Shut CYF down [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Oakie

28th June 2009, 08:52

But CYF is unrepentant, saying it had a duty to investigate.

"Sometimes, children playing unsupervised for long periods of time can be an indication that there are wider family issues that need to be addressed," said CYF general manager Lorraine Williams.

That's the crux of the whole thing. CYF has a DUTY to investigate. That is their job! It's the same as if a drunk fella was hit by a car as he staggered across the road from the pub. Even though it's obvious who was to blame, the Police are still duty-bound to investigate the circumstances.

I myself would be hellishly nervous about a 4 year old girl being in a public place without adult supervision. No matter how responsible the kids involved are, there are some creeps out there who would be happy to take advantage.

Unfortunatley the artice didn't say what the outcome of the investigation was.

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 08:57

CYF have a duty to investigate the veracity of the claims made against the parent and to prosecute people who waste their time. Oh, sorry, no they don't, they have no accountability and they investigate on the say so of a person who most definitely knows the parents involved and probably has either a personal beef with the parents involved or doesn't like their parenting style. Unlike the Police who will most often refuse to prosecute if a few pointed questions reveal a history of personal animosity between the complainant and victim, CYF will take the word of a P whore over that of a parent or parents trying to raise kids capable of independent action and thought.

How many times do people have to be told that 4 year old girls are most at risk from paedophiles from within their own family?

Child abductions are usually carried out by an estranged parent or grandparent. It is probably the safest time in NZ's history for children to play in parks unsupervised because the "risks" to children are better understood than they have been ever.

Right, now everybody list all the acts performed against children by deranged people to "prove" that CYF is necessary, without bothering to acknowledge the millions of kids NZ has churned out with an independent, "can do" attitude to life. They don't count after all. Only damaged or dead kids are interesting and in need of nuturing and mentoring and being given the keys to an independant successful life.

White trash

28th June 2009, 09:03

Usarka

28th June 2009, 09:07

But in this case it is substantiated. The kids were at the park unsupervised. And according to the rules it sounds like teaching kids some personal reponsibility and trust is big no-no....... (or at least until mum and dad have been treated like crims)

jrandom

28th June 2009, 09:10

Do CYF actually do anything useful, or do they just run around prosecuting people for letting their kids go to the park?

Seriously.

What actual function does the agency serve? Has anyone had positive experiences with it? Is it anything other than a bloated bureaucratic pimple on the arse of the nanny-state?

I'd like to hope so. Can anyone comment?

PrincessBandit

28th June 2009, 09:11

Sure is a tricky one. I'd hate to work for CYF as you are pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personally I would not have let my kids to down and play unsupervised at our local park (which in those days was at the bottom of our street). While I agree that a parent has the right to allow their children to do that if they're happy about it, the prospect of letting a 9 year old be basically responsible for himself and the safety of his 4 year old sister gives me the willies.

If your children are not supposed to be left home without the supervision of someone at least age 14 then it seems a bit odd that the same "rule" doesn't apply out and about in public. Swimming pools, for obvious reasons, have minimum supervision age requirements; how many parks have busy streets, roaming dogs or creeks close by with similar dangers?

I'm with Oakie - I'd reserve my judgement on the outcome and "severity" of the investigation. Unattended children can be symptomatic of larger problems in a family but a skilled social worker should surely be able to use their discretion when determining whether there's a bigger issue at stake.

Oakie

28th June 2009, 09:18

Has anyone had positive experiences with it?

Probably a few kids who have been removed from abusive or neglectful parents I'd suggest. CYFS is primarily there for their welfare so they are the ones you need to ask.

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 09:23

I'm with Oakie - I'd reserve my judgement on the outcome and "severity" of the investigation. Unattended children can be symptomatic of larger problems in a family but a skilled social worker should surely be able to use their discretion when determining whether there's a bigger issue at stake.

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you say it is a parent's "right" to decide whether their community is safe and that leaving them unsupervised playing at the park is their choice, and then in you immediately assign the ultimate judgement of that call to a state agency who struggle to attract quality Social Workers because the pay is shit and the workload huge. That workload stems from law that is supposed to make sure that the minority of children who are abused and abandoned are looked after. The reality is that they'll leave kids living in a P house to maintain family integrity, but they'll investigate parents practicing parenting skills that every parenting book touts as best practice. Giving your kids a sliding scale of personal responsibility as they get older.

They forget to mention that it is both illegal and frowned upon by the "general populace" in NZ to teach kids anything useful about life or themselves. Teaching doesn't mean talking at them.

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 09:24

Probably a few kids who have been removed from abusive or neglectful parents I'd suggest. CYFS is primarily there for their welfare so they are the ones you need to ask.

Why do I watch those kids go back to the people who maltreat them, over and over again? What do CYF actually do?

PrincessBandit

28th June 2009, 09:24

What actual function does the agency serve? Has anyone had positive experiences with it? Is it anything other than a bloated bureaucratic pimple on the arse of the nanny-state?

Like any other government agency it's also probably a magnet for mini-Hitlers who get off on their "authority" over the little common man. If only all the staff were competent and not bound by directives which make it difficult to be flexible??? (I'm guessing that there must be strict guidelines for action which are open to abuse by said mini-Hitlers and frustrating for people who have a brain).

Oakie

28th June 2009, 09:31

Why do I watch those kids go back to the people who maltreat them, over and over again? What do CYF actually do?

Dunno. I suppose return to the 'now happy and functional family' :laugh: has to be the goal and there must be high fence to get over before you can actually remove kids permanently.

Usarka

28th June 2009, 09:32

Dunno. I suppose return to the 'now happy and functional family' :laugh: has to be the goal and there must be high fence to get over before you can actually remove kids permanently.

Sometimes the act of trying to get over can leave the fence damaged.

bull

28th June 2009, 09:37

ID be interested to know what the story would have been if the girl was 5yrs old and not 4 - as its widely accepted that kids walk home alone after school.

CYFs are a joke have seen plenty of evidence of this first hand.

Oakie

28th June 2009, 09:38

Trouble is the act of getting over can sometimes leave the fence damaged.

I just meant a legal 'fence'. What is the test of circumstances where you justifiably remove kids permanently.

Usarka

28th June 2009, 09:39

I just meant a legal 'fence'. What is the test of circumstances where you justifiably remove kids permanently.

Wow I thought you meant a real fence.....

RantyDave

28th June 2009, 09:39

I was just reading this too. I can kinda see CYFS point - they are tasked with investigating when someone complains and again and again and again some kid gets the shit kicked out of them when they don't. What they need is triage. Some way of rapidly sorting the wheat from the chaff, some way of filtering between genuine community concern and a know it all arsehole who thinks it's a good idea to wrap children in cotton wool until they're 18 - at which point they presumably become responsible, aware etc by some act of god. In that they haven't done this the words "They've failed" sum it all up precisely.

We can't afford a state-funded Gestapo and community based informants at the moment.

No we can fucking not. On a similar theme I was chatting to a mate who works in the alleged public service last night about how nice it must be to have a job where you get paid for trying. Y'know, having a jolly good pop, putting your best foot forward and having a nice positive attitude instead of actually achieving something. If we paid public servants by results rather than count of meetings attended or whether or not they used to play rugby then Wellington would have worse poverty than central Africa "by lunchtime".

Dave

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 09:52

CookMySock

28th June 2009, 09:54

"Sometimes, children playing unsupervised for long periods of time can be an indication that there are wider family issues that need to be addressed," said CYF general manager Lorraine Williams.
That is just their projection based on what they believe, and is more an indicator that people who carry such beliefs should not be working for organisations like CYFS to begin with.

Steve

Oakie

28th June 2009, 10:12

Wow I thought you meant a real fence.....

I knew you got it as a metaphor but I guessed you meant that it was the family that was damaged.

Oakie

28th June 2009, 10:15

. What they need is triage. Some way of rapidly sorting the wheat from the chaff, some way of filtering between genuine community concern and a know it all arsehole

Now THAT is a good idea.

Pixie

28th June 2009, 10:29

When I was 5 and my brother was 12 we used to go off into the bush out the back of Tawa and catch crayfish in the streams and cook them.And do many other activities.

I guess,for kids today,that is all gone thanks to the "Precious Lamb Syndrome".

Today CYF would arrest our parents for not accompanying us and PETA would harange us for cooking the crayfish.

This country is fucked.

A nation of weaklings that run off to a counsellor when they stub their toes.

Oakie

28th June 2009, 10:31

That is just their projection based on what they believe, and is more an indicator that people who carry such beliefs should not be working for organisations like CYFS to begin with. (Kids playing unsupervised for extended periods)

God, I've seen it myself. Two houses up the street where we used to live. Mum used to work at the bistro attached to the pub. She'd finish at 2.30pm to be home in time for the daughter's to arrive home from school. From time to time though she'd stay and have a a few after work drinks and then a few more. When we saw the kids (about 6 and 8?) still playing outside at 5pm with the schoolbags at the door we knew Kath was having a session and would probably be home about 6pm with chips for tea. In that case the kids were reasonably OK because they would have had about 3 sets of neighbours keeping an eye out for them but if you had that happening in 10 different houses there's a good chance that in some of those houses there would be some bad shit going on too. That's why CYFS investigate. Because in some cases, where there's smoke there's fire.

