The Protest, The Backlash and the Perception of Freedom

 I heard a lot from the protesters that their ancestors fought for rights and blah de blah.

Yes, I know. Mine fought too.

But here is a key difference.

Regardless of WW1 or 2 or other conflicts, our people were invited to fight for those rights. Their 'king and country' made that invitation to go and fight for and defend those rights. They went as representatives of a nation. They were united as members of the BIE or later, the Maori Battalion and proudly they represented us all.

 I do not agree with how they were treated post conflicts, however, the call was issued and we went. Together!

 No one asked for this protest. It was self initiated. Some of its leaders were self aggrandizing on a massive scale. You didn't represent US as a people. You weren't fighting for me or my family and this is an example of what I will show my kids is NOT a cause that fought for you. I will still point them towards their whanau in WW2 who really made the sacrifices on their behalf. I will not show them that in 2022, at parliament, a rag tag bunch of loud mouthed self appointed zealots damaged the national Parliament grounds.

 You didn't even remotely come to a viewpoint I could in all conscience agree with. In fact, it seems by video taken and comments made by several participants that you couldn't even agree with yourselves. You had vaccinated arguing with anti-vax, you had a woman proudly declare that she was going to leave her husband of three decades or more because he got boosted. You had people setting fire to things despite the calls from others not too. There were so many messages that no one knew what you stood for in the end.

 You stand there, and blame others for your circumstances, decrying other peoples choices while claiming to stand for freedom of choice.

 I was accosted quite harshly by someone who said I was not making my own choice, belittling my desire to be precautious for wearing a mask. Despite what you may think, that IS my choice. If I was afraid I wouldn't have flown to Auckland or use public transport to get to and from work, or even go outside my doors. To me wearing a mask is no different than looking left and right when I cross a street. It's amazing that if my freedom of choice was contrary to what they thought my choice should be then its not really my choice.

 I've not always agreed with the actions of the government and yes, there has been damage done. People have lost jobs, circumstances have changed dramatically. Jobs and economies can be rebuilt. I've heard someone say that the people who have died have mainly been old or had issues. I snapped back to one person saying, "and that makes it ok? That justifies your witless statement?" Someone dying from cancer and just because their 81 makes it ok? Some simple human kindness seems to have gone amiss in recent years and is out of the ability for some now. Thats what is really sad.

 I have no issue with a right to protest, but protests have a message. They have a theme, and they have validity. No doubt that when the mandates lift and I believe they will soon, you will claim victory.

 Do I agree with all the police tactics? No. But I agree even less with the occupation (lets call it what it was), I deplore their treatment of Mana Whenua, especially at Pipitia, and some lady filled with her own self importance and getting seen by the world, she didn't bother to check her own geography.

 You've ignored calls from Mana Whenua and you've ignored calls from the Kingitanga to go home. So...who do you listen to? Not that it matters any way. This whole event will just be seen as a sad part of New Zealand history, consigned to a footnote in a wikipedia page.

 You complain about not being free? If this were any other country the Military would have been out in force and most of you, kids or not would have been in prison before now. Tear gas would have been used on mass and you’d have been dragged way in a trail of blood and sweat and there would have been deaths. You were and are absolutely free to protest. But another one of your confused perspectives is rights without responsibilities. You want the cake and eat it too.

 You absolutely have freedom of choice. But as with anything, choices come with consequences. You choose to drink and drive you accept the consequences. You choose to belong to a club, or a group that has specific standards or expectations, you forego things for that admission. Some places require you to do something as simple as wear shoes (or clothes for that matter) or face being denied entry. We have these mandates already in play yet suddenly this one comes up and it’s a problem.

 Maybe a bit more critical thinking than letting the rabbit hole suck you in. (Woops...too late).

Not time to deny another crisis is looming

 For those who tend to think I'm a little one eyed and I think the sun shines out of this governments posterior then take a read of this.

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO DENY WE ARE EITHER IN OR GOING TO BE IN SHORTLY, ANOTHER CRISIS.

We're still dealing with the impacts of a government who held the seat of power for 9 years, fiddled with the books to make surpluses look good, while selling off state housing assets, re-arranging numbers to make benefit numbers look better and denying a housing crisis existed, all while slashing spending on essential social services and failing to take action on children in state care because it "wasn't politically popular", that New Zealand does not need to have this again around the very real situation of costs of living.

Prime Minister. Don't be like John Key and his group. Not all of us sit pretty on larger six figure salaries and subsidised travel. A $12 block of cheese and $3 per litre gas may be ok for cabinet ministers who get driven around all day, but to those on the lower incomes, 'stuff's getting real'.

On a personal level, generally we are ok. We don't live in the lap of luxury but we're not on struggle street either but we are making choices we didn't have to make just a few short months ago. 40% of our income fortnightly goes on rent alone. It costs now $25 more to fully tank our car in the last four months and that is looking for the gas station that offers the most value for money. Generally I don't subscribe to the notion that there is a significant difference between one brand to another.

But what you as a government define as a crisis is irrelevant. No one cares about the apparent justifications as to why this and that happens. The issue is that these rising costs negate any impact that raises in minimum wage levels or pay increases have, therefore, individually, there is no economic benefit in real terms. You raise a benefit by say $3 a week, but my normal every day shop, or other living expenses top $3.50 or more, which easily right now can be done, then I'm actually worse off. That is a crisis. You're trying to tell me that my situation is not important and urgent. 

We all know that more than half of our cost of fuel alone is one form of tax or another. Whether that is a regional fuel tax, levies, GST, even a temporary cessation of one or more of these, even if it is not GST, would provide some relief from these impacts even faster, and more sustainably than increases in benefits and minimum wage rates. If we removed 30c per litre of levies, 10 litres saves someone $3, 20 litres $6. In my car alone from empty, about 55 litres, is about $16.50 a tank.

The sentiment I felt from this non-admission, was the same as I heard Dr Megan Woods last year on breakfast say that a $10 a week rise in rent is not detrimental.  To whom Dr Woods. Not to you? Surely not. But what about those who's weekly rent is tantamount to 60% of their income or more. Surely, in this governments second term they can't be that out of touch already. Some of the signs I am seeing are almost reminiscent of National's third term arrogance. 

I don't agree with Mr Luxon's plan either. Sadly the National party as previously stated have a tendency of fidgeting as opposed to fixing. The thing is if we lose income, our ability to spend is going to need to be fixed, and National was just as bad at borrowing as anyone else on average. Mostly because they were more like the government who was walking into the supermarket only to remember they had forgotten their wallet somewhere else.

But if we aren't in one right now generally, you cannot discount the fact that to many, we're already there and that any increases already planned for benefits and wage increases are already taken up with the cost of living.

If this isn't a crisis. What is?

Submission to the Social Services Select Committee

This was our submission to the social services select committee, in support to our petition to parliament.

To the members of the social services select committee.

Our submission is in support of the petition in our name which asks the question of the members of parliament to look at the relevant legislation that will in essence help remove many of the children who face their entire formative lives in the care of non-whanau members get out of the foster care system and provide them with more safety and security.

Preamble.

Without going into all of the details this is the situation we face daily. Since the end of 2009 we have had in our care a child who fits this situation. Little girl will never be returned to her biological mum due to mum’s drug and alcohol problems, mum’s inability to look after herself, her highly transient nature, and her proclivity to enter relationships with men who are addicts and violent offenders. Mum has time and time again proven why she has none of her four under 18 year old children in her care. The biological father of this one child came as a result of a one night stand at a drunken party. He has never met this girl and to top it off he has a conviction for unlawful sexual connection with a minor.

Because of the mother’s choices, our daughter now has to live with the impact of foetal alcohol disorder and a moderate intellectual disability for the rest of her life. It is entirely possible that other difficulties will present themselves as she gets older but nothing to us is more important than her ongoing safety and security and under the current scheme of things, even with the yet to be effective amendments to the Care of Children Act, we are far from convinced that this is assured.

Home for life.

As home for life caregivers our legal status as parents is unclear. We are not recognised by CYF as caregivers; there are no supports if the relationship with the biological families (if any) breaks down. If it goes to court it is not CYF who are served with court papers, it is us as the co-guardians and we stand alone. Our own experience has proven that and is shared by many others in our situation.

We are required to consult with these biological parents over ‘big’ decisions despite the fact they have been proven incapable in court of doing the parenting. Issues requiring us to go to court could arise over the fact we go to church or what school little girl goes to. Recently, as one of the featured parents on The Nation, another HFL parent shared how an anaesthetist cancelled his daughter’s surgery because they wanted to see the biological parent sign the consent despite the fact that this just was not possible.  Family holidays in New Zealand and overseas require consultation with people we can’t track down and who don’t bother to keep us apprised of their details. It is incredibly challenging to have the responsibility and the entire legal obligation to people who do not meet their responsibilities, yet if we don’t meet ours, they have the power to significantly disrupt our lives.

But that is our life and our girl’s life for the next six to eight years. When she ages out...then what?

One of the biological parents could at some point between now and then make an attempt to gain custody. Given Child Youth and Family’s complete lack of support since our gaining Home for Life in 2011, we have no illusion that they will suddenly rally to our cause and prevent what would be a soul destroying attack on the only family she's ever known. When the dad did this 18 months after we got granted HFL custody and additional guardianship it took three months for CYF to even talk to us after being fobbed off by former social workers, supervisors and even the regional manager until the intervention of our Hamilton West MP and his team. That was more stressful than the fact my wife got served at her workplace by a Private Investigator and we essentially stood alone.

A legal No Mans Land

It also seems to be a level of a legal no mans land where the children are not considered wards of the state but we do not have the rights of the parents despite holding the full measure of accountability. Many HFL parents will tell you that they have been ‘requested’ to obtain birth parent signatures for medical procedures or consents for camps or other school things.

While many lawyers including our own has said that us having to consult with the incompetent biological parents/family may be reading a little too literally into the law at the end of the day we will be judged by the orders that allow us to have this child in our home and a judges interpretation of our actions/inaction based on the law and the cases presented by lawyers we’d be paying for with NO-ONE from the state agency charged with ‘child protection’ watching our backs.

Financial Costs/Savings

In our original submission to the Green Paper on Vulnerable Children we highlighted a large financial savings potential to the tax-payer if what we are proposing was allowed. Each week we receive an Unsupported Childs Benefit of about $180 coming to just over $9000 annually.  From that 2012 submission we wrote;

“If half of the [2275] children in non-kin care were adopted, it would save the taxpayers approximately $8,872,500.00 per year in board only. This figure is based on a $300 per fortnight average payment to foster parents for board. It does not include the quarterly clothing allowance of $280-$300 per child and the birthday and Christmas funds of $60-$100 per child based on the child’s age for each holiday.

