Kiwiblog

The Social Service Providers Aotearoa Inc. have organised a series of seminars on the Green Paper.

The Wellingtom seminar is tomorrow Thursday 2 February from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm at St Johns in the City church on Willis Street. Speakers include:

•  Mai Chen, ChenPalmer, Privacy Act: Barrier or Opportunity to Minimise Harm to Vulnerable Children?
• Dr Tony Burton, Principal Advisor, Treasury, Addressing the funding barriers to providing effective services for vulnerable children.
• Dr Ben Mathews, School of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Does the protection of vulnerable children require a system of mandatory reporting of abuse/neglect?
• Dr Nicola Atwool, Senior Lecturer, Dept of Sociology, >>Gender and Social Work, University of Otago, Does the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children reflect best practice and robust research?

Looks a very interesting line up of speakers and topics. Only $20 at attend. You can e-mail info@sspa.org.nz to register.

Holly Walker blogs at Frog Blog:

The release of these studies comes while Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is in the middle of an intensive road trip consulting on her Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. She was in my town, Lower Hutt, last night, and in Whangarei earlier this week while I was there. From local reports, it sounds like the consultation process has been somewhat fraught, with locals in Whangarei frustrated that the Minister wasn’t open to hearing from people directly, insisting instead that they “put it in a submission“. Nevertheless I applaud the proactive way that the Government has approached the task of consulting on the Green Paper – they’ve really gone all out with meetings, websites, social media, and NGO engagement. Submissions close on 28 February and I do encourage you to make one.

It’s good that Holly is encouraging submissions, and encouraging participation in the process.

I’ve heard from those who were at the Lower Hutt meeting last night that the cost of living and inequality were are major theme of responses from the audience, but that the Minister’s focus was very much on reporting and information-sharing. …

Until we address child poverty and inequality, we can’t hope to make serious inroads on the child abuse issue.

I don’t accept that child abuse is just about child poverty and inequality. There are Asian countries with much greater poverty and inequality that have almost no child abuse.

While I commend Holly for her post, and promoting the green paper consultation, could I suggest MPs “eat their own dogfood” so to speak. Rather than rely on third hand reports of what was said at a local meeting, I would hope local MPs would go along and attend.

I understand there were 150 people at the meeting in Lower Hutt, including six National MPs. Labour and other parties have been calling for a bi-partisan approach to child abuse. So I would have though local MPs would go along to hear what their communities are saying. But none on non-National MP attended – despite all being invited.

I think it would be of more importance than a Frocks on Bike bike maintenance workshop. Frocks on Bikes is a commendable initiative, but I do think it is a pity none of the local MPs actually attended the meeting, and heard first hand what people were saying. I recall Metiria Turei attending the launch of the green paper, which was commendable.

I don’t think you can declare an issue will be bi-partisan or non-partisan as different parties have genuinely different beliefs on how to reduce child abuse. National will believe their welfare reforms will help reduce child abuse, while the Greens will disagree (for example). But despite those differences in beliefs, there is no reasons people can’t take part in the process, and have their views heard. I do not believe the Government in any way has pre-determined outcomes on this review. There are no easy solutions, so whatever decisions do eventually get made will inevitably upset some segments of the community.

UPDATE: Holly has commented below, explaining she was running the session she attended and had agreed to do so back in November. But she did send her EA to take notes.

Stuff reports:

An Auckland mother found guilty of horrific child abuse went to jail saying she is “not really a bad mother”.

The woman, 31, who has name suppression, was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison with a non-parole period of five years when she appeared in the Auckland District Court yesterday.

The 10-year-old girl is so terrified she has nightmares her mother will get out of jail, find her and continue the beatings.

Emotional pleas by the girl and her eight-year-old brother were read to Auckland District Court yesterday as their west Auckland mother was jailed for sustained and horrific abuse against them.

“I still have nightmares about what happened to me. In my dreams my mother and father are out of jail and trying to find me to hurt me some more,” the girl said in a victim impact statement.

Her brother, through a statement he insisted was read to court, told judge Brooke Gibson he wanted his parents to stay in jail for a long time.

“I was hurt for a long time so I think they should stay where they are for a long time too.

“There is nothing nice about my mum. I can’t think of any good things. I can think of lots of bad things. I don’t know why I was hit so much but I think it was because I wasn’t good enough.”

The case came to light last year when the girl, aged nine at the time, was found hiding in a cupboard in her home.

She was starving, dehydrated, bruised and suffering from broken bones and anaemia from internal bleeding and her scalp had been half torn off.

The case appalled the nation and has been dubbed one of the worst abuse cases in which a child had lived.

The mother pleaded guilty to 25 charges, including tearing off the girl’s toe nail and pouring boiling water and salt over the bleeding toe.

She wrote abusive comments on the girl’s body, kicked her in the vaginal area, and assaulted her with weapons, including a machete, broom handle and table leg.

The mother also abused her son, who was seven at the time.

The mother has spoken out, saying she is not a bad parent and was simply trying to protect her other three children.

“I’m a bad mum for what I done to the child but I’m not really a bad mother at all.”

Umm, yes you are a very bad mother. In fact you are a rather bad human being.

“My submission is that both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development failed both [the child] and her mother.”

Yes, of course it is someone else’s fault. They made you pour boiling water on your children.

Just reading the impact statements to the court from the brother and sister makes you want to cry. An eight year old boy who says:

Her brother, through a statement he insisted was read to court, told judge Brooke Gibson he wanted his parents to stay in jail for a long time.

“I was hurt for a long time so I think they should stay where they are for a long time too.

“There is nothing nice about my mum. I can’t think of any good things. I can think of lots of bad things. I don’t know why I was hit so much but I think it was because I wasn’t good enough.”

