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

Blog Commentary on CYFSWATCH.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 10, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Thursday, 1 February 2007

I’ve always hated social workers with a passion, they’re all so busy telling other people how to raise their kids, that they don’t notice their own. How many have a I known? Hard to say, but I’m related to far too bloody many on my mother’s side.

True, they’re not all Social Workers, those that aren’t are bloody teachers. You know, the ones who act as commissars for CYFS, and tell kids how to get their parents in the shit.

Not a big fan of teachers either.

At this point if just one tenth of what is being made public on CYFS Watch is true, then any and every parent in this country should be terrified.

Your only moral options are to take you kids out of the state education system, arm yourselves, and on no accounts allow any CYFS rep on to your property. At least if you fight them, when you’ve lost you’ll know you did all you could. Unlawful though it may be, your right to protect your family is one thing I’ll never vote to jail you for if I’m on a jury.

So many of these people either handed their kids over, or even went to CYFS in good faith, thinking that they would be helped.

Hi Labour government, call for you.

It’s reality, hes been trying to get you for a while now, and he thinks you’re ducking him.

The ham-fisted, inept, ill-advised and jackbooted attempts of this government to shut down a website critical of a government department, has made them a laughing stock, and shown New Zealanders something most were unaware of.

They – the government – do not have power.

Other than that we chose to let them through inaction and indifference.

Dear Leader herself and her politburo have kept their heads down, but after seven years there isn’t a single person in this country who doesn’t know how she operates. The head of CYFS went off his rocker and made some damned heavy handed claims and threats. Nothing from Clark, therefore Clark approves. If she didn’t, we would have known real quick.

Result? Where they might have had some division from the public and some leverage, they have driven kiwis into asking: what are you hiding, and do we not have free speech when it doesn’t suit the government?

TVNZ Poll Question:

Do you think the website “naming and shaming” CYF social workers should be taken down?

Yes: 17%

No: 83%

HA! That 17% is what, public service staff?

We’re now on a ten count for Dear Leader to come out and try and put some distance between her and her designated fall guy, but being the spiteful vindictive individual she i,s expect her to lose it on camera.

Something the Clark regime forgot a long time ago, is something that mainstream kiwis are just remembering now. They answer to us. Not the other way round.

Hey Helen, do you know what a mirror site is?

Already CYFS Watch has been copied, and is being held on hundreds of computers in many countries. If you do manage to shut this one down, there will be dozens of sites with the same content up in a matter of hours, and hundreds more publishing the content on their own.

This is a hiding to nothing, and everything you do makes it worse.

Thursday, 1 February 2007

Another Blog Commentary on CYFSWATCH.

The Difference Between CYFS Watch and the Left

January 31st, 2007

I was thinking about how bad the CYFS blog was compared to the rest of the Internet, and realised that it has some points that set it above the average left wing blog:

* When CYFS Watch calls someone Hitler, it’s justified.

* There are few if any conspiracy theories.

* They are not constantly complaining about what National did during the 1990’s.

* No one sucks up to powerful politicians.

* CYFS Watch is committed to free speech.

* People who contribute havn’t gone straight from university to government positions.

* People who contribute know what it’s like to make ends meet in the real world.

* If you’ve heard about the site, your impression of the writers may actually improve when you actually read the site yourself.

* CYFS watch is trying to stop corruption.

* Come to think of it, CW isn’t covering for any of Labour’s crimes and/or misdeeds.

* CYFS Watch isn’t based on a philosophy that has consistently and totally failed in every implementation, and was responsible for more deaths last century than any other.

Friday, 2 February 2007

Social work boss quits after damning report on child care (UK)

Social work boss quits after damning report on child care

Vulnerable children were left at risk of serious abuse and neglect after a breakdown in the management of a council’s social work department, according to a damning official report.

Last night Midlothian Council confirmed its £82,000-a-year director of social work, Malcolm McEwan, had resigned in light of the findings.

HM Inspectorate of Education found the council’s social work office lacked leadership, suffered from poor communication, and was blighted by “strained relationships” among managers.

Senior councillors also lacked a clear vision for keeping children safe, and were ignorant of the effect of staff shortages.

Councillor Danny Molloy, who had political responsibility for social work, also resigned his council cabinet post, as well as standing down as deputy leader.

The report’s findings were discussed by First Minister Jack McConnell and the rest of the Scottish cabinet yesterday. Hugh Henry, Minister for Education and Young People, last night wrote to the authority demanding it fix its problems as a matter of “extreme urgency”.

The report follows high-profile cases of social work failure in neighbouring councils.

In Edinburgh, 11-week-old Caleb Ness was shaken to death by his brain-damaged father in 2001 after social workers felt it was safe to send him home with his mother, a recovering drug addict. In December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents’ home.

Drawing on live case files and interviews with families last summer, HMIe examined the way all agencies involved in child protection in Midlothian operated, including health services, police, the children’s reporter, voluntary groups and the council.

Inspectors found agencies had a good record for information sharing and early intervention.

However, social work staff were “inconsistent” in following up on early work, neglect cases were not given enough priority except when they reached a crisis, and inter-agency planning was poor. As a result “the needs of many of the most vulnerable
children were not always met and some children were left at risk”.

Children stayed on the child protection register for “long periods” with no improvement in their circumstances.

In addition, social work record keeping was poor, and in some cases untrained social work staff were used to interview children about suspected abuse.

Confusion about handling very young babies at risk led to some not being inadequately assessed. Overall, HMIe looked at 18 indicators of service quality.

Three were at the bottom of the scale, “unsatisfactory”; 12 were “weak”; and three “adequate”.

No aspect of child protection was good, very good or excellent.

Mr Henry, who met council officials earlier this week to discuss a comprehensive action plan, said: “This needs remedied as a matter of extreme urgency and I expect all agencies across Midlothian to act immediately to tackle the issues and to ensure that vulnerable children are not slipping through the net. I will keep in close touch with progress and developments to be assured that all appropriate steps are taken.”

Adam Montgomery, Labour leader of Midlothian, accepted the finding of serious weaknesses, but said a recovery plan was already under way. “We’ve made good and
reassuring progress over the five months since the inspection.”

Trevor Muir, the council’s chief executive and newly appointed chair of the inter-agency Midlothian Child Protection Committee, said: “The HMIe process made it clear to all the agencies the extent and immediacy of the action required. I am satisfied we are on track to deliver the necessary inter-agency improvements well in advance of the reinspection.”

Councillor Molloy said people should be reassured the service had improved greatly in the last five months, adding: “Social workers do a very difficult job under
exceptionally challenging circumstances and this HMIe report does not challenge their professionalism, ability or commitment.”

The Midlothian agencies have four months to submit a joint report outlining their progress, with a follow-up inspection within a year.


Saturday, 3 February 2007

CYFS’ practices appal British social workers.

Saturday NZ Herald:

CYFS’ practices appal British social workers

By Simon Collins

Two British social workers have accused New Zealand’s child protection agency of “gross professional incompetence”, including unnecessarily ripping children from their mother’s arms without any idea where to place them.

The men, recruited by Child, Youth and Family Services last year, have resigned in protest at the “unethical practices”.

One, Manurewa social worker Jonny Ward, 35, sent his criticisms to CYFS minister Ruth Dyson and has been invited to brief her officials. He plans to return to Britain. The other man, 27, is unwilling to be named as he works for another agency and does not want to risk his registration.

They said standards fell far short of what they were used to. Mr Ward said he took part in removing children from a family last week with another social worker, eight police and two dog handlers.

The other social worker tried to stop the mother cuddling her son when she tried to comfort him.

The children were eventually placed with their grandmother.

“We could have spoken to the grandmother beforehand and told the children, ‘It’s okay, you know your grandmother’. Instead we had them in the back of the car, all three of them crying because they didn’t know where I was taking them.”

In Britain, he said, social workers tried to get the parents’ agreement to a removal, or at least pack the children’s belongings and make sure any health needs were known.

The Ministry of Social Development official in charge of CYFS, Ray Smith, said local practice placed more emphasis than Britain on keeping children within the extended family, which could mean searching for family members if children had to be removed in an emergency.

Saturday, 3 February 2007

How Norway and Sweden Uplift Children (Youtube Video link).

Hi Everyone,

This little message is to inform you about a video about a Norwegian case of forcibly taking children into public care that has been posted on YouTube. A
team of social workers carried the kicking and screaming children to the waiting car. The adults resisted but to no avail. It was a brutal abduction of the children.
They will be traumatised for life.

Here is the URL:

Similar methods are employed in Sweden, but mostly they abduct the children at school or at their day-care – to prevent complications with the parents – and the parents are informed afterwards.

See for eg “Infuriated mother attacked social worker”

Saturday, 3 February 2007

Understanding the underclass (NZ Herald 3/1/07).

Understanding the underclass
Email this storyPrint this story Saturday February 03, 2007
By Simon Collins

Manurewa’s Angie Shortcliffe is foster parent to three children under 7 and mother of two of her own. Photo / Greg Bowker

When British social worker Jonny Ward spotted an advertisement for jobs with New Zealand’s Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) last year, he jumped at the opportunity.

He knew New Zealand’s reputation as a progressive leader in the child welfare world, the place where family group conferences were invented, where social workers would not be oppressive agents of the state but advisers to help families take control of their own destinies.

When he accepted a two-year contract to work in the CYFS Manurewa office, he knew he would be going to one of New Zealand’s poorest areas where most of his clients would be Maori or Pacific Islanders, a stark contrast to the wealthy English seaside resort of Brighton he came from.

What Ward was not prepared for was how he was expected to work with the families to whom he was assigned. “On my first day, the service manager informed me the job was more like being in the police than being a social worker,” he says.

His job included taking his share of the 66,000 notifications of potential child abuse or neglect that come into CYFS’ national call centre in Grey Lynn each year, take between five and eight a day, and knock on those five to eight doors without warning to try to assess whether children were at risk.

If Ward judged there was a critical risk, he was expected to get a warrant to remove the children, take a posse of social workers and police to literally pull children from the arms of their parents – then find somewhere for them to stay.

“I did an uplift last week with a social worker who tried to push away the mother cuddling her child where the child was having to be removed,” he says. “There was a case on Cyfswatch [blogsite], which I can believe, where the child was being breastfed and the social worker attempted to take the child.

“There was no reason to do that. Regardless of what the parents might have done, you need to work with them. Most parents, regardless, will want the best for their children.”

Last week Ward told CYFS he was quitting, returning to Britain 18 months before his contract expires. This week he posted a searing indictment of the service on Cyfswatch and sent copies to Prime Minister Helen Clark, National Party leader John Key and the Herald. “The failure of CYFS to protect children goes hand in hand with gross professional incompetence among a large proportion of its frontline staff,” he wrote.

He told the Weekend Herald that Key’s speech in Christchurch on Tuesday about streets like McGehan Close in Auckland, where the parents feel helpless and in terror of their teenage children, was spot on.

“We are creating an underclass because we are letting these children down,” he says. “When we do intervene, we are not providing a better alternative.

“Sometimes the caregiver is more abusive than the family we have taken them from. I know from a colleague that they placed someone with a convicted murderer because the social worker didn’t tell the supervisor about that.”

Of course, the “underclass”, or what Clark after the Kahui case last year called “Once Were Warriors families”, can’t be put down just to poor social work.

These families are still paying the price of the destruction of working-class jobs in the fight against inflation and state controls in the 80s and early 90s, exacerbated by addictions, welfare poverty traps and often race-based gang loyalty.

Rodger Smith, who started as a community worker in McGehan Close in 1981, says that even then the street was known as “Auckland’s ghetto”, with a high rate of unemployment in the wake of the oil crises of the 1970s.

But Ward is not alone in suggesting that the way we are responding to families in need is now part of the problem, rather than the solution.

The director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, Dorothy Scott, told a conference in Wellington last year that “our current child protection systems are unsustainable and harmful to children and their families.

“Given the scale of child protection notifications now received, it is hard to exaggerate the extent of rage, humiliation and intense fear felt by many parents who are subject to child protection investigations where the concerns are not substantiated,” she said.

“Paradoxically, and tragically, this is very likely to reduce the coping capacity of parents by causing high levels of stress, and by reducing their informal social support and their use of services, as parents are left very suspicious about who in their kith and kinship circle, or who in their local service system, may have notified them to the authorities.

“While this is an area in which it is hard to conduct research for ethical and privacy reasons, it is very likely, in my view almost certain, that our current unsubstantiated child protection investigations are actually increasing the risk of child abuse and neglect for many children.”

The director of the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit in Wellington, the Rev Charles Waldegrave, argued in Social Policy Journal that New Zealand should move away from the adversarial Anglo-American model of child protection, based on removing children from their parents, to a system more common in Europe where judges and social workers work together to try to help the parents to raise their children.

“I think CYFS is beginning to be aware that there has been a problem in the Anglo-American systems,” he said this week. “All the research shows that they are getting social workers to become evidence detectors against the family, so they lose the support of the family as they are doing that.

“Continental Europe has had a totally different approach. If the situation is really serious, of course they have to go for the legal things, but they have realised that the vast majority of abuse in families can be changed if you pour in the resources, so the social worker goes in with the approach of, ‘What you are doing with your child is not working, we are here to change that, now where do we start?’

“They do things like providing literacy courses, parenting courses, and they help people into sports and other activities.

“I was in Germany in November in a tenement block where they have 24-hour social work staff so that people who have difficulty bringing up their children can come and live there with their children for four months or six months. There is no lock and key, no one is forced into it, but a social worker is there. They can protect the children and sit down with the parents and work it through and help the families learn.”

New Zealand’s equivalents – places like Manurewa and McGehan Close – are physically and ethnically different from Germany. But the addictions, poverty traps and racial or gang loyalties are just as strong.

Angie Shortcliffe, a Manurewa foster parent to three children under 7 in CYFS care and mother of two of her own, has taken on children whose parents were both hooked on pure methamphetamine (P).

“I’ve got two whose parents used P,” she says. “One has been very good, like a normal child. The other one just screamed.

“No matter what you did, it was hard to settle the child, to the point where you have to leave the other children to constantly deal with this one child.” She has taken in another baby with a brain injury caused by domestic violence. She had to give back a 10-year-old girl who smashed her hands through an upstairs window and tried to jump out.

Shortcliffe, a 33-year-old solo mum, says she is always broke in the holidays when she needs to organise things for the children. CYFS pays a foster care allowance of $114 to $163 for each child a week, depending on the child’s age, but this covers only the basics, such as food, power, phone, water and rent.

“I don’t have a bed for myself,” she says. “I put a mattress on the floor in the lounge so everyone else has a bed.”

Massey University researcher Jill Worrall, who surveyed 323 families in CYFS-sanctioned kin care, found drug abuse featured in 40 per cent of cases, second only to neglect (46 per cent).

Other common elements were alcohol abuse (29 per cent), child abuse (28 per cent), mental illness and domestic violence (both 27 per cent).

CYFS statistics provided to Worrall show that the number of children in care has risen by 47 per cent since 1999-2000, from 3533 to 5191 as at November 30.

In Worrall’s survey, 80 per cent of the children in care came from broken families – 61 per cent from the care of their mothers, 10 per cent from their fathers, 10 per cent from other relatives and only 20 per cent from both their parents. She believes it’s no accident that New Zealand and the United States have the world’s highest rates of sole parenthood and children in state care, higher than in Australia, Japan or most of Europe.

“I think it’s to do with the public ethos. It’s to do with the belief that it’s okay [to split]. In Japan it’s not,” she says. “Not that I think women should stay with violent partners. Sometimes you have to go for marriage counselling where you support the marriage, but there also has to be a will to change.”

South Auckland Caregivers Association chair Allysa Carberry says a third of her members looking after CYFS children are also solo mums, and two-thirds are couples. The association gets sponsorship from charities and churches to organise outings for children in care, including three fun days in the next few days. CYFS itself recognises that things need to change. Late last year it brought critics Scott and Waldegrave on to an advisory group with Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro and Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier, who are all pushing for a better balance between child protection and family support.

“We have been pretty aggressive in challenging them,” Waldegrave says.

He says the service’s chief social worker, Marie Connolly, understands the issues. She has written about “practice slippage” away from the principle that families should be given power to take control of their own problems – the basis of the 1989 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act that gave New Zealand its once-progressive reputation.

“The family support orientation is not trouble-free,” she told the Weekend Herald this week. “It’s striking a balance that is important so that you’re responding to the child protection issue and also providing family supports.”

The Government plans to amend the act this year to let social workers in the CYFS call centre refer non-urgent cases directly to community agencies with powers only to support the families, not to remove children.

A review posted on the CYFS and Treasury websites last month suggests the CYFS call centre could become a “single entry point” for families seeking a range of state-funded family support services.

Ward’s stinging critique of the current system is being taken seriously at the highest levels. Clark passed it on to CYFS Minister Ruth Dyson, whose private secretary has invited Ward to brief her in the Beehive next week.

Waldegrave says the debate about CYFS needs to be seen in the context of a dramatic reduction in numbers on the unemployment benefit in the past five years from 124,720 to 41,027.

He believes this drop has been boosted by the new “in-work payment” which gives low-income families an extra $60 a week if at least one parent is in paid work.

“The whole Working For Families package is based on the international research that shows that if you pour money into temporary work for that group on the edge of the labour market, they get a toehold in the labour market and go on to find a secure place in it,” he says.

“Key is trying to create a crisis out of something that is actually a huge success in New Zealand. The proportion of people in the underclass has been reduced by at least half in the past five years.

“If we are to go further, we need to address the international research and continue in that direction.”

Sunday, 4 February 2007

Sounds like Kerre “close down CYFSWATCH” Woodham took some heat this week…..

Kerre Woodham: Stand up and be named

Herald on Sunday 4/2/07

By Kerre Woodham

Thank you to those people who took the time to email me in response to my column last week on the CYFSWatch blog. Some of the respondents clearly hadn’t read the column properly – I was not suggesting that those with a gripe against CYF were malicious cowards. That sobriquet was reserved for those anonymous bloggers who resorted to personal attacks and vicious abuse of CYF staff. Others were concerned that I’d called for the closing of all blogs that contained anonymous entries. They pointed out that on talkback, callers can choose to have a false name and withhold their number and asked, politely and otherwise, whether my stand could be considered just a touch hypocritical.

Talkback radio and blogs are very different beasts. There is a degree of control, for better or worse, on radio which means no one is allowed to resort to personal attacks. If I’d allowed a caller to say some of the things written on the blog, the company would go for a skate and damages would be paid out to the offended party. And even though callers might withhold their real names and numbers, they can still be traced if they need to be held accountable for their statements. Most amateur webmasters don’t exercise that same responsibility.

And as for the argument that bloggers need to remain anonymous for their safety – please! That might hold true in Iraq, but I don’t think a C-grade media studies graduate has much to worry about as he taps away on his computer in Glendowie.

Oh, there are some excellent sites – David Farrar’s, Public Address to name a couple of local ones – and I’ve been sent a list of blogs from the lovely Rachel who is acting as a sort of technological spirit guide, taking me into a realm of thoughtful, blogs through her recommendations.

So, thank you to those who have taken the time to write but I would still ask that webmasters and bloggers be a little less shrill about their rights and a little more muscular in exercising their responsibilities.

CYFSWATCH replies:

Hmmmm…. replace the words “webmasters and bloggers” with “CYFS Social Workers” (or “media columnists” come to think of it) in the last line, and Kerre would actually be onto something.

Sunday, 4 February 2007

Letter to The Editor: Herald on Sunday 4/2/07.

Herald on Sunday

February 4, 2007

Letters to the editor

Blog site necessary when CYF ignores hurt and angry people

I would like to comment about your editorial (Big Blogger is watching – and spewing inarticulate filth) as I am one of those bloggers. However, I am also currently a university student, with an A+ average who is a member of the Golden Key International Honour Society. I believe what I write is articulate. It is certainly truthful and well thought, rather than “spewed out”.

If the media was doing its job reporting Human Rights abuses against our families – the perpetrators being those paid to serve and protect them – then such a blog site would not be necessary to get the truth out.

Note also that a telephone poll indicated that only 17 per cent of the public were against the site and an incredible 83 per cent for.

It would seem that, like our government, the mainstream media is not in touch with the mood of our modern society, and should put in more time and thought before “spewing” such drivel.

I walked to Wellington with a pushchair last year to petition for an enquiry into the Family Court, and wouldn’t you know it, there were just as many who wanted an enquiry into CYF, and many shared their horror stories. A Commission of Enquiry into both the Family Court and CYF is required. Perhaps the media could question the government on that possibility.

Wayne Pruden, Hamilton

Sunday, 4 February 2007

CYFS being investigated for illegal research practices.

Retrieved from

Link to and sarahsstory if you want an example of an abused child being forced into being a research participant by CYFS.

The Ombudsman’s office are currently investigating. CYFS actually broke the law by breaching their statutory duty to interview this child within 48 hours, making knowing misrepresentations to her mother to induce her to sign a research consent, while lying to her that her daughter was not allowed a support person, and she’d never know what went on in the CYFS interview room UNLESS she signed the consent, which was not amended to reflect the hour’s browbeating or the promise that IF she signed the research consent, THEN she’d always be allowed to see the videotapes of her daughter’s interviews afterwards.

The Ph.D thesis clearly tells that CYFS and the researcher were fully aware of the Evidence(Videotaping of Child complainants) Regulations 1990 section 10, as well as the CAT/SAT Joint Agreement between CYFS and the Police, but they were ignored.

Section 105B and other sections about obtaining by deceit appear to have been breached by CYFS. The Police will not prosecute these people who decided this child had no right to give evidence about the crime committed against her.

CYFS illegally destroyed their copy of the child’s videos and transcripts while telling the mother her daughter had been “randomly assigned” into research without her knowledge. The University of Otago claim to now “own” the child’s taped interviews even though the research consent was never voluntary or fully informed.The child herself is asking for the tapes return but the police and CYFS are claiming the child is brainwashed by the mother.

The mother has offered to allow the child to be interviewed by a lawyer to determine her views but none of the parties want that because they cannot then claim that they are “putting the child’s interests first” if the child makes her own decision.

This child was referred to CYFS by a paediatrician, rather than to the police because he didn’t want a rapid investigation of the abuse, because the perpetrator was a Hospital respite carer who had not been vetted.There was no reason for CYFS to get their hooks into this ordinary educated family.

Monday, 5 February 2007

CYFSWATCH now features on Youtube.

I am proud to announce that “CYFSwatch the video” was completed over the weekend, and has within the minute, competed its upload to YOUtube. The link is: 

(Cut and paste to website address line).

If you would like to include it in your website, there is code on that site which will allow you to do this. If you would like a copy for your desktop, then the download link will be posted on; 

You have my permission to upload the video to any and all sites where you think it will do the best job.

Lets keep the heat firmly on CYFS.


kiwi1960 (aka 1960kiwi on YOUtube)

Monday, 5 February 2007

UK Blogger threatened by “Government Supporters”.

Posted from

Hey Kerre, looks like Iraq is a little closer than you may believe, if your comments in the Herald on Sunday (4/2/07) are anything to go by. Perhaps CYFSWATCH remaining anonymous is good for all, after all.

Silly threats in the UK

In the UK a couple of bloggers have been at the forefront of exposing some of the sleaze and lies of the “New Labour” Government. They constantly have broken stories which the media picks up. This means that in turn they have started to be targeted by Government supporters.

One of them, Iain Dale, recounts in the post some of the various threats he has received. They range from a two page newspaper feature to expose how his blog is funded, to a lawsuit from “someone big”.

Now the hilarious things is the anonymous person making the threats told Iain that he should make sure his house is in his wife’s name.

Incidentially, Iain is gay.


Monday, 5 February 2007

Latest CYFSWATCH media report (Newstalk ZB, TV3).

Threatening Internet post deleted – then re-posted
5/02/2007 15:12:03

A battle of wills is underway in Cyberspace.

Internet giant Google has deleted a threatening post on the controversial name and shame CYFSwatch website. However the website has flouted internet protocol and re-posted the item.

The deleted item contained threats to social workers – with the writer saying they would be “watching and waiting and never far behind”

Internet specialist, David Farrar, says Google was right to delete it, and flouting Google’s terms and conditions may result in the website being shut down.

Mr Farrar says, although many are sympathetic to the grievances aired on the blog sit, there is a limit to what Google can accept.

Monday, 5 February 2007

CYFSWATCH currently negotiating with Google regards CYFSWATCH posts.

Hi Blogger team,

Our team is more than willing to work within the guidelines – its just that it is very difficult for us to make any amends to our postings, if Blogger Support don’t first inform us of what amendments need to be made, and to what postings. Simply whipping off postings from our blog keeps us ignorant of what changes may need to be made.

In future, could we ask that you advise us as to which posts you receive complaints about, the nature of the complaints, and the amendments you wish to be made to a particular posting? That way, we will at least have the opportunity to act on the complaint. Alternatively, please feel free to forward any complaints to us, and we can deal with them directly?

We would also add that we have received no information whatsoever that any of our postings are outside the gambit of NZ or US law. We accept that Blogger support may make subjective judgements about posts, however we would again request that, should any complaints be made, we at least have the opportunity to rectify the issue ourselves.



>From: “Blogger Help”
>To: “cyfswatch cyfswatch”
>Subject: Re: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:52:06 -0800
Thanks for your reply. As described in Blogger’s Terms of Service(available at, we reserve the right to remove posts or blogs, or to terminate accounts, that violate Blogger’s content or member conduct policies. When we receive complaints that a post appears to violate the privacy of others by, for example, publishing non-public personal information like residential addresses, we remove the post. Likewise, we may remove posts that appear to threaten actual harm to specific individuals.

To the extent that you’re able to remedy these violations by modifying the posts or otherwise addressing these violations, the Blogger team will not take any further action to enforce its Terms of Service. But please be advised that repeated violation of our policies may result not only in the removal of specific posts but also in the termination of your account and deletion of the entire blog.

We trust that this addresses your concerns.

The Blogger Team

Original Message Follows:
>From: “cyfswatch cyfswatch”
>Subject: RE: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:01:16 +1300
>Dear Blogger Support,

On what grounds in New Zealand law does any post on breach your TOS? Such alleged breaches would have to be proved in a NZ Court of Law, or a US Court of Law depending on relevant jurisdiction.

Please therefore re-list any posts you may have removed.

> >From: “Blogger Help”
> >To:
> >Subject: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
> >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:04:57 -0800
> >

We’d like to inform you that we’ve received a complaint regarding your blog Upon review, we’ve noted that your blog is not in compliance with Blogger Terms of Service( As a result, we’ve been forced to remove the infringing posts from your blog.

Thank you for your understanding.

The Blogger Team

Monday, 5 February 2007

What they are saying about CYFSWATCH – In Wales. (Wales):

New Zealand government threatens watchblog

Thursday, January 25th, 2007

Politicians put their feet in their mouth every day.
So it takes a fair bit of rhetoric to get my attention.

New Zealand Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development, Head of CYFS New Zealand, Peter Hughes got my attention with some serious foot in mouth.

And I think he deserves more attention.

Around the world would be nice.

Not just for what he said, but for why he is saying it and what he is doing about it.

It involves a blog that has been up for about a month. It’s raw, it’s anonymous and among other things it posts emails from families that have heartbreaking and enraging encounters with CYFS. It is what is called a name and shame blog. It is not unlike rate your teacher or rate your doctor, only it’s a lot harder to read because it involves families and children colliding with a bureaucracy. There is an online forum called that deals with similar issues, but this blog has started to get New Zealanders talking.

Hughes is furious, and blew up in the media.

…”do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website”.

“We will be working 24/7 until that is done,” he said.

While lawyers scrambled to obey, within hours the Social Workers Registration Union put up a press release. Newspapers have been threatened if they put up the link.
And Hughes made good on his threat today, as this becomes the perfect information storm.

Hughes has dispatched lawyers to Google demanding the site be shut down.

Government lawyers have gone to the internet giant Google in their bid to shut down a website that “names and shames” Child, Youth and Family Services social workers.

Auckland lawyer Andrew Tetzlaff, who has acted in the past for a Google subsidiary, confirmed yesterday that Ministry of Social Development lawyers had contacted him because the site had been set up using Google’s Blogger technology.

He said he had no continuing involvement with the company and had simply passed on the ministry’s messages to a Google contact in the United States.

Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes vowed on Tuesday to get rid of the website.

By late yesterday, 44 postings had named 40 CYFS social workers, lawyers and others involved in taking children from their parents. Most postings were from parents, although some were from relatives, friends and children themselves.

There are 81 posts now, and they may not be up much longer.
It is entirely possible and probable Google will comply, after all as a private company, they have no dog in this fight. The only people that can really speak up about this are New Zealanders. And in the perfect information storm, different interests, concerns and needs are diverging.

When a government official threatens the media about linking to a site, when they dispatch their legal people to Google with demands for immediate removal, it gets people talking.

Opinions about CYFS Watchblog are understandably mixed, frustration levels are rising, chatter is increasing…

One of the things that disturbs me is that New Zealand does not have an independent review board for the cases mentioned at panic forum and at the watchblog.

Of the 5314 children in care at the end of last June, about half of them are Maori. The Children’s Commissioner received 343 complaints about the service in the year to June and another 56 complaints went to the Ombudsmen.

Many vulnerable families are not getting redress – which is what the watch blog is saying. Contrary to early media reports this week the blog is not run by disgruntled parents, but it is run anonymously. Why it is, is said very starkly on the sidebar.

In the perfect information storm that has kicked up this week, the needs and stories of the children and families could once again be getting lost because a politician wants what he wants when he wants it; and Hughes has made no bones he will use all his power at his disposal to see he gets it.

Monday, 5 February 2007

And at……

CYFS and Censorship
January 26th, 2007
Time to get a bit political now, I didn’t really want to have too much political stuff on this blog, but this should be fine.

There is a government department Children, Youth and Family Services, or CYFS, that have been caught out acting in a fairly incompetent fashion, time after time again. A blog has started up with the goal of reporting their activity by naming and shaming those responsible, which is something I think the web is perfect for.

It 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 embarrasing.

I am a firm believer in protecting the right of free speech, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, so in this case I am 100% behind the free speech rights of the blog (but not necessarily 100% in agreement with whatever they say) and 100% opposed to the CYFS reaction in this matter.

I guess CYFS are one of those people who believe free speech should have limits. Those people are among those whom I despise the most. Free Speech as a right exists fundamentally to protect ideas that are somewhat removed from the mainstream. Any reason someone can think of for limiting free speech, I say thats the very reason why it needs to be protected so vigorously. This quote I found on another forum says it rather well:

“The right to offend ought be understood as the essence of free speech rather than an exception to it.
It’s hard to imagine Free speech, as a principle, arising from a need to protect safe, bland, orthodox, or popular speech.
We ought be mindful, too, that freedom of opinion and expression ought entail the right to be and express that you are offended.”

Monday, 5 February 2007

So now CYFSWATCH is a threat to MSD staff?

TV 3 Website 5/2/07:
Battle begins between CYFSWATCH and Google Mon-05-Feb-2007 9:18pm

A website designed to humiliate Child Youth and Family workers has begun a battle of wills with Internet giant Google.

The Ministry of Social Development told Google last week the site could put its staff in danger.

Google today deleted threatening comments from the blog, but the site’s creator reposted them.

The blogger says more than 60 people have made copies of the website, so it can be restored if Google shuts it down.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Google purges CYF threats (on behalf of the New Zealand Government).

Nothing like getting someone else to do your dirty work for you, eh New Zealand?

Google purges CYF threats (on behalf of the New Zealand Government).

Feb 5, 2007 (TV 1 News)

Internet giant Google has threatened to shut down an online blog which invites people to post complaints about Child Youth and Family social workers.

A comment deleted by Google because of its content has been reposted by the site’s authors despite warnings – potentially threatening the future of the site.

The threat to a social worker on the controversial blog cyfswatch says: “I’m watching, waiting and never far behind you.” It was deleted by Google because it breached its terms and conditions but hours later the banned post was back and uncensored.

Internet specialist David Farrar says the behaviour has endangered the entire blog. He says if the person wanted to repost the message they should at least have deleted the identifying details of who it was about.

The comment has again been removed but the CYF hall of shame still lists more than 100 social workers – calling them everything from compulsive liars to witches.

The Ministry of Social Development wants the site closed and internet specialists say this could happen if rules continue to be broken.

“Google can just delete it again. The blog owner could then try and repost it again and at some stage Google will run out of patience and say if you’re not willing to abide by our decisions we’re going to delete the entire blog,” says Farrar.

The site’s owners are in contact with Google and say they are more than happy to abide by the rules as long as they are told about any complaints first.

Google has warned any further breaches could result in the deletion of the site entirely.

Meanwhile, some of the social workers named on the blog are seeking legal advice.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

“The internet search engine giant censored some of the postings on the anti-CYF blog following a formal complaint from the government”.

Google censors anti-CYF blog. | Monday, 5 February 2007

Google has pulled content from an online forum which invites people to post complaints about Child, Youth and Family.

The internet search engine giant censored some of the postings on the anti-CYF blog following a formal complaint from the government, Radio New Zealand reported.

The blog, which published names and descriptions of social workers it claims have bullied and intimidated families, had postings which infringed Google’s Blogger Terms of Service, the search engine said.

Last month, the Ministry of Social Development called in the police over the postings, saying the website was putting the safety of CYF workers and their families at risk.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Is the New Zealand Government now as powerful as China?

Posted at

David Farrar: Let me run a not-so hypothetical situation by you. If one of the named CYF’s workers brought a defamation case against one of their accusers (and lost the case), what would your view be re the CYFS site, then?

As an advocate of free speech, I suggest that possibly the bigger story here might be who (at govt level), is pulling the strings to influence the likes of Google?

I may be wrong, but isn’t PR China the only other country in the world to have exerted this influence over Google? Now, I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, but…….???

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Google responds favourably to CYFSWATCH requests to manage its own complaints.

Dear Blogger Support,

Thank you for advising CYFSWATCH of this complaint.

We will immediately review this post, and remove the offending comment within the post as advised.

Thank you for the opportunity to amend this post, for reasons previously stated.


>From: “Blogger Help”
>To: “cyfswatch cyfswatch”
>Subject: Re: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:38:56 -0800

We have received a complaint from the Ministry of Social Development regarding a statement in the post titled “CYFS Hall of Shame #10 and #11,” dated Monday, 22 January, 2007. The Ministry alleges that the statement: “…Karen Young and Mark Postow (who have BOTH, since murdering Patrick, received promotions.)” is false and defamatory because it is specifically contradicted by the Reserved Finding of Coroner in the matter of an inquest into the death of Patrick Leonard Martin, Finding No. 464/2002, in the Coroner’s Court at Waitakere. The Ministry alleges that this statement is defamatory and seeks the removal of this post as a violation of the Blogger Terms of Service.

We request that you urgently reach a resolution with the Ministry on this matter or indicate your intent to defend your blog in any lawsuit related to the statement.

Please respond by 5 pm, Wednesday, 7 February, 2007 (Pacific Standard Time), as to what action you intend to take. If we do not hear from you promptly, we may have no alternative other than to remove the post or suspend your blog.

In this matter, we reserve all of our rights.

The Blogger Team

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Egypt urged to free blogger.

Egypt urged to free blogger

Jan 28, 2007

US-based Human Rights Watch urged Egypt to free an opposition blogger on trial over writings that prosecutors charge defame Islam and insult President Hosni Mubarak.

Abdel Karim Suleiman, a 22-year-old former law student who has been detained since November, is the first person to stand trial in Egypt over the content of writings posted on the internet. He is on trial in the coastal city of Alexandria.

Rights groups and other opposition bloggers are watching the case closely and say they fear a conviction may set a legal precedent limiting internet freedom in Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous country.

“By curbing a blogger’s freedom to post, the government may be trying to close an important space for Egyptians to speak openly about events and issues that worry them,” Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East and North Africa Director for Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.

