State abuse in faith-based children’s homes

With the welcome media focus of late being on the need for an indpendant inquiry into the herstorical abuse of children in state care, I thought I would add what I see is some missing kōrero to this.

Judge Carolyn Henwood, Sonya Cooper, Elizabeth Stanley, the Never Again stance from HRC[1] Susan Devoy[2] the Nga Morehu on the Hui[3] have mainly focused on the state abuse of young people in New Zealand larger care institutions. With all of these good people “speaking out” on our behalf, I’ve wondered about the voices of those who are no longer with us, about the women’s stories and the very small children who were placed by the state into faith-based children’s homes.

I have been talking about this on various social platforms for months now and the response has been almost a deafening silence. It seems that whilst some experts (legal people, academics, key stakeholders) are very vocal about abuse in some of the bigger institutions…few seem to talk about the abuse that happened to children in faith-based children’s homes. Particularly to tamariki Māori who were disenfranchised from their cultural connections and this in itself caused trauma, from which many have never healed.

In this blog, my focus is on those tamariki (under 8 years) who were placed in faith-based care by the state. My brothers Kanara and Tipene were still in nappies when we were taken from our parents to be put into one of these homes. Where in less than a week, the abuse began. The house father (caregiver), a well respected church attending man was super skilled at grooming small children.

The narcissistic showering of fatherly attention making a vulnerable child feel special and wanted. Followed closely by the confusing withdrawal of that attention. So that a child craves for it back, not understanding that they have not done wrong; they were just being cruelly manipulated. The same person who used to turn my mother away when she came crying for her babies at the door of the facility. I still terror sleep at the powerlessness we experienced as small beings in those places…of the hallways and endless rooms, leading onto more rooms, where there is no escape into the sunshine. Waking not being able to breathe.

These places where the vetting of caregivers was not a priority because the assumption was, that they were good Christian folk with children’s best interests at heart. The thing with religious based homes and non-vetting is that ‘caring’ folk from the community could access the “underprivileged” children on outings, camps, overnight stays, that led to weekends and school holiday stays. These ‘good folk’ were Ministers, church elders and congregation made up of Doctors, Judges, Lawyers, Police, Freemasons and others.

Sexual, physical, emotional and ae, cultural abuse occurred. In some places ritualistic abuse happened but that’s not being tabled as an abuse type. It’s in the ‘too hard to believe’ box and therefore not credible. Well I’m putting it on the table. What do you think happens when Ministers, church elders, congregation members put their hands up to take underprivileged children?  Some of those placements cared for the children and some took advanctage of their innocence and vulnerability.

Mark Solomon was right when he said “when it comes to abuse of children, there are three groupings.” Those that stand with the victims, those that stand with the perpetrators and the worst roopu, those that deny and bury it. I’d like to add another, the ones that stand silent scanning for which roopu they’re going to shuffle towards.

As long as people believe that state abuse only happened in ‘some’ institutions by ‘some’ bad social workers, it takes the focus off and serves those people that the National 9 year reignhave been trying to protect [4] . And, if you know anything about children and abuse disclosure you will know that Māori and women are less likely to speak out about their abuse because of the insidious nature (double whammy/intersectionality) of racism and sexism.

The protecting of state abuse of children is at all levels and ongoing. The stats are being collected but state is no longer reporting on the abuse of children in care [5]. Why because it’s prolific and that’s only the children who are actually disclosing their abuse. Many do not because they are afraid of very real concequences, threats to be silent, dumb and run, or that they will be shifted to worse placement…and let’s face it, this abuse is rarely recorded.

Have you ever asked state care survivors about accessing their records? Often when they go to find their records to give evidence to a possible claim, to find their whakapapa connections, official records are conveniently lost, destroyed, or blacked out. Whakapapa connections wiped for hundreds. Abuse records wiped. My DSW file was blacked out, and no record of my childhood injuries, or the complaints I made on behalf of my brothers and I, ever found.