Keep the money and you will find people who want to look after kids, people who want to parent long term”.

As HFL parents we get a one off year start up grant for school uniform and so on amounting to no more than $400, however as is our desire to adopt we will not only lose the Unsupported Childs Benefit, but that annual grant.  We don’t care. It’s not about money. It’s about safety and security which this present system does not assure either us as the ‘parents’ or the child in any way, shape or form.

Exiting Foster Care.

At present there are three ways in which a person who is in foster care leaves the system.

Return to Family

Where possible this is the ideal scenario. Families who sort themselves out should have a chance to reunite and continue on with their lives free of unneeded supervision, surveillance and unwarranted intervention. A former colleague of Wiremu’s had a child placed in care due to an unfortunate incident with his then wife. Over the course of the next year the couple worked on their own situation, retained visitation and access frequently, initially supervised then unsupervised until the child was returned to their full time care and custody. A short period of monitoring followed but this was soon ended. Now the father has sole custody and guardianship and the child is none the worse off.

Our petition is not intending to deal with these children in any degree however the CYF report has indicated a level of abuse and neglect tends to happen when this takes place.

Aging Out.

At the age of 16 the orders which tie the child to the state or their home for life family expire, thus ending any legal obligation on the state or family to provide on-going support. It also ends any financial supports that the family may be receiving for the child. For us this isn’t the most critical element but it plays a part in many situations. 16 is not good enough. Kids who’ve been through what our foster kids have been through deserve a significantly better commitment from New Zealand than 16, because all the evidence tells us that they need more support and stability.

Home for Life Program

This is labelled an exit from foster care; however, under the law the child lacks legal security of a family, and the Home for Life caregivers never gain the security of parenthood. It is not an exit from foster care, it is simply a re-branding of the previous ‘permanent foster care’ that doesn’t provide the security children deserve.

One thing is that a lot of HFL parents have an excellent relationship with the biological families. The issue is that this can change at any time so what could be good, could turn nasty and in the courts with those who do the caring standing alone.

It’s not a Home For Life. It’s a home until you age out or those who have the care and custody lose the next court battle which they have to fight alone because CYF won’t stand with them either morally or financially.

Dispensed with Consent (Adoption Act 1955 Section 8)

The final way that a child/young person could leave the foster care system is if the parents enter into a potentially long and costly battle with previously proven incompetent parents by seeking to dispense with parental consent for an adoption using the existing archaic and seldom travelled road.

We have begun this path ourselves and already in the short time of going down this path have expended nearly $5000 of our own money. We are about to have the social worker visit as a part of the process. Both parents were served and both failed to respond.  However as an example a case on public record went all the way to the five judge court of appeal in the 1989 case of Director General of Social Welfare V Lapham (CA 72/89) showed how far and how long and you can imagine how much this cost the applicants.

To be where we are at this point we have gone through four court hearings and all have had the same result. We are the ones who have custody and guardianship. That will not change. But why isn’t there an avenue where a judge could say…”shes yours now” and the adoption is done.

Amendments to the Care of Children Act 2014 (Special Guardianship Orders)

The Minister of Social Development in a letter to me dated 2 June 2015 outlined these new orders that can be applied for by the caregivers. This came in response to concerns we, and others share about ongoing litigation over small issues. The Minister said that we as HFL caregivers can apply for special guardianship orders. The ‘Special’ guardianship orders would likely have to be paid for by the Home for Life families (as there is no assurance of any financial assistance from CYF) and all of the burden of evidence is on the caregiving families to prove that people who have already been proven in court at least three times previously incapable of parenting, cannot meet their responsibilities.

The thing is however, as these are still nearly eight months from becoming effective there is no threshold to know how bad things have to get before the caregivers can apply for or the courts would award such orders. Also, given that maybe we would like to relocate overseas, perhaps may be to relocate to where Sunny’s family is in the United States, no visa’s can or would be granted to her with these orders nor under the current orders we have.

Where to?

Provide a pathway to allow children who are never going to return to their biological family to gain a family, not just a home, for life. This will require significant legislative change, and a willingness to terminate the parental rights of biological parents who will never parent their children. However, terminating rights does not terminate relationships, and amending the Adoption Act 1955 to allow for contact agreements and open adoptions is an essential part of this recommendation. Especially we feel that this will allow children to know their backstory if it’s not already known in a way that is safe and secure for them to do so.

In our case our girl knows some of her story. But her learning needs and level of understanding require a level of adaptation – everything she knows is the truth, but for age appropriateness, she doesn’t know the whole story. She knows she has a tummy mummy who has a sickness called addiction but her comprehension of this remains an ongoing issue. She knows she has another father, despite not ever meeting him and becomes quite agitated and fearful of his coming to get her. His photo, along with her biological mother’s is in a special book which she views frequently which tells her story from birth to age five which my wife compiled for her. It is important to us that she knows her story, her heritage, and also that she belongs and is safe and secure. Unfortunately, her personal security and safety, mentally, emotionally and physically can be threatened at any time by litigation.

What happens if something happens to us?

One question we have not approached with anyone but it is worth asking yourselves as the law and policy makers and drivers.  We all know the situation with the late Jerry Collins and his partner.  What if that had been us in our present situation? What if there was a situation where my wife and I were suddenly taken from her in the worst of scenarios and she was left alone.  Legally where does she stand? Sure, both my wife and I have family who would take her in an instant, however what legal claim do they have on her in our current status where she is neither considered a ‘child of the state’ or ‘CYF foster child’ nor are we considered her legal parents. Guardians yes. Parents…no.

We know some HFL parents who have written somethings into their wills however like any will, the status of these children can be contested leaving them as in the cold as being in a big foster/family home.

Who Are We Looking At?

Our petition is targeted at a sector of children and young people in our foster care system that is not officially classified under a statistical category. In our case we were advised at the time of assuming care that this girl would never return to the care of her biological parents (who are not together) and there is no extended family eligible to care for her due to conviction histories.

There are many in the same situation whom we have become acquainted with on a personal level and have come to know through our petition gathering process, and our Time For Change Facebook page. Such cases include:

·         A couple who have the ninth child of a couple in their care who have a 17 year track history of CYF involvement for domestic violence, drug offences and alcohol abuse. All 9 children between the ages of eighteen months and 15 years old are in non-whanau care. The parents will not prioritise their children by attending visits, yet fight every decision made by the HFL parents in the child’s life, forcing the HFL family to take court action to do simple things like plan holidays or leave town for a weekend. The HFL family dreads dealing with schools in future years with the level of litigation they’ve had to deal with in just over a year under HFL.

·         The story referred to previously about a medical procedure almost being cancelled due to the expectation that the natural guardian be available to sign the medical consent forms.

·         A single mother who has her nephew in her care for over six years. The child was born to an addicted mother and at birth tested positive for marijuana, methamphetamine and synthetic drugs. He frequently recalls severe instances of domestic violence. The mother has had minimal contact over the past three years and refuses to be an ongoing positive influence, yet refuses to allow her sister to make the major decisions in the child’s life.

One family contacted us to say this.  “We have 2 children in our care, brother and sister. They have been with us for 4 and a half years. We have been waiting for nearly three years to finalize access orders for the mother. Father has started a new family and wants nothing to do with the children. Mother has been diagnosed with mental illness has alcohol and drug dependencies, and won't take prescribed medications for mental illness. She has continually made complaints regarding us as well as CYF. Due to her irrational behaviour CYF and [the] courts seem to be more interested in keeping her calm, rather than doing what is best for the children. Even the judge has requested security be present when she is in court, and yet we are discussing putting two vulnerable children in the same room with her. We feel the mother’s needs and wants come before the children's. Even though the government says it is supposed to be the other way around”. In this and many other instances the question becomes one of relationships being maintained rather than the safety and security of children, mentally and emotionally as well as physically, being assured”.

High profile former CYF state ward Daryl Brougham has been in touch with us to say that had an option of being adopted from foster care been available, without the need for consent from those parents who had already been deemed unfit and incapable of parenting then he believes his life would have been very different.  He said to us for this submission “Being a Ward of the State meant- sole guardianship of the director general, as I was. I had the rare opportunity of adoption but this was turned down via CYPS liaising with my birth parents- who I had no exposure to in the first five years of my life. In the end, I bounced through the system and was shoved from pillar to post”.  We aren’t talking one or two foster placements; we are talking over 30 foster placements and homes in and out of New Zealand some of which were abusive, resulting in his pay out from CYF this year.

How long is this pattern going to continue?

The Question.

Speaking specifically about the children/young people affected by our petition; those who will spend the long-term in non-whanau care and whose birth parents by court orders have been determined incompetent or incapable of parenting, why isn’t the family who is raising the child and doing the day to day job of parenting provided with an avenue that allows a pathway for an open adoption?

We would love to speak directly to the committee if possible on this.

Sincerely

Wiremu & Sunny Bayliss.

Petitioners.

Reflections

This blog is usually for those things which I have had strong views on in the social arena, yet tonight, I feel prompted to put down some thoughts that differ from those kinds of views but focus on a more personal perspective and perhaps cross into other areas.

I want to say first and foremost that I am blessed beyond measure.  I am healthy and well (despite a small head cold at present, but this too shall pass).  Metres away from me is a daughter I adore and a wife I worship.  Many times I feel that I am less than who I should be with them, but I respect and love their tolerance of me.

Sunny and I have been married a wonderful trying, testing and beautiful seven years.  Four of those we have had this munchkin in our home, yet I cannot imagine it without her.  Even with all the ups and downs, those times when I flip the proverbial lid at her and lost patience, I do not for one moment regret bringing her into our home.  Sure the politics surrounding her situation are always going to be there...but how I treat her and how I act and am with Ellie is unchanged.  She is my daughter.  She is our blessing.

Her mother (Sunny) I believe is a woman without comparison.  Her heart is such that any man would be blessed to have a woman of her character.  She emulates the pioneer heritage of her ancestors while casting her own great shadow on the world.  It takes a special woman to take into her heart willingly and without guile, the child of another and treat her with the same compassion, love and tenderness of one who would have been born to her.  