“The Egyptian government should immediately drop all charges against Suleiman and release him,” she added.

The internet has emerged as a major forum for critics of the Egyptian government to express their views in a country where the large daily newspapers and the main television station are state-run.

While Suleiman is the first blogger to go on trial for the content of his internet writings, other opposition bloggers have also been arrested periodically during street protests then held for weeks or several months before being released.

Last year, Reporters Without Borders added Egypt to a list of worst suppressors of freedom of expression on the internet.

Blogger Suleiman, a Muslim and a liberal, has not denied writing the articles at issue in the case but said they merely represented his views.

One of Suleiman’s articles said al-Azhar in Cairo, one of the most prestigious seats of Sunni Muslim learning, was promoting extreme ideas. Another article accused Muslims of savagery during clashes between Muslims and Christians in Alexandria in 2005.

Suleiman has also denounced Mubarak, comparing him to the dictatorial pharaohs who ruled ancient Egypt.

Lawyers for Suleiman have expressed pessimism over the chances for an acquittal in the case, saying they expected the blogger to be convicted on at least one charge.

The court has rejected a defence request for Suleiman to be released on bail. If convicted, he could face up to nine years in jail.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Message to Kerre Woodham – you been “punked”, girl.

What Kerre Woodham said… 

…and what Kerre Woodham really meant:

I can’t stand little people without big media clout and the CYF Watch blog is full of them.

This is the blog set up by CYF clients to name and shame social workers whom they imagine, the pathetic creatures, have done them wrong.

The internet is a damned nuisance but better make out I think it’s a good thing. The reason it’s a nuisance is it lets Them Out There tell their stories in their own way and without censorship from big media/ big government, who of course have the mob’s interests at heart and always know what’s best.

A couple of examples of shocking posts: Anonymous talks of “a troll of a woman, five foot two in shoes and an ideal Weight Watchers before-model.”

Another Anonymous said: “I know the fat pig. More chins than a Chinese phonebook. [If she was in a car crash] I’d piss on her.”

How dare anyone talk about properly state-licenced child snatchers this way? These nasty little people hide behind what in my unbiased opinion are banal user names or the more prosaic Anonymous and, free from being held to account, can vent their respective spleens.

Just like writers of newspaper editorials, the cheeky sods! Regrettably, many stories have been broken by the net. I guess blogs are the yang to the political spin doctors’ yin, with the MSM (big media) the middle path of sane sweet reason. That anyway, is what I want you to believe.

But the fact that people can tell the truth and give their side of complex issues, completely unfiltered and unsilenced by people like my bosses and me, is a real problem.

I’ve got things wrong in the past and I’m not going to apologize. As a talkback host and newspaper columnist, I have no doubt I’ve offended, possibly appalled, some people, though never anyone who matters of course. But you know what I call myself, and what hours I’m behind a radio mike. My name and airbrushed photograph identify me as the author of these (occasionally) half-baked (or maybe willfully ignorant) opinions.

Minimising ordinary people’s anguish is a very old trick of the establishment and its media lackeys so watch me go: Although there appear to be some (not enough to lose sleep over) genuine stories of incompetence and inexplicable bureaucratic intransigence on the blog, these are offered only by some of the people willing to put their names to their experiences.

Most of the nasty little people contributing to the anti-CYF blog aren’t willing to be identified – perhaps because they worry vindictive CYF social workers will then know for sure who not to let have their children back! (but we won’t go there). To put malcontents among CYF clients firmly in their place and impress on them that parental grief is an inappropriate emotion for their kind to feel, the site should be shut down. Along with any site that lambasts big government for meddling in people’s lives.

These individuals who quite unreasonably get malicious and vindictive when social workers take their children away, do not, unlike my latte-swilling pals on the Ponsonby Rd cafe scene, have social science degrees or an equivalent. Yet their prose is more colourful and vivid than it has any right to be. They shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near small children. On first reading, I’m with the social workers, the social welfare ministry, Adolf, and holding down the unfit for overdue compulsory sterilisation.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t genuine issues that could, and indeed, should be raised after a decent interval of say, another thirty years. Government departments can develop unhealthy cultures – look at the shake-up at the Inland Revenue Department after the suicide of a man who imagined, poor fanciful fool that he was, that he had been ‘hounded’ by an over-zealous but basically well-intentioned department employee.

If there’s a prevailing orthodoxy, as some contributors to the blog falsely allege, that gets in the way of the best result, then that needs to be changed, but let’s not be too hasty or thorough when doing this. And given the enormous amounts of money being thrown into CYF, we could ask whether or not we’re getting value for money from this department. Come to think of it, we could maybe have some kind of inquiry or royal commission? Stack it with safe pairs of hands who after frittering millions of taxpayer money, can be depended on to decide everything’s all jim-dandy. (Sir Paul Reeves, who reached such soothing conclusions about the Vietnam vets’ imaginary Agent Orange ailments, and Sir Ronald Davison, ditto with the Winebox enquiry, spring to mind.)

I’m sure CYF is near-enough perfect. I don’t know, I’ve never had any dealings with them because I’m Kerre Woodham, media big noise, and therefore a near-enough perfect parent and (since my howls if they even tried would be heard nationwide) virtually untouchable by CYF. Most readers of my wit and wisdom are, I will flatter you good folk here, also near-enough perfect. But on a daily basis our wonderful agents of social control, the social workers, are dealing with the mad, the bad and the unbearably sad untermenschen Out There.

Of course emotions are going to run high if some ghastly cow (I’ll butter up men readers by insulting other women) accuses her husband or partner of abusing the kids during an acrimonious break-up. Or if some poor thing (not really human, mind, just a thing) is trying to keep her sanity in the face of too many kids, (why oh why must the lower orders breed?) not enough money, (more evidence of not being as clever as myself and my friends) not enough sleep and not enough support. Or if a man thinks that beating his missus (watch me go with that demotic lingo) is a perfectly acceptably way of modifying her behaviour (then mix in social worker jargon). Or if there’s an addict in the family.