Hopefully her kids can now go on to have a safer more loving life.

I was up in Hamilton a couple of weeks ago as the guest speaker at a Chamber of Commerce Afters Fives function. The function was hosted by Child Matters.

Child Matters, formerly CPS , specialise in education to prevent child abuse. In the 15 years they have operated they have trained 15,000 adults how to recognise and respond to child abuse. If one can recognise it is occurring at an early stage, then it is the fence at the top of the cliff, rather than the ambulance at the bottom.

At times, I despair of the well publicised child abuse cases. I have problems recognising than human beings can actually do stuff such as stick babies in clothes dryers or hang them on clothes lines with clothes pegs. The easy response is to just categorise those who do such things as sub-human, and conclude nothing can be done but to stop them breeding.

However not all cases are as extreme as the ones we read out in the media, and early intervention can work in many cases.

A photo of me with some of the Child Matters team. The cardboard cut outs are for Buddy Day, on 18 November. There will be 180 buddies in Hamilton (representing 1,800 cases of child abuse in the Waikato last year) that will be lent out to schools, childcare centres and community groups to look after for the day. It’s a fun child-centric way of talking about child abuse, and raising awareness of keeping kids safe.

Some sad but interesting facts from their FAQ on common myths:

Myth: Children are usually sexually abused by strangers.
Fact: 85 – 90% of children who are sexually abused are sexually abused by someone they know.

Myth: The most common form of abuse suffered by children at home is sexual abuse.
Fact: Children are seven times more likely to be beaten badly by their parents than sexually abused by them.

Myth: Most physical abuse is carried out by men, especially fathers.
Fact: Violent acts towards children are more likely to be carried out by mothers than fathers.

Myth: Sexual attacks on children from strangers are common.
Fact: Sexual assaults involving contact by strangers are very rare.

There’s a wealth of information on their website, for those who want to know more about what they can do to help.

An excellent post by Ludditejourno at the Hand Mirror:

Imagine this. You’re a woman. You live with your partner and your daughter. One night, your partner has gone out to a Christmas party by himself. When he comes home, it’s late, he’s drunk, he fancies a shag, you don’t.

You say “no, thanks” and go to sleep.

In the wee hours of the morning, you wake up. Something’s not quite right. You open your eyes properly and look around. Your beautiful little girl, all of four years old, has jumped into bed with you.

Your partner has pulled down her pyjama pants. He was removed her night-time nappy. He has his mouth where her tiny, four year old genitals are.

You probably shout or scream. You probably grab your daughter and pull her away from him. You probably can’t quite believe what you’ve just seen, and desperately wish you hadn’t. You probably try to control what you want to say and do to him, because you have a little, confused girl in your arms who needs a cuddle, who needs help to put her nappy and pyjamas back on properly.

He says “I was confused, I thought it was you.”

You don’t believe this. You don’t wear nappies to bed. And you had already told him, that night, that you didn’t want to have sex.

Who knows how much you talk about it that night – but you decide you have to report this to the Police. You’re not sure why your partner would lie about trying to do adult sexual things with your daughter, but you don’t want her to be at risk. You don’t know what to believe. Could this happen again? Has he done this before? You don’t know. But you can’t risk your little four year old girl. You talk to people. No one else wants to believe it either.

When you tell the Police, he is furious. He made a mistake, he was drunk, it could happen to anyone. Don’t you care about him? What about his career, he’s a comedian, he makes people laugh, this will ruin everything. He just wants a chance to show you and your daughter how much he loves you. But he has to get a lawyer, because the Police investigate. …

You stay strong. Your lawyers stay strong. The trial goes ahead, fifteen months later. The lawyers talk. He doesn’t want to go to prison, and he knows he will if the court believes you and your daughter, if you get to tell them what happened that night.

Your lawyers do a deal. He says he did it, he did try to do sexual adult things with your four year old daughter. He says he is guilty. You don’t have to talk in court after all.

You go back for sentencing. The judge says your partner needs to get back to making people laugh as soon as possible. She said what happened wasn’t so bad, and he had suffered enough, and anyway it wasn’t like real child abuse, because that happens in secret. He doesn’t have to go to prison, or have counselling, or do community work. He is free.

Your life has changed forever. So has your daughter’s. None of this was funny.

I’d been trying for some days to write a post to express my outrage at the discharge without conviction of this comedian. This post did it far better than I could.

Jamie Morton at NZ Herald reports:

A coroner has called for compulsory state monitoring of all children until they are 5 – but his hard-line approach has been dismissed as “too much” by Families Commissioner Christine Rankin.

Dr Wallace Bain, of Rotorua, yesterday made several bold recommendations for the Government on tackling child abuse when he issued his findings into the death of local toddler Nia Glassie.

The 3-year-old died of a serious brain injury in 2007 after months of physical abuse at the hands of some of her extended family.

Dr Bain’s proposals include checks on all children aged under 5, compulsory state intervention for single-parent families, mandatory reporting by schools of suspected abuse and, where necessary, compulsory sharing of case information that could breach the Privacy Act.

My instincts are also against compulsory checks on all children aged under 5, but I have to say that if it would save the lives of more infants, then it is worth a debate.

Paula Bennett launched the first green paper in 14 years at Aotea Square this afternoon. By coincidence I was up in Auckland (for the Blair lunch tomorrow) so I popped along. Excellent speeches by Sir Peter Gluckman and Paula, plus some amazing singing and performances from various young musicians.

The only protesters were Penny Bright and the Men’s Rights brigade – five in total.

The Government poses solutions to complex issues facing children and then asks the public to consider the questions that are raised by those issues, including:

• When should adults who care for vulnerable children be prioritised for services over others?
• How can the Government encourage communities to take more responsibility for the wellbeing of their children?
• How much monitoring of vulnerable children should the Government allow?

“What it doesn’t do is tell people what to think. It is intentionally written in a way that lets people make up their own mind,” say Ms Bennett.

“This is a genuinely open consultation process, giving New Zealanders a chance to have a real say in how we protect our children,” says Ms Bennett.

There are many policy issues I care deeply about – tax rates, performance pay for teachers, youth minimum wage etc etc. But let me tell you that I’d trade them all for some measures which would reduce the level of child abuse in New Zealand. There is nothing worse than a young person not having a happy and productive childhood.

If it would make a difference, I’d happily have those caring for vulnerable children prioritised for services.

The Green Paper for Vulnerable Children can be found online at:

www.childrensactionplan.govt.nz

www.facebook.com/greenpaperonchildren

The actual green paper is directly here. It’s only 40 pages, and an easy read. For me one of the key questions is:

When should government agencies step in and intervene with families and whanau?

I think one there has been one major adverse incident, then the threshold for intervention should be relatively low.

The Dom Post editorial:

Sometimes there are no good options; just choices between uncertain, least bad and bad options. Such is often the case for social workers dealing with the victims of child abuse. …

However, it is appropriate for Ms Bennett to reopen debate on the “whanau first” childcare policy implemented by the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, as she did at the weekend. The central tenet of the act is that children should not be separated from their extended families, cultures and ethnic backgrounds except as a last resort.

It is a noble sentiment but one that sugarcoats a harsh reality. Child abuse is learned behaviour. Children who are abused are more likely to grow up to abuse their own children than children raised in loving homes. If a father or mother has been abused it is likely that their brothers and sisters were also abused. Placing the victims of child abuse in the care of aunts and uncles sometimes perpetuates the abuse. It can also make it easier for abusers to gain access to their children.

I think, sadly, the current approach is not working, in that too many children who get removed from their nuclear family, still suffer abuse with their extended family.

A guest post from National MP Katrina Shanks:

Backyard Cricket for All!

I’m sitting at my desk, staring at the jandal tan lines on my feet reminiscing about the great summer holiday the kids and I just had. Beach, sunshine, BBQ, and a whole lot of backyard cricket. I love living in New Zealand.

For most Kiwis summer is about relaxing and enjoying life – but when you read a story of a nine-year-old girl hiding in a cupboard starving, dehydrated and anaemic from internal bleeding, you know that not every child can be so lucky.

Minister of Social Welfare, Hon Paula Bennett has launched an independent inquiry into this horrific case of abuse and neglect. These are the stories we hear about – but what about the child who lives at the end of the road who is forgotten?

More than 125,000 reports were made to authorities from people concerned about the safety or wellbeing of a child last year. The United Nations is concerned about children’s rights in New Zealand and our “staggering” child an infant mortality rate.

Last year Paula Bennett described a neglected child as a silent time bomb – “left alone, unwashed and unloved these children may not be physically bruised or injured but they will be deeply affected”.

These children don’t get a summer holiday. They don’t get to play backyard cricket or go to the beach. Some live in fear, some go hungry and worse still, some are forgotten about.

My friend, who’s a dietician, sees this every day. Parents bring their children in severely malnourished, listless, and glassy eyed. Their brains have not developed properly because they have not been fed, they have not been nurtured, and they have not been loved. These children will fall behind at school. They will find it difficult to get a job or to fit into society. This will be their life.

To me this is inexcusable. We live in New Zealand. We have an extensive social welfare system. We have benefits, accommodation supplements, food grants, temporary additional support and the list goes on. We have NGOs like the Salvation Army and the Red Cross who are always willing to help out. We have food banks. We have communities. We have neighbours.

Neglect of a child is identified in legislation as serious but it’s not actually defined by New Zealand law. The Law Commissions review of the Crimes Act (2009) proposes that the term neglect is replaced by a gross negligence test; in effect this will provide a definition of neglect. This is a recommendation that I strongly believe the Government should consider.

The National-led Government is working on solutions. The Never Shake a Baby campaign, First Response pilot, introducing social workers into hospitals to help identify children at risk of abuse, improved monitoring systems, Home for Life, supported housing, and help for teenage mum and dads.

But all New Zealanders need to step up and look around. We must not turn a blind eye to child abuse. We must look out for neglect in our communities and in our schools. We must place the protection and safety of the child first.

I have a vision of a New Zealand where all Kiwi kids have the best opportunities in life: Education, food, the freedom to go to the beach or play backyard cricket, love. I have a vision where Kiwi kids don’t just have a right to life, but where they have the right to live.

I don’t think there is any issue that upsets me as much as child abuse. It just goes so against normal human nature. I think most of us get upset seeing any child in distress – even those which are total strangers. So I will never understand how people can bash and torture their own kids. I don’t like to acknowledge they are even part of the same species as me.

The sad thing is that the abusers were often abused themselves. That is not an excuse, but it is a reality.  If one can break the cycle of abuse, it probably saves future generations also.

Stuff reports:

The failure of government agencies to halt appalling abuse of a nine-year-old girl has led the children’s commissioner to call for a broad independent report.

A neighbour said she called Housing New Zealand, a teacher says her school contacted the Education Ministry, and Child, Youth and Family were monitoring the girl’s family.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett will this morning review a fast-tracked interim report by CYF about how the girl was left with her family despite concerns raised about her welfare.

But Children’s Commissioner John Angus said a wider, independent report into the failure by multiple government agencies may be required. “It looks like the systems have failed this child.”

I think a wider independent inquiry is needed, but note it may not be possible until the court cases are done. I want to know who did the school tell, and how often; why did CYFS not pick up the abuse; what did Housing NZ do etc etc.

The school board’s chairwoman said the school followed the right procedures in dealing with government agencies.

A next-door neighbour of the couple said she rang Housing NZ and told three different case managers of her concerns for the couple’s children. “I knew there was something wrong.”

The good thing is that people did report their concerns – the teacher and the neighbours did the right thing. But somewhere along the way there was a failure with agencies. Not good enough.

Trevor Mallard blogs:

I’ve not been a supporter of mandatory reporting of child abuse. One of those finely balanced 60/40 things. Not die in a ditch for me.

The evidence we got was that lots of kids would not tell teachers counsellors nurses about abuse if they knew Police or CYFS would automatically be involved.

Every time we have a bad case where the system fails a child I ask myself whether we have it right

I’m not sure if such a policy would have made a difference in this case, but generally I do support mandatory reporting. I think the fear of less reporting of abuse is supposition.

Anna Leask writes on the case of the abused nine year old:

CYF will also investigate claims by the girl’s teacher that reports of abuse by the school were not investigated.

In an email to Prime Minister John Key, the teacher said she reported her concerns about “constant abuse” the girl was suffering to school management on a “weekly, almost daily” basis.

But the message the school got back from the child’s social worker was that she was “clumsy and accident prone”.

Mr Key forwarded the email, sent six days after the girl was found and her parents arrested, to Ms Bennett.

“I have grave concerns about issues raised in the letter, including the fact the teacher says she made others aware she suspected abuse was occurring,” Ms Bennett said.

“It must be incredibly heart-breaking to be closely involved with a child who has been the victim of such horrific abuse.

“I have asked for a full report on this and I intend to get to the bottom of the matter.”

In her email, the teacher said she felt powerless to do anything to protect the girl and keep her safe.

“This child has come to school with black eyes, a swollen face, swollen nose, bruises, abrasions and infected wounds that have all been explained as her being ‘clumsy and accident prone’.

“However she is only accident prone at home, she has not had a so-called accident while at school …

“Why do we have to wait for a child to be seriously injured or killed before action is taken?”

The teacher said the emotional toll of seeing the girl suffer all year was “extreme”. She had resigned from her job because she felt her concerns were not taken seriously.

“A young innocent child has suffered unimaginable pain that at her age she should not have suffered,” she told Mr Key. “Please don’t sit back and do nothing.”

Ms Mackenzie said CYF records showed concerns were raised by the school on one occasion.

“This was looked into by the social worker who did not believe this to be a result of abuse.”

“I find the issues raised by the teacher very worrying and am determined that the review gets to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

The poor teacher. If they had listened to him or her earlier, a lot of the abuse may have been prevented.

On the surface it seems both the school management and the social worker may be at fault. If the teacher raised concerns weekly and the school management only once passed these onto the social worker, then they’re let that teacher and the child down.

But it also seems clear the social worker did not investigate at all. In fact the excuse “accident prone” should ring alarm bells.

Two useful columns by Dita De Boni on child abuse. Earlier in December she blogged:

… after reading that a Whanganui man that kicked a two year old to death was found guilty of the boy’s murder in Tuesday’s paper, I could think about nothing else all day.

As I read with a resigned horror of this crime – and let’s be honest, it hardly seems spectacular or outstanding any more for young Kiwi children to die violently at the hands of their caregivers – there was a fact about it that really stuck in my head.

On the day he died, the young boy woke up from a sleep on the couch and found he had wet it. He was trying to rub the wet patch away when discovered, grabbed by the scruff of the neck and struck against a coffee table.

When the boy then had the temerity to emerge from the toilet 10 minutes later with toilet paper in his hand, he was “round-house” kicked across the room, and died of internal injuries. …

As awful as that is, the horrible thought that haunted me all day was this: a normal two year old doesn’t care, much less notice, when the inevitable toilet training accident occurs.

I have a two year old, and I can testify that if she ever woke up wet from a sleep – say, if we’d forgotten to put a nappy on her – she’d hardly miss a beat, let alone be frantically rubbing away a wet patch.

The only child that would do this is one that is terrified of the consequences. At the age of two, that is a pretty precocious terror.

Sadly true. Of the many things you want a two year old to know, terror of parents is not one of them.

But I also believe strongly that part of the problem is one of short term vision by a succession of policy makers, where funding to preschoolers is effectively seen as “nice-to-have”, but not essential.

For example, in my years as a volunteer for Plunket we have had to raise funds for heaters, measuring tables and clerical help for our nurses, who are already overburdened with work.

It’s a mystery why this service, which actually goes into the homes of babies and toddlers and can see firsthand the conditions in which a child is being raised, is so underfunded by our tax dollars.

I agree that early childhood education is worthy of greater investment. But I would dispute that investment in it is decreasing. It is hard to get exact numbers, but one ECE provider told me they estimate that some children may get up to $60,000 spent on them before they enter primary school.

And today Dita writes:

Over the weekend we were once more treated to a story that reminds us that some (many?) children live in abject misery in this country. No Merry Christmas for them.

In this case, a nine-year-old Waitakere girl was beaten, starved and neglected over a period of two years and finally found hiding in a cupboard earlier this year.

She was taken into hospital shortly afterwards suffering starvation and dehydration. Her parents are in court facing 36 charges related to her care. …

We know social workers are overworked and underpaid – it is fruitless blaming them for this disaster. I am prepared to bet that the problem is one of a general policy that CYF has of “reuniting families” – even when this is in the worst interests of the child.

Linked to this, is the policy that if one can’t keep them with their parents, then they go to a member of the extended family – and this can also be a highly dysfunctional environment.

It might be true that the policy of returning kids to their families stands because there are not enough foster parents out there. But there are good reasons people do not take up fostering, and one of the main ones I have heard from people considering this option is that they know that the same families that spat out these unloved, neglected children have the right to see them and take them back, seemingly on a whim.

There is no way a normal person would put themselves through fostering a child, only to see it return to its abusers – or the abuser’s wider, also dysfunctional, family.

I’m not sure it is on a whim, but there has to be a stage at which the rights of the parents are limited.

Elizabeth Binning in the Herald reports:

A 9-year-old girl found by police hiding in a wardrobe had suffered so much abuse that almost every part of her body was covered in injuries, including part of her scalp torn off her head as she was dragged down the hallway.

I find it hard to accept her parents are members of the same species as me. Sadly they are.

This is not the only case, sadly, of horrific child abuse. What is more unusual is that it was done to a nine year old – normally it tends to be very young children or infants.

The Weekend Herald understands the girl had been removed from her parents by Child Youth and Family not long after she was born, and was returned to them only two years ago.

Well that was a bad call.

Court documents allege the girl had suffered violent beatings since the beginning of 2009, some of which were with a stick.

In April this year, her mother allegedly repeatedly punched her in the face and hands but never sought any medical treatment for her afterwards. The Weekend Herald understands the mother did however go to the doctors herself after breaking bones in both of her own hands during the beating.

So the mother beat her child so hard, she broke bones in her own hands, yet only got treatment for herself, not her daughter.

In November the assaults intensified with her father allegedly beating her with a vacuum cleaner and a broomstick.

During the same period her mother also allegedly attacked her on an almost daily basis.

It is alleged that on November 10 she assaulted her daughter with a broomstick, repeatedly punched her in the face and body, lifted her toenail and bent it backwards and caused grievous bodily harm with a hammer.

How did no one at her school notice her bruising? Was CYF not checking up on her regularly?

It at times like this, that I do wish we had a biblical justsice system and the motehr got to get slammed by a hammer rpeatedly , and have her toenails torn off.

Of course when I clam down, I don’t want that. but you wonder how anyone could torture a nine year old girl like that.

Over the next two days she was also allegedly hit with a broomstick and a table leg, repeatedly punched in the face and body, and kicked in the groin while her mother was wearing steel-capped boots.

On November 14 her mother allegedly tore off her daughter’s toenail before pouring salt and then boiling hot water on to the bleeding wound.

Oh fuck it, I think this sort of stuff should be treated like murder, and life without parole should be an eligible sentence.

The following day abusive comments were written on her body in felt-tip pen. Also during November the mother allegedly put the girl in a hot bath and held her head under the water, starved her of food and forced her to stand in the corner for long periods of time, sometimes naked, without moving.

It is alleged one beating went from 9 o’clock one night until 2 the following morning.

Actually life without parole doesn’t even seem sufficient.

Detective Sergeant Megan Goldie said the girl’s injuries were so bad that police, and others associated with the inquiry, had all been affected.

And that would take a lot.

In contrast to his useful policy focused post, a more recent blog post goes down to the depths from Trevor:

Anne Tolley doesn’t care about sex criminals looking after children

From the Shadow Education Minister, this is disgusting and a reminder as to why Labour should not be in Government – if this is their idea of debate.

The Education Amendment Bill currently before the house removes the obligation to get a Police check for people who look after babies and young children unsupervised at gyms and mall childcare services.

Labour may have over-regulated but this goes too far.

Labour massively over-regulated. They forced creches at gyms to register as early childhood education centres, have qualified teaching staff etc – including the Police check.

The reality is a creche at a gym is not a school, or part of the educational infrastructure. They are a babysitting service. They allow a mum to use the gym and have someone look after their kids for 60 minutes.

One can have a sensible debate about whether or not gym creches should be required by law to do police checks on their creche staff. But to effectively accuse the Minister of being indifferent to paedophilia is again disgusting.

Personally I’m not at all sure there is a need. Labour sounds like they want to go down the route of the UK where you can’t even be an occassional parent helper for sports or scouts without a Police check.

Have any kids ever been molested by a staff member while their mother is exercising at the gym? I mean, what is the problem to be solved here?

Do we only require police checks for babysitters at gyms? How about for all babysitters and nannys? Maybe we need a Department of Babysitters to register and monitor them?

The Scouts have a policy of getting police checks on all new leaders. This is very sensible, as sadly youth groups do attract paedophiles. But Scouts are not required to do this by law. Are gym creche staff a bigger risk than scout leaders?

If there is evidence that not having mandatory police checks on gym creche staff has led to children being molested, then I can be persuaded that it may be a sensible idea. But can’t we hold that debate without Labour MPs asserting that the Minister of Education (herself a parent) doesn’t care if sex criminals look after children.

Dita De Boni writes in the Herald:

Act’s David Garrett is long gone from the headlines but his idea about sterilising child abusers was echoed in an interview on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report this week.

Barbara Harris runs a US charity called Project Prevention, in which drug and alcohol abusers receive payments to put themselves on long term contraception or offer themselves up for sterilisation.

Barbara began this charity at her home in North Carolina after giving birth to six of her own boys and longing for a little girl.

She ended up adopting the little girl of a crack addict, and then, when that addict gave birth to a child each year for the next three years, Barbara took all the siblings.

She and her family lived through the nightmare of caring for children born to addicts and having to watch as the tiny babies struggled to free themselves of their mother’s narcotic of choice.

So someone who walked the walk when it came to helping families.

Project Prevention has paid some 3500 women and men to stop having children, with IUDs the most common contraceptive option for these addicts.

The charity has just moved into the UK, and is looking to extend its reach to Africa and the Caribbean.

It was hard to see any kind of downside to this excellent work, although RNZ’s excellent Katherine Ryan did her best in offering a countering view that down-and-outers should not be bribed to stop breeding.

Needless to say, it wasn’t a convincing counter argument.

