Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Child, Youth and Family (CYF) New Zealand

This new blog is about New Zealand’s Child Protection Services (CPS) otherwise know as Child, Youth and Family (CYF) www.cyf.govt.nz/ in New Zealand, which is run by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

More information will be coming soon on what this blog is about but in the mean time you can see my videos here
www.youtube.com/user/talk2graeme and my webpage http://www.graemea.snap.net.nz/
It’s been reported our Youtube videos see to be having a glitch since they updated their layout and design. If you have any problems try this link:
www.viddler.com/explore/talk2graeme

I also have a facebook group called " Child, Youth and family services (CYF) accountability" http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_162963230683 Please feel free to join it as its more up to date then the blogs LOL




Graeme Axford

39 comments:

  1. Anonymous30 June, 2009

    OMG you are back. It’s about time LOL... We have to give you credit you are a trier… HONK HONK for changes to CYFs.. You keep on fighting we will keep on honking like never before… you are better off working for the public good then CYF…

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous30 June, 2009

    Ok here is a simple question, if New Zealand has the best Child Protection Services in the world, why then do you equally have the highest rates of child abuse. Surely if the CPS in NZ are as good as being claimed “world class” there rate of child abuse would go down rather then stay at the same level or go higher. Why does one not follow the other? Good protection services fewer kids at risk and a safer healthier community to boot…

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous01 July, 2009

    Well it seems for the videos to go back up along with the blog, things have not changed at Cyf.. Thats sad and for the sake of the children & familes, I had hoped things would improve...

    ReplyDelete
  4. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

    26 JUN 2009

    Dear Mr Axford

    Thank you for your email of 2 April 2009 to Hon Paula Bennett, that was referred to me for reply in regard to the employment related issues you raised. You also emailed me on 8 June 2009 asking that my Chief Executive Advisory Panel look into the employment practices of Child, Youth and Family regarding your job interview.

    I understand that in recent months you have continued to raise the matters of your application for a social work position and the Ministry's employment processes with the Ministry, and with Hon Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

    My Advisory Panel does not have jurisdiction to consider employment issues. When the Panel met with you on 24 February 2009, to hear your complaint about Child, Youth and Family's involvement with your niece and her family, it explained this to you. The Panel's only concern was to clarify whether any issues around the job interviews impacted on the extended family's relationship with Child, Youth and Family over your niece's care and protection.

    The Panel's position on this matter was recorded on page 4 of its report to me dated 19 March 2009. A copy of the report was mailed to you on 22 April 2009.

    I appreciate that you are unhappy with the way your application for a social work position with Child, Youth and Family was dealt with, and with the Ministry's employment processes. Ministry staff have previously investigated your concerns and you have received considered responses. Our position on these matters has not changed over this time. I have nothing further to add.

    If you remain unhappy with the process you may choose to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can be contacted at:

    Office of the Ombudsmen PO Box 10-152 The Terrace WELLINGTON
    Yours sincerely

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter Hughes is wrong, at the time I went before the Chief Executive’s Advisory Panel Panel we thought the Ombudsmen’s office was investigating the employment process issues. Unbeknown to us that was not the case and this is why:

    Now my understanding is that while CYF referred me to the ombudsmen office they neither have the power or jurisdiction to investigate breaches of the standards of integrity, only the CEO can do this. The State Services Commission also advised me it is the role of the CEO to hold their staff accountable and not there job to intervene in this case. So that being my understanding and the case it seems Mr Hughes is the only person who can address my concerns. There is nowhere else to go so referring me to people who can’t possibly help, while the one who can; being the CEO, refuses, is not helpful and why this is still ongoing for over three years now.

    Peter you have Mr Mel Smith a former ombudsmen on the CE Advisory Panel why not ask him if I am right about this or not.

