Butterworths Family Law Journal 4(12) December 2004 : 299-312

This 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.