Head of Child, Youth and Family, Ray Smith's comments are shown in italics. Celia Lashlie's responses are shown below his.
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.
I have not at any time suggested I am the only one who cares. To the contrary I am constantly being made aware through my work of the many wonderful people in communities across New Zealand who are doing truly magical work in the lives of at-risk children. I am not working solely to provide help to ex-prisoners nor am I coming from the perspective of parents. I have been working in NZ communities for 11 years since leaving Christchurch Women’s Prison. I am guided in my work by my belief in the magic contained within every child born in this country and the responsibility of the adults that surround those children to ensure that magic is released.
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.
I have no argument with this statement. The challenge sits within the definition of serious harm. In the case of Jane and her two small children, I have watched as over and over again the children’s needs and the love they feel for their mother and their siblings, love that is strongly reciprocated, has been pushed aside in the interests of CYF pursuing the path they have decided is the right one.
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.
I am working with a number of women. My concern with some of the practices I have observed within CYF is the degree to which the women are unfairly judged and their importance in the lives of their children is ignored and/or constantly undermined.
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.
The unbridled power comes in the form of deciding to change access arrangements on the basis of a 30 minute visit by a psychologist. It comes in the way in which women are judged and dismissed, their opinions and concerns about their children in care going unanswered. It comes in the form of a statement made by a Social Worker in a meeting held recently, that ‘the Ministry had decided to proceed with taking - into permanent care’. Where in this statement is the recognition that the Family Court makes the final decision? Shouldn’t the statement have been that ‘the Ministry had decided to proceed with an application to the Family Court to have - placed in permanent care’.
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.
I have not mentioned the case of this woman in my book. While I have considerable concern about the judgemental attitude of many CYF staff involved in this case and their apparent inability to recognise the extraordinary progress this woman has made, it is a case that sits apart because of the history involved.
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.
The older child was born in 2001, the younger child in 2006, something that makes a nonsense of the statement that the wellbeing of these children has been of concern since 2000. That there were safety concerns at the time the children were uplifted is not disputed. I have been told by a CYF Manager in a face to face discussion that he accepts from the moment children are uplifted, it is the agency’s responsibility to begin the journey of returning them to their family if at all possible. That has not happened in this and no doubt many other cases, the eyes of CYF apparently being on permanency as the preferred option.
That Jane has a history with CYF is not disputed. Two things that need to be added into the mix: – the degree to which Jane has learned from past experience and wants to make the lives of her two youngest children different; and, the damage CYF has done both in Jane’s early life and in the lives of her older children, particularly her oldest son. The statement about being involved for nearly 19 years is obviously intended to convey a sense of the hopelessness of Jane, another moment of judgement.
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.
Many of these initiatives have proven to be of the ‘tick the box’ kind. As just one example, Jane completed a parenting programme and took immense pride in doing so. (She was able to do so only because of the logistical support offered by Alison, something CYF was not really interested in assisting with.) A comprehensive report was prepared at the end of the programme detailing the next steps that should be taken, recommendations Jane was fully supportive of and keen to proceed with. There has been no follow-up at all from that report.
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.
There is only one adult involved, it is Jane. She is the children’s mother and after a history with CYF as child that left her badly damaged, she has done a great deal of growing up. There is no ability within CYF to recognise her level of growth and therein lies the problem. On a personal note I am left wondering if the statement above could be any more patronising and judgemental.
In some regards, the children are thriving, but in others they are not. They are definitely being well cared for in a physical sense, but they are also confused by the ever-changing arrangements about access and by the need for a tracker to be present. They yearn to see their older siblings more than they do and have a clear sense of who their real family is. Their faces at the end of access visits often reveal a deep sadness and a complete lack of understanding about why they can’t be with their Mum, whom they love deeply and have a deep connection to.
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.
Another statement that registers extremely highly on the patronising scale. It is not her life she wants to improve; it is the lives of her two small children.
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.
There are many many choices that Jane didn’t make as a child, a child who was entrusted into the care of CYF, and it is those choices that have made her who she is. Over recent years she has slowly but surely crawled out of the trough those childhood experiences left her in and she now wants to develop the skills to parent her younger children well and break the cycle. It is a point of ongoing sadness for Alison and I that CYF staff seem unable to recognise the ever-increasing strength and determination within this woman.
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.
The implication in this paragraph is that Jane has ‘badly abused’ her children. She has not.
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.
Jane was on the verge of having overnight visits with her children with a view to them eventually returning home when the report written by the psychologist who had paid a 30 minute visit to Jane’s home during an access visit was received. How can it be that a report based on such limited observation can be given such validity, have such a negative impact and be allowed to create the spiral of despair Jane has struggled to climb back out of?
