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 ‘Newsflash’ Category

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 20, 2007

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Press Release

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Anti Smacking Bill
Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford’s proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.


Sue Bradford’s bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be ‘ratted out,’ Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours? The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place – wasting valuable time and resources – and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need.


I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct. The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It’s time to push back. The present law allowing “reasonable force” should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.


ENDS


For more information, see http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mail
antiantismacking@gmail.com


Mitch Lees
Representative
Phone: 027 243 1676
E-mail:
antiantismacking@gmail.com
Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/

Posted in Newsflash, Petition/Inquiry/Protest | Leave a Comment »

CYFSWATCH latest TV and Radio news feeds.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

 Cut and paste each address to your address line:TV1: Police called in over “CYFS-Bashing”

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/967185

TV1 Close Up:

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/967243

TV3: http://tv3.co.nz/default.aspx?tabid=112&articleID=19278#vidlist19278

Newstalk ZB News (Multiple stories): http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/

NZ Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10420459

United Future New Zealand (Scoop): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0701/S00117.htm

Public Services Association (Scoop): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0701/S00099.htm

STUFF: http://www.stuff.co.nz/3937850a11.html

Aardvark Website: http://www.aardvark.co.nz/commentary.shtml#continue

Posted in For Your Information, General, Newsflash | Leave a Comment »

Common Questions CYFSWATCH is receiving from the media – and CYFSWATCH response.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

CYFSWATCH Response to some common media questions:Owing to a huge media response, CYFSWATCH have prepared answers to some of the more common questions we have received.

We trust that the following will be helpful.

The CYFSWATCH Team.

1. Who are you?

Who we are is not important to the debate. What is important are the 1000’s of parents and families that have been brutalised via state sanctioned abuse by the corporate cult that has become Child, Youth & Family. It is most interesting to hear a number of commentators decry our anonymity, and the powerlessness they feel in not being able to stop our activities. CYFSWATCH wonder if these same commentators ever stop to consider how anonymous the Social Workers keep themselves from accountability, and how powerless families feel when dealing with a Dept that specifies no consequences for their Social Workers in the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act – we know this, as we have read the Act.

2/ Can you tell me what led to your decision to start this blogsite?

CYFSWATCH was prompted to start this website, as going through “appropriate channels” is a waste of time, as the system set up to call CYFS Social Workers to account is self perpetuating in favour of the CYFS Social Worker, as opposed to their victims (families). For example, if I am a disgruntled parent who is unhappy with a CYFS intervention, my first point of contact is the CYFS Social Worker, then the CYFS Social Workers Supervisor, then the CYFS Branch Manager, then the office of the Children’s Commissioner, then the Ombudsman, and finally, the Minister in charge of the Department. Each step results in systemic rationalisation (and thus approval) of the previous step. When you consider that children have repeatedly died in CYFS care, and that no-one has ever been held to account (except the esoteric “system”), then it is quite clear that going through the appropriate channels is not useful, and that it ultimately costs the lives of the very people CYFS claim they are trying to assist.

3/ Where do you live?

No Comment.

4/ Are there any child/children involved in your choice to launch this website?

CYFSWATCH has been erroneously reported as being authored by a “disgruntled parent” – this report is not correct.

5/ Are you involved in any other organisation, such as PANIC: http://www.panic.org.nz/index2.htm ?

No.

6/ What do you hope to achieve by naming CYFS workers?

Accountability and transparency from the workers themselves – they can no longer expect to hide behind the Act, the Dept, the Children’s Commissioner, The Ombudsman, or the Minister, and act with impunity. A self-referential guide is a very dangerous guide indeed – and the Government sanctions such a toxic social service intervention environment.

7/ How do you think our system of child protection could be improved?

Make interventions family centred, as opposed to child centred; exercise discernment around the nature of what intervention is suitable for what family – one size does not fit all; disenfranchise the “children’s rights” lobby and return to a discussion of parents rights; make family interventions evidence based, as opposed to ideology based; don’t marginalise fathers in the care of their children; have a psychological assessment as a mandatory requirement of an employment application for CYFS; set up an Independent Royal Commission of Enquiry into CYFS with wide parameters and parents at centre stage, so that we can get some truth into the debate; utilise NGO’s more in community interventions.

