Goff Speech: Launch of Family Safety Teams pilot
“Thank you for the opportunity to open the training induction workshop, which launches the Family Safety Team pilot initiative.
“The strength of this project is its integrated and collaborative approach. Family Safety Teams involve Justice, Police, CYF and, in the community sector, the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, Child Abuse Prevention Services, and the National Network of Stopping Violence Services.
“All these agencies have a common purpose but in the past have not sufficiently worked together and shared information to maximize their effectiveness. Family Safety Teams are about achieving the best possible coordination, communication and collaboration.”
JohnP: Some fathers experience this ‘common purpose’ as collusion, conspiracy and complicity, instead of the more cuddly words used in Goff’s speech.
“Women and children are mainly the victims of violence within families. Violence within families, however, is not limited to partner violence or child abuse. Elder abuse, violence towards parents by their children, and violence between siblings exists. Family Safety Teams will take a holistic approach addressing all of these issues. ”
JohnP: Holistic, that is except the category of violence that we never mention because we are in denial of its existence.
“The Ministry of Justice has been monitoring the working of the Domestic Violence Act since it came into force in 1995. It has concluded that the underlying policy of the Act is sound, it is well supported by stakeholders and only minor amendments are necessary. ”
JohnP: Fathers are obviously not considered ‘stakeholders’.
“In the pilot phase, $14.9 million has been invested in Family Safety Teams to help achieve these outcomes. ”
JohnP: Must be worth billions when they roll out the final phase.
“It aims to ensure families make greater use of existing services and assistance, such as protection orders, counselling, health, education, housing and income support services.”
“Early intervention is the key to effective prevention …
“Early intervention is necessary and effective at turning around behaviours that are likely to lead… before victims are created…
“Early intervention needs to be targeted, relatively intensive and ongoing. It requires a very high level of coordination of effort between government and community agencies. ”
JohnP: I guess ‘Early Intervention’ means ignoring the hard, scary cases which are embarassing to CYF when they go horribly wrong, and instead going after nice, law-abiding middle-class type of families who break some minor regulation in a poorly-trained social worker’s imagination.
Perhaps they’ll be coming for you…
Elsewhere in my mailbox:
CYF has bias on violence – study
Women’s violence is not being investigated by Child Youth and Family as thoroughly as men’s in child abuse cases, a study says.
Southland psychologist Kay McKenzie was given access to 300 substantiated physical and sexual abuse cases handled by CYF for her research.
Only one father who hit his child was not commented on as a possible risk to his children.
“Violence by mothers was sometimes clearly ignored or condoned,” said the study, which did not differentiate between types of violence, including smacking.
The study suggested mothers were given more latitude to physically discipline their children because they were the primary caregiver, while any violence by men was seen as more extreme, she said.
Oh My God. Does this mean that the proposed intrusion into our families and how we raise our children (the ‘Anti Smaking Bill’) has just had all the key groups required, assembled and combined together in order to enforce and actually police this outrageous law ? A more appropiate name would be : Family Nazi Team Police. Or : Team Helengrad : Family Police. How much more rediculous are things going to get before something is done ?
I’m afraid you’re right.
It is precisely the kind of thing I saw happening in Hamilton many years ago when the HAIPP (Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Program)was being brought in. There was, as for Bradford’s anti smacking push, a complete lack of any proper widespead community consultation (only 2 women’s groups were consulted) about the content of the HAIP program. Indeed the general public weren’t ever asked if it were needed at all.
It ended up being a horrendous feminazzi hydra swallowing up families, driving many good men I knew personally to depair, and rendering the town’s mensfolk vulnerable to having thier lives wrecked at the mere whim of an accusing woman ‘victim’. Most diturbing of all it created many fatherless vulnerable children.
Even women who were deemed to have committed domestic violence and referred for anger management by a judge were subsequently shuffled off to ‘victims support groups’ rather than ‘offenders groups’ by those who ran the program. Such was the warped ideological dogmatism of those who ran the program. I saw the programs content and spoke to many of the ‘facilitators’. The program consisted of little more than shaming men for being ‘horrible patriarchs’. So bad was it that some men before a judge having heard of the program beforehand opted for short spells in prison as an alternative!
Now years later it seems that allot of NZ men are savvying up about how to beat the false allegation of domestic violence rap (see this site elsewhere for more details on that).
Subsequently many in social services are looking for thier next gravy train.
There’s an ironic twist here though.
If childless Bradford and her idio-cronnies get thier way then it will be predominantly WOMEN who get to feel whatt it’s like to be persecuted by overzealous PC ‘do-gooders’. I don’t envy them a jot.
It’s even more disturbing to see that whilst the NZ public’s attention has been averted by the recent All Blacks series and election issues like taxation Bradford’s bill has already passed a first reading – WITHOUT WIDESPREAD PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND MEDIA ANALYSIS.
No doubt many of us thought that the Socfems wouldn’t try to put through contentious policy in the lead up to the elections, yet here they are at it again sneaking in yet more shonky social engineering under the radar. Scary.
Stephen, you are mistaken when you say:
She is married and has five children, according to the Green Party Website.
My apologies for mistaking Bradford as childless.
It was an easy mistake for me to make seeing the policy she’s trying to push on parents in NZ.
Apparently (may be just an evil rumour) Carter is also a “father”….as far as one of his sexual “preference” may be….
and good old Aunty Helen is not.
What one Earth gives these imbeciles any right to interfere in our children’s lives at this level?
And as for “the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges” – what a load of cobblers! These wimmin are not “independent” by any definition. Their very livelihood is entirely dependent on their ability to nurture the very domestic violence they purport to detest.
The femi-nazi brain-washing techniques they use are, quite simply, criminal. Their “advice” to seek protection orders, sue for child support, make allegations against the Dad of sexual misconduct [without a single shred of proof] can only be seen as the crime it is against children.
When will the reasonable people of New Zealand (not the extremist minorities) wake up and bring back a level of balance so our children do not continue to suffer like this?
Exercise your right to vote this year and cast your party vote against National, Labour and the Greens.
Instead, pick a party that promotes The Family, Shared Parenting and a better outcome for all the children of New Zealand….look to ACT, Destiny and the Republicans.
Interesting you should note “Perhaps they’ll be coming for you…”.
If they don’t come for you, then it is highly likely the Child Tax Agency will when Cunliffe’s amendment bill is read and passed.
As they say: be VERY afraid….