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 claims I have made are based on what I have seen, heard and been directly involved in. I consider much of the behaviour I have observed to be exactly as quoted here, behaviour that is arrogant and that sees staff acting with impunity. I consider many of the actions taken by CYF during the time I have been involved with Jane and her children have placed the future of the two children severely at risk, risk that will start to manifest as the children reach adolescence.
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.
There is no question there are many CYF staff who do great work, this often despite the limitations of the system. There are many staff who go well beyond the requirements of their job description in trying to do the best for the children they are working on behalf of. None of this changes the fact that I have been witness to moments of abject cruelty perpetuated by Social Workers who should know better and who should always remain mindful that while Jane may not be the perfect mother, she is the mother of the two small children at the centre of this circle. It will only be in that relationship being honoured and worked with that these two children will be able to reach their full potential.
In terms of me not having approached Ray Smith personally, I have to ask why I would consider doing so when email after email to CYF has gone unanswered since August 2009, emails that have been copied to relevant CYF Managers. If a CYF Regional Operations Manager and a CYF Regional Manager don’t deem it necessary to respond to me, why would I believe Ray would be interested in hearing from me?
I included the relevant Regional Manager in an email I sent on Friday 9 October 2009 and never received a reply or even an acknowledgement from him. Perhaps Ray needs to be discussing the situation in a little more depth with his managers.
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 child/ren 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.
Agreed, but this doesn’t alter the reality of what I am observing in Jane’s case. Nor does it excuse cruel and arrogant behaviour by trained Social Workers who should know better.
Ms Lashlie uses extreme and historic cases like Maka Renata and Bailey Kurariki 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.
Many children who have been in foster care lose themselves and their sense of really belonging anywhere and end up in prison wings, something we all need to come to understand, a reality we need to begin to work more effectively with.
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.
At no point do I suggest Maka and BJ are representative cases, but they are cases in which CYF played a major negative role and there are lessons to be learned, lessons that should be informing the work being done today with at-risk children. Making a public apology doesn’t mean anything if practice doesn’t change as a result.
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".
It is the truth I’ve observed in my work across recent years. I am speaking solely from personal experience.
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.
Yes CYF does have to make tough calls. That reality does not excuse the cruelty being administered to Jane, a CYF child herself, nor the lack of recognition of the important role she plays, and will go on playing, in the lives of her two small children.
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”.
It is not true to suggest the request for Jane to have her children in her home for a birthday celebration in August 2008 was made two days beforehand. The Social Worker was kept fully informed of the process Jane and Alison were following to get a house to rent and of Jane’s desire to have a birthday celebration with her children once she had obtained a house. The house was secured on Friday 8 August 2008 and the Social Worker was informed the following week that Jane would be moving in on Saturday 23 August 2008, making it clear she wanted to hold the birthday celebration on Thursday 28 August 2008, The Social Worker waited until the morning of Wednesday 27 August 2008 to inform Jane that the birthday celebration would not be going ahead. Note: At this point there was still time to do the required house inspection.
Subsequent birthdays have not been managed at all well. In 2009 numerous emails were necessary before the very barest of contact was permitted on the two birthdays while in 2010 Jane began to work with CYF in June, a full two months before the birthdays, in order to ensure things happened in the way she wanted. Despite her pro-active efforts, she was again denied the chance to have a family celebration with her children on one of their birthdays, this despite it being acknowledged as a great idea when she first raised it with her assigned Social Worker at the June meeting.
Jane has, in recent weeks, had to look into the eyes of her small child as the child uttered the words ‘I want you come to my birthday party’, unable to do anything in response except to lean forward and kiss the child on the forehead. While Jane knows she has done her best to have a family birthday party for her child, the child will undoubtedly believe, despite what anyone says from this point, that their mother just didn’t care enough to be there.
"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.
Jane is able to clearly recall being raped as a 5 year old while in the home of a CYF carer, her younger sister lying on the bunk above her. It happened on more than one occasion.
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”.
We, Alison and I, are not unsure of the length of the visit as Alison was present and made a note at the time of the visit’s duration. The length of the visit has never been contested in any subsequent discussion on the topic. The question of whether the children should be returned to Jane is not the matter at issue here. On the basis of a 30 minute visit that included 10 minutes ‘chatting’ to Jane at the gate, a psychologist made the written statement that Jane was unable to bond with her child and as a result of the concerns expressed, all access visits have had to be supervised from that time.
The blow delivered to Jane by that decision was immense, all the more so because it was made just after she had successfully completed the parenting course mentioned earlier and had begun to believe she just might be able to be the mother she yearned to be for her children.
Whatever conclusions the second assessment reaches, and we have yet to prepare a challenge to some of the conclusions drawn, the fact remains the first report was not completed in a professional way and it should not still be in existence. Nor should the decisions made on the basis of the opinions it contains be considered valid, yet they still continue to drive decisions around access conditions.