Shut CYF down

[James Deuce]

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

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2546...-alone-in-park

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

[Usarka]

WTF the older kid was 9?????

In New Zealand, it is against the law to leave children under 14 alone without making reasonable provisions for their care and supervision. What is considered "reasonable" takes into account how long the children are alone for and why.

So one year after a kid is deemed responsible enough to go to the park they are allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

[James Deuce]

Yup. They've stopped going to the park many years ago by the time they're allowed to use it without Mummy and Daddy watching. In the meantime, both Mum & Dad are supposed to have fulfilling full time, tax-paying careers, keep a perfect house and spend at least 4-5 hours a day supervising each child at their extra-curricular activities, and prevent them from watching TV or using computers as entertainment.

Someone should give the Stuff reporter a medal for presenting a balanced peice of journalism.

[White trash]

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.

[Usarka]

So it's better to keep them home in front of the TV or playstation.

Awesome lesson for parents cyfs!

[Oakie]

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]

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]

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.

However, when they find it's been a malicious or false complaint, they make it very clear that a further unsubstantiated claim will result in legal action. The pricks still wont tell you who made the complaint though. So you throw your cousin his partner out on their arse to find somewhere else to live, and for the next 10 months relationships are seriously strained untill one of your friends let slip who the real culprit is.

Someone makes a complaint of that nature, and they're wrong or just spitefull, i think CYFS should at least be prepared to name the complainant

[Usarka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).