Background
We recently concluded a nine-year, Family Court consultancy engagement. This assignment was arduous and very demanding, in terms of both the level of professionalism required in relation to our many Court filings and attendances, and in terms our moral and ethical fortitude.
Throughout the final six years of the engagement, we represented our client entirely without the involvement of a lawyer. (We have learned that most lawyers are over-rated in any event!). Thus, our role included all functions normally undertaken by an attending lawyer; preparing and filing many Memoranda, Affidavits, Interlocutory Applications, Submissions, and attendance at Court Hearings and other fixtures.
That the professionalism of the many and various documents we filed, is at least equal to, in some instances superior to similar documents filed by lawyers, is something we are extremely proud of.
Whilst our knowledge of Family Court procedures and rules, per se’, is surely inferior to most lawyers practicing in the Family Court, we are confident that in relation to the many occasions we represented our client in Court, in person, the ultimate result was not compromised by our lack of knowledge.
In fact, we quickly learned that as non-lawyers (not members of the New Zealand Law Society), we are able to escape judicial disciplinary action resulting from our deliberate aggression, lack of knowledge of the rules, non-compliance with those rules, and plain old Kiwi street-fighting cheek and scrapping (something we are proudly adept at). In comparison, a practicing lawyer (a member of the Law Society) would surely have been subject to judicial disciplinary action, had he or she adopted a similar approach.
We quickly learned to be assertive when dealing with Family Court judges. Frankly, from our experience, all Family Court judges are aggressively anti-father, and when it suits their agenda – which invariably is to rid themselves of the father, thereby giving full control to the mother – they manipulate the law, or totally ignore it.
In the Family Court, there is no automatic pari-passu (on equal footing) treatment of the father, in comparison with the mother. Indeed, unless the father fights most aggressively – though professionally and with respect for the flawed and biased system (an ambitious aim, given that the system despises fathers) – the father has little chance of success.
In mid-2023, we were invited to contribute a Paper to a filing in the United Nations, which comprises a lengthy complaint about the New Zealand Family Court. We are very proud of our contribution to this worthy and justified Paper, on behalf of our client discussed above.
The Hawkes Bay Family Court operatives whom people must protect themselves against:
As a result of our arduous nine-year engagement, we can without any exaggeration whatsoever, inform the public and our prospective clients, that within the Hawkes Bay Family Court system, there are currently three (probably more) destructive, dangerously anti-father operatives.
Our clients need protecting from these three despicable people:
Alison Souness, partner in the Hastings firm, Souness Stone, whom is frequently appointed by the Court as lawyer for child. (In actual fact, there is no such appointee as lawyer for child. In every case we have examined, the Court appointed lawyer for child is de-facto second counsel for the mother).
Souness hates fathers. It is that simple. She is fundamentally incapable of treating the mother and father pari-passu, of acting with impartiality. She has caused immeasurable harm to many fathers, and by extension to their children.
Souness’ conduct could justifiably be described as corrupt, to the extent that she elects not to inform the presiding judge of a mother’s misdemeanours, of her non-compliance, though viciously attacks the father in relation to the most minor items of non-compliance. She twists the truth to suit her agenda – which is without exception to rid the Court and the mother of the unfortunate (and often traumatised) father.
Souness has a huge ego, despises the father questioning her, debating issues with her.
Souness has a pathological desire to make fathers subject to a protection order. In this regard, she clearly operates in tandem with the applicant mother and her lawyer, and with the presiding judge – whom almost without exception, makes the father subject to a protection order, irrespective of requirement or merit, if a protection order is recommended by Souness.
Once subject to a protection order, a father is almost powerless, and in almost all instances, unable to visit his child/ children, unless supervised by a recognised provider. That most accredited supervisors are also anti-father, compounds the father’s already tragic circumstances.
