In a text message to the Herald on Sunday last week, Lisa Kuka said: "People out thea dat know me know dat I love and care 4 my babi wif al my heart."
Nia's mum speaks out, 'SOMEONE WILL PAY': Lisa Kuka visits her daughter Nia at Auckland's Starship Hospital just hours before her death on Friday.
Nia Glassie's mother wants "the mongrels" who tortured her little girl to pay for her death.
"Someone will pay. Those five, they are going to pay for what's happened to my baby." ... and I am sure she really believes this.
Nia's mum speaks out, 'SOMEONE WILL PAY': Lisa Kuka visits her daughter Nia at Auckland's Starship Hospital just hours before her death on Friday.
Nia Glassie's mother wants "the mongrels" who tortured her little girl to pay for her death.
"Someone will pay. Those five, they are going to pay for what's happened to my baby." ... and I am sure she really believes this.
But Nia Glassie's mother Lisa Kuka had an older child seized by authorities several years ago after the child suffered "non-accidental head injuries" - but no monitoring of her subsequent children was ever carried out by Child, Youth and Family ... and I am sure she believes these incidents bare no relationship.
What can you say?? CYF were aware of the 'culture' of child abuse in this family, of the predisposition ... and waited for it to happen again??
This institution really does need to be looked at very closely. They can sit quietly by while general intrusive-on-family policies are mooted and implemented and condone these and at the same time fail so miserably in the 'duty of care to children' they are legislated to provide. Additionally, their policy of placing removed children with extended family, often parents of abusers who have knowingly perpetrated similar acts of violence on their children (i.e. it was from whence it was learned) is cause for further concern.
This situation clearly identifies CYF as perpetuating the 'code of silence' in respect to child abuse, as perpetuating a PC racist positive discrimination policy that endangers children - there have been too many instances of this to ascribe it to individual oversight or failing - the problem is systemic and policy driven.
What is even more frightening is that this department gleefully opens its arms to willingly embrace greater powers. Like with the reasons given for the repeal of sec. 59, there are and always have been, sufficient powers to effectively address these issues, both within CYF and the court system, they are simply not used in an appropriate and timely manner.
3 comments:
I know of a woman whose 2 children were removed. She had beat and apparently burnt one. She gets to court and the police plea bargain with her. If she pleads guilty to neglect they will drop the abuse charges. This will make her chances of regaining custody of her children better. What's that about?
CYF try at all cost to keep the children with the mother. Sometimes they remove children because the shock is the only thing that will change the abusive (child, drugs and/or alcohol) behaviour. But how many times is change temporary? Probably a majority of times.
Time to straighten up- I JUST LOST MY MEAL TICKET!!!
"How many times is change temporary?" ... it doesn't take change, Lindsay, simply statements about change and future intent.
Placement problems are so manifest there is a strong bias towards retaining the status quo, overlooking potential future harm ... 'fingers-crossed stuff.'
& these guys generally just have one person to convince ... easy. Look at how simple it is to convince a panel of people, like for example, a parole board - people who want to believe, will.
Cyf have not been in to intervention (cf. 'loose' supervision)for years and are, largely, no longer capable of assessing the integrity or relevance of change or 'risk.' They see themeselves as referrers hence, 'they did a parent management course.' All this is of course enhanced by minimal training and one of the most steadfast PC perspectives/frameworks around, which serves to negate the input of many experienced and qualified professionals because of deemed racial differences, and so much of what Cyf do these days is private .... all in all it's surprising a lot more 'mistakes' haven't emerged.
Removal of kids seems pretty idiosyncratic of the individual worker ... to attribute intent in terms of 'making people sit up/straighten up,' (given I am aware many professionals will seek action through the police rather than Cyf because of a reluctance for Cyf to act/intervene), doesn't appear a common phenomenon.
Post a Comment