September 30, 2024 • 23 mins
Violence towards children is one of the most concerning issues in New Zealand.
It’s an issue that debates decades, back when Child, Youth and Family was responsible for our most vulnerable, before it was replaced by Oranga Tamariki.
And that government agency bears the brunt of trying to look after our children, and keep them safe from harm – but recent reports have shown that not only has little changed in terms of family harm, children that do end up in care are still at risk of abuse still.
Today on The Front Page, NZ Herald senior reporter Nicholas Jones joins to discuss one recent case he’s investigated where child protection services had to apologise for getting it wrong.
And to discuss a recent report by the Independent Children’s Monitor, released two and a half years after the death of Malachi Subecz, The Front Page also speaks with Arran Jones from the Independent Children’s Monitor,
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Paddy Fox
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Violence towards
children is one of the most concerning issues in New Zealand.
It's a debate that spans decades back when Child, Youth
(00:27):
and Family was responsible for our most vulnerable before it
was replaced by Langa Tamariki, and that government agency bears
the brunt of trying to look after our children and
keep them safe from harm. But recent reports have shown
that not only has little changed in terms of family harm,
children that do end up in care are still at
(00:49):
risk of abuse. We'll discuss more on those issues later,
but first on the Front Page ends at Herald's senior reporter,
Nicholas Jones joins us to discuss one recent case he's
investigated where Child Protection Services had to apologize for getting
it wrong. Nicholas, can you explain a bit of the
(01:14):
background to the story of Sarah, a woman on the
autism spectrum? I believe in how she led to enduring
having her newborn uplifted.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Yeah, this was back in twenty fourteen and Sarah, that's
not her real name. She was a young first time
expectant mum. She had a diagnosis on the autism spectrum
and a past diagnosis of an intellectual disability and child
youth and Family as it was called back then, they
became worried that she wouldn't be able to safely parent
(01:43):
her child. That was despite the fact she had strong
family support, including from her own mother. A SIF social
worker staff in the maternity ward to kind of keep
a really close watch on Sarah after she gave birth
totally exhausted from a hard labor emergency sea section, she'd
(02:04):
had blood loss, and she had a wound infection. But
in the days after the birth, the observations sort of
compiled by the hospital staff were used to justify taking
her baby. Things that were noted down where she was
easily distracted and on her phone too much. She became
distressed and angry at her baby's crying at one point,
(02:26):
and she struggled to settle her baby. When her son
was five days old, so IF social workers called a
meeting with the family, and while that was going on,
they took the baby from the hospital. He was later
placed into a permanent home for life, sort of a
permanent adoption.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
She has her own experiences of being through the care
system as well.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Hey yeah, When she was young, like a toddler herself,
her baby brother was born with a really serious condition
that required and to spend a long stretchers in hospital.
Her mom was a solo mum at the time, and
that put immense strain on her. And when Sarah's brother
(03:09):
died when she was still a toddler, and her mom
sort of essentially suffered a break down and could no
longer care for Sarah properly, and she spent time in
state care and later lived with a relative. Her mom's
life kind of slowly got back on track and improved
greatly when she married her current partner, and when Sarah
(03:31):
moved back in with them when she was age fifteen,
her life really improved as well. After Sarah's pregnancy, her
mum helped her into a flat that was just minutes
walk from the family home. Sarah wanted that independence, but
her mom planned on being very closely involved in raising
her son and was going to stay at the flat
(03:52):
whenever needed.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
So this battle to try and get her son back
it took nine years. What result did they finally get
from the ombe bodsmen?
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Yeah, the family repeatedly complained to Child Youth and Family
which is now called Iruna Tamariki, and they complained to
others like the hospital, but they were basically dismissed. Iran
and Tamariki claimed Sarah quote was given every opportunity at
the hospital to show that she could learn new parenting
skills and bond with her baby. The family eventually were
(04:24):
told by a friend about the Ombardsman office and they
complained to the Chief Ombardsman, Peter Boshia, who he looked
at the case and he was pretty alarmed by what
had happened. He thought the claim that Sarah had been
given every opportunity to parent her son in those days
and the hospital was unsustainable and entirely unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Chief Ombardsman today released a comprehensive report after his office
poured through more than two thousand complaints about the troubled agency.
Some of the experiences he looked into were extremely distressing,
including arangata he kept in an institution against their wishes
for years, a young disabled mother whose baby was uplifted
(05:08):
at birth never to be returned, as well as incorrect
and biased information being provided to the family court.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
He was also concerned that there was really little attempt
by Sif and the social workers to properly understand Sarah's
disability and her autism, or even really look into what
support could be available to help her be a parent.
He recommended Orang a tamariki apologize and make a payment
to the family, which it did so, and Ot sent
(05:43):
the family a letter that said, quote, we should always
be mindful that a disability does not negatively impact a
person's parenting capabilities. We hope that your experience is not repeated.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Does she have any contact with her son today?
Speaker 3 (05:58):
By the time the Ahmudsman and sort of looked into
the case and made his recommendations, Sarah's son was aged six.
He is now ten and he remains living with his
adopted parents. Currently, he doesn't have contact with his birth
mum or her family. Sarah has a long term partner
(06:18):
and she wants to start a family, but she's too
scared to do so. While living in New.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Zealand, we often hear ordering a tamariki. There are some
issues with it. Right, this happened when it was child,
youth and family. Are you confident that anything's changed this case?
Speaker 3 (06:35):
And the Ombudsman's sort of findings or criticisms was a
factor in a recent kind of review or overhaul of
Oranga Tamariki's disability policy. Basically their policy that kind of
guides how they interact with disabled parents or children. They
say they've made other changes like higher staff who are
(06:56):
more sort of specialized in the disability areas. Peter Boshia,
the chief armersman, that question and he said he can't,
of course, sort of guarantee that things won't reoccur or
problems come back. He is happy with a lot of
the changes made, but he does say Orang Tamriki have
a lot of work still to do.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Thanks for joining us, Nicholas, and you can find a
link to Sarah's story in our show notes. While Sarah's
son was taken from her by Child Youth and Family,
(07:36):
that organization was replaced by Urranga Tamariki in twenty seventeen
and has faced many of those same concerns since then.
A recent report by the Independent Children's Monitor, released two
and a half years after the death of Malachai Subats,
has found that system wide change is still needed.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Malachai Subeks was an invisible child within the system.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
That is then the state and conclusion of an investigation
into the death of the five year old murdered by
his caregiver.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
But more on this. We're joined now by Aaron Jones
from the Independent Children's Monitor. Aaron, can you remind us
of how the tragedy of Malachi led to this report?
Speaker 5 (08:18):
So following his death, government agencies looked at their role,
what they knew, what they could have done differently that
might have produced a different outcome. And then one of
the things they also asked was for Dame Curen Patasi
to come in and complete an independent review, which she did.
She made fourteen recommendations. She saw gaps in the child
(08:39):
protection system, and she's made fourteen recommendations on how that
can be improved. One of those recommendations was for us
to come back and report on progress to close those gaps,
which is what we've done and that's what our report
talks to.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Your report's quite detailed, hey, but can you give us
kind of the main points found by the Independent Children's Monitor.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
The key thing is of those recommendations that she made,
none of them have been implemented apart from one. The
only one that was was for us to come back
and review progress. So that's pretty sobering. And these recommendations
went across a number of agencies, so we're not just
talking about all doing a tamariki here, it's other government agencies.
They have a role in the system, whether that's education, health, corrections, police,
(09:21):
they all have a role in keeping children safe. And
so while work had been done at a discussion and
planning level, decisions haven't been made to either implement those
recommendations or not or actually make or pack steps to implement.
So that's a concern.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
How wide spread is the risk for harm towards children
and their families in their own homes.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
The most recent data that we have and that we
refer to in that report is from Child Matters, which
talks about one child being killed every five weeks in
New Zealand, and we know that that's high in comparison
to other countries around the world. So we have a problem.
As everyone would say, you know, any child is killed
is one too many. But when you hear about one
(10:04):
child every five weeks, that's of concern. So what you
see is you have actually a lot of children and
young people being reported to wardung A tamariki as being
at risk of harm, and so over a lifetime. It's
quite staggering. Almost a quarterable children in New Zealand are
known to ardung a tamariki at some point. So you
have around fifty eight thousand kids or reports a concern
(10:25):
being made about kids in New Zealand every year and
so that's five percent of our children and our young
people in New Zealand, so quite high, I think. The
thing to remember though, although reports the concern are made,
they will be varied in terms of the extent of
the harm that people are seeing. So it could be
for example, a child not having had breakfast right up
to the most serious end, you know, such as a
Malachi's case, where people knew that abuse was occurring or
(10:49):
likely to be occurring, and letting what aung a tamariki know.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So what are the current options for getting children out
of harm's way? Is unga tamariki bearing the burden largely
here We.
Speaker 5 (10:58):
Did talk about that in a report. There's certainly a
sense that this becomes the issue for udung a tamariki
to solve, or the issue for that sometimes the police
it kind of gets dropped with them and certainly order
a tamariki. They've got a statutory obligation, but actually we
also need to think more broadly in terms of everyone's
role from community, you know, from neighbors, from friends, from Farno,
(11:21):
right through the government agencies to make sure that we're
keeping kids safe and doing the right things. But once
a report of concern comes through to ordering a tamariki,
then something needs to be done rome So we had
to look at that in our report to see how
that operates, and what we saw was certainly what happens
is a call comes into ordering a tamariki and they
make an assessment about the response. And like I said,
(11:42):
some of these calls will be at a low end
in terms of concern right up for serious end, so
they make a consideration around what the response is. For
a number this will be that no further action is taken.
And what we saw is that when reports a concern
or followed through to the site, they're making an assessment
about whether to act or not undulian influenced by the
resources that they have. So fifty percent of these cases
(12:04):
are classified as no further action, and it's quite varied
around the country, so you've got a bit of a
post code lottery happening here. So for example, if you're
in christ Church, a reporter concern is less likely to
be acted upon than it would be in Auckland, so
you've got a variability in the threshold. There's also concern
about though, even if ordering atomidiki aren't acting in their
statutree capacity, you know at the very serious end of
(12:26):
stepping in. Nevertheless, there's something going on in the life
of that child, and so how can we make sure
that there are services that are available to that family,
to that child to assess their need, whether it's a
need such as not having shoes to come to school
to which could actually be an indicator of further concerns
of neglect. So the question is do we have a
(12:48):
system that, yes, at one point ordering an tamidiqui we
need to make sure they are acting when they're needed,
but also making sure that we've got services in place
to get through the door, to visit with the family,
to see the child most important, understand what the needs
are and then make sure that those needs are met.
And if those needs are at that serious end, then
making sure it comes back to ordering a tamariki and
(13:09):
making sure that they act to keep that child safe.
It's not always going to be about taking a child
out of a home. It will be when that's necessary,
but it could be about just putting supports and services
in place for that family so that they can actually
parent them the right way and that child can be
cared for. Now. The other part that we call out
in that report is of concern is that when you're
seeing professionals NGOs eemilori providers who are getting through the
(13:32):
front door, visiting with family then making a reporter concern,
only fifty percent of those of them being acted upon
by warding a tamariki. And what they tell us is
that they've exhausted every option within their own toolbox to
support this family. But now it's the harmers at a
point or the needs are so great that they need
the statutory intervention. And what our report is saying is
that the response is variable and therefore we have gaps
(13:55):
in the child protection system.
Speaker 6 (13:58):
The Royal Commission sees to invasive abuse that's uncovered must
lead to a new care safe agency.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
Our system is just a total mess, is designed to
just some power and destroy Parlo.
Speaker 6 (14:12):
The Rural Commission found there is no future for audoing
a tamaiki. It recommended the state handover power, funding and
control to care services at a local level.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Variations of this agency or tamariki have been around for decades. Right,
why are we still talking about these issues today? Why
can't we seem to get an agency that works?
Speaker 5 (14:36):
I think what you have is from our perspective and
what we hear. So throughout monitoring, we spend considerable time
in communities listening to tominique and angatahi and caregivers and
faro or a tamiki staff, education health staff to understand
how the system is operating, understand when it's working well,
and what needs to change to make it better. When
(14:57):
we look at ordering a tamaniki based on what we
hear and what we see is you've got an organization
that is under pressure. Like I said at the start
of this conversation, often agencies are seeing it as a
problem for what ang a tamariki to solve and they're
not able to deliver to the standard that they would want.
So talk about it in two parts. One is this
(15:18):
discussion we're having about reports a concern and actually being
able to get out and see that child to make
sure that they are safe. And this goes directly to
the story of Malachi, so nobody actually went out and
saw him at home with his keygiver. Had they done that,
we may have had a different outcome for him. So
that's one thing. The second part is when we actually
(15:38):
look at the tamariki that come into state care. There
are key standards that ding a tamariki are required to
meet and these are minimum standards and we report on
these each year, and they're not meeting those standards for
every child that's in their care. Got to remember, taking
a child out of a home is incredibly traumatic. When
we do that, and the state effectively becomes the parent,
You've got to make damn well sure you do a
(16:00):
really good job, and that's what these standards are there for,
and ordering a tamique aren't able to meet them. And
so I point to a couple that are key. One
is social work is visiting tamique and being there for them.
They're not able to meet that at the standard that
they set for themselves, and it hasn't changed over four years.
So something is not occurring despite them saying they're prioritizing it.
(16:21):
That's enabling to get ahead of this. And if you
go back and think about child safety again, if you're
not there in the household for that young person. You're
not going to see things, You're not going to be
able address their needs and put services in place to
help them, and it leaves them in harm's way. And
so it's an agency that's under pressure and struggling to
be able to meet these standards. You're right, it's been
(16:42):
an issue for a long time. These are difficult problems
to deal with, but they need to find a way
to achieve these standards. But also they need the help
of others, And so here I'm talking about making sure
that other government agencies are prioritizing these kids in the
same way and making sure that their services are prioritized
around these cares so that they can be kept safe,
they get the services they need, and they can then thrive.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Are there some issues with their priorities here? If you
look at the case of Sophie we spoke about earlier,
a neurodivergent woman who wasn't given a chance to try
and raise her child, had him taken away from her.