Each woman that comes to Project Prevention in the US has already a huge number of pregnancies behind her – some aborted or miscarried, some ‘successful’.

Each has left a trail of destruction in her wake, for herself and her child.

Some, according to Barbara, have no idea they are pregnant until they go into labour. What a disaster.

Perhaps New Zealand doesn’t quite have the narcotics problem that the US has but we do have hopeless cases creating and having children all the time.

By implementing this system, for the small cost of a couple of hundred dollars a year, we can potentially curtail the much larger cost to society down the track.

Please come to New Zealand Barbara. We can offer you plenty of work – and the help of a like-minded, ex-politician who was ridiculed for holding a similar common sense view to your own.

I’d donate to it. Prevention is better than cure.

The Herald reports:

Police were last night interviewing the mother of a 2-year-old girl found outside a McDonald’s restaurant on Saturday.

The toddler was spotted outside McDonald’s in Otara about midday and had been in the care of police and Children, Youth and Family Services since then. No one had reported the girl missing.

Yesterday afternoon, police urged anyone with information about the girl to come forward.

By 9.30pm last night, the dmother and a second relative came forward to claim the child.

Most of my friends who are parents panic if they lose track of their 2 year old for even 48 seconds. Almost impossible to conceive having your kid missing for 48 hours and you haven’t even alerted the Police.

Most parents who get charged with the death of a baby get a lesser charge than murder – and often for good reason. However in this case, it appears the correct charge has been applied:

After leaving her baby to drown during bath-time, a mother wrapped his lifeless body in blankets and logged on to her Facebook page, a court was told.

She spent the next half hour checking out friends’ pages and catching up on news on the Fiji Times website before telling her husband the baby was dead, the Crown alleges.

The 29-year-old Auckland woman, who has interim name suppression, is charged with murdering her 13-month-old son on November 8 last year.

Can you imagine the Facebook status update?

“She could not cope with both of her children and saw no other way to cope with the problem than by his death.”

The woman had been in an abusive relationship with the baby’s father and in early 2009 had been staying at a Women’s Refuge with her children. The case managers at the refuge became concerned with the woman’s mental health, noting she seemed “obsessed with her husband and not able to cope with her children”, Ms Reed said.

The two children were taken into the care of Child, Youth and Family, and had been returned to the woman’s care only two days before Baby A’s death.

CYF have a very tough job to do. I am sure in hindsight, they regret letting her have the children back. Hopefully there will be a separate investigation into the robustness of that decision.

My blood boils reading this story:

An HIV-positive man has been charged with indecently assaulting two children.

Rory Francis, 27, appeared in the Auckland District Court facing 18 charges relating to a girl and boy aged under 12.

Twelve of the charges are of performing an indecent act on a male and female under 12, five are for unlawful sexual connection and one is for sexual violation.

Not often, but sometimes, I pine for the Chinese justice system.

The Waikato Times reports:

A two-month-old baby left home alone by his parents was found to have cannabis in his system, a Hamilton court has been told.

Details of the child’s neglect were revealed in the Hamilton District Court yesterday as his parents, Rosina Ann Wilson, 43, and Paul Cheyne, 53, were sentenced to 12 months’ intensive supervision.

Both had earlier pleaded guilty to charges of abandoning a child and cruelty to a child.

The charges related to an incident on May 27, 2008, in which Wilson and Cheyne admitted leaving their two-month-old son home alone.

The couple were unable to say how long they were away from the address.

Most parents panic if their baby is out of sight for even 30 seconds. How could anyone just leave a two month old at home alone?

The Dom Post reports:

Appalled Child, Youth and Family workers have taken a one-year-old baby into care after his father left him unattended in a car while he watched strippers in a nearby Wellington bar. …

A passer-by noticed the child about 3am yesterday and contacted police, who arrived within seven minutes and broke a window of the locked car to rescue the baby. They took him to Wellington police station but he was later taken to Wellington Hospital by ambulance staff concerned about his breathing.

Most parents freak out if they lose sight of their baby for even half a minute. Leaving a baby in a car is horrendous. But doing so at 3 am, so you can go to a strip club, is close to the ultimate in selfishness.

The Herald looks at the UK elections:

Thirteen years of Labour Party rule in Britain has taken its toll. Indisputably, a desire for change is in the air. Yet the outcome of a general election on May 6 is by no means certain. Doubts linger about the capability and substance of the Conservative Party’s 43-year-old leader, David Cameron. Polls show that voters rate the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, more highly on almost all leadership measures. They also suggest that a likely election outcome is that most unwelcome of circumstances, a hung Parliament.

Which is not a big thing in NZ< but still a rare event in the UK.

The Conservatives, however, have been unable to make the most of this most propitious of opportunities. In part, this is because they, like Labour, have been tarred by the ongoing scandal over fraudulent and inflated expenses claims that has encompassed members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The beneficiaries have been minor parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats, led by Nick Clegg. They look most likely to play the kingmaker role in forming the next government if there is a hung Parliament. Part of the price for their support would undoubtedly be moves to terminate the first-past-the-post electoral system in favour of one based on proportional representation.

I believe the Conservatives would look in the first instance to Scottish, Irish and Welsh parties before the Lib Dems.

The Dom Post is cautious on Whanua Ora:

It is hard to be critical of the detail of the Whanau Ora policy. That’s because there is precious little of it, and that is why the scheme should be treated with scepticism.

It is easy to see why the scheme has a superficial appeal. The old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” does not apply to welfare, especially when it comes to Maori. The current system clearly is broken, with a plethora of agencies, a voracious appetite for cash and little sign that it is doing anything to provide long-term cures rather than temporary Band-Aids. Adopting an approach where the needs of the whole family are looked at together makes sense.