Indeed, Souness’ acts of evil are not confined to the Court, per se’. She is known to have hijacked the relationship between the father and the supervisor (which, sadly, is not overly difficult, given that supervisors are generally easily manipulated by the Court and its agents), to the extent that the father is thereafter banned from even supervised visits with his dear child.
Souness’ title should not be “lawyer for child”. It should in fact be “second counsel for the mother”, because by way of her general conduct, and the aggressive anti-father advice she proffers the Court, that indeed is what she is.
That protection orders are frighteningly widely used by mothers as a weapon, as a “sword, not a shield” is widely known by judges; yet they generally allow the mother to act with impunity.
Frankly, we would advise a father client to apply for a protection order against the mother, at the earliest possible juncture – regardless of merit – because that is what mothers do to fathers.
Of profound concern, Souness is dangerously close to the Hawkes Bay Family Court judges, twisting their views of the father. Almost without exception, the Judge rules in total accord with Souness’ recommendations – which almost without exception, render the child fatherless.
What should be of concern to the tax-payer, is that Souness is one of the many lawyers on the tax-payer funded gravy train – though in her case, more so than in relation to most of her colleagues. The tax-payer pays Souness for every hour she bills as lawyer for child. This would appear to incentivise her to prolong the proceedings – which she clearly does, generally in tandem with the lawyer acting for the mother.
Under the rules, only the presiding Judge may complain about a lawyer for child, may motivate disciplinary action against him or her. Of course, once an aggrieved father complains to the Judge about the lawyer for child, he is further targeted as troublesome by that Judge – which perversely only strengthens the tandem argument of both the lawyer for child and Judge, to retain the weaponised and corrupted protection order.
Nor is the Law Society enabled to take disciplinary action against a lawyer for child – because it is the Judge’s role to to do.
With obvious delight and zeal, Souness leverages off this bizarre and grossly unfair protection afforded to her by the Family Court system.
As lawyer for child, Souness interviews fathers in her Hastings office. In addition to behaving with arrogance and high-handedness in these interviews, she practices trickery and entrapment. Worse still, when Souness reports her interview findings to the Court, she lies. We therefore would advise interviewees to secretly record interviews (arguably unlawful).
Souness is evil. It as simple as that.
Zelda Tope, principal of the Hastings Firm, Tope Law, whom throughout the period of our engagement, acted for several applicant mothers in the Hastings Family Court.
Notwithstanding that Tope is entitled to apply Law Society and Court rules for the optimal advantage of her clients, she is also required, whilst practicing within the Family Court, to prioritise the subject child’s wellbeing.
Frankly, Tope does not care about the dear child unfortunate enough to be the subject of Family Court proceedings. Tope cares only about winning, at any and all cost – regardless of Law Society and Family Court rules. (Unfortunately, nothing more can be disclosed in this domain, due to Family Court and Law Society suppression restrictions).
Tope adopts every conceivable trick for the purpose of obfuscating, confusing, frustrating the Court and the father, and delaying the underlying proceedings. (By way of example, the nine-year duration proceedings referred to, were long – even by the standard of the dysfunctional New Zealand Family Court – mainly because of the various acts of obfuscation and delay adopted by Tope).
Tope’s client, the mother, in relation to the nine-year battle we just concluded, was legally aided throughout. It is extremely rare for the Legal Services Agency (the tax-payer funded legal aid provider) to cease, or restrict legal aid funding for a mother in respect of Family Court proceedings, even if in receipt of evidence of wrongdoing in relation to legal aid claimed. (Family Court suppression exists in this instance).
The extent to which a legally aided mother and her (immoral and unscrupulous) lawyer can, in tandem, extract huge sums of money of legal aid, should be of concern to all tax-payers, and all citizens concerned about justice.
Therefore – as with Souness – Tope has every incentive to prolong the legal aid funded proceedings – which it certainly appears she has done.
In many, or most cases, the father involved in Family Court proceedings is not legally aided. Or his legal aid funding ceases at a juncture whereby he is considered troublesome, or vexatious – labels frequently pinned on fathers for simply fighting for their children; conduct which in most other forums throughout the world would be considered noble, yet which in the New Zealand Family Court is criticised and condemned, to the extent of the Court often forbidding future bona fide applications from the father.
This approach from the Court, alongside the endless legal aid funding for the mother, often disables the father at a crucial latter juncture in the proceedings, because at this point, he is often impoverished and exhausted – surely the condition in which the Family Court wants him.
Tope cleverly leverages off this anti-father bias, for the benefit of her client – though with no concern for the wellbeing of the child.
Tope is a despicable practitioner of the law, because her conduct in relation to her Family Court representation is profoundly immoral, entirely lacking any concern whatsoever for the child. She is also, frankly, profoundly unprofessional – particularly with regard to the outrageous legal aid sums she is strangely able to claim. (Again, Family Court suppression prevails).
Also of grave concern is that the proximity of Tope, to Souness appears to be dangerously close. There is strong evidence that the two work in tandem against the father.
Judge Jaqui Blake was appointed to the Hawkes Bay Family Court in 2022, following a long stint as lawyer for child (that is reason enough for concern!) in the Gisborne Family Court.
Blake clearly hates fathers as much as does Souness. She also has an ego as large as Souness’, and therefore enjoys censoring and criticising fathers who have the audacity and intelligence to debate her. (Many have greater intelligence than Blake).
In the short period Blake has been on the Family Court bench, she has earned the widely known nickname of “Wacky Jaqui”, such is her pathological hatred of fathers, her illogical rulings, her frighteningly contrary moods, her general volatility, and – frankly – her stupidity (she is thick).
Blake’s application of the law and Family Court rules is as selective and non pari-passu as Souness’. She refuses most father driven applications – regardless of their merit and compliance – whilst allowing most mother driven applications – regardless of their lack of merit and non-compliance. Of course, such frivolous and dishonest applications need only to be endorsed by Souness, to be accepted by Blake.
It is clear that Blake – not the most intelligent of Judges (though the bar is set quite low in respect of District Court judges!) – was prematurely promoted from her role as lawyer for child (a role requiring very little intelligence indeed) – at the expense of Hawkes Bay fathers unlucky enough to appear in her Court.
From our experience, Blake – as do most Family Court judges – allows the mother to behave with total impunity with regard to misdemeanours, misrepresentations made to the Court, and every act of trickery imaginable for the purpose of depriving her child of the father.
On several occasions, we witnessed Blake’s frightening refusal to hold mothers to account, at the traumatic expense of fathers.
We assisted a father with his application to Blake, for removal of an unjustified protection order which – as usually occurs – was being used as a weapon against the father, to deprive him of his children.
In this instance, the father had several times spent a night in a Hastings police cell, because of entirely fictitious accusations made by the clearly unstable mother.
On each occasion, the father was ultimately able to have the charges dropped. However, Blake was entirely disinterested in holding the mother to account. Bizarrely, she argued that the father’s persistence in terms of his efforts to have the charges dropped, was reason for retention of the (weaponised) protection order!
Does judicial bias get any worse?!
Blake greatly enjoys loading costs awards on fathers, whom are frequently self-funded. Conversely, in most cases, the subject mother is legally aided – thus funded almost without limit, by the tax-payer.
Blake is entirely disinterested in analysis of the fairness and need for a protection order – which in most contentious Family Court proceedings is loaded against the unfortunate father, for no valid reason whatsoever. The placement of a protection order against a father, generally follows a Hollywood Oscar worthy display from the mother, whose opponent father has caused no harm whatsoever to the mother or child, except for the usual aggravation inherent in the worthy and admirable fight to simply be a father.
Clearly, Blake’s modus operandi mirrors Souness’; to as quickly as possible rid the Court of the father – thereby also rendering the dear child fatherless.
Blake whakapapas to the Mahia rohe of northern Hawkes Bay. Her extended whanau are truly wonderful people, whom – like most Maori – treasure tamariki and the family unit. It is very sad that in this regard, Blake is so unalike her fine extended family members.
Frankly Blake is both incompetent, and pathologically anti-father.
She also arrogantly ignores actual and potential conflicts of interest.
In many instances, a judge as stupid as Blake is not particularly difficult to beat. However, unfortunately Family Court judges make their own rules on the fly, manipulating, even ignoring rules prescribed by the Acts, and their own Court, almost always in favour of the mother.
The Hawkes Bay Judicial Roll of Dishonour:
The Hastings and Napier District Courts – which the Family Courts are a branch of – have a shameful “Roll of Dishonour”; a list of seriously errant judges whom in the past three years have been exposed by the media. (Unusually, in these instances, mainstream media displayed objectivity and professionalism).
This Roll of Dishonour – apparently longer than in relation to most, if not all other District Court jurisdictions – currently includes:
Tony Lendrum, whose warrant was not renewed by the Chief District Court Judge (he was fired), after only two years on the Hastings and Napier Family Court benches. Lendrum was fired because he was lazy, and because during his short two-year tenure, loaded unfortunate Hawkes Bay fathers with a near record number of protection orders – most of which were entirely unjustified.
Peter Callinicos, whose severe misconduct was widely reported in national media in 2021 and 2022, and whom was the subject of an extremely rare Chief District Court Judge intervention in respect of much publicised proceedings (name suppression applies) which involved Callinicos viciously attacking the defendant and ignoring recognised procedures in relation to his management of the subject trial. The defendant in question – referred to as Mrs P – was convicted of perjury, largely because of Callinicos’s trial mismanagement and undisguised bias against her.
This very sad affair was further heard in the High Court, in December 2023, by Justice Ellis, whom overturned an earlier perjury conviction motivated by Callinicos. In her ruling, Justice Ellis was scathing of Callinicos’s conduct at trial, ruling that “— counsel (for Mrs P’s opponent) and the judge (Callinicos) effectively teamed up against Mrs P”.
Sadly the conduct of Callinicos in this instance, is not uncommon amongst the Hawkes Bay judiciary.
Tony Adeane (deceased) whom retired from the bench – thankfully – 2018, after two years of being permitted to preside over only minor type hearings, such as bail applications, and thank goodness, no jury trials.
Adeane’s demotion resulted primarily from his alarming propensity to deliberately misdirect juries (notwithstanding other appalling behaviour), resulting in many wrongful convictions.
Another probable reason is that two years before his “retirement”, he took the very unusual step of permanently recusing himself from all cases involving the highly respected Napier barrister, Philip Ross, and Mr Ross’ colourful and tenacious client (our client). Adeane had battled in open court with both parties, ultimately electing to wave the white flag, rather than facing further embarrassment resulting from his obvious contempt of both gentlemen, his refusal to simply follow court rules, and his arrogant disrespect of judicial procedures to suit his own bent agenda.
Adeane has caused more damage to innocent people than any other practitioner in New Zealand history. The High Court and Court of Appeal is currently reviewing dozens of Adeane’s jury trial convictions. Resultant acquittals may constitute the largest block of single judge, judicial misconduct related acquittals in New Zealand History.
In light of the discussion above, in relation to recently completed Hawkes Bay Family Court proceedings, the current three judge Roll of Dishonour may conceivably soon expand?
The reason for the above discussion, is to articulate to prospective clients that we are not afraid to confront the current dysfunctional – to some extent, corrupt – Court system, for the benefit of our clients. The Hawkes Bay District Courts (which the Family Courts are a branch of) are known as the “lotto Courts” for a reason.
Indeed, we expect that the content of this page – particularly given its public accessibility – will soon be attacked by the same Court system, and its despicable operatives. For this reason, enjoy it while you can – until some cleverly constructed action requires its removal, because despite its absolute truthfulness, it is an embarrassment to the people it names and shames.