The abuse of children in state care did not miraculously stop in 1992; it is ongoing. Different children, different social workers, different placements but the culture of abuse and covering it remains as active as it ever was. See, for example [6].

An Inquiry needs to include all institutions and children’s homes of any description (either run by churches or the State) – and either as a State Ward, a home/welfare child or in foster care and all forms of abuse. Not just limited to sexual abuse like the Australian Inquiry where many abuse survivors missed out on telling their story.

It is most important that the  inquiry not become a legal exercise as that will keep the whole system in tact. It needs to ensure that there is a broad range of people speaking to the kaupapa and that the impact is not limited to a short term change in policy but reaches to include stronger Treaty relationships. All of our mahi shows it is whanau and hapu that know where our tamariki need to be if they are in an unsafe place so there needs to be strong advocacy in terms of tino rangatiratanga. Individuals need to be heard and compensated but it is tino rangatirtanga we need to end the abuse of our mokopuna in state care.

Finally, for those of you ‘good Christian’ folk who abused small children in your care, good luck explaining this to God when your time comes. And for everyone else, stand your sacred ground, honour the Treaty and be a spanner in the works for whānau, not a cog for the Crown!

Contact Paora at: https://www.paoramoyle.com

#BeaSpannerNotaCog

[1] https://www.hrc.co.nz/news/e-kore-ano-never-again/

[2] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11809895

[3] https://www.facebook.com/TheHuiNZ/videos/596718103870588/

[4] http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/70377103/catholic-priests-who-abused-new-zealand-children-will-not-be-investigated.

[5] https://www.facebook.com/MPJanLogie/posts/1901834233368019?pnref=story

[6] http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2016/06/cyf-caregiver-jailed-for-horrific-sex-abuse.html#.WOmt_ANDajo.facebook

Advertisements

I get knocked down & get up again: Escaping state trauma and family violence

16th Annual Waitangi Rua Rautau 2019 – Kaupapa: Oranga Tamariki | Mx Paora Crawford Moyle Veteran Social Worker | Tangatarua Marae, Ihenga Whare Tupuna, Rotorua – Sunday 28 July 2019 | Part Two.

This is a long watch (45m), probably best suited for kaimahi working in child protection and family violence prevention. Click on the link below.

Rua Rautau Waitangi Lecture 2019

OPENING THE SPIDER BOX: A perspective on ‘outing’ abusers

‘Outing’ one’s abuser is not such an easy task. If you are one of those who thinks it is, or that a victim should, then you need to educate yourself a bit more on what’s involved. The onus should always be on the abuser to out themselves, or declare their conflict of interest if they are in a position of responsibility and able to access potential victims, especially children.

When it comes to social media trolls, bullies, racists, haters and the like. I have no problem calling them on their hypocrisy or ‘outing’ their abuse. But ask me to name my childhood abusers, that is a different story. I could give you all the reasons from an experienced social worker, counsellor, psychological, emotionally intelligent, survivor and healer perspective, why we should ‘out’ our abusers but there are implications and real fears involved with this.

So this blog is framed in a way that hopefully allows people a lens through which, they can see the implications involved with naming abusers. An understanding that they might miss if this lens was not offered. It is intended to contribute to healing solutions and pathways forward.

Some of the questions I ponder are; what use is there naming my childhood abuser if they are dead? What are the consequences of this for others as well as myself? And, if I am encouraging others to name their abusers, don’t I also have an obligation to do so? I had this conversation with my brothers (pictured below) whom I grew up with in abusive state and faith-based care.

I love my brothers dearly but they are not ready to name their abusers. One brother looks at me whilst he is holding my mokopuna (first time ever holding a baby in his 54 years) and says “I could never do this sis because it was too unsafe.” He was not talking about a fear of dropping the baby, but rather a decision he had years ago to never to be a partner and father.

Survivors of NZ state care
Four blonde blue eyed Ngāti’s entering state care. March 31, 1968.

