A man has claimed the mother and father named on his birth certificate are not his parents. Photo / 123rf
A man fighting to establish the mother and father named on his birth certificate are not really his parents has claimed he was subjected to hypnotic coercion and his mother was involved in baby-farming organised by eugenicists.
Four courts, including the Supreme Court, have now heard his claims, supported by volumes of material and lengthy submissions described as containing a “far-fetched” narrative, as he has tried to have his parents removed from his birth certificate.
According to court documents, the man alleged his mother, who has name suppression, told him in recent years that in the 1970s she had been involved in a baby farming scheme where she was paid to falsely register “disfigured, disabled, premature, ethnic-minority or otherwise unwanted and abandoned infants” as her natural children.
He claimed she also secretly gave up her own healthy, “selectively-bred, blue-eyed, fair-haired, white-skinned, ethnically-Nordic natural children”, including intentionally inbred children, for paid adoption.
Among his claims, the man alleged it was organised “by the eugenicist community founded by royalist Scots in Dunedin in the early-20th century” and it was “criminally concealed to this day by a large and powerful network of middle-class, white, eugenicist professionals”.
He claimed his mother and her associates earlier subscribed to a “white and female-supremacist eugenicist pagan ideology of hypnosis-enabled vampiric witchcraft”.
The man believed his memory had been selectively edited through hypnotic coercion, he had been hypnotically programmed to appear mentally disordered, and had been trafficked into slavery and sex-trafficking.
He turned to the Family Court in 2024, claiming the mother and father named on his birth certificate were not his biological parents.
The man sought orders requiring his mother to make a statutory declaration, to take a parentage test and for the birth register to be corrected.
The woman gave evidence confirming she was the man’s mother but accepted the identity of his father was not correctly recorded.
The man on the birth certificate, now deceased, was the person to whom she was married at the time, she told the Family Court.
She testified that her son’s application and evidence reflect his current state of mental health.
The Family Court ultimately found there was “a preponderance of evidence” that the woman was his mother and there was no basis upon which his application could succeed, striking it out as an abuse of process.
It further ruled that “at law the father identified on the birth certificate is the child’s guardian”.
The man then turned to the High Court, seeking a judicial review of the Family Court decision.
That court described the man’s statement of claim, a 26-page document, as “tolerably well-written” but “discursive and lurid in its detail”, containing “a far-fetched narrative”.
Among his claims, the man also alleged his mother seriously abused him.
The High Court struck out the man’s application in relation to his mother but did not strike out the proceeding entirely.
Given the “agreement” between the mother and son as to the father recorded on the birth certificate, and because technical difficulties had prevented the son from participating in the earlier Family Court hearing, the High Court stayed the proceeding for one month so he could replead in terms limited to the issue of his father.
However, he did not replead and instead challenged the High Court decision in the Court of Appeal, claiming it was procedurally improper, ultra vires, irrational and infringed on his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
But the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s approach, finding the proceeding was clearly abusive and the strike-out was justified.
The man then turned to the Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
In a decision released on December 23, the senior court noted it had received “a large volume of material maintaining his allegations against [his mother] and reiterating submissions made in the courts below”.
He proposed an appeal that the strike out by the Court of Appeal, and his mother’s permanent name suppression, were “irrational, illegal, procedurally improper and disproportionate”.
The man sought reinstatement of his judicial review proceeding, quashing of the suppression order and costs.
He also applied for leave to present further evidence and to file an amended statement of claim.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court wrote the man’s “long list of allegations” against his mother should not distract from the core issue – whether it was open to the Family Court to prefer the mother’s evidence over her son’s.
“There is no proper basis upon which this court, on a third review, could interfere in that court’s evaluation.
“It follows that it is unnecessary in the interests of justice for this court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.”
The Supreme Court found there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice or any matters of general or public importance, dismissing his application for leave to appeal.
It took the same view as the other courts with respect to the suppression order and declined the man’s additional applications.
The Supreme Court decision noted the man had earlier applied for a rehearing in the Family Court, but after the High Court’s judgment he applied to adjourn that Family Court proceeding.
In granting the adjournment, the Family Court recorded there was consent to remove the named father from the man’s birth certificate, so “the birth certificate can be corrected accordingly”.
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.