Thursday, January 31, 2008

Ministry of Justice acknowledge DV Submission

Domestic Violence, Review
Hello Peter

This email is to acknowledge that we have received your submission for consideration of the Domestic Violence Act review.

A. Seymour

From: Peter Burns
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2008 2:20 p.m.To: Domestic Violence, Review
Subject: Submission regarding review of Domestic Violence Act 1995

To whom it may concern,

Can you please acknowledge you have received this email , as the submission contents are highly sensitive and it will be an exhibit in future litigation in the Supreme Court .

Kind regards
Peter Burns

" Its better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies."
-Arthur Calwell


This e-mail message and attachments do not necessarily reflect the
views of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice and may contain
information that is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
must not use,disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail message or its
attachments. If you received this message in error, please notify the
Ministry of Justice by telephone (call collect: 00-64-4-918-8800)
or return the original message to us by e-mail, and destroy any copies.
Thank you.


Wednesday, January 30, 2008

NZ Herald - 10 dead -but it's a 'blip'

The comments from the Minister of Justice - Minister of Police Annutte King are indescribable and words cannot do justice to her incredulous and shameful comments.This is as bad as the silly old MP Jim Anderton saying smacking a child leads to animal abuse in the future. The only "unusual events" are going on inside the foolish heads of these delusional liarbour moonbats.
I think these Ministers should be detained in a secure mental health unit until they have completed extensive cognitive and personality assessments, so the bizarre thinking patterns can be addressed with shock treatment, followed up with a powerful dose of psychotropic medications.

This line from the dangerous feminazi bitch King will go into the gallery of absurdities for eternity ;

"She said the hot summer and full moon were to blame for the recent "unusual events" that had created mad January in south Auckland."

If any Sigmund psych Doc reads that he would want to do a psychiatric diagnosis on the spot .

Meanwhile in Christchurch Annutte King has ordered police too charge a father with two counts of assault on child, because he took preventive measures that stopped them from being run over. What a disgraceful country run by insane creeps!!

New Zealand must go to a snap election and many Labour Ministers should be incarcerated as a matter of National Security and Public Safety !!

This story was found at:

10 dead - but it's a 'blip'
5:00AM Thursday January 31, 2008
By Stuart Dye

The rash of violent crime that has cast a dark cloud over the new year masks a relatively steady rate of murder in New Zealand, according to long-term police figures.

Experts have blamed "mad January" for the 10 murders since the start of the year - with the finger being pointed at everything from Christmas stress to alcohol to a full moon.

That figure is up from seven in January last year and four the previous year - and is more than double the monthly average for the whole of 2006, according to Statistics New Zealand.

The last time there were 10 murders in one month was October 2005.

Prime Minister Helen Clark and National leader John Key have concentrated on youth issues in their opening speeches of election year.

But figures for the past decade suggest the January rate of murder is unlikely to continue.

Canterbury University criminologist Dr Greg Newbold said the 10 murders in 30 days of 2008 were "a blip" and there was no indication of a trend of increasing killing

Progressives leader Jim Anderton said five-year figures were a better indicator of trends - and they continued to show fewer violent deaths.

"In the five years to 2004, 279 people died as a result of assault or intentional injury," Mr Anderton said.

"That was down from 293 in the previous five years and well down from the 347 people who died in the five years 1990 to 1994."

The proportion of deaths compared to the growing population has also dropped since 1990, Mr Anderton said.

However, Dr Newbold said long-term figures were difficult to confirm.

Police statistics do not break down crime by month and have one category of homicide, which includes attempted murder, manslaughter, aiding suicide and illegal abortion.

Despite that, Dr Newbold agreed there was no indication of a trend of more murders yet.

"One thing that may be emerging as a trend is the increasing likelihood of young people becoming involved in serious crimes, and carrying knives."

Of the 10 murders so far this year, at least three have involved stabbings.

"If youths believe their potential enemies or groups that challenge them will be tooled up, then they will get tooled up - it's something that needs to be nipped in the bud."

What police statistics do show is that incidents of violent crime shot up by 350 from January 2006 to the following January - from 4398 to 4748.

The figures for this January will not be known until later in the year, but they will include four North Shore bashings where couples were allegedly attacked by youths with baseball bats, and a gunfight on Tuesday night which left two men in hospital.

Police Minister Annette King yesterday visited the scene of the shoot-out in Flat Bush, south Auckland.

She said the hot summer and full moon were to blame for the recent "unusual events" that had created mad January in south Auckland.

"It's well documented within the police - and we've had a long hot summer - and the view is that we often get things happen in this month that we wouldn't have happening in winter."

Family and economic stresses of the festive season added to the strain.

"Over the holiday Christmas period we traditionally have an increase in family violence, people are at home, and there are the stresses and strains of having your relatives staying and financial pressures. They are not easy to address issues unless we ban Christmas and January."

A friend from Germany - Lamiya singing

From a friend who has a great voice .Go girl go.
In solidarity

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

John Key blog comment

Comment on John Key's blog regarding his opening speech for 2008 ;

I applaud this new initiative for our troublesome youth. Well done, because you have struck at a core issue that Labour unfortunately has turned a blind eye too.

It’s encouraging that the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Beecroft is behind your common sense proposals, as one only has to look at any District Courthouse during office hours to see the large numbers of delinquent’s that cluster the docks .

Monday, January 28, 2008

1 out of 4 children involved in divorce undergoes PAS

We must educate society about the dangers of Parental Alienation Syndrome before it's to late for a generation of sad children .

read more | digg story

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Children bridge divorce's war zone

Children bridge divorce's war zone

Canada – The Toronto Star - Living - Peter Ehrlich - Special to The Star - December 10, 2007

Peter Ehrlich’s Column - Special to The Star

Lust. Love. Betrayal. War. Redemption. Peace. Sounds like an ad for your typical television miniseries. It's not. It's my life-changing journey as a single dad. My ex and I separated and the result was a fierce custody battle. A few couples can separate amicably. We could not.

When a mother and father fight over their child, the stakes always feel exponentially extreme. Watch any nature program starring a mother bear and her cubs. Then picture yourself walking into the frame with the intention of approaching her babies. You're not walking out unscathed. That's motherhood. Unlike male bears, men are programmed to care for and defend their children as well. That's fatherhood.

And so, like lots of you, my ex and I fought – a lot. The hostility was always there. Whether on the phone or during the "handoff" we were like the two guards facing each other at the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. Even apart, the silence of our war was deafening. To steal a line from Apocalypse Now, my ex and I looked upon each other "with extreme prejudice". Then life threw me a magical curve. Here goes.

As per our access schedule, I went to my son's school to pick him up. (My ex was the registrar.) When I walked in, the entire staff crowded around me: "Suzanne didn't come in today for work. And she never called in sick." There was a look of deep concern in their faces.

With their words, my body caved in. I knew my ex was in serious trouble. Suzanne (not her real name) was too disciplined to not call in. It was impossible. Something was very wrong. I was stricken. There was nothing cerebral about my reaction. It was all from the gut. As Woody Allen says, "nothing worth knowing can be understood by the mind." I grabbed my son, jumped into the car, racing to her house.

I knocked. No answer. The door was unlocked, the house empty. I got on the phone and called her best friend, now nearly hysterical, "Ingrid, Suzanne is missing." She suggested I call the police and ask if an ambulance had been sent to the address. I did, and yes, Suzanne had been picked up by an ambulance and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital. Speeding there, I parked the car in the first illegal spot I saw and we ran to her room.

There she was, her eyes lighting up at the sight of our son. She'd had a gall bladder attack. I slumped in a chair, put my face in my hands and cried. A nurse came in and said to Suzanne, "See how your husband loves you." We heard the words but could not possibly acknowledge the great irony to each other. Suzanne saw my tears and silently absorbed them. The emotional benefit for me would be manifested another day.

The magic? I discovered a love for my ex. I loved Suzanne because she loved our son. Nothing else mattered. I discovered the ultimate bottom line, and by doing so, was freed from the shackles of "extreme prejudice." Since that day we have been civil toward each other, something our son loves.

It's the end of the year. Maybe it's a good time to look deep within ourselves to discover the part of our soul that understands, once you willingly have a baby with someone, there is always love – somewhere.

Peter Ehrlich's column appears every other Monday. Contact him at

Friday, January 25, 2008

Submission regarding the review of Domestic Violence Act 1995

Domestic Violence Act Review
Ministry of Justice
PO Box 180

Submission of the New Zealand Fathers Coalition to the Ministry of Justice on the Review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 ("the Act") and Related Legislation

I am writing this submission because I feel that both the Care of Children Act and Domestic Violence Act has made life totally unfair for fathers and children living in New Zealand. An atmosphere of distrust and suspicion can be attributed to the actions of a radical feminist Labour government, who are totally out of step with traditional values adhered too by the majority of correct thinking countries in the world.
The time has come to say fairs - fair and address the gender imbalance that is saturated in bias legislation, which is detrimental to children. I have little faith that this submission will make any difference to the unfortunate predicament faced by so many non-custodial fathers. The words of Labour MP Tim Barnett still haunt me, when I asked the chairman of the select committee hearing submissions relating to the Care of Children Bill if the government could help me? He replied;
“ Labour will not help fathers.”
I asked Sue Bradford, last year at select committee, if she thought that making smacking illegal would result in police being called to meaningless incidents that could possibly see fathers criminalized? I was appalled when she walked out the room, without even acknowledging or answering my question. Since the unnecessary law change several fearful parents have contacted me wanting advice. They have said that their children have rung police after the most trivial incidents. Recently I spoke with a friend in police, who told me that they are obliged to act on any complaint from a child (many calls are trivial child tantrums). He said, “many cops are leaving, because they signed up to fight crime and they certainty did not sign up too act as government social workers.”
This nanny state social engineering is both disrespectful to parental rights and undermines the God given right to maintain dignity within parent/child relationships.
The radical feminists have no regard whatsoever for traditional family values and seem hell bent on creating a huge fractured family business.

The absurdity of the law
The family court is a civil court that allows false allegations to form a strong foundation that can create lengthy proceedings full of adversity. The court does not listen to the repeated cries for help from a disgruntled litigant, who is strenuously trying to clear his name, because delaying and adversarial tactics for effect create a file number. From that file number so many people can make a living from all the misery and untruths. Nobody cares about the children or the falsely accused. Vindication is a delusion as politicians and judges are far from human. That is probably why Justice John Hansen said our judicial system needs a “radical rethink”.
The personal experience is a deep wound to the sense of self worth, faith in love, and very necessary faith in government and law, but that is as it is intended to be. These are not small issues, or esoteric psychobabble. These wounds cause real wounds to the psyche, which often manifest themselves as physical illness - due to long-term stress and a sense of helplessness. I am suffering from endogenous depression as a result of this major depressive episode that was not of my making.
It is so easy to reach desperately for an easy, all-encompassing solution - appealing to the cosmic referee for a judgment. It will never come.
That is a lesson most men, and the women, who care for these wounded men, too often are unable to learn.

Consider this: In a criminal trial, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove motive. Although punishments in family law are increasingly similar to criminal prosecutions, - depriving a person of their civil and human rights - to attempt to examine any alleged actions in a relationship without examining the motives is ridiculous.
In the present state of administrating the law - The function of the courts is to administrate the law. It is assumed that the woman is consistently that if a woman commits a crime, her motivation must be a reaction to the man.
The man's motivations are not assumed or examined. If anything, the courts (and other agencies in the social and legal structure) seem to assume the man is simply evil - although the term is never spoken. This obscure and ambiguous presumed motivation cannot be left to stand.
If you read carefully every case, the man has to prove he is a rational, "normal" human being. He must defend himself against this assumption in the law.

Despite the highly charged emotions which surround these circumstances, any indication that the man is upset - angry, frustrated, or hurt - is taken as proof that the man is some sort of uncontrollable animal.
What is required in a criminal case is to prove that a crime has occurred, and that the accused is guilty of that crime.

In family law, the crime is assumed if the allegation has been made. This attitude turns the law on its head.
Further, the accusation is taken - although the accusations are obviously contrived - as proof of the crime.
To attempt to refute this "proof" is only taken as further proof of accuser’s guilt.
To establish equality before the law, we must assert these principles of law in family law.

* Motivation is the key to any action.
* The law cannot assume only a woman has good motivation for any action.
*There must be proof some crime has occurred, and the guilt in that crime must come from somewhere besides those who intend to profit.
* Any professional or organisation that can be shown to have perverted the course of justice must be punished severely.
* Ideally, these professionals and/or organisations should be removed from the family law process.
* There can be no presumption of guilt, or innocence, for any party (including family and friends)

Treating these procedures and policies like a war, where colloquially anything is fair, is destroying families, the courts, and the future of society.

The limitations of the law need to be understood. The law can tell you what you cannot do. The law defines punishments if you do those things.
It cannot tell you why you should or should not do something; nor can it tell you what to do. (If the law tells you what to do, then you do not live in a free society.)

Reasserting established legal principles into family law is only a step, but is only a step. The fact that these are emotionally charged situations has to be respected in the policy and practice of the law, especially the administration of the law. In fact, it could be said that Motive is everything is family law (while it is unnecessary in criminal law.)
The criminalisation of family (and relationship) law has gone too far. It is time to reverse this illegitimate direction in the law.

I call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the workings of the Family Court
False allegations and untrue wildly exaggerated statements under oath have been used against me, in conjunction with the Domestic Violence Act have burdened me by imposing a protection order against me. They have demonised me. Sadly they have broken up my family; evicted me from my home and they are directly responsible for the arson of the family home and destruction of all my assets. The state system wrongly took custody of my two daughters and the relationship with my daughters has been disrupted, damaged, denied and destroyed, as a result of malicious judicial proceedings. I have been subjected to injustice; had my life unjustifiably invaded by police, judges, lawyers, social workers and psychologists. A family court psychologist (John Watson) is responsible for my mother’s death. I have been abused, traumatised and victimised by unwarranted, drawn out, expensive and injurious family court proceedings. The whole travesty of justice was based on spurious grounds and the resulting injustice, discrimination, disregard, injury, suffering, trauma and exploitation through by the justice system, which has me feeling bitter, hurt, depressed, shell shocked and shattered self esteem levels.
How many forced clients of the family court are victims of a miscarriage of justice?

Part Three – A list of questions

Police-issued orders

1.Do you think police-issued orders should be introduced or do you believe that current police powers are sufficient for enforcement purposes? Please give reasons for your view.
No. Why do police need increased powers, as they already have a vast array of offences to which to they can charge someone with violence.
Example 1
I was living in a stable and happy family environment in a small rural community in the Buller region. Both my young daughters were flourishing in a settled routine at the local primary school. My partner and two loving daughters went to Ashburton for a trip in the school holidays, while I stayed in the family home on the West Coast, so I could look after the family property and many pets. They did not return, so I travelled to Ashburton to find out what was wrong. On arrival, Ashburton police immediately confronted me and told to go back to the West Coast. Incredulously they did not give a reason why and insisted that I must “ get off their territory now! ”. A detective gave me his card and I was escorted back too the West Coast.
The next day back in Buller I rung the local police from the family home to find out what was going on? One hour later I am confronted by a large continent from the members of the Armed Offenders Squad.They were going to shoot my dog until I pleaded for them not to do so. They served me Without Notice protection orders. My firearms were seized and police said;
“ I was going to prison for several years and I certainly won’t need my guns in the future.” I was arrested and remanded in police custody. I was forced to sit half naked on the freezing concrete floor of the cellblock at Westport policestation while two women were observing me from behind the two-way mirrors. They were busy writing notes, and to this day I do not know who they were? Naturally custody was automatically awarded to the lying ex and I become a forced court client and bewildered non-custodial parent. The principal of the local school and everybody else in the community could not believe how a totally irrational maternal family could legally destroy and abduct my family from the region. I was devastated.

Example 2
Ashburton lawyer Paul Finnigan 16 December 2001 “ It’s useless trying to defend the protection order tomorrow, because the judge has already made his decision and didn’t you know - they hand them out like raffle tickets.”

Judge JJD Strettell - 17 December 2001
“Prima facie there had been psychological abuse and emotional abuse directed in to relation to Miss K and to the other persons which would justify the final protection as sought.”

Example 3
Judge P J McAloon - 19 December 2002;
“ Another matter relates to criminal charges and Mr Neave ( my lawyer then and now a District Court Judge) has made the comment that on some occasions these do display, in his view, a degree of overreaction by police which has an adverse effect on Mr Burns’ health.”

Example 4
Leader of Opposition –23 March 2004
“Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for your letter of 2 March, concerning matters between yourself and the Family Court. I note your comments and have forwarded your letter to National’s family spokesperson Judith Collins, for her information. Regrettably, as you have already written to the Governor-General, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Children (who are the appropriate people to investigate and progress such matters) I am unable to assist you further.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Don Brash.

Example 5
C J Shannahan, Staff Officer (Acting) for District police commander
Canterbury 8 March 2005; “ I appreciate the frustration you feel. However, there is nothing the Police can do as matters currently stand. We investigate complaints of alleged offending not alleged false allegations made in the context of proceedings in the Family Court for the advantage of one party over another. That is one of the functions of the Family Court; to sift truth from lies.”

Example 6
Hon Justice John Hansen - 27 April 2006 Christchurch High Court Judgement;
“ Furthermore, while I have every sympathy for the predicament in which the appellant finds himself, the essential thrust of the appeal is his contention that the original protection orders were invalidly made. With respect, that is something that must be determined on an appeal from the family court in relation to those protection orders, and not in these criminal proceedings. “

2.What do you see as the benefits of police-issued orders?
This is totally unnecessary and the real concern here is that a radical feminist government is building a platform for a police state to exist in New Zealand, so they can classify fatherhood as criminality.

3. What disadvantages would there be in introducing police-issued orders? How could those disadvantages be addressed?

This is a further weapon of war to add to an already substantial arsenal for mothers who are free and encouraged too eradicate fathers from the family home with malicious false allegations.

4.Do you have any views on the length of the short-term protection order?
I gave notice that I wished to defend the temporary without notice protection order the day after they were forced upon me. Three different Westport lawyers told me that I would only have to wait 42 days for a hearing. However it was more than six months before I had a hearing.

5. What conditions do you think should be attached to police orders?

The truthful family situation and statements from the children involved. A quick investigation and talk with schoolteachers, neighbours and family members could ascertain the need for such action.

Application for temporary orders

6. Should the Court be required to give written reasons when a section 13 application for a temporary protection order is either declined or put on notice? Given that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 is an act of confusion and absurdities, the Court should not be required to give reasons when a section 13 application for a temporary protection order is either declined or put on notice.

7. Do you think an applicant, who has had his or her application for a temporary protection declined, should be eligible for a hearing to address the issues that led to the decline?
No as judges don’t allow males to defend family court protection orders .

8. Do you think that rather than a without notice application being placed on notice that it should instead be referred to the applicant and the following queries made: whether the applicant wants the application to proceed on notice, or make a new application, or withdraw application completely.

Discharging orders

9. Do you think the Act should be amended to emphasise that the Judge can discharge a protection order (including a temporary order) only if he or she is satisfied that the order is no longer necessary for the protection of the applicant, or child of the applicant’s family, or both?
I have been seeking to have the horrible protection order discharged since 19th July 2001. I have tried with hearings in Family, District and High Court. I have made formal appeals to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court without success. I also appealed to the Human Rights Review Tribunal and it was struck out and now I face a substantial crown law bill.

10. Do you believe that over-ruling the applicant’s wishes is desirable?

Whoever wrote this question needs immediate mental assistance. The truth is important to children, who are in love with dad one day, then the next day, they are programmed by a malicious maternal parent to hate him. Parental alienation syndrome (PAS), which is, the brainwashing and poisoning of vulnerable children’s’ minds by criminal custodial parents has caused great trauma for my family. PAS is running rampant in New Zealand society and the Family Court fails to acknowledge the condition. They actually encourage it, as lengthy litigation is a good earner. That’s why they’re reluctant to seek mutually agreeable solutions that could reduce any stress to the children.

11. Do you think it would be more appropriate for the Act to specify criteria that have to be met before the Court discharges a protection order? What criteria do you think would be appropriate?
What about accessing the truth, which is plain to see. Just ask the kids involved!

12. If the wishes of the applicant to discharge appear to diverge from the interests or safety of the children, how should the Court give children status in the Court?
This is a loaded question and I will not answer it because the Domestic Violence Act is unlawful gender discrimination and it’s against the many articles protected by Human Rights and Bill of Rights legislation. How can we have discussion on child interactions and relationships, when the current gender bias bureaucracy openly endorses callous disrespect and the continual, calculated and systematic degradation of fatherhood ?


13. Do you have any experiences or views on the use of undertakings in domestic violence proceedings? Do you believe they are a useful tool for resolving cases or, do you think their use puts victims at risk?
The worse experience in my life was being denied the right to put my defence which was crucial evidence at the court hearing in the Family Court Ashburton on 17th December 2001. The extensive CYFS report would have shown the court that I was a victim of a sinister campaign orchestrated by malicious false allegations made by the maternal family, who had accused me of child abuse and domestic violence
The truth is a “useful tool”, because I fail to understand how 205 Court Hearings since 2001 relating to my Family Court Case could be in the “child’s best interests.” Who said a lie couldn’t run far as it has short legs, obviously didn’t know about the trauma faced by a forced client of the Kangaroo De- Family Court. The blood money that the so-called feeder industry of professionals leaches sucking a living from the misery of the judicial system could be jeopardised if other common sense methods were utilised.



14. What is your view on the current criteria in section 50(1) for arrest without a warrant for breach of a protection order – how are the criteria working in practice?
I have been arrested on whimsical evidence presented to police, who have more than happy to incarcerate me on several occasions.

15. Should the statutory criteria for arrest without a warrant for breach of a protection order be kept, or should the criteria be amended or repealed?

No, as it is more than adequately covered, for example, provisions of sections 51, which restrict the right to bail. The power to arrest without warrant under the Act should be abolished

16. If you believe the criteria should be amended, what criteria do you believe should be included?
I was sent to prison for sending birthday cards to my alienated daughters that both contained money in them. The whole breach of protection order scenario is open to abuse from callous judicial authorities, like over zealous police and interpretation by gender bias authorities.

17. Is there any reason why the law should treat arrest without a warrant for breaches of protection orders differently from arrest without a warrant for other offences?
“Yes. Arrest without a warrant in relation to domestic violence in general should occur under more restrictive conditions than apply to other offences, because of the way that an extreme political group (Feminists) have captured the issue (domestic violence), which should properly be a scientific issue dealt with by rational scientists. The atmosphere of totalitarian hysteria and propaganda, which surrounds this issue, creates huge civil liberties problems for the hated out-group (men).” PZ


18. How should the Court enforce programme attendance?

The Court already has ample scope to deal with people who refuse to do the programmes. If you don’t attend the relationship services programs then (Section 39,DV Act 1995 Regulation 10 (1) DV Regulations 1995) becomes applicable.

19. Should the two-tier system, with a lower penalty for first offences, be kept? If so, what are your reasons? If not, why not?
Two Westport lawyers (Martin Sawyers & Doug Taffs) both advised me to plead guilty to 2-x breach of the protection order, because police would drop male assaults female and six threatening to kill offences. I was compelled to express guilt, which is against rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights. I had not assaulted or threaten to kill anybody. I had many witnesses to testify, but this did not matter.

20. Should failure to attend a programme be a separate offence? Why?
Current legislation adequately provides scope for the Court to determine the appropriate penalty. The consequences of not attending a programme are a breach of protection order and a judge can issue a summons requiring a reason why a respondent did not attend. It is already an offence to fail, without reasonable excuse to attend a programme. If convicted you may be sentenced to a maximum of 6 months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5000 or both.



21. What advantages would there be if affidavits from protection order proceedings were made available to Judges hearing bail applications, where the offence is either a breach of the protection order, or a charge of assault against the protected person? What would the disadvantages be?
The affidavits should be made available. There are no significant disadvantages and in the case of the falsely accused it would be advantageous for the respondent, so he can show that lies in the Family Civil Court have lead to criminal offending. Maybe they could be addressed within criminal jurisdiction ?

Principal Family court Judge Peter Boshier is on record as saying “ False allegations made by a custodial parent were not tolerated by Court. In most cases, the custody order was reversed and the mother was ordered to pay for counsel for child and psychological reports.”
I would be interested to know if any mother had been caught out lying in the Family Court had ever been referred onto criminal jurisdiction to face perjury charges?

22. Have you a view as to how the disadvantages could be addressed?
The evidence is presented to the Family Court in the form of a sworn affidavit. Politician, Winston Peters is correct when he says, “ You have only too look at the false allegations in the Family court to see the value of affidavits.”

23. Should affidavits be available only in cases where the bail hearing relates to the same incident that led to the protection order being issued?
No. They should be allowed, as evidence within all criminal proceedings.

24. What other information about the victim’s situation should a Judge consider when deciding bail?
The judge should be legally required to investigate the so-called applicant’s credibility. The so –called victims own culpability in terms of contributory psychological and physical violence must be a consideration for fairness and balanced justice. Often custodial mothers can lie with total immunity and any consequences in the Family Court. They can do so without fear of ever being charged with perjury in criminal jurisdiction where they would be subject to police laying an indictable charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, which carries seven years jail as maximum penalty.


25. What advantages would there be if a Judge when sentencing an offender for a crime involving domestic violence was able to make a protection order? What would the disadvantages be?
I totally agree that a judge should have the right to authorise protection orders so a hearing could determine the validity of evidence presented. In an open District Court the family dynamics and truthful parent/child interactions could be revealed, unlike the secret Family Court where lawyers and psychologists ride the shady gravy train. With all the back room deals, it’s little wonder the secretive workings of the Family Court provide an ideal breeding ground for false allegations to thrive.

26. Have you a view as to how the disadvantages could be addressed?

Judges aren’t at all hesitant about jailing fathers and they shouldn’t be hesitant about jailing mothers who flout the law. Many mothers will be facing contempt of court and perjury charges. Build more women prisons.

27. Do you think a Judge should be able to make a protection order in these circumstances?
The victim can withdraw the complaint and at any time

28. Do you think the victim’s consent should be necessary before an order was made?
No .

29. Does the proposal raise any special concerns for the children of the offender/respondent?
No. The provisions relating to children in the Act are discriminatory, bias and prejudice in that they show no evidence of any consideration of the various ways that various factors (including Parental Alienation Syndrome) can affect children. One of the worst things one can do to a child is undermine a child’s confidence in the non custodial parent. The alienating parent, while seemingly acting in the best interests of the children, is actually working to destroy the relationship between them and the other parent .The DV Act encourages conflict that can seriously impact on children. Kids need reconciliation and don’t need litigation. All references to children and young people in the Act should be deleted, as it is just radical feminist rubbish.


30. Should the Court be required to provide parties the opportunity to review contact issues after a defined period after a temporary order is made?
Only if the children are safe, as it’s totally unfair place children in a vulnerable situation where they are endangered. I did not see my daughters for two and half years after the protection order was made even though a CYFS report written in 2001 describes me a “wonderful, loving, caring and kind father whose daughters adore him to bits.” The judge at the defence of protection order hearing would not allow me to conduct any form of defence and the criminal family court judge never acknowledged this CYFS Case Report!

31. Do you think it would be helpful to have counsel for the child appointed for any domestic violence cases where children are affected?
In my case I have had two counsel for children lawyers (C4C). The first lawyer for my children (Chris Robertson) in 2001 refused to allow my mother to drop Christmas and birthday presents for her dearly loved and sadly missed grand daughters at his Ashburton office. My mum was so offended she had a heart attack and was admitted to a cardiac ward in Christchurch hospital. He was acting as a C4C in my case even though he was a cousin to a court protected person. ? The second counsel for child lawyer, a female Christchurch based barrister (Adrienne Edward's) has unfortunately told lie after lie. Tragically neither of them have ever bothered to witness the loving interaction between myself and any members of my family, even though it is a legal obligation for them to do so. My four children can not understand why the court would do this? My 23-year-old twin sons are bewildered and disillusioned, because they cannot understand why the system would choose to persecute me?

32. Should the protection order continue to cover the children when the protected person dies? If so, for how long?
As a victim of false protection orders it feels as though one is dead and living in a bewildered and disgusted zombie state!

33. Do you know of any cases where the protected person died and contact between the children and the respondent was an issue?

34. Should a child, who is covered by a protection order obtained by their parent or caregiver, continue to be covered by the order when they turn 17 and they remain living with the applicant (parent or caregiver)? Please give reasons for your opinion.
No comment

35. If you think a protection order should continue to cover children 17 years and over in the circumstances outlined above, do you think the order should permanently cease to apply to the young person once they move out of home, or should it be reactivated upon their return to their home up to a certain age?

Children deserve protection if it’s based on credible evidence that court protection is warranted.

36. When the young person continues to live with the protected person should the protection order cease to cover them at a particular age?

The matter should be judged on its merits on each individual case. The primary focus for the Court should be a determination to settle differences immediately even when conflicted is heated or high.


For respondents

37. Do you think attendance at programmes by respondents of temporary orders should be delayed until a final order is made?
Yes, as the presumption of guilt is often not a true reflection of the situation.

38. Should there be compulsory summons to a Family Court of respondents if they fail to attend a programme?
Once again only if credible evidence can be verified by authorities.

39. Should respondents be eligible for more than one course? If so, what eligibility criteria, if any, do you think should be applied?

Only if factual evidence is supplied too the judge.

40. Should there be a specific power under the Act to direct a respondent to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and attend a drug and alcohol programme or receive mental health treatment if necessary, in addition to stopping violence programmes?
Totally unnecessary. For example; After reading a malicious psychologists report presented to the court and written by Michael Davidson, that recommended I see my children “in a few years”. I was so desperate to see my daughters. I could not bear the thought of not being able to see them for years . I had nothing wrong . I was a good dad, however out of shear frustration and overwhelming grief .I rung police and lawyers in a state of shock - I told them - that I was desperate to see my daughters. It was a genuine plead for help, however it was nearly a fatal move for me, as I drove into a roadblock set up by the Armed Offenders Squad. Naturally I was arrested and remanded in custody and put in a round cell in Christchurch Prison in the Designated Care Unit. Then I was sentenced under Section 121 (11) Criminal Justice Act to Hillmorton Hospital Forsenic Unit called Te Whare Manaaki for the duration of three months. It was against my wishes and I was forced to take the take antipsychotic medications like olanzapine and risperidone and I did not recognise my mother who came to visit me. I became an outpatient after that and the Mental Health psychologist that was helping with my severe depression was appalled that the family court judge would not release the Family Court specialists report writers report that caused me to react so irrationally in the first place? Six months of grief all caused through callous lies from the family court .That was in 2002 .Nothing changes .

41. Do you have any suggestions as to how to encourage respondents to attend the programmes?
It is a sad indictment that the direction of the court has not addressed the real needs for so many children. The family court was first set up as a mediation service and now it has become a meandering road of meaningless litigation. I think it’s worth mentioning that not once in over seven years has the court in it’s cruel wisdom has never assisted my four children in any way at all. Why not think of the children and not stop greasing the expensive and farcical Kangaroo De Family court gravy train ?

For protected persons

42. Should programmes be available to protected persons for longer than the current three-year period? If so, for how long, for example, for the duration of the order, or for some other length of time?
My ex, her parents, her sister and family and my two daughters’ are still court protected after seven years. The power of false allegations from females is beyond belief. I cannot find any meaningful assistance to my difficult circumstances even though everybody is sympathetic!

43. Should protected persons be able to attend more than one programme? If so, in what circumstances or situations would further programmes be helpful?

I have ordered to undertake two stop violence programmes and a compulsory mental health treatment order - all because the Family court will not believe a lying mother.

44. What are your views about applicants being required to attend an initial session for assessment of their need to attend a programme? If you think it is a good idea do you think failure to attend should attract a penalty or would it be better if attendance was voluntary?
As I have already stated they are far from “voluntary”.

45. Do you think the Family Court should provide victims with a point of access to a wider range of social services? If so, what social services do victims need most that are not already available to them? Who would be best placed to provide this service? And how would it be delivered?
It would be impossible to provide any more assistance to women seeking court protection, because she already has the entire judicial system at her disposal including victim support, government, police, legal aid, judges and CYFS.

46. Can you suggest other ways to encourage more protected persons to attend programmes?
A service agency should be able to provide practical counselling by experienced divorcees.

47. Should programmes be extended to children who used to be protected persons?

Children deserve the truth and the Court should be working towards (where possible) a mutually agreeable solution within 2- 3 weeks or sooner. This mutually agreeable solution would reduce stress for children and allow them to continue in a settled routine.

For programme providers

48. Should the Act allow programme providers of respondent programmes to receive the contact details of the protected person, if the protected person wishes to be informed of the respondent’s progress on the programme? If you believe they should – what do you think are the advantages of this proposal?

It is everybody’s best interests that the program provider works in with the family so to avoid conflicts that might seriously impact on the children.

49. Do you think the information provided should be limited to the respondent’s attendance?
All information surrendered to program provider should be available to a Family Court judge.


Care of Children Act 2004

50. Do you believe it would be appropriate to include a definition of psychological violence in the Care of Children Act 2004 that is consistent with the definition in the Domestic Violence Act 1995?
Absolute not, because I have clearly outlined it is already adequately covered by current judicial powers in authority, as they have many options to deal with Domestic Violence.

51. Do you have any comment to make, where allegations of domestic violence have been made in proceedings for a parenting order, on whether there is a need for the Court to obtain a report from a specialist in domestic violence before making the order?
My case has needed four specialist reporters prepared by two different Christchurch psychologists. Both of these reports were untruthful and malicious lies. Both psychologists upset my mother to the extent I had to apply to court so I could get a judge to stop them constantly harassing my mother who was suffering extremely bad health at the time. They did not stop and my heartbroken mum passed away four days after a malicious phone call from a psychologist who was told to say away by a Family Court judge.

52. Should section 4 of the Care of Children Act make specific reference to relocation as a result of domestic violence?

53. Should a report from a psychologist always be obtained before a party who has used violence against the other party is granted unsupervised contact?
I have more than enough evidence to show a fair Court of Law that both Family Court psychologists are guilty of malicious behaviour and despicable conduct!

54. Should the age of a child in the Domestic Violence Act be raised to 18 so as to be consistent with the definition in the Care of Children Act and UNCROC?


Family Proceedings Act 1980

55. Do you agree with maintaining the status quo on the provisions relating to mediation and awaiting the outcome of the Family Courts Matters Bill?
Yes, however surely Children and falsely accused father’s deserve a better system.

The above submission is both true and correct .
Without prejudice

Peter Burns
Chairman Children Needs Parents Trust
NZ Fathers Coalition
International Fathers4Justice Co-ordinator
Proud father of four New Zealand born children .

You may send a written submission to:

Domestic Violence Act Review
Ministry of Justice
PO Box 180

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Daily Cartoon

A brilliant laugh at the expense of New Zealand Prime Minister .

read more | digg story

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Dads -who needs them ? Dads are dangerous.Stepdads are deadly

Below is a response from Fathers4equality in relation to the article written by Alan Howe titled Dads -who needs them ? Dads are dangerous .Stepdads are deadly .

It is bloody hard to maintain good fatherhood responsibilities when a system seems hell bent on stereotyping all fathers' as criminals . Every which way dads are getting it in the neck .Forensic and academic studies in New Zealand show that domestic violence is not gender specific with both parties as guilty as each other .
Time for change and a long overdue balance of the scales ? We must address infanticide and child abuse in New Zealand now !! Happy kiwi kids need Dads Too.

F4E say;
"Murder-suicides committed by a father are among the rarest forms of child homicide. Australian Institute of Criminology statistics show there were 270 child homicide incidents in Australia from July 1989 to June 1999, involving 287 identified offenders and resulting in the deaths of 316 children under 15. When children younger than 15 are killed in Australia, they are most likely to be killed by a family member (66.9 per cent), primarily a parent (94.2 per cent),❠Australian Institute Of Criminology (AIC) research analyst Jenny Mouzos says in her report 'Homicidal Encounters.'

Although fathers are responsible for most cases of filicide (the murder of children by their parents) in Australia, these numbers are inflated by the number of non-biological fathers who kill children

When Mouzos crunched figures on the distribution of parents who killed children by gender and biological ties, she found biological mothers posed a more lethal risk to their own. Biological mothers account for about 35 per cent of all filicides (about the same proportion as stepfathers and de factos), while biological fathers account for 29 per cent." /story/0, 21985,23062221- 5000117,00. html

DADS - who needs them? Dads are dangerous. Stepdads are deadly.
Alan Howe

About 25 per cent of Australian kids have seen some form of violence against their mother or their stepmother. Drunk dads do much of it but sober dads are often behind the fists as well.

Men are genetically predisposed to violence and 23.5 per cent of all assaults reported to Victoria Police take place in the family home.

What's worse is the Australian Bureau of Statistics believes only 31 per cent of assaults are reported. That is a lot of unhappy homes. Far too many. And it'll be the dad who is mostly to blame.

Which is why I am not confronted by the latest bestseller, Knock Yourself Up, written by a New York lesbian, Louise Sloan, who used an anonymous sperm donor to have a baby - a boy.

In the book - provocatively subtitled No Man? No Problem! - Sloan interviews a range of single mums, mostly heterosexual women whose body clocks sounded a deafening alarm that spurred them into action.

Sloan writes: "Most of the women in this book would love to find the right guy but, when push came to shove, decided finding the right husband just wasn't their No. 1 priority. Having a child was."

The book is a best-seller and there has been uproar about the manner in which Sloan appears to have written off the need for a child to have a dad.

And some have asked why she didn't adopt.

My best mate is adopted, but it is not something I would ever do. I don't want to raise someone else's child. I want my own.

And that's precisely how Sloan and many of those she interviewed felt. They wanted pregnancies and to give birth - and that's a pretty natural desire.

As natural as alpha males beating the living daylights out of lesser beings.

There will soon be many more single mums now that Attorney-General Rob Hulls is giving them access to fertility treatment.

An interfaith council led by Rabbi Shimon Cowen has accused the Government of social engineering.

"The values that were with us until 20 years ago have gone out of control," Rabbi Cowen said on behalf of the committee representing the Jewish, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim faiths.

That would be the Catholic faith that bars priests from having wives and families, and women from the priesthood, and the Muslim faith that allows a man to divorce his wife just by saying so.

No wonder women, repressed for centuries by organised religion, feel they have a right to take control of their fertility.

Another flank of the attack against Sloan is by men despairing of the future of children from fatherless households. I wouldn't worry too much.

While the economics of such households may pose a few problems - and equal pay, real equal pay, might help there - the phenomenon of women bringing up kids without their dads has been with us forever.

There are 663,000 lone parent households in Australia, 83 per cent of them run by mum.

One of our most cherished organisations is Legacy, which has helped widows of war for almost a century - 100,000 Australian men were killed in World Wars I and II, and in Vietnam - and their well-adjusted kids include Ron Barassi, TV star Clive James and guitar virtuoso Tommy Emmanuel.

Last week it was revealed that Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and her husband, Greg Withers, who heads the state Office of Climate Change, were both raised in fatherless houses, Withers by his grandmother.

Both estranged from their alcoholic fathers, they seem to have done rather well.

But the drinking dad's no match for the deadly dad.

I drove past Winchelsea last week and saw the three little white crosses at the spot where Robert Farquharson (above) decided to murder sons Jai, 10, Tyler, 7, and Bailey, 2 on Father's Day, 2005.

No man? No problem? No argument from me.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Father's Coalition

Free Friendly advice for dads in distress .

read more | digg story

Friday, January 18, 2008

Defender of abused women finds a new cause:male victims

Defender of abused women finds a new cause: male victims
By Emily Dugan
Published: 17 January 2008

Erin Pizzey, the campaigner who pioneered treatment for abused women by setting up Britain's first refuge centre for victims of domestic violence in the 1970s, is now turning her attention to another group of often overlooked victims: men.

Launching an online campaign and research project aimed at bringing the issue out in the open, Ms Pizzey is hoping to raise awareness of abuse perpetrated by women against men – a subject she describes as "one of the last taboos". She has put a questionnaire on the website that allows women to answer questions anonymously about how they treat men.

As many as one in six men are thought to suffer physical and mental abuse at the hands of women, yet the topic is widely seen as insignificant or implausible.

"I feel that this kind of violence is one of the last taboos – men are reluctant to talk about it, and so are the women who are doing it," said Ms Pizzey, whose father was abused by her mother. "Much is known and studied about male violence, but very little is written about women, and any attempt to discuss female violence is met with rabid attacks and howls of 'blaming the victim'."

During the 1970s, Ms Pizzey created safe havens for hundreds of abused women, but she found it increasingly frustrating that people could only see females as victims. As she tried to create similar sanctuaries for men, she discovered that even those who had been generous towards her women's centres would not consider giving funding.

"I imagined people who had given money to my women's projects would also give it over for the men, but not one gave money," she said.

"It's shocking that across the world there are no facilities giving sanctuary for men, and no sympathy. I think it's a deeply held taboo that if a man is assaulted by a woman he is weak, but if a woman is assaulted by a man she is a victim. It's social conditioning."

Samantha Wilson, a therapist working in London and Manchester who specialises in domestic abuse, says she often sees men who were injured by women. "I've been working with cases of violence for 20 years, and many of them have been women abusing men," she said. "This could be happening to people you know and you simply wouldn't realise."

According to Ms Pizzey, the issue is greeted with scepticism by police and social services who, she says, often "refuse to believe" it. She hopes that by discussing violent women in the open she may be able to bring about change.

Next month, she is travelling to Sacramento, California, to attend the first conference on domestic abuse to deal with men and women as perpetrators.

Boyfriend became punch-bag

Anna, 35, appeared to have everything, but beneath the respectable facade, she was living a secret life of violence. Abused as a child, she found herself repeating the abuse. After just a few months with her boyfriend, Paul, arguments started by her became regular, and after a while she became violent. Sometimes it was a kick or a punch, but on other occasions she would throw heavy objects at him, until finally she threatened him with a knife. Anna knew she needed help and sought out a hypnotist. After several sessions she began to control her anger, and now she and Paul plan to marry.

Names have been changed to protect identities

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Growth of a Societal Cancer

The Growth of a Societal Cancer
By Peter van de Voorde

January 2008

The Family Justice System has become a societal cancer, a place to be avoided at all cost. Like any cancer, if left unchecked, it will continue to grow, gaining momentum and eventually destroying its host victims and subsequently the culture which supports and feeds this malignant growth. It has removed parental rights and replaced them with parental responsibilities. However without rights, parents are denied their human right and duty to responsibly protect and share the love and care of their own biological children.

We are now looking at a 35 year old cancer that has been allowed to grow unchecked and is by far the most dangerous place for men, women and children, to come into contact with, in the event of relationship breakdown.

It has become a law unto itself, a dictatorship within a democracy. Secret and seemingly untouchable, it has been allowed to grow into a multi-billion dollar industry, with many poisonous tentacles, which have gradually and unnoticeably crept into many of our institutions and bureaucracies. These in turn have each spawned their own agencies and pseudo expert organisations and bodies, who play host to a variety of so called professional expert specialist advisers, who keep feeding the cancer with a continuous supply of misinformation and dodgy statistical data, which flows into the system, thereby guaranteeing malignant growth.

Each tentacle of this cancer is pushing its own immoral agenda, while at the same time comfortably feathering their nests with billions of dollars of taxpayer funded handouts, bolstered by the funds plundered from the hard earned family wealth of unsuspecting separating parents.

All of this is made possible because society has unsuspectingly and unquestionably accepted the deliberately deceptive and misleading "Best Interest of the Child" principle. It is an obscene act of deception to suggest that the "Best Interest of a Child" is best served by giving children rights, when in fact they lack the autonomy and physical ability to enact those rights and while their young developing brains are so vulnerable to emotional, and psychological manipulation and control.

Without question the most dangerous situation for a child to find itself in, is when its parents are coerced into entering the Family Court system. This ensures them being infected by this obnoxious Family Justice cancer, which in fact will guarantee that most of them will have their ties of kinship with many of their much loved biological family members severed.

This cancerous industry, which hides behind the spurious "Best Interest of the Child" principle, in order to justify the removal of these vulnerable children from perfectly loving and responsible family members, is a curse on the health and wellbeing of our society. To remove those who wish to protect and play a part in the healthy physical and emotional development of their biological family, is universally unacceptable to a civil society.

To allow this dangerous cancer to flourish will eventually destroy our society. We owe it to the children of today, who are the parents of tomorrow, to relieve them of the burden of being forcibly removed by this malignant societal cancer. If we fail to do so, history will judge us harshly.

"Parental rebellion is not a crime, it is our obligation."


Peter van de Voorde is part of the Dads on the Air team.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Lets prosecute child abductors3

Awesome and powerful video.A must see .
Our children are worth more .
The Family Court is a fearful place saturated in deceit and lies !!

Judges are "relationship vandals."

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Father's role

Christchurch Press.
Letters to editor
16 January 2008

Fathers’ role

The article titled “Winz stance irritates solo dad “(10 Jan) struck a chord with me. It seems this government does not respect or value fatherhood.

Surely it would be appropriate for government agencies to help out a parent regardless of their gender, as that is in the ‘child’s best interests’.

Children do not understand gender discrimination and any effort by the state to undermine a father’s ability to cope as a loving parent involved in the most important nurturing years has serious flow on consequences for society.

As in this case, the children’s mother has confidence in this father’s parental ability, and she has handed him a bigger role to which he has gratefully accepted. Children need dads, too, and people's instincts about parenting back up what research has been telling us for years.

Policy makers need to catch up with reality because involving responsible dads has a huge impact on a child's well-being and life chances.

Peter Burns -

Winz stance irritates solo dad
By Phil Hamilton - The Press | Thursday 10 January.

At the end of an average week, solo father Lee Brown reckons he has about $20 left after paying his bills.

And that money goes on putting petrol in his car so he can take his children out at the weekend.

The 32-year-old has had sole custody of seven-year-old Samantha for the past four years and also looks after his son in the weekend, as well as regularly caring for two other daughters while their mother works.

For that he gets $255 a week. Once his Housing New Zealand rent is deducted he has $171 with which to pay for food and other bills.

"So they don't make it easy," he said.

The former air-conditioning technician was forced to give up a good job when he took over the care of Samantha.

"When I gave it up I was earning $700 a week so it was a big adjustment," he said.

The Government has been accused of trying to hush up a report harshly critical of its reform of the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) and its impact on struggling single parents such as Brown.

The study by the Rotorua People's Advocacy Centre focused on the Personal Development and Employment Plan case-management process and its impact on the family work-life balance of 15 recipients.

Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson has said the report was biased and based on poor research.

However, Brown said it sounded much like his experience with Work and Income New Zealand (Winz) which had just tried to push him back into full-time work without regard for his responsibilities to his daughter.

"They just told me to find some work, but with my daughter at school I can only work from nine to three," he said.

"The job agencies I went to told me those were ladies' hours and I just won't get jobs.

"The only other time I could work would be at night but then I would have to get someone in to look after her ... my case manager expected me to work and look after her as well."

Brown has been given eight hours work by the Father and Child Trust, the maximum work he can do before his benefit is affected -- a low threshold which he said discouraged beneficiaries from working longer.

That job came about after he was helped out by the trust and did voluntary work for them in gratitude.

He also cares for his two daughters, Danielle and Paige, to his former partner, every day while she works.

"That way she doesn't have to fork out for babysitting and I get to see my kids."

Brown said he got the impression Winz did not value the work he did looking after Samantha and just wanted him off their books.

The feeling was mutual, Brown said.

"I would rather be working 40 hours a week, be earning $600 or $700 and get off the DPB completely and not have to worry about the benefit and dealing with them."

Monday, January 14, 2008

Public praised for dobbing in man who flicked son's ear

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son's ear.Professional musician Jimmy Mason was reprimanded by police for assaulting his three-year-old son…

read more | digg story

Blog battle becomes free speech case

DCYF, as temporary custodian of the children, is to advise Anne Grant, author of, to remove any and all written and pictorial information pertaining to the children in the above matter

read more | digg story

Helengrad extends its influence .

Since 2001 - Helengrad and feminazi have been regular features in my writing. What other words could appropriately describe the radical sisterhood regime that controls the power balance in New Zealand.Klark's hierarchy have no use for democracy or freedom, much less freedom of speech from a fathers rights activist . I am thankful I am a tough minded optimist and a thick skinned good bastard .Truth is alien to Klark . She is the mistress of deception .In fact, she detests the truth, which is light and the sunlight rays of truth can often open dark wounds . The Klark regime has no interest or reason to work with fathers . They are irreconcilable on this issue and their only priority is for them to remain in power .

Tuesday, 15 January 2008200801150500
Helengrad extends its influence

Helengrad - a noun used to describe the iron grip of New Zealand's prime minister over Wellington - has been recognised internationally in the latest edition of Australia's largest online dictionary.

History surrounding the word is dubious.

Wikipedia credits a talkback caller in 1999 or early 2000 for coining the word.

It eventually made print in May 2000 when National leader Jenny Shipley was quoted as calling Miss Clark "an interfering Minister of Everything and running a 'Helengrad' regime".

Victoria University linguist Laurie Bauer said "Helengrad" would probably have a short lifespan as it "had to have Helen there [in Parliament], and some sort of notion that there is a Stalin-like regime in place" for the word to work.

Listed as a colloquial humorous word in the politics section, it is formed by adding the suffix -grad - a common Russian ending meaning "town" - to Miss Clark's first name in an attempt to mirror cities in the former Soviet Union named after rulers - Leningrad and Stalingrad.

It takes its place in the Macquarie dictionary among 85 other "new" words including "man flu" - a minor cold contracted by a man who greatly exaggerates the symptoms - and "arse antlers", the name given to a tattoo on a woman's lower back, stretching across and around the hips.

"Climate sceptic" (a non-believer that global warming is taking place) is also an addition to the online dictionary.

Dr Bauer said the fact there was a large increase of words around ecological and computer areas showed that people were "increasingly discussing those topics".

New Zealand dictionary centre director Dianne Bardsley said new Kiwi phrases included "golden koha" for golden handshake and "cardy city" for Wellington.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

The downfall of a stoned generation of kids

It is so sad that young kids are addicts before their teenage years even start . What has happened to society ? How could it get so bad for so many children ? What a mad mixed up world .

read more | digg story

Will the Bonus Families concept ever be operational in NZ ?

Hello dad4justice;

You are receiving this update because you are a member of our Bonus Families mailing list.

I wanted to take some time at the beginning of this year to say Happy New Year to all and to let you know about the changes at Bonus Families for 2008. Lots of new articles, a VERY active message board moderated by our Support Group Coordinator, Jennifer, and we will be adding a BLOG in the next few months. Also, one of the most exciting new additions is we are now offering ONLINE GROUP for those who are looking for some help but can’t get out--or can’t find a counsellor who understands the intricacies of coparenting with a former partner and/or possibly their new partner.

This is NOT an open chat room. Bonus Families ONLINE GROUP is modelled after group therapy. There will only be three groups to being. More will be added soon. For those who sign up, there will be a small charge per session, and you will be assigned to a group that focuses on the subject that interests you. Each session is an hour long and will meet at a regular time. Members receive a discount per session. The sessions will be ongoing and limited to only four people in each group. We will begin a waiting list and as people move on, we will add someone new to keep the group limited to only four.

The topics will be as follows:

Group one: Coparenting With Your Ex

Group Two: Counterpartner Issues (Getting along with your ex’s new partner and possibly coparenting with him or her.)

Group Three: Overcoming personal issues that prevent you from moving forward after your break-up. (ie: things like betrayal, dealing with abuse, etc.)

These groups will not just be venting sessions. Although venting is important to help us work through issues, they will heavy weight problem solving and offering tools to cope--and cameradery. There’s nothing like identifying with others facing the same problems you face.

So, write me at if you are interested in joining one of the groups. We will then email you all the information and the schedule.

And, don\'t forget to check out the new articles--new ones every week.


Jann Blackstone-Ford, M.A.


Bonus Families

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

'Dad is Just As Good As Me', Say 7 Out Of 10 Mums

Interesting information, and I do wonder what the percentage of New Zealand mothers would think about dad's parental abilities ? It would be a good question to ask one of the feminazi's that make up the radical feminist regime, who have seized control of this land . Just imagine what Sue Bradford, Ruth Dyson or Helen Klark would say ? They are hell bent on criminalizing fatherhood in this country much to the detriment of the confused children !!

http://www.medicalnewstoday. com/articles/ 93218.php

Medical News Today8 January 2008
'Dad is Just As Good As Me', Say 7 Out Of 10 Mums

Seven out of ten mums (68%) believe dads are as skilled at parenting as they are, yet the father role is seen as still secondary by much of society, according to new ICM research launched by the Fatherhood Institute today.

The new institute says involving fathers has a major impact on child welfare yet they spend on average a month less with their children than mums every year, mainly because of unsocial hours and inflexible working.It is calling for a shake up of parental leave, all family professionals such as midwives and teachers to actively involve fathers, and more done to ensure dads sign birth certificates, in line with international best practice.

Reading at school with their children and staying overnight during hospital births are two of the Institute's new proposals to boost dads' involvement with kids. These proposals are backed by 71% and 79% of mums respectively. Seven out of ten of all respondents say there should be a zero tolerance approach when dads don't take on their parenting responsibilities.

Both men and women believe the biggest positive impact of a dad's involvement is on a child's behavioural problems, self esteem and school work, according to the poll. This is backed by independent evidence cited in The Difference a Dad Makes, launched alongside the survey findings.

More than 1000 people - as well as an additional sample of dads and mums - were surveyed over the last month. The findings state that:

- 68% of mums say that dad is just as good at looking after the kids as them

- 95% of men and women say it is important for dads to spend time caring for children during their first two years

- 67% of women and 72% of men say society values a child's relationship with mother more than father

- 6 out of 10 (59%) people say that society assumes mothers are good for children, but fathers have to prove it

- Two-thirds (66%) of fathers regret not having more time to spend with their children

- 70% of people say there should be 'zero tolerance' if fathers do not take on their parenting responsibilities.

Duncan Fisher, Director of The Fatherhood Institute, said today:

"Most mums have confidence in dads - and they want them to play a bigger role. People's instincts about parenting back up what research has been telling us.

"It's clear that parental leave and services do not meet the needs of the modern family. Government and policy makers need to catch up with reality because involving dads has a huge impact on a child's wellbeing and life chances."

The Fatherhood Institute, in a new report The Difference a Dad Makes, launched alongside the research, has today called for six goals for policy makers as a first step to enabling greater positive involvement of dads:

- Shake up the parental leave system so fathers can spend more time with kids under two years-old

- 25,000 more dads per year to sign their child's birth certificate, to reach international standards and halve the number of those who don't

- Dads able to stay overnight in hospital with their partner when their baby is born

- Modern and relevant antenatal education for both parents

- Dads reading with their children in all primary schools

- Family professionals - midwives, teachers, health visitors, nursery workers, social workers - confidently engaging with dads as well as mums, and supporting all family types.


- The Fatherhood Institute is the UK's fatherhood think tank.
The Institute (charity reg. no.1075104): collates and publishes international research on fathers, fatherhood and different approaches to engaging with fathers; helps shape national and local policies to ensure a father-inclusive approach to family policy; injects research evidence on fathers and fatherhood into national debates about parenting and parental roles; lobbies for changes in law, policy and practice to dismantle barriers to fathers' care of infants and children; is the UK's leading provider of training, consultancy and publications on father-inclusive practice, for public and third sector agencies and employers. The Institute's vision is for a society that gives all children a strong and positive relationship with their father and any father-figures; supports both mothers and fathers as earners and carers; and prepares boys and girls for a future shared role in caring for children.

Through a separate partly-owned company, DAD, the Institute provides information directly to fathers and their families, while raising funds to ensure appropriate information is delivered to fathers in the most excluded groups.

- ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,324 adults aged 18+ (including 593 parents), by telephone between 7 and 13 December 2007. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Further information at .

Fatherhood Institute

Britney Spears case is sad - no winners there

Life, Sports and Other Pursuits
By Kathy Rumleski

Men’s rights groups sympathetic to Spears
Posted: 2007-10-04 16:45:17

Father's Rights groups could have praised the judicial decision, which awarded Kevin Federline custody of his children over Britney Spears.

Instead they respectfully asserted that children suffer whenever they can't see a parent, whether it is a mom or dad.

"We make it clear that we support equal parenting and that children belong in the custody of their mother and their father. What has happened in the Britney Spears case is all very tragic and unfortunate - for the children," wrote Canadian father and activist Jeremy Swanson.

"As casual observers and like most parents we don't care much for the mother and her social difficulties as she is but we recognize that her children love their mom and they need her. Just as they need their dad.

It would have been easy to say, finally we won one. Instead fathers took the high road and said nobody wins in these awful battles.

Swanson deserves credit for his statements. After years of heartbreak, he knows how Spears must be feeling and he reached out instead of attacked.

What would you say to Spears, Federline or Swanson if you had the chance?

d4j reckons ; no children should have be used as weapons of war in the unsavoury and malicious Kangaroo De Family Court system. Parents who use parental alienation syndrome (PAS) as a lever are not worthy parents, and totally disgust anybody involved in the Fathers Rights Movement, regardless of their gender.

Kids deserve love and affection NOT manipulation and coercion.

Monday, January 7, 2008

More Unlawful gender discrimination by feminazi Minister Sue Bardford !!

Oh Sue Bradford never stops with her unlawful gender discrimination and by the way Sue why don’t you mention the fact that the head researcher at the Families Commission is a man hating radical feminist called Rowena Cave. A study of 15 women for God’s sake!!

Look New Zealanders how can we possibly have harmony and balance in society when hateful, vengeful and vindictive radical feminists are conducting a social experiment that has gone horribly wrong. Just look at the problems associated with fatherlessness, child abuse, teenage pregnancy and substance abuse etc..

Parent family report published despite 'gag'

5:00AM Tuesday January 08, 2008

A Rotorua advocacy group has paid for the publication of a report on sole-parent families that was ditched by the Families Commission after Government interference, the Green Party says.

MP Sue Bradford said research for the report was commissioned by the Families Commission but it was not published after former Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope criticised its findings in Parliament.

"I congratulate the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre for having the courage to publish this report," Ms Bradford said yesterday.

"It is a huge pity political interference from the highest levels meant they were forced to fund publication themselves.

"Research on the reality for some of the poorest families in our community should not be buried just because the Government doesn't like the results," she said.

Ms Bradford listed key findings in the report as:

* Work was needed to end the "culture of negative stereotyping" within the Department of Work and Income when it was dealing with sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit.

* More support was needed for sole parents to go into part-time rather than fulltime work so they could better meet the needs of their families.

* Changes should be made to the Personal Development and Employment Plan system to improve its efficiency.

* Work involved in parenting, as well as voluntary and community work, needed to be formally recognised.


Saturday, January 5, 2008

Baby X


The website was built in order to raise money for the legal costs for saving this Black Male child named Baby X and to raise the issue of how child support is being used for sponsoring both Immigration and Paternity Fraud & destroying Black Families.

Baby X has been stripped of his rights to have a father, by the State of New Jersey and Bergen County Courts, by a malicious plot involving NJ Bergen County Family Court and the corrupt Judge Edward Torack, Dr.Tanmoy Mukherjee, of the Mount Sinai Hospital/Reproductive Medical Center of New York.

Baby X is a victim of a sinister plot by the ruling class to destroy Black Families and Men using the false flag of Child Support system and Women's Rights. Baby X was created during unauthorized artificial insemination by Dr. Mukherjee and a Black Woman holding a PhD in Computer Science facing deportation for defrauding the City College of New York's Computer Science Department. In order to avoid deportation, Dr. Mukherjee and The Mother of Baby X conspired together to take and illegally use the semen of a Black Male US Citizen in order to perform an artificial insemination, and create an anchor baby. They also conspired to victimize the said Black Male with the responsibility of Child Support.

During hearings at NJ Bergen County Family Court, Baby X's Father was able to present a copy of Baby X's Mother's immigration records (which should a history of immigration fraud conducted by Baby X's Mother)and get Baby X's Mother to admit, under questioning, that she had the child via Unauthorized Medical Experiment/IVF.

Immediately after clear evidence was presented in the court, that Baby X was created by an via Unauthorized Medical Experiment/IVF for the purposes Immigration Fraud, the Father was completely banned from all courts and all judges - by the corrupt Judge Edward Torack of NJ Bergen County Family Court.

The court ban against the Father to Baby X includes the denial of the following rights:

1) Ban against a "Request for a DNA test of all parties"
2) Access to appeal & any other judges/courts
3) Ban against visitation between Baby X and Father X.
4) Any modifications to Child Support, including a decrease in income
of Father X
5) Any ruling on evidence pertaining to immigration and paternity
fraud in the case.

The end result is to totally strip Father X from any rights to the child except to shut up and pay. He did not have a right to say when where and how to have a baby, and he did not have a right to have any representation in court. And therefore the State of New Jersey has stripped Baby X's right to have a Father!

The above claims in this case are well documented and have been reported to the various authorities and all of them have refused to investigate the claims.

You can help save baby by either sending a donating to the SAVE BABY X's defense fund or by sending a petition to the officials who have so far refused to help SAVE BABY X right to have a father.
Save the children , what is this mad world doing to our future generations .
in solidarity - d4j.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fathers 4 Justice Global" group.
To post to this group, send email to

Thursday, January 3, 2008

DNA clears man in prison for 26 years

Find this article at:

DNA clears man in prison for 26 years

DALLAS, Texas (AP) ---- Charles Chatman said throughout his 26 years in prison that he never raped the woman who lived five houses down from him.

Now 47, Chatman is expected to win his freedom Thursday on the basis of new DNA testing that lawyers say proves his innocence and adds to Dallas County's nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates.

"I'm bitter. I'm angry," Chatman told The Associated Press during what was expected to be his last night in jail Wednesday. "But I'm not angry or bitter to the point where I want to hurt anyone or get revenge."

If released on bond at a Thursday court hearing as expected, Chatman will become the 15th inmate from Dallas County since 2001 to be freed by DNA testing. That is more than any other county nationwide, said Natalie Roetzel of the Innocence Project of Texas, an organization of volunteers who investigate claims of wrongful conviction.

Texas leads the country in prisoners freed by DNA testing. Including Chatman, the state will have released at least 30 wrongfully convicted inmates since 2001, according to the Innocence Project.

Mike Ware, who heads the Conviction Integrity Unit in the Dallas County District Attorney's office, said he expects that number to increase.

One of the biggest reasons for the large number of exonerations in Texas is the crime lab used by Dallas County, which accounts for about half the state's DNA cases. Unlike many jurisdictions, the lab used by police and prosecutors retains biological evidence, meaning DNA testing is a viable option for decades-old crimes.

District Attorney Craig Watkins also attributes the exonerations to a past culture of overly aggressive prosecutors seeking convictions at any cost.

Chatman's nearly 27 years in prison for aggravated sexual assault make him the longest-serving inmate in Texas to be freed by DNA evidence, Innocence Project lawyers said.

Chatman was 20 when the victim, a young woman in her 20s, picked him from a lineup. Chatman said he lived five houses down from the victim for 13 years but never knew her.

At the time the woman was assaulted, Chatman said he didn't have any front teeth; he had been certain that feature would set him apart from the real assailant.

"I'm not sure why he ended up on that photo spread to begin with," Ware said.

Chatman, who was convicted in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison, said his faith kept him from giving up.

Ware said Chatman would likely be released on a personal recognizance bond until the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes an official ruling.

Links referenced within this article

Associated Press