In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

Archive for February, 2007

Message from CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

  • cyfswatch Says:
    February 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pm e

    Message from cyfswatch:

    We did NOT delete the blog – we have made contact with wordpress to try to ascertain what might have happened. We will keep you posted. Blog is saved so won’t be an issue, plus we have the watchingcyfs mirror site. May have been hacked? Not sure.


Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealands Posts | 4 Comments »

CYFSWATCH New Zealand HAS GONE AGAIN ???????????????

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

Has CYFSWATCH New Zealand been got at ????????????????????

Its gone again

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

You can create your own free blog on

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealands Posts | 1 Comment »

CYF’s = father hating, new age, child / family destroying lesbians

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

As poted on Overclockers New Zealand


cyfswatch blog thing at the new location

It’s started getting a little bit of press lately. Google has removed them from their blog site but they have set up elseware. It’s not new for google to censor anyway. Yes, they even censor things that the chinese govt doesent like their searches to show. They got big, they have turned bad. Evil corperate evil thingy with lots of corperatey data gathering stuff.

Anyway, conspiracies aside, have any of you had dealings with cyf’s before? If so, what are your thoughts about them?

Personaly I have had experiences with them. I had serious misgivings about them from the start. Not one person I had talked to before that point had a good word to say about them either. I even know a woman who quit from the organisation. She said she left in disgust over the way they were run and in her words “their unprofessional behavour”. I can safely say that from my experience with them, I have absolutely no faith in them whatsoever either. My daughter has also said the same. What does that tell you about them?

Their mandate is supposedly to do what is in the best interests of the child taking into account the childs wishes. Unfortunately from what I’ve experienced, it’s all about the mother. How can she be helped? How can the child be convinced that she should go back to her? How can the child be convinced that the abusive boyfried really is a great guy and he, or her mother wont treat her badly anymore?

All up I think I have been lucky though with a supportive lawyer on our side. I also have to make mention of the fantastic job my daughters councel (child lawyer) has been. The CYF’s worker on the other hand has been nothing but a spanner in the works. Almost one and a half years on and it’s still on going. Although I do have full custody now (waiting for yet another review).

I had a lot more in here with more detail but thought I’d leave that rant for another day.

To sum it all up though…

CYF’s = father hating, new age, child / family destroying lesbians
Child councel = Opisate of CYF’s. Nothing but the childs interests, wishes and well being at heart.
Judge / court = Extremely slow to do anything. Give females far more credit and chances than a male in the same position. But with enough money and time, they can eventualy see the light. If you don’t have the money and you don’t have breasts, forget it. You are screwed, as is your child.
Police = Not worth any effort if your complaint is against a female / mother or a boyfriend that she defends. They don’t want to know.

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry, WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealands Posts | Leave a Comment »

IT SURE IS Unbelievable and Embarrassing

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

As posted on Pacific Empire

 Unbelievable and Embarrassing

[CYFSWATCH] exposes some fundamental issues that the department needs to address, and the responsible thing to do would be to take some action to improve their services, and the way they do them. Well they have taken action all right, not to try and improve themselves, but by devoting all their (tax-payer funded) resources to shutting down the blog instead! This would be fairly normal for North Korea, China or the US or somewhere, but for a New Zealand government to try and do this is unbelievable and embarrassing.

Read it again:

North Korea



Such is the (freely expressed) opinion of Kurt Hausler, reacting to the news that the New Zealand government has badgered Blogger into removing some posts from the CYFSWATCH site (which promptly reposted them).

Yet here at Pacific Empire, we find such blatant violations of free speech from the government of our wonderful country completely believable. Let’s review other recent violations of the freedom of expression:

As Bernard Darnton, blogger and leader of the Libertarianz party says,

Sedition law makes it illegal to bring into ‘hatred or contempt […] the Government of New Zealand’. Yet with its lack of concern for freedom of expression, this government is worthy only of hatred and contempt.”

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealands Posts | Leave a Comment »


Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

Posted from


Name: Cameron W
Age: 22yrs old.
Location: Taupo, NZ


Jay attempts to give me a slap down

After my comments on my blog of CYFSWATCH that were copied and then posted on CYFSWATCH itself, I saw this [ link ]

Hense my responce.

