well that's bloody great! even he has no faith in the courts. so where are we meant to go??
What he is saying is; resolve your disputes out- side the court- use the court as a last resort- because you may not like the outcome of the court.People (and their lawyers) have a very distorted view of the Family Court. The Family Court is a court of structured legal statute. It is not a social institute. It is a legal institute. It is not there to fix your social issues you have with your ex over your kids. It’s all about the ‘legals’. It is an adversary institute that you have a 50/50 playing field in. And a win-lose situation. There are only two reasons in this system that can use to stop parental contact- sexual abuse and physical abuse (some argue psychological abuse, but this is hard to prove and Judge’s only accept it on a bases of name call, belittling, and verbal abuse/defamatory comments). Emma Smith, Coyle and Flatley provided recently that even sexual abuse is not enough of an excuse!I have case law on a guy who spent time in prison on an attempted murder charge, the Judge talked about it in the judgement, but the father still got access every second weekend and school holidays. That’s why I was not at all surprised over the recent case of a murderer walking out of jail and getting custody of a child (CYFS blackmail issue, and privacy breach).Kyle Chapman outspoken right wing political activist, still has his kids every second weekend and school holidays (first marriage). People don’t understand, Judges do not care about parents whinging over …’he smokes round the kids, she drinks around the kids, I hate his girlfriend, I hate her boyfriend, why should the kids go there when he goes to work and someone else looks after the kids, she lies, he lies, the kids come back dirty, he calls me a witch, she calls me an asshole, I don’t like their parenting style'….news flash, there is NOT an argument/mud match that a Family Court Judge has not heard before. That’s why Ryan says ‘last resort’ because the Family Court will not rule in favour of your social issues. They will rule in parent-child contact, and that’s why there are so many dissatisfied consumers (their social issues remain un-resolved) AND that’s why dispute resolution is better. Because a dispute resolution person will have a better understanding of the social issues- It’s a form of counselling, they will resolve your social issues!!! Not a JUDGE in a court of LAW.
I should also point out. That one of the reasons parents now days struggle to get the courts to listen to them is because so many parents before them have lied to the courts. The sexual abuse cases above, I believe ended badly as a result of so many (and mainly mothers) lying to the courts in the past about abuse that the courts now take a VERY cautious view of any allegations. It is the Family Court who get the most public scrutiny when they get it wrong and so they take a cautious approach. In the back of every Judges mind is 'if these allegations are false, then its my public reputation on the line'. AND IT IS, certainly if they are wrong.
How can a court of law give custody of children to murderers?
Because the care of child act states that the behaviour of the parent only goes to the extent of its impact on the child (the law). Which means, as long as these 'murders' didn't murder a child then it is fine- for them to have un-supervised access and even custody.But if you take case's of parental alienation which are a maximum and direct impact on a child (as a child is subjected to manipulation by one parent and loss of their other parent)Judges act more severely in them now days (reversal of custody in some cases)- as this is a form of child abuse (law) and emotional abuse of a child (psychological impact)defined in NZ case law from Judge Jane McMeeken- who I am starting to like!
has old judge ryan written back to you yet?
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.