Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watchingcyfs/

Archive for the ‘CYFSWATCH Archives’ Category

Cindy Kiro manipulates the media, and the BSA dutifully comply.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 11, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Cindy Kiro manipulates the media, and the BSA dutifully comply.
Monday, 07.05.2007, 10:28am (GMT12)

Campbell Live Used Vulnerable Child – BSA

LATEST DECISION – 3 May 2007

Complaint by the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro – upheld

A TV3 Campbell Live item examining the proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 featured an interview with a woman and her 14-year-old son.

One aspect of a complaint made by The Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, was that the interview with the boy was unfair to him.

In its decision, the Authority noted that the broadcaster was aware that the boy, who had been removed from his mother’s care by CYFS due to ongoing concerns for his safety, was in a vulnerable situation.

The Authority considered that reasonable research by the broadcaster would have also revealed that the mother was facing assault charges against another son, as this information had been reported in other media and was thus in the public domain.

Further, the broadcaster had made no effort to contact CYFS, the boy’s legal guardian, prior to interviewing him. Had the broadcaster done so, it could have discovered that the mother had secured her son’s presence at the interview using deception.

In the Authority’s view, gathering this information was critical to the broadcaster’s assessment of whether it was suitable to involve the boy in the programme. In failing to do so, the broadcaster breached the fairness standard requirement to recognise the rights of individuals, and particularly children and young people, not to be exploited, humiliated or unnecessarily identified.

Link to full decision: http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-105.htm

ENDS

 

TV3 slammed for riding-crop interview

 2:05PM Monday May 07, 2007

TV3’s Campbell Live has been censured over an interview with a boy who was allegedly whipped by his mother with a riding crop.

Children’s commissioner Cindy Kiro complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) that the child was being exploited by sitting with his mother during his interview.

He would have felt pressured to provide the right answers and the show “displayed a disregard” for the boy’s rights, she said.

Campbell Live featured the 14-year-old boy with his mother, who had been found not guilty of assaulting her son by successfully arguing she used reasonable force, on July 19 last year.

During the interview, the boy said he felt he deserved the discipline meted out to him.

The 14-year-old also said he would not smack his own children, though after the interview the host said the boy only said this because he was afraid CYF would take them away.

The BSA ordered TV3’s owner CanWest to broadcast a statement explaining why the complaint was upheld, and to pay $1500 costs to the Crown.

The complaint was one of four brought to the BSA by Ms Kiro, but the other three were turned down by the BSA.

She also claimed the show’s producers had not asked Child, Youth and Family (CYF) – the boy’s legal guardian – if they could interview him.

In another complaint, Dr Kiro said the boy’s privacy was breached because those who were familiar with the case could identify him though both the boy and his mother were shown in silhouette.

The commissioner also alleged the story was unbalanced, being firmly pro-smacking and against reform of child-hitting laws.

It was also inaccurate, Dr Kiro said, because the mother was not a reliable source and that the journalist had made no attempt to investigate the circumstances of the case.

After interviewing the mother and her son, the host then interviewed a lawyer who had worked with families in Sweden trying to prevent similar anti-smacking law reform.

He then talked to Green MP Sue Bradford, the chief proponent of the repeal of Section 59, who explained why she wanted to remove the “reasonable force” defence.


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Archives | Leave a Comment »

A timely reminder: Cindy Kiro’s masterplan for our children.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 17, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

A timely reminder: Cindy Kiro’s masterplan for our children.
Tuesday, 17.04.2007, 05:28pm (GMT12)

Dr Kiro’s Master Plan

Dr Kiro has a master plan for every child. The Children’s Commissioner has created a document expressing the plan:
TE ARA TUKUTUKU NGA WHANAUNGATANGA O NGA TAMARIKI: WEAVING PATHWAYS TO WELLBEING – AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES


The government norm is to have a Maori name for everything. Such tokenism makes us all feel good that we are supporting our cuzzies achieve cultural independence by establishing cultural interdependence. Thus, we have to put up with long Maori names for such reports. I’m not sure it really matters. What does matter is that Dr Kiro’s name should feature in the report’s Title so history knows who to judge. So I’m taking the liberty of renaming Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki to Kiro’s Master Plan

In a nutshell, the plan is a weak justification around profiling every child in New Zealand, and having a reason to intervene. It would be easy to dismiss my points as paranoid, but this is unfair – given the potential for abuse of this system, and the economic cost monitoring every child, Dr Kiro’s report must say far more than “trust us” when considering the finer detail of her master plan. Until I hear more, I judge her guilty by omission, because the impact is so far reaching.

Reading the text speaks like an academically generated collection of buzz words and power phrases, combined with the text of some 18th century manual on “how to look after your human capital and other slaves”. Dr Kiro asks for a paradigm shift when she reminds us that the care of children is the fundamental responsibility of our government and our communities. You’d think the word family would figure more prominently in that sentence. When the word family does appear, it seems to be mentioned as an obstacle to get past or as some kind of stationery cupboard that holds documents.

I’ve repeated about half of the document below – they give a good flavour of the style of the prose. Some may lap it up. It leaves me cold.

Overview
Kiro’s Master Plan provides a systematic approach to monitoring development of every child and young person in New Zealand.

Lets try the reader’s digest version of that sentence: systematic monitoring of everyone

Oh, nice. This would have to be the very reason governments are established. Just the sort of thing the Benjamin Franklins of the world would want enshrined in a constitution. [/sarcasm off]

Kiro’s Master Plan is that every child in New Zealand is safe, nurtured, educated, healthy, and has hope for the future.

In practical terms the framework aims to ensure that families are supported within their communities to help children thrive in each of the four domains of physical, emotional, cognitive and social development.

So, just to be clear, the goal is to be involved in all facets of the children’s life. Except they forgot some of the other domains, such as moral and spiritual. Does this mean they are going to butt out of these areas, or just that they don’t recognise them? Maybe morals and a spiritual dimension aren’t important to them?

Assessments at key transition or change points will lead to development of individual plans to guide progress through universal services, and to access any additional services that are required.

There is a direction the government wants you to take. You’ll be guided with universal services. How much do you think it’s going to cost for an individual plan? And what if the parents don’t want one, thank you very much? Obviously, that makes them bad parents, and they will report to the centre for conditioning.

The funny thing is, the key transition and change points will probably be thrust on to a six month waiting list, along with other key transitional or change points, like a heart attack, or being diagnosed with an urgent medical condition.

Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities.

Alarm bells. When are the parents views considered? Wait, we get to vote every three years. I’m sure the debate here was whether to include the word “families” in the list of “organisations” that ensure children are safe and nurtured, but then again, that implies the fundamental responsibilities of the government might be trumped in some way. This paragraph highlights that there is little trust in families to do this, and that is why the government needs a universal approach.

An aging population structure, with increasing economic dependency and caregiver ratios, means that the future productivity of every child and young person is important.

Yay. Let’s throw in the economic necessity of making sure children are productive units in society.

Investments in childhood are most likely to bring good returns to society as a whole. Economic modeling shows that the optimum return to investment in human capital occurs in the first years of life.

Well, when you put it like that, now I know you have the best interests of children in mind. They’ll all be classified by a reference number, awarded marks on the optimum return ratios achieved and bonuses paid to the government plan developer for hitting their KPI’s. Isn’t this direct from a slave owners manual?

Estimates of the benefit to cost ratio of early childhood intervention for disadvantaged children in the United States are as high 17:1 as by age 40 (i.e. US$17 net benefit to society for every dollar spent.)

Intervention … that word must be music to Kiro’s ears. A universal plan justified on the basis of benefit to cost ratio on disadvantaged children. Makes sense to me.

Kiro’s Master Plan will provide accurate information, which is essential to plan well for individual children and families. The framework will also mean that educators, health service providers, community planners and child protection services have access to anonymous aggregated data so that they can prepare and plan appropriately for current and future needs.

Just telegraphing that we may need to legislate around those pesky privacy laws to gather all the necessary information. And we promise to offer anonymous aggregated data to tax payer funded businesses that raise their revenue by increasing the number of interventions. And lies, lies and damn statistics will show just how necessary early intervention is to get that US$17 ROI.

Values for success
Kiro’s Master Plan will apply to every child, and will mean that physical, emotional, cognitive and social wellbeing is assessed in a consistent way.

Maybe psych profiles on parents would be a good start?

The framework will be child-centred, family focused and strengths-based. Details of the framework will need to be developed and implemented with the support and in partnership with children and their families.

So what happens when mum and dad say “f*ck off assessment worker”? Well, it is child centred, so sounds like “opt out” clauses are not permitted. Forced vaccinations. Forbidden from certain religious practices? Removed from parents because of a suspected smack? (Well the parents were Christian fundamentalists, we may as well intervene early). Own up Kiro. What happens if parents don’t see your master plan in the same positive light?

The framework allows for early identification of additional needs, which may be met within universal services, and early intervention in the life of a problem where necessary.

What deems that early intervention is necessary? Like the CYF social workers who stand accused of removing a child from his mother because they disliked her Christian beliefs?

Where multiple needs are identified the support provided to the child and their family will be integrated through a lead professional, who has responsibility to collate information and co-ordinate service delivery. A common record will include entries from all practitioners involved, and will continue to be owned by the child and held by the family.

I love the terms service delivery; owned by the child; and held by the family. Smooth. Owned by the whole family? What if the parents are divorced? Which parts of the family share the file notes anyway?

Where statutory interventions or specialist intervention are required the integrated service delivery will continue, co-ordinated by a practitioner with statutory or professional responsibility to take the lead professional role.

And lets be clear, with a universal plan comes statutory intervention.

A key strength of an integrated approach is the potential for all professionals to be working to the same frame of reference. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the silo effect often observed between, and even within, agencies who may be engaged with families but do not co-ordinate their work.

And if the files notes of the assigned case worker are biased, or have made false accusations or assumptions based on the psych assessment with the child etc, then the case worker gets to promote their version of the truth to the other people involved in the case, perhaps prejudicing the situation. A very common compliant with CYF disputes.

For the framework to function effectively, those involved with a child or family will need to have access to information that helps them to make better decisions. A sound information base is essential if we are going to make sure that every child is safe and protected, enjoys the resources to take an active role in society, and understands and enjoys their human rights.

The clear benefits of sharing integrated information are that each and every social service provider has a clear picture of the child’s experiences, strengths and needs, and can more effectively promote that child’s rights, best interests and welfare.

Just about every situation I can think of where non-family members need full access to information, is where they are deciding on the level of intervention. Deciding what is in the child’s best interests and welfare need to be defined very very well, before deciding how much intervention in the life of every child Dr Kiro is going to advocate.

And when the information describing a child is reduced to a series of database records to pass on an informed picture of a child’s life, you know we are in trouble.

The Children’s Commissioner gets over 2 million dollars a year in government funding. She’s using it to work out how to build a complete service industry around interfering with every single family in New Zealand. Her mission is to help children. A noble mission. To ensure success, she is spending her time devising ways to gain complete and unfettered access to all children via a legion of dedicated “service providers”. Some of those service providers will likely decide the family is a major obstacle to achieving their KPI’s. What powers will they ask for? Remember, think of the children.

Dr Kiro is simply campaigning for the authority first, and the “trust us” part comes later.

Show me the contract Dr Kiro. I’m interested in the fine print.

Related Article: Dr Kiro’s Master Plan

Posted in CYFSWATCH Archives | 1 Comment »

Got a beef with WINZ? Go to WINZWATCH.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 3, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Got a beef with WINZ? Go to WINZWATCH.
Tuesday, 03.04.2007, 03:33pm (GMT12)

http://winzwatch.wordpress.com/

Posted in CYFSWATCH Archives | 1 Comment »

By Fear & Fallacy: The repression of reason and public good by the antismacking lobby in NZ.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 28, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Excellent summary of the lies being told by Clark, Bradford et al:

By Fear & Fallacy: The repression of reason and public good by the antismacking lobby in NZ.
Wednesday, 28.03.2007, 09:25am (GMT12)

http://careycollege.com/documents/By%20Fear%20&%20Fallacy.pdf

CONTENTS:

1. Creeping Revolution ………………………….5

2. The Commissioner Attacks …………………10

3. Telling It The Way It Isn’t ………….……….15

4. Misleading Parents …………………………..20

5. False Information Falsely Used ……………..25

6. Distortions In Advocacy Research ………….32

7. Fiddling With The Act ……………………….37

8. The Subversion Of Justice …………………..43

9. Beating Up On Christians ……………………53

Endnote ……………………………………………61

Appendix 1: Smacking With An Implement ……62

Appendix 2: Section 195 – Cruelty To A Child …64

Appendix 3: Five Reasons To Keep S59 ………..65

Posted in CYFSWATCH Archives | Leave a Comment »