    So Peter, you are totally wrong and until the issues of the standards of integrity are looked into the surrounding my treatment this is not over…

    The other problem with CYF is they never seem to find fault when they investigate themselves example:

    …While I find no grounds for an apology in respect of Mr Axford’s historical complaints, it is apparent that every attempt has been made, with each of his numerous complaints, to respond accurately and in a timely manner…
    HELEN AIKEN, Operations Manager, Upper South

    Hang on Helen, why then did the CE Advisory Panel see it so differently and the family finally get the long overdue apology we were owed.
    After all Peter Hughes also had his senior staff look into things and come to the same conclusion as you yet his panel found otherwise.
    Maybe Peter Hughes knows if this goes to the panel he will again end up with egg all over his face.

    So given we had Christine McKenna, Greymouth and he Boss Helen Aiken, Nelson then Peter Hughes CEO look into our complaints before it ever went to the CE panel and they could not find reason for an apology does not tell you why you now saying this issues was handheld correctly means nothing…
    As the saying goes peter, why let the truth get in the way of a good story.
    For theses reading this my webpage explain the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous01 July, 2009

    Nice to see you back. It comes as no surprise CYF did not find fault with their own organization, and they try and blur the lines about what it is you are asking for.
    I speak four different languages and English is my worst and to spite your disability (no offence intended) I get what you are on about. Their response shows how corrupt CYF are and the contempt and arrogance they have. I can see why people do set up anti-CYF blogs and webpage’s with that kind of attitude they have shown, CYF bring it on themselves and their own worst enemy from what I read on the internet about them.
    The CEO by his responses seems to have created another rod for his own back and given the fact you are not going to go away and asking for so little if I was him would get it sorted… he is an idiot for letting this go on in my view and a good example of what a bad CEO is Mr Peter Hughes. By the way Graham all your old blogs are still up in other languages I took the liberty of copying the videos, blogs incase they were taken down, and I am not going to remove them and there is nothing you or CYF can do about it. O the irony of it all… They are way too good of stories to run the risk of it being lost and for others not to know the truth… CYF are a Social Work embarrassment to all of us who are aware of what it means to be a real Social worker indeed and action.

    Рад видеть вас обратно. Неудивительно, CYF не нашел вины с их собственной организации, и они стараются, и размывания строк о том, что он вас просят.
    Я говорю четырех разных языках и Английский я худшее, и, несмотря вашей инвалидности (нет преступления, предназначенные) Я получаю то, что вы находитесь на о. Их ответы показывают, насколько коррумпированы CYF имеют и презрение и высокомерие у них есть. Я могу понять, почему люди создали анти-CYF блогах и веб-страницы с такого рода отношением они показали, CYF привести его к себе и своей собственной злейший враг из того, что я прочитал в интернете о них.
    Генеральный директор в своем ответе, как представляется, создал еще один стержень для своей собственной спине и учитывая тот факт, что вы не собирается уходить и просит так мало, если я был бы ему получить отсортированные ... он идиот для сдачи этого перейдите в мой взгляд, и является хорошим примером того, что это плохо директор г-н Питер Хьюз. Кстати Грэма все ваши старые блоги до сих пор на других языках я взял на себя смелость копирования видео, блоги incase они сняли, и я не собираюсь их удалить, и нет ничего, или CYF вы можете сделать по этому поводу. O Ирония все ... Они слишком хорошие рассказы на риск его утраты и для других не знаю, правда ... CYF является социальная работа смущения для всех нас, кто осознает, что значит быть реальный Социальный работник фактически и действий.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous01 July, 2009

    Anonymous said...
    "It comes as no surprise CYF did not find fault with their own organization, and they try and blur the lines about what it is you are asking for."

    But it is not CYF as an organisation!

    Although there are a number of what seem to be errant practices within the organisation.

    The real arrogance, and contempt it appears flows from the office of the CEO. There is the real fault, the true error within CYF.

    It is not with the majority of the staff after all but seems to flow down from the top, infecting all that it comes into direct contact with.

    Afterall the CEO writes,
    "Our" meaning himself, "position on these matters has not changed over this time. I have nothing further to add."

    So it is clear the problem begins at the top.

    Mr Hughes, if that is the best you can do and say for the despicable and underhanded manner in which Mr Graeme has been treated. Then in my opinion, it is well past time to amend your ways or step aside.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MicroPoll
    After having watched these videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/talk2graeme Do you think Child, Youth and Family (CYF) New Zealand, need to change their ways.

    Follow this link to vote and have your say:
    http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/619615-180765

    ReplyDelete
  9. MicroPoll 2
    Do you think, Child Youth and Family (CYF) New Zealand need greater accountability?

    Copy and Paste this link to vote:
    http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/619615-180777

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous02 July, 2009

    It would seem the only reason why you don't like Peter Hughes is becuse he is gay.I think this becuse you seem to be more like a preacher then anything elses talking about morels and ethics... I personally know Peter Hughes and he is a great person well worth $10,000 a week. Peter Huges for PM I say...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous02 July, 2009

    Have a look at this:
    Paula Attrill With 14 years experience in the social service arena, Paula Attrill has been a Regional Manager for Child, Youth and Family since July 2002. Prior to this she was a Capability Development Advisor for Child, Youth and Family. She was a Site Manager for Child, Youth and Family in Taranaki from 1999-2001 and previous to that was the Practice Manager. Paula assisted with development of the Practice Manager/Service Delivery Manager model which was implemented as the blueprint for Service Delivery Units through Child, Youth and Family. She has been recognised by the Department for management and practice achievements. Paula has a Masters in Social Work (Hons) from Massey University, and a Bachelor of Social Work from Massey University. She is a member of Aotearoa/New Zealand Association of Social Workers.

    So how come it seems she did not understand CYF EEO policy very well from how she explained it. Maybe Graeme she was the brains behind the setup. After all she is qualified enough to know how to screw someone over and worked at CYF longer enough to learn how.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous02 July, 2009

    Anonymous said:

    "It would seem the only reason why you don't like Peter Hughes is becuse he is gay.I think this becuse you seem to be more like a preacher then anything elses talking about morels and ethics... "

    I have two questions for you Anon,
    Which is the more moral or ethical position?

    To live and work by the Code suggested and set by your employer? Or is it more moral and ethical to ignore that Code of Conduct and integrity?

    You say,
    "I personally know Peter Hughes and he is a great person well worth $10,000 a week. Peter Huges for PM I say..."

    No Anon, Mr Hughes is not a great person. You see a Great person is not only moral and ethical in his or her persoanl life, but also in all things.

    And to date Mr Hughes not acted in a Great Manner in regard to the legitimate complaints made and has ignored the obvious errors perpetrated during the interview process that Graeme Axford went through.

    In fact according to Mr Hughes he has "nothing further to add."

    Well if Mr Hughes has nothing further to add. Then he is by default not only ignoring the errant practices, but as CEO of CYF he is in fact saying. It is alright and acceptable to ignore our employers expectations of us and treat others as we like in any manner we like and it dosen't matter because I have nothing further to add.

    So I again say, If this is the best that Mr Hughes can come up with, then it is time for Mr Hughes to amend his unprofessional attitude and practice, (which is something a great man would do), or to step aside.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous02 July, 2009

    The above comment is well put and I am pleased you stick to the point and did not get personal like some people are trying too do in order the cloud the issues and in fact it might be a ploy to try and have an excuse to get all this taken down.... I have no comments to make about Mr Hughes apart from he could so easily end all this by asking the CE panel to look into it, as a one off, given its such an unusual case... If they can’t hold CYF accountable for their ethical behavior, that’s a real worry…

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous02 July, 2009

    In summing up if I may, Graeme was disadvantaged already because of his disability and had worked hard to get qualified, CYF then disadvantaged him even more and rubbed his face in it during the process. Well that’s the short and sweet of if all and I say shame on CYF, you don’t kick someone who is already down. What a bunch of cowards and low life losers they are. It seems the Greymouth office is worst then most people realize for letting that happen. God help the clients if that’s how they treat their peers. What they did is so wrong on so many levels it could never be right.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am not 100% sure that Graeme was or is disadvantaged by the dyslexia.

    Agreed the condition does make much of his text difficult to follow. But hell he has managed to continue working in the advocacy field for a number of years now quite successfully.

    I would however agree that some within the Greymouth office of CYF did and perhaps still do have issues with Graeme. And there in lies the heart of the problem.

    Allowing these personal issues and attitudes to influence decisions then and since is totally unprofessional and most assuredly unethical.

    Cheers, Malcolm

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous05 July, 2009

    I am sorry to see you back and the videos and blogs up, if anyone deserved a break, out of all of this it was you. Good luck…

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous08 July, 2009

    Honk honk bro, give them heaps lol

    ReplyDelete
  18. Back on 30th of June Annonymous asked,

    "if New Zealand has the best Child Protection Services in the world, why then do you equally have the highest rates of child abuse?"

    For one answer to this question, read If CYF New Zealand are world class why ..?

    Cheers,
    Malcolm.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous14 July, 2009

    I have heard you will start protesting soon. Need I remind you last time you started CYF tried to imply your actions might have a psychological effect on your family member in their care. Therefore they could deem you a risk to that person and stop you from seeing them. I can assure you moves are afoot to discredit you as the saying goes, if people can’t argue with you, then next best thing is discredit you so people will not listen. CYF should have learned keep your friends close and enemies’ closer… They will see you as their enemy because you tell it how it is, in my view. Good luck and if anyone is up for one hell of a battle it has to be you… I honk every time I pass a CYF office to let them know we want change… This battle is bigger then and not about one person, it’s about CYF culture that needed to change and even if they take Graeme down fighting even more of us will rise up and take on the battle… I have a friend that works for CYF and they told me to warn you. This is no joke be very careful… Not all CYF staff disagrees with what you say and do…

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hopeful Christian (formerly Neville Cooper) is living back with this people Gloriavale, West Coast. He was convicted of Sexual assault of three girls aged 12-19 in the mid 1980's, and a book has been written about him and them. you can read more here"
    http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/sxdb/cooperneville.htm

    Why do CYF not monitor them like they would anyone else, could it be that they have the money to fight them back?

    Neville Cooper would be a high risk I would think and what else happens out their? is there more to come to light... How about the bosses of CYF look into this, or will they do nothing like happend on " the lists videos here http://www.viddler.com/explore/talk2graeme/videos/3/

    CYF are full of it

    ReplyDelete
  21. Date Posted: 18:25:04 03/27/07 Tue

    Congratulations on your delightful website. I took time out to follow it through. An interesting saga, Graeme, that is for sure.

    Simplistically, CYF's explanations of their application processes (which must be in line, to include all bureaucratic thinking) typifies the very "discrimatory" world they live in. In their eyes, statutory regulations are paramount. Therefore child care has to take second place.

    This begs the question, what on earth could you gain by joining them? Clearly you scared the pants off of them. It was and always will be an impossible task for them to give you a straight answer. Had you received their tacit approval, you would then be requred to be tarred with their brush.

    Obviously you have bigger fish to fry which should not include "dyslexia" per say being recognised as a disability.

    Three score years and ten later, I still haven't been diagnosed for it. Neither will I. You are not required to be a rocket scientist to know that you have it.

    Graeme's apparent "disability" demonstrates (to me) his definite "ability" to think outside the square. Stick with it "kiwi"! That is indeed, the gift, which if it ever became an "us" versus "them" scenario (heaven forbid)dyslexia does have a head start.

    If you're contemplating a trip over the "hill" Graeme, be sure to e-mail me. Would like to offer you a beer and a bite!

    While I concur with Christies comments, perhaps there are other ways to approach their perceived dilemma!

    Cheers,
    Ken Roberts
    http://www.voy.com/55883/4/2641.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous29 July, 2009

    CYF have got worse in my view not better

    ReplyDelete
  23. CYF's Inconsistency Raises Credibility Issues
    Monday, 29 June, 2009 - 07:57

    This weekend it has been reported that a perfectly respectable family is being investigated by CYF after their 9 and 4 year-old children were allowed to play in a school park unsupervised. CYF are reported as saying "it had a duty to investigate." "Sometimes, children playing unsupervised for long periods of time can be an indication that there are wider family issues that need to be addressed," said CYF general manager Lorraine Williams.

    This follows hard on the heels of the father who was prosecuted after being seen "repeatedly pushing" his reluctant young son onto the football field - in this case CYF interviewed that family and were satisfied that the boy was at no further risk.

    Christine Davey, SST Spokesperson on Drug Issues and Children's Welfare, would have no problem with CYF involvement in these cases, if it weren't for their inconsistency.

    In the last few weeks we've heard of cases such as:

    * The father of a seven-week-old baby girl left with a broken collar bone and femur after being dropped, who told police he was in the habit of grabbing her like a rugby ball when playing. Both parents are unemployed and on the methadone programme; both were convicted of wilful neglect and / or wilfully ill- treating their baby. The child remains in their custody.

    * A 38-year-old Ranfurly woman who severely beat her seven-year-old son with a soup ladle has been remanded in custody. The boy, who received both external and internal bruising all over his body, has since been taken into the care of Child Youth and Family but the mother was still caring for several of his siblings.

    The Judge denied bail, saying he did not understand the position of Child, Youth and Family, which provided supporting evidence for the bail application.

    * The case of social workers taking four months to remove a wheelchair-bound boy from his home following allegations from the 8-year-old boy's teacher and school Principal, that he was was being beaten, burned and starved, based on their observation of bruising, drastic weight loss and what appeared to be cigarette burns. The teacher dealt with at least six CYF workers, whose attitude was "poor mum she's not coping". The mother now faces a charge of assault.

    Combine those with the numerous cases of known substance abusers who are allowed to care for their children, which too often contributes to our appalling child abuse statistics.

    Why are those families not thoroughly investigated and the children removed?

    Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is reported as wanting answers in the case of the wheelchair-bound boy - Ms Davey respectfully suggests that a lot more answers are required. There are enough questions to warrant yet another enquiry into the CYF culture which deems that "parents have the right to raise their children in any manner of their choosing, unless they cross a line of unacceptability". A line which is apparently set by CYF, and which appears to be too high.

    We all know the names of the children who die as a result of abuse - however we do not hear about all the children who survive their abuse, but remain damaged for life.

    Ms Davey maintains that until CYF demonstrates consistency in their duty to protect ALL vulnerable children, they can expect to have little credibility.

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/cyf039s-inconsistency-raises-credibility-issues/5/17141

    ReplyDelete
  24. 13 Functions in relation to Children, Young Persons, and
    Their Families Act 1989
    (1) The Commissioner has the following functions in relation to
    the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989:
    (a) to investigate any decision or recommendation made, or
    any act done or omitted, under that Act in respect of any
    child or young person in that child’s or young person’s
    personal capacity:
    (b) to monitor and assess—
    (i) the policies and practices of the Department; and
    (ii) the policies and practices of any other person,
    body, or organisation that relate to the performance
    or exercise by the person, body, or organisation
    of a function, duty, or power under that Act
    or regulations made under that Act:
    (c) to encourage the development, within the Department,
    of policies and services that are designed to promote the
    welfare of children and young persons:
    (d) on the Commissioner’s own initiative or at the request
    of the Minister, to advise the Minister on any matter that
    relates to the administration of that Act or regulations
    made under that Act:
    (e) to keep under review, and make recommendations on,
    the working of that Act.
    (2) In this section, child has the same meaning as in section 2(1) f
    the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.
    Compare: 1989 No 24 s 411(1)(a), (b), (c), (h), (i)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anti-Smacking Law Wasting CYF Time – Missing Real Abuse

    Family First NZ says there is further evidence that CYF’s limited resources are being wasted, with a ‘blow-out’ in CYF notifications but the levels of actual abuse not increasing, or at worst not being caught.

    Waikato figures reported in the Waikato Times today, show an increase of notifications from 5,973 to 8,629 but those requiring further action have fallen significantly from 3729 to 3308 that same year.

    “This is a 44% increase in the demand on CYF services yet the identification of actual child abuse has dropped 11%. This is consistent with a disturbing trend nationwide,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “This is perfect proof that the ideologically flawed anti-smacking law has resulted in unwarranted reports of good parents which is a waste of the limited resources of CYF.”

    Figures from CYF’s national 2007/08 Third Quarter report show a 32% increase in notifications over the previous 12 months but numbers requiring further action remaining the same.

    “If the figures could be attributed to a rising intolerance to child abuse and domestic violence, we would be seeing an increasing rate of cases requiring further action – but we are not. That is simply because of a misguided law,” says Mr McCoskrie.


    “CYF resources are being wasted because of a law that labels good parents as potential child abusers, and distracts CYF and Police from dealing with the real causes of child abuse and actual child abuse.”

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers according to recent research).

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    ReplyDelete
  26. CYFs/CYPFA/CYP/DSW no matter what name is used they are all tarred with the same brush. over 20 yrs ago I had my child taken from me because her mother hit her (and she was admitted to Hosp) while I was at work. I, therefore, "failed to excersize the duty and care of parenthood". The SW's at the time decided I was unstable and it was best for the child to be adopted (against my will). The mother admitted to her physically abuse and yet was allowed to have regular contact. Yet I was not.
    10 years ago an unknown act of the CYFs books was used to remove another child (different mother).
    The act was Section 26 of CYP act. It states that "If it is BELIEVED a child is OR IS LIKELY to be harmed, either sexually/physically or emotionally then they can remove the child.
    They can then hold that child in "captivity" for as long as they seem fit becasue they will use the "pretense" of "We are acting in the best interest of the child", that is what they will tell the courts and the courts are obliged to believe them. Within 24 hours of being taken into care this child made a very clear disclosure against her mother (mum and dad seperated and dad had custody prior) of inappropiate sexual behaviour. This was ignored and actions was taken to discredit the father to the courts. However after a few years the mother was permitted to participate in the therapy sessions with the child. Father still being denied any contact based upon a "BELIEF" only and no actual evidence.
    The therapist and SWs could not get any form of disclosure against the father of any sort. The therapy sessions lasted over 5 yrs.
    Yet the father was still denied ANY contact.
    It seems that we as NZ citizens are allowing this Govt Agency to abuse our children and/or kidnap them and/or destroy our children just to keep them in a job.
    I thought that kind of behaviour was only used in 1940's by a well known and disliked German leader or by other communist countries.
    Surely we would want better protection for our children? Start by having the SW's being held more accountable for their action or lack of and stop breaking families just because they do not like the colour of a persons hair.
    Once a case has started it takes years to recover from and this is abuse in itself. Familes are too scared to come forward because of what other MAY think of them.
    Come on NZ how many more children are going to be stolen from their loving family and abused or worse before we realise that CYF have no real idea of what they are doing?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Northland toddler known to CYF
    (Source: ONE News 18th August)

    "The Northland toddler who died this month in Starship Hospital from unexplained injuries was already known to Child Youth and Family.

    A police source has confirmed the two-year-old was the subject of at least one CYF notification.

    It is understood she was brought to the attention of the state agency some months before her death and no action was taken.

    CYF Northern Regional Director Marion Heeney says she can't comment because it might jeopardise the police investigation.

    A 34-year-old woman with name suppression is facing an assault charge in relation to the toddler's death."

    ReplyDelete
  28. I work for a None Government Organization that gets some funding from Child Youth and Family (CYF). We had Graeme’s CYF petition out on the front counter for people to sign. A person from the Ministry of Social Development, who Graeme has pointed out before but for those who don’t know run CYF, said don’t bite the hand the feeds you…
    Anyone who supports the petition could create a conflict of interest if they get funded by the MSD in nay way. I hope people see those comments for what they are an in their own personal capacity pass the petition around and spread the word far a wide.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Or download it here is it does not work

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well the old blog's are back so that must mean CYF did not live up to thier word for you to have put them back up again...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ceo Hughes is a 2 faced vindictive git. His assistant CEO and enforcer is also gay.
    But it is their power trips to protect instead of cleaning up the tons of obvious wrongs at cyf that should be sorted out. Parent bashing and hiding behind cyf Act that cyf works under is rife. No accountability! New Cyf Review Panel
    nice serious people, but it is Hughes who has the last word and dictates to them! As such this Panel has good intentions, sadly just flapping its' gums on deaf highly paid ears.
    There is very wrong with the cys Act, until cyf lawyers screw with the intention of this Act and any court outcome comes down to who has the biggest cheque book.
    Most cyf personal have the ethics of an alley cat. Historicly, no matter how dumb you are, the longer a worker hangs on to their job at cyf the further up the food chain you go.
    And when they get there, they have back stabbing down to a fine art, as well as complete disreguard for humanity, rights of parents, actually helping families(mostly an unknown concept to cyf),spend far too much time and effort scewing over parents & families even past the point where there is no proof of wrong doing. Could be, might be, does not wash!
    The facts stand, as many can testify, many cyfs personal are unfit to work as Social Workers, from the top down.
    As to the complaints cyf get, nothing has changed except the 'too hard ' bin is bigger.

    No independent complaint organization with powers to investigate cyf actions with powers to prosicute, no accountability, MPs & Ministers to gutless to sort cyf out......
    this disgrace to Social, humanitarian ethics
    is swept under the carpet by the likes of Hughes and his gutless wonders of sidekicks!

    Govt sanctioned criminality.

    HONK BLOODY HONK TOSSERS.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To suggest Hughes as an MP or PM would be a waste of time. as CEO he is chief wanker of his dung hill, in parliament he would be just another garden variety wanker.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This ditty was posted on CYFS Watch, which reports it has now had more than 400 submissions. Someone should make a You Tube of it being sung!

    I am a social worker,
    I’m really very nice.
    I help you loving mothers,
    And give you good advice!

    Your partner has departed
    Your income is too low.
    I’m really very sorry,
    All your kids will have to go !

    Your partner is abusive?
    He beats you black and blue?
    We’ll soon be there to help you,
    And take your children too !

    You have a learning problem,
    You’re really not too clever
    We’ll get your kids adopted
    When can you see them?? NEVER!!

    Your son is hyperactive?
    You need a brief respite;
    We’ll soon take ALL your children
    Give up the hopeless fight!

    Your child was taken into care,
    So many years ago
    If now you have a baby
    That too will have to go!

    Foster parents love your kids
    To get some more they seek,
    For each one brings a tidy sum
    $400 per week !!

    Children’s homes are run by us ,
    Where paedophiles abound
    Each time we cover up abuse
    “The gutter press” come round

    “They” said adoptions worked the best
    We soon proved that they would
    Fathers shout and mothers cry
    Their kids are gone for good!

    What happens in our special courts?
    Our experts they will say
    “You’re a danger to your children,
    So we’ll take them all away!”

    Your children may be healthy,
    Happy and well fed
    But one day you might hurt them
    That’s what our experts said

    The judges know that we are right,
    With us they will agree
    They dare not risk another course
    You have no chance you see !

    Our special courts are secret,
    So don’t you breathe a word
    Of what goes on inside those walls
    No matter how absurd !

    We’ll get your kids adopted,
    And don’t you dare complain!
    Or you’ll end up in prison
    And I won’t say that again!

    We have adoption targets,
    They must be met you see,
    Failure means a reprimand,
    So spare a thought for me!

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/02/a_cyfs_poem.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous12 June, 2010

    http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/press-the-christchurch-new-zealand/mi_8033/is_20100515/response-fails-mollify/ai_n53621307/

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/press-the-christchurch-new-zealand/mi_8033/is_20100515/response-fails-mollify/ai_n53621307/

    ReplyDelete
  36. Earning money online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am trying to disclose the abuse and unethical behaviour of CYFS staff in Dunedin. Also the apparant saturation of Church of Latter Day Saints membersemployed as CYFS staff in that office. I would like to hear from any family members of men who have been abused by that system where the Family Court appointed Joe O'Neil as council for child.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi all, its Graeme Axford here, I am use facebook more often for updates so if you are a member please join me there http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/graeme.axford

    ReplyDelete
  39. I will be going before the New Zealand Parliaments Social services Select committee on August 3rd at 10am, 2011, please watch my facebook group to find out more which is called Child, Youth and family services (CYF) accountability and here is the link http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_162963230683

    Cheers, Graeme Axford

    PS you can read the petition here http://graemea.snap.net.nz/thepetition.html copy and paste the link....

    ReplyDelete