Oranga Tamariki wants girl removed from couple after three years because it says her cultural needs are unmet
Thursday, 12 August 2021
A traumatised and neglected Māori girl was placed in the care of a Pākehā couple. They have provided her with a safe, healthy, loving environment for nearly three years. No one disputes that the girl, now nearly 6, has received excellent care from the couple.
But Oranga Tamariki and the girl's iwi want her removed because they don’t think the couple can meet her cultural needs.
Over a recent week in the Family Court in Napier, the circumstances that led to this battle were laid out in painstaking detail. Also laid out: a series of gaps, mistakes and falsehoods perpetuated by Oranga Tamariki social workers.
It was not all one-sided. The caregivers behaved in ways the judge also faulted, although he attributed some of this to the “utter contamination” of the caregiving process from its early days.
**READ MORE:
* Mother-of-seven becomes first Assistant Māori Children's Commissioner
* Election 2020: Māori Party wants new entity to stop uplift of Māori children
**
The case encapsulates one of the thorniest issues confronting Aotearoa’s child welfare system and it is playing out in the same part of the country that brought the whole practice of removing children from their mothers – “uplifts” in the official jargon – to the nation’s attention.
In 2019, Oranga Tamariki staff tried to take a 6-day-old baby from his mother at Hawke’s Bay Hospital, leading to outrage from local iwi Ngāti Kahungunu, who later declared: “Not one more child will be uplifted and iwi will intervene at all costs.” The ministry apologised for mistakes and vowed to do better.
But at about the same time, and in the same region, another dispute was playing out behind the scenes. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for New Zealand’s foster care system. It will address the question: Should Māori children be placed with non-Māori families?
This case all starts, and ends, as it should, with the girl. We’ll call her Moana. This account comes from testimony, questioning and cross-examination in court hearings that will shape the future of this girl’s life.
Moana, one of four siblings, had been removed from her mother three times in the first three years of her life. Her mother was pregnant with a fifth child when Moana and her brother, a few years older, were removed from her care.
She was placed with a couple, who live in rural Hawke’s Bay, in September 2018 after Oranga Tamariki could not find suitable or available whānau to take her.
The couple, who we’ll call Mr and Mrs Smith, are Pākehā and did not have children of their own. From the outset, the couple took care of Moana with a view to raising her permanently. Oranga Tamariki could not find Moana's extended whānau, and the identity of her father was unknown.
When she arrived with them, Moana's teeth were rotten, she had an untreated club foot, and she showed all the symptoms of a traumatised child.
As Moana settled into life with the Smiths, the social worker who was checking on the arrangement painted a glowing picture of excellent caregivers and a thriving child. In the reviews she filed in November 2018 and May 2019, the social worker – who was new to the job, and we’ll call her Social Worker 1 – said the Smiths were providing Moana “a safe, nurturing and stable environment”.
Under a section headed “Cultural considerations”, she wrote that the Smiths provided love and support and all of Moana’s needs “are consistently met”.
There were some early signs, however, that the social worker might be out of her depth. The review filed in November 2018 said Moana had a close relationship with her grandfather. It transpired her grandfather had died five months earlier.
And while Social Worker 1 was filing these glowing reports, she was telling others in her office that the Smiths were stripping Moana of her Māori identity. She said she felt “incessantly undermined” by the Smiths and said the couple “attempted to sabotage whānau access” for Moana.
She pointed to the Smith’s “disregard for Te Ao Māori” (the Māori world view), and said they were incapable of providing Moana with the “cultural aspects” she needed.
The Smiths had no idea these conversations were taking place.
Social worker said supervisor told her to remove concerns from review
When she was asked in court why she didn’t include these concerns in her reviews, Social Worker 1 said she did but was told to remove them by her supervisor. (The supervisor would later deny this under oath, and said any changes he made were only grammatical).
Among the social worker’s concerns was an allegation that the Smiths had asked Moana’s daycare centre to refer to her by her nickname (an abbreviation of her name). This was “an attempt to remove her from her identity”, she said.
Social Worker 1 said the Smiths raised issues about Moana’s behaviour following access visits with her birth mother, and she saw this as the Smiths “making up issues to try and get reasons to have no contact”.
Another allegation concerned an access visit with Moana's birth mother. Social Worker 1 claimed Mrs Smith pulled Moana away from hugging her birth mother and “proceeded to wipe her down with a cloth in what looked like an attempt to remove any germs”. She did not ask Mrs Smith what she was doing, but passed her concerns on to other Oranga Tamariki staff.
(Mrs Smith would later say Moana and her birth mother were not embracing each other, and she had used a wet wipe to clean Vegemite from Moana’s hands).
Separately, the Smiths held their own concerns about the social worker, and in May 2019 they complained to her supervisor.
A few weeks later the Smiths were informed that there were concerns around their attendance at access visits and the couple would need to undergo a cultural assessment. The couple were surprised about this and asked why it was required and what it involved.
