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

Now Lawyers are being “watched” as well.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 11, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH

I had almost finished preparing a blogsite designed to name and shame those members of the legal profession who are actively indulging in practices designed to further their own interests and not those of their clients, and encourage people to publicise just what is happening in this area, when I became aware of cyfswatch – it is about time someone was brave enough to do this – and I back your project 100%. If it is closed down, I am sure you will be able to arrange for it to resurface, or have a mirror site somewhere. I am also pleased to see that others are calling for the same style of site for publicising other professionals in like fields who are not acting in their clients best interest. So in the belief that every effort will help to play a part in hopefully effecting some changes in the future, am furnishing the url of this new site:

The url is: 

Would you like to add the link, and in return we can add your link also.


Thursday, 25 January 2007

Message to others who share our cause – copy the CYFSWATCH Site NOW in case we are shut down.

In the event of CYFSWATCH being shut down by the Ministry of Social Development or CYFS, CYFSWATCH encourages anyone who shares our cause to copy the CYFS website material in total, and then email CYFSWATCH at to advise that you have the copy. CYFSWATCH will then set up another blogsite, collect the material, and relaunch the site. CYFSWATCH is also copying all material as it is posted, however if our systems are seized by the police, we will need to have people out there who have the hard copy material for re-launch purposes.


Monday, 29 January 2007

CYFSWATCH has over 400 more emails and postings to process as at 29/1/07.

CYFSWATCH is currently working to clear over 400 more emails and postings as at 29/1/07. This work will in part involve formatting (not censoring) more and more deeply disturbing stories of CYFS mis-treatment of families. We ask for your patience, as we work diligently to make sure that your stories are told. Please continue to send us your material in the meantime.


Tuesday, 30 January 2007

Thank you to all of those readers who have copied the CYFSWATCH site – like this person.

Hi There.

Keep up the good work CYF’s certainly deserve it I could name 6 more of their social workers that deserve to be listed but at the moment due to circumstances around a case in front of the family court at the moment I’d rather not just now as it may bite somebody else in the bum which is something I’d rather not happen at this stage. However I will happily forward that information a little further down the track. However having said that there are one or two very good social workers employed by CYF’s one of whom I know is expecting to lose her job because she gave information in a coroners court that does not bode well with CYF’s.

A young Cambodian boy was taken away by Cyfs and placed in a home against the better judgement of a mental health professional, which was bad enough however he was not allowed to speak to his mother and she was blocked from contacting him. All of this placed too much stress on the young boy and he hung himself in the CYF’s home in Elsdon near Porirua, all of the information surrounding this case, members of the news media have but they have been prevented from going to press with it by CYF’s and the family court.

Anyway the real reason for this email is to say that I have backed your blog site up and placed it on an FTP site, if the worst comes to the worst contact me and I will give you accesss to it.

Kindest regards and good luck.

Tuesday, 30 January 2007

An invitation to those interested in information regarding shared parenting.

All FAMILY Orientated Folk:

Please, view the vast library of World-Wide info, research and messages Re
**EqualParenting**, join, and post direct. Go>

HandsOnEqualParent-NEWS E-Group

Onward – Jim –

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

Legal Action now being taken against a CYFS worker named on CYFSWATCH.

CYFSWATCH have temporarily suspended the details of CYFS Hall of Shame # 78, in light of advice we have just received that legal action is now being taken against the CYFS worker named in the post.

That was quick!


Wednesday, 31 January 2007

Website about injustice launched.

It is about time a website such as this one was made public because CYFS do need to be exposed, and good on you. You have a lot of support from the people.

Would you open a website about the Justice system I can assure you there is a lot of injustice going on in our legal system, and it too needs to be exposed. Here is a site that is already up and running:

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

Words of wisdom.

“Anonymity breeds corruption” – Anon 😉

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good if its victims may be the most oppressive.
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.” C.S. Lewis, Christian Writer.

“The best way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence.” Boutros Boutros Ghali, former sect gen of UN.

“When people fear the government, you have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, you have liberty.” Thomas Jefferson, USA President.

“There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System.” – Judge Brian Lindsay, Retired Supreme Court Judge, New York, New York.

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

CYFS and the 1990 Bill of Rights Act.

The Child Youth and Family Services is a “public authority” and it’s staff including management are persons carrying out “the performance of any public function, power, or duty” and those parties are bound to comply with the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990 in particular s27;

27. Right to justice—
(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.

A child’s interests is protected and recognised by law [subsection (1)] and if those interests are “affected by a determination” a parent on behalf of the child has a legal right to apply for judicial review [subsection (2)].

Unfortunately subsection (2) is not that clear as to where that judicial review should take place but historically judicial reviews have taken place under other acts in the High Court. If one observes subsections (1) & (2) above carefully, in particular the word “tribunal” it must include the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which then raises a justice issue of who should carry out a review. Currently we have decisions of one particular case where the Court of Appeal acknowledged the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act applies to them but also a High Court judge who claims the act does not apply to the superior courts, and accordingly they can behave just the way they feel like. There are many lower court judges and other public servants, including the staff of Child Youth and Family Services who have a complete disregard for that act.

When applying for review the applicant can apply for damages against the individuals and or the authority if the management is aware and allows that behaviour to carry on and it would only take a few successful cases to change the behaviour of those who you are complaining about.

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

A CYFS petitition has just been started – details here.

If you would like to be involved in organising a petition please contact:

It is envisaged that the petition will ask for a CYF Complaints Authority.

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

56 copies of CYFSWATCH site now exist in NZ and around the world (and counting)

Hey Peter – try shutting them all down……….


Thursday, 1 February 2007

Law Commission investigates the role of Commissions of Inquiry

Suggest that you alert your readers to the following item. Everyone needs to have a look at it. It may provide an opportunity for your disaffected to have some input.

Public Inquiries
Status: Work in Progress

Law Commission investigates the role of commissions of inquiry
Published 26 Jan 2007

The Law Commission has released an issues paper that asks questions about the purpose of public inquiries. The paper focuses on three of the forms of public inquiry: commissions of inquiry, royal commissions and non-statutory ministerial inquiries.

Public Law
The Commission will review and update the law relating to public inquiries in New Zealand. This review will include inquiries established as Royal Commissions and other commissions established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, Ministerial inquiries, ad hoc inquiries under specific statutes, and departmental inquiries.

This document explains:
Should you have problem with wraparound of this 79 character URL, try this Tiny URL:

Thursday, 1 February 2007

Social Workers Registered with Social Workers Registration Board also “named and shamed”on CYFSWATCH.

Here is an item that may interest some of the people that come onto this site.


First are their names, then the numbers issued to them by the SWRB (Social Worker Registration Board):

* SHARON NORTON 1135 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 6)

* TRACEY QUINN 132 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 22)

* MICHELLE WILLS 1325 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 61)

* NICK FINDLAY 1879 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 67)

* BARRY SHEPHERD 332 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 77)

* ANA HAUKEDAHL 602 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 82)

* LILO LOSALIA 262 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 88)


* DENISE LOVERIDGE 267 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 35)

* RUTH HARTLEY 600 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 43)

* SANDRA LORGELLY 1078 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 57)

* CHRISTINE WINBUSH 115 (CYFS Hall of Shame # 81)

Some of these people are actually Registered. God save us from the ones who are currently not.

If this is the way some innocent people get treated, by the ones who have met the criteria, them we have little or no hope from the ones who are not.

Great site, I’m a daily visitor to see more of the tragedies that are becoming all too Commonplace.

As for the sceptics, here’s something for you. I have applied for enrolment to become a social worker myself. this site is one I feel all social workers in training need to read, and should be made to read, so they can learn from the mistakes from the people named and shamed on this site. I certainly intend to look at this site, each and every day, so that the FAMILIES I may get to HELP one day WILL NOT have their families torn apart.

To the CYFSWATCH publishers… Congratulations on opening up the forum of the year.

Long since overdue.


That’s 10 Social Workers (so far) that are registered with the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB), supposedly the zenith of professionalism within the Social Work field in New Zealand – all of which have been named on this site for appalling and abusive social work interventions, some more than once.

Kind of makes a mockery of the registration standards of the Social Workers Registration Board, don’t you think?

It would appear that the SWRB are simply another layer of self-regulation in an industry that seems to have no external nor independent accountability whatsoever.

What a surprise.

Thursday, 1 February 2007

New Zealand Public Service Code of Conduct.

Please post this for others to read:

Thursday, 1 February 2007

What happened to the David Benson-Pope article?

CYFSWATCH was forwarded an article anonymously about David Benson Pope. This article was copyright to

Investigate Magazine editor Ian Wishart became aware of the anonymous posting, and requested CYFSWATCH to remove the article, citing reasonable concerns of the articles R18 restriction.

CYFSWATCH immediately removed the article on request.

The full article may be purchased for $1.00 via a credit card at


Thursday, 1 February 2007

Message from CYFSWATCH

* 203 posts in 1.5 weeks;

* 96 CYFS Social Workers / CYFS Caregivers named and shamed;

* 83% public support for CYFSWATCH remining live;

* Over 60 copies of the CYFSWATCH site downloaded in New Zealand and around the world;

* Website and blog links to CYFSWATCH both nationally and internationally;

* Registered SWRB Social Workers revealed as appalling interventionists;

* Other “name and shame” blogsites started in the past week;

* Attempts by well resourced Government agency to shut CYFSWATCH down failed;

* Open, uncensored, non-PC debates between CYFS Social Workers and clients;

* Massive multi-level media commentary on CYFSWATCH;

* Not a peep from any Government MP, either in power or on the Opposition benches.



Friday, 2 February 2007

The CYFSWATCH Century: 100 CYFS Social Workers / Caregivers now “named and shamed”.

This message has also been circulated to media:

CYFSWATCH wonders how many we will need to “name and shame” before the Government considers holding a Royal Commission of Enquiry into CYFS, and then sets about establishing an independent Complaints Authority?

Or do we have to have some more dead kids first?


Friday, 2 February 2007



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


On what grounds?

Friday, 2 February 2007

Message from Hands On Equal Parent.

Thanks to, CYFSWATCH for your message below

Please invite those who visit the CYFSWATCH Blog to place the offensive CYFS workers on the ** Candidates for the SCROLL of SHAME **. These are the people that will be BOTHERED in due course.


Keep up the good work.

Saturday, 3 February 2007

How Parliament deals with complaints about CYFS.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been upheld.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made by falsely accused parents or caregivers.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made as a result of malicious or vexatious notifications.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made by parents who are involved in custody or divorce proceedings.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made about registered social workers.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made about unqualified social workers.

CYF doesn’t know how many social workers have been disciplined as a result of complaints made about them.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been made about managers.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints have been misplaced/lost.

CYF doesn’t know how many complaints are waiting to be investigated.

CYF doesn’t know why they don’t have national statistics on complaints.

Don’t they use Key Performance Indicators for their managers?

Shouldn’t the KPI’s include accurate information about client satisfaction?

Aren’t complaints procedures an important method of discovering gaps in service shortfalls?

Aren’t complaints about staff linked to Human Resource records?

All of the above queries could be easily answered after a week’s work by a competent SQL analyst/programmer.

Could the minister be prevaricating?

5 months ago in Parliament . . .

Questions And Answers – Thursday, 24 August 2006

Thursday, 24 August 2006, 6:03 pm

Press Release: Office of the Clerk

Child, Youth and Family—Complaints

3. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future):
to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does Child, Youth and Family record the number of complaints received from those who feel unfairly treated by the actions, procedures, or decisions of the department; if so, how many complaints have been received in the last 5 years?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I am advised that all complaints that the department receives are thoroughly investigated, but currently there is no central database that captures all complaints made to Child, Youth and Family staff.

Judy Turner: Does she agree that Child, Youth and Family should be accountable to an organisation outside itself, given its statutory powers; if so, will she support the call of United Future to establish an independent complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly agree that the actions of Child, Youth and Family staff, like all other public servants, should be accountable. In terms of the latter part of the member’s question, I am certainly prepared to review existing pathways for complaints to be made—for example, the Social Workers Registration Board, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, and any others—and will discuss the outcomes of those considerations with the member.

Georgina Beyer: What is Child, Youth and Family doing to strengthen its complaints procedures?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am pleased to advise that work is under way to develop a new national database that will ensure that complaints can be collated centrally. The database is just one of the benefits we are seeing as a result of the merger between Child, Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware that the Police Complaints Authority—for which the Child, Youth and Family’s equivalent could be considered comparable—costs approximately $2.1 million per year, yet its effect on public confidence and accountability is considered priceless; and, if so, is not a Child, Youth and Family complaints authority a very small cost for a very significant and necessary benefit for parents and families?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I am familiar with those figures and I will certainly take that information into consideration when undertaking the existing complaints pathways review.


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”

Monday, 5 February 2007

CYFS CEO Peter Hughes’ Job Description.

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (Reprint as at 10 February 2005) 013

1: General objects, principles, and duties

7 Duties of chief executive

General duties

7 Duties of chief executive

(1) It is the duty of the chief executive to take such positive and prompt
action and steps as will in the chief executive’s opinion best ensure—

(a) that the objects of this Act are attained; and

(b) that those objects are attained in a manner that is consistent with
the principles set out in sections 5 and 6.

(2) In carrying out the duty imposed by subsection (1), the chief executive

(a) monitor, and advise the Minister on, the effect of social policies
and social issues on children, young persons, families, whanau, hapu, iwi, and
family groups:

(b) promote—

(i) the establishment of services (including social work services,
family support services, and community-based services designed to advance the
welfare of children and young persons in the community or the home); and

(ii) the adoption of policies (including the provision of financial
support to parents, families, and family groups)—

that are designed to provide assistance to children and young persons who lack
adequate parental care, or require protection from harm, or need accommodation
or social or recreational activities:

(ba) in relation to child abuse,—

(i) promote, by education and publicity, among members of the
public (including children and young persons) and members of professional and
occupational groups, awareness of child abuse, the unacceptability of child
abuse, the ways in which child abuse may be prevented, the need to report cases
of child abuse, and the ways in which child abuse may be reported; and

(ii) develop and implement protocols for agencies (both governmental
and non-governmental) and professional and occupational groups in relation to
the reporting of child abuse, and monitor the effectiveness of such protocols:

(c) ensure, wherever possible, that all policies adopted by the
department, and all services provided by the department,—

(i) recognise the social, economic, and cultural values of all
cultural and ethnic groups; and

(ii) have particular regard for the values, culture, and beliefs of
the Maori people; and

(iii) support the role of families, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family
groups; and

(iv) avoid the alienation of children and young persons from their
family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group:

(d) establish and fund Care and Protection Resource Panels:

(e) establish procedures to ensure that the cases of children and young
persons in respect of whom action has been taken under this Act are regularly
reviewed in order to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of that action:

(f) ensure that persons providing services under this Act receive
adequate training and comply with appropriate standards:

(g) monitor and assess the services provided under this Act by the
department and by other organisations, groups, and individuals.

Compare: 1974 No 72 ss 5, 6

Section 7 heading: words substituted, on 1 October 1999, by section 13 of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act 1999 (1999 No 82).

Section 7(1): words substituted, on 1 October 1999, by section 13 of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act 1999 (1999 No 82).

Section 7(2): words substituted, on 1 October 1999, by section 13 of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act 1999 (1999 No 82).

Section 7(2)(ba): inserted, on 1 July 1995, by section 4(1) of the Children,
Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Act 1994 (1994 No 121).

Previous – – Contents – Search Acts – List of Acts – Next

Previous – Contents – Search Acts – List of Acts – Next

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (Reprint as at 10 February 2005) 013

1: General objects, principles, and duties

5 Principles to be applied in exercise of powers conferred by this Act

General principles

5 Principles to be applied in exercise of powers conferred by this Act

Subject to section 6, any Court which, or person who, exercises any power
conferred by or under this Act shall be guided by the following principles:

(a) the principle that, wherever possible, a child’s or young person’s
family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group should participate in the making of
decisions affecting that child or young person, and accordingly that, wherever
possible, regard should be had to the views of that family, whanau, hapu, iwi,
and family group:

(b) the principle that, wherever possible, the relationship between a
child or young person and his or her family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family
group should be maintained and strengthened:

(c) the principle that consideration must always be given to how a
decision affecting a child or young person will affect—

(i) the welfare of that child or young person; and

(ii) the stability of that child’s or young person’s family, whanau,
hapu, iwi, and family group:

(d) the principle that consideration should be given to the wishes of
the child or young person, so far as those wishes can reasonably be
ascertained, and that those wishes should be given such weight as is
appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the age, maturity, and
culture of the child or young person:

(e) the principle that endeavours should be made to obtain the support

(i) the parents or guardians or other persons having the care of a
child or young person; and

(ii) the child or young person himself or herself—

to the exercise or proposed exercise, in relation to that child or young
person, of any power conferred by or under this Act:

(f) the principle that decisions affecting a child or young person
should, wherever practicable, be made and implemented within a time-frame
appropriate to the child’s or young person’s sense of time.

Compare: 1974 No 72 ss 4A-4C; 1983 No 129 s 3

Monday, 5 February 2007

“Non-custodial parents rights a big delusion”.

Posted by Dads4Justice:

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

Time to take advantage of technology?

Can I make a suggestion based on all the blogs I have read on this site.

With all the microphones and micro-cameras one can buy today, why don’t some of the victims on this site record the dealings they are going to have with these scum and post on You-Tube for all to see.

I am sure it would shut the CYFS defenders up once and for all. Maybe one of the main stream media groups will grow some balls (yes we know you will be reading this site) and support someone and help with the gear.

The NZ people need to see and hear the truth. All we need is someone brave enough to let their story be seen in the public eye. I would support anyone who chose to do this as would the NZ public.

Monday, 5 February 2007

“We’re not backing down from these New Zealand Public Service pricks – even if it ultimately costs us our freedom”.

Dear CYFS Watch team,

Once again we applaud this site and remain one of its biggest supporters. The service that you are doing for our abused and brutalized is immeasurable, however we do have concerns. We ask that you PLEASE ensure that you adhere to Google’s TOS. As tempting as it may be to post some of the more controversial “remarks”, these postings may in fact result in the total loss of the voice you’ve allowed us to have. It would be a shame for the thousands of victims of this evil regime (CYFS) to be once again condemned to forced silence and frustration for the sake of a few unwise “remarks”.

For the benefit of the greater majority, it may unfortunately be necessary to check and alter the content of dangerous postings. We ask future posters to please take care with their content as we are all in this fight together and we have all faced the immeasurable pain that is CYFS.

Please remember, we need the public to continue to hear our stories and voice their support to achieve the JUSTICE we all so desperately need.


Craig and Louise Martin

(09) 8133647

(NEVER anonymous!)


Hi Craig and Louise,

Guys, it won’t matter if they shut the site – we will simply find a new site, re-publish, and let everyone know what the new website address is.

If we give in, in any way – the Government wins.

If we succumb to ANY bullying – CYFS wins.

However, if the New Zealand Government shut down the site – what message will that send to the rest of NZ? That free speech is only as free as the Government allows it to be? We would have truly transitioned into a totalitarian state if this is the case.

We’re not backing down from these New Zealand Public Service pricks – even if it ultimately costs us our freedom.


Tuesday, 6 February 2007

“If this is what can be achieved by a few motivated individuals and a keyboard – what could the rest of us do?”

Anonymous writes:

If anything was going to cost Labour the next election – shutting down CYFSWATCH will do it.

You guys have the eyes of the ENTIRE media upon you – radio, TV, newspaper, and blog sites. You have attracted full scale national and some international media attention – in fact, you have been “the story that just won’t die” for TWO WEEKS running!

If this is what can be achieved by a few motivated individuals and a keyboard – what could the rest of us do?

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

A message from a motivated CYFSWATCH fan.

Dear CYFSwatch bloggers

You all know me, I’m the one that posted “CYFSwatch, the video” on youtube. I’m the one that started another site in case this one is closed down (

I’m the one who is about to launch a blog-for-you with the exclusive theme of being anti CYFS. It is a place where those still fighting CYFS can chronicle their stories, in their own blogs.

I’m also the one of many who have posted anonymous comments on this blog in support of it. That’s about to change. all my comments will now include my online name.

If the Government wants to find me, it won’t be hard for them.

I’m posting this because of the very real danger that Google may have no option but to close this blog down, and I’m hoping to convince you all to see sense and prevent that from happening.

This blog is our last best hope for justice. Sure, there’s the PANIC site, and having been involved in that at one time,

I can say that I left because their idea was to work with CYFS, nothing changed, and in fact, I saw them as being a party to the crimes committed by CYFS, just as the Open Home Foundation is.

We are lucky to have this blog, lucky, because it managed to make a name for itself, thanks, in part to Peter Hughes and his rantings, and because of that, everyone knew there was a site out there fighting for whats right.

Everyone searched high and low, and we found our way here, a place where we could at last be heard, a place where we KNOW the Politicians come to read the blog, but never admit to it, and most of all, a place where we know the social workers come to, out of fear, to see if they have been named and shamed.

To lose this blog now would be a disaster. Sure, the Head Honcho Blogger has said he will Email all those that have emailed him in the past the new URL, but what about those still searching for this site, what about those who wont be subjected to CYFS till next week?

This blog is about yesterday, things are posted here that happened in the past, its about TODAY, because we are all here, but what about TOMMORROW? We need to keep this blog alive, and not give the CRETINS like Peter Hughes the ammo he needs to get his way, closing down this blog. He knows that if he does that, any FUTURE attempt to close down a website or blog will be much easier, he will have precedent on his side, and that means NO site is safe.

Not just an anti CYFS site but ANY site the Government doesn’t like.

We are all fighting for freedom of speech, to be heard when before, there was nowhere to be heard, but we also have a responsibility, not just to each other here, but to those yet to find this blog and those not yet affected by CYFS to keep this site open.

Its one thing for CYFS to “win” and close this site down, but quite another if we give them the means to do it. It is VITAL that this blog remains LIVE for all to see.

Google will NOT close this blog down if we do not give them the excuse they need to do so. I understand there is a lot on anger out there, caused by an agency working under its own rules, a family court that doesn’t care, and a media not allowed to report these things…

But do your messages to CYFSwatch need to contain insults, abuse and maybe even threats? There comes a point when ‘freedom of speech’ ends and ‘offensive postings’ starts. When we cross that line, we will suffer a defeat which will come back to haunt us again and again. Any place this blog moves to will see CYFS email the new host informing them that Google “was forced” to close the blog down because they abused its TOS with them, result: the blog is closed down again.

PLEASE, as a person who has been fighting CYFS for over 16 years, I can honestly tell you that THREATS and ABUSE wont help matters, it just gives them the ammo they need to convince Google this isn’t a good blog.


Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Family Integrity Organisation speaks out.

This is a great site. Such a forum for free speech is urgently needed. May it continue unimpeded.

Since we here at Family Integrity began opposing Bradford’s Bill to repeal parental authority by repealing Section 59, we have been contacted by a number of people who have been terrorised by CYFS social workers.

They are all scared to death of going public for they may never get their children back if they do. Many are already bankrupt from fighting CYFS in the courts. Such stories led me to read the CYPF Act and the Care of Children Act.

I found CYFS does have its own nearly-unfettered powers to enter and remove children “by force if necessary” merely on a single social worker’s suspicion that the child “is likely to suffer ill-treatment”.

That is, CYFS agents work on the assumption that parents are “guilty until proven innocent”, a horrible belief our ancestors fought long and hard to overturn, but it has now been re-instated by CYFS.

I spent two weeks in close contact with Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson. She sees many parallels in NZ with how things developed in Sweden, where now child and family intervention by a wide array of state-funded agents is big business.

Each of these agencies has a vested interest in fostering dysfunction as the dysfunction keeps them at the receiving end of the state’s only known response: to throw more money at the “professionals” who are supposed to fix the problem.

We need a complaints authority to investigate CYFS ASAP.

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.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

A message from CYFSWATCH regards posts.

CYFSWATCH are receiving some rather indignant messages from people who believe that we are censoring their posts.

This is not so.

If you submit a post using the “post a comment” option, we publish your comment to the post that you are referring to.

If you submit a post via email, then we publish the post as a stand-alone post, from which readers can submit comments to the specific post.

In the interests of efficiency, could we also ask that submitters first edit their posts (eg spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc) prior to posting – just speeds the process of publishing up a little.


Wednesday, 7 February 2007

CYFSWATCH has spawned: we have a mirror site.

Thanks must go to……..gee, we don’t know really, however CYFSWATCH wish to extend their grateful appreciation to whoever did this for us, in the shared goal of the protection of free speech.

Go to:

Wednesday, 7 February 2007



I have been asked to make, and back, an idea. The idea is simple, an internet radio station streaming out live content 24/7 from my website. The backing of course if that my website would host the radio station.

Imagine, if you will, a 24/7 radio station, playing music, reading out stories from the CYFSwatch blog, personal stories, interviews with politicians and the like.

Provision could even be made for live talk back (but Kerre will NOT be the host!)

I am in favour of the idea, BUT, having MS and the voice to go with it, not likely to be a good radio host. (incidentally, this is why you wont hear my voice on any of the video’s I have made)

I am willing to set up the radio station on my site (done it before, wouldn’t you know) and gather a team of volunteers to help run the station.

So, we are looking for:

About 3 people to act as managers, to work out station policy and guidelines which the DJ’s must adhere to.

As many people as we can get to act as DJ’s either on a casual basis, an emergency call out basis, or for regular slots (once a week?).

We would also want a few Paul Holmes types to do interviews and the like.

I will of course provide all technical support. I will provide all DJ’s and the like with the software they can be a DJ from their own computer. Bandwidth usage would have to be your donation, but you would need at least 160Kbs upload speed (meaning ADSL).

You stream ONE signal to the website, and the website will relay that stream to all listeners. The station will consume BULK bandwidth, but I have plenty and can always negotiate for more.

The station will have its own website, where DJ’s can be listed, a request page, and news releases can be posted.

