PANIC welcomes snippets or stories of any length which relate the experience of parents and other caregivers dealing with the Child Youth & Family Service and the Family Court. Poems or songs are also welcome.

Contents

A Theme Song

The Story of L

A Child at School

Esther Wolthers' Story

A Theme Song for PANIC

Hey you, in your ivory castle
Do you realise the trouble?
Spend 6 million dollars on propaganda
Trying to convince the world that you do good.
But what about the bleeding hearts of all those who suffer?
What about the children ripped away from their mothers?
And why do they cry, at the hands of you?
Can you see the endless nights of broken plights?
The tears that race and fall?
I can’t ever see your solutions
Ever helping families at all!
You hide behind your lies
The judges’ eyes only see your deceptions.
While with the other hand you paint your narrow perceptions.
But why do you lie and hide the truth?

Hey you, this can’t go on forever.
Truth will prevail over lies.
So go tell the world you’re here to protect.
How do you sleep at night?

We hold on with our hearts to the ones we hold dear.
We will not bow down to a system of fear.
I rose above and was freed from your pain.
But with our own flesh and blood you do it once again,
Destroy families with your litany of lies.
But no more will they cry at the hands of you.

Hey you, bring them home,
They don’t belong to you!

A CYFS Survivor

The Story of L.

This story is totally true. The writer has been close enough to observe all facets, hear the alleged statements read, and to personally witness the actions and results. All names have been changed other than the department. CYFS refers to any of the names used by the department (CYPS, DSW etc.) . None is a composite character. It is left to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions, and you dear reader, if you identify a particular case, town or incident, who knows, you may even be correct. If you feel that some fact may have been misrepresented, or you can add further details, contact this site confidentially with a real name inserted in your post to verify your information. If it is true the post will include it forthwith.

Any official Post from CYFS will be appended without edits or comment.

Family

Born in 1993 L. is the second youngest of 6 children, 3 boys and 3 girls.

Background

L. was born 8 weeks premature and not expected to live. The mother was an intravenous drug user. L. exhibits many symptoms of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. The mother can at best be described as neglectful. The father, however great his sins, put a lot of effort into L. and there is absolutely no doubt in your writer’s mind that much of the subsequent progress was because of the father’s attentions and care. Unfortunately Dad frequently ran foul of the law! L. tells of helping dad with his Gardening, collecting and drying plants etc! L. has also spoken of helping dad with his After Hours Shopping dad forgot keys on occasion but that was OK Coz he always had his scissors

Unfortunately at around 2 years old L. was injured and subsequent neglect left a permanent disability.

There is little doubt that L. was brought to CYFS attention at this time however they chose to take no action. Into CYFS Care

In 1997 Dad was sentenced to an extended period in a Government Institution. Almost immediately CYFS swooped and removed the 3 youngest children. It has been implied by Social workers J. and A. that the reason action was not taken earlier was fear on the part of the department for their safety. (The family has strong Gang Ties) The oldest (16) was considered beyond CYFS care and abandoned. The other two were not taken even though a court order existed ordering their removal, because, (And I quote an Official CYFS Document) there were no places available!)

The three children were placed with one caregiver who at the time was caring for 8 other children. During this time 2 of the girls (one was L.’s sister) were sexually abused by an 11 year old in care. (Confirmed by Evidential interviews about 12 months later. CYFS took no action for unknown reasons)

The children slept 2 to a bed and as a punishment the naughty one always had to share with another who was a bed wetter! The children ran wild. After many complaints from the school board of trustees to CYFS the children were removed extremely upset. As an aside a member of this caregiver’s close whanau was recently (2001) convicted of manslaughter of a child arguably in her CYFS monitored care. This case achieved national prominence.

The improvements.

The 3 children were cared for briefly in one home but due to behavioural issues 2 were re-housed. L. was placed with a couple in their 50’s, experienced in dealing with high care children. The main CYFS social worker (J.) had attempted to enrol L. at school(s) none were prepared to accept L. The Caregivers enrolled L. immediately.

The caregivers gave of their time including ensuring an access order obtained by L’s father was honoured. CYFS forbade this to continue. See the Section on Legal issues.

The caregivers poured enormous resources into L. well over 50% not allowed for by the department, this included holidays and total acceptance as part of the family.

L rewarded everybody by becoming an almost normal child. At a glance one could fail to observe the disability (even though it was visible). School levels moved from almost 2 years behind the age expectation to the bottom end of normal. This is normal, no allowance for the F.A.S.

L. became a loving, caring and gentle child, owning and caring for a cat, and a 85 year old, part of the same household. L.’s favourite job was to take the Dominion through to the elderly person, and of course be rewarded by a lolly! Or L. loved just to sit and listen to the oldie.

Unfortunately the caregivers had other problems. CYFS were at all times aware of these and at no time expressed any concerns or requested any adjustments. The caregivers requested assistance in the form of a respite holiday for L. for 1 month. They would maintain contact, ease L. into and back out of the respite home. It should be emphasised that to achieve the improvements the caregivers had literally destroyed themselves. It is no easy dealing in this situation.

The Finale

The end came in a car smash. L. was uninjured. L. had to go into alternative care. The Social Worker (Miss C. refer separate article in this posting) apparently stated that the Male Caregiver had deliberately attempted to kill L. (CYFS have refused to release this report as It could be injurious to the mental well-being of the Male Caregiver). The caregivers never saw L. again. Attempts to make property available were ignored. It should be emphasised this represented several hundred dollars Departmental Money. When explanations were requested and meetings arranged the appointments were not kept, phone calls were ignored, and an official Information request simply revealed a document stating that they were not suitable to be caregivers. All reports and other documents were refused on the grounds that Their release may be injurious to the person’s mental health or that the child’s name was protected under the Children’s, Young Persons and their Families Act. It goes without saying the Caregivers were devastated. Arguably this approach was more injurious to the caregivers’ mental well-being than to at least have been offered a level of explanation or better still counselling.

Legal Issues

Access
CYFS offered the mother reasonable access provided it was supervised at all times by an appropriate adult. It was at best spasmodic and arguably more damaging because of the missed appointments.

The father obtained an access order for 2 hours per month (CYFS offered 2 hours per year) supervised plus family days at the institution. The care givers attempted to honour this order (Even though it entailed driving many Kilometres) until ordered by CYFS to cease. CYFS have paid at best lip service to honouring it since. (See Quotes)

Custody
CYFS sought a custody order for the two youngest. L.’s caregivers only supported this insofar as they felt that the whole matter should be revisited upon the father’s release. A statement to this effect in Family court in front of the father was greeted with scorn by CYFS. It is felt that this stand was part of their reason to remove L.

During the whole period CYFS refused to meet with or discuss any issues with the father, other than through his lawyer.

Quotes

J. (Social Worker) Don’t worry about the court order, He’ll get fed up with trying to enforce it!

Ms A. (Senior Social Worker) Was addressing the mother at a Family Meeting, a meeting at which she (the mother) had absolutely no support. I have had a gutsful of your attitude. Until you learn to treat me with a bit of respect I am going to ensure that you never see any of your children. Immediately following the meeting the caregivers were advised in writing that the mother be refused permission to even talk to her children. If they even accidentally met the Department was to be advised immediately.

Ms A. At another meeting of caregivers only: Don’t worry I can write anything I like in a report and the family court will accept it. Just tell me what she (the mother) does.

J. Don’t worry about B. (Child Psychologist) we pay so expect the report to contain what we want.

B. I don’t worry about tests too much, I just write what the department wants to hear. Keeps my income good.

K. (Retired Psychologist upon retirement) I may as well give up now, the department won’t send me any work because I write the true results. That is not always what they want to hear. Those opposing who want a second opinion usually can’t afford me anyway and I’ve got to live.

The Aftermath

L. was placed in a house with 4 other children including one suffering an intellectual disability. Grades and behaviour have deteriorated to the point where expulsion has been threatened. The remedial reading class has been cancelled because of violence to teachers. L. has been sighted over 1km from the caregivers’ new home with a bloodied face. The witness complained and heard nothing. Apparently the department dismissed it as sour grapes and made no attempt at an investigation. The writer has personally witnessed blows to L.s head and face by the new caregiver. The family was told that L. was shifted temporarily to some of the old caregivers’ friends and that L. would move in the same circle of friends. The old caregivers knew them at best distantly.

Where are they today

The oldest, never in CYFS care, exists in the world of drugs and vice. Probably on the fringes of a gang

The second oldest’s location is totally unknown, Last heard of he seriously assaulted the Social worker A. and was banned from CYFS premises. The department appears to have lost interest.

No 3 also threatened assault on caregivers and Social workers. Ran away to return to live with his mother. There an accident occurred causing severe scalds. The young person was treated at Wellington Hospital. Subsequently the mother has resumed care. An interesting story accompanies this young person. See the story of J. on this site.

No 4 learnt that the department would take their word over a care giver’s. Complaints followed at frequent intervals, each resulting in a lost caregiver and a new home.

The next is L.

The youngest has stayed stable and is doing well, both at school and socially. This is no reflection on the department as results have been achieved in spite of their efforts.