It shows just how easily good parents can get persecuted by law enforcement if the right sort of complaint is made, no matter how ludicrous.

Incredibly, we were also told Guy was going to stay with this other family despite the fact that they had not been subject to any Criminal Record Bureau checks and had no foster-parenting experience.

There was not even any Emergency Protection Order (EPO) in place - required before your children can be subject to local authority care.

I felt our family was fragmenting before our eyes.

Knowing you cannot go near your child and have lost all sense of control is agony. But I was determined to hold it together.

Both boys stayed the night with this family and the next morning I tried frantically to contact Social Services.

Eventually a social worker called us and said: "You're not allowed to see Guy this weekend. We will be reviewing the situation after the bank holiday."

....

On Tuesday, we went to our solicitor Nick Turner and began to kick up merry hell with Social Services.

We warned them that because they had no EPO they had no right to dictate where Guy went and we would see them in court.

Rather than apologise, they told us: "We will be interviewing your children whether you like it or not.

"You are under investigation for child abuse. Stay away from Guy."

Just as we were about to leave to go to court, the police arrived and placed us under arrest on suspicion of child abuse.

...Eventually, on Friday evening, I was led into a tiny interview room where two stern-faced female detectives lay in wait.

Initially I felt scared but then an overwhelming sense of outrage swept over me.

"Why did you smack Guy's bottom?" demanded one of the officers.

"Surely you know this is abuse? Why have you not fed him properly?"

"This is ridiculous," I said. "My son is not emaciated and smacking is only used as a last resort.

"As far as I know, reasonable chastisement is still legal in this country."

Later that night we were released on bail but warned we faced further investigation.

Indeed, as we walked away from the police station, a social worker appeared and warned us we still could not see Guy except under supervision for two hours a week.

In the meantime they were going to assess us as parents. That was the first time I had ever heard my husband tell someone to "F*** off".

By the time we arrived home we were dishevelled, filthy and on the edge of hysteria.

But thankfully there was some good news: the judge had thrown out Social Services' case because officials did not have a leg to stand on.

My brother-in-law had contacted them after the ruling and said: "We are collecting Guy and there is nothing you can do about it."

Guy had been away from our house for seven nights and was getting very concerned.

The enormity of what he and Oliver had done had long since sunk in.

Meanwhile, Folke and I had yet more meetings to attend.

First was a child protection meeting in Worcester.

Moments before we went in, the supposedly independent chairman told me Rosalind Hayes, the headteacher at Malvern St James, was going to be there and that he had already told her I should be suspended due to the seriousness of the allegations.

Over the next three hours, Folke and I faced a barrage of accusations.

"Why does Guy have no furniture in his bedroom?" we were asked.

This was easy enough to explain. It was obvious, even from a cursory examination, that we were in the middle of refurbishing our Victorian house. The floorboards were being stripped, ready to be varnished.

But the accusations became more and more ridiculous.

"Why are you starving them and depriving them of toys?"

We explained that both allegations were nonsense. The "starvation" claim stemmed from the fact that Guy had been putting on too much weight, so when he demanded snacks between meals I'd sometimes say no.

As for depriving the boys of toys, Oliver and Guy have a Nintendo DS, a Sony PlayStation and a computer.

Like many parents, however, I would not let them vegetate in front of a screen all day.

Our explanations to the panel made not the slightest difference - we were told Harriet and Guy would be placed on the Child Protection Register.

Their conclusion outlines the critical issues.

But we are determined to take action against the police and Social Services, not just for ourselves, but on behalf of other parents who are being hounded in a similar fashion.

Parents need to have the power to set boundaries for their children.

Without discipline in the home, children grow up with no sense of right and wrong.

Folke and I adore our children and try to avoid smacking at all costs. But we would not hesitate to do the same again.

If our battle helps to restore the power of discipline to parents - not to mention teachers and police on the beat - then some good will have emerged from this terrible ordeal.

And that is the problem in Britian, and the issue here even more after the Section 59 repeal. Parents are required under law to look after children, see to their welfare, but are expected to do this with state authorities seeking to remove more and more authority from them at ever turn.

This letter appears to be part of a campaign against my office by extremist religious political lobby group Family First as it quotes liberally from the most recent Family First newsletter. For this reason I question the letter’s originality and validity.

Fancy that. Well, let's quote her own web site.

The Children’s Commissioner Role

The Children's Commissioner speaks out on behalf of all children to ensure their rights are respected and upheld.

