Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Otb-121203-Cnn-Our Experiences on Discovering Our Daughter Was Victim of Sexual Crimes in NZ

Otb-121203-Cnn-Our Experiences on Discovering Our Daughter Was Victim of Sexual Crimes in NZ

|Views: 428|Likes:
Published by Censored News Now

One of the most harrowing State Intervention into Child Sexual Abuse (gang statutory rape) we've ever come across: the parents account of secret 'justice' in the family courts of New Zealand. In their own words; a hugely important case summary. "Our experiences when we discovered our underage child was victim of grooming and sexual crimes in New Zealand."

One of the most harrowing State Intervention into Child Sexual Abuse (gang statutory rape) we've ever come across: the parents account of secret 'justice' in the family courts of New Zealand. In their own words; a hugely important case summary. "Our experiences when we discovered our underage child was victim of grooming and sexual crimes in New Zealand."

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Censored News Now on Dec 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Our experiences when we discovered our underage childwas victim of grooming and sexual crimes in NZ
We are loving, capable, committed and well-educated parents for whom our family is top priority. Alarmingly, one day we discovered that adult men were having group sex with our 14-year olddaughter, so we asked police to prosecute as sexual crimes had been committed. New ZealandPolice informed us that they could only prosecute the men under instruction from social services(CYF), so following their advice we reported the matter to social services.Initially, social services were very supportive of us as parents. We agreed to their suggestion to sendour daughter to counselling as we expected that counsellors would reinforce the message we weregiving our daughter that she was putting herself in a very dangerous position with the adult men.Three men, all employees of St John Ambulance, once united through an award from the NZGovernor-General, had embarked on a gang pimp crime spree of grooming and underage sex. Policediscovered that our child was only one of 5 underage victims of the men. Unfortunately for our daughter and for our family, the CYF counsellors took a very surprising position, deciding that our 14-year old child should be removed from our home so that she could continue to explore her sexualitywith the adult men, unimpeded from family influence. The counsellors determined that as parents wehad no right to protect our underage daughter from sexual criminals.
1. The CYF Counsellors
CYF arranged for our daughter to be counselled by Dafanie Goldsmith of the Rosa Counselling Trust:1. The counsellor maintained that the relationship between our 14-year old child and the adultmen was
“love and romance” 
. Even though the counsellor and her supervisor knew that twoof the St John Ambulance men had conducted serious sexual crimes on our daughter including having group sex with her 
. We were flabbergasted when the counsellor coylydescribed our 
group sex activities with adult men in this way.2. After meeting with our daughter only for 30 minutes, the counsellor and her supervisor told ustheir assessment was that our daughter was
“at the greatest danger in the homeenvironment” 
. However, they could not tell us why, and what danger she was in at home.Later, the counsellor explained to her counselling association that she had formed extreme
negative opinions about the girl’s father from the
he walked through the door to bringhis daughter to the 30-minute counselling session.3. The counsellor refused point blank to discuss the sexual crimes with our daughter in any waybecause she maintained the crimes had no negative effect on our 14-year old child.4. The counsellor said that it was impossible for any young teenage girl to be negativelyinfluenced by her peers or adult boyfriends, and that the only reason any girl would do whatshe did with the sexual predators was because of poor parenting, particularly poor fathering.They believed it was impossible for any child to be sexually groomed.5. The counsellor was adamant that our daughter had a bad relationship with her father. Wedisagreed strongly with this, our daughter has always had an excellent relationship with her father. However, the counsellor and her supervisor said that this was impossible because if the girl had an excellent relationship with her father she would have told him she was havingsexual relationships with older adult men.
The names of these St John Ambulance men are in the public arena: Karl Berghan and Sam Brens. Google their names for more information.
These two men were given Queen’s awards in 2012 despite being serial paedophiles. You can read about
this, and the Paedophile Protection Network that operates within St John ambulance, here: www.stjohnnz.com 
6. They taught our daughter to spy on her parents and report back to the counsellor, in their attempt to find the proof of poor parenting their crackpot theories required.7. After meeting with our daughter for 30 minutes, the counsellor and her supervisor met with us,
the girl’s parents
. We attempted to explain to them the effects of the grooming and theunderage sexual crimes on our daughter, however they were totally closed to all our viewpoints and attempts to be heard. The counsellor told us:
“I don’t need to listen to you –
I’ve had 20 years counselling experience and I’ve seen it all before” 
.8. The counsellor said she was
100% certain 
that the reason why the child became involvedwith paedophile men, was because her father was too controlling. When we asked what thefather had done that was too controlling, they replied that they did not know, but that theywould find out. They admitted they did not know of a single thing her father had done that wastoo controlling, and that the girl had not mentioned anything. The crackpot reasoning of thecounsellors appeared to be along these lines: the father is a successful businessman.....andbusinessmen are controlling.....therefore the father must be controlling with hisfamily....therefore he is causing the problems his daughter is facing.9. The counsellor appealed to CYF to immediately remove our daughter from our family, settingoff a chain of events that caused considerable long-term damage to our daughter and family. A CYF formal enquiry later found that as parents we have acted in the best interests of our daughter at all times.10. The counsellor continued to have counselling sessions with our child behind our backswithout our knowledge, even though we had forbidden it. The counsellor and her supervisor appeared to be hell-bent with their crackpot ideology on causing maximum damage to our family.11. A large number of experts (see Appendix 3 below
) have told us that our daughter’s reaction to
the grooming and sexual crimes was typical. However the counsellors said that there was noconnection between our daughter running away and the sexual crimes. The fact that whenshe ran away the first time was the day her parents found out about the adult men, the factthat she was running back to the men every time
the counsellors ignored this, and wereadamant that there was no connection between the adult men who were having sex with her,and her running away to meet them.12. The counsellor and her supervisor have no formal qualifications whatsoever.
2. Social Services (CYF)
Social services were initially very supportive of our parental efforts when we contacted them in order for the police to criminally charge the adult men. However, after meeting with our daughter only for 30minutes, the counsellors recommended CYF remove our daughter from her family, and CYF
 behaviour toward us changed dramatically:1. Immediately after meeting with the counsellors for the first time, we wrote to CYF detailing our concerns about the counselling, however CYF did not reply and refused to discuss anyaspects of the letter when we tried to bring the matter up with them. After meeting with thecounsellors a second time, we again wrote to CYF, and again never received any response.2. CYF ignored our written request for an urgent meeting.3. We expected the counsellor to support our position that our daughter was in great danger having sexual relationships with adult men, however the counsellor took the opposite view
 that the sexual relationships were good for our young child and that she should be removed toan environment where she could continue her sexual exploits free from the influence of her parents. As soon as we met with the counsellor and her supervisor, we realised they werebogus crackpots, so we informed CYF we were going to stop taking our daughter to thecounsellors, and asked CYF to arrange proper qualified counsellors. Karen Goodwin the CYFsocial worker threatened that if we did not permit our daughter to continue with thecounselling with Dafanie Goldsmith, CYF would permanently remove our daughter from our 
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 
“bad parents” 
.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

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->