8/ What have you done so far, and what do you plan to do, to achieve change?

CYFSWATCH has experienced “going through appropriate channels”. We have found this process to be deliberately unsuccessful on behalf of CYFS, and have thus chosen another avenue for redress. It would appear that we have struck a nerve. Ultimately, we believe that the 1989 Child, Youth & family Act must be urgently reviewed by an independent body. What is not well known about this legislation is that it was the Social Work industry was responsible for drafting their own legislation – imagine if the journalism field could write its own rules of engagement without any external scrutiny?

9/ Is there a phone number where I could ring you?

No.

10/ Are you aware that you could be charged with defamation for these types of comments?

Defamation is covered within the Law of Tort, and CYFSWATCH believe that you are more specifically referring to Libel. Lawyers charge around $200-$300 per hour for working on such cases, which precedent would suggest is mighty hard to prove. First of all, CYFS would have to decide as to how much they wanted to sue CYFSWATCH for: if under $200,000, they would need to file proceedings in the District Court, and if they wish to sue CYFSWATCH for over $200,000 they would need to issue proceedings in the High Court. However, since 1992, applicants may not nominate an amount of claim if the source of the alleged libel is media based. Whether CYFSWATCH is deemed to be “media based” has not as yet been determined by Precedent. The Court would nominate what they considered to be appropriate damages, should an application for damages be successful. The main defence here lies in the argument in posts being of “truth and honest opinion” and thus not defamatory. Alternatively, CYFSWATCH could argue qualified privilege, or we could even argue that a person named on the site has no good character at all, and thus their reputation cannot be defamed. Whatever the issue, CYFSWATCH feels reasonably confident in defending any Statement of Claim should one arise.

11/ Do you feel you’re going too far by asking for photos, personal addresses and car registrations?

CYFS run a system called CYRIS which has a plethora of intensely personal information about 1000’s of families, much of the information of which CYFSWATCH would suggest is way over the top in terms of “what they need to know”. CYFS record every phone call, email, and meeting, without the informed consent of the various parties present. Is that going too far? Besides, if the CYFS Management team are so confident that their Social Workers are beyond reproach, then they will have no problem whatsoever in the activities of CYFSWATCH. In the words of Labour Party President Mike Williams, CYFSWATCH believes that sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant. The purpose of calling for as much contact information as possible is to ensure transparency and accountability, two features remarkably absent from the Department of Child, Youth, and Family.

12/ Why is CYFSWATCH maintaining anonymity?

To illustrate how frustrating it is for parents and families that become “anonymous” casualties of the state sanctioned corporate abuse of CYFS towards them. CYFS CEO Peter Hughes accuses CYFSWATCH personnel of being cowardly – for goodness sake, if CYFSWATCH lacked any intestinal fortitude, we wouldn’t have gone out and picked a fight with one of New Zealand’s most well resourced state organisations.

13/ How many emails have been sent to the hotmail account, and roughly
what proportion are supportive/against the blog site?

CYFSWATCH haven’t had a chance to check – email contacts and media enquiries are coming through faster than we can reply. The %age of positive / negative at a guess is running 95% positive, and 5% negative. All of the negative to date is ad hominem, so not worth getting too concerned about.

14/ Have CYFS or any other official group contacted the blog site to persuade/demand/threaten it be shut down?

No, negotiation skills are not known to be a part of the PSA or CYFS ideology, so it seems that they have opted for “trial by media”.

Hope this helps.

The CYFSWATCH Team.

Posted in For Your Information, General, Newsflash | Leave a Comment »

CYFS CEO Peter Hughes spits a very big dummy – is anger management in order?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

Please attribute the following statement to Ministry of Social Development Chief Executive Peter Hughes:

The people responsible for this website are gutless cowards who are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

The statements made are damaging and more importantly false.

Our social workers deal daily with danger, violence, emotion, anger, substance abuse, and poverty. They make critical life decisions in high-risk situations, often under extreme time pressure. They witness the devastating harm visited on our children every day of the week, and still turn up for work every Monday because they firmly believe in making a difference in the lives of children and young people. It’s a tough job.
They deserve our respect, not this. It’s unfair, it lacks integrity, and it’s unacceptable.
I have instructed our lawyers to do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website.

 

We will be working 24/7 until that is done.

I now want to concentrate on our staff, making sure that those named on this revolting website are looked after and supported. This website potentially puts at risk the safety of our staff and their families. We will be working with the police.

ENDS

Posted in General, Newsflash | Leave a Comment »

Ministry of Social Development attempts shutdown of CYFSWATCH?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

Tuesday, 23 January 2007

I understand that Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has issued instructions to lawyers to have CYFSWatch shut down. Can you confirm this and would you like to briefly comment?I run www.freespeech.org.nz,  which regularly comments on free speech, censorship, and related issues and would like to hear your side of this story (assuming that this rumour is true – please refute it if it isn’t).

Thanks,

Bernard Darnton
www.freespeech.org.nz

Posted in For Your Information, General, Newsflash | Leave a Comment »

Family First Press Release 23/1/07

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

MEDIA RELEASE
23 January 2007
Anti-CYF Blogsite Due to Lack of Accountability
Family First calls for a CYF Complaint Authority
A new blogsite which offers parents a means to vent their frustrations at Child Youth and Family is simply an outcome of a lack of transparency and accountability over the activities of CYF.

“There is no avenue for people who feel they have been unfairly treated by the Child, Youth and Family,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.
“Family First is being regularly contacted by families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF Social Workers – yet these parents who’s families have been torn apart have no independent body to appeal to. Their only option is a costly court process where CYFS have an unlimited pool of resources to defend its actions, courtesy of the taxpayer.”

“This is grossly unfair when families are being ripped apart, often just based on the subjective judgment of a social worker,” says Mr McCoskrie.

CYF themselves admit that they do not always get it right. There is also evidence that CYFS are not following their own procedures, and are not acting where they should.
Bob McCoskrie has a background of social work in
South Auckland for 15 years and knows too well how difficult it is to get CYF to intervene on the really urgent cases. Yet there is no real avenue for appeal in these cases either.

“There is a Health and Disability Commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority, even a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal,” says Mr McCoskrie. “We desperately need an independent body to hear complaints about the highly sensitive nature of intervening in families.”
Family First calls on all MP’s, the majority who will have received anecdotal evidence of claims of unfair treatment by CYF, to support the urgent establishment of a CYF Complaint Authority.

ENDS

For more information contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
email. bob@familyfirst.org.nz | http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
P.O. Box 276-133, Manukau City, Auckland, New Zealand

Family First NZ (Inc) was formed in April 2006 to speak up in the public domain on family issues. It has a Board of Trustees, a Board of Reference including Ex-All Black Michael Jones, TV personalities Jim Hickey and Anthony Samuels, over 200 financial supporters and over 2,000 e-mail supporters.

Posted in Newsflash, Petition/Inquiry/Protest | Leave a Comment »

CYFSWATCH Site Prompts call for an Independent CYFS Complaints Authority

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10420459Anti-CYF website prompts call for complaints authority
10:20AM Tuesday January 23, 2007

The publication of an anonymous blog website which is critical of Child Youth and Family (CYF) workers shows an independent CYF complaints authority is needed, a lobby group has said.

The site says it will publish details of staff – including home addresses – as well as uncensored stories which will ‘name and shame’ CYF workers.

The national director of Family First, Bob McCoskrie said the lobby group received many complaints from families dealing with CYF.

“Family First is being regularly contacted by families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF social workers,” he said, “yet these parents whose families have been torn apart have no independent body to appeal to.”

Mr McCroskie said the Government should look at forming a complaints authority urgently.

On Monday, CFY said social workers worked hard for children in a tough and stressful environment but that it could not promise to always get it right.

So far only one staff member has been named on the site.

– NZPA

Posted in Newsflash, Petition/Inquiry/Protest | 1 Comment »

New Zealand Herald Questions to CYFSWATCH – and our answers

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

Simon Collins – Social Issues Reporter NZ Herald:

1. Who are you? Who we are is not important to the debate. What is important are the 1000’s of parents and families that have been brutalised via state sanctioned abuse by the corporate cult that has become Child, Youth & Family. It is most interesting to hear a number of commenators decry our anonimity, and the powerlessness they feel in not being able to stop our activities. CYFSWATCH wonder if these same commentators ever stop to consider how anonymous the Social Workers keep themselves from accountability, and how powerless families feel when dealing with a Dept that specifies no consequences for their Social Workers in the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act – we know this, as we have read the Act.

2/ Can you tell me your own personal experiences with CYFS which led to your decision to start this blogsite?

CYFSWATCH was prompted to start this website, as going through “appropriate channels” is a waste of time, as the system set up to call CYFS Social Workers to account is self perpetuating in favour of the CYFS Social Worker, as opposed to their victims (families). For example, if I am a disgruntled parent who is unhappy with a CYFS intervention, my first point of contact is the CYFS Social Worker, then the CYFS Social Workers Supervisor, then the CYFS Branch Manager, then the office of the Children’s Commissioner, then the Ombudsman, and finally, the Minister in charge of the Department. Each step results in systemic rationalisation (and thus approval) of the previous step. When you consider that children have repeatedly died in CYFS care, and that no-one has ever been held to account (except the esoteric “system”), then it is quite clear that going through the appropriate channels is not useful, and that it ultimately costs the lives of the very people CYFS claim they are trying to assist.

3/ Where do you live?

No Comment.

4/ How old is the child/children involved?

CYFSWATCH has been erroneously reported as being authored by a “disgruntled parent” – this report is not correct.

5/ Are you involved in any other organisation, such as PANIC:
>http://www.panic.org.nz/index2.htm ?

No.

6/What do you hope to achieve by naming CYFS workers?

Accountability and transparency from the workers themselves – they can no longer expect to hide behind the Act, the Dept, the Childrens Commissioner, The Ombudsman, or the Minister, and act with impunity. A self-referential guide is a very dangerous guide indeed – and the Government sanctions such a toxic social service intervention environment.

7/ How do you think our system of child protection could be improved?

Make interventions family centred, as opposed to child centred; exercise discernment around the nature of what intervention is suitable for what family – one size does not fit all; disenfranchise the “childrens rights” lobby and return to a discussion of parents rights; make family interventions evidence based, as opposed to ideology based; don’t marginalise fathers in the care of their children; have a psychological assessment as a mandatory requirement of an employment application for CYFS; set up an Independent Royal Commission of Enquiry into CYFS with wide parameters and parents at centre stage, so that we can get some truth into the debate; utilise NGO’s more in community interventions.

Will this do for a start?

8/ What have you done so far, and what do you plan to do, to achieve change?

CYFSWATCH has experienced “going through appropriate channels”. We have found this process to be deliberately unsuccessful on behalf of CYFS, and have thus chosen another avenue for redress. It would appear that we have struck a nerve. Ultimately, we believe that the 1989 Child, Youth & family Act must be urgently reviewed by an independent body. What is not well known about this legislation is that it was the Social Work industry that was responsible for drafting their own legislation – imagine if the journalism field could write its own rules of engagement without any external scrutiny?

9/ Is there a phone number where I could ring you?

No.

10/ Are you aware that you could be charged with defamation for these types of comments?

Defamation is covered within the Law of Tort, and CYFSWATCH believe that you are more specifically referring to Libel. Lawyers charge around $200-$300 per hour for working on such cases, which precedent would suggest are mighty hard to prove. First of all, CYFS would have to decide as to how much they wanted to sue CYFSWATCH for: if under $200,000, they would need to file proceedings in the District Court, and if they wish to sue CYFSWATCH for over $200,000 they would need to issue proceedings in the High Court. However, since 1992, applicants may not nominate an amount of claim if the source of the alleged libel is media based. Whether CYFSWATCH is deemed to be “media based” has not as yet been determined by Precedent. The Court would nominate what they considered to be appropriate damages, should an application for damages be successful. The main defence here lies in the argument in posts being of “truth and honest opinion” and thus not defamatory. Alternatively, CYFSWATCH could argue qualified privilege, or we could even argue that a person named on the site has no good character at all, and thus their reputation cannot be defamed. Whatever the issue, CYFSWATCH feels reasonably confident in defending any Statement of Claim should one arise.

CYFSWATCH

Posted in For Your Information, General, Newsflash | Leave a Comment »

Newstalk ZB Interview Questions-and CYFSWATCH answers.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

A posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

Rachel Morton (Journalist – Newstalk ZB) 22/1/07What’s prompted you to start this website?CYFSWATCH was prompted to start this website, as going through what you term “appropriate channels” is a waste of time, as the system set up to call CYFS Social Workers to account is self perpetuating in favour of the CYFS Social Worker, as opposed to their victims (families). For example, if I am a disgruntled parent who is unhappy with a CYFS intervention, my first point of contact is the CYFS Social Worker, then the CYFS Social Workers Supervisor, then the CYFS Branch Manager, then the office of the Children’s Commissioner, then the Ombudsman, and finally, the Minister in charge of the Department. Each step results in systemic rationalisation (and thus approval) of the previous step. When you consider that children have repeatedly died in CYFS care, and that no-one has ever been held to account (except the esoteric “system”), then it is quite clear that going through the appropriate channels is not useful, and that it ultimately costs the lives of the very people CYFS claim they are trying to assist.Are you aware that you could be charged with defamation for these types of comments?

Defamation is covered within the Law of Tort, and CYFSWATCH believe that you are more specifically referring to Libel. Lawyers charge around $200-$300 per hour for working on such cases, which precedent would suggest are mightly hard to prove. First of all, CYFS would have to decide as to how much they wanted to sue CYFSWATCH for: if under $200,000, they would need to file proceedings in the District Court, and if they wish to sue CYFSWATCH for over $200,000 they would need to issue proceedings in the High Court. However, since 1992, applicants may not nominate an amount of claim if the source of the alleged libel is media based. CYFSWATCH would argue that a blogsite is “media based”. The Court would nominate what they considered to be appropriate damages, should an application for damages be successful. The main defence here lies in the arguement in posts being of “truth and honest opinion” and thus not defamatory. Alternatively, CYFSWATCH could argue qualified priviledge, or we could even argue that a person named on the site has no good character at all, and thus their reputation cannot be defamed. Whatever the issue, CYFSWATCH feels reasonably confident in defending any Statement of Claim should one arise.

Do you feel you’re going too far by asking for photos, personal addresses and car registrations?

CYFS run a system called CYRIS which has a plethora of intensely personal information about 1000’s of families, much of the information of which CYFSWATCH would suggest is way over the top in terms of “what they need to know”. CYFS record every phone call, email, and meeting, without the informed consent of the various parties present. Is that going too far? Besides, if the CYFS Manangent team are so confident that their Social Workers are beyond reproach, then they will have no problem whatsoever in the activities of CYFSWATCH. In the words of Labour Party President Mike Williams, CYFSWATCH believes that sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant. The purpose of calling for as much contact information as possible is to ensure transparency and accountability, two features remarkably absent from the Department of Child, Youth, and Family.

CYFSWATCH

Posted in For Your Information, General, Newsflash | Leave a Comment »

And Kiwiblogs David Farrar wants to turn us in to the police.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand 

February 23rd, 2007 by cyfswatchnz

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1001874

TVNZ interview on 23/2/07 with www.kiwiblog.co.nz blogger David Farrar.

Posted in For Your Information, General, Newsflash | 1 Comment »