care, and we
“would never ever see her again”
. Karen Goodwin told us that they had alreadycommenced the process to remove our child. CYF thus placed us under considerable duressto continue to take our child to counselling that we knew was causing considerable damage toour child and our family. Our view that the counselling was damaging is supported by a hugenumber of psychologists / counselling experts (see Appendix 3).4. CYF Social worker Karen Goodwin accused us of
“putting ideas of prostitution into (our daughter’s) head”
. She said she reached this conclusion because we had spoken to thesocial worker
and the counsellor about our concerns regarding our daughter’s sexual
relationships with older men.
CYF wanted us to turn a blind eye to our child’s sexual exploits,
they wanted us to allow her to continue to be a victim of statutory rape and statutory gangrape.5. Social worker Karen Goodwin told us (and our 14-year old daughter) that they were going topermanently remove her from our care, and that we would not see her again until she was 16years old, and that thereafter CYF may permit weekend visitation rights if they felt the parentswould behave. She could give us no reasons why. Karen Goodwin told us that we would haveno say in this matter. A formal CYF enquiry would later find that we have acted in the bestinterests of our daughter at all times.6. We contacted members of parliament to get CYF away from our family, and eventually CYFagreed to leave our family alone.7. Our daughter has told us on numerous occasions that all contacts she had with CYF focussedentirely on what they told her were her
.8. However, the State was not happy that we wanted to hold them accountable for their inappropriate intervention in our family. Realising they had no legal grounds to remove our daughter they secretly encouraged our child to leave home on her own, promising her thatwhen she was 16 the State would provide for all her needs on condition that she has nofurther contact with her family.9. As soon as she turned 16 our daughter left home, and the State financed her to liveindependently. They even prevented us from paying her school fees. Our daughter moved inwith school teacher/church pastor David Hayden, who cut all ties with our family, and told ushe would do everything in his power to prevent our daughter ever having a relationship withher family ever again
. Our daughter is now 23 and we have had extremely limited contact
with her since she left home at 16.We filed formal complaints
against the counsellor and CYF, but this merely elicited more abuseagainst our family
the complaint handling authorities simply engaged in a litany of lies, shenanigansand cover-ups. As is detailed in Appendix 1, none of the authorities addressed our complaints. A largenumber of highly qualified, esteemed professionals from NZ and abroad, have written to us that theyregard the unqualified counsellors and CYF intervention in our family as highly unethical (see Appendix 3), and that serious atrocities have been committed against our family. Through a litany of lies and shenanigans, the NZ complaint authorities have successfully covered-up highly unethical,shameful behaviour.
3. Three schools collude to isolate a vulnerable child and silenceher family
Our daughter, who attended Westlake Girls High school, left home days after her 16
birthday. Shemoved in with David Hayden the Science teacher at Westlake Boys High school and pastor at AlbanyChristian Centre (now Inspire Church). The church had encouraged her to leave home. We had never
See section 3 below.
The only contact with our daughter has been very limited and for a short period immediately after the death of our son.
A summary of our experience with the complaint handling process is in Appendix 1 below