11. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)
Is she satisfied that Child, Youth and Family Services’ threshold for removing children from unsafe homes is adequate?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) Link to this
I am satisfied with the process for determining the threshold for removing children from unsafe homes. All of Child, Youth and Family’s processes are developed consistent with international best practices. I am also satisfied that social workers are using the risk-estimation system to make professional judgments about the safety of the child. But, of course, like every New Zealander I am absolutely dissatisfied about any child being harmed in his or her own home.
Does the Minister consider it a safe home environment when cannabis is given to a 6-year-old child as a reward for committing burglaries; if not, why did Child, Youth and Family not remove the young Christchurch boy, who was known to her department, from this situation?
In answer to the first part of the member’s question, no I certainly do not regard that as being part of a safe home environment. The information I have is that the original interventions between Child, Youth and Family and the family to whom the member referred focused on strengthening that family’s ability to provide a safe and functional environment in which that child should live. Some of those attempts were successful and others were not.
Steve ChadwickAll agencies that work with children and families need to be aware of risk to children and to work with each other to keep children safe. However, it is important to note that unless the wider community takes a responsibility for the safety of children and young people, the agencies’ efforts will never be enough. All people are part of communities and all members of the community have a part to play.
Why did it take until this boy stole a gun and shot his next-door neighbour before he was placed in Kingslea Residential Centre at just 8 years old, when over the previous 2 years he had committed 46 offences—38 of which were violent and included robbery with a knife and bashing people with bicycle chains—and what does the Minister think can be done with him now that this criminal violent behaviour has been allowed to develop and dominate this young child’s life, all the while watched by Child, Youth and Family?
I say to the House that the representation of that member is at the same level as that of the Sunday News, which on one page demanded to know why that child was not in Child, Youth and Family care earlier, and in the same article talked about him being condemned to Child, Youth and Family care. Frankly, they cannot have it both ways. A professional assessment is used to determine the best way to keep our children safe. In some instances not all interventions are successful.
It is not true at all that that member’s interjection is correct. There were a number of interventions, some of which were successful; some were not. I would further note that for the last 17 months this child has not been involved in any problems with the police, at all. I suggest that the member and her colleagues would do better to support the work of social workers, rather than constantly attacking them.
Tariana TuriaWhen children are removed from their homes for reasons of their safety, what assistance and resources are then given to the families of those children to ensure their safe and effective return?
The member raises a very valid point. The basis of the Child, Youth and Families’ system in our country is that the family should have responsibility and, therefore, it is a function of the State to give every support possible to that family so they can provide the functional environment and the child can be returned safely to that home. That is done. In the case that the member’s primary question referred to, a number of interventions were tried with the family. Some of those interventions were successful; others were not.
Has Child, Youth and Family now removed the other two children in this home, in particular the 3-year-old whose own father has advised is in grave danger of turning out worse than his brother; if not, why not?
I know that one of the three, rather than other two, children is in the care of the department, but the other two, I am advised, have not had any care and protection notifications alerted.
If Child, Youth and Family admitted yesterday that it knew about the Kāhui family, and that it had had previous dealings with the mother and her other children, why did it just have conversations about the family and not take action about any subsequent children going into that home, or are these two cases just another example of Child, Youth and Family abdicating responsibility, and when will the Minister take that responsibility for her department herself?
The member should not misrepresent the information that was provided at a select committee. As I said to the House in reply to an earlier response, the member, just like the Sunday News, cannot have it both ways. The member cannot demand that children are taken immediately at birth despite there being no risk alerted to the department, then condemn the department for holding on to children. The department social workers make a professional assessment and judgment, and I am confident that those assessments are being carried out in an internationally regarded best-practice fashion.