I have talked before about MSD's habit of quietly posting stuff on its website late Friday. One such document appeared 2 days ago. The forward alone, by the Minister, Paula Bennett, is written in a different style from that to which we have become uncomfortably accustomed. I have not read the full document yet but there are shades of ex-Governor General Dame Silvia Cartwright's farewell speech in which she referred to NZ's "dark secret" ;Minister’s Foreword: Why you should care
New Zealand is a land of opportunity and for most, a great place to bring up kids. But there is a dark side to this remarkable country which resides within too many homes.
Thousands of children are growing up unsafe and unprotected in chaotic homes. Many are abused and neglected by the very people who should love and protect them. This is New Zealand’s ugly secret.
In the last year Child, Youth and Family received over 125,000 reports from people concerned enough about a child’s safety to notify authorities. In over 21,000 of these cases, child abuse or neglect was confirmed. So that’s over 340 notifications and 57 confirmed serious abuse and neglect cases every day. That’s 2,400 reports of child abuse and neglect every week in New Zealand.
There is no excuse for beating, abusing and neglecting our children. No child’s life should begin this way. And when it does, the harm is substantial and long lasting. The social and economic costs of abuse and neglect are beyond comprehension. A baby shaken in anger and out of ignorance may be left with permanent brain damage, or even die as a result. Children beaten and sexually abused grow up carrying the burden of that abuse. Many driven by anger, low self esteem and distrustful of others, follow a path to crime and violence and many repeat their experience on the next generation.
The neglected child is a silent timebomb. Left alone, unwashed and unloved this child may not be physically bruised or injured but will be deeply affected and is unlikely to grow into a healthy, loving individual who is a productive member of the community unless we step in to help.
What we are discussing here is ugly, it is shameful and it is unpalatable. But it is New Zealand’s reality and one we must all address. Not just the Government, not just Police and Child, Youth and Family, but community, families, individuals, neighbours, teachers, friends, uncles, aunties. We must face this together. We must do everything we can to protect our children from abuse and neglect. This is a challenge for all New Zealanders. It is a challenge for Māori. Māori children
are over-represented in abuse and neglect statistics. Māori clients make up more than half of all findings of abuse. In New Zealand, there can be no excuse for beating and neglecting children.
I invite you to read this document. It shows that Child, Youth and Family is more responsive now than any time in the past two decades and able to respond to increasing notifications and reach out to more at-risk families. It outlines important changes to further improve the way we protect children which are in the pipeline as well as some recent initiatives. It’s clear there is a lot of work being done and more to do because protecting children and keeping them safe will always be a Government priority. Which is why we need to think about the following things:
No matter how efficient and how innovative Child, Youth and Family continues to be,
resources are limited. The organisation and its dedicated, hard working staff are coping well with current demand but in truth that only takes care of the critical cases.
We all know early intervention is the best way to make a difference, but Child, Youth and Family is in the position of having to throw the bulk of its resources into dealing with critical cases when the aim is to be more involved with families before things get really bad.
Surely, the answer ultimately lies in a change in our country’s culture; a change which leads to zero-tolerance for child abuse and neglect. Otherwise, we will continue to lead the world in beating, neglecting and abusing our children.
And we know those children who are abused and neglected are the same adults we
see years later filling New Zealand courts and prisons. Many of those who live ruined lives will ruin the lives of others - the victims of their crimes and also their own children. That is the price for tolerating child abuse. We must work together to protect our children.
Just scanning through the rest of the document, a detailed description of the work CYF is doing, it is similarly-written and shouts transparency. What a change.
And this is what Paula was trying to talk about on The Nation yesterday but the pathetic panel kept steering the conversation back to the Welfare Working Group, the 'manufactured crisis' and the awful spectre of insurance. Then they had the audacity to say she didn't have the intellect to pull it off.
What she can do is get into this child abuse area like no other player can. And I think she can make a difference.
But I return always to my main objection. All of the early intervention, which is clearly being stepped up, cannot combat paying people to lead dysfunctional lives and putting a monetary value on the children they have. Welfare reform is critical alongside the intervention.
15 comments:
All fine and sincerely welcomed, but, until "adults" accept personal responsibility for themselves, these alleged adults will not respect themselves and their unfortunate offspring. The government cannot teach self-responsibility but it can punish a lack of it through curbing the entitlement for benefits. Until a parent, or the parent's "partner" can demonstrate that he/she can fulfill even the most rudimentary functions of parenthood then why ought we as taxpayers contract them to raise their children?
Cadwallader.
Can anyone advise Bennett on how to dress? Westie dress-code doesn't cut the mustard. :-)
'Our kids are really precious- but not enough to spend OUR money on...'
out of those 125,000 notifications I would be interested to learn how many are earmarked as malicious call outs by adversarial parents battling in the family court.
If society has the idea in the back of it's collective mind that it's OK to kill a baby in the womb, and that it's OK to take action to prevent babies being born for convenience, then how does that affect the attitude we have toward the kids we already have?
Once upon a time, children were seen as precious - as a gift - something to be desired. When a couple fell pregnant, the whole village rejoiced in their good fortune. These days, people use contraception because they're not ready to accept children yet.
Children are a thing to be avoided until we're "ready" - a thing to be pushed back and pushed back until our careers have taken off and until it's almost to late to conceive. And if we do fall pregnant by accident, when we're not ready, then the baby is seen as a curse - an inconvenience - easier to kill in the womb now, and we can try again later when it suits us.
When you have a climate where abortion and (maybe soon) euthanasia are acceptable, the value we place on all life is lowered. If it's acceptable to kill 18,000 of these babies a year in the womb then of course it is going to devalue life across the board; we shouldn't really be too surprised.
I think you are tying together separate issues. I am aware of three women who had abortions. Two were primarily motivated by concern for their existing children. Both are diligent and loving mothers.
Hmmm, your post prompted me to have a look into some statistics. I know that reports don't prove anything, and it is probably a difficult subject to get statistics on, but one report that bubbled up during my googling is this one from 2005. I was only looking at the topic in a general sense, but there are some who claim more than a loose connection.
The Washington Post also reported on the findings -
Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to physically abuse their children than women who do not have abortions, said a study by a research group and professors at Bowling Green State University.
Compared with mothers with no history of induced abortion, those who had undergone the procedure were found to have a 144 percent greater risk of physically abusing their children, said the study, published by the medical journal Acta Paediatrica. Women with pregnancy loss in general -- including abortion, stillbirth and miscarriage -- were found to be 99 percent more likely to commit child abuse.
Some sad stories here as well about various women.
Again, I am not offering this as some kind of proof, but I think it's something mothers, or potential mothers, should be made aware of.
I.M.Fletcher, You moved from collective societal attitude to life affecting the level of child abuse, to a greater likelihood that women who have abortions, miscarriages and stillbirths will abuse their children. The second shouldn't surprise anyone. Women who abuse children often have poor mental and physical health, riskier habits in terms of smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, and low incomes. All of which might increase the likelihood of wanting an abortion or experiencing a miscarriage. (I've had two miscarriages by the way which it seemed to me made my surviving children even more precious.)
Are you are implying that if we re-criminalised abortion there would be less child abuse? Or that anyone who is pro-choice is more tolerant of child abuse?
"Are you are implying that if we re-criminalised abortion there would be less child abuse? Or that anyone who is pro-choice is more tolerant of child abuse?"
The authors of "Freakonomics" found that once Roe vs Wade was passed it was mainly poor women who then sort abortions where previously they had had the child.The result appeared to be,20 years later,a massive drop off in youth crime.They figured that those criminals had simply not been born thanks to Roe v Wade...a suggestion that shocked people but was vindicated by the cold hard data.
It could also be suggested that children never born into abusive households will therfore never suffer abuse...and incentivising women to have children they don't want in order to secure a State paycheck ensures that many of these children almost certainly will be.
So.....State Welfare causing a degree of child abuse is not without factual basis.
what noone seems to want to talk about is the structure surrounding the society, instead you all talk about the individual, individual culpability and so on.
@ James - Lower income women having abortions and therefore not breeding 'criminals' says more about there being a lower proportion of people born into poverty and less about parents who are not good at parenting.
Whilst its undeniable that poverty goes hand in hand with violence, poor health, child abuse, poor educational outcomes, it shouldn't be assumed that all 'relatively'poor people are abusive and stupid.
Rather than the negative outcomes of poverty being directly tied to the character of the poverty stricken, perhaps the governmental model we live in is prejudicial to certain groups, and is prohibitive to certain groups.
Books like Freakonomics are only good till someone proves they are barking up the wrong tree, its all dependant on the model by which you frame the 'problem'
Problem framing is problematic itself, because it hides more than it reveals.
@I.M Fletcher - I think its dangerous to tie behavioural characteristics to choice-making such as abortion and statistical increases in subsequent abuse of existing children without a context to that persons life, and socio-economic status.
:o)
Paula's calorie count is on the stampede. This bloated chardonay trougher is losing the plot.
Dirk
"...it shouldn't be assumed that all 'relatively' poor people are abusive and stupid."
I agree. Some are simply not acquisitive and have different priorities to those who are.
"...you all talk about the individual, individual culpability and so on."
I believe in individuals; their capacity to make changes and decisions that improve their lives.
"...perhaps the governmental model we live in is prejudicial to certain groups, and is prohibitive to certain groups."
No argument there either. So the less government, the smaller the opportunity for 'wrong models'.
@ Lindsay - Im not comfortable with a less is more governance style, its proved fatal in the past, and to rely on an undeveloped philanthropic culture to provide for the deserving poor is unrealistic. Liberal theory champions the individual, but the unintended consequences are a society focussed on pure self interest, and there really is no 'I' in 'team'. You cannot hope to build a caring community when individualism has a polar effect of also breeding narcissism.
The relentless focus on the individual negates the world, it negates the circumstances we are born into and unreasonably and callously calls upon us to be completely responsible for our life outcomes. 'Option bad luck' as it were.
To assume inequality is a fair outcome of the market and that ones life chances are based soley on ones input from the day they are born assumes all are born into the same arena. Equal access is not equality because all are not born into the same economic circumstances.These economic circumstances dictate more about our outcome than free education and access to healthcare can adjust for. The preoccupation with paid work as valuable negates a giant share of unpaid work, mainly care, and almost always done by women.
I am not as such convinced that a welfare state assists poverty, rather welfare rates assist poverty. Undermining the family dynamic, well I think thats just a reaction to the hegemony of the 2 parent family being challenged. Policy which reflects the fluid nature of interpersonal relationships, the fact that 'family' is representative of multiple configurations, all which should be recognised, is whats required. I don't think having a DPB option undermines family, I think it merely addresses the reality of family structure in a new millenia. People talk about the good old days when families stayed together, noone wants to talk about them staying to the bitter end, children from split families don't fare as well because that is our moral and policy expectation, more often children from a 2 parent family fare better because there is a father earning money, not because hes an amazing guy. Single parent mothers don't fare as well because there isn't an earning father, which suggests that our whole economic system depends on the 2 parent model, and has no alternative space for sole parent dissentors. I don't know if that makes sense, I know you won't agree, but I hope you can appreciate what im trying to say. Before you point out all the flaws Im thinking off the cuff here, streaming flow of conciousness.
Fletcher We are not a collectivism country we do what is best for the one and yes it can mean people only care for themselves not offspring but we should be able to choose on the abortion issue it has not to do with child abuse. I'm sorry but your just a self-righteous feminist
14th Aug 2013 Just read this editorial etc. From experience in this area, I can only say this, until CYF are revamped and trained and truly caring social workers are employed, with many more added, and properly supervised, there will be no change to the violence, physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse perpetrated upon our most vulnerable. We have unregistered social workers employed by the very government body that is in place to protect???? and support them and their families. Registration is in the public domain so anyone can check if they have concerns. There is also the issue of allegations (anonymous or otherwise) made that drop families into the mire that is CY. There is no way anyone fingered with such a claim can challenge this charge, as CYF withhold such information, making it impossible for anyone to develop; a defence. And if the allegation is malicious, which is often the case, the damage done to both the victim and their families is irreparable. Innocent or not, mud sticks. In other situations of legal action the defendant has the right to what those charges are in order to make a defence, not with CYF. CYF can also, and get away with it, make false allegations againt a person and not be reprimanded. These allegations are accepted by the family court. CYF can also arrange assessments and those being assess are never spoken to, seen, or met by the assessor, yet these assessments are accepted by the family court. Many children uplifted and put into the CYF process come out the other end more
damaged than when they went in. Often they are put into a living situation just as bad (supposedly) as the one they one they were in.
The term transparency is used indiscriminately, as there is much hidden not made public, and it needs to be.
The changes just released by Ms Bennett will make things worse not better.
Post a Comment