An interesting Section 59 Story

from www.whaleoil.co.nz

This story will disturb those of you who wrongly believe that no-one will ever be prosecuted with the proposed changes for Section 59.

Someone I know has a 5 year old. The marriage her and her former husband had unfortunately broke up for various reasons when the child was 6 weeks old. Since then for the mother and child dealing with the ex-husband has been an exercise in futility as he obfiscates and hides from his obligations as a father and also from his obligations under the matrimonial property act. He has systematically hidden funds, assets and general burned up all of the cash by smoking large quantities of Methampetamine, so much so that at 40 he is basically a drug ****ed wreck that owns nothing and has nothing. Court Orders mean nothing to this man, he has had court orders stopping him from disposing of assets and yet he does so, he has court orders stipulating access and yet he ignores them and don't even start on the amount of money he has paid for the upkeepand education of his child....zero is pretty much close to his contribution so far.

Despite all of this the mother has tried to maintain some connection for the child with this wreck of a human. But recently he even ****ed that up. The mother recieved a phone call from the lawyer of the child asking that the child be taken to CYF for an interview. Now most caring parents would immediately panic upon hearing that. The mother asked why?

It seems that there have been 10 domestic violence incidents over time between the father of the child and his partner the latest being last week and when the police arrived they found the child there as the "incident" was going on. The Police dealth with the incident and then as required to by law informed CYF of the prescence of a child during a domestic disturbance. 

Now this is where it gets interesting.

CYF interviewed the child and then the mother. CYF basically used the interview as a fishing expedition and confronted the mother with the fact that the child "disclosed" to them that the child was smacked by her mother. They informed the mother that they took a dim view of that sort of behaviour and would duly note that in the records they were now keeping about the child and family. Bear in mind that CYF asked for the interview to ascertain about the safety of the child at the fathers house. They now have recorded in their file that the mother has smacked the child, something that they take a dim view of. Now also bear in mind that they took the time to lecture the mother when it was the father they were investigating.

CYF clearly, from the interview, thought the child is in danger at the fathers resisdence and immediately applied to the court to cancel the existing access arrangements. This was granted forthwith by the judge.

This story should scare you. Firstly because it proves the truth of Clark's and Bradford's stements that the police will not prosecute....no problems there, the problems however start when the Police, as required by law, inform CYF. CYF are a law unto their own. The fact that in this case they were acting to protect a child was admirable, but quickly went south after that. Their powers to detain children and question adults actually exceed the Police's own powers and that is the truly scary part.

This law, the repeal of Section 569 should be feared by every parent for exactly the reasons stated above. This storty is true but because of Family Court provisions and the sensitivity of dealing woth drug fuelled fools I cannot identify the participants.