Peter Hughes: Removal of child is always a last resort

Peter Hughes

Your columnist Garth George berates Child, Youth and Family for taking a boy from his mother and placing him in protective care.

It is time for some home truths. CYF does not take children away from their families for no reason. The woman in question had several convictions, including violence, which were considered relevant.

Her son was taken into care after we were given photographs of welts and bruises on his legs, and she admitted hitting him regularly with a riding crop.

The boy had been taken into protective care before, after being admitted to hospital at the age of three months with multiple leg fractures.

The woman's eldest son told Radio Live: "I've been kicked, I've been punched, I've been thrown to the floor. At times I felt like a punching bag being attacked in rages."

These are ugly facts. Sadly, this is the sort of situation CYF social workers deal with every day.

It is CYF's job to protect children when others have failed them. When we know of a risk to a child we assess it, and take action if necessary.

Mr George says social workers should "apply some common sense over so-called child abuse". That is exactly what we did.

Someone in the community was concerned about the boy, and showed us evidence of his injuries. Our social workers spoke to the mother, the boy and his school, and decided the risk was serious enough for him to be removed.

The Family Court agreed. The police decided to press charges of assault (and not, as Mr George claims, under pressure from us. It would be nice if the police and courts always did what we wanted, but I can assure readers that they do not).

If we had not removed the boy and he had been hurt, Mr George would no doubt have been among the first to accuse us of failing to care for him.

In the eyes of the media we are often damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I note that all the quotes in Mr George's article come from an interview the woman gave Radio Rhema last year, and wonder if he has even talked to her.

Nonetheless, she raises some points that need answering.

We do not remove children because their parents smack them. It is legal to use "reasonable force" to discipline children. It is not legal to beat children with planks, or burn them with cigarettes, or commit any of the other horrific forms of abuse we encounter regularly.

Children are removed from their families as a last resort, and not because they are being smacked. We remove children only when we believe they are at unacceptable risk of harm and a Family Court judge agrees.

The woman makes several accusations against us. I will address them in brief.

We did not interview her in front of her colleagues and the public; social workers arrived at her workplace in an unmarked car and talked to her in a private room.

We did not refer her case to the Family Court without an investigation; we spoke to the woman, her son and his school, and were satisfied the risk was sufficient to take immediate action.

CYF social workers did not put the boy on the drug Risperdal; he was prescribed it while in the care of a family member, after a request by his school. (Incidentally, Risperdal is not the same drug as Ritalin, as Mr George claims; he would do well to note the difference.)

The boy has not been cut off from contact with his mother. Whenever possible we keep children in their wider families. The boy currently lives at boarding school or with another family member. He is doing well and is able to see his mother in his holidays.

Yes, we sometimes make mistakes, and when we do I expect us to own them, fix them where we can, and learn from them. We will be accountable for our actions. On this occasion, though, we got it right.

Our social workers are often the last link in a chain that may have included hundreds of people, each of whom had the chance to make a difference to one child.

The next time Mr George or anyone else is tempted to point the finger of blame, they should ask themselves: "Did that chain include me?"

CYF social workers deal with some of the most difficult and challenging situations anyone could expect to encounter. They are committed, professional and caring. I am proud of them and the work they do.

Rather than belittle their efforts, I challenge every New Zealander to step up and take responsibility for the well-being of our children.

Until that happens, we will never see an end to abuse and neglect.

* Peter Hughes is chief executive of Child, Youth and Family.