As posted on CYFSWATCH
Monday, 22 January 2007
CYFS Hall of Shame # 2 and #3 and # 4: Lorraine Sheffield, Michelle Boyd and Susie Sligo.
The Craig and Louise Martin Story
13 days of torture and torment by CYFS that led to baby Patricks death
Most of what is contained herein will be able to be supported by documentary evidence and there may be references to this documentation. Some of the events I will relate have no supporting evidence never less they are truthful, to the best of my recollection and supported by common sense and logic
We have a wealth of evidence to prove wrongdoing; in fact we have enough evidence to at least show that there are grounds for up to 13 criminal offences to have been committed by the department, by the caregiver and by the police.
Patrick was born on the 12th of January 2002. Louise had some difficulty with feeding Patrick and like a lot of first time parents we experienced difficulties that were unexpected. Patrick ended up having a bout of gastro enteritis and spending a week in starship hospital. Because of these issues Louise ended up somewhat stressed and eventually in a state of postnatal depression. It became clear to us both that we needed some support, we needed some sort of help. We had learned at our antenatal class how to identify the signs of possible postnatal depression. We had learnt that 1 in 3 women who have given birth end up with some form of stress and that 1 in 10 end up with depression.
Having identified the signs, unfortunately our circumstances didn’t allow us to reach out to our family for help. This didn’t mean that we weren’t capable parents and because of our lack of family help we went to the organizations that are there to help us. We were put in contact with the maternal mental health group, the support being given by them turning out to be nothing short of hopeless. The level of communication that Louise received about what she could do to help, herself with the depression and the stress was absolutely disastrous.
The woman that we ended up with for support, Sharon Milgrew had personal issues, specifically with me, whether it was personality conflict or what ever it was she basically ended up treating us as if we were a burden. She did not carry out her legitimate duty of helping, supporting and providing care for a woman in need. Louise exercised her right after a period of time of being treated by Sharon Milgrew, requesting under the health code of rights a change of caregiver.
The response of this woman was petulant. She stormed out of the room and left a message on our answer phone to say no one is available to treat you for several weeks. Basically, all support Louise was supposed to be getting was dropped. This woman took it personally that we weren’t satisfied with the level of care.
A couple of days after this on 3rd May, Louise had an incident with Patrick. A minor incident. Patrick was having difficulty feeding. Louise gave him a minor shake and ended up hugging him for the next half an hour because she felt guilty about it. At no stage did we ever deny that there was anything going on in the house that didn’t need some kind of support. Possibly our parenting skills needed help. The incident was so minor that when I got home from work, Patrick was happily playing in his bedroom. The level of shake that Patrick received had no malice behind it, no intent behind it, and was not a deliberate act to harm him.
The incident was so minor it was less than what a trained respite worker would do to get Patrick’s wind up, it was less than what he would do when he was playing in his bouncenette. Because there was no intent or malice behind it, we did what we thought was the right thing. We contacted the Maternal Mental Health people again and asked them to do what they were supposed to be doing for Louise when we first approached them in February, treat my wife and help her, and that she had given Patrick a shake. I mentioned it, the reason being to highlight the level of stress that she was under and to emphasize the lack of support and care she was getting.
They then turned around and informed CYFS, which they are apparently legally required to do so. Waitemata Health admitted that the level of care could have been better but they didn’t have the resources to provide that care while Louise went through this difficult period. Waitemata Health suggested that CYFS would be able to provide assistance. We were assured that CYFS did not just take children. They only take children that are at risk, that are being abused, that are being neglected. Other than that they provide services within the community that support people that need that extra little bit of help
I was reassured that that is what they would do for us. By 8th May, medical professionals that had been involved with our care got together and met with Lorraine Sheffield and Michelle Boyd of CYFS to discuss our case. During that meeting, information was passed across to them that we can prove was falsified and manipulated by CYFS in their report of that meeting. We can prove that through common sense and logic again and supporting evidence that we have gained form Waitemata DHB who had gone back to their staff and said did you ever say this. The staff said no or that’s been misreported or that’s been taken out of context. Combine that with the other information in this report by CYFS, we can show that there was a deliberate act by CYFS to paint a false picture of what was happening in our home.
