6. KATHERINE RICH (National) Link to this
to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)
Does she stand by her explanations to the House on 22, 23, and 24 June 2004 that a 6-week-old baby was placed with his mother, a woman who had abused and seriously neglected his two other siblings, as she “did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children.”; if so, what is her definition of physical abuse?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) Link to this
Yes, I do, and my comments have been affirmed by a case review undertaken by the office of the chief social worker. The definition of physical abuse is based on the department’s criteria, which were established in 1977 and are similar to those used overseas, such as in the United Kingdom. My comments do not in any way condone neglect as the member has implied in her media statements on this matter.
When she has stood in this House and confirmed her statements that there was no history of physical abuse, will she confirm to the House her view that the slow starvation of a 2-year-old boy so that he could not walk and weighed the same as an average 6-month-old baby is not, in her book, physical abuse, and that giving a child a black eye or throwing a telephone at the head of a child is not, in her view, physical abuse?
In answer to the former part of the member’s question, as I explained to her in the House on 22, 23, and 24 June the year before last, the assessment was that the woman concerned had no previous history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. In regard to the latter point, conflicting information had been given to the school, the social worker, and the police about how that child—who actually was not that woman’s own child—had received a black eye. The police decided that no further action should be taken.
Georgina BeyerWhat further improvements have been made to the department since the Minister spoke about this case in the House in 2004?
There have been further improvements to the department’s ability to respond to notifications and to provide support for families. This includes a 32 percent increase in the number of social workers since 1999, and, despite a 22 percent increase in notifications compared with the previous year, a 16 percent drop in unallocated cases.
Is it true that this complex case dating back to 2000, which involved issues such as mental illness, drug addiction, violence, starvation, and neglect, was the very first case ever allocated to the junior social worker who worked on it?
Why was the decision to place baby J with his two siblings, to be cared for by foster parents, overturned, and can she explain why her department’s sanitised report did not touch on the issue that there was major disagreement within that office about the overturning of that decision, which had dire consequences for baby J?
Since the member first made that allegation about the actions of a Child, Youth and Family Services social worker, I have asked for the issue to be investigated, and have been advised that no such information is recorded anywhere within the system; neither were any of the staff involved able to confirm that member’s allegation—yet again.
What kind of Minister has she become that she is comfortable standing in this House and implying that an unsafe house is fine for a baby if it is neglect, but is not if it is abuse, and does she think that her clever definitions mean anything to those siblings involved in this case?
The distortions that the member puts on just about everything presented from me to this House is not an acceptable way of conducting a debate about child abuse and neglect in New Zealand. The factors that led to the first two siblings being removed from the mother’s care were no longer evident. It was not a matter of their being acceptable; the living environment from which those two children had been removed had changed. Anybody who has changed his or her lifestyle, in my view, deserves a well-supported second chance.