Another of my whangai brothers had this to say, “I have spent 50 years coping with this shit in my chest so much it constricts my breathing. I can still feel their smothering weight on me. It’s imprinted so deep, it is a part of me. Hell, I can’t even differentiate between what is memory and the coping mechanism.

What would be gained from naming my abusers when they are all dead anyway?. When you name them, you ‘out’ their wives and their children, their mokopuna, their history. It literally blows whole families apart, and not to name them is just as harmful. I’m damned if I speak out and damned if I don’t”

“I also think about other survivors who went through those institutions and faith-based homes. It outs them too. When the cops go in there asking questions. It implicates the staff whom knew we were being abused, because we told them and they did nothing.”

“And when we told our social workers they never took us seriously, and if they did it was easier for them to ignore it. And we know because our case notes say never believe damaged children from broken homes, especially Māori who crave attention.”

“How abusive caregivers close ranks to protect each other and turn it back on small beings. They blame you for inviting the abuse and then chastise you for telling about it. And all the good touch bad touch teaching in the world does not keep a child safe.”

“If an abuser wants to abuse he/she/they will. The stench of their energy, thick like molasses, so much so we become bloodhounds to it. They all stink of the same blackness. For fucks sake, I was clear before they drafted me into their web.”

“They knew what was happening to me because even their own kids treated us like damaged goods. Bullying us, telling us we were nobody’s children; enabling others to feel entitled to hurt us. All part of their little network which protected the abuse. I always felt like I was nothing more than discarded rubbish.”

“I know you worry sis about all of those abusers, their power and networks (church elders, police, judges, lawyers, Freemasons). What will happen to us if we name them? Who the fuck will believe all that? What if they send their henchmen?

My brothers are intelligent men and always asked good questions. We talked a lot about the biology of how our bodies hold onto memories and how we as small beings at the time, suffering abuse fallout (whakapapa trauma/disruption), cope with that.

An example of this and really the heart of this korero, was the locking of me into a box with spiders. And now, how the mere mention of the word “spider” makes me wretch and run for the outdoors. The experience becomes chrystalised into the cellular memory and survival resonses, coping mechanisms, result. Much like a grain of sand in an oyster can be pearled as a protectant. Opening ones self up, can be like opening the spider box that you have spent your whole life sitting on. My point is, be mindful when expecting victims/survivors to out their abusers. What are the consequences for them?

Kia tupato also of those who refer to themselves as ‘experts’. Remember that lived-experience is always essential to solution finding. For example, Māori at the table on research that directly affects them, or lived-experience of sexual abuse on inquiry panels tasked with investigating sexual abuse. Or academic ‘expertise’ of sexual abuse survival that is reliant on the testimony of sexual abuse survivors. Which also includes survivors being the heart of the Royal Commission into Historical State and Faith-based Abuse. They should be able to see themselves reflected back in those appointed as Commissioners.

We need to make the safe spaces and pathways available for all involved, weather they are victims, survivors or abusers. It takes planning with support wrapped with intelligent care and compassion. One doesn’t just out an abuser and hey presto they are healed. Going through a taimaha takes time.

Healing back our whakapapa from the present moment is powerful and requires gentle unlayering, working with free will, choice and deep consent. We who walk the journey to enable others to return their hara to the light. Returning the toxicity back to the Universe where she disperses it into the time-less, space-less everything.

Paora Crawford Moyle

Submission on the Terms of Reference for Historical Abuse in State Care Royal Commission

My name is Paora Crawford Moyle. I am a proud descendant of a long line of Ngāti Porou wāhine toa and also many strong Celtic women through my Welsh ancestry. I write on behalf of my siblings (both blood and whāngai) who spent our childhoods raised in New Zealand state and faith based care (Read our story here).

When my only child was just seven years old he announced confidently, you’re not a state care kid, you’re a shero mum bjecause how would we ever know what it’s like for those kids if they didn’t go through that. It teaches us what we most need to learn about ourselves.” I never saw my 14 years of being raised in state care in that light before. My son was expressing how he saw vulnerability as a privileged position and how we have a choice to either see that for what it is, or to ignore it.