I know she was disappointed in me in losing my job nearly a year ago and the severe disruption it caused to our family.  However, I know her support for me and our goals this year has been unwavering.  I hope I can repay that confidence in continuing on my heath journey and finishing my degree.  Then hopefully I can land a good job, she can relax, and I'll do all the hard work.  I love her so much.

I think as I reflect though on the last year, (as another ticks away for me) that I cannot deny the Lord's hand guiding our lives this year.  Events have occurred, blessings have come and we are over all doing well.  Thing's are far from perfect, but they are good.  Our Heavenly Father has been good to us.  He has given us trials but also provided ways for them to be met.  We have been given counsel by our leaders, and as we have followed it, we have been blessed.  We have fasted and prayed for guidance and have received it.  It reinforces the experience of the boy Prophet Joseph Smith on reading James 1:5-6 in the New Testament, if we lack wisdom, ask of God who will give it to you if you ask in faith without doubts (obvious paraphrase).

Here's to another year of tests, trials and tribulations, each of them a strength building opportunity.  Each challenge, a chance for growth, each chance for growth, and opportunity to be grateful, and each chance to be grateful a moment to share with someone special doing something meaningful.

Nationals Own Goal!

I cannot and will not remain silent any longer about the disappointment I have felt, mostly since the last election result about the performance of the National lead government.

No one is going to deny that we have entered difficult economic times in the recent years.  Much like Obama National acquired a state that was in some disarray, its economy spending far more than it needed too.  But in some ways, its actions were all to predictable.  Yet, they offered some hope for the future...now into their second term, I'm still waiting to see some.

To be fair, their relative navigation through the economic storms is one thing to be envied of the rest of the world.  There can be little comparison between us and Greece, simply because of population size, basic economy and we of course we retained our own identity whereas they joined the Euro zone.

But enough damage was done that more didn't need doing.

Damage number 1:  National Standards.
You know, I've never see two consecutive ministers of education polarise the electorate so fast and so efficiently.  Anne Tolley's introduction...no...I take that back...her imposition of National Standards on the primary education sector, he raping of the ECE sector, the confusing funding levels where if an ECE facility had MORE qualified teachers they got LESS funding did little to raise confidence in the minister or ministry.

I'm not bagging National Standards.  Totally at least.  But I am opposed to a dictatorial approach to how things should be done in our most delicate sector.  It would be like tomorrow...3 year degrees become 4 and you have to pay more to do it.  Perhaps not the best of examples but snap your finger, impose a policy that still hadn't got all the bugs out or even how the hell it was going to be done in the first place.  Bad call.  As an educator...that was 2 black marks right there.

Damage Number 2:  Increasing GST after black and white promises it wasn't going to happen.
John Key was quoted, and requoted, and requoted...I even heard him myself in a speaking engagement saying it wasn't going to happen.  To coin a phrase...nek minute.  It goes up.  Irrelevant if it was its first increase in years, or it was only a 2.5% increase.  The fact is, this was a sneaky move and wasn't a good one to be honest.  To me, that was just a slap in the face.

Damage Number 3:  The 90 day employment legislation.
There are parts of it I do agree with...however its all to random and gives too much power to the employer to, as Labour said...fire at will.  There is no accountability process required...if they don't like you after 90 days they can drop you on the spot.  No explanation required...and no evaluation of your performance between your start and you walk out with nothing in the end.  Another blip on the radar that potential employers will read as saying 'this person dosen't hang around long' and all your defence will be was, the 90 day thing was applied, and you have nothing to say WHY!  I think this one was also forced through under urgency...which even made it more suspect.

But more recently...actions taken post the budget have shaken my confidence in this government.

Hekia Parata's complete bungling of the announced budget changes to schooling.  Sure...an increase in teachers and no comparable increase in performance is a concern, but in terms of how shallow this policy is in details and the retractions that already have been made, its made me question another area that I don't think has been taken into consideration.  The changes in the dynamics in the classrooms over the same period of comparison.

What do I mean?  Well, we all know the variety in students (meaning their backgrounds, existing abilities, and also the ISSUES) in the class room is not the same than when we were in school.  Teachers are now also more and more required to be more involved in students lives outside of being just teachers.  I know first hand my own daughters teacher is dealing with in her class of 17 students, 7 with special needs requirements.  Not severe disabilities however they are students who need more attention than your average.  So...she's expected to do all a teacher is supposed to do...but also assist with increased reading, marking, assessing, counselling, class management, but if budgets continue to be cut, her class would likely increase.  Does this mean she is a bad teacher if she can't handle it?  Hell no.  From my 15 years of education experience I consider her a wonder at what she does and the impact she has on my daughter who has learning difficulties is without comparison.

What about other supports?  Well, further funding cuts to special education have meant that my girl misses out on any in school support so that means her teacher has to spend more time with her. We appreciate that, but it means another kid misses out.

Now this massive back peddle.  Its called pie in the face.  Now further that coalition partners are almost at rebellion because if anything I believe they weren't consulted.  Of course Parata says they were but right now I consider their consultation as to saying..."this is what is going to happen"...you've been consulted.