Oh. In our case I don't think any of us neighbours would ever have thought of calling CYFS because we knew the kids were generally looked after.

Blackbird

28th June 2009, 10:39

This country is fucked.

Nah, publicity like this distorts what goes on outside the main centres where kids can still be kids and get on with doing the sort of stuff that caused this latest nonsense without raising eyebrows.

As for the country being fucked, the amount of overseas visitors who comment on the high personal freedoms for kids here would suggest that a fair chunk of the world is in a far worse state.

As long as the focus stays on the main centres, us country types can simply get on with doing what we've always done :laugh::laugh:

davereid

28th June 2009, 10:47

Yes. It's one of the substantiated crimes against kids that makes you go, "WTF?"

Yes, no doubt this case will be manipulated into "an investigation of potential child abuse", which will be used to show how important CYFs are and how under resourced they are and how we need more of them.

At 9, I and every kid in my neighbourhood was taking themselves, and younger siblings to school and the park. By 12 we were cycling to the beach and the swimming pool, catching the bus into town to go to the movies and by 14 we all had after school jobs.

This is just crazy. N.Z. IS less safe than it was in the 50s and 60s, but it is not yet so dangerous that kids can't be allowed to be kids.

I guess this parent will play it safe now - give the kids a bottle of pop, a bag of chips and the TV remote. Then CYFs will be happy with him.

Skyryder

28th June 2009, 11:07

Usarka

28th June 2009, 11:08

It's the first place child predators hang out and if one sees this as a habitual thing where the parent does this on a regular basis it does not take a rocket scientist to know what is likely to happen should a child molester be on the lookout.

Got any stats on that?

I've heard many reports that there are no more child molesterers (sp?) hanging around parks than there were 30 years ago when most of todays parents quite happily played as kids.

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 11:15

I can't help but wonder what would have been the response if something 'untoward' happened to the kids.

Any parent who leaves children unsupervised in a park needs a good bollicking.

It's the first place child predators hang out and if one sees this as a habitual thing where the parent does this on a regular basis it does not take a rocket scientist to know what is likely to happen should a child molester be on the lookout.

Totally apocryphal. That stats support the argument that child molesters are usually known to the children and that they are usually within a fairly close family circle. The dude in the raincoat or car offering lollies is bogey man, more often than not.

Really committed child predators who aren't related to the family will go to huge lengths to befriend a family and gain their trust, before unleashing their hideous crimes.

Skyryder

28th June 2009, 11:24

Got any stats on that?

I've heard many reports that there are no more child molesterers (sp?) hanging around parks than there were 30 years ago when most of todays parents quite happily played as kids.

Nope but I know a couple of local plods and they get the odd call from Joe public on unsavoury charactors hanging around parks. Not a lot but it does happen.

The other equation that this parent allowed his nine year old son to look after his four year old daughter. What sort of impact do you think that would have on a child if something happened to his sister?

Call it what you will but I call placing a nine year old with the responsibilty of looking after a four year old in public place or for that matter even in the family home bad parenting. If you think otherwise your choice.

Skyryder

PirateJafa

28th June 2009, 11:34

Hell, when I was nine me'n a mate were spending the weekends skiing through the woods outside Moscow - which WERE known to have dangerous wildlife in. Or wandering the massive outdoor markets by ourselves, buying cheap BB guns to shoot each other with.

Learnt to drive when I was ten, in a clapped out Lada. Then learnt to drive in a Niva when the first Lada carked it.

CYFS would have had a fit - and yet look at what a well-rounded individual I turned out to be. Oh wait...

I lived my childhood like Calvin and Hobbes - what a great way to grow up it was too.

<img src="http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=133217&stc=1&d=1246146201">

ynot slow

28th June 2009, 11:36

Hell how many parents can keep up with their kids in a park nowadays,we used to enjoy mum taking us and neighbours kids to the park,but we all took off to play lol,not only the swings etc but hide and seek in gardens.

So cyfs will be at all schools this Monday to get parents who let their kids walk to school alone,we lived about 300mt from the kids primary school,they didn't have to cross the road just walk 100mt and turn corner then onto school,sometimes they walked alone others their mum walked part way,we called it growing up and as they grew older responsibility and freedom increased for them,also quite often at least 3 mums would keep eyes out for those walking alone.

What ever happened to the thing called freedom,i.e grab the bike and ride to friends places,maybe kick the crap out of rugby balls,play bullrush after school,go to soccer practice after school all on our own.

thehovel

28th June 2009, 11:46

I can remember having to be home when the street lights came on. Also once my 12yr old brother push biked around the mountain (Taranaki) and skited about it all week,SO next Saturday me and 3 mates thought what a good idea (7yr olds on half sized bikes). We packed lunch and a water bottle each and off we went from Stratford toward New Plymouth (OH we forgot to tell anyone what we were up to). It was summer:sunny: we refilled out water bottles at each stream as we progressed around ,turned left at New Plymouth and by the time we were nearing Opunake the sun was setting SO we rocked up at my Aunty Molly's. “Aunty Molly:love::love: we are riding around the mountain it is getting late so can we stay the night and ride on tomorrow?” Unbeknown to us the police had been motived :shit:because one of my mates was supposed to go out that day. Aunty Molly makes a few phone calls, parents told,:Punk: and we were feed ,stayed the night and continued next day with a big breakfast. By the time we got to Mahoe people was appearing at the side of the road waving to us. I later found out the bush telegraph was working overtime. At Cardiff there was quite a lot of spectators ,we felt important . On arriving at Stratford:done: we where meet by the cops and escorted home and a huge lecture:no::no: on telling parents if we left town!!!!!
A foot note both my kids told mom that 1 week was enough escorting to school or they would be called a sissy. Also I don't trust Welfare __ CYfS or what they are going to be called in the future because they except any responsibility for decisions made in the past. (you have to live with the outcome) Regards Richard

Owl

28th June 2009, 11:47

Skyryder

28th June 2009, 11:57

Totally apocryphal. That stats support the argument that child molesters are usually known to the children and that they are usually within a fairly close family circle. The dude in the raincoat or car offering lollies is bogey man, more often than not.

Really committed child predators who aren't related to the family will go to huge lengths to befriend a family and gain their trust, before unleashing their hideous crimes.

The bottom line on this is that good parents do not allow nine year olds to supervise four year old girls in a park.

I can only conclude that you see this as an 'acceptable' risk. I do not. And it matters not one whit what the stats suggest.

You get one chance with your kids. Fail in any way and will not get a second.

That was my mantra when my kids you at an age where they were not capable of understanding the dangers of society, be it predators in a park, a bully, traffic, water or waves from the sea. You keep a constant eye out for danger.

And you do not and I repeat do not place the supervision of a four year old girl in the hands of her nine year old brother for any reason whatsoever.

Skyryder

Indiana_Jones

28th June 2009, 11:58

What a crock of shit.

If that's the best CYF can do.....

-Indy

Skyryder

28th June 2009, 11:58

I guess a 3 year old taking an 18 month old to the park via trike would be out of the question then?:whistle:

Only without a helmut.:2guns:

Skyryder

Winter

28th June 2009, 12:12

Quick..... Burn Them!

Cyfs that is..

NZ parents need to take a big lesson in 'HTFU'.

If four year old fell and broke her arm, big bro would have learnt to be more careful, 4yo would have learnt not to trust boys, and they both would have been better off for it.

I'm glad my parents bet the shit out of me with a wooden spoon or a belt whenever I did something bad.. I didn't grow up wanting to hurt people, but I did grow up with a good sense of right and wrong.

Forest

28th June 2009, 12:20

From reading the article, CYF made a brief investigation but took no further action.

In case that wasn't clear they took no further action.

I don't see what the problem is.

Ocean1

28th June 2009, 12:42

In our case I don't think any of us neighbours would ever have thought of calling CYFS because we knew the kids were generally looked after.

And there you have it, the kids and mother were part of your village. You knew the situation and not only accepted it but, if need be would likely have provided a band-aid, a jacket, a hot dinner or a ride home.

I remember occasionally dispatching my two, aged about 12 and 10, off to the park at the end of our street with sausages, sauce and bread, (there's a public barbie there). You sometimes need to depend on your village, and that's not the sort of help CYFS can provide.

I don't honestly believe anyone needs the sort of help CYFS provide, the sad fact is that sort of help never changes anyones behaviour. Nothing does, an individual is either safe with kids or not, and nothing anyone says or does short of a 12swg prefrontal labotomy will ever change them.

Winston001

28th June 2009, 13:37

From reading the article, CYF made a brief investigation but took no further action.

In case that wasn't clear they took no further action.

I don't see what the problem is.

Agreed. Two pages of angry posts condemning CYFs for properly checking the children were safe. A bit humiliating for the parents maybe but so what? Its a consequence of living in a society where we can afford an agency which looks out for the welfare of kids.

Winston001

28th June 2009, 13:44

On a personal level I have sympathy for these parents. I also think we wrap our children up too much to protect them. Google Lenore Skenazy and Free Range Kids - she's opened this whole topic up.

But...but...you only get one chance. What if you get it wrong? Could have saved/protected your child and didn't? Telling yourself and everyone else afterwards about your personal philosophy isn't going to be much help down the years ahead.

Winston001

28th June 2009, 13:54

Risks - I would not and did not let my children go anywhere alone at age 9 let alone age 4. However I did take them to many playgrounds, beaches and other places and sat nearby, always within voice range and generally where I could see what was going on.

My assessment of the risks were - physical accident (no biggie), roads and cars, dogs (my daughter was terrified), big kids (there are some nasty ones out there), and way down the list, child predators.

Incidentally, my children attended a good primary school and there were two child molestation incidents over three years. One a complete stranger, the other a parent of one of the children. Oh, and a convicted prowler who wanted the right to be around the school! Sadly these people exist.

Ixion

28th June 2009, 15:52

This sort of bullshit really pisses me off. When I was nine we (mates ) would disappear all day. Off before breakfast, home at dusk.

Only worry anyone had was that we didn't tear our clothes.

(How on earth did they persuade a nine year old lad to take his little sister along, though. At nine little sisters are NOT cool)

Ixion

28th June 2009, 16:00

Risks - I would not and did not let my children go anywhere alone at age 9 let alone age 4. However I did take them to many playgrounds, beaches and other places and sat nearby, always within voice range and generally where I could see what was going on.

.

Jolly glad you wasn't my dad! No way a kid is going to have any fun (or make progress toward self reliance and such like) with parents fussing away in the background, putting a damper on everything, and stopping anything that looks like fun.

When I was about seven I headed off one morning into the bush behind the house with a couple of mates (as most kids around did). And one thing and another, wandered further than normal, into parts that we'd never been before. And got ourselves lost.

After group consultation we ended up bivvying up for the night and found our way out the next morning. I got a right hiding for that. Expected, we all knew that we'd be in deep shit when we got home. Just all agreed that we had to face the music .Parents weren't too worried, but if we hadnt showed up by lunchtime they'd have started looking

But - it taught me a lot. Self confidence , self responsibility, and that sort of thing, not panicing,being able to rely on y' mates, all good stuff

Where the hell do kids nowadays get to experience that sort of thing.

Usarka

28th June 2009, 16:00

This sort of bullshit really pisses me off. When I was nine we (mates ) would disappear all day. Off before breakfast, home at dusk.

You clearly had irresponsible parents. Did they not know you could have got hurt in so many ways?????

But yes, likewise. I recall riding my bike through school grounds when i was 10 and getting chased by a kid swinging a heavy gauge chain at my head. I learnt a lot from that incident about personal safety (how to avoid trouble and get out of dodge), other people, and life in general.

Teaching kids to avoid trouble by witholding responsibility and trust seems a bit wussy to me.

Skyryder

28th June 2009, 16:06

The issue is not a nine year old boy with his sister Devnull but the fact that the father seems to think it's ok for a nine year old to 'babysit' a four year old.

As for the red rep you gave me you appear to believe that a nine year old has the maturity to babysit. I don't.

Skyryder

Usarka

28th June 2009, 16:14

As for the red rep you gave me you appear to believe that a nine year old has the maturity to babysit. I don't.

One of us has been smoking too much crack cause i don't recall giving any red rep........

But I would suggest *some* 9 year olds would have the maturity to take their sister around the corner to a park if the parameters were clearly defined.

Ixion

28th June 2009, 16:17

You clearly had irresponsible parents. Did they not know you could have got hurt in so many ways?????

More pertinently, *we* quickly learned, the hard way, that we could get hurt in so many ways. And after a few lessons , took care not to get hurt. We didn't need our parents to keep us safe, we kept ourselves and each other safe.

Marmoot

28th June 2009, 16:55

[I]
That's the crux of the whole thing. CYF has a DUTY to investigate.

That's why CYF deserves to be disbanded. Brainless political correctness without capability of discretionary thoughts are common traits of either robots or animals, not human beings.

And if the law says children of up to 14 needs to be supervised fulltime, then the law is sick. 5 is appropriate, 10 may be, 11 is pushing it, 14 is just absurd.

flyingcr250

28th June 2009, 17:08

They've failed. Serious Child Abuse is rising and they pull stuff like this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2546657/Family-in-strife-after-kids-left-alone-in-park

We're in a recession. We can't afford a state-funded Gestapo and community based informants at the moment.

just anothe example of how this country has become a nanna state. my knefew is 7 and he takes his brother(3) down to the dairy by himself all the time, the grin on his face when he gets back says it all. at the end of the day a child is safer at the park by their selves, than in the care of CYFS.:2guns::2guns:

when i was 9 me and my brother would dissapear after breakfast and be back intime for tea, always by ourselves, ok we didnt go into town or anything, we just went bush for the whole day.

Indoo

28th June 2009, 17:18

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 18:24

So CYFS received a report of children being neglected which would on the face of it appear to be justified from a member of the public seeing a 4 year old without any adult supervision. They did a basic enquiry to see if there was any basis to it, decided that there wasn't and left it at that without taking any action, how shocking.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Rubbish. What happened to people being people and asking the kids if Mum and Dad had said it was Ok to be alone in the park? Asking for a phone number so they could ring Mum and Dad to see if it was OK?

The casual acceptance of curtain twitiching and alerting the "authorities" is the real problem with this country. CYF can't fix anything, They are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. In the meantime we've programmed society in general and communities to not look out for each other. Instead of demanding someone else fix it, how about getting involved as an option?

This will have been a busybody dropping someone they didn't like in the crap. There's no concern for the kids in this, just a kitchen-Hitler abusing a reporting priviliege. Yes I am leaping to conclusions.

Deano

28th June 2009, 18:36

Lack of community isn't it ? 20 years ago the 'complainant's' would have known the kids and there would have been 3 or 4 households watching...no problem.

Ixion

28th June 2009, 18:40

FROSTY

28th June 2009, 18:44

Ya know I don't envy them their job.
My ex wife got a visit from them for exactly the same reason. mr (then)4 and mr then 8 happily playing in the park on their own--apparently too dangerous being unsupervised.--yet the park BACKS ON to her house.
Meanwhile could I ask if they got called to the home of the kids who refused to leave their house which was right next to the huge industrial blaze in henderson last weekend? Literally flames meters away from their house and mum and dad were Out -had been for hours.

Motu

28th June 2009, 18:46

Rubbish.

The casual acceptance of curtain twitiching and alerting the "authorities" is the real problem with this country.

This will have been a busybody dropping someone they didn't like in the crap. There's no concern for the kids in this, just a kitchen-Hitler abusing a reporting priviliege. Yes I am leaping to conclusions.

Yes,the problem is not so much the authorities,but with busybody people - like the people on this site posting about riders wearing jeans and open faced helmets.They blame the government for the nanny state.....but they are the ones causing it.These laws are brought in by members of Parliament because their voters push them into it.

Mom

28th June 2009, 18:51

What happened to people being people and asking the kids if Mum and Dad had said it was Ok to be alone in the park? Asking for a phone number so they could ring Mum and Dad to see if it was OK?

I feel sorry for parents of young children these days, I really feel sorry for their children. I was lucky enough to be raised in a time where we ran wild (well not really) but certainly free, in our neighbourhood. In my case I had to be home before supper. We got really good at telling the time without watches because being late home was not acceptable at all.

My children were lucky enough to be raised in a rural community on farm land. They also ran wild, climbed trees, got filthy dirty, got bumped and bruised, one of them broke an arm playing silly buggers bouncing on a tramp up into a tree and then on to the ground. I did not see the half of it really I am sure. What an unnatural Mother I was.

I still live here, and am not above talking to kids on their own. Does your Mommy know where you are? Are you OK? Costs nothing you know, but I am another pair of eyes out there.

Saw something the other day that I want to share. A bloke with two little girls. My best guess judging by the teeth of these little cuties 6 or maybe even 7 years old. He took them to the really fantastic playground in town and opened the childproof gate for them. He then said, "I am going back to work for half an hour, you two stay here and have fun. Do not leave the playground, I will be back soon. OK?" Then he left.

So here we have 2 young girls playing in a playground unsupervised. You know something, my alarm bells did not ring at all. Seemed reasonable to me. He had to go back to work for a little bit, they were obviously happy to be outside tearing around having a bit of fun. Far better for them to be outside excercising, than to be sitting quietly in a corner at his work bored, frustrated and no doubt acting up as a result, while he finished up his work. Stressful for both parties, making for grumpy kids and parents.

The playgrounds these days are so friggen safe the chances of a kid really getting hurt are nil, and the random bogey man, child abusing freak is a real rarity in our community, he more likely to be a family friend or the like. I guess I am lucky to live where I do, but I would no more have rung CYPS about this incident than I would fly to the moon.

Community is what we need to build, wide family community. There is no place in this community for small minded, all men are peadophiles, all children need to be cocooned in fluufy stuff till they leave home weirdos. Yes care for you kids, yes teach them boundaries, yes teach them about stranger danger, but most importantly, yes, let them grow up to learn a few of lifes lessons along the way.

We have created this world where we feel our kids are not safe.

Opps I seem to have blown a gasket!

Owl

28th June 2009, 19:12

Nice Mom!:niceone:

davereid

28th June 2009, 19:32

My children were lucky enough to be raised in a rural community on farm land. They also ran wild, climbed trees, got filthy dirty, got bumped and bruised, one of them broke an arm playing silly buggers bouncing on a tramp up into a tree and then on to the ground. I did not see the half of it really I am sure.

All banned now, or about to be. Farm houses will soon have to be fenced off from the rest of the property to ensure the kids are kept close to the house.

Its for their own good ya know.

Mom

28th June 2009, 19:42

All banned now, or about to be. Farm houses will soon have to be fenced off from the rest of the property to ensure the kids are kept close to the house.

Its for their own good ya know.

You know I support that in some ways. When my babies were little we had a ring fence around the house. There was no way I wanted my kids in a dam or stream. They were fenced in. I knew I did not have to worry if I was feeding baby #3 that first born 4 year old had buggered off to watch the frogs in the dam, the kids did as they could inside that ring fence. As they got older the ring fence became wider. I guess that is the crux of this issue eh? What we allow our kids to do and whether others think it is ok. I am the first to leap on child abusers. Somehow, and I dont know how, things need to change.

dogsnbikes

28th June 2009, 19:43

several years ago the Xwife was put through 24months of hell through a CYF's Ivestigation all started because 14year old didn't want too do as she was told and rang CYF's and complained

After the investigation she was told that child just needs a Good kick up the Arse

WTF!!!! like HELLO:bash:

Genestho

28th June 2009, 19:47

Community is what we need to build, wide family community. There is no place in this community for small minded, all men are peadophiles, all children need to be cocooned in fluufy stuff till they leave home weirdos. Yes care for you kids, yes teach them boundaries, yes teach them about stranger danger, but most importantly, yes, let them grow up to learn a few of lifes lessons along the way.

We have created this world where we feel our kids are not safe.

Opps I seem to have blown a gasket!

Spot on:Punk:, was going to add to that, but I think you've covered it nicely....and I must spread before giving AGAIN! LOL!
Watch those gaskets girl! Least ya didn't throw a rod! :laugh:

Mom

28th June 2009, 19:50

Spot on:Punk:, was going to add to that, but I think you've covered it nicely....and I must spread before giving AGAIN! LOL!
Watch those gaskets girl! Least ya didn't throw a rod! :laugh:

:pinch: I think I would prefer Maha threw a rod really :innocent:

Genestho

28th June 2009, 19:55

:pinch: I think I would prefer Maha threw a rod really :innocent:

O 'eck!:laugh: TMIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!

slowpoke

28th June 2009, 19:59

Mom

28th June 2009, 20:06

I pity the poor CYF's person at the coal face who instead of using common sense has to start leafing through the manual for the correct theoretical response to a given situation.

CYF's mightn't be doing a great job (how do we even assess that?) but at least it's doing something and is surely better than nothing.

I should have put them on my list of people that I feel sorry for, thanks for bringing them to the fore.

Something is better than nothing for sure, but as you point out, the path of intervention and procedure is complex and convaluted.

Genestho

28th June 2009, 20:10

So how do you fix the situation?

You can't wind back the clock to when Mum was home all day and dinner was on the table when Dad got home to give you a floggin'. You can't instantly create a sense of community when 90% of the community fucks off to somewhere else to earn a crust 5/6 days a week. By and large generations of families don't grow up in one area anymore, teachers don't remember so and so's brother, you don't have to meet Mr and Mrs Citizen in the course of playing with their son 'cos you don't even have to leave the house to hang out online etc etc

The world we live in now is different to the one most, if not all, of us grew up in. Get used to it, there is no magic bullet, and no going back. Thinking you can is just pissing in the wind.

I blame the academic Sue Bradford types. They live in a theoretical world, coming up with black and white solutions to problems that in practice are anything but black and white. What should be "Guidelines" become "Procedures" with very little room for interpretation. I pity the poor CYF's person at the coal face who instead of using common sense has to start leafing through the manual for the correct theoretical response to a given situation.

But to say CYF's should be shut down is to ignore a desperate problem in our "community". We've an appalling history of damaging the defenceless in this country and some sort of system/organisation is required to intervene or pick up the pieces. CYF's mightn't be doing a great job (how do we even assess that?) but at least it's doing something and is surely better than nothing.

Another good post.

Which reminds me how fortunate I am to live in close knit community, young middleclass families, just like mine that I've known for years.
Down our street, most work from home, curtains are flickered when strangers hit our street.
We go outside if there's rowdy cars around, makin sure people know we're about.
We check on each other if there is ever glass smashing, or alarms going off.
Some of the guys caught kids throwing eggs at one of the houses one night, and gave them a wee fright and sent them on their way.

We look out for each other.

We can have 20 kids playing out on the street, we have an innaugural watch out for kids sign - slow down.
I have a really awesome kid friendly community. And our kids are all good kids, all ages.

I hope Families Commission will do some good stuff in the immediate future, I watch Christine Rankin with interest.

James Deuce

28th June 2009, 20:20

But to say CYF's should be shut down is to ignore a desperate problem in our "community". We've an appalling history of damaging the defenceless in this country and some sort of system/organisation is required to intervene or pick up the pieces. CYF's mightn't be doing a great job (how do we even assess that?) but at least it's doing something and is surely better than nothing.

They're not doing anything except soak up millions of dollars and failing to help those who need it.

I used to go and read to kids in hospital because it was one way of seeing my wife back in the days when she did rostered rotating shifts, and I got pretty sick of watching patched gang memebers walk in and pick up the kid who had been admitted with scalds from boiling water thrown over them because they were too noisy, cigarette burns on their faces, and malnourished frames covered in bedsores. They live in the same town as you guys.

They'd be back two days later, burns infected and more damage. Usually with a cold and chest infection as well.

But it did mean they got to hear a bit more of the Hobbit or Mrs Tiggywinkle, or whatever I was reading at the time.

CYF don't help the most at risk, and are happy to remove children who aren't at risk from a family who is having a torrid time, but aren't a threat to their children in any way. They will investigate baseless accusations on the basis of the accused having to prove their innocence. But will they take a kid from a "family" who use a child as a toy and make sure those people can never ever hurt them ever again?

No. Not ever. Their policy is that the child must be adopted or fostered to people who will allow the filthiest dregs of society into their life so they can maintain contact with "their" child. People who have never done anything except rape their 2 year old, or beat their 4 year old with whatever comes to hand will be given the override button on any decision that the people now raising that child make. If you've ever tried to adopt in this country, you will know that you are better off competing with 5000 other couples for the rare orphans with no other family memebers who pop up from time to time.

CYF are a failed social experiement that is run poorly, on a shoestring, by people who probably cared once upon a time, but have to follow dogma instead of common sense. Want to save an at risk abused kid? Send it to the other end of the country to parents who will care and cherish the child and make sure there is no trail for the original parents to follow.

Elysium

28th June 2009, 20:29

I see kids that age hanging around town, dairys and on the streets without adult supervision and they have an issue with two kids who can look after themselves playing in a childrens playground?

Motu

28th June 2009, 20:46

You can't wind back the clock to when Mum was home all day

Yes you can,but most aren't prepared to do it.One of our commitments when we had kids was that they wouldn't have 2 working parents.We have been on a single income for 28 years,and our 4 kids home schooled.It's been very tough financially - no nice new bikes for me.But their Mum has been home all day.

NDORFN

29th June 2009, 07:38

How does this shit keep going ahead when NO ONE agrees with it???

Usarka

29th June 2009, 08:01

How does this shit keep going ahead when NO ONE agrees with it???

Because as kiwis we are amongst the most apathetic people on the planet.

And even when a citizens initated referendum gets passed the government has the power to simply say "bollox" and ignore it anyway. As may or may not be shown soon.

Add capital gains tax to the list too ya greedy baby booming bastards.

MSTRS

29th June 2009, 09:26

...

Where the hell do kids nowadays get to experience that sort of thing.

At a nice safe place like Outdoor Pursuits, where the fully trained adults will ensure nothing bad happens to their charges...

PirateJafa

29th June 2009, 09:33

At a nice safe place like Outdoor Pursuits, where the fully trained adults will ensure nothing bad happens to their charges...
Good way to teach them they don't have to take any responsibility or take any care for themselves or their mates.

Nearly as bad as the video-game mentality a lot of kids have (who now are worryingly getting driver's licenses), that they can just hit "Reset" if they fook up.

MSTRS

29th June 2009, 09:40

.Yes care for you kids, yes teach them boundaries, yes teach them about stranger danger, but most importantly, yes, let them grow up to learn a few of lifes lessons along the way.

Teach all you like, but you are right...at some point kids have to learn for themselves. That does involve *some* risk.

Good way to teach them they don't have to take any responsibility or take any care for themselves or their mates.

Nearly as bad as the video-game mentality a lot of kids have (who now are worryingly getting driver's licenses), that they can just hit "Reset" if they fook up.

I'm not sure you got my point

Ixion

29th June 2009, 10:40

At a nice safe place like Outdoor Pursuits, where the fully trained adults will ensure nothing bad happens to their charges...

I think perhaps you a re being ironical But, in case you are not, and for the benefit of those who may agree with the statement as it stands, may I say is that point is kids (boys anyway) NEED bad things to happen to them.

Not real life destroying bad. But bad enough to scare them badly. Boys need to be frightened. That's how boundaries are set.

When my mates and I got lost in the bush overnight when I was eight (I said seven, but on reflection it must have been eight), I was as scared as anything. Being lost in the bush at night was really frightening . I'm sure the rest were too, even though none of us would ever have admitted it.

It was summer and warm so we weren't really in any danger. And we already knew enough bushcraft to know not to wander around in the dark; and how to make up a bivvy. But it was still very scary for an eight year old.

I learned a LOT of lessons from it. Lessons which stuck, because I was SCARED. Scared is what sends the message "I'm not going to do that again". Scared shows that there are consequences. Scared shows that you are not invulnerable. Kids NEED to be scared.

MSTRS

29th June 2009, 10:57

I think perhaps you are being ironical ...

Spot the intelligentia...
My point was there are hurty things everywhere. No amount of protection is gunna save you from all of them. And to think otherwise is dangerous.
The lesson is - allow kids to be exposed to, and learn to manage, the hurty things from a young(ish) age, before the dice gets too loaded.

slowpoke

29th June 2009, 12:11

Spot the intelligentia...
My point was there are hurty things everywhere. No amount of protection is gunna save you from all of them. And to think otherwise is dangerous.
The lesson is - allow kids to be exposed to, and learn to manage, the hurty things from a young(ish) age, before the dice gets too loaded.

But this and several other posts are just generalised concepts.

In general every psychologist and right thinking parent will agree with you......but exactly what dangers you allow kids to be exposed to is open to huge debate. How young is too young to be unsupervised? Where is it OK to leave them unsupervised? Who is capable of supervising? Etc etc, and that's what the crux of the debate is about. One persons acceptable risk is another persons irresponsibility and a beureaucratic nightmare.

But the question remains: should CYFS be shut down?

It may be inefficient, cumbersome and hamstrung by protocol's that have to be followed but I still think something is better than nothing. Because nothing is the only alternative. You can restructure, rename, rebuild it all you like but it's just gonna be CYFS by another name.

Not forgetting amongst all the debate that you are never going to see any success stories coming out of the media. You are never going to hear stories of something approaching normality being restored to lives on the brink. To judge a service by the media sensations is as just as wrong as sticking our heads in the sand and saying everything is OK.

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 13:12

But the question remains: should CYFS be shut down?

Yes. It does nothing. It has been hijacked by idealogues. It costs us millions every day and kids still live in deadly danger on a daily basis, because the alternative is unacceptable to an organisation who would rather leave children with family members who provide them with nothing. This is where our child abuse stats are coming from, nowhere else. Remove the children, punish the caregivers. Stop offering increased benefits and parenting lessons to people who simply don't care, at all, and never will, and somehow manage to hide behind a cultural veil of underprivilege.

Winston001

29th June 2009, 13:29

Where the hell do kids nowadays get to experience that sort of thing.

Scouts.

My 14yr son has been a scout for three years, been to leadership courses, heaps of camps in the bush, he loves it. Night rides on bicycles, night patrols in forestry and sand dunes, these kids simply have a lot of fun.

I grew up on a farm and had the same independent childhood many here describe. But now I live in a city as do most kiwis, and the dangers are different. I have argued against cotton-wool parenting with my wife who is highly risk-averse but I think we've succeeded overall.

I still could not let my 4yr old be unsupervised, nor could I place that responsibility on a 9yr old. Doesn't make me right - its simply my judgement.

Badjelly

29th June 2009, 13:31

...Remove the children, punish the caregivers....

Who's going to do that?

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 13:56

CYF aren't, so don't start that.

The Courts, The Police, Teachers, Nurses, Doctors, you know, the people who used to do this stuff.

MSTRS

29th June 2009, 14:02

Serious question here...how many of the hated social workers actually have 'successfully' reared children of their own, compared with how many are under-30, childless products of PC courses to 'train' them in the black arts?

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 14:07

Bear in mind that I don't "hate" them as such, they are given an impossible task to perform with little resource at the pointy end of the job. It's a community wide issue that needs to be dealt with on an inclusive community-wide basis, not by a Government Dept with super powers that are selectively applied.

Winston001

29th June 2009, 14:16

Yes. It does nothing. It has been hijacked by idealogues. It costs us millions every day and kids still live in deadly danger on a daily basis, because the alternative is unacceptable to an organisation who would rather leave children with family members who provide them with nothing. This is where our child abuse stats are coming from, nowhere else. Remove the children, punish the caregivers. Stop offering increased benefits and parenting lessons to people who simply don't care, at all, and never will, and somehow manage to hide behind a cultural veil of underprivilege.

Ok James, you feel passionate about this and are clearly frustrated by a government agency which you believe isn't working.

1. What would you replace the Child, Youth and Family Service with?

2. Australia removed children in the 1960s. It's now called "The Stolen Generation" has cost Australia tens of millions of dollars, court cases, public enquiries. On top of that the children became bewildered adults who lost their parents, wider family, and their culture.

All of which happened with the best of intentions. How would you avoid these problems?

Marmoot

29th June 2009, 14:21

I still could not let my 4yr old be unsupervised, nor could I place that responsibility on a 9yr old. Doesn't make me right - its simply my judgement.

And indeed every parent need to have your attitude!

But when the state think it can dictate, regulate, and commit inquisition on such familial norm then it violates the sanctity of family.
The solution should be on education, not on prohibition. In here CYF has failed greatly. It failed us as society, it failed us in common sense, it failed us in being human. It puts no distinction between us and cows.

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 14:25

Ok James, you feel passionate about this and are clearly frustrated by a government agency which you believe isn't working.

1. What would you replace the Child, Youth and Family Service with?

2. Australia removed children in the 1960s. It's now called "The Stolen Generation" has cost Australia tens of millions of dollars, court cases, public enquiries. On top of that the children became bewildered adults who lost their parents, wider family, and their culture.

All of which happened with the best of intentions. How would you avoid these problems?

You can't compare near dead, mutilated kids with Australia's lost generation. I am NOT talking about ethnic based forced relocation, repatriation, integration, or any other name you want to put on that mercifully historic and reprehensible practice.

I am talking about easily identifiable children, whom everyone but CYF know are in dire need of a home. There's no "best intentions", simple common sense will suffice.

NZers need to "own" the country's kids. While CYF exist there is no desire or driver to do anything other than report kids at risk to an agency that wastes time investigating kids playing in a park and puts their parents under the microscope. Apparently it is preferable to dob people in, rather than check out for yourself.

slowpoke

29th June 2009, 14:40

CYF aren't, so don't start that.

The Courts, The Police, Teachers, Nurses, Doctors, you know, the people who used to do this stuff.

Teachers, Nurses and Doctors have never removed kids. So you are left with our already overloaded and cumbersome policing and judicial systems interferring in family matters, usually many months after whatever triggered their initial interest. Doesn't sound like an improvement to me and overloads our police with tasks far removed from their core brief. All you'd end up with is a specialist service within the police force: CYFS by another name.

Serious question here...how many of the hated social workers actually have 'successfully' reared children of their own, compared with how many are under-30, childless products of PC courses to 'train' them in the black arts?

I don't doubt that most staff are actually well intentioned and well trained. The problem, as in my industry, is that they employ well trained, well motivated staff and then treat them like idiots, forcing them to follow protocols developed in the rarefied atmosphere of the desktop rather than allowing the circumstances to dictate appropriate responses.

Winston001

29th June 2009, 14:45

NZers need to "own" the country's kids. While CYF exist there is no desire or driver to do anything other than report kids at risk to an agency that wastes time investigating kids playing in a park and puts their parents under the microscope. Apparently it is preferable to dob people in, rather than check out for yourself.

Not arguing with you, the miserable lives some children lead appalls me. Its one of the few issues I'm passionate about too.

So I'm interested - what do you replace CYP with?