Oranga Tamariki staff told the Smiths it was very rare – some had never been involved in one – and they were unable to provide any detail on the process or guidelines of such an assessment.
A meeting was held in late June 2019 in which the Smiths were told that Oranga Tamariki was concerned about their ability to provide for Moana’s cultural needs. The supervisor told the Smiths the cultural assessment would acknowledge “the good work you are already doing to promote [Moana’s] cultural identity”, and would hopefully provide some detail around Moana’s whakapapa.
When the Smiths asked why other Pākehā caregivers with Māori children were not subject to the same assessments, the supervisor responded that it was a good question, and all he could say was that there had been issues around access.
The supervisor couldn’t provide any brochures or pamphlets for the Smiths to inform them of what a cultural assessment involved. (The supervisor would later give evidence saying he felt the Smiths may have been directing “unconscious racism” towards Social Worker 1).
The Smiths believed the assessment was a ruse being used by the Ministry as a way to find them unsuitable and to have Moana removed from their care. They refused to take part.
Cultural assessor says child’s health could suffer if cultural needs not met
The assessment was conducted by an independent cultural expert. His original task had been to assess the Smiths’ understanding of Te Ao Maori and their ability to provide Moana's cultural needs, but that changed when the Smiths said they would not take part in the assessment, and he ended up looking solely at Moana.
His report was provided to Oranga Tamariki on September 11, 2019. It included scant information on Moana’s whakapapa, other than noting she had a distant relation in Taranaki.
The assessor, later giving evidence in court, would say a Māori child growing up in a non-Maori family would “not have the same opportunity in terms of inculcation of values,” he said.
He said it would be “extremely challenging” for a non-Māori family to raise a Māori child in the correct cultural manner, and failing to provide for cultural needs could result in a child’s health being compromised later in life. He said the decision on where Moana should be placed should lie with Ngāti Kahungunu.
In early September, before the assessment was completed, the Smiths learned that Oranga Tamaraki no longer intended to place Moana with them permanently, and had instead decided to move her to Wellington to live with the family that was now caring for her new baby brother. We’ll call them the Taipas.
Mrs Taipa is an elderly woman, who lives with her middle-aged daughter. Mrs Taipa's late husband had been Ngāti Kahungunu, and though the Taipas had no blood link to Moana, they were immersed in a Māori way of life.
When the Smiths learned in October 2019 that Oranga Tamariki planned to take Moana to Wellington to meet the Taipas, they went to court, applying for a parenting order under the Care of Children Act, and sought a discharge of the order that placed Moana in Oranga Tamariki's custody.
An urgent judicial conference was held. Judge Peter Callinicos heard the matter and said the current arrangement was to remain in place until a full hearing could be held. He recorded his “serious concern that a child who has been in long-term placement would suddenly be uprooted from the care of the caregivers and sent to new caregivers whom I understand the child may have had no relationship with”.
Relations between the Smiths and Oranga Tamariki deteriorated further. Social Worker 1 was taken off the case.
Social Worker 2 took over the case in October 2019. She was tasked with transitioning Moana from the Smiths to the Taipas.
She said she asked Ngāti Kahungunu for Moana’s whakapapa in writing and was told she couldn’t have it in writing “because that’s not how it’s done”. She said when she tried to get the information in the form of a family tree she was also denied it.
Social workers make secret recording of girl
Social Worker 2 said the Smiths insisted on attending visits with Moana and her birth mother, despite being asked not to on numerous occasions. When she tried to discuss matters with the Smiths, she would hear back from their lawyer, and any form of communication was extremely difficult, she said.
Social Worker 2 said Moana’s birth mother felt she was being judged and watched by the Smiths during access visits, and felt uncomfortable with their presence.
On January 8 this year, Social Worker 2 and another social worker (we’ll call Social Worker 3) accompanied Moana on an access visit. While in the car with Moana, Social Worker 3 decided to use her cellphone to record a conversation between the three. She did not tell Social Worker 2 or Moana that she was recording the conversation.
In the recording, Moana could be heard telling the social workers that she “was magic” and had “made the rain go away”. She told the social workers that the Smiths had told her that the social workers were going to take her away from her older brother “and everyone from my whole life”.
Moana becomes tearful. She tells the social workers she wants to “go home” to the Smiths, but also that she wants to live with her brothers and mother. Social Worker 2 then says to Moana: “How about would you like me to try and make that happen for you?… Would you like that?”. Moana says “yeah”.
When the social workers and other Oranga Tamariki staff, including the legal team, later listened to the recording they decided it raised sufficient concerns to file a without-notice application to immediately remove Moana from the Smiths’ care. Their application was supported by Ngāti Kahungunu chairman Ngahiwi Tomoana.
Moana was taken from her day care centre and placed with another caregiver on January 13. Oranga Tamariki intended to keep her from the Smiths until an investigation could be undertaken.
But when a judge heard Oranga Tamariki’s application that same day, she found that the Ministry had insufficient grounds to remove Moana and ordered that she be returned to the Smiths. She was returned after one night away.