The other thing was listening to the debates on a hammered through bill about how aged care payments were going to be changed and asset tested measurements was rushed through under urgency in the house.  Personally...it was pathetic and add to the fact it wasn't spoken about in the budget speech but the next thing you know it was on the table and being pushed through under urgency was a big black mark.  Paula Bennett's hollow speeches, light on detail and useless in information, her being bombarded by only opposition parties taking calls, Tony Ryall who wasn't in the house had to come down and put his 10cents worth in.  He said Grey Power and Aged concern had been consulted...however the leaders of both those groups said they were told only hours before the budget speech was made.  Told is very different to being consulted.  Consulted implies a two way exchange of ideas and feedback.

Now all I am hearing from the National people is the same wrote responses I heard from Labour at the end of their days in power.  It's like the PR people have said to them all...Say this...and thats it.  Parata has no answers for straight-forward questions but this is one I notice she's started to blame on the fact there is upcoming CBA talks for the teachers.  Shows how shallow she is and how desperate she is going to be to turn this one back on the teachers to make them look like the bad guys.  They are still even harping on the state of the economy they got back in 2008 but they say it takes time to fix...well, stop harping about the situation and deal with it...stop passing the buck.

There is no question things need to be tightened up.  Maybe MP's should take a pay cut.  Maybe all MP's need to put their kids into public schools, especially the schools that will be most affected and see how it impacts on their kids learning.  This policy is shallow and is doomed to fail.  It already has poliarised the sector against the government and yet more will choose to go off-shore if this is pushed through.  Its not about quality.  Its about saving some bucks.  Its pathetic.

I will not and cannot support a local MP who is a part of a government who thinks these kinds of moves are ok.  This is just bad politics and I will not be a part of it.

Our Submission to the Green Paper

Children in non-whānau care need separate consideration under the Care of Children Act.

Rationale

As of 30 June 2011 there were 3885 children in foster care in New Zealand. 1610 of them are with whānau or kin. That leaves 2275 in the care of foster families. Few of these foster families are willing to go through the current permanency process, currently labelled ‘Home for Life,’ with these children because they only become ‘additional guardians’ and do not want to be in a co-parenting situation with parents who are proven to be incompetent.

Currently, the law in New Zealand discourages adoptions on the grounds that it is not in the best interests of the child to sever the connection to their biological whānau. However, in a scenario where a child has been uplifted, with cause, by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) and gone through the rightly long legal process (Section 101 Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989) of having custody removed from a parent or parents who are unwilling or unable to care for them, and there is no extended family able to care for them, then those children need and deserve to belong to a family.

A student of mine last year wrote about her experiences in the foster system. After being removed from the home of her mother’s best friend who had looked after her for her first two years, she was placed with an auntie. It was an abusive home where she was neglected and physically harmed. She was placed in an emergency placement, then in a group home. Finally, as the group home was closing, she found a family that wanted her for keeps. Her words at the end about finally finding a permanent family are very poignant and relevant to this submission. “From being with my family, to a foster child, to being welcomed to a family, it feels good that someone wanted me and I’m glad this happened. They might not be my real family, but in the end, they are to me. I belong to them and they belong to me. That’s what matters.”[1]

This is only one story among thousands where the voices of the children are not being heard and their best interests are made subservient to the rights of their biological parents. Also, the rights of the people raising these children are not considered at any level of the current legislation.

Adoption has a place in these situations because these children deserve to belong completely to the family who nurtures, cares for and loves them. Section 8 of the Adoption Act 1955 already provides a pathway to dispensing with parental consent to an adoption in the circumstances currently used under section 101 (and other referenced sections) of the Children, Young persons and their Families Act 1989 to sever parental custody. It is seldom, if ever, used. This needs to change to allow for adoptions from the foster care system, creating families, not homes, for life.

Issues

Where do the rights of parents end when their choices harm their children?

Parents who are unwilling or unable to care for their children have made their choices and in losing custody to CYF should also have their guardianship severed. Section 8 of the Adoption Act 1955 already provides for this to happen, but it is not used in current practice. Legal advice received has indicated that the burden of proof rests on the adopting family, and the cost involved in this process can be in excess of $40,000.00 and is unlikely to be successful. This is prohibitive for most potentially adoptive families in New Zealand. If Section 8 Adoption Act were applied in conjunction with Section 101 COCA, it would provide actual consequences for failure to parent. It would also allow the children to belong to a family and the parents raising the children to have the full rights and responsibilities of parents.

My husband and I are Home for Life parents. Our little girl (referred to as E herein) has been with us from November of 2008, shortly after her second birthday. She was uplifted from her mother’s (referred to as M) care fourteen months prior to E being place in our care. M, E’s biological mother, is for all intents and purposes, homeless. She flatly refused all assistance offered to her when her four children were initially removed from her care and has continued to refuse support available to become a functioning parent. E has three older half siblings who are in their biological father’s care (they have the same father to each other, E has a different biological father) or with his family, and they are now thriving. They belong to their family. They are with family. They get to be connected to their heritage and have connections with their cousins and with each other. Their father has worked and taken the classes and done what is necessary for him to have his children. M has refused. She is (last we were aware) in the Women’s Refuge for the fifth time in the past 39 months. She has not yet managed to stay with them long enough to be sober for more than 30 days. She is incapable of raising her children, and it has already been proven in the courts. Yet, when we wanted to take E to Disneyland in 2010, she had the final say. She has made her choices, and should not have a say in decisions in E’s life. She is not competent to make those decisions, which has already been proven in court, and yet she retains guardianship. E’s biological father was convicted of two sexual assaults of young girls, his nieces. At this point, he has no access or contact. Yet, were he to petition the court for guardianship, it would be granted to him despite his own affidavits stating that he has “only met (E) on one occasion as an infant at (his) mother’s home.” These two individuals have made their choices, and should not be allowed to continue to influence and have further control of the life of a child they are unable to parent.

