psychology professor Fred Seymour, recommended the children not spend time with their father.

The family had been in and out of the Family Court for the past six years. In August last year the father breached court orders, arriving at the children's home when their mother was out. This was the first time the boys had seen their father in four years and they were left so disturbed that one resumed bed wetting and the other could not sleep.

But on March 20 Judge Laurence Ryan said he was confident risks to the boys could be managed and he ruled contact was in the children's best interest. The lawyer for the children explained the judge's decision to the boys and filed a High Court appeal on their behalf. Justice Judith Potter granted the boys' appeal and ordered their father to have only internet or written contact with his sons.

The Care of Children Act, introduced in 2004, grants children the right to appeal Family Court decisions.

This case was one of the first two decisions under that act, which were released on Friday.

A family law expert said the decisions were significant because they recognised children's rights to express their needs.

He said giving a child the right to appeal was a significant advance in children's rights but there were difficulties in exercising those rights.

"This has happened before parliament has organised support for children and there is no counselling available to help children cope with the pressure going to court puts them under."

The second appeal was only partially successful for the children. Four youngsters, aged eight to 15, wanted less time with their father and tried to overturn a judgement which ordered them to spend some weeknights with their dad.

Potter upheld Ryan's earlier decision that this father should be more involved in his children's lives, but she excused the 15-year-old from staying with her father. The justice also overturned an order barring the mother from sporting events when the children were in the father's care.

Last year the Family Court allowed a teenager to divorce her mother. But the High Court overturned that decision, reinstating the mother's guardianship of her daughter.

No comments: