By
Ray Smith, Head of Child, Youth and Family.
I respect Celia
Lashlie and the help she is providing to ex-prisoners. Her advocacy work means she is coming from
the perspective of the parents she represents but she is not the only one that
cares.
Child, Youth and
Family is required by law to put the interests of the child or young person
first. Everyday our social workers are
working with families, where children and young people are at risk of serious
harm or violence. Their job is to fully
understand all the things going on for these youngsters and identify the best
ways of keeping them safe.
Celia Lashlie is
working with two women who have extensive histories with us and in whose lives
she believes we are unjustly interfering. This appears to be the genesis
of her beef with CYF.
What is very
important to remember here is that we don't act alone in these situations.
We don't have "unbridled power" at all. We work with the Family
Court which finally determines whether a child should be permanently removed
from parents, and which is empowered to determine whether, in the event of
a dispute, a temporary removal of a child is justified. The court is also
involved in approving access and supervision arrangements for parents.
Psychologists
and independent lawyers appointed to represent the child, are also
involved. Importantly, so are extended family members throughout the
Family Group Conference process. There are many checks and balances, as well as
avenues for complaint and appeal independent of CYF.
A child in
one of these women's care was horrifically abused and then killed.
The mother was convicted of manslaughter.
Because of this history, we have taken a
cautious approach in regard to her access to, and supervision of, a new
child. We stand by our actions.
CYF has been
involved with “Jane's” children, for nearly 19 years. From
2000 there have been ongoing concerns for the wellbeing and safety of the two
youngest children.
Every effort has
been made to keep this family together with Family Whanau Agreements, Family
Group Conferences and Strengthening Families Meetings to assist in promoting
change for the family as well as ensuring extensive community supports have
been put in place - these included ACC counselling for “Jane” and the
involvement of a Family Support Agency, couple counselling, use of a health
camp and parenting programmes.
In 2008, after
all else had been exhausted, the two children were taken into care. These kids are now thriving and are happy in
their new foster family. Our view after
many years trying to help these adults to be parents is that these children are
better off being permanently placed with this foster family.
The mother will
continue to be able to visit and spend time with the children if they are
permanently placed with their current caregivers - as long as this poses no
risks to the children.
This process
must be very difficult for the mother. I’m pleased she has people
willing to support her and wants to improve her own life.
But because of
choices “Jane” has made in her life we now have to decide what's in the
children’s best interests and make recommendations to the Family Court, which
will have the final say. We're focused on the children - as we are
legally required to do - and we're not prepared to gamble with their
safety.
It is
devastating for children to be separated from their parents, even when they
have been very badly abused. This is why we are very focused
on the need to keep them in contact with their parents where possible -
and to place them with, or keep them in regular contact with, extended family.
If a child has
to be removed from their parents however, research shows that lengthy
periods of uncertainty over their future creates more problems. It
is not ideal to keep them "in limbo" for long periods. Every
child needs a nurturing home they can call their own and where they can
build attachments. If they can’t live
with their parents, our job is to find a family where they can have a home.
The
sensationalist claims being made by Celia Lashlie are simply wrong. Her accusation that we act with “arrogance
and impunity” and that we are destroying families and putting children at risk
is untrue.
The sweeping
accusations Celia Lashlie has made are deeply disappointing and quite unfair to
the staff of CYF who work with children and families to help keep them
safe. Ms Lashlie has never approached me
personally to discuss them, which I would have welcomed.
We currently
receive about 125,000 notifications a year.
Last year we involved ourselves directly in the lives of just over
20,000 families because of serious concerns raised about children.
In the vast
majority of cases we worked with the families to keep the children safe. Last year just 1,307 children were removed
from their families. We don't
take that decision lightly. We are
often criticised for not having removed children in some instances as well.
Social workers
operate with great courage and compassion often in very difficult environments
and are dedicated to helping our most vulnerable children and young
people.
They might not get everything right all of the time, but in my experience they throw their hearts into trying to help families day-in and day-out.
Ms Lashlie uses extreme and historic cases like Maka Renata and Bailey Kuariki as an example of CYF failure and to create an impression they are representative of children in CYF care. They are not and the comparison is unjust.
Almost all of the kids in our care are brave and determined, despite the set-backs they have endured - which can include being labelled "CYF kids". The vast majority do not go out and hurt others, they go on to be decent members of society.
These cases date back to 1999 and 2001 respectively. We accept that we should have done better with these young people, who were also let down by their families, and we publically apologised to Maka Renata in 1999.
It's just not true to suggest we're ripping children out of their homes and planting them in so-called "nice middle-class families".
In the 2009/10 year about 3,300 children and young people lived with extended family/whanau or with foster carers at any one time. Of this group about 1,700 – just over half – were living with extended family or whanau.
If we need to remove a child from their parents, the first thing our social workers do is to try and find extended family members to take them into their homes. It is only when we can't find a home within the extended family that they will be placed with non-family.
We have to make some of the toughest judgement calls of any agency I know. We have to enter families' homes and lives, often in distressing circumstances and make some very difficult calls.
Birthday Visit.
In 2008 we could have communicated better with “Jane” over her wish to have her children in her home to mark their birthdays. The request was made two days beforehand. She was however able to visit the children. We have endeavoured to ensure subsequent birthdays have been well-managed in terms of access for “Jane”.
“Jane was put in state care and raped as a 14 year-old.”
We have one record which shows that “Jane” reported she had been raped during a period when she was living with her mother.
Psychologist Visit.
We are unsure of the length of the visit which we assume relates to an assessment in August 2009. Ms Lashlie raised concerns about this assessment which was for one child only. As a result a further independent psychological assessment was completed in March 2010 for the other child. It too concluded the children should not be returned to “Jane”.
Number of children in permanent care.
In the two years to June 2010, 389 children were given a ‘home for life’ with foster carers and people within their own (extended) family. In the year ending June 2010 199 children and young people were legally adopted in New Zealand.
Further information:
The front page of CYF's website has links to two recent documents which may be of interest. One is the recently released Why You Should Care document, which provides figures and details and children in care and our practice.
The second relates to Home for Life, which details our new permanency package.