MSTRS

29th June 2009, 14:45

I don't doubt that most staff are actually well intentioned and well trained. The problem, as in my industry, is that they employ well trained, well motivated staff and then treat them like idiots, forcing them to follow protocols developed in the rarefied atmosphere of the desktop rather than allowing the circumstances to dictate appropriate responses.

Fair enough. Sounds like something most of us can agree with. BUT the reality is still that good Mums/Dads all over the country are caught up in the bullshit*. And those that should be, as Jim says, are not.

* Case in point....
People I have known for some 38 years were put in the gun by these pricks at CYFs. His grandaughter tripped on a step as a barely-walking toddler. She bumped her head. The parents (son and d-in-law) took bubs to a doctor, just to be safe. Bubs was fine, but the doctor had to write a report that ended up with CYFs, that said the child had suffered a head injury, one that could have been caused by shaking. CYFs grabbed the baby, placed it with the g-father and his wife. The parents were not allowed access for months, and then only with a CYFs nazi in the room. It was nearly 18 months before the parents were allowed their child back.

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 14:56

Teachers, Nurses and Doctors have never removed kids. So you are left with our already overloaded and cumbersome policing and judicial systems interferring in family matters, usually many months after whatever triggered their initial interest. Doesn't sound like an improvement to me and overloads our police with tasks far removed from their core brief. All you'd end up with is a specialist service within the police force: CYFS by another name.

Yes they have and they do to this day. It involves calling CYF. Once a Teacher, Nurse or Doctor calls CYF, the likelyhood of the existing family unit surviving the resulting investigation is marginal, at best. There is no need for the unresponsive middle man. What do you call NZ's super secret family court, who dish out rulings with no appeal possible, if not a court?

The current iteration of CYF has removed the collective responsibility for the safety of NZ children from parents and the wider community and placed in the hands of an organisation without the resources to do a good job. Putting your hands on your ears and going "lalalala" isn't going to fix the problem. CYF investigating a family for leaving their kids unsupervised at a park is patently ridiculous, when simply asking the kids if Mum and Dad said it was OK and then talking to the parents yourself about your opinion would have sufficed.

Since when was keeping kids safe far from the core job of the Police force? Shouldn't it be one of the primary ones?

Trudes

29th June 2009, 15:26

As an everyday citizen, if I saw something I thought was a little "off" I have to say that my own personal safety would have to come into the equation when I weigh up how bad I think the situation is or could be and how I decide to deal with it. I have to be honest and say that I would be very cautious about knocking on a stranger's door and asking if their kids were ok for fear of having my head beaten in for even implying that something might be wrong. There are some very defensive abusive parents out there and I for one would rather ring the police or the school or something if I was concerned about something than take matters into my own hands.

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 15:42

Therein lies the problem. Rather than make a judgement and ask a question, people will hide behind an authority figure, who in reality will be incapable of doing anything positive, due to the way in which they MUST apply the law.

slowpoke

29th June 2009, 16:31

Yes they have and they do to this day. It involves calling CYF. Once a Teacher, Nurse or Doctor calls CYF, the likelyhood of the existing family unit surviving the resulting investigation is marginal, at best. (Based on what? Newspaper articles? General impression? I reckon you'd find that all we hear is the exception rather than the norm) There is no need for the unresponsive middle man. (How can you call them "unresponsive" and decry them for early intervention in the same paragraph?You can't have it both ways)What do you call NZ's super secret family court, who dish out rulings with no appeal possible, if not a court?

The current iteration of CYF has removed the collective responsibility for the safety of NZ children from parents and the wider community and placed in the hands of an organisation without the resources to do a good job. (What have they taken away? Surely investigating a couple of unattended kids in a park has put the onus squarely on parents to be responsible?) Putting your hands on your ears and going "lalalala" isn't going to fix the problem. (isn't this exactly what you are doing by removing an organisation dedicated to the problem and simply putting it back on the community and saying "Here, you fix it!"? Besides, community (or lack of) and many of the people in it are the problem. Even a well meaning "community" has no power to accomplish anything, are you expecting a well meaning neighbour to step in and save kids from abuse? To put it plainly CYFS was created because our community has a problem it can't handle, to expect a magic cure to have occurred in the intervening years is just dreamin') CYF investigating a family for leaving their kids unsupervised at a park is patently ridiculous, when simply asking the kids if Mum and Dad said it was OK and then talking to the parents yourself about your opinion would have sufficed. (so what if they'd done nothing and there had been a serious problem? You'd be complaining that they'd done nothing. It may be clumsy but surely it's better to err on the side of caution?)

Since when was keeping kids safe far from the core job of the Police force? Shouldn't it be one of the primary ones?

Maybe I'm out of synch with general society but I value everyone equally and expect the coppers to try and keep all of us safe as best they can. To expect the police force to be tied up assessing family environments, educating and/or counselling parents and kids is distracting and diluting them from the similarly urgent problems of robbery, rape, murder etc in the rest of society. Far better in my opinion to have a separate entity that specialises in assistance, education and if necessary intervention rather than law enforcement.

Your frustration is palapable Jim, and may well be justified (who can say without stepping foot in the houses and talking to the people involved?) but I can't see a better way of doing it. Sure it needs some work but I think a specialist organisation is required to address this special problem.

Winston001

29th June 2009, 16:56

Jim - seriously, what do you replace CYFs with? The police..? Ask any police officer what they would think of this. I don't think any country in the developed world expects their police to also be child welfare guardians.

Marmoot

29th June 2009, 17:15

seriously, what do you replace CYFs with?

Parents, society, us.

James Deuce

29th June 2009, 17:50

The current CYF model has failed. I've heard the tip of the iceberg argument before and from personal experience it doesn't hold up. There are horrific things going on in our "community" all the time and the stuff that gets reported are the things that CYF gets caught out on, rather than being unfortunate isolated incidents.

The focus on maintaining family and ethnic integrity is failing children. The focus should be on their long term safety.

I do NOT think a single agency should be responsible for monitoring and "fixing" family issues. The Police are but one tool in what should be an arsenal of tools, but instead CYF are given an impossible task of fixing what is a community and social issue. Replacing CYF? Absolutely not. Remove the concept altogether. They've siloed an important social issue and between them and the Family Court there is little transparency except for the obvious cock ups, and it appears that the genuine concerns of people who deal with disaster every day are being ignored.

A systemic review is required. A single deptartment model does not work.

carver

29th June 2009, 18:14

Fucken joke alright Jim. HAving been on the receiving end of a CYF investigation I have some serious concerns over the processes they employ.

Being investigated for your kids playing in a park is unbelievable.

do they have any jobs going?
me and skiddy may join

slowpoke

29th June 2009, 18:56

Parents, society, us.

The failure of "parents, society, us" is what necessitated CYFS (or something similar) in the first place. None of the aforementioned are in a better position to rectify the shortcomings now than when CYFS was created.

The current CYF model has failed. I've heard the tip of the iceberg argument before and from personal experience it doesn't hold up. There are horrific things going on in our "community" all the time and the stuff that gets reported are the things that CYF gets caught out on, rather than being unfortunate isolated incidents.

The focus on maintaining family and ethnic integrity is failing children. The focus should be on their long term safety.

I do NOT think a single agency should be responsible for monitoring and "fixing" family issues. The Police are but one tool in what should be an arsenal of tools, but instead CYF are given an impossible task of fixing what is a community and social issue. Replacing CYF? Absolutely not. Remove the concept altogether. They've siloed an important social issue and between them and the Family Court there is little transparency except for the obvious cock ups, and it appears that the genuine concerns of people who deal with disaster every day are being ignored.

A systemic review is required. A single deptartment model does not work.

Bureaucracy breeds bureacracy, I don't see having more departments involved as helping the situation, more than likely just the opposite.

I don't even see CYF as being the problem, they are just symptomatic of society's ills. As you put it so succinctly earlier, they are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Fixing the ambulance (or whatever arrangement/institution is in place) doesn't lessen the tragedy of them being required in the first place. And as much as people say "we've got to take more care as a community" etc it doesn't solve a thing. It's a pie in the sky statement that achieves nothing and has no hope of being implemented. How exactly do you do that? I have yet to hear a single concrete do-able thing that is going to improve things for the families at ground zero....but I live in hope.

98tls

29th June 2009, 19:10

The failure of "parents, society, us" is what necessitated CYFS (or something similar) in the first place. None of the aforementioned are in a better position to rectify the shortcomings now than when CYFS was created.

Bureaucracy breeds bureacracy, I don't see having more departments involved as helping the situation, more than likely just the opposite.

I don't even see CYF as being the problem, they are just symptomatic of society's ills. As you put it so succinctly earlier, they are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Fixing the ambulance (or whatever arrangement/institution is in place) doesn't lessen the tragedy of them being required in the first place. And as much as people say "we've got to take more care as a community" etc it doesn't solve a thing. It's a pie in the sky statement that achieves nothing and has no hope of being implemented. How exactly do you do that? I have yet to hear a single concrete do-able thing that is going to improve things for the families at ground zero....but I live in hope. Sadly thats nail on the head stuff.I for one cant see an answer and firmly believe it will never come from any government run dept,sadder still the only realistic option is to look after your own and ignore the rest which seems to be the way of the world.

Ocean1

29th June 2009, 20:51

How exactly do you do that? I have yet to hear a single concrete do-able thing that is going to improve things for the families at ground zero....but I live in hope.

I got that.

Simple, really. Reduce the size of your village.

If you don't know their name they're not "us", they're "them".

You're not designed to care about "them".

Marmoot

29th June 2009, 21:54

The failure of "parents, society, us" is what necessitated CYFS (or something similar) in the first place. None of the aforementioned are in a better position to rectify the shortcomings now than when CYFS was created.

Most people in here advocates better driver training than more speed cameras. Yes? Exactly, my thoughts too. Same with parenting.

Finn

30th June 2009, 11:00

Badjelly

30th June 2009, 11:23

They're listening James... Not exactly what we need but it's a good start in the right direction...

I don't see how leaving the organisation in place, with the same mandate and the same attitudes, but cutting its numbers is a step in the right direction.

Lissa

30th June 2009, 12:31

Well concerning James's first post, that puts the breaks on my plans on letting my kids be a little more independent.

I was going to let my 10 and 8 year walk to the park around the corner from me for a little play by themselves but now I wont. I let my 8 year old walk to the dairy on her own the other day because she wanted to show me she could do it but I watched her the whole way in the car and waited for her at the dairy to take her home.

Not sure what NZ is coming to at the moment. My children will continue to be bubble wrapped because I dont want to be punished for letting them do anything on their own.

So are children allowed to walk or bike to school on their own? Are kids under 14 allowed to have a paper round? I was biking to school from the age of 5. From the age of nine I was walking to the diary on my own and playing in the fields with my friends down the road from home on my own.

Its a crock of shit (pardon the language). I dont want to be parenting with guilt and fear. Its important that my children be allowed to do what I did as a child when I feel they are ready for the responsibility.

Winston001

30th June 2009, 13:15

JMemonic

30th June 2009, 13:26

At 5 I was catching a bus unsupervised from Oaklands to town to go to school everyday. So were a lot of my peers.

At 8, I was cooking meals for my family 5 days a week solo and unsupervised as my mother worked nights.

At 10 years old I was cycling to school unsupervised from Oaklands to Yalhurst, I also used to cycle everywhere I needed to go.

We (all the kids in the neighbourhood) would gather at the park or pool in the summer months with no adult supervision, mind you we knew our neighbours so there was always numbers around.

We knew to look out for one and other, we knew there were sicko's around, sure we got grazed knees and broken bones but no one died as we knew we were responsible for ourselves.

Sorry but imho CYS are doing a piss poor job, there are no more sicko's around just more sensationalist media coverage, back then it was swept under the rug and dealt with in private now there are huge exposes about every kiddy fiddler making it seem like there is one in every park or street corner.

As for kids getting killed and CYF's record of prevention there well lets not get me started.

James Deuce

30th June 2009, 13:48

Lissa, I don't think you have anything to worry about. The article which started this thread is about an over-reaction by a parent who must have some sort of anger/authority problem.

The fact is - CYF checked - nothing wrong, end. Why any sensible person thinks checking up on the safety of two children is a bad thing is beyond me.

And as Trudes says above, expecting members of the community to check is unreasonable. You run the risk of getting a poke in the nose. How often on these forums do people rant about "noseyparkers" and people minding their own business?? :shutup:

Yes young children are allowed to walk/bike to school. It is at a regular time of day and parents keep an eye out - I know I do. There are walking school bus groups for this purpose.

The CYF investigation does not end with a fullstop. I am fully aware that you will no doubt regard the following as "fantasy", however I have seen how the process works. Any other "breach" for these parents will result in prosecution.

The family's Doctor, the School and pre-school will now be required to present any and all data requested by CYF, and are under a legal obligation to present data to CYF for review if it might indicate abuse. Child turns up to school with bruises on legs on Monday and the now twitchy teacher reports it to their friendly CYF agent, and the parents will be prosecuted. It does not matter if the bruises were gained playing soccer, tripping down the stairs, or actually being beaten by the parents, it will be dealt with as an assault. If the teacher doesn't report it and another teacher does, the child's normal teacher will be in trouble as well. Agin, if you think these things don't happen then think again.

Without going into details, I have been involved in the process of having children removed from their parents, thanks to witnessing nothing more than the robust telling off of a child for turning its prematurely born sibling's incubator off by mistake. The nurses are required by law, at the risk of losing their registration and prosecution to report any incident of abuse. Because the definition of abuse is so broad, one person's telling off is another's abuse. The way CYF behaved was appalling, given that the child in the incubator was at death's door and the parents were naturally very upset. I was there because I was a customer of the health service too.

The investigation is not benign. It does not end with the case in point.

It is not "unacceptable" to ask kids if they need help. It is not "unaacceptable" to ask a member of the community if they need help.

My wife has a broken foot. I wrote letters to the teachers yesterday to request that the boys were delivered to the office, so that they could be picked up early, due to prearranged after school activity. Not only did they refuse to do that, no one went to go and get the kids from their respective rooms and left her walking 400 metres on a broken foot to pick them up from their classroom. None of the other parents around offered to get them either.

I'm sick to death of hearing the word community. As soon as anyone REALLY needs help, the "community" runs for the hills. Very rarely, outstanding individuals will actually do something to help others, and they are usually the last people you would expect.

I'm disappointed that the default setting for Kiwis is to ignore people who need help in preference to dobbing them in to an organisation who can only apply the law (usually poorly written law in reference to family interaction) in strictly defined terms. Government departments are not there to help you.

Ixion

30th June 2009, 19:12

But this and several other posts are just generalised concepts.

In general every psychologist and right thinking parent will agree with you......but exactly what dangers you allow kids to be exposed to is open to huge debate. How young is too young to be unsupervised? Where is it OK to leave them unsupervised? Who is capable of supervising? Etc etc, and that's what the crux of the debate is about. One persons acceptable risk is another persons irresponsibility and a beureaucratic nightmare.

Dude, we, collectively have about a million years experience at determining those questions.

As a kid we did all the things kids nowadays are forbidden to do. I don't recall ANY kid coming to serious harm. A couple of broken bones (street cred!). Lots and lots of bruises and grazes (when do you EVER see a boy with a grazed knee now - ours were all permanently mercurochrome).Each one a lesson learned. Nothing serious. Which suggests that the collective wisdom pretty much got it right. We survived, intact. More so in fact than todays youff.

The problem is the insistence of a bureaucracy that that collective wisdom must be ignored an replaced by the dictates of a bureaucratic machine.

But the question remains: should CYFS be shut down?

Yes.

It may be inefficient, cumbersome and hamstrung by protocol's that have to be followed but I still think something is better than nothing. Because nothing is the only alternative. You can restructure, rename, rebuild it all you like but it's just gonna be CYFS by another name.

No it's not. We had a perfectly good alternative before CYS was invented and proceeded to rubbish said alternative. It was called Gran. Kuia. Plunket. Old Mrs Wilson who's reared seven of the little scallywags. The Mothers Union. And "well, when I was a kid my Mum .. " . And all their associated and related networks and centuries old accumulated wisdom

The wisdom is still out there. Just read this thread! The problem is the insistence by bureaucrats that nothing is acceptable unles sit comes from some office sitting "expert"

Abolish CYS. Use the money to fund things that work . Like Plunket. Plunket did more for kids every month than CYS has done in the whole of its existence. (Yes I know Plunket technically still exists - a fund starved ridiculed shadow of what it was)

Genestho

30th June 2009, 19:47

Dude, we, collectively have about a million years experience at determining those questions.

As a kid we did all the things kids nowadays are forbidden to do. I don't recall ANY kid coming to serious harm. A couple of broken bones (street cred!). Lots and lots of bruises and grazes (when do you EVER see a boy with a grazed knee now - ours were all permanently mercurochrome).Each one a lesson learned. Nothing serious. Which suggests that the collective wisdom pretty much got it right. We survived, intact. More so in fact than todays youff.

The problem is the insistence of a bureaucracy that that collective wisdom must be ignored an replaced by the dictates of a bureaucratic machine.

Yes.

No it's not. We had a perfectly good alternative before CYS was invented and proceeded to rubbish said alternative. It was called Gran. Kuia. Plunket. Old Mrs Wilson who's reared seven of the little scallywags. The Mothers Union. And "well, when I was a kid my Mum .. " . And all their associated and related networks and centuries old accumulated wisdom

The wisdom is still out there. Just read this thread! The problem is the insistence by bureaucrats that nothing is acceptable unles sit comes from some office sitting "expert"

Abolish CYS. Use the money to fund things that work . Like Plunket. Plunket did more for kids every month than CYS has done in the whole of its existence. (Yes I know Plunket technically still exists - a fund starved ridiculed shadow of what it was)

Well said that man, plunket is community based, helping the community! The plunket line, something I rang quite often for advice!
Just watch out for treasurers of plunket that make off with 200 plus grand, as she did here!!!!!!!!

Ocean1

30th June 2009, 23:08

Plunket did more for kids every month than CYS has done in the whole of its existence. (Yes I know Plunket technically still exists - a fund starved ridiculed shadow of what it was)

The plunket line, something I rang quite often for advice!

Yes, internationally recognised as THE state childcare benchmark.

And we scrapped it.

Bring it back, it WORKED.

davereid

1st July 2009, 08:34

Yes, internationally recognised as THE state childcare benchmark. And we scrapped it. Bring it back, it WORKED.

Plunket was (is) a wonderful organisation. But it could never be a part of our new government model.

Plunket assumed people were rational, that the vast majority wanted the best for their kids, and that with just a little community based support they could bring up their kids.

CYFS on the other hand assumes that every bruise needs investigation. That people are basically irrational, and only a government department with big teeth can kick people into line.

The difference is not us, or our kids, its our Government. We have allowed it to assume a role of "we decide, you obey, no carrot, here is the stick."

It may be CYFS, a building permit, or something as simple as your drivers licence or car rego.

The rules have just become more (needlessly) complicated, the enforcement and penalties more draconian, and the outcomes un-improved.

Kiwis seem to love it, secret S&M freaks everywhere, enjoying making, and playing with rues and punishments.

Just read the threads - we should ban this, stop that, why arent the g'mint paying, its not fair....

Finn

1st July 2009, 08:56

I don't see how leaving the organisation in place, with the same mandate and the same attitudes, but cutting its numbers is a step in the right direction.

Any number cuts in Government is a good thing. Expecting excellence from them is naive.

Usarka

15th July 2009, 20:37

I hope cyf (and the bubble-wrappers) watched that "Politcally Incorrect Parenting" show on tv1 tonight. It's on again next week if you missed it.

Trudes

15th July 2009, 21:24

Oh my did I laugh! Bought back many memories of childhood where my feet constantly had prickles and stubbed toes and scabed knees from pissing about outside in bare feet and falling out of and off stuff! Shit did we have fun!
That programme was great, I hope a lot of PC over protective parents watch and take some note. Next weeks one looks interesting too "if your kids are fat it's because of what YOU are feeding them"....

Dean

15th July 2009, 22:10

cyfs dont deal with domestic violence properly, i remember when they came over in their suits and clipboards investigating the house, me, my family. When they take someone away from their family it isnt your fault it is only because you are a victim of violence, which i dont get. Because they dont take out the person who casuses the problem/violence. Plus side is you could get moved to a rich family, and you get a nice motorcycle and whatnot.

Conquiztador

15th July 2009, 22:11

CYF also has other "reasons" to exist. They call the shots for all WINZ subsidy funding approvals for up to 13yo children.

If you run a programme for kids up to 13 yo and you charge a fee you have two options:

1. Forget about WINZ subsidies and make all parents pay from their pockets. This means 80% of NZ'ers will miss out on the subsidy when using your programme. (In reality you miss out on 80% of customers...) This means CYF will not be involved in checking your programme.

2. You want the families who are able to get WINZ subsidies to use your programmes. So you need CYF approval. A nightmare! The shit they want you to do!! Pedantic waste of time shit! The paperwork is huge.

Here a example:
A school class can have 30-40 kids in the classroom with one teacher. Shools are not under the jurisdiction of CYF byt MOE (Ministery Of Education). If you then want to use the same classroom for example After School Care and need a CYF approval you must have 2 Supervisors all time there up to 20 kids. 3 for 20-30 kids and 4 for 31-40 kids. No exeptions!. And CYF is currently trying to put in place a rule that each kid needs 5 square meters space.

That means that same classroom where 35 kids spent the day happily with one teacher now can only have 12 kids and there must be two Supervisors...

Then if you want to also cater for 14yo+ kids you need a different approval to add to the first one. And it takes 2 months to get any of this shit done.

If you then want to take the same group of kids (think Holiday Programmes) for a sleep over at somewhere, example a camp, you need a new approval. You also need to have a smaller ratio as there is more dangers. Take the kids swimming and the ratio is 1 Supervisor to 4 kids.

And there is heaps more. I could write a book about this stuff.

There is only one government organisation I am scared for in NZ. Forget Police, Immigration, Customs. They are pussies. CYF has unlimited power! You are guilty until you can prove that you are innocent. Now that is scary!!!

nana_mac

15th July 2009, 22:29

Probably a few kids who have been removed from abusive or neglectful parents I'd suggest. CYFS is primarily there for their welfare so they are the ones you need to ask.

Cyf's still there for the dam drop kick parents, not for the prtection of the child as I will know as a gran bringing up a grandchild.

u4ea

16th July 2009, 00:12

CYF are usually the ambulance at the botton of the cliff...Im actually glad to see in this instance they looked into a situation before the "responsible" 9 yr old could forsee any danger to the 4 yr old sibling...to me it is the same as leaving the kids under the age of 14 home alone..just because its a park, in my opinion it doesnt mean they are safe.

Pixie

16th July 2009, 08:26

A foot note both my kids told mom that 1 week was enough escorting to school

See what I mean?
Today,having your mom do escort work near a school would probably be frowned upon

James Deuce

19th July 2009, 09:23

So some of you are fine with an organisation that you feel is working for the safety of children to call this absolute horror of a boarding school, "cosy, and "charming"?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2607013/School-for-scandal

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1247918724/005/2607005.jpg http://static.stuff.co.nz/1247918743/006/2607006.jpg

They keep kids in their care in a building so dilapidated parts are locked off because it is falling down. CYF fail the kids in their care and society at large. We pay for them with our taxes to keep kids in a building where the toilet floor is covered in faeces.

firefighter

19th July 2009, 10:02

That's the crux of the whole thing. CYF has a DUTY to investigate. That is their job! It's the same as if a drunk fella was hit by a car as he staggered across the road from the pub. Even though it's obvious who was to blame, the Police are still duty-bound to investigate the circumstances.

Don't give me that DUTY shit.

It's because the kid is brough up in a nice, white home, with genuine nice caring parents.

You may or may not have seen posts of the child abuse going on next door to me which I tried repeatedly to report to CYFS, in the housing NZ house......

Basically I was treated like shit by cyfs, I even told them I have video evidence, of the kids being picked up and thrown outside, called disgusting little motherfuckers/screamed right in their faces, and the right from prison speaking "BRO" from cyfs speaking in a thick blackscent straight from the streets of Otara tells me not to worry about it.

I had sent it into Cambell live but I have'nt had a reply. Was a few months back now.

Dean

19th July 2009, 15:56

Don't give me that DUTY shit.

It's because the kid is brough up in a nice, white home, with genuine nice caring parents.

You may or may not have seen posts of the child abuse going on next door to me which I tried repeatedly to report to CYFS, in the housing NZ house......

Basically I was treated like shit by cyfs, I even told them I have video evidence, of the kids being picked up and thrown outside, called disgusting little motherfuckers/screamed right in their faces, and the right from prison speaking "BRO" from cyfs speaking in a thick blackscent straight from the streets of Otara tells me not to worry about it.

I had sent it into Cambell live but I have'nt had a reply. Was a few months back now.

I guess they must of changed in the last few years, when they took me the months preceeding they had one on one interviews with me in the lounge and constantly snoop around the house. They wouldnt leave me alone, i dont know why they arent dealing with the case you presented. It is a shithouse staying in a cyfs home, you can get stabbed, beaten, for food and possesions. As pictures show the toilets are always dirty, worst place to stay. It is IN NO WAY A SAFE ENVIROMENT OR CLEAN. Wishing to be taken to a rich persons home was their heaven.

buffstar

19th July 2009, 21:31

Nope but I know a couple of local plods and they get the odd call from Joe public on unsavoury charactors hanging around parks. Not a lot but it does happen.

The other equation that this parent allowed his nine year old son to look after his four year old daughter. What sort of impact do you think that would have on a child if something happened to his sister?

Call it what you will but I call placing a nine year old with the responsibilty of looking after a four year old in public place or for that matter even in the family home bad parenting. If you think otherwise your choice.

Skyryder

Yes I have to agree here, although many of us had a very free childhood and nothing happened....... my nine year old son was left at home 1st October 08, (his dad was just next door helping the neighbour out )-he died tragically because a nine year old child has no fucking idea of consequences of actions or self preservation
at the end of the day you DO only have one chance with your child - and if you fuck it up as my ex partner did you and everyone else who loved that child suffer for the rest of their lives.:(
very good point about the 9yr old coping had something happened to his sister. My daughter was not there when Zak died, and yet still feels guilty for what she could have/should have/would have done.........

personally I watch my kids like a hawk, their grip on reality is soooooo far different from ours as adults - I let them make their own mistakes - but I'm there to pick up the pieces and mop up the blood

However I also agree that CYFs are a bunch of wankers