Editorial: CYF must act when babies at risk

Macsyna King at the Auckland District Court for the Coroner inquest into the death of her 3-month-old twins Chris and Cru Kahui back in 2006. Photo / Dean Purcell

Sometimes, those working at Child, Youth and Family must wonder if they can ever win. For much of the past decade, they have been criticised for being too lenient in addressing the country's appalling child abuse statistics. All too often, parents, families and communities were only too ready to heap the blame on social workers, thereby absolving themselves from the most basic social responsibility.

Now, however, the criticism of CYF comes from a totally different perspective. Rather than being assailed for not doing enough, the department is being attacked for its readiness to intervene to protect newborn babies.

The odd state of affairs follows the release of figures that show 42 babies were taken into CYF custody less than a day after their birth in the 2009-10 year - a total more than triple the year before. This has alarmed some anti-violence advocates and spurred fresh calls for an independent watchdog authority for CYF. The latter plea comes from lobby groups Family First and the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

According to Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie, "when you've got CYF going into families like this and intervening in a sensitive area of families, there must be an independent point of appeal for families involved".

He also makes the point that CYF "don't always get it completely right". Nor does any organisation, and social workers would be the first to admit they are fallible. Yet the most notable aspect of this issue is that, while CYF's rate of intervention in the interests of newborn babies has risen sharply, there have been virtually no publicised complaints from those most closely involved.

This suggests a couple of things. First, CYF has intervened where necessary, and the parents and family have been prepared to concede as much. Police assessments or Family Court orders that found the parents had a history of violence, mental health problems, or addictions had left little doubt the child's safety would be compromised if no action were taken.

Secondly, it suggests fewer in the community are prepared to turn a blind eye to child abuse or absolve themselves from blame. Reports to CYF doubled from 62,739 in 2005-06 to nearly 125,000 in 2009-10, as more people dobbed in those they thought guilty of abuse or neglect.

Obviously, some of this information was vital in enabling the police and CYF to pinpoint parental incompetence or irresponsibility. This also creates optimism that there may be no repeat of cases such as that of the 3-month-old Kahui twins, where CYF was never alerted, consulted or engaged in any way.

Clearly, day-old babies are not taken into state custody lightly. Coming between a parent and a child is a massive step. Sometimes, however, there will be no option. As the Ministry of Social Development chief executive, Peter Hughes, says, children are at their most vulnerable under the age of 2. Their safety must be the paramount consideration.

Those eager to criticise CYF overlook the fact that early intervention, with effective parent support services, have always stood out as the most likely solution to child abuse. Parents who seem highly likely to offend need to be identified, and their child needs to be placed in a safe and nurturing environment, whether it be the home of responsible relatives or a foster home.

It seems astounding given the number of high-profile abuse cases over the past decade that CYF is now being criticised for anticipating problems from family and parental histories. The more so because social workers are not the ones responsible for the abuse or for hiding the abusers.

Parents and families share that responsibility. Family First needs to recognise that when safety is in doubt, the child must come first.