This position is established by statute; the Children's Commissioner Act 2003, and previously the Children, Young Persons and Families Act 1989.

The Act allows the Commissioner to inquire into any matter affecting children and young people in any service or organisation and investigate the actions of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

The Children's Commissioners Office is an independent Crown Entity and promotes children’s and young people’s wellbeing through advocacy, public awareness, consultation, research and investigations/monitoring.

Interesting that there's nothing about calling those who criticise her inactions a "extremist religious political lobby group". In fact, the only thing that we can say for certain that she is supposed to do (aside from "advocacy, consultation" etc)  is to investigate complaints regarding the actions of CYFS.

So I went searching for "complaint" on her site. 3 items were returned.

School students human rights
Children’s rights in youth justice
Complaints about the department of Child Youth and Family (PDF, 47KB)

Clicking on the "Complaints about the department of Child Youth and Family produces a single page, which has a brief and not very interesting flow chart.

So you've been wronged by CYFS, you are at your wits end. You believe you've been shabbily treated, and maybe even the law has been broken. You child has been taken from your arms and placed in an abusive situation. But you have one last hope, the Children's commissioner!

I think most parents in this situation would get the definite impression that the commissioner was not going to be much help.

I don't think I've ever seen a complains service that didn't list a phone number before...

Apparently it's ok to remove a child from a parent if that parent is found not guilty.

But if that parent is guilty the child gets to stay with the mother.

Then there's this case...

The Morrisseys also told the court of the joy of the birth of another little girl since Aaliyah’s death but questioned why she has been taken away by the authorities.

“CYFS decided that Hoana and myself were not suitable parents to have Chivun in our house or lives because we had allowed Aaliyah to be placed in an unsafe environment with a murderer Michael Curran and his family,” said Brad Morrissey in his statement to the court.

That’s a battle the Morrisseys will continue to fight, knowing their first daughter’s murderer is staying behind bars for a very long time.

So would it be true that Sue Bradford would support CYFS taking a child off parents who failed to judge character of a subsequent child murderer, but if those parents had comitted the deed themselves, they'd keep the child?

I assume Sue would advise otherwise, but I don't see any sign of her advocating on behalf of this family.

The Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro seems to be attempting to discredit Family First, but her comments are factually inaccurate. Family First has never commented on this case (although we are aware of the history of the family), and based on the facts reported, completely understand and support the verdict. We are pretty certain that Dr Kiro actually has a case of 'mistaken identity' - but it does reveal her paranoia over our existence.

It is also highly ironic that Dr Kiro wants us to be held to account, yet was...
- silent during the Trevor Mallard incident during the "It's Never OK" Violence Campaign funded by the government.
- silent when the prostitution report from South Auckland was released earlier this year highlighting the number of young teenagers prostituting themselves
- silent when Police refused to prosecute a 21 year old who got a 13 year old pregnant (after starting the relationship when she was 11)
- silent over the recent cancelling of the sentence for a woman who pleaded guilty to infanticide
- silent over the ultimate child abuse of abortion
....yet is more interested in the rights of children to be able to purchase spray cans of paint for the purposes of tagging.

The bottom line is that children's interests are best served in the context of their own family. Government support for children must be through their families, not apart from families. Any office or structure which even appears to separate children from their families will be destructive in the long run - no matter how well intentioned. Laws are already in place which protect children in seriously dysfunctional families.

I have searched Bob's emails, and to my surprise he is right. The only time he has gone anywhere near the Timaru case is described here.

The Children’s Commissioner has misrepresented the facts to the Broadcasting Standards Authority relating to her complaint about a TV3 Campbell Live programme on the ‘anti-smacking’ bill.

Cindy Kiro argued that the programme on the boy involved in the Timaru horsewhip case had breached the 14-year-old boy’s privacy, was unfair to the boy and that he had been exploited – a breach of standard 6 of the Broadcasting Standards.

But Cindy Kiro does not know all the facts, and seems to be motivated more by political agendas than genuine concern for the boy,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

The boy concerned had approached Family First NZ independently, wanting his side of the story to be told in a case which he believed had been grossly misrepresented by supporters of Bradford’s ‘anti-correction’ bill, including Cindy Kiro.

Family First then contacted Campbell Live to see if they wished to allow him the opportunity to have his side heard. They agreed, and interviewed both the child and the mother. Mr McCoskrie was present at all times and is satisfied that there was no coercion or pressure by the interviewer.

“The boy was stoked to be able to tell his version of the events which have been so misrepresented,” says Mr McCoskrie. "It is a pity that the Children’s Commissioner hadn’t made the time herself to speak to the boy if she was so concerned.”

Mr McCoskrie says that Kiro is totally wrong to suggest that the boy was exploited, that his treatment was unfair, or that his privacy had been breached.

“He was given the opportunity a number of times to withdraw his permission for the interview but was persistent that he wanted to set the record straight,” says Mr McCoskrie. “It is more an indictment on the anti-smacking lobby that the boy felt he had to go to the media to get the truth out, and that what had happened to him had been so misrepresented.”

On the positive side, it is good to know that the Children’s Commissioner is willing to take on individual cases, and Family First will be encouraging parents who have recorded their frustrations on the CYFSWatch website to contact the
Commissioner for personal support and advocacy.

The woman who smacked her son and became the "Poster Parent" for the anti-smackers has been sent to jail for an unrelated assult.

No one ever claimed this woman was perfect. What we claimed was that her actions were not abuse - a claim backed by the facts and the courts.

We also claimed that CYFS was wildly out of line - and evidence still remains that that is the case.

Russell Brown stick the knife in, and gives it a good twist.

Note: I've made the decision to redact significant parts of today's post because they may breach a suppression order relating to an earlier case. This seriously vexes me, because it has the effect of protecting some people -- most notably Family First's Bob McCoskrie -- who have been dishonest about their role in what happened.

Implication is a good way if impugning character without stating facts.

Bob has never, ever advocated child abuse, or behaviours that would lead to it. Neither have I or most (sadly I cannot say all) advocates of parental rights.

Goodbye then, Barbara Bishop. Until such time as you receive the help you need -- and sadly, I don't really think your nine-month prison sentence for your role in a beating with "unjustified, excessive and brutal force" will provide that -- your children are safer in your absence.

A rather sick comment, given the state's "help" was a contributing factor in her demise. By taking her son and telling him that her mother was evil, the child lost all respect for his parents, and that disrespect created this situation.

"your children are safer in your absence" - indeed, if you can call "safer" being kept drugged up to stop them trying to return to their parents.

But I think it's time for some apologies: from all the people who depicted Bishop as a victim of the state, and who demonised Child Youth and Family for intervening and the police for bringing charges against her.

CYFS were demonised by myself and others (as well as the Police) for taking this woman to court in a case where she was let off. I make no apologies whatsoever for that. CYFS were wrong - and they were proven wrong in court, a fact that Russell fails to mention. Kiro also sticks the boot in, in the SST but forgets one little fact...

Cindy Kiro told the Sunday Star-Times that Family First should be held to account for using mid-Canterbury woman Barbara Bishop's case as a prime example of parents being justified to use force to discipline children.

"Which good parent could ever think that was appropriate discipline? This is vindication that some people have no idea where to draw the line and that this sort of behaviour is untenable," Kiro said.

...the fact that 12 citizens (presumably including "good parents") heard all the facts of the earlier case and decided that the evidence showed that, indeed this was appropriate discipline. It didn't help that the boy's behaviour improving was how it came to light!

That is in vast contrast to this case, where an early guilty plea was laid on what she did do.

That's called taking responsibility.

Barbara Bishop's sentence follows a court hearing in which she and her then husband were accused of hogtying, kicking and beating her 17 year-old son.

This is from the Sunday Star Times story:

The judge said Bishop appeared unremorseful and believed she had done nothing wrong. He noted Bishop had previous convictions for violence, including one for attempting to procure the murder of a former husband.

Kiro said Bishop had spoken publicly about her violent past and the violence of her previous partners, which had been witnessed by her children. "She doesn't seem to make the connection that violence breeds violence."

Bishop has claimed that it was her right as a good parent to discipline her children

More and more is coming out about this woman's past. She is most certainly not a saint. But again, I must repeat, in the earlier case after all evidence was heard, the discipline that improved her boy's behaviour she was found not guilty. She is, however, a saint in my book for having to put up with the abuse heaped on her by Kiro, Brown et al after being vindicated.

But to continue...

And perhaps if so many people had not indulged her delusions and told her she was a hero, it might not have come to this.

On the other hand, perhaps if she had not been dragged through the law courts and court of public opinion, maybe her son would have respected his mother more? If he had, he would not have retaliated against his mother, and the situation would have ended there - if indeed he was hit as he has described.

I'm wondering what exactly the "delusions" were? The verdict of the jury?