Yet many parents are abusing their children without anyone seeming
to notice. Where do the priorities lie between that uplift process?
Speaker 5 (17:35):
I guess I think what we've probably seen an observation
is sometimes the pendulum swings, and so we've seen a
bit around here in terms of the pendulum swinging, probably
in the past in terms of actually very risk averse
and bringing tamariki into kre and so you've seen high
rates of children in state care. I think we've seen
(17:55):
cases of current and obviously this case is slightly different,
but cases that have been reported in the media where
talmuliki you've probably been uplifted unnecessarily or removed from a
home unnecessarily, and so the pendulum can sometimes swing back
the other way. We know it's really important for kids
to avoid the former of being removed from a household,
so pendulum can sometimes swing towards actually trying to keep
(18:17):
them in the home. Now, what's important is actually not
letting the pendulum swing, but sticking to very good practice,
consistent practice. And it can be challenging because there are
subjective decisions to be made based on the informations available,
but that consistent practice isn't necessarily there, and this is
why you see variations. You see cases where kids have
been removed when perhaps they shouldn't have and maybe services
(18:39):
could have been put in place to keep them in
the home and keep them safe, or cases where children
aren't removed when perhaps they should have been for their
own protection.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
It's difficult to make that decision, though, isn't it, Because
if there are concerns about a parent abusing a child,
the parent isn't going to say, yes, I hit my child.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Actually, Chelsea, you're hitting on one of the recommendations that
Dame Karen with point into, and this is around people
working together. So what you see in cases of serious
harm over decades now, the story is always there that
someone knew something, someone else knew something else. The pieces
of the jigs will never get put together. Had you
put them together, you would have run to their child.
Speaker 7 (19:19):
The review found ordering attumbandy Kei failed to investigate concerns
raised by members of Malakay's FANO, His interactions with the
healthstem were disjointed. His childcare center failed to report Malokei's injuries.
All safety nets and not a single one caught him.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
There were those who tried to act but were not
listened to. There were those who were uncertain and did
not act. There were those who knew and chose not
to act. This is not acceptable. And we cannot look away.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
And so what Dame Karen has recommended is that these
sort of what they call multidisciplinary teams that involve community providers.
You might have police at the table, health at the table,
education and warding a tamariki working together to put those
pieces together and collectively decide what is needed for this family,
what is needed for this child. That is your best
(20:16):
option of making the very best decision. We always make
better decisions when we have more information. And so what
is concerning at the moment, and you've got pockets of
this practice around the country, but it needs to become
core business. And so one of the things we're seeing
at the moment is agencies, due to a range of pressures,
are pulling back to what they consider to be core business.
(20:37):
You hear about arding a tamareki in terms of some
of the changes they're making with providers at the moment,
they're pulling back to what they call is core business,
which is caring for kids that are in statutory care.
But it's at the expense of some of this work,
this collaborative work that is so important because it's not
necessarily seen as core business. And when it's not it's
always at the mercy of being lost, and so our
(20:58):
worry is actually, rather than progressing this kind of way
of working, we might start to see it being removed.
Our role is to go back out into communities and
see whether that is the case, and if it is,
will report on it. Because again, this is the thing
that's always been talked about through all of these reports
into the death or serious how of kids is where
we're agencies working together. We talked about barriers of sharing information.
(21:20):
We need to get past this and find a way
that we can collectively work so the right response goes
out to those kids.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Why do you think child abuse or child neglect or
kids dying? Why do you think it's so endemic to
New Zealand? And I just anincdotally. I remember when I
first moved to New Zealand ten years ago. Now, I
reported on two child deaths where a stepfather allegedly killed
their child within the space of like three months, and
(21:49):
that blew my mind. And then it kept happening again
and again and over my career. Over the last decade,
I've probably done five or six. Do you think that
it is endemic of New Zealand?
Speaker 5 (22:00):
It's a really difficult question, and I'm not necessarily qualified
to answer that one. I think there's probably researched out
there that might indicate some of the reasons why we
do the harm that we do. I think what we've
been focusing on, certainly in terms of that Dame Karen
Report and then our report following up, is knowing that
this is occurring, what can we as a country do
(22:21):
about it. These things have been known for a long time,
and I guess one of the frustrations around agency responses
to Dame Karen's report, the fact that the thinking is
still being done or the planning, is actually, these things
have been known for decades. The thinking has been done,
it's the implementation. And you know, if and Dame Karen said, look,
if it was easy, it would have been done. But equally,
(22:42):
I think we just have to get on and prioritize this.
You know, our report we talk about you know, this
country we can do amazing stuff, and we put our
minds to it. You know, you just got to look
at the response to COVID and I know, you know
there are issues with that as well, but as a country,
we were very quickly able to focus on an issue
and address it, and we haven't managed to give that
same priority to the way that our children are harmed.
(23:06):
And there's certainly more that we can do. Dame Carrott
has pointed to some of those things. We see those
things in our regular reporting. The answers are there, we
just got to have a commitment to doing it.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Thanks for joining us, Aaron. That's it for this episode
of The Front Page. You can read more about today's
stories and extensive news coverage at enzeherld dot co dot z.
The Front Page is produced by Ethan Seles with sound
engineer Patti Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The Front
(23:39):
Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Hilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Violence towards
children is one of the most concerning issues in New Zealand.
It's a debate that spans decades back when Child, Youth
(00:27):
and Family was responsible for our most vulnerable before it
was replaced by Langa Tamariki, and that government agency bears
the brunt of trying to look after our children and
keep them safe from harm. But recent reports have shown
that not only has little changed in terms of family harm,
children that do end up in care are still at
(00:49):
risk of abuse. We'll discuss more on those issues later,
but first on the Front Page ends at Herald's senior reporter,
Nicholas Jones joins us to discuss one recent case he's
investigated where Child Protection Services had to apologize for getting
it wrong. Nicholas, can you explain a bit of the
(01:14):
background to the story of Sarah, a woman on the
autism spectrum? I believe in how she led to enduring
having her newborn uplifted.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Yeah, this was back in twenty fourteen and Sarah, that's
not her real name. She was a young first time
expectant mum. She had a diagnosis on the autism spectrum
and a past diagnosis of an intellectual disability and child
youth and Family as it was called back then, they
became worried that she wouldn't be able to safely parent
(01:43):
her child. That was despite the fact she had strong
family support, including from her own mother. A SIF social
worker staff in the maternity ward to kind of keep
a really close watch on Sarah after she gave birth
totally exhausted from a hard labor emergency sea section, she'd
(02:04):
had blood loss, and she had a wound infection. But
in the days after the birth, the observations sort of
compiled by the hospital staff were used to justify taking
her baby. Things that were noted down where she was
easily distracted and on her phone too much. She became
distressed and angry at her baby's crying at one point,
(02:26):
and she struggled to settle her baby. When her son
was five days old, so IF social workers called a
meeting with the family, and while that was going on,
they took the baby from the hospital. He was later
placed into a permanent home for life, sort of a
permanent adoption.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
She has her own experiences of being through the care
system as well.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Hey yeah, When she was young, like a toddler herself,
her baby brother was born with a really serious condition
that required and to spend a long stretchers in hospital.
Her mom was a solo mum at the time, and
that put immense strain on her. And when Sarah's brother
(03:09):
died when she was still a toddler, and her mom
sort of essentially suffered a break down and could no
longer care for Sarah properly, and she spent time in
state care and later lived with a relative. Her mom's
life kind of slowly got back on track and improved
greatly when she married her current partner, and when Sarah
(03:31):
moved back in with them when she was age fifteen,
her life really improved as well. After Sarah's pregnancy, her
mum helped her into a flat that was just minutes
walk from the family home. Sarah wanted that independence, but
her mom planned on being very closely involved in raising
her son and was going to stay at the flat
(03:52):
whenever needed.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
So this battle to try and get her son back
it took nine years. What result did they finally get
from the ombe bodsmen?
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Yeah, the family repeatedly complained to Child Youth and Family
which is now called Iruna Tamariki, and they complained to
others like the hospital, but they were basically dismissed. Iran
and Tamariki claimed Sarah quote was given every opportunity at
the hospital to show that she could learn new parenting
skills and bond with her baby. The family eventually were
(04:24):
told by a friend about the Ombardsman office and they
complained to the Chief Ombardsman, Peter Boshia, who he looked
at the case and he was pretty alarmed by what
had happened. He thought the claim that Sarah had been
given every opportunity to parent her son in those days
and the hospital was unsustainable and entirely unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Chief Ombardsman today released a comprehensive report after his office
poured through more than two thousand complaints about the troubled agency.
Some of the experiences he looked into were extremely distressing,
including arangata he kept in an institution against their wishes
for years, a young disabled mother whose baby was uplifted
(05:08):
at birth never to be returned, as well as incorrect
and biased information being provided to the family court.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
He was also concerned that there was really little attempt
by Sif and the social workers to properly understand Sarah's
disability and her autism, or even really look into what
support could be available to help her be a parent.
He recommended Orang a tamariki apologize and make a payment
to the family, which it did so, and Ot sent
(05:43):
the family a letter that said, quote, we should always
be mindful that a disability does not negatively impact a
person's parenting capabilities. We hope that your experience is not repeated.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Does she have any contact with her son today?
Speaker 3 (05:58):
By the time the Ahmudsman and sort of looked into
the case and made his recommendations, Sarah's son was aged six.
He is now ten and he remains living with his
adopted parents. Currently, he doesn't have contact with his birth
mum or her family. Sarah has a long term partner
(06:18):
and she wants to start a family, but she's too
scared to do so. While living in New.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Zealand, we often hear ordering a tamariki. There are some
issues with it. Right, this happened when it was child,
youth and family. Are you confident that anything's changed this case?
Speaker 3 (06:35):
And the Ombudsman's sort of findings or criticisms was a
factor in a recent kind of review or overhaul of
Oranga Tamariki's disability policy. Basically their policy that kind of
guides how they interact with disabled parents or children. They
say they've made other changes like higher staff who are
(06:56):
more sort of specialized in the disability areas. Peter Boshia,
the chief armersman, that question and he said he can't,
of course, sort of guarantee that things won't reoccur or
problems come back. He is happy with a lot of
the changes made, but he does say Orang Tamriki have
a lot of work still to do.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Thanks for joining us, Nicholas, and you can find a
link to Sarah's story in our show notes. While Sarah's
son was taken from her by Child Youth and Family,
(07:36):
that organization was replaced by Urranga Tamariki in twenty seventeen
and has faced many of those same concerns since then.
A recent report by the Independent Children's Monitor, released two
and a half years after the death of Malachai Subats,
has found that system wide change is still needed.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Malachai Subeks was an invisible child within the system.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
That is then the state and conclusion of an investigation
into the death of the five year old murdered by
his caregiver.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
But more on this. We're joined now by Aaron Jones
from the Independent Children's Monitor. Aaron, can you remind us
of how the tragedy of Malachi led to this report?
Speaker 5 (08:18):
So following his death, government agencies looked at their role,
what they knew, what they could have done differently that
might have produced a different outcome. And then one of
the things they also asked was for Dame Curen Patasi
to come in and complete an independent review, which she did.
She made fourteen recommendations. She saw gaps in the child
(08:39):
protection system, and she's made fourteen recommendations on how that
can be improved. One of those recommendations was for us
to come back and report on progress to close those gaps,
which is what we've done and that's what our report
talks to.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Your report's quite detailed, hey, but can you give us
kind of the main points found by the Independent Children's Monitor.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
The key thing is of those recommendations that she made,
none of them have been implemented apart from one. The
only one that was was for us to come back
and review progress. So that's pretty sobering. And these recommendations
went across a number of agencies, so we're not just
talking about all doing a tamariki here, it's other government agencies.
They have a role in the system, whether that's education, health, corrections, police,
(09:21):
they all have a role in keeping children safe. And
so while work had been done at a discussion and
planning level, decisions haven't been made to either implement those
recommendations or not or actually make or pack steps to implement.
So that's a concern.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
How wide spread is the risk for harm towards children
and their families in their own homes.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
The most recent data that we have and that we
refer to in that report is from Child Matters, which
talks about one child being killed every five weeks in
New Zealand, and we know that that's high in comparison
to other countries around the world. So we have a problem.
As everyone would say, you know, any child is killed
is one too many. But when you hear about one
(10:04):
child every five weeks, that's of concern. So what you
see is you have actually a lot of children and
young people being reported to wardung A tamariki as being
at risk of harm, and so over a lifetime. It's
quite staggering. Almost a quarterable children in New Zealand are
known to ardung a tamariki at some point. So you
have around fifty eight thousand kids or reports a concern
(10:25):
being made about kids in New Zealand every year and
so that's five percent of our children and our young
people in New Zealand, so quite high, I think. The
thing to remember though, although reports the concern are made,
they will be varied in terms of the extent of
the harm that people are seeing. So it could be
for example, a child not having had breakfast right up
to the most serious end, you know, such as a
Malachi's case, where people knew that abuse was occurring or
(10:49):
likely to be occurring, and letting what aung a tamariki know.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So what are the current options for getting children out
of harm's way? Is unga tamariki bearing the burden largely
here We.
Speaker 5 (10:58):
Did talk about that in a report. There's certainly a
sense that this becomes the issue for udung a tamariki
to solve, or the issue for that sometimes the police
it kind of gets dropped with them and certainly order
a tamariki. They've got a statutory obligation, but actually we
also need to think more broadly in terms of everyone's
role from community, you know, from neighbors, from friends, from Farno,
(11:21):
right through the government agencies to make sure that we're
keeping kids safe and doing the right things. But once
a report of concern comes through to ordering a tamariki,
then something needs to be done rome So we had
to look at that in our report to see how
that operates, and what we saw was certainly what happens
is a call comes into ordering a tamariki and they
make an assessment about the response. And like I said,
(11:42):
some of these calls will be at a low end
in terms of concern right up for serious end, so
they make a consideration around what the response is. For
a number this will be that no further action is taken.
And what we saw is that when reports a concern
or followed through to the site, they're making an assessment
about whether to act or not undulian influenced by the
resources that they have. So fifty percent of these cases
(12:04):
are classified as no further action, and it's quite varied
around the country, so you've got a bit of a
post code lottery happening here. So for example, if you're
in christ Church, a reporter concern is less likely to
be acted upon than it would be in Auckland, so
you've got a variability in the threshold. There's also concern
about though, even if ordering atomidiki aren't acting in their
statutree capacity, you know at the very serious end of
(12:26):
stepping in. Nevertheless, there's something going on in the life
of that child, and so how can we make sure
that there are services that are available to that family,
to that child to assess their need, whether it's a
need such as not having shoes to come to school
to which could actually be an indicator of further concerns
of neglect. So the question is do we have a
(12:48):
system that, yes, at one point ordering an tamidiqui we
need to make sure they are acting when they're needed,
but also making sure that we've got services in place
to get through the door, to visit with the family,
to see the child most important, understand what the needs
are and then make sure that those needs are met.
And if those needs are at that serious end, then
making sure it comes back to ordering a tamariki and
(13:09):
making sure that they act to keep that child safe.
It's not always going to be about taking a child
out of a home. It will be when that's necessary,
but it could be about just putting supports and services
in place for that family so that they can actually
parent them the right way and that child can be
cared for. Now. The other part that we call out
in that report is of concern is that when you're
seeing professionals NGOs eemilori providers who are getting through the
(13:32):
front door, visiting with family then making a reporter concern,
only fifty percent of those of them being acted upon
by warding a tamariki. And what they tell us is
that they've exhausted every option within their own toolbox to
support this family. But now it's the harmers at a
point or the needs are so great that they need
the statutory intervention. And what our report is saying is
that the response is variable and therefore we have gaps
(13:55):
in the child protection system.
Speaker 6 (13:58):
The Royal Commission sees to invasive abuse that's uncovered must
lead to a new care safe agency.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
Our system is just a total mess, is designed to
just some power and destroy Parlo.
Speaker 6 (14:12):
The Rural Commission found there is no future for audoing
a tamaiki. It recommended the state handover power, funding and
control to care services at a local level.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Variations of this agency or tamariki have been around for decades. Right,
why are we still talking about these issues today? Why
can't we seem to get an agency that works?
Speaker 5 (14:36):
I think what you have is from our perspective and
what we hear. So throughout monitoring, we spend considerable time
in communities listening to tominique and angatahi and caregivers and
faro or a tamiki staff, education health staff to understand
how the system is operating, understand when it's working well,
and what needs to change to make it better. When
(14:57):
we look at ordering a tamaniki based on what we
hear and what we see is you've got an organization
that is under pressure. Like I said at the start
of this conversation, often agencies are seeing it as a
problem for what ang a tamariki to solve and they're
not able to deliver to the standard that they would want.
So talk about it in two parts. One is this
(15:18):
discussion we're having about reports a concern and actually being
able to get out and see that child to make
sure that they are safe. And this goes directly to
the story of Malachi, so nobody actually went out and
saw him at home with his keygiver. Had they done that,
we may have had a different outcome for him. So
that's one thing. The second part is when we actually
(15:38):
look at the tamariki that come into state care. There
are key standards that ding a tamariki are required to
meet and these are minimum standards and we report on
these each year, and they're not meeting those standards for
every child that's in their care. Got to remember, taking
a child out of a home is incredibly traumatic. When
we do that, and the state effectively becomes the parent,
You've got to make damn well sure you do a
(16:00):
really good job, and that's what these standards are there for,
and ordering a tamique aren't able to meet them. And
so I point to a couple that are key. One
is social work is visiting tamique and being there for them.
They're not able to meet that at the standard that
they set for themselves, and it hasn't changed over four years.
So something is not occurring despite them saying they're prioritizing it.
(16:21):
That's enabling to get ahead of this. And if you
go back and think about child safety again, if you're
not there in the household for that young person. You're
not going to see things, You're not going to be
able address their needs and put services in place to
help them, and it leaves them in harm's way. And
so it's an agency that's under pressure and struggling to
be able to meet these standards. You're right, it's been
(16:42):
an issue for a long time. These are difficult problems
to deal with, but they need to find a way
to achieve these standards. But also they need the help
of others, And so here I'm talking about making sure
that other government agencies are prioritizing these kids in the
same way and making sure that their services are prioritized
around these cares so that they can be kept safe,
they get the services they need, and they can then thrive.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Are there some issues with their priorities here? If you
look at the case of Sophie we spoke about earlier,
a neurodivergent woman who wasn't given a chance to try
and raise her child, had him taken away from her.
Yet many parents are abusing their children without anyone seeming
to notice. Where do the priorities lie between that uplift process?
Speaker 5 (17:35):
I guess I think what we've probably seen an observation
is sometimes the pendulum swings, and so we've seen a
bit around here in terms of the pendulum swinging, probably
in the past in terms of actually very risk averse
and bringing tamariki into kre and so you've seen high
rates of children in state care. I think we've seen
(17:55):
cases of current and obviously this case is slightly different,
but cases that have been reported in the media where
talmuliki you've probably been uplifted unnecessarily or removed from a
home unnecessarily, and so the pendulum can sometimes swing back
the other way. We know it's really important for kids
to avoid the former of being removed from a household,
so pendulum can sometimes swing towards actually trying to keep
(18:17):
them in the home. Now, what's important is actually not
letting the pendulum swing, but sticking to very good practice,
consistent practice. And it can be challenging because there are
subjective decisions to be made based on the informations available,
but that consistent practice isn't necessarily there, and this is
why you see variations. You see cases where kids have
been removed when perhaps they shouldn't have and maybe services
(18:39):
could have been put in place to keep them in
the home and keep them safe, or cases where children
aren't removed when perhaps they should have been for their
own protection.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
It's difficult to make that decision, though, isn't it, Because
if there are concerns about a parent abusing a child,
the parent isn't going to say, yes, I hit my child.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Actually, Chelsea, you're hitting on one of the recommendations that
Dame Karen with point into, and this is around people
working together. So what you see in cases of serious
harm over decades now, the story is always there that
someone knew something, someone else knew something else. The pieces
of the jigs will never get put together. Had you
put them together, you would have run to their child.
Speaker 7 (19:19):
The review found ordering attumbandy Kei failed to investigate concerns
raised by members of Malakay's FANO, His interactions with the
healthstem were disjointed. His childcare center failed to report Malokei's injuries.
All safety nets and not a single one caught him.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
There were those who tried to act but were not
listened to. There were those who were uncertain and did
not act. There were those who knew and chose not
to act. This is not acceptable. And we cannot look away.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
And so what Dame Karen has recommended is that these
sort of what they call multidisciplinary teams that involve community providers.
You might have police at the table, health at the table,
education and warding a tamariki working together to put those
pieces together and collectively decide what is needed for this family,
what is needed for this child. That is your best
(20:16):
option of making the very best decision. We always make
better decisions when we have more information. And so what
is concerning at the moment, and you've got pockets of
this practice around the country, but it needs to become
core business. And so one of the things we're seeing
at the moment is agencies, due to a range of pressures,
are pulling back to what they consider to be core business.
(20:37):
You hear about arding a tamareki in terms of some
of the changes they're making with providers at the moment,
they're pulling back to what they call is core business,
which is caring for kids that are in statutory care.
But it's at the expense of some of this work,
this collaborative work that is so important because it's not
necessarily seen as core business. And when it's not it's
always at the mercy of being lost, and so our
(20:58):
worry is actually, rather than progressing this kind of way
of working, we might start to see it being removed.
Our role is to go back out into communities and
see whether that is the case, and if it is,
will report on it. Because again, this is the thing
that's always been talked about through all of these reports
into the death or serious how of kids is where
we're agencies working together. We talked about barriers of sharing information.
(21:20):
We need to get past this and find a way
that we can collectively work so the right response goes
out to those kids.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Why do you think child abuse or child neglect or
kids dying? Why do you think it's so endemic to
New Zealand? And I just anincdotally. I remember when I
first moved to New Zealand ten years ago. Now, I
reported on two child deaths where a stepfather allegedly killed
their child within the space of like three months, and
(21:49):
that blew my mind. And then it kept happening again
and again and over my career. Over the last decade,
I've probably done five or six. Do you think that
it is endemic of New Zealand?
Speaker 5 (22:00):
It's a really difficult question, and I'm not necessarily qualified
to answer that one. I think there's probably researched out
there that might indicate some of the reasons why we
do the harm that we do. I think what we've
been focusing on, certainly in terms of that Dame Karen
Report and then our report following up, is knowing that
this is occurring, what can we as a country do
(22:21):
about it. These things have been known for a long time,
and I guess one of the frustrations around agency responses
to Dame Karen's report, the fact that the thinking is
still being done or the planning, is actually, these things
have been known for decades. The thinking has been done,
it's the implementation. And you know, if and Dame Karen said, look,
if it was easy, it would have been done. But equally,
(22:42):
I think we just have to get on and prioritize this.
You know, our report we talk about you know, this
country we can do amazing stuff, and we put our
minds to it. You know, you just got to look
at the response to COVID and I know, you know
there are issues with that as well, but as a country,
we were very quickly able to focus on an issue
and address it, and we haven't managed to give that
same priority to the way that our children are harmed.
(23:06):
And there's certainly more that we can do. Dame Carrott
has pointed to some of those things. We see those
things in our regular reporting. The answers are there, we
just got to have a commitment to doing it.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Thanks for joining us, Aaron. That's it for this episode
of The Front Page. You can read more about today's
stories and extensive news coverage at enzeherld dot co dot z.
The Front Page is produced by Ethan Seles with sound
engineer Patti Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The Front
(23:39):
Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.