Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Swedes reject Save the Children claim about child poverty in their country

In 2011 Save the Children put out a report claiming 250,000 Swedish children were living in poverty. But some Swedes didn't accept the claim. Early this year a TV research team investigated:
According to charity organizations, Save the Children, there are a quarter million poor children in Sweden. But when the Swedish television made an investigation into such claims, it turned out that child poverty in Sweden conducted by these organization, tend to be based on issues that are not considered a necessity for child welfare in a typical Swedish environment. Therefore, the picture presented by the Swedish television research give a different picture.

Another report says the ensuing TV programme has prompted the three largest child organisations to abandon their use of the term "child poverty".

The organization Bris, which also started using the term in 2011, has now decided to abandon the term “child poverty” for Swedish children and replace it with "social and economic vulnerability".

Also Save the Children, who first launched the term in 2011, has admitted that it gave a misleading portrayal of the situation and has since abandoned the campaign.
I wish NZ media would be a little less compliant when international and domestic advocacy groups make claims about child poverty in NZ.

Truth column April 18-24

My Truth column April 18-24:

I’m confused but I don’t think it’s an early onset of Alzheimer’s.
In the 1960s, during the sexual revolution, the liberal left threw off the shackles of marriage, slamming it as a patriarchal device to suppress women, or for the less conspiratorially inclined, a meaningless piece of paper.
Former PM Helen Clark is rumoured to have fought capitulation to the bitter end, ceding only for the sake of her political prospects.
People started shacking up in droves. I was one. But I always intended to marry if children came along. And before the event, to boot.

MSD goes on the defensive

This is unusual. MSD has put up a media release relating to the removal of a baby from its caregiver. I am guessing the family has gone to the media who are asking questions.

Now I google the name here's the story as published in Stuff. MSD's release is entitled "Baby Victoria safe in care".

Last week a seven week-old baby was taken into Child, Youth and Family care after she was admitted to Starship Hospital in Auckland with an injury that was suspected to be not accidental.
Medical authorities called Police, who in turn called in Child, Youth and Family.  The decision to remove Baby Victoria from her family’s care was made in cooperation with specialist medical staff and the Police.
Police are investigating how Baby Victoria became injured. Until that investigation is complete, the law requires that Child, Youth and Family ensure she is safe.
Child, Youth and Family has taken custody of this baby on a temporary basis until the full facts can be established, including whether Victoria can be safe with her family.
Child, Youth and Family is working closely with the family to ensure they know what is going on and to allow her parents to see her regularly.
I understand that this is hard for the whole family; however our legal responsibility is the safety and wellbeing of a vulnerable baby.
Every step in the process to date has followed New Zealand law, which requires doctors to report suspicious injuries to children. The law also specifies how Police and Child, Youth and Family should respond, and what happens to the child involved.
The nationality of the family is irrelevant; our focus is on the welfare and best interests of the child.
Baby Victoria was taken into our care under a “place of safety” warrant issued by a court judge.
A place of safety warrant lasts for five days and enables social workers to take emergency action to ensure the immediate safety of a child while an investigation takes place.  There must be serious concerns about the safety and care of a child before New Zealand courts will grant a warrant.
Since the Police investigation has not yet finished, Victoria will remain in the care of Child, Youth and Family for longer.
Social workers are working closely with the family to agree on a longer term care arrangement for Victoria. Family members have an important role to play in ensuring she is safe and well cared for in the future and our priority is to identify and approve a caregiver in her family.
This baby is not subject to an adoption process.
It was not possible to immediately place Victoria with a family member as the warrant under which she was taken into care required her to be placed with a caregiver previously approved by Child, Youth and Family.
The process we are following may take some time to be completed. However, the parents will be briefed every step of the way and will have access to Victoria.
We would welcome contact from Victoria’s grandmother in Russia so we can update her on what is happening with her granddaughter.
Baby Victoria is currently with a loving family who provide temporary care for babies while our investigations proceed and while suitable family members are identified to take over care.
This is about ensuring her safety and that her family has support through the process.
Child, Youth and Family’s aim is to keep families together.  Where there are problems, we support families to help them look after their children.
To summarise, three separate processes are now underway:
  • Police are investigating Victoria’s injuries to see whether criminal prosecution is warranted.
  • Child, Youth and Family is working with the family to assess and approve family members to take over care while the agency’s wider investigation is concluded.
  • Child, Youth and Family is investigating to determine if and when the parents can resume normal care of Victoria and what support they may need.

You just hope CYF get it right because if the various 'authorities' are wrong, this experience must be utterly harrowing for the parents.I remember when I thought I would be temporarily separated from my first-born because he may need re-hospitalising I was devastated. The need to be with, comfort, feed and protect your baby overwhelms all else.