Benefits of open adoptions

Open adoption (contact arrangements/agreements) need to be legalized so that links to biological whānau can be maintained post adoption. Biological parents should have standing similar to aunties or uncles where they are known to the child and have regular contact, but should not be co-parents as under the current ‘Home for Life’ policy, if that is desired by the biological parents and it is in the best interests of the child.

With my daughter, her biological mother is allowed a maximum of four hours supervised contact per year. In three years and three months, she has had a total of eight hours of contact. We have not heard from her since early December where we arranged a visit that she did not turn up to. We now supervise these infrequent visits, and the reason E knows her ‘tummy mummy’ is that we have photos of her and tell her who she is. We feel strongly that these visits are important, and wouldn’t take them away from E or M. Even more importantly, we visit with her sisters frequently; however, since their move to Auckland in June 2011 to live with an uncle, we’ve only seen them twice. But again, they are important relationships that need to be maintained.

In our custody and guardianship hearings, E’s biological father was denied access by the judge due to his potentially harmful history. He was asked to provide evidence as to why he would be a positive influence on E, and in the last fourteen months has not done so. I have initiated an email contact with him so that he can have photos and updates on E’s progress.

In summary, all adoptive parents I’ve spoken to feel that open adoptions are beneficial for the children and would like more contact. I would not decrease or alter the current access arrangements even if an adoption were finalized in our case, as contact is better in the long term for our little girl. For the security of biological parents and to ensure that adoptive families are sincere in the arrangements they agree to for contact, the arrangements need to be enforceable after an adoption has taken place, as they are currently a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ type of arrangement, which is not secure for any of the parties involved.

Adoption through foster care will save taxpayer money

Entirely too many people enter foster parenting to get money. Even after gaining ‘additional guardianship,’ foster parents receive the Unsupported Child Benefit.

If half of the children in non-kin care were adopted, it would save the taxpayers approximately $8,872,500.00 per year in board only. This figure is based on a $300 per fortnight average payment to foster parents for board. It does not include the quarterly clothing allowance of $280-$300 per child and the birthday and Christmas funds of $60-$100 per child based on the child’s age for each holiday.

Keep the money and you will find people who want to look after kids, people who want to parent long term. There is and always will be a place for emergency and even some long term foster placements where the funding is appropriate and necessary. But there are way too many children in New Zealand in permanent foster care, whether you label it ‘Home for Life’ or any other nice catchphrase, they are still foster kids. They deserve a family, and real families don’t want the money. Adoption will save the government millions.

Adoption is better for children than foster care

One reason adoption is discouraged is the potential for subsequent divorce and the question of if it is in the best interest of the child to be adopted into a family which may break up in the future. However, once an adoption is finalized, the child becomes ‘as if born to’ the adoptive parents, both of whom go through extensive checks to ensure they are fit to parent. If a divorce occurs following an adoption, custody would be arranged just like it is with any other child whose parents divorce, and the child would still belong to a family which is in their best interests; emotionally, psychologically and physically.

Adoption is better than being labelled a ‘foster kid’. Even pretty labels like ‘Home for Life’ don’t hide the fact from kids that they are in foster homes. Children want to belong to families; imperfect, real, safe, loving families—one that they can call their own, where they belong and are loved.

Under current legislation, biological parents’ rights trump everyone else

Foster parents overwhelmingly do not want to be ‘Home for Life’ parents or ‘additional guardians.’ The ones who foster well are great at supporting families in crisis, welcoming children in extreme circumstances, and are generally the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for the most vulnerable in our society. They parent. They are not in it for anything but the kids. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not suspicion and degradation.

Those who foster for an additional income do not take up ‘Home for Life’ often as the Unsupported Child benefit means a decrease in income and the loss of the support network provided by CYF in their social worker, and the social worker for the child or children.

For foster parents wanting to parent a child who has no biological family to go to, ‘Home for Life’ means co-parenting with unfit parents. It is not an attractive option for people trying to build a family. Home for Life is essentially permanent foster parenting without the support of social workers.

For us, it is frustrating to be required to consult with a homeless alcoholic and a convicted child sex offender in any and all big decisions. We have to track down, or attempt to, a biological mum who has not maintained an address for longer than four months in the past four years and a biological father who has been convicted of raping two little girls, before we take our girl on an overseas holiday, enrol her in school, move to a new city, or make any decisions in regards to her religion. If my husband or myself were offered a job in another city in New Zealand or internationally, we would have to consult with and potentially pay court fees in any dispute with two people who have already been proven unfit to parent.

Why should unfit parents, abusive parents, have so much power and control over another family if they are not able to parent their children themselves? Parents who have been proven unfit to have custody have all the rights and none of the responsibility in the Home for Life system. It seems to me, as a ‘Home for Life’ parent, that the interests of the biological parents outweigh both the best interests of the child and my rights to live how and where I choose. To attract good parents to foster care, create a pathway for adoption from foster care.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The foster care system in New Zealand is a dead end for thousands of children. Once they are in, they never get out. No matter the label, once in foster care, always in foster care under the current system.

Both the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and the Care of Children Act 2004 should incorporate Section 8 of the Adoption Act 1955 (dispensing with parental consent) in situations where biological parents are not going to be more involved with their children than a few hours a year. This will allow children to escape the stigma of foster care and grow up with a sense of belonging. Maintaining links to biological families through legalized contact agreements will minimize any displacement that may be felt by children being adopted from foster care. We need to help children in foster care find families, not just homes, for life. This will also help recruit more and better foster parents, as well as weed out the foster parents who are not in the system for the benefit of children and families in crisis.

References

Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989

101 Custody orders

· (1) Where the court makes a declaration under section 67 in relation to a child or young person, it may make an order placing that child or young person in the custody of any of the following persons for such period as may be specified in the order:

o (a) the chief executive:

o (b) an iwi social service:

o (c) a cultural social service:

o (d) the director of a child and family support service:

o (e) any other person.

(2) Any such order may be made on such terms and conditions as the court thinks fit.

(3) The court shall not make an order under subsection (1) placing any child or young person in the custody of any person (other than the chief executive) unless that person consents to the making of the order.

Care of Children Act 2004

31 Application to court

· (1) An eligible person may make an application to a court with jurisdiction under this section for—

o (a) an order placing under the guardianship of the court a child who is not married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship:

o (b) an order appointing a named person to be the agent of the court either generally or for any particular purpose.

(2) In this section, eligible person, in relation to a child, means any of the following persons:

o (a) a parent or guardian of the child:

o (b) a grandparent or an aunt or an uncle of the child:

o (c) a sibling (including a half-sibling) of the child:

o (d) a spouse or partner of a parent of the child:

o (e) the child himself or herself (who may apply without any litigation guardian):

o (f) the chief executive:

o (g) any other person granted leave to apply by the court.

Adoption Act 1955

8 Cases where consent may be dispensed with

· (1) The Court may dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian to the adoption of a child in any of the following circumstances:

o (a) if the Court is satisfied that the parent or guardian has abandoned, neglected, persistently failed to maintain, or persistently ill-treated the child, or failed to exercise the normal duty and care of parenthood in respect of the child; and that reasonable notice of the application for an adoption order has been given to the parent or guardian where the parent or guardian can be found:

o (b) if the Court is satisfied that the parent or guardian is unfit, by reason of any physical or mental incapacity, to have the care and control of the child; that the unfitness is likely to continue indefinitely; and that reasonable notice of the application for an adoption order has been given to the parent or guardian:

o (c) if a licence has been granted in respect of the child under section 40 of the Adoption Act 1950 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or under the corresponding provisions of any former or subsequent Act of that Parliament, or under the corresponding provisions of any Act of the Parliament of any Commonwealth country.

(2) The Court may dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian as aforesaid notwithstanding that the parent or guardian may have made suitable initial arrangements for the child by placing the child under the care of the authorities of a children's home, the chief executive, or some other person.

(3) On application by any person having the care of a child, the Court may dispense with the consent of a parent or guardian of a child under this section before any application is made for an adoption order in respect of the child; and any order so made shall lapse after the expiration of 6 months from the date on which it is made for all purposes except an application made to the Court within that period for an adoption order in respect of the child.

(4) The Court may dispense with the consent of the spouse of an applicant for an adoption order if it is satisfied that the spouses are living apart and that their separation is likely to be permanent.

(5) In any case where a mentally disordered person is a parent or guardian of a child in respect of whom an application for an adoption order has been made, service of notice of the application on the manager or administrator of the estate of the parent or guardian, or on the person with whom the parent or guardian resides or under whose care he is, shall (unless the Court otherwise orders) be sufficient service thereof for the purposes of this section.

(5A) In any case where a District Court has refused to make an order dispensing with the consent of any parent or guardian or spouse, the person or persons who sought the dispensation may, within one month after the date of the refusal, appeal to the High Court against the refusal; and the High Court may dispense with the consent if it thinks fit.

(6) Any person whose consent is dispensed with under this section may, on notice to every applicant for an adoption order in respect of the child and within one month after the making of the order dispensing with consent, make application for the revocation of that order and of any consequential interim order to the High Court; and the Court to which the application is so made may in its discretion revoke any such order.

(7) In any case where the Court has made an adoption order within one month after making the order dispensing with consent, any person whose consent is dispensed with under this section may, on notice to every adoptive parent and within one month after the making of the order dispensing with consent, make application for the revocation of that order and the discharge of the adoption order to the High Court; and the Court to which the application is so made may in its discretion discharge any such order. All the provisions of section 20 of this Act, so far as they are applicable and with the necessary modifications, shall apply in connection with any such discharge of an adoption order.

(8) In any case where the High Court revokes any interim order or discharges any adoption order in accordance with this section, that Court may include in its order an order for the refund by some person specified in the order of money spent by any adopter or proposed adopter for the child's benefit. Any such order for the refund of money shall be enforceable as a judgment of the Court which made the order in favour of the person to whom the money has to be repaid.

Footnote one: English student, quote from submitted work on family heritage. Used with permission.

Statistical information provided by media team of the Ministry of Social Development, 27^th February 2012.

---

[1] Students work used with permission of the student and her ‘caregiver’ parents.