Just don't blame Bob McCoskrie or Family First. Oh no, Bob McCoskrie told the Sunday Star Times, Family First had never held up Bishop as its poster girl: "The children's commissioner has misrepresented us."

Not as much as you've misrepresented your own role, Bob. It's a damn shame I've removed a large part of this post, because I think it very clearly demonstrates what a hypocrite you have been in the case of Barbara Bishop. You, a man who touts a website named stoptheabuse.org.nz. It's not so much ironic as outrageous.

Again, we're left with a straw man to argue with, no actual evidence is supplied.

While we're at it, perhaps the other news media could forswear from fanning cheap outrage every time one of these "smacking" cases becomes news. Jimmy Mason's recent account of having "flicked" his son on the ear was almost universally reported as fact, for example, when it would have been wise to avoid treating the defendant's characterisation of events as gospel until his two consequent child assault charges have been heard in court.

That case will be interesting - either Jimmy is a liar, or he is a victim. Of course, one of the media "fanning cheap outrage" was a columnist who found 3 police at her door after her child didn't want to go to bed.

"Cheap outrage" indeed.

And I would hope that internet commenters and uploaders who have acted as enablers for Bishop will now remove or annotate material which relates to her, because leaving it intact is tantamount to continuing that enablement.

I guess pointing out that someone was found "not gulity" is a bad thing. Who knew that if someone is found "guilty" that changes all previous verdicts? I didn't.

I wonder if Dave Crampton has already realised quite how marginal some of those people are. A recent post on his blog covers some IP sleuthing that led Cameron "Whaleoil" Slater to suggest that the "People Power" group chucking bricks through windows as an EFA protest is linked to the people behind the horrible CYFSWatch site.

The subsequent discussion in comments, from memory, briefly included what read like a threat against Slater's young son. The thread as it stands is deranged.

In his stance on this issue, Russel sits in a group consisting of about 20% of the population. With 80% of the population on the side of the rule of law, I have no doubt that there are quite a few unhinged people supporting smacking - but somehow there seem to be plenty left on the minority side conducting criminal assaults of their own, not on foul-mouthed  children, but on respectful and law abiding petitioners. Oh, include theft in that.

 Dave concludes:

Finally Henk van Helmond, the man behind all the sites, says he did not know who threw the bricks at Clark's office. He has said he doesn't know them, nor has he met them - just had "contact" with them. He says he doesnt know the people who post on his sites either - that includes Bryn Rodda. But he certainly knows a lot about the brick chucking. And he knows Bryn Rodda more than he makes out. Both have had contact with the woman who used the riding crop on her son. They're all connected.

I know that.

I write a while ago that I thought that the anti-EFA protest movement would suffer the same fate as the anti-GE movement -- it would be undermined and destabilised by its own lunatic fringe. And some of these people seem far worse.

Indeed, we'll try to return them to your side just as soon as we can.

Nowadays, it's the government that does it. In Britain they don't even stay within the law sometimes.

Baby "G's" distraught mother wept as a court ordered he should be taken away from her again and put into foster care.
The 18 year old, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, broke down in tears and had to be supported by two relatives as she received the devastating news.
During a three day emotional roller-coaster for the mother, her baby has been snatched from her in hospital by social services two hours after birth, then dramatically returned to her later that day after a High Court judge ruled the officials had acted illegally as they did not have a court order.
After a further hearing before the Family Proceedings Court lasting five hours over two days, district judge Richard Inglis yesterday upheld an application by Nottingham City Council for an interim care order.
The case highlights the lack of transparency in the family courts, with the reasons behind the decision not being revealed to the public."

Bold courtesy of Crusader Rabbit.

Well, that one may have been justified - for all we know this woman had 6 children and had abused them all. Not likely though.

Back home, a case on TV last night raised my eyebrow.

Curran had been out on bail at the time of the killing, awaiting trial, when he murdered Aaliyah. And that formed the heart of legal debate over how many years Curran should get. The judge also again outlined the dozens of injuries Curran had inflicted on Aaliyah's body, as her parents quietly wept in court.

Afterwards, Brad Morrissey had little energy left for anger.

"I was hoping on 20 years plus and I got it, just. He misses out on some important events in his children's life so I guess it's a good thing, I suppose, if you can say that," Morrissey said.

The Morrisseys also told the court of the joy of the birth of another little girl since Aaliyah's death but questioned why she has been taken away by the authorities.

"CYFS decided that Hoana and myself were not suitable parents to have Chivun in our house or lives because we had allowed Aaliyah to be placed in an unsafe environment with a murderer Michael Curran and his family," said Brad Morrissey in his statement to the court.

That's a battle the Morrisseys will continue to fight, knowing their first daughter's murderer is staying behind bars for a very long time.

Once again, the "caring" arm of the state slaps those it's supposed to help. After all, it's hardly likely that these parents would make the same mistake twice. Clearly, they are going to have a hard time trusting anyone ever again.

I wonder what process declared these people "not suitable parents"? Somehow I doubt there was a court case involved, with full evidence and arguments from both sides, with appeals.

There was a man who lived in the old days where bridges were often drawn up to let boats past. His job was to raise and lower a railway bridge. He had to make sure the bridge was down when the express came through, as it always went fast and would not stop.

One day he took his 5 year old son to work.

The day passed as normal, until the time for the express to come through arrived, and he was to lower the bridge.

He looked for this son, and saw him far below, playing on the massive cogs that lowered the bridge.  He called to his son, but but his son could not hear him over the distance and background noise.

As he heard the whistle of the train coming, he knew what he must do. He lowered the bridge, crushing his son between those massive cogs.

The train passed over bridge, and the hundreds of people aboard were saved. The train travelled onwards, and the bridge keeper watched those people pass, who did not even know the sacrifice that had been made on their behalf.

The point I make with this story is a simple one: sometimes people die. Sometimes the cost of saving one life is just so massive that it cannot be justified. This is not something that I like, that you like or anyone likes, but it is one of the hardest facts of life that we must face.

Cindy Kiro proposes that we keep the bridge up. She proposes that we impose a police state on New Zealand parents, so that we can save 5 children a year.

The Children's Commissioner is proposing mandatory screening of every baby's home life in a bid to halve New Zealand's high child murder rate.

Cindy Kiro wants every newborn baby's parents or caregivers to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits.

Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities.

Dr Kiro told the Dominion Post the scheme would cost about $5 million a year. Professional assessments suggested it could save five children a year in the first five years.

Actually, it's much worse. She insists we keep the bridge up even though there are traffic lights 3 miles up the track, with a controller at our fingertips. Because we know what sort of people put children in dryers, and 90% of New Zealand parents are not that sort of people. But in spite of this still she insists it necessary to impose a compulsory big brother system on all parents in New Zealand.

But what really infuriates me about this proposal is this comment:

She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it."

Clearly, if she had cared to she could have found several schemes exactly like this one. Let me suggest where she might have omitted to look.

1. North Korea
2. Cuba
3. Communist Russia
4. ...

You get my drift - pretty much any communist state or dictatorship worth it's salt keeps tabs on it's parents to this extent.

Or perhaps it's just the monitoring program without the re-education camps that makes this proposal special?

Either way, Cindy is disturbingly keen to throw away our civil liberties in the name of protecting a handful of children, for what is probably not even the most common cause of death. Better not put her in charge of bringing down the road toll, or she'd propose those camps after all!

The five and six-year-old girls were taken by their father Jamahl Schou, also known as Jamahl Ake, from their Child, Youth and Family (CYF) caregiver in the Tauranga suburb of Brookfield on Wednesday.

Bay of Plenty police believe the Girls are staying with either extended family or associates of their father.

Police are appealing to the man to return his daughters.

"Their welfare can't be guaranteed until they have been returned to CYF and on that basis, yes they possibly are in a degree of danger," Detective Senior Sergeant Greg Turner, from the Tauranga CIB, said today.

Since when did CYF gurantee anyone's saftey? How many stories are there about children being abused in CYF care, and now you're telling us their saftey can't be guaranteed if they're not with CYF?

In fact, the ultimate irony here was that they got stolen from CYFS custody - showing just how stupid the above claim really is?

How about from the start:

TV3's Campbell Live has been ordered by the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) to air a statement about exploiting a boy whipped by his mother with a riding crop.

Nice, working in the word "whip" there, while actually telling the truth about the instrument used for once. Sort of dishonest and honest at the same time...

In the upheld complaint, Dr Kiro said the child was being exploited by sitting with his mother during his interview.

He would have felt pressured to provide the right answers and the show "displayed a disregard" for the boy's rights, she said.

...

During the interview, the boy said he felt he deserved the discipline meted out to him.

He was pressured, all right!

The 14-year-old also said he would not smack his own children, though after the interview, the host said the boy only said this because he was afraid Child, Youth and Family (CYF) would take them away.