The judge ordered that a hearing be held to get to the bottom of the matter. That hearing, held on January 21, took place before Family Court Judge Lynne Harrison.
Judge Harrison said Social Worker 2's comments to Moana about finding a way for her to live with her mother and brothers was “entirely unprofessional, grossly inappropriate and psychologically abusive”. She also declined Oranga Tamariki's application.
(An internal investigation by Oranga Tamariki found the social workers’ concerns to be unsubstantiated.)
Social Worker 2 was removed from the case all together following the hearing. Social Worker 3 said she regretted making the recording and said it was not something she would do again.
The Taipas became involved in Moana’s story because in September 2018 they learned through the grapevine that a baby – Moana’s younger brother – was soon to be born in Hawke’s Bay and that he would need caregivers. They approached Oranga Tamariki and expressed their interest in raising the boy. When they learned the boy had siblings, they said they would be willing to care for them all.
In July 2019, the Oranga Tamariki supervisor at Napier asked the Taipas if they would consider taking Moana.
The Taipas had no idea that Moana was being cared for by the Smiths, and that they wanted to care for her permanently. Mrs Taipa would later tell the court: “I didn’t know anything about the [Smiths]… If Oranga Tamariki had explained permanency and the caregivers we may have changed our thinking”.
She said she and her daughter were only interested in “bringing healing” to Moana’s whānau, and they would want to do this with Moana, regardless of whom she lived with.
Couple says Oranga Tamariki gave no assistance to meet girl’s cultural needs
Mr Smith said the last three years had been the most stable period of Moana’s life. He acknowledged it was “incredibly important” that Moana had her cultural needs met, but “there are other aspects of a child that we felt Oranga Tamariki were not considering at all”.
He accepted the importance of raising Moana in Te Ao Māori. “We’ve unfortunately been able to do very little. We moved her to a school that had a Māori language programme,” he said. “At school they asked about her pepeha [self-introduction] many times, because they do karakia at the school”.
The Smiths wanted Moana to learn her whakapapa and asked Oranga Tamariki for assistance, but “unfortunately we got nowhere,” he said. When the couple went to Ngāti Kahungunu seeking assistance, with a form signed by Moana’s birth mother, they were told the iwi couldn’t help. “We were told she was not Ngāti Kahungunu,” he said.
If the Smiths had known in early 2019 that there was a concern they couldn’t provide Moana’s cultural identity, he said, they would have considered returning her to Oranga Tamariki.
“Because the attachment wasn’t as strong at that point. She’d been with us for five odd months at that point. We'd taken [Moana] from a girl who was terrified at the sight of any male… to a vibrant girl who interacted with anyone… Over the next five months it became even stronger,” he said. “Although she’s not the daughter of my blood, she’s a daughter of my heart now.”
Mrs Smith said the couple were led to believe from the outset that the plan was to place Moana in their care permanently. “I’ve always been aware that with foster children there was a chance things could change, but this was very clear that this child would not go back home,” she said.
She understood the rationale for a cultural assessment – in fact she said it would be a good idea for all potential caregivers to undergo such an assessment – but the manner and timing with which it was raised by Oranga Tamariki made it feel like it would be used against them.
“That’s how it came across… We were the only ones undergoing one of these assessments. It didn’t seem to be the norm,” she said. “It felt like they were using the fact that we weren’t Māori as a weapon against us”.
“This is a little girl whose been uplifted and returned, uplifted and returned, and we are probably the most permanent people in her life and have been for a long time… It's not just culture we need to look at here. It's a big part of it. I’m not saying it's not, but there are other issues at play here,” she said.
“No family should be going through what people here have had to go through” – Judge
A psychologist who has written two reports in relation to Moana over the past two years said breaking her attachment to the Smiths “could be extremely disruptive to her and could have significant long-lasting implications in terms of mental health and a whole range of things”.
If Moana was placed with the Taipas, there was “a good possibility of attachments developing with them and wider whānau”, but “if she is removed [from the Smiths] there is the possibility of her suffering further trauma and of having her healthy development affected and maybe having her regress development wise,” he said.
“The gains made to date could be lost,” he said.
Moana's future was set to be decided in the Family Court at Napier over a week in March this year. But that hearing, before Judge Callinicos, had to be adjourned part-heard after a few days when it became clear Oranga Tamariki had not provided vast amounts of information such as case notes, file notes, and communications relating to Moana.
The hearing was concluded over the last week of July.
Judge Callinicos ended the hearing by saying he hoped to make a decision “reasonably quickly”. He said he was considering various possibilities, and noted that any solution would require a gentle introduction.
“I want to remove all the contaminants that have led to this terrible situation,” he said. “I can assure you there will be very positive comments about existing caregivers and prospective caregivers and an exploratory record of how we got to this situation,” the judge said.
“Some things have to be explained as to how we got here because hopefully from that there will be lessons for the future. No child, no whānau, no family should be going through what people here have had to go through.”