000			03176nab a2200349Ia 4500
999			_c2087 _d2087
001			111095
005			20250625151152.0
008			110331s2004 eng
022			_a1350-2778
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aDavis, Wendy _91027
245			_aGender bias, fathers' rights, domestic violence and the Family Court _cDavis, Wendy
260			_c2004
365			_a00 _b0
490	0		_aButterworths Family Law Journal
500			_aButterworths Family Law Journal 4(12) December 2004 : 299-312
520			_aThis article examines the accusations of gender bias in the Family Court in New Zealand. In the 1990s, the most common claim was a gender bias against women; however, more recently the focus has shifted and accusations of a gender bias in favour of women have been increasing in volume. It is claimed that it is too easy for women to attain protection orders; that women gain these orders so as to acquire tactical advantages in custody disputes, and that large numbers of fathers are being deprived of contact with their children. These claims have achieved credibility in the courts despite a lack of quantitative or qualitative research to support them. The author points out that the easy acceptance of fathers' rights discourse, despite a lack of evidence to back up claims, indicates that a traditional bias against women within the justice system is still operating. The introduction of the Domestic Violence Act (1995) was to clarify the definition of domestic violence, and to regulate Judges' scope as to their decision-making. The author highlights that contrary to some claims, it has recently become much harder to obtain a protection order without notice, and in fact, a greater proportion of protection orders applied for without notice are being put on notice by the courts. As for whether women are using protection orders strategically, Judges have been quoted as saying they find this happening; however, the Law Commission found no evidence of this and neither did the Ministry of Justice in their research into the accusations. In addressing whether the legislation destroys relationships between parents and children, the author argues that a continued relationship with a violent parent has costs for the child. The article concludes that fathers' rights groups have influenced the attitudes of Family Courts quite strongly, and they have done so without evidence upon which to base their claims. It recommends that whilst courts and legislation need to change with society, the changes should not be based on one particular interest groups' opinions.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aINTERVENTION _9326
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aLEGISLATION _9346
650	2	7	_2FVC _aOFFENDERS _9413
650	2	7	_aPROTECTION ORDERS _9470
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS _9568
650	2	7	_2FVC _aVICTIMS _9622
650	2	7	_2FVC _aWOMEN _9645
650	2	7	_9431 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _2FVC
650	2	7	_9458 _aPREVENTION _2FVC
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tButterworths Family Law Journal 4(12) December 2004 : 299-312
942			_cARTICLE _2ddc