At the end of that meeting, the medical professionals that had an intimate knowledge of our past, were led to believe by CYFS that an agreement had been reached that the Maternal Mental Health services would cooperate with CYFS to give Louise the correct treatment that she needed and Patrick would stay in the home because it was a low risk situation. Waitemata DHB said that it was a low risk situation and they have records to show it was a low risk situation. CYFS told Waitemata DHB directly that Patrick would stay in his home and Louise would get the support and help she needed. That is the impression that Waitemata DHB walked away with. Documents that Waitemata DHB recorded after the meeting clearly showed that they believed that Patrick was going to stay in the home.
After that meeting, two CYFS social welfare workers came to our home but we were not there so they left their card. The next day on 9th May, an arrangement was made to meet the social workers at our home at 11 o’clock. At this meeting, the behavior of the social workers could only be described as very strange. Unlike what you’d expect of social workers if they had any concern about the safety of the child. When they came into the house they sat on the couch. They didn’t ask to see Patrick, ask about his living conditions and had no interest in him whatsoever.
You’d expect that if they had any concern for Patrick’s safety they would have wanted to see him immediately. One of the social workers sat and listened while the other one took notes. I would be the first to admit I was somewhat excited when I started retelling the story of how Louise had been treated by the Maternal Mental Health Service, how we had been mistreated by the CAT team on several occasions and that now Louise was severely depressed.
Involvement of the CAT team and the Maternal Mental Health was entirely because of the post-natal depression. I was telling this story to Michelle Boyd and Mark Postow and I was upset because of the way that my wife and my family had been treated or rather the lack of treatment that they had been receiving. I was extremely concerned for their wellbeing and this probably came through in the tone of my language when telling them how frustrated that I was about the lack of care and service.
During the whole of this time they never asked to see Patrick or his living conditions at all. Louise said,”Well you’re here about Patrick and do you want to see Patrick” and the response was, quote: “If you want.” Unquote. Patrick came out and we sat him between the two social workers. Patrick was sitting on the couch he would look at me and giggle, which he often did at other times because of the close bond between us. Mark P just glanced at him and Michelle Boyd, for some reason, reached over and lifted his elbow up and went back to scribbling her notes and completely ignored Patrick.
All they ever wrote in their notes that day having seen Patrick was, quote: “baby sighted.” Unquote. They never saw his room, they never saw his living conditions, and they never asked how we cared for him. They focused purely on the incident of 3rd May. And they asked loaded questions. Mark Postow demonstrated how he thought the shake might have happened. He never actually asked Louise for a demonstration. He demonstrated and then Michelle Boyd wrote down the notes. All this behavior seemed a little bit strange to me but I accepted that this is what they were supposed to do and that they were here to help us. It got to the point that Louise and I were so much at ease with what they were offering and how they were going to support us that they said, quote: “no, no, no, there is no need to take Patrick. We will institute community support for you.
Get you to sign a contract and we will do everything we can to help you.” They actually promised that to us.
They suggested that Louise had Patrick go to Starship hospital just as a precaution to check out that there is nothing wrong with him. We knew that there was nothing wrong with him but we were happy to do what they suggested. Mark Postow and Michelle Boyd took Louise to Starship hospital. Patrick was checked out at Starship hospital and everything was fine. All of Patrick’s records show that not only was he a healthy and happy little boy, he was ahead of development for his age. If Patrick had been neglected or abused in any way there would have been a physical or an emotional reaction to it. However at Starship hospital nothing was found.
The fact that Patrick was ahead of his development shows that’s how much we took care of him, how much we loved him. All the information showed that everything was fine. The information from the Waitemata DHB had said they he should stay in his home, the medical information from Starship hospital had shown that there was nothing at all wrong with Patrick. The information that we had provided about Patrick showed that he was at no risk and I was, at that stage, considered an adequate protector. CYFS actually record that in their notes.
Before leaving Starship hospital, Mark Postow sat with Louise in a room, without the presence of Michelle Boyd, and said that; “we’d like to put Patrick under a temporary care agreement”. Louise asked, “what is a temporary care agreement?” Mark Postow replied that it is an agreement between the caregiver – the parents – and CYFS to take the child into temporary care and protection for a period of 28 days. Louise neither agreed nor disagreed. All she said was that “I’ll have to talk to Craig about it.” Louise cried all the way home, very quietly, but when Michelle and Mark could hear her, Mark P turned up the car stereo. This made Louise feel worse so she cried a little harder and Mark turned up the stereo again. When Louise arrived home she walked inside to me where I was busy in the kitchen.