Jay: LOL I do show quite a good level of maturity.
I don’t have an anger problem… I just don’t tolerate fucktards attempting to use the anonimity of blogging as a open slate to violate the personal saftey of other people, threaten and then blackmail Members of Parliment.

I also have no tolerance for losers who beat women.

I don’t work for CYFS. I was a CYFS child. I am one of these “removed” children you complain CYFS of unfairly removing from families.
I was also the child who was removed for very valid reasons.
I was the child who also saw other children CYFS removed from other children, who spoke of what their family members did to them…

You think I have no right to say what Im talking about. But unlike you, I may not have kids, but I was the kid. I was the kid you guys are talking about. I was the kid who was placed into foster care. I was the kid who spent 4yrs of my life being moved from foster home to foster home.

You guys fail to understand that CHILDREN HAVE OPINIONS ASWELL.

Yes CYFS do screw up. And you haven’t?
What makes you better than the social worker trying her best to make sure that this kid isn’t molested, beaten or killed?

When you see a parent beating her child (bit more than a slap on the ass might I add) in the middle of a supermarket, what would you do? Would you stop the parent before she does more damage?

What I think of you “adults” since Im a child right? Is very little to the numerous kids I’ve met who have been molested, beaten, abused, and neglected.
If you were me and you saw a 1yr old baby, being delivered into the care of the caregiver, and this baby was so sick, (after leaving hospital) that required medication for it to make sure it was able to eat and shit, the care that the hospital couldnt give, AFTER it was removed from its mother, you wouldn’t be here attempting to bash me for my comments about this retarded fucked up blog.

Before you CYFSWATCH supporting retards attempt to abuse me for posting this on here to “promote” more publicity for my blog. Fk U!

Im posting this up cuz I want to ensure my comment is validated, and since it’s in moderation, I want to ensure there is a comment. Moderated comments can be deleted with some ease…

But unlike some bloggers, I don’t hind entirely behind my anonimity. I prefer to have a domain with paid hosting, I prefer to have my contact details and my email address on my website. I prefer to my real name on my blog.
I wouldnt attack CYFSWATCH NZ behind a screenname, with no real name to place it to, I wouldnt threaten and blackmail members of parliment behind the total anonimity of the applied use of a free blog and what I can only guess, is a internet cafe?

Other than that, what makes me better than CYFSWATCH with the stuff I say about the blog and what I put up on my blog. I stand behind it. I prefer to stand up for what I say. CYFSWATCH NZ prefers to remain completely unknown and yet blog the bullshit and fucked up shit she/he does…

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealands Posts | 5 Comments »

(NZ) Tears never far from the surface in family court case

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

fwd fyi…

The New Zealand Herald
28 January 2006

Tears never far from the surface in family court case
By Chris Barton

The mother can’t finish her sentence, unable to hold back the tears. “The
best solution is [child’s name] remaining … “. Judge David Mather tells
her to take her time. The mother struggles to speak again, but the tears
flow. The judge suggests a break and adjourns the court. Everyone stands.
As he leaves, the court registrar offers a box of tissues to the mother who
takes them outside. The three lawyers, the father, the stepmother and the
social worker sit down. There’s an awkward silence.

Someone breaks the tension joking to the Child, Youth and Family Services
(CYFS) lawyer Sam Anand.

“You’ve only just started Sam and look what you’ve done – you big meanie.”
Everyone knows what is really going on. In the previous hour and a half,
the mother has been under respectful, but relentless cross examination by
the father’s lawyer Diane Ransfield and the strain is beginning to tell.

It’s late afternoon on the second day of a Care of Children Act hearing at
the Waitakere Family Court. Except for a large tapa cloth on the wall
behind the judge’s bench, and further Pacific art on another wall, the
court space is like any other. At the centre the judge’s bench, shielded by
a closed balustrade, imposes authority on a line of lawyers’ desks. On the
judge’s right the witness dock – a lonely fenced-off island. On the left
the court registrar’s desk. When they’re addressing the judge the lawyers
stand, but for most of the time everyone sits on utilitarian tubular steel
framed chairs that make terrible graunching noises at the slightest
movement. Everyone tries to sit still.

