Saturday, September 12, 2009

CYF attempting to reap kudos?

This is a bad judgement call from CYF.

Anybody taking an interest in this case will speculate on CYF's involvement. Nobody will ever be able to conclusively say whether or not the removal of the children saved their lives. It may have aggravated circumstances and more deeply endangered the life of the mother. Nobody knows.

So CYF should have stayed quiet. To do otherwise suggests they are attempting to either justify their actions or positively politicise them. As if management thought, at last, a case that shows us in a good light. Let's make the most of it.


Berry said...

Very dangerous precedent. The only way forward now would be total disclosure and that is simply impossible given (a) the criminal trial going on and (b) the childrens' privacy concerns. Open justice is a problem in the Family Court/CYFS environment generally and comes particularly to the fore in cases with criminal publicity. A government agency should never, despite its involvement, come forward with information or claims before thinking this through and taking legal advice. Not a smart move.

Andrei said...

Indeed Lindsay;

Absolutely clueless.

They should not be discussing their 'clients' in the media let alone taking credit for something that may not have happened. For all we know if they hadn't taken the kids maybe the other crimes wouldn't have happened - who can possibly say.

Much better to keep schtum and let this factoid emerge at the appropriate time.

Swimming said...

Perhaps had CYFS not taken the kids the family would not have moved to Christchurch. In which case Tisha Lowry will have still been alive, and three children would still have a mother.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"After their children were removed in 2006, the couple were asked to seek further family support, and moved to Christchurch, where Jason Somerville had several relatives."

Dave, I hadn't thought of that.

Boganette said...

Maybe you could start a fund for Somerville to help his legal defence?

Or you could start a petition for CYF to be charged with murder instead of him?

*slow clap*

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Boganette, That's an absurd leap of logic. CYF do an invidious job. They work in an inherently risky environment. My point is simply that management should not make official statements about the ramifications of their involvement when it is pure speculation that can never be proved or disproved.

(And as per Bez's comment)