However, it is not the concept but the detail which will determine whether Whanau Ora is a success. That detail must focus on accountability and transparency, and on ensuring that Whanau Ora does not become an expensive add-on.

I agree.

The ODT discusses the Catholic Church and child abuse:

It is regrettable that Pope Benedict XVI made no reference in his Easter homily to the sex-abuse scandal that has globally for several decades beset the Roman Catholic Church, for which throughout that period the heirachy has strenuously concealed details from the knowledge of the police, let alone its faithful adherents.

There had existed a reasonable expectation the Pope would make some comment – even apologise for the church’s incompatible behaviour or at least accept personal responsibility as head of the church- but none was forthcoming. …

At Easter, his personal preacher likened the criticism to the “more shameful aspects of antisemitism” – a ludicrous claim for which he later apologised; and the dean of the College of Cardinals asserted that the controversy amounted to petty gossip; others have suggested or implied the whole business is a media “beat-up”, a charge so removed from the truth as to be delusion: it was in fact the print media that exposed the hideous crimes of the past 20 years.

More acceptable might be a public instruction to all bishops to refer allegations of abuse to the secular authorities, such as the police, as soon as they are made.

That would be a very good policy. The Police are the competent authorities to deal with such allegations.

It is sad to see so many senior members of the Catholic Church are not understanding what the issue is with the child abuse scandal.

The Herald reports:

The Vatican heatedly defended Pope Benedict XVI, claiming accusations that he helped cover up the actions of paedophile priests are part of an anti-Catholic “hate” campaign targeting the Pope for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Or it might be about the lack of opposition to, or more specifically action against,child abuse.

The Vatican newspaper quoted Sodano yesterday as saying the church is “certainly” suffering because of paedophile priests but he asserted that “Benedict XVI has apologised several times”.

“But it’s not Christ’s fault if Judas betrayed” him, Sodano said. “It’s not a bishop’s fault if one of his priests is stained by grave wrongdoing. And certainly the Pontiff is not responsible.”

Here is what they don’t seem to get.

I, and I am sure most people, do not blame anyone in the Catholic Church for the fact a priest molested children, unknown to them. The responsibility absolutely lies with the priest, not the Bishop, the Pope or the Church.

But, and this is the big but, it is different when the Bishop has been told about the child abuse and molestation. And when the Bishop doesn’t report it to the Police, when the Bishop does not sack the priest, when the Bishop merely moves the priest to anoter area, which leads to more molestation of more kids – then the Bishop does have some responsibility.

And when not one Bishop, but dozens of Bishops fail to take action against priests who molest children, and this is a policy laid down by the Vatican, then the Church hierarchy does have some responsibility.

Not for the initial abuse. That is absolutely just the fault of the individual priest. But for not having them sacked and arrested, that is the fault of Bishops and of the Vatican which condoned their lack of action.

The NZ Herald has advice for the Catholic Church:

A Vatican newspaper claims the hailstorm of allegations of priestly sexual abuse is a conspiracy aimed at the present Pope and the Catholic Church.

Ironically, it targets the “media” as leading or cheerleading this conspiracy, the New York Times being the latest to publish a historical claim, from up to 70 young, deaf boys who allege abuse by an American priest now dead.

It is unfortunate the messenger is being criticised rather than the message heeded. There is much still to be done for the church to put this sin behind it. …

Some calculate the total number of priests and the relatively small number of offenders over many years and then compare that to percentages for the secular world.

Their argument is that church-linked offending is no greater than the sad reality of society’s norm. But it is a forlorn and defensive mindset.

As the Economist magazine has argued, if you preach absolute moral values you will be judged against absolute moral standards.

The church cannot accept relative failure or relative consequences, particularly under this Pope who argues forcefully for an end to relativism.

If it is true to itself, the Catholic Church cannot be satisfied with being as good as, or not as bad as, other parts of society.

If any conspiracy exists, it is the one in which sexual offenders were protected and victims abandoned by those in authority.

A new conspiracy is needed, one which confirms in deeds the Pope’s words to the Irish. Responsibility must be taken by those who hid wrong.

I’m just glad I was raised Anglican!

The Dom Post focuses on the Mary-Anne Thompson affair:

The most alarming aspect of the Mary Anne Thompson affair is not that a senior public servant falsified her CV, but that the former head of the public service halted inquiries into her falsehood years before it was exposed.

This is the point I made a couple of days ago.

But within minutes of Mrs Bell questioning her about the doctorate she claimed to have obtained from the London School of Economics, Thompson withdrew her application for the post.

Mrs Bell undertook further investigations on her own initiative and advised Mr Wintringham that there was no record of Thompson gaining a doctorate. But, instead of initiating a formal investigation, Mr Wintringham told Mrs Bell to stop her inquiries.

He was, he subsequently said, concerned that further inquiries could “damage both the defendant’s considerable professional reputation and the reputation of the commission as well”.

He was right about the first. He was wrong about the second. What has damaged the commission’s reputation is not Thompson’s fraud, but Mr Wintringham’s failure to properly investigate a matter of obvious concern.

Really it was a disgraceful decision – and one made worse by his failure to even leave a file note on the issue for his successor. You’d expect better from the most junior HR manager, let alone the State Services Commissioner.

The Press hails a triumph for Obama:

The United States health reform controversy continues to swirl with such intensity that it is difficult to decipher the dispositions of the antagonists. However, one thing is sure – President Barack Obama has won his place in history, if only because of the health bill’s emergence into law.

No other president has pushed through such important reform in this field and most have not dared to try. Obama’s handling of the process was less than stellar and it has united his opponents, but the result is legislation that will transform a fundamental foundation of American society.

Hmmn. I wonder if they have read the law change. It isn’t that dramatic.