Earlier Judge Mather had welcomed me, the first journalist to attend his
court since the new rules came into place allowing media access. He
confirms I’m aware of the rules – no naming of any of the parties involved
– and offers to explain the legal issues and process during some of the
breaks. This case, he says, belongs to the 2 to 3 per cent of the
particularly intractable kind – in this instance over a 10-year period.
Poignantly, on this same day, the child in the middle of it all turns 11.

That morning the father, who is applying for day-to-day care (the new name
for custody) of his daughter, is asked how much money the numerous court
cases over the 10 years have cost him. He estimates $60,000 to $70,000.
“One year it cost $22,000 in lawyer’s fees. I had to sell my home to pay
and was left with nothing to pay the other bills.”

For much of the time during the battle the mother’s lawyer was paid for by
legal aid. But in more recent years when she returned to the workforce she
became ineligible and also faced legal bills. Which may explain why for
this hearing the mother is representing herself without a lawyer. It’s a
role in which the mother shows herself to be quite adept.

Mother: How did you find out [current partner’s name] was made redundant?

Father: From your mother.

Mother: Have you ever questioned me about this or whether we were
considering moving overseas?

Father: No.

Mother: Have you ever seen our house on the market?

Father: No.

Mother: Which member of my family do you believe lives overseas?

Father: [Family member’s name] lives in Singapore.

Mother: Sorry, you’re incorrect there.

Then when cross examining the father’s new partner the mother asks: “When
you made a decision to make a relationship with [father’s name] did you at
any time make contact with me to lessen the conflict between [father’s
name] and myself?’

Stepmother: “No I didn’t think I needed to.”

The parents split up when their child was 10 months. “It [the relationship]
broke up because of the conflict that was happening in front of [child’s
name],” says the father. “I could see it was affecting [child’s name].”
Over the years there have been various shared parenting arrangements, many
court orders, court warrants to enforce court orders and six psychologist’s
reports. Most recently, the child has been made a ward of the court – a
guardianship order which is supervised by CYFS and which involves the child
living out of Auckland with the paternal grandparents. The application for
wardship by the child’s lawyer, Judith Surgenor, arose out of concerns that
the child was suffering emotional abuse. “Almost all of her life all she
has known is her parents fighting. She has said that over and over,”
Surgenor prefaces a question to the mother.

Like all Family Court cases the evidence is pre-compiled in affidavits from
all the parties. Children are kept well away from the proceedings, but the
child’s position is represented by the lawyer for the child. Judge Mather
points out the Act specifically requires the lawyer for the child to take
into account the child’s views and wishes. Occasionally, when there may be
a conflict between the views and the interests of the child, a lawyer “to
assist the court” is appointed to represent the child’s interests.

During the hearing the evidence is interrogated by cross examination of the
witnesses who have sworn the affidavits. Unfortunately, media don’t get to
see the written evidence so have to piece together what’s going on from the
cross examinations. Over the two days witnesses are questioned and
re-questioned from different points of view – by the mother representing
herself, by the lawyers for the father, the child and CYFS, and by the
judge. The result is a rather gruelling, sometimes cathartic, forum where,
as Judge Mather describes it, “every scab is picked”.

The central issue here is what’s called “parental alienating behaviour” in
the mother’s home. It takes a variety of forms: the mother pressuring her
daughter to prefer being with her; the mother being negative about the
father to the daughter; and undue influence of the daughter by
inappropriately involving her in adult issues. Even with the wardship in
place, the mother has continued to try to influence her daughter at her
grandparents’ home via phone calls and by sending text messages and email.

The court-appointed psychologist is concerned that removing the child from
the parents has failed to keep her “emotionally safe”. She says the child
is unhappy and confused.

“The major difficulty for her is to be careful that she does not offend the
mother and [stepfather].” The distress has led to the child becoming
overweight and craving food. The psychologist has concerns too about the
stepfather who has opposed the child’s involvement with her paternal
family. At one stage he took out a trespass notice to prevent the father
from attending the child’s pre-school. In another instance the stepfather
videoed the father when he collected the child from the mother’s home.
“[Stepfather’s name] felt strongly about his role. He would like to have
replaced [father’s name],” says the psychologist.

