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

CYFS being investigated for illegal research practices.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 21, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

CYFS being investigated for illegal research practices.
Friday, 09.03.2007, 08:04am (GMT12)

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.

web metrics


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: