CYF dysfunction worsens
Child, Youth and Family (CYF) is so short of foster parents that children are being placed with caregivers before the new parents are properly trained.
A national recruitment campaign to find 300 caregivers has fallen short, with 120 signed up and a further 60 to be assessed.
Christchurch Family and Foster Care Association chairwoman Pamela Turner said being a foster parent was a “very challenging and stressful job which people needed to think carefully about before becoming involved”.
Turner said caregivers frequently faced allegations from children and young people in their care, which put a lot of stress on the family environment, in addition to dealing with children’s often difficult behaviour.
South Auckland Foster Care Association chairwoman Allysa Carberry said the area was extremely short of caregivers, forcing some foster parents to take on more children.
She also knew of caregivers, including foster parents and kinship caregivers, who looked after relatives’ children, who had not completed the CYF induction course before children were placed with them.
CYF training manuals describe the course as a “prerequisite” to placement of children.
Carberry, who has been a caregiver for 10 years, said not providing training was a “dangerous practice”.
Child, Youth and Family’s (CYF) 2000 social workers are to strike as abuse and neglect notifications reach a monthly record.
Nearly 5200 allegations of abuse and neglect were made to the child-protection agency last month.
A CYF spokeswoman said the department was investigating why the number of notifications to its call centres continued to break records. She said the trend was probably due to New Zealanders becoming less tolerant of abuse.
The number of phone calls to the agency rose from almost 28,000 in 2002 to over 51,000 for the year ending June 2005.
For the past four years, between 17 and 24 per cent of all allegations of abuse or neglect were substantiated. This amounted to almost 11,000 cases proven in the year ending June 2005.
The department’s chief executive Paula Tyler resigned today after only 14 months on the job, citing “family reasons”.
Note the watertight logic here!
“For the past four years, between 17 and 24 per cent of all allegations of abuse or neglect were substantiated. This amounted to almost 11,000 cases proven in the year ending June 2005.”
“Substantiated” now means the same as “proven”.
Don’t forget that “substantiated” by CYFS is not the same as “substantiated” by the Family Court, which is not the same as “substantiated” by the Criminal Court, which is not necessarily the same as True. As for “proven”, that’s something else again.
Here “substantiated” probably means “by CYFS Social Workers”, who we know are notorious for seeing paedophiles in almost any intact heterosexual family… using techniques such as this:
“She said the trend was probably due to New Zealanders becoming less tolerant of abuse.”
[In other words, by guesswork, if paranoia cannot be justified.]
However, the dramatic increase in the number of calls being received by CYFS Call Centres is “more probably” proof that the rising, fear-induced (but baseless) “Domestic Violence Hysteria” fueled by the NZ FemiNazi movement is really starting to take hold.
We all know that prior to the Domestic Violence Act being passed, Child Sexual Abuse allegations were epidemic. But the “epidemic” was suddenly over when women found that making False (or at least, wildly exaggerated) Allegations of Domestic Violence was a much more effective (and slightly less despicable) alternative means of exacting revenge on an ex- who saw the light and tried to break the shackles of slavery to an undeserving female.
But now that the DVA is starting to lose its effectiveness as a tool to abuse men, well, the pendulum is swinging back towards allegations of Child Abuse…
Here’s a great example of the kind of knee-jerk reaction favoured by CYFS:
…which lends great credibility to the statistics they quote.
What’s perhaps worse about these statistics is that 76% – 83% of these calls to CYFS Call Centres are apparently “unsubstantiated”.
What does that really mean?
Does it mean that New Zealand is a nation of pimps and squealers?
Or does that mean that those are the calls from the foolish and ignorant people who mistakenly believe that CYFS is there to do what it is required by its governing legislation to do – to HELP them, by:
as spelled out in S4 (Objects) of the CYPF Act 1989?
If it does, no wonder the CYFS staff want to go on strike. I mean, surely most of the parents in New Zealand could use a little help from “time-to-time”…?
[If properly analyzed, the CYPF Act is actually unenforceable, impossible to comply with, and in reality is nothing more than a recipe for Fascist-style State Intervention in NZ Families.]
As anyone who has had any significant involvement with CYFS will know, they DON’T do what the law (supposedly) requires, and once they have “uplifted” (read “kidnapped” or stolen) a child, they will do everything in their considerable (read excessive) power to destroy the relationship between that child and his or her parents and family.
Statistically, the chances of that child being (successfully) returned to his or her family are infinitesimally small. [But they don’t publish those statistics, do they?]
And if returned, the chances of that child being returned not severely emotionally damaged, but with an attitude of hostility and exploitation towards his or her parents and society in general is also almost zero.
Truth: CYFS record of promoting the abuse of the children in its “care” defies belief.
For example, one case recently. CYFS were holding a child in one of their “Foster Homes” (read Child Detention Centres). The child, naturally enough, escaped and ran away. However, having no resources and nowhere to go, that night s/he returned to the CDC. However, the doors were locked, and even though she pleaded to be let in, the CDC Wardens wouldn’t let him/her back in. That was his/her punishment! This process of “punishment” (read Child Abuse and Neglect) for running away continued for 3 days and nights. (In other words, the FH, which was supposed to be caring for this child, left him/her out on the street for 3 whole days and nights.)
Of course, this report is “unsubstantiated”.
But someone should report it to the proper authorities…
Note the similarity to the case of the CYFS boy who died after falling off a cliff. CYFS took 3 days to “get around” to reporting him missing. That seems to be the standard length of “punishment” time for running away. But why are these supposedly abused children running away from these more than adequately taxpayer funded centres of “Love and Care”…?
As Judge Mick Brown once said, the only workable solution to the CYFS problem involves a bulldozer.
CYFS are [Expletive edited out]