Remember: this case only came about because the boy's behavior improved. Then CYFS removed him, in spite of the criminal case being thrown out. Kiro is by her own admission the watchdog over CYFS, but here is attacking the very people she should be standing up for.

So should it surprise us that this boy is afraid to admit he would smack his kids, even 15+ years into the future?

For that matter, do you start to see how parents who have children now might be more than a little concerned about the power's CYFS wield, with the "watchdog" attacking them!

In another complaint, Dr Kiro said the boy's privacy was breached because those who were familiar with the case could identify him.

Funny how this report seems to gloss over this and the other two rejected complaints.

The commissioner also alleged the story was unbalanced, being firmly pro-smacking and against reform of child-hitting laws.

Furthermore, it was inaccurate, Dr Kiro said, because the mother was not a reliable source and that the journalist had made no attempt to investigate the circumstances of the case.

The mother's story was validated by the courts, solely on the word of the prosecutor. But Kiro doesn't like that story, so out come the insults and mud-flinging.

Oh, and how dare the media present the side of the case that the great Cindy Kiro disagrees with.

Kiro is a disgrace.

Forget about protecting children. Attacking the innocent, failing to do her job, crushing dissent. That's her day's work.

"But not locking them up, not punishing them, but instead looking at how we get them to own up to the offending and basically get in there before things get too out of control."

"Before they get out of control" - hm, funny story Cindy...

The reaction was interesting.

It was quite clear from body language that the person was disgusted with CYFS. She looked like she was about to spill big time.

There was some hesitation. Then a plead of ignorance. Then a carefully worded "they're under pressure" line.

Given the situation, I believe the person knew a whole lot more than he/she was saying but was too scared to say anything.

CYFS remains a huge concern for all New Zealand families. It should be at the very top of the family agenda. Instead, the government has focused intense pressure on shutting up the complainers.

And they're about to be given a blank cheque to interfere with any New Zealand family they want to. Of course, only a few will recieve the full treatment. But the chilling effect on New Zealand will in future cover a whole lot more than a few health workers.

A Northland social worker is to apologise to the courts after a judge accused him of "sabotaging" the sentencing of a teenager.

The teenager, who killed two people when a stolen Mercedes he was driving crashed, was due to be sentenced in the North Shore Youth Court on Wednesday.

However, Judge Laurence Ryan delayed the hearing after a social worker failed to provide information requested at a previous hearing.

Judge Ryan said: "Essentially the social worker has sabotaged the availability today to sentence [the teen] and I require an explanation as to why this has happened."

He ordered a summons requiring the social worker to appear in court to explain himself and offer an apology to the teen and his mother for the delay in imposing a sentence - the third time it has been put off.

Reading a few CYFS watch cases, there are many accusations of workers using the courts to subvert the law, as well as outright subversion of the courts themselves.

Nice to see the courts bite back!

Someone saw this, and called the Police, who treated this as a kidnapping.

Sergeant John Hicks praised the man for memorising the car's registration.

At the end of the day, we're after the welfare of the child. We take our hat off to the member of the public who came in and reported it. Better to be safe than sorry," he said.

Of course, had an adult been in the same position (fighting someone who was putting them in a car) this would have been a kidnapping. But that's the point: adults are treated differently from adults.

Thankfully, this parent would not have been breaking the law as proposed. Unfortunately, that protects no one from CYFS.

So next time you hear Sue Bradford saying we should treat children the same way as adults, remember this case.

They have posted an explanation on Blogger (their original space). This is pasted below. I have not yet digested it fully myself, I just wanted to get a copy and read it in case it was taken down.

From first glance, it looks like Wordpress was a much easier target for the government than Google.

Where has www.cyfswatchnz.wordpress.com gone?

CYFSWATCH NZ are currently in a none too subtle game of "whack-a-mole" with the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry responsible for CYFS. It seems as if there are some very motivated Government individuals who are determined to remain unaccountable to the NZ public about their gross abuses of children and families in New Zealand.

We have posted this page here to advise our readers that:

1/ The entire blog content has been saved, and so can be re-published, anywhere, at any time.

2/ We are at this stage unsure of what transpired over at wordpress. We did not delete the blog. We have contacted wordpress and asked if they can advise us as to what did happen.

3/ If it wasn't wordpress who deleted the site, then we have to surmise that an external party was responsible for the act.

4/ This message is posted on blogger for convenience. We do not intend re-launching the blog on Google.

