Esther Wolthers' Story

Updated - November 2005

The Courts have been preventing TV One's CloseUp’s filming of the story from being screened.

Lawyers for TV One have been trying hard in the Courts to have the injunction against screening the programme overturned but court action has so far been unsuccessful.     Getting the truth out to the public is seen by the Wolthers family and their supporters as crucial in helping to bring pressure on the CYFS-Family Court system to do what is best for Esther, allowing her to remain with her mother whom she loves so much.

Esther was made a Ward of the Court by the Family Court judge after Marianne refused to reveal where her daughter was at the last Court meeting which was the 10th of August 2005.

This was to take away her right to remain silent on the grounds that you don’t have to reveal information about close family.

The Family Court judge then told Marianne he would try to organize a High Court hearing that same afternoon, so that he could have Marianne arrested and jailed for contempt of Court if Marianne refused to reveal Esther’s whereabouts again in the High Court.

Marianne did not show up to this hearing and is now in hiding.

 

Esther Wolthers ran away from her CYFS caregiver for the twelfth time, after periodic abuse for three years, and is in hiding with people who love and care for her.     Her 40 sec video reveals a courageous ten year old who knows what she wants - “to be with her Mum” who has always loved and cared for her.

In June 2002, Esther was forcefully uplifted from her mum, Marianne, on the basis of assumptions made by CYFS and false allegations, in this case, by her stepfather and his family.

This occurred after he was handed over to the police by Marianne, because of incest and physical child abuse on HIS OWN CHILDREN and he was found guilty and jailed.

 

Social worker Darren D.

  1. He alone opposed the decisions of both the original and the reconvened FGC (Family Group Conference) that Esther should be returned to the care of her mother.
  2. He entered a record of decisions of the first FGC into Court in which all the decisions he didn’t agree with were either missing or changed to suit his agenda for Esther.
  3. In the Family Court hearings last year it was proven that Darren has made up his mind right from the start to never return Esther.
  4. He decided (in 2002) that Esther should go into permanent care TWO YEARS before the Court decision on a declaration of the need for Care and Protection was made (without good grounds!)
  5. He ignored a straight Court Order from the Family Court Judge, which was to start working on the speedy return of Esther to her mother immediately.
  6. Outside the Court House that same day he told the mother that he would make sure Esther would never return home.     Three years later she was still in the “care” of CYFS!
  7. Darren D stated to Esther that if she ran away again, she would be placed in a secure CYFS unit, and would not be allowed to see her Mum or sister again until she turned 16!

 

Other CYFS social workers

  1. It was proven that one person from CYFS who wrote an affidavit about the mother, and Esther’s supposed need for permanent care, had not met either of them!
  2. HOWEVER, the social worker who handled the case last year spoke favourably of the mother, as did the access coordinator.
  3. The current social worker Anne E stated to Esther a week before the law changed to allow a child of 10 to speak in Court that Esther would not be allowed to speak in Court before she turned to the age where she would be released from CYFS care.

 

Psychologists reports used to confuse Court and delay proceedings

  1. It was shown that Cath S, a friend of Darren D, who represented herself as a psychotherapist, was not even qualified.
  2. The main psychologist appointed to provide reports to the Family Court was given the Kathy O’s report and the Cath S report BEFORE she even saw the mother, and it was obvious to the mother that the psychologist had already made up her mind.     Her periodic unavailability caused a delay in the hearing for SIX MONTHS.
  3. The mother received counseling from a well known psychologist David Keithly Phillips who gave a very favourable report on her BUT the Court last year refused to call DKP because he had given the mother counseling. (Note: The Family Court almost always takes any evidence it wants!)
  4. The Court refused to put aside the main psychologist’s report even though it was mostly based on reports by Cath S and Cathy O which both contained bias and falsehoods, and hearsay by Darren D, AND although the report had not answered the questions asked by the Court.

 

The Family Court

  1. In December 2004 the Judge made the decision in favour of custody of CYFS, and that Esther should not be returned YET.     The judgement made it clear that a return later was NOT RULED OUT at all.
  2. Then CYFS entered a plan supposedly working towards to home access, unsupervised by the end of the year BUT
  3. CYFS also wanted additional guardianship, and that FULL CUSTODY would go to caregiver Margaret M by the end of the year, and THAT ESTHER WOULD NEVER BE RETURNED (in obvious opposition to the Court decisions).
  4. The same Judge accepted this, even though the mother’s lawyer pointed out that this went against his own earlier judgement!

 

Key failings in CYFS and the Family Court

  1. The Family Court has badly let down Esther and her mother. It failed to enforce the first decision in 2002 that Esther be speedily returned.
  2. The Family Court should, when appropriate, order that a child be returned immediately rather than give CYFS the opportunity to stall the process and retain the child indefinitely.
  3. CYFS has shown that it can get away with ignoring a Court order, and succeed in maintaining its absolute control and tyranny over children and their families, ignoring all complaints of abuse by the family, and all the wishes of the child in “care.”

 

What Marianne and Esther want.

  1. The Courts to cancel the warrant for arrest.
  2. The police to seriously investigate the abuse allegations made by Esther against the caregiver.
  3. An independent inquiry into why CYFS allowed Margaret to be the caregiver, knowing full well she had many serious mental and physical health problems for which she has been on a disability allowance for well over 15 years, and why the other caregivers chosen by the mother were denied even application.
  4. Further inquiry as to why CYFS have not considered the child’s wishes to be with her mother AND why the well being of the child was ignored but the child was returned to the abuse after each time she ran away (and that was eleven times before she ran away for good!).
  5. Esther to be returned to the legal custody of her mother Marianne Wolthers.

 

How will this be achieved?

How to achieve the above results is unclear.     Exposure in the media, websites and letters to the editors may help to bring about legal action leading to a favourable Family Court hearing but the Court has like all other New Zealand Courts shown great resistance to accepting the truth and changing its decisions.     Action in the High Court may be required.     Assistance by lawyers giving pro bono help may be needed.     The Christian faith of the family and their supporters is vital and we know that “with God all things are possible.”

 

John Tonson, PANIC National Director (on behalf of Esther and Marianne)

Parents Against Negative Intervention by CYFS - PANIC

PO Box 7071
Palmerston North

Email: jktonson@xtra.co.nz     Website: www.panic.org.nz

 

Related links


Panic Home | Mission Statement | Key Issues | Contacts | Forum | Quotes and Stories