I am taking this idea VERY seriously, and would want the radio station to be run on a professional basis, for that to succeed, I have asked a lawyer friend to act on our behalf should any legal matters arise, and the answer was yes.

The station MIGHT also have adverts, and it might not. The station will be non profit, and any profit will be donated to charity.

Right? any takers to help out? Email me at


Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Guideline to using Youtube website.

Anonymous writes:

Now that kiwi1960 has started a youtube account, it is the duty of every concerned citizen to visit the following link and rate this video.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with youtube, it works like this. Videos get more exposure depending on how many times they are viewed, so follow the link below or type it into your address bar (I know it has already been posted previously), watch the video, and give it a rating.

If you do not have an account you will have to create one to rate videos, but this is free and takes about five minutes. The only identifying info you MUST give is an email address that is valid. Even if you just view it, it will count. Take the time to do it, you know our children are worth it.

And to you kiwi, thank you for standing up and being counted. You have my admiration and respect, as both a video producer and a human being.

Mr Hughes, you and your ilk do not. I have notified all of my stirrer mates, so these clips are being ripped as I type.

Power to the People!

Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Family Integiry releases “Kiss your children goodbye” brochure.


Here is a brochure that has just been released by: that can be printed out and passed around.

Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Update on Radio CYFSWATCH.


I am proud to announce that both CRAIG and LOUISE MARTIN are now involved in the idea to start a radio station.

For those that do not know (in case you were on Mars) Craig was the parent that was interviewed by Mark Sainsbury on closeup the night Peter Hughes, CEO of MSD, said he had instructed lawyers to do whatever it took to “get rid” of the CYFSwatch blog.

Craig handled himself so well, made his case perfectly and represented all of us, that in my opinion, drove public opinion to our cause. Craig was the intelligent one
making good points while Peter Hughes was the arrogant communist wanting to stifle free speech. Craig was and still is our Champion, Hughes was the comedy spot.

Having spoken to Craig on the phone, I know it is his eternal wish to be able to interview Helen Clark and Peter Hughes. sadly, Helen will be too busy eliminating the mistakes of the previous Government and probably won’t have time to be interviewed by Craig (ever). However, you never know, I will extend the invitation to the Prime Minister and see what her response will be. She might say yes, and pigs can fly. Exactly WHEN will hell freeze over?

As for Peter Hughes, I am sure that his excuse will be that he is no longer CEO of the Ministry of Social Development, after having had “discussions” with Helen Clark. I’m sure these will take place soon. When Peter announces his retirement, due to ill health, I’m sure Craig will do the decent thing and wish him well, and again, pigs can fly. If Ptor Hughesky DID agree to be interviewed, then panic, Hell has just frozen over.

We still need more people, the more we have, the easier it will be on everyone. I even have people from the USA. the UK and AUS willing to front as DJ’s. It would be nice to have some more NZer’s on board, you DON’T have to use your real name, you can use an online name like mine, Kiwi1960.

Come on and join the RADIO team, its not only going to be a lot of fun, but its going to really REALLY help our cause.

Email me at


Wednesday, 7 February 2007


A quote I came across which I think I think is very apt.

“Our lives begin to end, the day we become silent about the things that matter.”

Martin Luther King

Kia kaha.

Friday, 9 February 2007

Sorry, WHO commits Domestic Violence?

93 studies that conclude that women commit at least half of all DV:


Friday, 9 February 2007

Is Work and Income New Zealand and CYFS practicing Patricide?

WINZ – Advocacy – Beware of Patricide

Peter Hughes CEO WINZ, is well aware, read the link below

Saturday, 10 February 2007

Are CYFS supporting the political agenda of Womens Refuge?

Call for Women’s Refuge Enquiry

Crisis In N.Z. Family Violence Services.

Public Enquiry Overdue: Let’s Start With Women’s Refuge.

Women’s Refuge, thirty years established in New Zealand, is widely assumed to be universally respected, and to be the only such agency offering help, counselling and accommodation to victims of family violence. In N.Z. it holds an annual Appeal Week every June, complete with much innovative, and even at times highly questionable, media coverage and celebrity support.

For its 2004 event two All Blacks, Kees Meeuws and Keven Mealamu, and model Nicky Watson, lent their celebrity status to this apparently worthy cause. A public petition, calling for the Government to increase Refuge’s funding from 25% of its budget to 66%, was launched in conjunction with the Body Shop, and with much fanfare, outside its Queen Street store.

Yet all is far from being what it seems with Women’s Refuge, and many have had deep concerns about its operation and huge amounts of public funding, and even long before this most recent call to have it greatly boosted.

In fact, as far back as 1985 searching questions were being asked in this respect. For example, the N.Z. Herald of 25th September of that year (‘No-men Code Splits Refuge Group’) reported that the Christchurch Battered Women’s Support Group and the West Auckland Refuge had resigned from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges “because of what they see as its extremist anti-male attitude”.

Both groups objected to amendments to the Refuge’s constitution and code of ethics, “which state that refuges must actively seek to overcome oppression of women and children in all facets of society”.

The co-ordinator of the Christchurch group, Doris Church, who had just published a booklet on her grievances with the collective, ‘The Future of Refuge in N.Z.’, alleged that “the refuge movement is shifting away from its original goal of helping battered wives and their children, and becoming a political movement… We have tried to persuade refuges within the collective that their first responsibility must be to battered women, and not to the political aims of the extremist fringe of the feminist movement.”

Next day, September 26th 1985, under ‘Funding Women’s Refuges Questioned’, the Herald reported concerns expressed about this in Parliament the previous day by the Hon. Venn Young, (then) National Opposition spokesman on Social Welfare. He had stated that “The Government should review funding of women’s refuges if the original conditions of Government help are not being met.”

Mr. Young pointed out that when National agreed to provide $190,000.00 per year to women’s refuges, it was on the basis that they offered satisfactory counselling for the family. This included counselling to children and to the person responsible for the violence or abuse, he said. Also this: “The aim of any programme was to facilitate reconciliation between family members, as well as to offer support for wives… The Opposition does not support Government funding for those refuges where separatist elements with no commitment to family reconciliation have taken over.”

Similarly in 1987, the Christian-based organisation Women For Life was expressing such concern, although this was only publicised in the small-circulation Auckland “freebie” Howick-Pakuranga Times of 18th May. Under ‘Refuges may be worst option’, president Mrs. Phyllis Thomas was quoted as saying that in many cases a (feminist) women’s refuge “is the worst possible place for battered and abused women”.