When these losers aren’t prepared to take responsibility for the mess officialdom has made of their lives, is it any wonder they are also ungrateful for further meddling? Instead of blaming the social workers, they should have got their act together with safe sex, ‘menstrual management,’ terminations or best of all, sterilisations. Then they would not spoil the view for people like me.

And don’t tell me to get into the real world. I like the one I’m in, thanks: comfortably high and dry, well out of the rain where I don’t have to experience other people’s grief. The real world is not one where kids are beaten, half-starved and neglected. South Auckland doesn’t exist, okay? Nor does Ethiopia, the sub-Sahara, Iraq, war zones or anywhere else I don’t want to know about.

Why give the lowlife more excuses for behaving the way they do? Think for a moment how you would feel being the social worker assigned to the Jayden Headley case. A lying woman with a vendetta against her ex-partner (buttering up my men readers again – but guess who’s a snarling feminist over her salary package?). A father who flatly refuses to walk away from his son, no matter how easy that would make his life. (Hmm, hope he’s not one of those cretinous Anons who have contributed to CYFS Watch.) And a damaged 5-year-old who faces an uncertain future. Try playing God with that shower of subhumanity. It might be instructive and as much fun as torturing a family of laboratory rats.

When I criticised the blog on radio this week, I received an instant email from CYF Watch telling me to argue the issues, not sidetrack everyone with ad hominem arguments. In other worlds play the ball, not the man. But why should I take any notice of CYF Watch? As an establishment mouthpiece, attacking unimportant individuals is, after all, my prerogative.

It’s an effective way to undermine what may be genuine concerns.

This post was provided by a fervent CYFSWATCH supporter, whose children are now too old to be snatched by such memorable DSW predecessors of CYF as Mr Robinson, Wgtn; Mrs Fowler, Akld; and most memorable of the bunch, Miss Ann Corcoran, whose DSW social worker career extended from the sixties to the nineties.

God only knows what damage that woman did until she retired off into Wellington Catholic Social Services! No doubt hoping an Act of Contrition and a few Hail Marys will stave off “as you sow, so shall you reap,” the results of karma, and Newton’s third law of motion… fat chance, Miss Corcoran.

Wonder if in whatever is the current version of the old CYP Act there’s still a section allowing social workers to charge a parent with being ‘unable or unwilling to care for their child’?

Meant you could literally have your child(ren) whipped away if you had a slipped disc! Yes indeedy, if you had malicious social workers then copped one of those ratbag judges who ‘love the law’ ie sees other humans as inanimate chess pieces.

Whether the loss is caused by early death, the inventive spite of an ex, or Nanny State’s malice funded by your own taxes, there’s no greater anguish than to have your child taken away. Each form of premature separation has its unique and terrible torments. Who will dare suggest which is the easiest for a parent to bear?

Well, media uber-slut Kerre Woodhall will.

She mocks the pain of parents Nanny State has left with empty arms – ‘vicious, small-minded cretins,’ ‘lack…balls,’ ‘nasty little people.’

Kerre Woodham, protected by her high salary, influential friends and media stardom, uses it all to make a cowardly attack on grieving parents with none of these things.

It seems on talkback our Kerre cuts off callers who do talk back – then abuses the heck out of those she leaves voiceless.

Exactly like the Nanny State she sucks up to, Kerre Woodham likes her victims to be voiceless and powerless, with their state-inflicted wrongs hushed up by a compliant MSM.

Hey Kerre, that type of thinking wears jackboots.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

United Future New Zealand appeals (again) to the Labour Government.

Turner: Anti-CYF Blog and CYF resignations

Tuesday, 6 February 2007, 12:51 pm
Press Release: United Future NZ Party

Monday, 5 February 2007

Turner: Anti-CYF Blog and CYF resignations are just a symptom of the system

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner is calling for the Government to treat the cause not just the symptom of widespread unhappiness with CYF, following Google’s decision to censor an anti-CYF blogsite and the resignation in protest of two CYF social workers.

“The problem is that CYF have the power to uproot children from their parents which naturally brings the potential to destroy families – yet they are only accountable to themselves,” says Mrs Turner.

The resignations of two British-recruited social workers has sparked further scrutiny of the department, amidst claims that children are being removed from their parents with unnecessary abruptness and with little thought to where they could be placed.

Mrs Turner has repeatedly called for an independent complaints authority to be set up, yet the Government remains uncommitted.

“Parents who wish to challenge the conduct or decisions of CYF workers still have to complain about CYF, to CYF, which is unacceptable.

“The Government was so quick to act in approaching Google to stop the Blog continuing, but so slow to remedy the real problem here.

“The Blog was created out of desperation, by New Zealanders who have nowhere else to go to voice their objections and concerns about their treatment by CYF.

“The Minister for CYF needs to immediately inform the country whether a complaints authority will be established; and if not, explain why affected families and CYF are condemned to continue having their disputes aired in public because CYF is effectively unaccountable,” says Mrs Turner.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

“Sarahs Story” – 8 years and still no resolution.

Would you please comment on your blogsite about Sarahs story on:

a case that CYFS has still not sorted after 8 years.

I have run the named website for nearly 10 years and was written to by the U.N. to ask if I’d like to be a human rights monitor.

I don’t mind if you copy my site or even just the CYFS parts.

I am convinced that CYFS broke the law by denying this child the opportunity to give evidence because they wanted research participants.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

“How the Government Creates Child Abuse”

QUOTES FROM: “How the Government Creates Child Abuse”

by Stephen Baskerville

Posted: 13/04/2006

Operatives of the child abuse industry often wax righteous about the “scandal” of child abuse. “We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child,” says an HHS press release.

But the real scandal is the armies of officials who have been allowed to acquire — using taxpayers’ dollars — a vested interest in abused children.

Devising child abuse programs makes us all feel good, but there is no evidence they make the slightest difference. In fact, they probably make the problem worse. Child abuse is largely a product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work industries. It is a textbook example of the government creating a problem for itself to solve.

Child abuse is entirely preventable. A few decades ago, there was no child abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the divorce revolution.

It continues because of entrenched interests who are employed pretending to combat it.

It is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings.

Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children.

On the contrary, if they do not they may be punished by the bar associations, feminist groups, and social work bureaucracies whose earnings and funding depend on a constant supply of abused children.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: