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

Some good ideas for the NZ family.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 26, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

February 26th, 2007 by cyfswatchnz

Hi Cyfswatch

More random thoughts on how if Nanny State wasn’t anti-family, more parents could care well for their children – and Cyfs-aggravated child abuse would not be the epidemic it is.

Is it only coincidence Hellen and so many current Dear Leaders in this government are childfree by choice?

A definition. In this post the word family means: minimum –  birth parents & their kids (in social worker jargon, aka ’the nuclear’ family). Maximum – birth parents, their kids, & other relatives. 

If MPs of all parties really were on the side of the Kiwi family as here defined, they would:

  • reintroduce tax rebates for income earners with dependant children, a dependant spouse, and any other dependant living with the family such as a grandparent, foster child or invalid sibling. So that one average income is enough to support a family, as it used to be decades ago. So that if both parents work outside the home it is THEIR choice;
  • reintroduce the weekly family benefit. The rate enough per child to feed that child wholesome meals 3 times a day for a week;
  • reintroduce family benefit capitalisation to buy a family home;
  • do away with secondary tax. This unjust tax particularly wallops low-skilled men working overtime, or holding down more than one job, when their wives can’t work outside the home due to caring for a sick child or other relative, or due to homeschooling the children. It also wallops low-skilled solo parents holding down several small part-time jobs. Why should parents trying to help themselves be penalised? Yuppies with no family responsibilities pay less tax on higher incomes. Big hand please to that turkeycock in a tailored suit, minister of finance Michael Cullen.

Stress on low income families would be lifted if the State reformed taxation laws to let parents support their families by their own earnings. Children would be less likely to be illtreated, and thus be Cyfs targets, if their parents weren’t exhausted by both HAVING to work outside the home.

Sure, even without financial and other pressures there will always be cruel parents. But officialdom needs to view taking a child from its parents as a serious action, a last resort. It should not be done at the whim of a social worker. Nor should it be done in a secretive family court by a judge. The decision should be made ONLY by a Jury of Birth Parents IN AN OPEN COURT.

Birth parents whose competency is questioned deserve the right to be examined by their peers. Not by childfree ‘experts,’ or social workers, or foster parents, or judges. The family (see earlier definition) is the foundation of a stable, prosperous society, so ripping a child from its family is a grave matter. And must be treated as such.

Before removing a child is approved, Cyfs should have to conclusively prove to the court they will place it where it will receive no verbal, physical or sexual abuse, but will be better off than with its family thanks to getting genuine love, a better diet, better health care, better schooling etc etc. The prospective foster parents should be present and be questioned by the Jury of Birth Parents.

Cyfs would not be able to renege and produce different foster parents after the case.

To repeat: The ONLY reason for removing a child from its family should be that it is in a life-threatening or unquestionably dangerous environment (’dangerous’ defined by sensible parents not bureaucrats) AND that Cyfs guarantee to place it somewhere safer. 

To put a child in a worse home than the one it has been taken from, as Cyfs currently do on a regular basis, is madness.

If all this seems commonsense, you may wonder why our politicians pass laws and regulations that pressure Kiwi parents as never before. Then if parents buckle under the strain, viciously attack those parents instead of looking at their own family-unfriendly lawmaking and regulating.

The Kahui case is a poignant example of babies ending up dead and their parents destroyed through State officials treating them like somewhere between laboratory rats and national scapegoats. Yeah true, the Kahuis were party types living on benefits. Most people have a mainstream media-encouraged reaction to the Kahuis, viewing them as different-from-us. Think again. Chris Kahui was proud and excited at the prospect of becoming the dad of triplets. 

In the months before his babies were born, a supportive social worker would have used that pride to influence him into work he could handle,  and to keep at his job for the sake of his kids. So they in turn would be proud of their dad. Did any Cyfs social worker justify their tax-derived salary by doing this? Nooo….

And did anyone allow Macsyna to bond with her newborns? Or did Middlemore docs seize the chance for a flashy high-tech induced birth (we will never know how necessary it was) that let them do their virtuoso doc thing – but which also happened to block her from bonding with her babies in that crucial first hour? Oh yes, and during the high tech meddling one triplet died. 

Doctors would of course assert the intervention in Macsyna’s pregnancy was ‘essential’. Unless we sight the notes of her pregnancy and delivery, unless these are accurate, and unless we have the medical knowledge to understand them, there’s no way of knowing if  the docs didn’t create a problem (wonderful chance to dust off little-used skills) to have the fun of fixing it. Well, sort of. Sadly, a triplet died in the process. And Macsyna didn’t bond – wasn’t allowed to bond – with the survivors.

Even twins make a lot of work for a mother. Poor bonding, blood loss shock from the birth process, and lack of money/money managing skill for labour-saving appliances, home help etc, would undermine any woman’s ability to cope. Plus, Macsyna had older kids and seems to have been emotionally fragile anyway. Was she offered practical home help to get her through the first few crucial months? Oh no, Nanny State has no money to help mere Kiwi parents in need. Not when our taxes must go on fixing Aids, TB and other health problems in the disease-riddled migrants Hellen imports to build her voting base!

After the babies died, what happened to their older siblings? Funnily enough they weren’t in too bad shape. Nonetheless Cyfs nabbed them. Will their family ever get them back?  Fat chance. They’re ‘the Kahuis.’   God alone knows what be the fate of the older little Kahuis now they’re in Cyfs care. 

Other posts on this blog don’t bode too well for their future, do they? 

The Kahuis are a family that’s been ‘expertly’  wrecked when all they needed was practical help. Well done, Nanny State.

In summary, what do the Kahuis have to do with other parents who have had/ are under threat of having our children taken away by Nanny State? Thanks to the MSM’s baying, the hapless Kahuis are the scapegoats du jour, the reviled tip rising from otherwise hidden damage to Kiwi families that state-paid ‘experts’ are doing/aggravating. Hidden damage because the activities of Cyfs have never been subjected to serious MSM investigation. Nor are they likely to be while big media tamely joins itself at the hip to big government (Kerre Woodham, David Farrar, John Campbell…). And while the doors of Family Courts are closed.  

Mama Punker

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: