Thursday, July 28, 2016

Flight of the Doves? Not quite

It was a poignant movie from 1971. An older brother (played by the late Jack Wild) flees Liverpool with his baby sister in tow, escaping an ill-motivated uncle, designated caregiver since the death of their mother, to return to Ireland in search of their grandma.

The modern version isn't quite as fairy-tale like.

Reading between the lines, these two children (reported as running away with a suitcase a few days ago) have been persuaded to leave their foster/whanau care to be picked up by parent or associate of parent nearby.

But I am having difficulty understanding why CYF has issued the following statement. With such high priority routinely placed on privacy, this action surprises me. Is there a whiff of back-covering here? Or is it merely a matter of CYF needing to develop the discourse with media given the children's disappearance has already been well-publicized? Any other ideas?

Concerns remain for missing brother and sister
28 July 2016.
Child, Youth and Family General Manager Operations, Kay Read calls for the McLean whānau to bring children out of hiding.

“We are extremely concerned about two young children that are currently missing. Their mother has texted us to confirm they are with wider family, but will not let us or the Police know where the children are so we can be satisfied about their safety.

“Our primary concern is for the safety and wellbeing of these children and we urge the family to return them safely – and to do this immediately.

“Children shouldn’t be used a bargaining chips in an attempt to influence decisions regarding custody or placement. Decisions around the custody of children and young people are a matter for the Family Court and are made with the best interests of the children as an absolute priority. No decisions can be made while these children are still missing.

“Child, Youth and Family has always been willing to work with this mother and her wider family and we will continue this involvement.”

RNZ updates

The mother waived privacy rights. Yet, "It is not appropriate for the details of this case to be played out in the public arena," the [CYF]spokesperson said. So still a question mark over the reasons behind the release.


JC said...

It seemed to me there were three phases.. initial high concern, then relief the kids were heading towards family then high concern again. That makes me think CYF were reacting to statements from family with possibly some assurance the kids would be presented by some date which wasn't met.

I suppose the CYF were getting the runaround from different parts of the whanau.


Redbaiter said...

Politicization of the bureaucracy is unavoidable under socialist government.

Almost all communications from Govt Depts are suspect.

The main objective is not to provide a service to the public. That takes second place to the preservation of the status quo. Their well paid jobs, their power, their future.

Any mistake or exposed deceit is covered by a flurry of smoke screening activity wherein the bureaucracy and the government/ ruling party act in unison to deceive the taxpayer/ voter.

But no one really cares.

In fact its what most NZers vote for.

They love John Key's Orwellian dystopia.

Rick said...

Sounds like those two comments above about cover it. The statement's purpose is to wash hands, shrug potential future liability for anything that could go wrong with the children's safety onto the 'uncooperative' Police.

What does it say about us if we accept this? How do you blog on when such cynicism is met by the world? If it's not shocking any longer what's left to say? Surely even Redbaiter doesn't cross that line or he'd shut down with depression- we just recognise what we do and sort of dare and prod each other into crossing the line. But once you do isn't that the Existentialist's nausia from which the best we can do is apathy?

Or can we be passionate and angry and insist on change? I think we're waiting for somebody to go first.