Will 'By Maori, for Maori' be another failed experiment in child protection?

New Zealand seems poised to implement separate child protection services based on ethnicity. Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis says he is against separatism but recommendations of the all-Maori four person panel appointed to advise on reform of OT may carry more weight. We have already seen the influence of others standing behind the appointees compel the resignation of embattled OT chief last month.

So I read the following article with great interest. Canada, specifically Manitoba, has gone down the path NZ now seems destined to follow.

There are parallels with respect to the historic removal of Indigenous children, inquiries and compensation. The responsibility for care and protection of Indigenous children now lies with the Indigenous people:

However, they continue to remove children from their homes in alarming numbers. Why?

I think that if you asked the Indigenous workers why Manitoba apprehends so many Indigenous children – in fact, more than were apprehended at the height of the “60’s Scoop” – the answer an Indigenous worker would give you would be basically the same answer that the non-Indigenous worker of the last generation would have given. It would go something like this:

“We work very hard to keep children with their parents. Unfortunately, in too many situations the parents (often, just the mother) are unable or unwilling to provide a home for the child – usually due to alcohol, or substance abuse issues. Every effort is made to help the parents, but sometimes the parents are unable or unwilling to accept the help. Even then, we make every attempt to place the child with extended family, or with another Indigenous care giver in the community. Only if all of these efforts fail do we make the painful decision to remove the child. Our work is greatly complicated by the fact that many of the children, and many of the parents, suffer from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).”

The only significant difference between what child welfare workers from an earlier decade would have told you is that there was very little understanding of FASD until well into the 1990’s.

As a recent analysis of OT cases showed reasons for removal included:

Substance abuse, particularly synthetic cannabis, methamphetamine or alcohol addiction, often coupled with mental health issues associated with that addiction,including psychosis and suicidal behaviour.

The story is the same. Forget for a moment the veracity or otherwise of the systemic accusations/excuses made - until parental behaviours change, children will be at risk, often, extreme risk. 

There are no signs that substance abuse and addiction is abating. Can 'By Maori, for Maori' make a difference?

It is probably a forlorn hope.

The writer of the article, a retired Manitoba court judge and long-time observant of care and protection practice, finishes by putting this question:

"Is it not time to jettison the false notion that a child is nothing more than property belonging to a culture?"

Is that where NZ  will be in another twenty years time when the current, fashionable 'solution' has failed?