Contact us at cyfswatch@hotmail.com if you have any more questions.

UPDATE:

March 1st, 2007 at 9:35 am

From: CYFSWATCH

CYFSWATCH emailed wordpress in order to ascertain what had happened to the CYFSWATCH blog. What follows is what we believe is a somewhat chilling and eerie reply: it looks as if someone in the NZ Government leaned very, very heavily on wordpress - we have asked for a more detailed explanation, as it does not appear that we breached any of the TOS.

The power and influence the NZ Government is exercising in the jurisdiction of other countries regarding the cyfswatch blog seems truly frightening - we are starting to feel as if we are residents of North Korea.

From wordpress:

Hi,I’m sorry but we were advised that we had to remove the blog.

There was no room to move on that.

We do believe in free speech but in this case we had no options. Sorry….-Mark

Now, compare the above response with our previous correspondence with Mark at wordpress:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

The guideline we are using for confidentiality is the question "is this information already available within the public domain?" eg electoral roles, public websites, phone books, directories, etc that a reasonable person could access with reasonable ease. If we ascertain that the information is not in the public domain, or could not be sourced in the public domain, then we would not publish said information to the blog.

Does this apprpoach keep us within the TOS of Wordpress?

If you guys do receive any complaints about information on CYFSWATCH, would you be able to let us know, so that we can respond responsibly to the complaint, and amend / delete information as required to by the TOS?

Our site has a lot of media attention in New Zealand, and we want to be seen to be doing the right thing. We were originally hosted by Google, however our site was closed down by Google as they thought we had posted an illegal comment - the NZ police came out in the public media 2 hours after we were shut down and said that no illegality had occurred - so we guess that Google just ended up looking stupid, because they then said in the media that we were welcome to re-post our blog on Google!

We chose Wordpress instead.

Please advise.

CYFSWATCH

From: "Mark @ Wordpress.com" support@wordpress.com
Reply-To: support@wordpress.com
To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com
Subject: [WordPress #PSN-167138]:

Enquiry regards blog management and terms of service>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:51 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for the note.

Confidentiality and Copyright are the two areas you need to be most careful about.

If you can be sure that your email address in the blog is correct too in case we need to contact you that would be good.

Mark

Thanks Mark.

CYFSWATCH

>From: "Mark @ Wordpress.com" support@wordpress.com
Reply-To: support@wordpress.com
To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com
Subject: [WordPress #PSN-167138]:
Enquiry regards blog management and terms of service

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:24:40 +0000

Hi,>

"The guideline we are using for confidentiality is the question "is this information already available within the public domain?" eg electoral roles, public websites, phone books, directories, etc that a reasonable person could access with reasonable ease."

That is okay.

If you can link to the source in the post that would be even better.

Otherwise they say you broke it, we ask you, you tell us, we tell them and that can take time.

But speech is free, opinion is free and we take the view that blogs are there to speak :)

Mark
So CYFSWATCH asks - who put the acid on wordpress?

-----------------

Updated: I've removed stuff not directly pertaining to the main issue here.

The majority of CYFS social workers work long, hard hours with uncooperative clients and family members, to blame the problems of low-socio-economics on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is outrageous. Look in your own backyard before you right off those who are willing to attempt to change our violent, drug-addicted culture. Those who post private information on social workers have many other paths for redress and to subject these people to public vilification in such a biased manner is wrong.

Let's dissect.

The majority of CYFS social workers work long, hard hours with uncooperative clients and family members

I've never disagreed with that, and nothing said here or anywhere on this blog should be taken as contradicting that. The problem is that they are working long hours ruining perfectly good families in some cases.

 to blame the problems of low-socio-economics on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is outrageous

I don't think that "blaming the problems..." is the point of the CYFS watch site. The point of the site, is, broadly speaking, that some CYFS workers are out of control, and destroy perfectly good families.

Look in your own backyard before you right off those who are willing to attempt to change our violent, drug-addicted culture.

Nice, but you appear to be making an assumption here that may or may not be true.

I also find it questionable as to whether or not CYFS is about "changing our culture". And again, the CYFS watch site wasn't setup because CYFS is changing it, it's because they are not, and are bothering normal people instead.

Those who post private information on social workers have many other paths for redress and to subject these people to public vilification in such a biased manner is wrong.

I suspect the definitions of "private information" that you, I or CYFS watch hold may be very, very different.  Generally, I would agree that addresses and other identifying information should not be published. However, I do consider that names of workers who abuse their responsibilities should, preferably after a full hearing of all the facts.

