Decisions are pre-determined in New Zealand Family court – convince me NOT?

Rules 13.2.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008

A lawyer must not discuss any case or matter before the court with any judicial officer involved in the proceeding either formally or informally outside of the rules of procedure that permit matters to be raised in the absence of the other party (such as in cases of urgency or where an ex parte application is justified). In cases of doubt, the lawyers for other parties (or if a party is not represented, then the party concerned) should be informed of any matters being brought before the court

Is this really happening in New Zealand Family Court ?

I hear it very often from the majority of the parents who attend family court hearings, that lawyers meet prior the court hearing commencement and plan how the case will progress and what is the decision. Then they apply some tactics and ploys to go ahead with their agenda. The lawyers and Judges pretend that they havent made a decision about the proceedings and that at the end of the hearing the decision will be determined

The issue of pre-determined decisions in the New Zealand Family Court is a serious concern that undermines the principles of justice and fairness. While Rule 13.2.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 explicitly prohibits lawyers from discussing cases with judicial officers outside of formal procedures, there are widespread allegations suggesting that such practices may be occurring.

Despite the rules in place to prevent such conduct, there is a pervasive belief among many parents involved in family court proceedings that decisions are pre-determined. This belief is often fueled by the observed behavior of lawyers and judges, who are perceived to meet prior to hearings to plan the progression of cases and outcomes.

Such practices erode public trust in the judicial system and raise serious questions about the integrity of court proceedings. When decisions appear to be pre-determined, it undermines the fundamental principles of impartiality, fairness, and due process. It also deprives parties of their right to a fair hearing and a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

The perception of pre-determined decisions not only damages the credibility of the family court but also contributes to increased stress and frustration among litigants, who may feel powerless in the face of what they perceive as a rigged system. This perception can have far-reaching consequences, impacting individuals’ confidence in the legal system and their willingness to seek justice through legitimate channels.

Addressing this issue requires a commitment to upholding the rule of law, transparency, and accountability within the family court system. It necessitates thorough investigation and enforcement of existing rules and regulations governing lawyer conduct, as well as measures to ensure judicial independence and impartiality. Additionally, greater transparency and oversight mechanisms may be needed to restore public trust and confidence in the family court process.

Please leave a comment, if you are a parent who have observed such horrible conduct by Judges and lawyers.



Be the first to know when NEW articles / posts / stories / surveys are published

We don’t spam or share your email address with anyone - We just want to keep you posted

Sharing is caring
5 1 vote
Rate this post
Send me notifications about new comments/responses
Notify of
4 Comments - (Freedom of speech applies - keep it clean)
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ve witnessed this in the very courtroom between a resident New Plymouth Judge and Lawyer. Judge: “Ms. **** please stay behind as I wish to talk to you. Mr **** This is about a different case, I do not want you to think that there is some kind of old boys club happening”.

Not only are they corrupt, they are friggin patronising about it!

This is in addition to many times being sat in the Court waiting room and hearing FC lawyers openly discuss other cases with each other.


If this is happening, then those who feel or witness this must come forward en-masse


I believe this for sure.
It’s pre-determined who is in favor.. Legal aid Vs paying.. So wrong. They have no best interest for.the child because if they did. They wouldn’t turn a bind eye at who is the perpetrator and who’s the victim.. There is no real proof needed to up lift a child from there home. When it clearly shows the perpetrator was ay hand and found a loop hole in the system. If the home.wprk.was done would see the victim tryed many times to get help. Only to be failed by the system 2x..

I can only find the 2006 version and there is no such clause about lawyers not discussing the cases. That is what they do. Seems standard OP to discuss and negotiate amongst there fraternity?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x