< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: CFYS drive the knife in deeper

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

CFYS drive the knife in deeper

Another sad story for the case file. Another incident that when a family is going through a tough time, CYFS love to make things worse by removing children from custody. They yet again have shown a complete lack of respect for a family unit. Why can't the monsters involved be jailed for kidnapping and psychological abuse?
A youth known to be the subject of sexual misconduct allegations raped an 8-year-old Christchurch girl after the Corrections Department placed him at her school.

The 17-year-old went on to rape the 8-year-old after taking her and her 12-year-old brother to a neighbourhood playground out of school hours.

He was charged over that sex attack and also faced a sexual count involving the brother, but this was later dropped by police.

"The department is very concerned about what happened and has expressed its regret to the family."
Express regret? After lining up a rape of an 8 year old? But it gets worse. Whilst the family are trying to cope with their daughter and son being the victims of sexual abuse, CYFS decide to remove the boy from the protection and comfort of his home. How sick is that?

Further trouble for the family began when the offender claimed while being interviewed by police that the siblings had been involved in sexual activity in the past.

The mother said Child, Youth and Family, acting on the claims, removed the boy from his home just days after the abuse.

"We were just devastated. We knew it wasn't true and the police knew that it wasn't true but CYF came in," she said.

The boy was eventually allowed to return home.
They allowed him to return home? Gee, that's got to be a first.

Related Article

Posted by ZenTiger | 9/07/2005 06:53:00 pm

10 Comments:

Blogger Lucyna said...

I read this story this morning and felt sick. How is it that CYFS believed the offender, and acted on that belief by removing the 12 year old boy? I mean, WTF? When is CYFS going to be held accountable?

9/07/2005 06:57:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Will the people responsible at CFYS be fired?

9/07/2005 08:07:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Firing them would provide some level of accountability - but I think they are protected from the results of their actions.

The actions do not match the CFYS charter, where child removal is supposed to be a last option. Given the circumstances of the accusation, you think they would be a little more prudent. Their actions were devasting to the family.

This is yet another reminder to those keen on the repeal of s59, that CYFS will act own their own initiative, and not through the police.

A convicted child molester accuses a boy of misconduct, and CYFS move in to remove the boy from his parents. Just wait until you get the vindicative next door neighbour making up smacking stories. And a smack would not leave physical evidence, so suddenly, its not even about beating anymore.

This was exactly the experience of Sweden, with 20,000 children removed from parents and countless court cases fighting to get them back after complaints were found to be false etc.

9/07/2005 08:34:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Im confused. How can CYFS do such things without some sort of warrant from a judge? Since when have we given Government agencies carte blanche to act like this without judicial oversight?

9/07/2005 08:37:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

That's a good question, AL. It would be interesting to find out.

9/07/2005 08:56:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

From what I understand, they get to write up a little document saying "we have cause to believe .... blah blah ..." and backed by "expert assessment"

Even if they do need a judge's signature, the judge is going to naturally assume they do have good cause for thinking what they think.

The problem is that they often act too early when using unreliable information (like this situation) or when they have medical reports and pleadings by a father not to return the child to mother/new boyfriend, they ignore the pleadings and other evidence and side with the mother (like another recent case with am extremely bad outcome.

There is some fundamental problem with their case assessment process, and the attitudes amend culture of CYFS workers, and a full commission enquiry is required.

9/07/2005 09:19:00 pm  
Blogger reid said...

...

"The problem is that they often act too early when using unreliable information (like this situation) or when they have medical reports and pleadings by a father not to return the child to mother/new boyfriend, they ignore the pleadings and other evidence and side with the mother (like another recent case with am extremely bad outcome."

---

Accountability... YOU, and your manager, and your District Commander, and your MP, are responsible, for the efficacy of those processes that fall within your own, look-upable area.

Imagine

9/07/2005 10:07:00 pm  
Blogger Paul said...

This story has disturbed me for a while now. And I have just one question and it is why did CYFS believe the word of a child rapist without further enquiry, and futher harm the very family they are mandated to support?

I'm just so glad we have a families Commission to deal to this sort of state vandalism.

9/07/2005 11:13:00 pm  
Blogger Paul said...

Lets all write to the Families Commission and congratulate them on their performance over this case.

9/07/2005 11:15:00 pm  
Blogger Dave said...

Ive been working on another case that I`ll blog shortly .. there are so many similar patterns sand it s about tim e the MSM did something about even doing a story on one of them - its not as if they dont know what is going on,

9/08/2005 11:20:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home