Sunday, November 22, 2009

Love and care, stability and security trump anything else

A reader was upset and angry enough to e-mail through a story that had shocked him. I think I was less surprised than he had been but it is worth the re-telling. The subject is very topical right now.

A foster family, who had raised two of their own children, had care of a 2 year-old Maori girl. This child had been removed from a whanau with gang associations or, for want of a better term, a gang house. The mother had made no attempt to make contact with the child since the removal. The foster family have apparently quickly grown very fond of the child (from which I am guessing they would like her to remain in their care.) However, another whanau member has been found and deemed a more suitable carer. This is the practical application of the holy grail at which Minister Turia worships- 'whanau first' or 'no child should be raised outside whakapapa links'. The more suitable carer is her eighty year-old grandmother who already has a younger child in her care. That might indicate she has proved she can look after the mokopuna very well or, conversely, that she is already stretched enough. But the odds of the child staying in the grandparent's care for the duration of her child/young adulthood are not particularly high. If the Grandmother wants full time care of the child then she is entitled - she is, after all, blood. But I do not know if she has been offered any alternative and obligation to whanau is an overriding force for Maori - both a blessing and a curse.

The younger foster family however would probably be better able to give the two year-old long term security. But they are neither kin nor culturally appropriate. They are Pakeha.

I wonder how many Pakeha couples would step forward to raise Maori children given the chance? I once made noises about taking care of a child I had come to know through visits to her neighbour. In time the child was removed from her mother. The case was serious enough to warrant media coverage. She was a sunny child despite being neglected and abused, although her older sibling was already showing signs of a troubled personality. My impulse and overtures were quite actively discouraged. And to be fair, I had no official status or experience as a carer. The children ended up with their grandmother also and I think of her to this day. There were days when I was the only person to wipe her nose for her. It never seemed to occur to anyone else. Trivial maybe, but it sticks in my mind. Along with the bare feet and uncovered nappy in mid-winter.

If Paula Bennett is true to her word I hope she stands very firm and insists on an investigation into where Maori children are placed and what the outcomes are for them. There would be a big enough cohort over the years to provide a sizeable sample. If it transpires those children placed within the whanau are better off, so be it. But lets have a good, honest look at it.

The life chances of these children hang on what may be a questionable policy.

8 comments:

Sanctuary said...

The 19th Century rang and it wants it's received wisdom back.

Berry said...

In all relevant legislation the welfare and best interests of the child are the paramount principle.
This of course provides a fantastic angle to peddle all sort of PC nonsense, as can be seen in this case.

Anonymous said...

UN convention against genocide:

Article 2 clause (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable:
clause (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

Technically the penalty under NZ law for this blog post is life imprisonment.

Shane Pleasance said...

Last year at the end of a long weekend of sleepovers, I noticed that one of my daughters friends literally hadn't gone home. Her home life had deteriorated - dad in jail, mum in Wellington. She was (and still is) a wonderful wee thing, and we were delighted to be able to help. She stayed with us for several months, with CYPFs input and approval. It seems then that mum and her whanau sorted her self out, and we lost our newly inherited daughter. Regretfully, for several months after, there was an attempt to 'scam' us for all sorts of things - 'left cellphones" etc - by the mum. Seems this is a kind of serial activity for this magpie mum, and it left a bad taste. Never even a thank you.
Oh well.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Anon, So you have said before. If you are so enamoured of the UN go read UNROC.

Eric Crampton said...

Some of this nonsense may be imported from Canada: exact same deal with aboriginal children there. Family conditions often far worse than those found here: I doubt there's a marae that's worse than some of the Indian Reserves.

Anonymous said...

Some of this nonsense may be imported from Canada

Or Australia - can you say "Stolen Generations"

didn't think so


Just goes to show how right Hone was.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Can I just bring this conversation back to my post. I am no fan of state power. But when a child's life or well-being is seriously under threat, somebody needs the authority to remove that child. This isn't a debate about wholesale removal of children from communities. It's about where a child is placed after, I am assuming, justified removal. Of course it makes sense to try for family first - whatever ethnicity. But when the wider family is also dysfunctional, other alternatives could be better.