On another occasion the mother took out a trespass notice preventing the
father from coming on to her property. The result was that the child had to
walk a “no-man’s land” between her mother’s front door and the gate
whenever it was the father’s turn for care. There was also the time the
mother refused permission at the last minute for her daughter to go to
school camp – sending her to school on the day of the camp without any camp
gear. Her father was one of the parent-helpers.

The psychologist recounts some words of the child: “I really worry about
saying the wrong thing and I’m worried and scared when I go back [to the
mother’s].” Another concern is how the child has been taught by the mother
to keep secrets. “It’s telling her [the child] important relationships
require keeping secrets. If you don’t keep them, you’re not worthy of the

Asked about one of the many times she didn’t keep to court orders defining
when the father would have time with the child, the mother replies: “I was
angry and upset about what the future might hold.” Answers to other
questions by the father’s lawyer Dianne Ransfield are also evasive.

Ransfield: Can you now accept that the way you have involved [child’s name]
in these proceedings is inappropriate?

Mother: I was taught to answer children’s questions when they ask them.

Ransfield: Do you accept that in your household you talk about [father’s
name] in negative terms?

Mother: No I do not.

By mid-afternoon on the second day, the case is looking as intractable as
ever. Even the psychologist, when asked on the first day what her
recommendations are, cries out “I don’t know.” She wants to ensure that if
day-to-day care goes to the father, there is a safe way for continued
contact (the new name for access) with the mother – important to ensure the
child doesn’t feel she is to blame.

The paternal grandmother also wants a solution. “I have to say [mother’s
name] could make things a lot easier from what I know.” Asked how by CYFS
lawyer Sam Anand the grandmother gives a list: by being more co-operative,
by sticking to court orders, by not denigrating the father to the child;
and by “generally helping [child’s name] to feel easy about moving between
the two households and not feeling guilty – she doesn’t need to pick sides,
it’s not necessary”.

CYFS has come in for some criticism during the hearing – mainly for
assigning an inexperienced social worker to oversee the wardship and
monitoring of parents’ contact with the child. The department has since
appointed a new social worker who both parents confirm has helped the
situation markedly. Both ask that she be permanently assigned to their case.

When the mother returns to the court composed, but upset, she surprises
everyone by saying: “I want the conflict to discontinue. I do think that
with the monitoring that CYFS provides and with support from a third-party
mediator, it is probably best if [child’s name] lives with her father.”

The CYFS lawyer has no further questions. Judith Surgenor, lawyer for the
child, remarks that based on what the mother has said much of her cross
examination is no longer necessary. The mother’s concession has also made
it redundant for the stepfather’s evidence to be cross examined. But
Surgenor does ask whether the mother understands that “it’s not just
conflict, it’s undermining [child’s name] and bringing her into adult issues”.

At first the mother wants to share fault with the father: “I understand we
both have and it’s been very detrimental.” Surgenor asks more directly.
“Are you going to be able to support [father’s name] in his parenting?”

Mother: “I have to.” Surgenor suggests that discussion about parenting
issues should be “between the two of you, rather than with [stepfather’s
name] as a go-between”. Mother: “Yes it does seem appropriate.”

Surgenor: “You’re not going to walk away from [child’s name] are you?”

Mother: “No.”

In light of the development Judge Mather suggests the parents take some
time to discuss issues – particularly with the lawyer for the child – and
try and come to an agreement on how to proceed. He adjourns the court. “I
try to give the parties and lawyers the opportunity to resolve cases at
every stage prior to when the boom gets lowered,” he tells me in the break,
pointing out that here it’s much better to engage the mother to do things
better than to impose restrictions on her.

An hour later everyone is back in court. The stepfather is asked to join
the session, but refuses. Judith Surgenor tells the judge what’s been
agreed: that the father will have day-to-day care of his daughter and the
mother will have contact – restricted initially to day-time rather than
overnight stays.

The wardship will continue with CYFS as the court’s agent monitoring the
situation. The lawyer for the child who has been involved with the case for
eight years, will provide regular mediation sessions between the parents.
The child and the parents should also have specialist counselling.

“It’s accepted by both parents the conflict between both parents had to
stop,” says Judge Mather as he makes the consent orders. To do otherwise
“would be to continue the emotional abuse of their daughter, and it’s
appropriate to describe the pressure which [child’s name] had been
subjected to in those terms”.

The judge praises the mother for the concessions she has made which have
allowed the resolution to happen, noting how difficult it must have been
for her to do that. His message for both parents: “I accept their
commitment to do things better in the future. I have no doubt they will do

Later in the week, the mother, father and daughter will meet with the
lawyer for the child to explain the new arrangements and work out details.
Tonight the father will briefly tell his daughter her parents have agreed
she’ll be living mainly with him, but still seeing her mum often.

The mother will phone to wish her daughter happy birthday.


The New Zealand Herald
28 January 2006

The kids are not all right
By Chris Barton

For so long closed to public scrutiny, last year the Family Court was
opened to the media. Chris Barton went along to see what happens inside

The lawyer, quoting from a social worker’s affidavit, is asking dad how his
10-year-old son could come to be saying such things. The father replies
he’s not sure – but that his son knew his parents had been to counselling
about their separation and that there was an application before the court.

Kids say the strangest things. Here at the North Shore Family Court the
10-year-old’s quotes have a terrible resonance – marking the beginning of
the end of the father’s application for day-to-day care of his children.

The child’s words indicate the father may have breached a unwritten taboo
of the court – never discuss court proceedings with your children and never
try to pressure them to take sides. As the father is soon to find out, one
parent denigrating the other to their child is not on.

This is a forum – until now conducted in secret – where, inevitably, dirty
washing will be aired and past events will be dredged up, prodded and
scrutinised. Thankfully, children do not attend.

In this case there’s evidence the 10-year-old is adamant he doesn’t want to
live with his mother who has suffered from post-natal depression and was on
Prozac for five years. Another affidavit tells of “the knife incident” when
the mother frightened her son. “Please do not take me back,” the child said
in a letter. But, as the father is also about to discover, wishes are not
always what they seem. And there’s a difference between what children want
and what they need.

Among several changes, the Care of Children Act now allows media to attend
the Family Court so that the public can know more about what goes on behind
its doors. At least that’s the theory. In reality most of the Family Court
proceedings are still shut to media eyes. Journalists can only attend
defended Care of Children Act hearings which happen when all other avenues
– counselling and mediation – have failed. Matrimonial and defacto property
disputes, separation and dissolution orders, care and protection cases,
adoption proceedings, counselling and all other court happenings remain off

The underlying concept of the Care of Children Act is that parents,
assisted by professionals, should work out parenting arrangements for
themselves. In Auckland, the “find a solution” approach appears to be
working. Not only is there a dearth of cases available for the Weekend
Herald to attend, but many of those that are available are adjourned as
parties reach 11th-hour consent agreements.

At the Auckland Court for example Usha Patel, the lawyer representing a
child whose father has died, puts forward a solution to break an impasse.
The mother is refusing to allow her daughter to have any contact with her
father’s Indian family. The child however misses her cousins so Patel
suggests meetings at a supervised contact centre. The lawyers for the
father’s family and the mother agree and Judge Jan Doogue sanctions the
settlement, praising the professionals involved and commenting that the
softly, softly approach is sensitive to the issues of grief and cultural
difference involved.

But at the North Shore court, where a father wants primary care of his
eldest son and two other children, there’s no solution in sight and a
two-day hearing begins. Jurisdictional manager Bruce Archer says the Herald
is the first media organisation to ask to attend a hearing there since the
new Act came into effect in July. He runs through the rules – no naming, or
reporting details that might identify, the children, parents, support
people, speakers on cultural issues or witnesses involved. He also provides
a “Media” sticker to be worn at all times which marks me a pariah. The
lawyer for the children seems friendly, though, and it’s easy to understand
why the parents might not appreciate a media presence. I’m an intruder on
private matters – a paid voyeur of their bickering, blaming and sad,
painful circumstance.

The registrar leads the judge in. Those giving evidence swear on the Bible
or by affirmation to tell the truth. The father sits with his lawyer at the
desk on the judge’s right, the mother with her lawyer to the left. In the
middle is the court-appointed lawyer for the child. Witnesses wait outside
to be called. No one else is allowed to sit in except media, who must be
accredited and sit on the perimeter.

“You talk about mother’s inconsistencies in day-to-day things and your lack
of information about the children. But aren’t these a consequence of the
separation?” asks Judge Ian McHardy of the father. “You see things from a
different perception. Like ships passing in the night, you’re not listening
to each other.” Interjection from the judge is frequent – sometimes to
explain, sometimes as an observation, and often as questions to the witness.

The father is concerned about the mother’s mental state and that the oldest
child in particular seems so afraid – on one occasion turning white and
shaking when he sees his mother, and crying and resisting when taken back
to his mother’s house after a weekend with the father. The father’s family
and friends present evidence about the problem. “She [the mother] thinks if
she has to share love there’s none left for her,” says the paternal
grandmother. “I’ve never seen a well [mother’s name].” But cross
examination by the mother’s lawyer Kathryn Hayman shows most of the
evidence from the father’s family and friends is at least a year old – and
doesn’t take into account professional assessments which don’t find
concerns about the mother’s parenting. Under cross examination by the
children’s lawyer Greg Milicich, the father admits his serious concerns
about the mother’s mental ability are now “niggling doubts”.

The case turns on the evidence of the court-appointed psychologist. The
father is critical of the psychologist’s report saying it didn’t take into
account what happened in his eldest son’s early childhood. He’s critical
too that the psychologist didn’t make it clear what was required when she
visited his home. He had the impression she just wanted to talk to the
children and so kept out of the way, but was dismayed to find the report
criticised him for being passive.

As the cross examination proceeds, it becomes clear the psychologist has
strong views. In her assessment the 10-year-old has picked up on comments
and negativity about his mum and is blaming her for the separation – and
trying to punish her. “What is going on is falling into emotional abuse of
the child by the father.” She says the father remains unwilling to promote
a positive view of the mother to the children. “He [the father] has very
little insight into the part he is playing in this situation.” To break the
cycle – so that all three children “get a clear message mum is not an
unsafe parent” – the psychologist recommends three to four weeks of no
contact with the father, a measure she has never recommended before.
“[Eldest child’s name] needs time to heal his relationship with his mother.”

Milicich, the children’s lawyer, points out that under the new Act, it’s
his role to explain to the children the decision of the court. He notes too
that children have a right of appeal if a decision goes against their
expressed views. “They [the two brothers] cried as recently as last week
that they do not want to live with their mother and that they will run
away.” Milicich wants to know what can be done to assist the children
should the decision be for them to remain in day-to-day care with their

“The people that can help these kids and help the court are mum and dad –
and dad mostly at this point,” replies the psychologist. Earlier Judge
McHardy explained that under the Act the court is obliged to promote
children having a continuing relationship with both parents. He has also
asked the father if he understands the difference between children’s wants
and needs. “Sometimes wishes need to be overridden by the parents.”

The father’s lawyer Natalie Dufty challenges the psychologist’s view that
the father is mainly to blame for the eldest son’s behaviour. She outlines
how the mother described feeling cloudy, useless and that she couldn’t cope
during her post-natal depression. “Is it possible that [child’s name] was
emotionally deprived of his mother’s attention during this time?”

The psychologist says she doesn’t have concerns about attachment. “It’s
possible to be attached to the mother but still hold a sense of rejection
at the same time.” Her main worry is that the eldest son has got into the
habit of speaking in hateful and disrespectful ways about the mother and
that before anything else, that relationship needs to be fixed. “It’s
against nature to hate one parent. It’s not going to help in his mental

Judge McHardy says he cannot ignore the psychologist’s evidence. He reminds
the father that earlier he had said: “Then we’ll know one way or the other”
– in response to whether a temporary cessation of his contact with the
children would help. By now it’s clear the father’s application is not
going to succeed. Judge McHardy puts forward a proposal: the father should
have no contact with the children for the next four weeks; the father
should attend counselling on his own – specifically about the need to
promote the mother’s parenting to the children; arrangements should then be
made for Christmas, with the father to have a several weeks of time with
the children during the holidays; and then, if things go well, a shared
parenting arrangement with the father having the children one day a week
and every second weekend.

Outside the court room the mother and father discuss the proposal with
their lawyers in separate conference spaces. The lawyer for the children
scuttles between the two.

The rights of the child have increased under the new Act so it’s not
surprising that the lawyer for the child plays a key role helping parents
reach consent. In another case at the Auckland court, Lynda Kearns asks
Judge Tony Fitzgerald for time to discuss a report written on behalf of a
child who at one stage was taken into care by Child, Youth and Family
Services (CYFS). In conference rooms outside the court Kearns talks to the
parents separately and then brings them together to agree on day-to-day
care and contact arrangements. An hour later they’re both back before Judge
Fitzgerald who makes the orders agreed upon. He commends both parents for
the “huge progress” made in their personal lives and sorting out the care
and protection issues involved. He says it takes more courage to settle
than to hand over decision making to someone else. “[Child’s name] can’t
have what she wants – the two of you together. But she also wants you happy
and co-operating together. I think she’ll be happy about that.”

Back at the North Shore court agreement is also reached. Milicich will tell
the children about mum and dad’s decision with both parents present. If
there are any problems during the period of no contact with the father, the
boys can call their lawyer. Judge McHardy asks for a memorandum confirming
the arrangements and the court is adjourned. There’s hurt emotion in the
air, but also a sense of relief – a decision by consent rather than by
court order – and a way forward.

Picture: Judge Ian McHardy says the Act promotes children having a
relationship with both parents.

Posted in CYFSWATCH Media | Leave a Comment »

(AUS-NSW) DV – Women wary on shaming

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28, 2007

The Premier’s plan to “name and shame” the perpetrators of domestic
violence has run into immediate opposition – not from men, but women. If a
violent husband is named and humiliated publicly, few may have sympathy for
him. But his battered wife and their children would be named – and shamed –
at the same time, critics say.


The Sydney Morning Herald
19 February 2007

Women wary on shaming
By Malcolm Brown

The Premier’s plan to “name and shame” the perpetrators of domestic
violence has run into immediate opposition – not from men, but women.

If a violent husband is named and humiliated publicly, few may have
sympathy for him. But his battered wife and their children would be named –
and shamed – at the same time, critics say.

Morris Iemma announced yesterday there would be a new law for a “specific
new offence” of domestic violence. He said “offenders will no longer be
able to hide behind assault charges” and, if convicted, would be exposed as
“the cowards they are”.

But the Women’s Electoral Lobby branded this as a “simplistic and
sensationalist” response to a complex problem.

“Often women have spent years concealing the violence in their lives, and
as a result of that violence in their relationships they often suffer from
very low esteem,” said the lobby’s spokeswoman, Sarah Maddison.

“The prospect of that very private aspect of their lives becoming part of a
naming and shaming circus would be a deterrent for many to come forward.”

Then there is the humiliation in the schoolyard. “Children in these
situations have probably already endured extremely difficult home
circumstances and probably without exception have developed coping
strategies and mechanisms that have involved keeping that part of their
lives secret. It is up to them to reveal that aspect of their lives, in a
supported environment, not on the evening news.”

She added: “In other cases, such as sexual assault, the perpetrators are
often not named. I think this naming and shaming needs to be thought through.”

Mr Iemma told Labor’s election launch yesterday: “Domestic violence is a
scourge of society which destroys families and creates a deadly legacy for
the next generation.

“This [prosecuting under the new law] is a clear message to perpetrators
that they will face the full force of the law.”

Mr Iemma said there would be new domestic violence “hot spot teams” in a
new police family and domestic violence unit, with 35 officers “targeting
thugs who assault their families”. Five officers would be assigned to deal
with repeat offenders.

He said these measures would build on a $28 million, four-year plan
announced in November last year, which was designed to improve support for
victims of domestic violence.

The Premier’s office later said there was no plan to change the laws that
stop the reporting of the names of children who are victims of violence,
which would extend to the charge of domestic violence. It had also not been
decided what sort of penalties would apply to the domestic violence charge.

Ms Maddison said the number of reported instances of domestic violence had
not declined over the decades. Any renewed government attempt to tackle the
problem would be welcome.

But she said she did not think there would be much in research literature
to suggest the naming and shaming of perpetrators would work. One of the
effects would be “invading the privacy of the survivors”.

There were far more significant problems of domestic violence, in
particular what happened to a woman and her children once she had decided,
often after years of abuse, to leave home. Often such women would have to
“scramble round” and wait for government housing.

Posted in CYFSWATCH Media | Leave a Comment »

Ahhhhh…..NOW it makes sense.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 27, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

February 27th, 2007 by cyfswatchnz

Tuesday 27 February, 2007

SSC signs all-of-govt deal for Google boxes

The State Services Commission today signed an all-of-government syndicated procurement deal with BearingPoint New Zealand for discounted access to Google search appliances.

The deal offers all government agencies savings averaging 30% off the list price and covers an extensive range of Google products and BearingPoint services, ensuring that agencies of all sizes will be able to participate in the agreement.

“The ability to search and find government information is essential for accessible government. Agencies will be able to use these appliances for their intranets, extranets and public websites, enabling staff and the public to find and use the information they need,” said Laurence Millar, Deputy Commissioner Information and Communication Technologies.

The Google search appliances can be used to search internal documents as well as public documents, including web sites, internal databases, content management systems and document management systems.

This contract gives BearingPoint New Zealand status as preferred supplier for government search appliances. This means that agencies wishing to implement Google search may purchase these products and services without inviting tenders from other suppliers, as per the Rules for Procurement by Government Departments.


Posted in CYFSWATCH Media | 1 Comment »

Let’s ALL celebrate Childrens Day, Sunday 4th March 2007.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 27, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

February 27th, 2007 by cyfswatchnz

Step 1: Go to:

Step 2: Find out where your local Children’s Day event is being held, and when.

Step 3: Make up some A4 flyers, cut into 4 – 5 strips, each strip reading:

“Some of our children couldn’t come to this event today – read why at

Step 4: Go and distribute them amongst the crowd, as an act of remembrance for your own children, particularly those who have been separated from you.


Posted in CYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »

Kiwi 1960 deals to “Cameron W”.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 27, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

February 27th, 2007 by cyfswatchnz

Oh dear, well Cameron, why didn’t you say that in the first place? I take then you have a major beef with Telecom? You hate them as well.The point of this blog is that there are good social workers, there are also cases where a child does need to be in care, but there are also many BAD social workers and many times a child does not have to be in care.Its the culture at CYFS that makes this blog do what it does. I’d also suggest that your constant use of profanity is a direct result of what CYFS did to you, and that I’d really strongly suggest you get some counseling because you appear to be full of hate! I’d also suggest that you have issues with the way CYFS dealt to you that you have yet to confront and deal with.

I know what I’m talking about, my son is 23 this year and he is a complete mess, as you are.

You seem to wrongly think everything CYFS does is good, well, read the stories here, its not all good. Children have been KILLED while under CYFS “care and protection” or sexually abused, and yet, no social worker has ever been held accountable. I know stories from my days with PANIC that CYFS was warned about the care giver they left children with, only to have the social worker ignore the concerns. Even Police concerns were ignored.

The children were tortured with lit cigarrette ends, bashed, starved and worse.

Then there’s the children, twins, that were left with the fathers sister. The father went on TV1 news complaining that CYFS ignored his warning that his sister was a prostitute and her partner dealt drugs.

The Police confirmed that. But CYFS didn’t care.

So, Cameron, at 22, with issues you need help with, you make out you know it all and have all the answers. WRONG! You know nothing. Its not all black and white like you think.

Why didn’t you “attack” this blog with facts rather than a litany of profanity? Then the issues could have been dealt with?

BTW, in your blog entry, you said “YOUR A BLOG, THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT”

well, firstly, because its annoying me, its spelt YOU’RE not YOUR. You’re a blog.. as opposed to “your day will come!”

and last point, would you have said that had this been between 1933 and 1945, and this was Germany? Would you have shouted people down saying “YOURE A BLOG, THEY ARE THE GOVERNENT” when a blog was trying to save the Jews from the death camps?

What about Austrlalia’s “Stolen Generartion”? thats when the Aussie Govt forcibly removed children from Aborigines families and placed them with white families! Would you have denied this blog the right to try and stop that injustice?

History is full of examples that shows us that “The Government” isn’t always right. Recent example would be Bush’s excuses to invade Iraq. Here in NZ, its the lowering of the legal drinking age, look at the problems that caused with children being drunk on the streets!

Your blog serves no good purpose, its just full of hate, but this blog has a good purpose. I’d suggest you look hard at which blog should be closed down.

if you wish to reply, then do it without the profanity.


Posted in CYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »