The couple followed a model of strict parenting to instill responsibility in the young boys, which was not known to Oranga Tamariki due to a flawed placement process. A social worker said after one year it seemed positive relationships had formed.
The complaint that triggered the process was in late 2013. One of the boys told his teacher that Mrs X had hit him on the nose while in the shower, and a few days later complained of Mrs X pulling his ear. These allegations led to the children being removed from the couple’s care.
Twelve days after the children were removed, Mrs X was interviewed by two Oranga Tamariki staff. At the interview, a wider range of complaints were raised, including an allegation Mrs X held one of the boy’s heads in a bucket of water. Mrs X was unaware of the wider complaints when attending the interview.
“(Mr) Y was never told of anything by the respondent (Oranga Tamariki) and for some unknown reason was neither invited to this meeting nor ever interviewed separately, or at all,” the court said.
Several months after their caregiver status was revoked, the couple formally complained to Oranga Tamariki in May 2014, leading to an internal investigation they were dissatisfied with. A subsequent review was conducted by the chief executive’s advisory panel.
The panel agreed that Mrs X’s interview was unfair and the matter had been inadequately investigated. It made a number of recommendations, including an apology to the couple by the chief executive, who offered a $5000 payment for emotional and financial harm.
The couple subsequently filed court proceedings alleging various errors by Oranga Tamariki over their treatment. A hearing in the High Court found that in various respects breaches had occurred, but declined to award damages. A further claim of negligence was dismissed.
Following the decision, the couple took their case to the Court of Appeal.
In their written decision, the Court of Appeal judges decided an award of damages was required, saying the couple deserved a better process.
“The breaches, in this case, were serious and were compounded by their consequences, all of which were entirely predictable.
“The allegations included those of criminal conduct made against people living in a small community and, in X’s case, a person who as a counsellor held a position of trust in that community. Care needed to be taken.
“The breach concerning Mr Y is at the higher end of natural justice, it being the case that his status as a caregiver was removed without a hearing.
“He was labelled a child abuser by an organisation that had actively sought his assistance to care for what it knew to be troubled children. This accusation was made without him ever being told of the allegations or given the opportunity to respond to them.”
The decision said the “events have been traumatic” and quoted Mrs X in her own words: “What we want is for (Oranga Tamariki) to take responsibility for the way it treated us. We are not out for revenge … it is not right that they get away with treating us like this.
“We do not want other Māori caregivers to be put in this sort of situation and not have the ability to defend themselves.
“Finally, it is about mana ki tangata, which is about the power and status of a large government organisation like (Oranga Tamariki). They are supposed to act as professionals. But I feel like they let us down, as people and as Māori.”
In the High Court, the couple sought $35,000 in respect of the failure to interview Mr Y and $35,000 to both of them for other natural justice breaches. The Court of Appeal said these figures could not be justified in the context of amounts awarded in other cases.
The identities of the four boys and the caregivers have been suppressed by the courts.