The problem here is that there is no authority to balance the quite considerable powers CYFS workers hold. You clearly do not agree, but I have yet to hear of any cases where CYFS workers have been found guilty of misspratice by say, the Children's Commissioner.

CYFS could have avoided this situation by having an independent review authority setup a long time ago. Many groups have called for this, and all have previously been ignored.

Sure, the CYFS watch site is an extreme response, and it's crossed the line in my opinion (as you would know if you read my latest post). However, I don't accept that we should assume that all CYFS workers are honest, hardworking people on trust, with no authority to check their wide-ranging powers.

According to CYFS Watch, our friend Cindy is now saying she is the watchdog for CYFS.

I agree with their call: provide us an example. Show us you've disagreed with CYFS, show us where you have asked for a social worker to be disciplined.

So many things wrong with that claim.

Let's start with the fact she has to make it.

Selected quotes:

He said the parents, who showed no remorse for what they had done, tortured a "loving and affectionate" child in a case made all the worse by the fact they knew they were "under the eye of social services and had every reason to show more, not less, affection to that little girl".

...

When the child, who cannot be named, was taken in by foster carers they referred to her as a "sunny child" who was physically capable despite her disability. Following the abuse she was left physically incapable of walking.

Why do they bother saying this, we all know already:

No social workers have been disciplined despite the fact the girl's family was visited or contacted 20 times, Westminster Council confirmed this evening. "The council's view is that no disciplinary action should be taken," said a spokesman.

In spite of...

Referring to today's case, police said they had never seen such shocking injuries. "These were horrific injuries," said Detective Sergeant Tony Smith from the child protection unit, "some of the worst injuries I have seen."

When the Police, who see the worst our society have to offer...

Moral of the story: it's not just about Google any more. Not that this development should surprise anyone.

She told me her observations of CYFS staff, some of whom she knows personally.

Too many have had no normal family life themselves - they've come from the same broken communities, and that's why they were hired. Also, few have had children.

There's no way you can discriminate on a good family vs. one that needs help if you haven't experienced the stresses of family life as a parent. There's no way you can help people towards a good family life if you have never experience it yourself.

No way at all.

In other news CYFS watch claims 60 copies of the blog have been taken across the world. Looks like the whole "24/7 lawyers" thing is backfiring big-time.

The only way out of this mess is for an independent office to be set up to monitor CYFS' activities.

• When CYFS Watch calls someone Hitler, it's justified
• There are few if any conspiracy theories
• They are not constantly complaining about what National did during the 1990's
• No one sucks up to powerful politicians
• CYFS Watch is committed to free speech
• People who contribute haven't gone straight from university to government positions
• People who contribute know what it's like to make ends meet in the real world
• If you've heard about the site, your impression of the writers may actually improve when you actually read the site yourself
• CYFS watch is trying to stop corruption
• Come to think of it, CW isn't covering for any of Labour's crimes and/or misdeeds
• CYFS Watch isn't based on a philosophy that has consistently and totally failed in every implementation, and was responsible for more deaths last century than any other.

CYFS said the foster parents, Ann and Don Eathorne, had been caregivers since 1999, and in 2002 there had been two allegations of abuse from two children who had previously lived with them.

The allegations were investigated, the children were relocated and the Eathornes were reminded that physical punishment against children was unacceptable.

"Physical Punishment" is legal, but not if you are dealing with a certain government department. Since when are people allowed to define what they want the law to be and enforce that fantasy?

CYFS said TVNZ's report was unfair in its portrayal that the children were only taken from the family due to the foster mother smacking one of the children on the hand when there had been a number of complaints to do with corporal punishment.

So it's not just one legal smack they're talking about.

They also said the report cast doubt over the children by containing several statements that portrayed the children as untrustworthy.

They're foster children - if they are more likely to tell the truth than foster parents, then CYPS have another problem. Either they are hiring untruthful foster parents, or they are taking well-adjusted children out of their families.

The BSA agreed with CYFS that broadcast did not include that the foster children had been interviewed separately before they could collude and their stories of abuse were consistent.

Before they could collude? That scarcely seems believable. Aside from the fact that the parents were acting inside the law.

It would appear that the children in this case are taking full advantage of CYFS' fantasy.

TVNZ they did not want to risk defamation in relating details of the previous court case in which some of the charges were dropped, and the only charges the Eathornes had pleaded guilty to were smacks on the hand with a spoon.