And the ODT takes issue with Pita Sharples:

The thrust of his speech clearly implied that for tribal Maori, democracy does not work and does not sit comfortably with Maori cultural concepts.

Historical fact suggests this argument does not wash in national politics, since Maori candidates have long been elected to general seats and the specific provision of Maori electorates has ensured at least a foothold in Parliament.

The notable absence of Maori at local body level has been regrettable, but why that is so cannot merely be attributed to “prejudice, cultural arrogance, and institutional racism”.

Relatively few people are aware that in Parliament, Maori are over-represented in relation to their proportion of the adult population.

So I find it hard to see how the democratic system is failing Maori.

The NZ Herald focuses on the departure of Vanda Vitali:

The trust board was also keen to see the museum throw off austerity and become part of an international trend typified by Te Papa. Part of this was a restructuring that left 46 personnel, many of them senior staff, without jobs.

Amid accusations that this meant core museum displays were being downgraded, the board backed Dr Vitali to the hilt for most of her tenure. Its support began to waver late last year, however, after a series of public relations disasters.

It is questionable who should bear the responsibility for these. Did the board, having appointed Dr Vitali and provided a mandate, fail to give sufficient direction and guidance?

Did it not recognise sufficiently that, as a Canadian, she was operating in an unfamiliar cultural context? Or did the director, like many set on instituting change, not see finesse and heedfulness as part of her job description? …

It must not become fusty and tradition-bound. Dr Vitali’s achievement can be measured by comments lamenting her resignation.

One of the more notable came from Naida Glavish, of the Ngati Whatua Runanga, who said she had brought the museum “back to life”. An initial reservation about Dr Vitali was her sensitivity to the Maori and Pacific exhibitions.

Museums are always seeking a balance. In Auckland’s case, that involves using flair and imagination to attract local people, while also catering for overseas tourists’ major interest, the Polynesian treasures.

Dr Vitali wrought major change in a short time. With a little finesse, the correct balance can be struck.

Is Te Papa still looking for a CEO?

The Dominion Post is unhappy with Israel:

The timing of Israel’s announcement of a new 1600-house Jewish development in East Jerusalem was the equivalent of a one-fingered salute to the United States and to the peace process.

It demonstrates a contempt for the Obama Administration so withering that it diminishes the American ability to broker any deal. The administration had last year demanded a freeze on Jewish settlements, but eventually got only a partial, temporary halt – except in Jerusalem.

Why should the Palestinians pay any heed to what Washington wants, when the Israelis clearly don’t? It will also raise questions even among those sympathetic to Israel whether its current leadership has any intention of reaching a negotiated settlement.

I am a friend and supporter of Israel, but on this issue I agree they are wrong. They really should stop building new settlements. It makes the job of achieving a peace agreement a lot lot harder, for little gain.

The Press focuses on bad driving:

It is the common complaint of many New Zealand motorists. Truck drivers hog the road and, being oblivious to other road users, are responsible for accidents and near misses, both in urban areas and on the open road.

Those who subscribe to this jaundiced view should be taking a hard look at the video footage on The Press’s website. This footage, which was taken from cameras mounted in Canterbury Waste Services (CWS) trucks and which has created great public interest, has graphic images of other road users behaving recklessly and illegally.

It includes video images of one car overtaking a truck and forcing oncoming traffic to take evasive action. Other footage shows motorists not stopping at red lights or compulsory stop signs, failing to adhere to the give-way rule at other intersections, adopting some appalling driving techniques at roundabouts, and skidding due to a failure to drive to the conditions.

Luckily Wellington drivers are better than that

The ODT looks at child abuse in the Catholic Church:

It is hard to believe the senior ranks of the Roman Catholic Church, increasingly under siege in Fortress Vatican, have any real appreciation of the extent of the calamity facing them.

For if they did, surely they, and Pope Benedict XVI, would be cutting a radically different course from that now being offered to a confused, disappointed and sometimes angry congregation.

Prominent among the strategies it has adopted in the face of what is beginning to seem like a perfect storm of recent revelations – of sexual abuse cases and “cover-ups” in Brazil, the United States, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Germany and, periodically, in this country and Australia – has been the time-honoured tactic of attacking the messenger. …

It just reminds me of the South Park episode where a priest calls on the gathered Cardinals to stop priests having sex with little boys, and the response back is that as they can’t have sex with women, if they stop having sex with little boys, then they’ll get to have no sex at all!

Abstinence is not natural in my opinion!

Bloody Jadis. I turn my back for a few hours and she does a post on sterilisiation of child abusers after listening to Michael Laws on Radio Live. David Garrett comments, and suddenly it is in the newspapers, on Morning Report and all over the blogosphere.

I suppose time to add my own 2c to the debate:

1. Absolutely against any compulsory sterilisation. Apart from the fact no surgeon will operate on a non consenting patient, the state should not have the power to remove someone’s fertility.
2. Not supportive of the proposal to pay child abusers to get sterilised, as it will only target poor child abusers, and may be thin end of wedge.
3. However am open to having a debate on whether one could have it as an early release incentive for people who have been convicted of child abuse and actually gone to prison.

One of the reasons we send people to prison is to protect the community. If someone is sentenced to three years jail for child abuse, then is the community better protected by having them come out at 2.5 years and unable to have more children, or at three years and likely to have more children, whom will grow up abused, and in turn probably becomes abusers themselves.

By not having a monetary incentive, it removes the potential problems of being more attractive to poor child abusers.

Also by limiting it to people in prison, and convicted of child abuse, it means you target the worse of the worse.

I’m sure there are strong arguments against such a policy also, and I am not saying I support it without question. But unless one just wants to wring your hands about the child abuse problem, it may be a more palatable option than monetary incentives which I would not support.