I asked Louise what’s the matter and she didn’t know how to answer. Mark P walked in behind and called out and the first thing that he said was, not “Craig we need to talk, we would like to enter into a temporary care agreement.” The first thing that he said was, quote: “Bad news Craig, we’re taking Patrick.” Unquote. Mark never mentioned the temporary agreement to me at any time.
My immediate reaction was “over my dead body.” Louise took Patrick down the other end of the house. I basically told these people to fuck off. They asked me could I guarantee Patrick’s safety. I said that I could guarantee his safety and he is perfectly safe in this house and will remain safe in this house. You people were supposed to help us, not rip our family apart. They said “so long as we have a guarantee about Patrick’s safety, then that is fine.” They went away and then later that night they came back with six policemen to serve a place of safety warrant on us. It was extremely truamatic and nothing less than a home invasion, the police were not willing to listen to us. I was barricaded in the kitchen while a policewoman took Patrick from Louise’s arms. Patrick was asleep in Louise’s arms and she had intended to check that the car seat in the social worker’s car was suitable for Patrick and if it was not so she was going to give them Patrick’s car seat. But she was cornered in the hall and the policewoman removed Patrick from her arms.
After Patrick was taken, I had a migraine so severe that I was taken to North Shore hospital. The staff thought that because of the severity of my condition that I had a bleed inside the brain and took x-ray’s to establish that this was not the case. Next day, in a traumatize distressed and excited state; I made a comment that anybody hurts my wife and my child, somebody is going to die. That amazingly ended up in my records and everything that they have used against me happened after the fact that Patrick was taken. My normal natural human reactions they’ve used against me.
Now this is the way that the mental health act works and this is part of the problem. Natural human behaviors and reactions to certain situations that have been considered natural human behavior and reaction since the beginning of time are now labeled as mental disorders. What they didn’t say was that if they hadn’t taken Patrick I wouldn’t have these reactions in the first place.
The night that they took Patrick we rang the CYFS office and informed CYFS of baby formula that Patrick needs because of his feeding difficulties.
Louise went to see Patrick the next day and CYFS put another note in their file to say that the baby was uncomfortable around Louise without including the facts. Patrick became distressed when he saw his mother because he was given his bottle by a social worker to be fed. It was too hot. They ended up giving him a hot bottle that would have burned his throat with the wrong formula in it. Louise said “I’m not going to feed him this, it will burn his throat.” So the social worker went away to cool it down. Patrick had seen the bottle and thought that he was going to get fed. When he didn’t get fed, he became upset. Patrick had been taken the night before and Louise was under stress. It’s a well known fact that babies can sense the stress of the parents and he would have reacted to that stress.
Louise asked the caregiver what type of formula she had used but she was unable to answer and they had the incorrect teat on the bottle. It was a size suitable for a one-year-old, not for a baby five months old. . CYFS also turned up one hour after they told Louise that she would be able to see Patrick. Louise had been waiting and became very angry and agitated. The car seat that they were using for Patrick was also not the appropriate seat for a child of his age
When I was released from hospital, Louise and I engaged a lawyer. Pamela Williamson of Davies Law. It became very clear within a very short period of time that she was on the side of CYFS. She didn’t represent us properly at all. She asked us to write affidavit that was basically conciliatory towards CYFS and to admit to have done things that we hadn’t done. Another person advised us, that when we do the affidavit to tell the truth, so we re-submitted our affidavit to Pamela Williamson. She said that she wasn’t prepared to represent us anymore. As she didn’t wish to follow our instructions we were happy to change to another lawyer.
We engaged another lawyer and were prepared to fight to get Patrick back with no strings attached. We wanted CYFS out of our lives and to leave us alone. The day after we employed him, I called the bank to get a bank loan because we had been told that the cost would be in the region of $10,000 over the next 6 months. The reason for borrowing this money is because this lawyer did not take on legal aid cases. The day after we employed this lawyer, we had a visit from 4 policemen; a social worker and two people from the mental health organization who had been informed before we had that Patrick had died. They turned up at 4 o’clock in the afternoon on the 22nd May and said that he’d died. The distress that we have suffered is beyond any description, beyond any words.
In the period of time that CYFS had had Patrick they had never informed us of how he was being cared for, never told us about anything what was going on with him. Through the employment of a private investigator and the use of the official information act we have since been able to find out what happened to Patrick.
Having looked at all the information looked at all the disparities in that information it appears as though we were set up to have Patrick taken from us from the very beginning. Having seen the falsified information, having gone back to talk to the people from Waitemata DHB, having noticed the contradictions, compared notes, it appears that all they were concerned with was to remove Patrick.
Since Patrick’s death we have gathered so much information that we can show that they manipulated and falsified evidence and how they managed to get a place of safety warrant based on the information that they had is beyond me. The place of safety warrant was not obtained from a judge but a normal everyday citizen who just happens to be a JP.The place of safety warrant claimed that there was a child in our house at risk of, or was being abused emotionally, physically or mentally – they had no evidence of that. Social workers walked into court and sued for custody Exparte. The affidavits of the two social workers were acts of perjury. We can prove beyond any doubt that they have perjured themselves.
We have been to our MP and parliamentarians from other parties. None of them have showed any interest in helping us. I managed to speak for a couple of minutes with Helen Clark in Tauranga. I asked her how it is possible for an organization to take children without cause and allow them to die and then turn their backs on us. We have written to the CEO of CYFS who has not asked to see any of our information. They basically came back to us and said that CYFS have done nothing wrong. We wrote to the Prime Minister and she wrote back to us supporting the CEO of CYFS. We wrote back to Helen Clark and said how is it possible for you to support the CEO of CYFS when you haven’t heard our side of the story, or sat down for five minutes and thought about how is it possible that a child taken from a place of safety and placed in another situation that was supposed to be better than we could provide ends up dead thirteen days later. Helen Clark has basically told us to go away.
In a copy of the caregiver’s statement she refers to the fact that Patrick was constantly crying. He went from being a happy little boy to this baby who constantly cried and grizzled. Imagine what was happening to this child, who loses the only things in his life that at an instinctual level make him feel happy and secure. His mother, his father, his environment and his routine. CYFS did not even put together a care plan, which they are required by law to do immediately.
Patrick was 70 grams lighter from the day he was taken on the 9th of May to the day of his autopsy on the 22nd of May. Factor in his growth rate that he should have been achieving, then Patrick effectively lost half a kilo in weight. Any pediatrician or nutritionist will tell you that if an infant doesn’t grow at all within a few days, then there’s something seriously wrong. Patrick did not gain over 400 grams that he should have. CYFS were feeding Patrick the wrong formula base (Even though they had been told the night he was removed) and never changed that formula base when we told them. We only found out on the 16th May that they were feeding him the wrong formula so we informed them of the correct formula that he should have been on, and they did nothing to change it. They couldn’t even get his basic feeding arrangements right.
The caregiver has lied to the police in her statement. She told police that she had six children in her care at the time of Patrick’s death. We now know through information we have received that she had 12 children in her care. There is no way in the world that she could have provided the emotional and physical support that Patrick would have needed. She openly admits to acts of neglect and abandonment in the police statement and nothing had been done about that.
Patrick’s death has been put down as a cot death. If that were the case, then he would have been one of the first babies that was crying when he died.
According to the Caregiver’s statement she came home at five past 12, went in and saw Patrick. Patrick was crying at 12:30. She went out and made Patrick a bottle and he was still crying a couple of minutes later. She then went back to Patrick’s bedroom with the bottle and found that he was dead. Why was she unable to revive him?
The pathology showed that there was no reason, such as failure of an organ, a blood clot etc., so he simply just stopped breathing. This means that if she turned up a couple of minutes after he stopped breathing as she has stated, it should have been fairly easy to revive him. She couldn’t revive him! There is evidence that he was moved after his death. He was rolled over onto his stomach to suggest that he had suffocated. There is no evidence of asphyxiation.
The caregiver called an ambulance a few minutes after finding Patrick dead and she claimed she carried out CPR. One of the ambulance officers noticed that there was some strange blood pooling on Patrick. Down the front was completely pale and down the sides it was red. According to our information and our knowledge, for that blood pooling to happen, Patrick must have been moved after he died. It must be surely grounds for re-investigation.
What we have concluded has happened is that the caregiver has gone out and Patrick has been left alone. Because of the trauma and stress that Patrick had been through, he has had a reaction, had stopped breathing and nobody has been around to help him. The caregiver came home, found Patrick dead and has made up her story to cover what has happened
We have been to the police and made our concerns known. We have pointed out to them the anomalies in the caregiver’s statement and that surely these anomalies and our concerns should warrant a re-interview. The police have shown no interest.
How CYFS managed to get a place of safety warrant, we can only assume two things. One is that they don’t need any evidence to get a warrant. If it is incumbent on the police to show just cause when they seek a warrant how is it possible that CYFS can gain a warrant? Or is it that CYFS can go and get a warrant and, in effect, act as if they’re above and beyond the law,
If CYFS do have to show just cause, then considering all the information that has been provided to them, the only way they could have possibly provided information that allowed them to get a place of safety warrant was to falsify the information. We have the proof that they have carried out two acts of perjury in the Family Court to support their claim for custody.
Proof that they failed to provide the necessities of life, which is a criminal offence. We can prove acts of negligence and abandonment on behalf of the caregiver. Proof of negligence on behalf of CYFS not ensuring Patrick’s safety. Patrick was the only baby in the house that was not in a safety sleep. The caregiver has said that in her statement.
Patrick was happy, healthy, safe and nurtured in this home. He was taken from his home and placed in a position of risk, specifically emotionally and by doing so they did it by force and this is assault.
Given that they gained the place of safety warrant by deception then that makes it null and void. They have gained entry to our home under false pretences. They took somebody out of this house against their will and without the legal grounds, and it doesn’t matter what the warrant says. It can be shown that the warrant should not have been granted because it was granted through deception and dishonesty; therefore it’s null and void. The conclusion must be that he was taken by an act of kidnapping and it was against his will and the will of his parents. This little boy lost everything that he had in his life that kept him happy and stable. He was traumatized and distressed over the next 13 days, as described in the caregiver’s statement. Constantly crying and screaming and frustrated. He was not fed properly. As a result, he had a physical reaction resulting in his death. Had he stayed in his home, the day that he died, he would have been at home in his cot, in his safety sleep, he would be checked on a regular basis. If what happened to Patrick had happened at home then we would have been able to do something about it and he may have still been alive today.
Based on the premise that Patrick was taken from a place of security and safety, placed in a position of risk and ended up dying – this then is grounds for a charge of manslaughter.
The day after Patrick died, Susie Sligo, who was apparently the manager of the Waitakere CYFS office, stated that they had serious concerns for Patrick’s safety. Information that had been given to them showed that there were no serious concerns and that all they had to do was provide Louise with support. That they had serious concerns was a lie.
Secondly, she has said that they have capable social workers that make judgement calls based on the information.
A judgment call should be based on and support the information that is available. CYFS took the most extreme action possible, not for a little baby that has been burned or beaten or neglected in any way, but for a baby that was healthy and happy and thriving so therefore their judgement call should have been for him, Patrick, to stay in the home.
Thirdly, one day after Patrick’s death, Susie Sligo said that there was no wrong doing by workers in her department. How is it possible for her to make that statement when the investigation had barely got off the ground?
Steve Maharey has lied to the public. He said on the 3rd November that he comes down very hard on social workers that do not do their job properly. At a minimum we can prove that they did not carry out a care plan and keep him safe. Yet we have had no response from Steve Mahary and he hasn’t even bothered to contact us. We have written to the CEO of CYFS and Waitemata DHB and copied this letter to Steve Mahareys office. Maharey’s office said that they acknowledge receipt of our letter and they will get back to us but we have never heard another thing.
CRAIG and LOUISE MARTIN
News years eve 2002
Martin, C & L
Ph 09 813 3647
Monday, 22 January 2007
CYFS Hall of Shame # 10 and # 11: Karen Young and Mark Postow.
Hi there,
We were made aware of your website after receiving a phone call at 9:40pm this evening from Radio New Zealand. Quite clearly, you are now fully aware of our whole story and as we have never had anything to hide and have always been truthful in all our contacts with the media, the courts and pertinent Government Departments in relation to our case, i.e.: CYFS (which quite obviously affected us in the most disastrous way, as these people clearly have no interest in the truth), we would like to add #10 and #11 to your CYFS Hall of shame.
We know that we are within our legal rights to do so as at the coroners inquest of our sons death (“MURDER”) despite CYFS attempts to suppress the names of the main protagonists in our case – the coroner found that as they were public servants, they were therefore answerable to the public if they truly believed that they had done nothing immoral or illegal. Although your blog lists Lorraine Sheffield, Michelle Boyd and Suse Sligo, the TRULY evil protagonists responsible for what could only be described as a localized act of terrorism are in fact social workers, Karen Young and Mark Postow.
We are currently fighting a civil case in an attempt to receive even the slightest ounce of justice in this lifetime for our son and family, as the “justice” system i.e. the Police, failed us abysmally in bringing any prosecution for the several crimes that were committed by these “people” (this word is used as a very loose term of description only). Unfortunately we have been hamstrung by other government departments (surprise, surprise) from even receiving a day in court to allow the WHOLE truth to be told. These departments of course being the Crown Law Office and their bedpal the Legal Services Agency. We however do take comfort in knowing that even if we do not receive any justice for Patrick and our family in this lifetime, we know that the likes of Mark Postow, Karen Young, Michelle Boyd, Lorraine Sheffield and Suse Sligo and other like minded beings (we refuse to put human before the phrase beings) should take this invaluable piece of advice:
“Make peace with our son before you pass to the next life however or whenever that may be, because where you are going in the afterlife, you will not have the chance.”
They should know that on their judgement day, their lies, their manipulation, their egotism or the bottomless financial pit of their evil empire (CYFS) will not protect them.
We remain,
Craig and Louise Martin
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
CYFSWATCH Media interest may at last deliver some justice.
WOW!!! Media Interest Is Huge!
This is a note to advise readers to be sure to watch TV 3 news tonight. The reporter has just left our home.
Also for interested parties, my husband is on the phone to the Herald at this very moment. And a telephone interview has already been conducted with Radio New Zealand no more than 2hrs ago. The New Zealand Womans Weekly is currrently waiting for a return call from me (once craig is done with the Herald) AND Close Up from TV 1 is keen to put something together I believe.
CYFSWATCH, thank you! Our family was a media “spot light” when our son died and not much (if anything) ever really came of it. To have the oppertunity to point out particular people who should have accountability for their actions can only be a step in the right direction.
Regards,
Louise Martin
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
Letter of Condolence to Craig and Louise Martin
Firstly, I’d like to offer my deepest, sincere condolences re the loss of your beloved baby. This is an area very close to our hearts as well. I admire your courage to stand up against an organisation like CYF. This is an state organisation that is virtually impossible to get any straight answers and resolve from. Under CYF admission, short staffed, overworked, overstretched, are they capable of performing as a social worker if they are consistently in that position. Doctors and other professionals are soon bought to task if they are under performing and people don’t feel confident in them. I totally agree with a review of CYF, a revision of their Act and their practices. It’s a sad fact in year 2007, that we have to have a Hall of Shame for people to get recognition. It seems to me that we are running along the line of a banana republic.
Congrats to the website CYFSWATCH, a brave move.
W.O.
Christchurch
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
Letter to Craig and Louise Martin
Dear Craig and Louise
I do believe in what you are doing to a certain degree. I admire your courage in the firm and open stand you have taken. I am all for openness particularly in regard to large organisations including those run by the Government.
I have no particular gripe with cyf except that sometimes they are damn slow in responding to urgent matters particularly with children aged over 14. This remark refers to my job as a teacher.
However I do sincerely believe that in the same way as you openly publish the names of possibly errant “social workers” so should the complainers be open about who they are.
Openness is a two way business and perhaps the numerous correspondents on your blog would earn more credibility if they they were seen to be honest by allowing their names to be published. I know that cyfs employees wish wrongly to hide behind the cloak of anonymity but their cowardliness is no excuse for your correspondents to follow their example.
For myself I am Andrew McCarthy of Runanga [West Coast]. mccarthy14@hotmail.com
I hope that whoever it is who is trying to close your blog does not succeed. Incidentally it was quite difficult to track the blog down even using Google.
Andrew Mccarthy
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
Update Response to CYFSWATCH from Craig and Louise Martin.
Due to the intense media and public interest of this website and my wife and I having featured in the main stream bulletins and papers, we feel it necessary to clarify a few points.
Firstly, we would like to reiterate that we are in 100% support of this site. This does not mean however that we necessarily support some of the content and derogatory remarks that have been made, although we do understand the motivations behind them.
We will be the first to admit that in the privacy of our home and around close friends and family, we often use language and a tone that would make some peoples hair curl. This is merely human nature. It is our belief though that by sharing this in a public forum we lose a great percentage of the moral high ground. If there is one thing we all share (families who have been abused by the CYFS system and SW’s) is that morally we hold all the cards.
By being derogatory and using offensive language towards the SW’s involved in our lives, we feel that this affects our credibility with the public, and let’s face it, the beauty and tragedy of this website is to inform the public of what is really going on in this country and we need to ensure their current and continued support. That being said, we are in no way instructing you to censor yourselves. We are merely making a suggestion in the belief that by keeping the tone calm and factual, we are more likely to garnish the support we need to achieve the positive change that is so well overdue.
In regards to the naming of SW’s and the description of their behavior – long may this continue! If the thought police are successful in shutting this website down (which would obviously make a mockery of democracy and free speech in this country), we will do everything within our powers to help the authors of this website in re-establishing its existence.
Earlier today, Louise received a phone call from an anonymous party requesting our permission to publish the private address and phone number of one of the social workers who was involved in our life. This person specifically called for this “permission” due the SW involved affecting our lives, not theirs. Louise’s response was to let them know that permission wasn’t necessary as the end decision to do this was completely up to them as it was them who had obtained this information on their own.
Louise also said that it really didn’t matter anyway, as we have had that address and phone number in our possession since the day after Patrick died, as quite simply, Louise had looked it up in the Auckland telephone book, where it is still available now. The caller then said that if that’s the case and it’s public anyway that they’d go ahead and supply it to CYFSWATCH.
Louise has since called TV 1 news to inform them of the likelihood that the first private address of a SW is going to be posted on this website. TV 1 will possibly screen this story on the news on Saturday night. Please remember that IF the details of this SW’s address end up on this site, it did NOT in any way come from us and nor was it “approved” by us. As a whole we do not approve of publishing private details of these SW’s under any circumstances.
Please do not get us wrong, personally we do not give a rat’s glutius maximus as to what happens to these people in both their private and professional lives and quite frankly, if they were to fall off the face of the earth tomorrow we would lose no sleep. We also absolutely do NOT condone any action against these SW’s of an abusive nature as this would also deteriorate any public support and moral high ground that we intend to achieve.
We ask that you consider carefully, those of you who intend to publish private addresses and details, the damage that this may cause. Our fight is with these individuals, not with their families!! By publishing their personal details we directly involve their families and loved ones and in doing so we make ourselves no better than they are.
Please remember, their families are as innocent and defenseless as ours are and after publication there would be no control as to what may happen to them. Ask yourself, could you sleep at night knowing that you had just been responsible for harming people who have no control over the actions of someone else (of whom they have a relationship with) – we couldn’t. Again, this is only our personal position and advice. We of course leave the choice up to you – after all, we’re not the thought police!
With regard to Peter Hughes and his outrageous crusade to close down this website, we have to obviously question his decency and common sense. There is an old cliché that if enough people are telling you that you are doing something wrong, then you have to question that maybe you are. If Peter was to sit back for a moment and use some common sense he would ask himself why is this blog site so popular? Why are there so many stories recounting the same type of abuse by the people under his charge? Is it at all possible that there is validity to some if not most of these stories? Since when are his employees so above reproach that he does not have the decency to accept that there are a lot of bad apples in his barrel?!
It seems his only goal is to quash what is THE ONLY OUTLET that disaffected and abused families have to achieve accountability and some semblance of justice. A decent and honest person in a position such as his would remember his duty was to the PUBLIC and CHILDREN of this country and NOT to the underbelly of his organization which has caused such insufferable pain. Take a look at the numbers Peter! There are far too many of these stories for these just to be “isolated” and unfortunate “mistakes”. Joseph Goebbels once said, “Honesty is the enemy of the state” and we all know where that led!!
What side are you Peter and how would you like to be remembered?
With regard to the other public servant mouthpieces who have continuously spouted the same verbal diarrhea, that there are legitimate outlets for complaints against CYFS, we suggest you walk a mile in our shoes and those of the other posters on this site before uttering the same garbage again. There is no way transparency, accountability or justice can be achieved when the abusers (CYFS) police themselves. How many times do you have to hear this before your humanity takes over from your arrogance and ignorance?
On that note we will sign off.
Regards,
Craig and Louise Martin
(09) 8133674
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.
Regards,
Craig and Louise Martin
(09) 8133647
(NEVER anonymous!)
CYFSWATCH Replies:
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.
CYFSWATCH.
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.
CYFSWATCH
>From: “Blogger Help”
>To: “cyfswatch cyfswatch”
>Subject: Re: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:38:56 -0800
>
Hello,
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.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
Update on Radio CYFSWATCH.
RADIO CYFSwatch UPDATE!
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 kiwi1960@slingshot.co.nz
Kiwi1960
Sunday, 11 February 2007
Petition for Royal Commision of Enquiry into CYFS.
Petition Urgently Needed:
I have had several people say to me recently that, since this Blog started, they would be interested in signing a petition. One has even offered to hand one around her work and clients. I believe that a petition for an Independent Commission of Enquiry into the behavior and practices of CYFS is well overdue.
We have gained the public awareness we so desperately needed with this site, so now is the time to get this petition up and running.
Unfortunately we, (Louise & I) don’t have the resources to do this. I am working full time and Louise has her hands full raising our 3 children. However, I am sure there are people out there who are able to organize and manage what will be a critical job in our collective fight for justice and change. I am asking for these people to step forward now.
We are willing to provide any support that I we are able to as we realize this could be a daunting task. If there is anyone out there with the knowledge of how to start a petition, what resources are needed, how it can be managed nationally and are able to step into the breach, please reply to this post.
Maybe our hosts CYFSWATCH can help with ideas and/or support?
I know the idea of a petition has been raised before, but what we need NOW is to get one started. We have the opportunity to put our foot, figuratively speaking, on the throat of CYFS and the Government. Helen Clarke is hoping that this is a storm in a tea cup and will go away. Lets not give her the satisfaction of being right!
Let’s force her and her underlings to sit up, listen and act as per the will of the people. Let’s remind the powers to be that they are in a position of “privilege” and not a position of “right” and they serve us and not their own self interests and political survival. It is time to remind the Government who they work for and the consequences of their failure in their duty as “PUBLIC SERVANTS”
If you can help, PLEASE HELP!
Remember this is for the survival & safety of our children and the sanctity of our families. Let’s get started NOW!
Regards
Craig Martin
Ph: (09)8133647
clmartin@xtra.co.nz
Monday, 12 February 2007
More information on CYFS Petition
Follow up About our Call for a Petition, Calling for a Royal Commission of Enquiry:
I wish to advise EVERYONE in New Zealand that our friend Kiwi1960 has been in contact with me and is willing to organize a petition to present to Parliament. This petition will be calling for a public referendum so the voters of New Zealand can answer this question with a YES or NO.
“Do you believe there needs to be a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the dealings of CYFS and the work behaviors of CYFS employed Social Workers?”
The above question is my idea only, not what the final wording would likely be.
Simply put, this petition will be to show the government that we have enough support to force their hand (figuratively speaking), into having to provide this question to the voting public of New Zealand at the next general election. In this way, it would be an official public referendum. The sad reality is that there ARE conditions attached to this sort of action and you ALL need to know of these conditions which are to be found here:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/citizens_referenda.html
We need a minimum number of signatures depending on the number of enrolled voters:
“You have 12 months in which to collect signatures and to deliver the petition to the Clerk. You must have the signatures of at least 10% of all eligible electors. Eligible electors include those on the General and Maori electoral rolls. All the signatures must be on the approved petition forms, otherwise those signatures will not be counted.”
This is what I ask of everyone reading this:
PLEASE inform everyone you know and everyone you meet that this petition is being organized and is in the planning stages. Tell these people to also tell everyone THEY know and everyone they meet the very same thing. We need as many people as possible to be aware of this petitions existence so that when it’s begun, we can collect our 10% of all voters’ signatures in the quickest time possible.
Remember, TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT THIS PETITION IS COMING!!!
Craig and I (Louise), and Kiwi1960 will keep you informed as to the progress of the petition planning. It WILL take months I’m sad to say, BUT, how long have CYFS been destroying our families?? It’s certainly a lot longer than a few months. So please hold onto the hope that this might be our start towards the change we all know is so desperately needed. And REMEMBER, tell everyone you know!
Regards,
Louise Martin
09) 813-3647
clmartin@xtra.co.nz
Watching CYFSWATCH NZ 