To illustrate the ideologically-driven nature of Refuge she cited the 1979 book ‘He Said He Loved Me Really’ which was written by three of Refuge’s founders. Known initially as Halfway House, the authors were Joy Florence, Jenny Ruth and Bronwyn Banks. There, opening chapter 13, they wrote –

“Halfway House was conceived by some Auckland feminists as being a tactic towards our liberation. Basically we wished to attack the institution of marriage and to salvage what womanity (sic) we could in the process.

“Our attack was to take two main forms. Firstly, that we would operate a feminist house to offer shelter, support and liberating information to those women who are victims of male violence. Secondly, To gain through these women information that we would then use as a weapon against patriarchal oppression.”

Mrs. Thomas was also quoted there as saying: “Many questions should be raised about the anti-male, radical feminist direction of such centres, and the huge sums of money being paid to enable them to carry out their plans.”

Highly protective media:

As already mentioned, over the years since then many others have also harboured such concerns about Refuge, but invariably they have been stifled, and with the media mainly only conveying a most positive image of the organisation. For example on 30th June last – 2004 Refuge Appeal Week – I wrote to the editor of the N.Z. Herald expressing the view that such (Appeal Week) publicity – which concealed Refuge’s ideologically-driven base – was quite misleading of the public in general, and of well-meaning sponsors and celebrities in particular.

I also quoted there from that 1979 book on Halfway House, re its original feminist, anti-marriage and anti-male goals. I concluded: “Surely a more worthy petition would be on behalf of pro-family, church-based refuges and helping agencies which, after all, have been systematically marginalised and largely squeezed out of contention, and not only for public funding, but also as a vital alternative choice for those in dire need of such help.”

With that letter not allowed publication, an amount of correspondence subsequently passed between editor Tim Murphy and myself, but all to no avail. In my letter to him of July 29th I itemised some of the pernicious ramifications I see resulting from Refuge’s ideological base –

Refuge’s various false and perverse assumptions, such as:
Denying the very concept of female violence; therefore only females can be victims of domestic violence.
The belief that females never provoke domestic violence; it is all caused by some vague entity described as “patriarchy”.
The early “separatist” criticism is still valid, because there are no attempts by Refuge at reconciliation of the spouses involved, as originally required for the granting of Government funding.
Over the years there has been a subtle but systematic marginalising of pro-family, pro-marriage, church-based helping agencies, and the largely squeezing of them out of contention for public funding. Thus Refuge has to a great extent a virtual client monopoly here, as well as a funding monopoly. This, because women in need of such help will mainly know only about feminist refuges, which get virtually all the publicity, and so are generally seen as being the only ones available.
Official help directories aid and abet such marginalisation

This is borne out by official helping agency literature. Take the Department of Court’s glossy 2001 booklet ‘Dealing with Domestic Violence’. On page 19, under ‘People who can help’, these are listed in this order, with an asterisk for those with 24 hour emergency phone lines :-

Family Court, the Police*, Work and Income N.Z., CYFS, Women’s Refuge*, Stopping Violence Services (feminist aligned Men For Non-Violence etc.), Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Rape Crisis* (feminist), Awhina Wahine, Age Concern, Victim Support*, church groups, Maori Women’s Welfare League, your family doctor, your family lawyer.

Note the vague, non-specific inclusion of “church groups” – and almost as an afterthought, near the end of the list. Also, that mainly only the police and feminist-based Refuge and Rape Crisis are listed as with 24 hour contact. Yet, in main centres at least, worthy church helping agencies abound, and with some of them also with 24 hour access!

Over time I have made a minor study of such officially-produced directories of helping agencies, and I have concluded that one would have to be blind not to note the appalling bias demonstrated by directory compilers against church-based agencies and favouring feminist-based ones. For example take also the following:-

The 1990 issue of the ‘Reach Out’ booklet, published by the feminist-based Family Violence Prevention Co-ordinating Committee (FVPCC) c/- Dept. of Social Welfare, Wellington, and supported by the ACC. Distributed free with the N.Z.Listener of 2nd April 1990. In the Contents list of 35 agencies and departments only two were church-based: Presbyterian Support Services (PSS – later to become the James Family) and Salvation Army.

Half a page was devoted to PSS, but the only contact details given were for seven regional offices. Anyone requiring counselling and general family support services was referred to “the phone books” etc.! Salvation Army fared even worse: It was allocated only a 1″ double column snippet. It helpfully stated that the various services “are able to provide both crisis and long-term support and counselling for those who survive or cause family violence but followed most unhelpfully by: “Look under Salvation Army in your phone book”!

Now contrast those two pitifully inadequate, apologies-for-listings of church-based services with some of the fulsome and generously itemised feminist-based ones. Top of the Contents list, and first in the booklet was National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, and with two and a half pages of information, with one and a half pages of it comprising full contact information for 47 country-wide agencies. For Rape Crisis, with over one and a half pages, full contact details, nationwide, were given for 35 agencies.

Another ‘Reach Out’, published around 1992-93, also published by FVPCC and also supported by ACC. This time 50 names of agencies and departments crammed the Contents page, but, again, only the same two church-based ones as above. Women’s Refuge again had a two and a half page coverage, including full contact details countrywide for 49 agencies, while Rape Crisis, with just over one page, had such information for 27 agencies countrywide.

By contrast, PSS was permitted nearly a full page and eight lots of Council contact details countrywide, but no contact details for counselling and general family support services. Those seeking such information were just vaguely informed that these “are available in the following centres” etc. As for Salvation Army, while they were allocated two thirds of a page, and with lists of services offered, again there was only the unhelpful “Look under Salvation Army in your phone book”!

Also around that time, after noting such pernicious and flagrant bias against church-based agencies, I made a point of telephoning the various Auckland church agencies to check out their contact details and the services they offered in the field of family assistance. Some were: The (Anglican) Auckland City Mission, Anglican Trust for Women and Children, Baptist Social Services, Catholic Family and Community Services, Methodist City Mission, plus the PSS and the Salvation Army.

I wound up with information on an impressive array of services available to families in need, with emphasis upon families in crisis, family violence etc. and with a number of them accessible 24 hours also! In conversation with the Baptist City Mission on November 24th 1992 I was disturbed to be told that a particular family refuge of theirs, because it was not on the national (Women’s Refuge) collective listing – due to disagreement with the feminist refuge philosophy – did not get Government funding! If the truth were known, I believe this would be a very common plaint of such church-based helping agencies.

So I see ample evidence to support my contention that church-based helping agencies are being systematically and deliberately sidelined and marginalised, and to the advantage of a motley array of others, many being ideologically-driven, blatantly anti-male and therefore also anti-family. Yet invariably they are still Government funded, and, particularly with Refuge, despite flouting its original agreement to also undertake reconciliation of families where at all possible.

Thus, as already mentioned, the average woman in need of such help will almost invariably turn to Women’s Refuge, which of course helps boost its numbers of clients, and with this in turn helping to justify greater funding. However, she will, in the main, be unaware of the inherent anti-male and anti-family bias driving such agencies, and therefore unaware also of the deeper ramifications this will have for the quality of assistance she will likely receive.

By contrast, of course, church-based agencies take into consideration the needs of the whole family, including of course male spouses, and whether they happen to be the perpetrator or victim in family violence cases. Yet, ironically, they receive little or no Government funding to support their work, while the feminist-based Refuge, which deliberately flouts its fundamental obligation to serve the whole family, still receives Government funding regardless – and is clamouring for more! Thus, I contend, Women’s Refuge has a pernicious, unwarranted and unfair funding and client monopoly in the family violence area.

Then and now:

So despite the excuses offered by N.Z. Herald editor Tim Murphy for suppressing my June 30th 2004 letter, and thus protecting Refuge from unpalatable publicity – and especially during its appeal week – I contend that there is undeniable evidence that the earliest warped and rigid ideological thinking driving Refuge then indeed is still in place today, thirty years later. Also, that officially-produced information directing people to family crisis help, whether intentionally or otherwise, still today displays the same pernicious bias in favour of Women’s Refuge and to the disadvantage of church-based agencies and society in general.

Moreover, after its Herald rejection, that letter was submitted to the Christchurch Press, where it appeared as leading letter on July 12th last under the heading ‘Women’s Refuge campaign misleads the public’. Furthermore the manager of the Christchurch Women’s Refuge, Annette Gillespie, could only offer the most dishonest, inept and inane nonsense in defense of my criticism, such as –

“A big thank you to Barbara Faithfull for demonstrating how insidious male values can be in our society. So insidious, in fact, that women often don’t realise that they have been conditioned to one way of thinking, and that they have internalised the male position… The most anti-social aspect of our society today is the continued butchering (sic!) of women and children while they remain in their family environment so they can live up to the expectations of the likes of Ms Faithfull.” (July 14th).
“Women’s Refuge has always spoken the truth. That’s what makes us unpalatable at times.” (July 31st).
All part of a wider, ideologically-driven “anti-violence” movement.

Clearly, all the questionable events detailed so far have not occurred merely by chance. To summarise –

Women’s Refuge continues to be heavily funded by the Government, despite straying from its original funding obligations, but with church-based refuges largely excluded from such funding, even though ministering to the whole family.
Almost complete exclusion of church-based helping agencies, but inordinate emphasis upon ideologically-driven ones, in some official publications which direct people in crisis to available help.
Over the years consistent news media support and protection for ideologically-driven agencies such as Women’s Refuge, and with almost a blanket ban on items/letters reflecting negatively upon them, and even regardless of the validity of the information or viewpoints presented.

The resultant common, but quite false perception abroad that Women’s Refuge is the one and only place in existence for women and children in crisis to go for help, thus denying many women their right to an informed choice in the matter. Thus, also, misleading the general public and well-intentioned and generous public figures who donate money, time and talent to Refuge funding appeals without full awareness of its true anti-family nature being revealed, and therefore also denying them their right to an informed choice on whether or not to participate. So many, many people are being duped in the process.

As mentioned earlier, in my July 29th letter to Herald editor Mr. Tim Murphy, I had set out what I see as the warped and simplistic, ideologically-based analysis of domestic violence which fundamentally influences Refuge’s operation. So for some years now Refuge, and all other similarly-aligned “anti-violence” groups, have employed the (American) feminist-inspired Duluth model of “power and control” to rationalise all matters relating to domestic violence.

To compound matters, the myopic thinking that underlies this mere theory is now embedded in N.Z’s massive and complex “anti-violence” bureaucracy, including our Domestic Violence Act 1995. Also, most non-church-based “anti-violence” helping agencies, plus the Family Court, other lobby groups and, of course, Women’s Refuge. So the official promoting of these kinds of agencies, at the expense of church-based ones in help directories, all starts to make a strange kind of sense.

Modern-day little-publicised criticism of Refuge and the wider “anti-violence” movement:

In NZ:

Judge Jan Doogue: “Domestic violence is perpetrated by both men and women… The Domestic Violence Act 1995 and s.16B of the Guardianship Act 1968 were based on the classification of violence within the (Duluth) power and control model. In my experience and that of other Judges, this model does not fit the profile of many cases coming before the Family Court in N.Z.” Also: “It is not fair nor just to view all violence as fitting within the classification of the power and control model.” And this: “This paper suggests that whilst there are many positive features to the present legislation, the time has come to review the social experimentation arising and the effects and implications of the legislation.” (ref 1)

Stuart Birks, Massey University academic: “So when is Women’s Refuge going to admit abuse by women, and to move away from the Duluth model of family violence which assumes that it is all patriarchal power and control?… The Refuge has also been keen in the past to suppress consideration of violence and abuse by women. I have yet to see an acknowledgement by Refuge of women’s abuse, or the need to vet women who come to them, in case Refuge is actually sheltering and assisting abusers”. (ref 2)

Inner City Group for Men: Rare media exposure of the alien, anti-male philosophy underpinning N.Z’s domestic violence agencies. In June 2002 the National Business Review reported that the Auckland High Court had ruled against the Northern Region Domestic Violence Approval Panel, which had “dumped” John Binsted’s Auckland Inner City Group for Men as an approved Family Court agency. For 15 years it had run anti-violence and anger management courses for men.

“The court drama has revealed a behind-the-scenes fight for funding control, with philosophical battlelines drawn over whether feminist ideology should dominate anti-violence programmes. Most approved agencies adopt the Duluth model, where men are assumed to be operating from a ‘privileged place of power and control’.

“Domestic Violence Centre chief executive Jane Drumm said her organisation opposed Mr. Binsted’s group because of the fundamental philosophical disagreement over his approach.

“But many experienced (domestic violence) industry players say the whole area of addressing domestic violence is in crisis because of the zealous interpretation of the Duluth method. It is more concerned with a ‘shift in structural power’ than trying to get men to confront and change their behaviour, they say…” Also: “Mr. Binsted said the gender politics permeating the industry is ‘just plain depressing’.” (ref 3)

In Australia:

Robin Wileman could be virtually describing the N.Z. scene: “The illusion of expertise is particularly apparent in the government-funded domestic violence services in Australia. Their ideologically driven, socio-political analysis of domestic violence has curtailed the options available to their client group, and stymied creativity in the field. An example is the Men’s Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes in Queensland, where funding is only available for programmes based on the Duluth model.

“In defending and promoting the only analysis of domestic violence considered correct, the domestic violence collective is at risk of using against those who disagree with them the same coercive tactics of power and control as does their (allegedly) abusive male client group. Professional judgement may be impaired in such circumstances. For example, the Queensland Domestic Violence Services Network lobbied widely throughout Australia against the sale of (Wileman’s) book ‘How to stop Domestic Violence: A Victim’s Guide’. (ref 4)


Erin Pizzey, founder of the world’s first modern shelter for women victims of domestic violence in England in the early 1970’s, now resident in Florida, U.S.A.-

“There are as many violent women as men, but there’s a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the U.S. – millions of dollars. It isn’t a particularly good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women’s refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren’t total victims.

Author David Thomas, quoting Pizzey in his book ‘Men: Not Guilty’ – “She is convinced that the debate on domestic violence has been hijacked by activists whose main interests are political and financial.” (ref 5)

Bert H. Hoff: In 1999, at the behest of Erin Pizzey, who was concerned at the imminent introduction of the Duluth model to the U.K., Hoff wrote a critique of it, and quoted various authorities, summarising it thus: “Blame and shame, not help. Ideology, not science. It ignores drinking, drugs… serious psychological problems: only one cause, only one solution. There’s no real evidence it works. It ignores domestic violence by women. Women who need help can’t get it.” (ref 6)

Patricia Pearson, a Canadian journalist, concedes she has been attacked for her views, for suggesting that perhaps in some cases of domestic violence it is the woman who is the perpetrator and not the man. “They (some women) think I’m being extremely heretical” etc. (ref 7)

Revs. Sam and Bunny Sewell of Florida, U.S.A. She was a founder of their local women’s shelter, but, they explain, they fell foul of it when they sought to distribute scientific information on the domestic violence issue. So they seek to educate the media and others in order to try and correct what they call “a serious misunderstanding” about this issue. In September 2001 I came across an eye-opening but very measured report which the Sewells had posted on the internet from which I compiled a paper for distribution. A few quotes from that Sewell report-

“Much of the women’s shelter movement is seriously misinformed about the causes and scope of family violence… the misunderstanding of this issue is so pervasive that city and county governments, the courts, law enforcement, prosecutors’ offices, mental health clinics and other tax-supported agencies are now funding programmes based on feminist propaganda rather than responsible scientific studies… Dozens of (such) studies reveal a startlingly different picture of family violence than what we usually see in the media… The truth has been hidden by misleading statistics… anti-male hate groups… the media… Some leaders in the women’s shelter movement are fully aware of the broader scope of family violence, but hold fast to the villain/victim dogma. Why? They must retain their power and fundraising base. If they lose their special ‘victim status’ they will rapidly go out of business. They may also be guilty of fraudulent fundraising.”

Quotes from a letter to the Sewells from an unnamed judge who handles domestic violence cases –

“The domestic violence issue has been politicised big time in our area. We judges are ordered to attend ‘consciousness raising’ seminars where we are harangued by feminist ‘experts’… Now we have annual breakfasts honouring judges who co-operate with the feminist ‘agenda’… It is impossible to make progress in reducing domestic violence until we recognise that women are violent… As a member of an advisory committee for the local shelter I was shocked at the attitudes of the ladies who ran the centre. The only solution championed by the shelter was to get free from that big bad male… (In contrast to such shelters) Some abuse agency personnel have not accepted the feminist ‘party line’, particularly religiously sponsored family services organisations… They are eager to have accurate information upon which to plan and implement rational programmes for prevention, intervention and treatment for abusers and victims of both genders.”

Christina Hoff Sommers, a Boston, U.S.A. Associate Professor of Philosophy, discusses how two well respected domestic violence researchers, Richard J. Gelles and Murray A. Straus, long highly regarded by feminist activists, “fell out of favour (with the latter) in the late 1970’s because their findings were not informed by the ‘battery (i.e. violence) is caused by patriarchy’ thesis… Gelles and Straus… in both of their national surveys… found that women were just as likely to engage in (violence) as men”. Also: “Some researchers manipulate their data to get shocking figures on abuse”. (ref 8)

So, given the evidence, no reasonable person would surely deny that the family violence issue has been unscrupulously politicised and exploited, internationally as well as in N.Z. While the whole area relating to family violence services clearly is in crisis, I suggest that a good start to tackling this parlous situation in N.Z. would be to have the underlying philosophy, operations and public funding of Women’s Refuge opened up to public scrutiny. Surely those seeking their services, and the wider community in general, deserve nothing less.


“Domestic Violence: Reviewing the Needs of Children”. Judge Jan Doogue’s address to the LexisNexis Professional Development 3rd Annual Child and Youth Law 2004 Conference, District Court Auckland.
Stuart Birks, Massey University, in an e-mail to a N.Z. men’s list, Paul’s News, 30 January 2001.
National Business Review 28th June 2002, p.10 : “Panel breaches Bill of Rights over dumping of male anti-violence group” by Nick Smith.
Reprinted from MENZ Issues, Men’s Centre, North Shore, Auckland, Vol.5 Issue 6, July-August 2000 p.4. Wileman was quoted from a paper of his in The Australian and N.Z. Family Therapist 2000, Vol.21 No.1
Both quotes from ‘Men: Not Guilty’ by David Thomas included with an article by Pizzey, “Working with Violent Women” (1997) in Menweb
“What’s wrong with the Duluth model?” by Bert H.Hoff 1999 on Menweb
Patricia Pearson, author of ‘When She was Bad: How and why Women get away with Murder’, interviewed by Rae Lamb on Radio N.Z. 28 September 1999.
In ‘Who Stole Feminism? – How Women have betrayed Women’ (Touchstone 1994) pp 194-195

Saturday, 10 February 2007

If ACC was doing it – might CYFS be doing it also?

Nine found dishonest
22 April 2005

Nine ACC staff have been disciplined for dishonesty in the workplace since February last year and two of those were dismissed for falsifying records, parliamentary records reveal.

In a written answer to a question by Opposition ACC spokeswoman Katherine Rich, ACC Minister Ruth Dyson said nine staff had been detected engaging in dishonesty offences, including two who falsified client records.

One falsified an interim rehabilitation plan – the same document a Palmerston North man claims his signature was forged on – and another falsified medical records.

Both were dismissed.

Mrs Rich says ACC needs to be aware of the effect on its public image when a case such as “Malcolm’s” emerges.

“If there’s zero-tolerance to client fraud, there has to be zero-tolerance to staff and provider fraud.”

The department needs to investigate any allegation of dishonesty very thoroughly so other clients can continue to have faith in the organisation, she says.

Ms Dyson declined to comment on the Palmerston North man’s allegations.


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: