Not for fathers. Wabbit has bitter personal experience of this:

”The family of a young girl at the centre of an international custody battle will not be deported from New Zealand, despite her mother getting visas by falsely telling immigration officials she had custody of her daughter.
For two years, the girl’s father – who hails from Europe and had sole custody in their homeland – had no idea where his daughter was living until a social media campaign to find her went viral online.
Someone recognised the child in New Zealand where the mother had started a new life, so the father asked the Family Court to return the girl to his home country under the international child abduction agreement, the Hague Convention.
The Weekend Herald revealed in October the Family Court – despite accepting the mother unlawfully took the girl and concealed her – refused as she was now settled in New Zealand….’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Justice?

  1. Well yep, why am I not surprised? Section 97 of the Care of Child’s/Care of Children’s Act, states that the custodian of the child is the one providing the day to day care of the child. So if you provide the day to day care of the child you have those rights.

    What’s worse than this, is their is the Care of Child Convention, this means many nations have signed this treaty and will be implementing it at some stage. And it doesn’t stop there in 2004, sections 42, 45, 46, 47 and 52 of the Family Proceedings Act was updated.

    These sections all state if you provide the day to day care of the child, you have standing in court. One of those sections even states, your statements of accusations do not need to be corroborated, they will be taken at face value!

    Yes it has been a very bad deal for fathers, no surprises there.

  2. In 2004 the Care of Child’s Act was law, and that’s when those sections were updated.

  3. Also if you look at the article, you see that section 4 of the Care of Child’s Act is real, that children’s needs are paramount. We see that because she’s had bad experiences with her father, it would be traumatic for her to be reunited with her father, so for this reason she won’t be coming back.

    • KG says:

      Allegedly had bad experiences with her father, Warren. I’d like to see the proof of that allegation.

      • Darin says:

        Yes,the most common tactic used by women against men is turning their children against them.They can’t stand toe to toe with us in a fight,so they resort to lying and being manipulitve in order to inflict damage against us.

        I have seen so many good men ruined by lying,vindictive women.There are simply no down consequences for women who behave this way.

        • mawm says:

          All they have to do is whisper “kiddy fiddler” and the father is damned.

          • Yes Mawm, that’s the worst and most effective strategy. It makes everyone feel sorry for them. And that’s why we are paying $ millions in what is called DPB payments.

        • You took the words right out of mouth, Darin. Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. If you have a child with a lying vindictive women, the child isn’t going to make the situation better. The child gives them a legal footing to make things even worse.

          An example of not standing toe to toe, is when they and their friends come have an argument with you. You can win the argument when its one on one but not 10 on 1.

          • Darin says:

            The correct strategy in that case is to not engage and instead ignore them no matter what they say.The only effective tool in that situation is to simply let it be clear that you don’t give a damn as it completely disarms the “crazy ratchet woman” tactic.

  4. That sort of is my point KG, if you go to the NZ police site, type in ‘protection order’ and ‘domestic violence’, it will show that in family law you don’t need proof. All that is required is for you to sign an affidavit stating you need protection.

    So yes KG, if what is behind the question is the assumption that the allegations are all made up, you’re probably correct. So the moral of the story, don’t marry a malicious liar as the courts won’t protect you.

  5. Fred says:

    WT, Sign an affidavit? Here in Amerika all we have to say is; “that gun’s a pretty color, I’ll take two.”

    Guns, because a protective order is just a piece of paper.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

    • Yes Fred, in America the gun is useful. Over here though, you have to have a gun license and you can only use it to defend yourself and it has to be locked up. Over here if a protection order is not followed you can be put in jail, it is not just a piece of paper.

  6. Yokel says:

    For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the redacted “European” country is the UK. When Yokel’s first marriage broke up he had a one year old daughter to bring up. It was bloody difficult to get the UK family court agree to father having custody of such a young female child. It was only possible because the mother would have been seriously unable to be an adequate parent, let alone a good one. Since then the (left wing, ie establishment) received wisdom has only become more certain that fathers are unfit to be single parents.

    Therefore if this father has won custody in a British family court in 2010 it is an irrefutable fact that the mother is totally incompetent. And let us not forget that a child of the age reported (say 9 now if she was 2 when access orders were first being made) will be very pliable and will say just what the parent with de facto custody tells her to say.

    If you’ve been through this mill, KG, I certainly feel for you. It ain’t a good place.

    • KG says:

      It surely isn’t, Yokel. I doubt I will ever lose the bitterness – and forgiveness be damned.

  7. Brown says:

    Every now and then there is good news. A couple of years ago wife and I took in a solo mum (who didn’t have custody of her daughter) after one of my wife’s daughters was moved to help someone in a tough spot. The solo is her ex’s step daughter so was related in a flimsy way. Wife and I spent a lot of time and money on said solo, she had her own room in our house, use of a modern car (which she crashed and left filthy) and we even bought another house so solo could have her own space as a tenant.

    The father of solo’s daughter was a decent bloke and wife especially helped them through the family court process to keep solo’s birth mum from getting day to day care (the kid’s father wanted it). Solo’s mum was and remains a piece of work just like her daughter. Initially the family Court took the solo’s mum at face value and the judge even said he understood because he was a grandparent too. The fact that she was shown to be dodgy and a proven liar was ignored. The govt agency that looks after vulnerable children was in court as well and waved a bit of paper about that, they said, was a statement that the child’s dad had sexually assaulted an old girlfriend. That was the nail in Dad’s coffin of course.

    Solo’s mum got day to day care. My wife was appointed to supervise access of solo and child’s dad to their child. Solo turned out to be a piece of crap with a P habit and I eventually kicked her lying, stealing and filthy arse out. The matter subsequently went back to court and judge saw that he’d been duped. Wife was then able to paint an accurate picture of solo and her mum as the crap they are. Child’s dad had meanwhile sued the govt agency that claimed he had assaulted someone.

    Now the good bits that arose after child’s dad sued the govt agency.

    – The allegation of the assault was a malicious and deliberate fabrication by the govt agency intended to prevent him having access to his child. The piece of paper waved about in court had writing on it but no one actually looked at it – it would have been immediately seen as bogus had anyone done so. A complete bluff by the govt agency.
    – He now has custody of his child.
    – His law suit was settled before it went to court (I don’t know how much exactly but it was tens of thousands of dollars).

    It was an expensive and interesting exercise that taught wife some lessons about compassion but with open eyes. It was great to wake up the morning after I intercepted solo in our car and took the keys off her leaving her on the roadside – we had our family and home back. We did get a visit from the cops subsequently (2am, dog handler present) looking for solo as our address was her last known to them. All a bit tense until I explained. A bit later again, a Sunday as we were driving to church, armed cops were about a short distance from home and they were after an armed gang member and friend. Friend was solo as it turned out.

    The exercise also confirmed my views on the inherent deviousness of the legal system and inherent prejudice against men in such cases. It also taught my wife’s daughters to think about bringing home strays they feel sorry for although the others (previous to this) had turned out fine and were better off for our support.

    I’m out of pocket $4,000 from damage caused, wife lots of time and leave from work but truth prevailed.