From the mouth of a babe, I was given permission to speak out about what it is like to grow up disconnected from my bi-racial parents, my culture, my whenua, tikanga and reo. That vulnerable positioning has become my life’s purpose. Thus, I use my experience to speak about the need for positive change in New Zealand’s child protection system. This positioning also inspired my 27 year career in social work, and to be the kind of parent where there was no chance of the state taking my child.

Thank you Sir Anand Satyanand for inviting me to comment on the draft terms of reference (TOR) for the Historical Abuse in State Care Royal Commission (RC). In your letter you outline the four elements you would like me to comment on. The first being the “scope and purpose.” The second element being a “suitable reference to the Treaty of Waitangi.” (I will not comment on all as many others will also provide their views).

My first key comment is te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of this nation should be first and foremost in the RC going forward to address multiple failures of the Crown to keep our tamariki safe in state care. Particularly when it is Māori who have been the predominantly targeted people over the time frame stated in the draft TOR.

One of my gravest concerns is that the government officials who put the TOR together appear not able to think and operate in equal partnership with Māori. Despite the RC website stating, “the Inquiry will adhere to the highest of standards of professionalism and integrity” and “we will work in partnership with Iwi, Māori and whānau. How do you do this when the RC operates from a dominant white-stream worldview? Being secondary speaks volumes of a deep underpinning assumption that we as Māori are incapable of deciding for ourselves, much less looking after our own child protection needs. Why does my tikanga have to be less than yours?

I stated in my opening address to you at a two-day survivor hui in February 2017 Sir Anand, “Te Tiriti was not even mentioned in the draft terms of reference and if we are to get this get this right, we must begin how we mean to carry on. Māori MUST have their own stream within the RC.” This means, our own panel of experts (including lived-experience) and advisory survivor roopu, if we are to engage successfully with our hard to reach people. Our world view, our experience, the loss of our mokopuna (grandchild) to genocidal, policy and practice in Aotearoa, is not EVER secondary. It is first and foremost in our living breathing existence. Has the state become so immune to the continued disproportional statistics of our tamariki in state care that, when we call for our own safe processes, we are still treated as an add-on? I don’t think Taika Waititi was kidding when he said “New Zealand is as racist as f..k!”

An example of “racist as f..k” is the way the TOR, (p5, 2.2) lumps Māori in with other groups of people. “In considering this, the Inquiry is also invited to have particular consideration for Maori and any groups where differential impact is evident, e.g. by gender, LGBTQI people, Pacific people and people who have experienced mental health issues.” Genocide and inter-generational trauma are not merely a “differential impact.” Please cease othering your te Tiriti partner. Is this truly adhering to the highest of standards of professionalism and integrity and working in partnership with whānau, hapu and iwi?

My second key comment is there have never been any safe spaces/processes for our Māori state abuse survivors to tell their stories. (Which is why we have had to take our concerns to the Waitangi Tribunal: Wai 2615 – The Māori Children placed in State Care Claim). A best example of this is voiced by my brother who at 8 years old (among a raft of other abuses) was put into psychiatric care with adult patients. He had this to say:

“Your MSD historical abuse claims process is there to make YOU feel better. It blames me and you get to distance yourselves from an unpleasant occurrence and thereby confirm your own invulnerability to the risk. Your process puts the onus on me to ‘prove’ that I was raped, beaten, abused and in doing so it labels me; makes me responsible for all that happened to my small body.

The whole claims process is like facing your rapists again. Like the Judge who took a fancy to me and would take me in the school holidays and on long weekends. A Judge although much older now, is very senior and still there. I see his face, when you all sit there assessing my words, my innocence, my stolen childhood. Where I have to recount the detail and you look at me with eyes, that spell out neon words in the air between us, “troubled” “broken” “dysfunctional” and “cognitively impaired.” Your labels and pathologising is like a knife to my guts, cutting me into bits and telling me I am to blame for your re-rape of me.

You have no understanding of inter-generational trauma, layered like whakapapa…heck you don’t even know what that means. How the mamae and energy of it is passed on through our cellular memory. Your homogenised approach is an affront to me and re-traumatises my being.

You all (MSD process/panel) can then see yourselves as different, impartial and independent (the good guys, expert, well-intentioned). You are NOT! Your espoused tīkanga process does not help us, it repels us. Your victim-blaming marginalises me as a survivor. Your offer to access my notes for me is a load of BS also. I get my DSW notes and they are all redacted. Further, confirming to me that I am to blame and that you are protecting yourselves as state representatives, as colonisers, allowing me little to draw from.

My file notes were written by culturally ignorant social workers to cover their racist missionary-styles decision-making and NOT for my well being. Nothing in my notes remotely relates to my recollection of how I was treated. You (MSD) call yourselves “a tīkanga informed process with culturally competent professionals.” You are not even able to voice your knowledge of Māori models, modes and methods of healing that are vital to us as Māori. Even my medical notes were not to be found which, could’ve corroborated many of my injuries. Such as the burning of my genitals through electrical convulsive treatment (ECT) intended to punish me for telling or crying out for my mother.

All your white arrogance and assurances that you offer a “flexible” and thus “tīkanga” approach are just more lies; more fracking my Māori’ness. When you ask me to prove my rape to you, you ask me to undress to offer up my small body, so that you may inspect, poke and prod, measure, sodomise me and then calmly get up, and leave me lying exposed whilst you wash your hands and make your findings.

There are thousands more of us, whom my sister and other advocates are tireless in providing us with a voice. We want and deserve our own process according to our rights under te Tiriti” (Personal communication: June, 2016).

My third key comment is with the time frame of the RC. Genocidal policies and processes impacting our mokopuna did not miraculously end on the 31 December, 1999. Sir Anand, your stated reasoning for the draft time frame is, “After 2000, people were not in institutional care, by and large; people were in the community, and New Zealanders had available to them a number of mechanisms — Human Rights Commission, Health and Disability Commission, Ombudsmen, etc.”  With respect, this a monumental cop-out because those processes and others since (such as, CYF/MSD/CLAS), have not provided a true tīkanga space for Māori survivors to tell their stories. Just because Big Tobacco says smoking is good for you, does not make it so. In exactly the same way posters adorning OT offices declare that they are “tika, pono and with aroha.”

Further, I contend that not a single one of these toothless processes has been able to STOP the tide of racist targeting of our most vulnerable mokopuna from the NZ state. 62% of youth incarcerated into care and protection residences and 73% in youth justice are our rangatahi. All part of the brown pipe-lining of our babies as fodder to fill NZ’s prisons. The proposed TOR time frame only serves to protect the current model (Oranga Tamariki) from being investigated as continuing to fall short in its statutory duty to keep our stolen mokopuna safe from harm.

The New Zealand government not only fails in their obligations to te Tiriti o Waitangi but also to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The declaration recognises “the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child.” Secondly, the declaration recognises “the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” Let’s call it what it is, not “cultural genocide” but straight up genocide!

In 2014, I wrote about the new focus upon Māori newborns (aka under 5s) by CYF. “In New Zealand, the statistics of newborns uplifted by the state are not made public; these requested through the Official Information Act process. In the 2012 – 2013 year, 13 new-born Māori from a total of 26 were removed from the birthing table, and 80 Māori babies from a total of 157 were removed from their mother within 30 days of their birth (Bernadette McKenzie, Deputy Chief Executive, Child Youth & Family, personal communication, June, 6, 2014). In the first instance, these infants are most often placed with state approved non-Māori caregivers until the concerns held can be addressed via a FGC. Māori make up 15% of the total New Zealand population and the uplift of nearly 100 infants a year from their mothers, many of who are not returned, essentially wipes out future generations of Māori. The actual number of infants uplifted is likely to be much higher as the primary ethnicity is recorded by the social worker and often this is discretionary depending who that social worker decides the child may go to.” (See Moyle, 2014).

In 2018, I am still talking about our babies being uplifted where 45 over the last year were taken from their mother the day they were born. The number has increased in the last three years, with 225 in 2017 – 38 more than 2016 and 63 more than 2015. Over the last three years, 574 babies ended up in state care within the first month of their life, according to figures released under the Official Information Act (See article source here). The percentage of these infants being Māori has increased from 50% in 2013 to 70% in 2018.

This targeting of our mokopuna is the structural/systemic/institutional racism (not unconscious bias), that the Puao te ata tu inquiry spoke at great lengths of, and like the Brown inquiry of 2000, was largely ignored. These uplift statistics of our mokopuna also correlate with what is being reported in other colonial jurisdictions such as the USA, UK and Australia, that right now are greater than they have ever experienced before. For example, ten times that of the Stolen Generations and the 60s Scoop. And whilst our Chief social worker commented in this article, “some of the babies would have been taken for planned adoption rather than protection reasons.”  This is misleading in order to distract from the truth of the increase. There is a vast difference between children taken with a mother’s consent to adopt, and those uplifted for reasons of concern for their safety.

It is also not true that these infants are taken as a “last resort.” My FGC findings with over 30 whānau members showed that often the under 5s (including newborns) were often uplifted as a first resort in family violence situations (See, Moyle & Tauri, 2016 for further reading). Especially where predictive risk modelling type assessments were being used by police, social workers and contracted assessment services. They are deficit-focused rather than strengths, and they accentuate weakness from a white-is-right worldview. ‘Child centered’ as a policy/practice is about as state centered as the term ‘child poverty.’ It is ludicrous to assess a child apart from their collective environment and connections.

The under 5s are the largest growing uplift group under Oranga Tamariki. (A title that grossly misrepresents the meaning. Rather than tamariki ora, is more aptly Tamariki Trauma.) An organisation where the social work ‘elite’ fail to challenge the brown care to incarceration pipeline. That re-branded itself from CYF, promising to have NZ child protection sorted in 5 years time. And in 12 months of rolling over its same senior staff into the new model; it did so assuring the same “partnership with whānau, hapu and iwi” (stated earlier in this submission) yet minus any acknowledgement of te Tiriti or the need to address institutional racism. Not even the Expert Advisory Group with its ‘no social work experts at the table’ could utter the words ‘institutional racism’ in any of its shiny reports. A year on, under Oranga Tamariki the total number of children in NZ state care has skyrocketed from 5,600 to 6,100 and 63% of those are ours.

These numbers are unprecedented and result from racist practice window-dressed as cultural competence to work with our mokopuna. Supported also by Family Court practice that often put our women and children at risk of further harm (See Backbone Collective reports on this). Employing overseas social workers and new graduates (like interns doing fine brain surgery) to deal with complex cases, high workloads, in a robotic risk averse work environment, with little understanding of dynamics of colonial fallout/domestic violence, historical trauma and with no external culturally competent supervision, adds to the bush picnic (See more on institutional racism in child protection here).

In a recent report commissioned by the new child protection model, it quoted 12% of children in state care have disclosed being abused, since being placed in care. That is, those who have had the courage to tell. It, like other disclosure research states that the actual number is thought to be considerably higher. If we were to take that 12% and apply it to the 100,000 survivors that went through state care from the 50s to the 90s, then we are looking at 12,000 at the very least. And we’ve probably transacted at least another 70,000 children through state care since 1990.

Which leads to my last two questions. If it took the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (CLAS), 7 years to listen to 1,100 survivors, what does the RC hope to achieve with 12,000 potential survivors in 2 ½ years (by end of this political term)? And if it cost the Australian Royal Commission 500 million over 5 years, realistically what will we achieve with 12 million?

I, my brothers, my whāngai siblings and wider whānau have contributed multiple times to this kaupapa over the years. My/our final comment, is if we are to learn anything about what we are not getting right for mokopuna ora in Aotearoa, then we have to listen to, and cease dismissing the experiences of those most affected. Lived-experience is everything. It is true knowledge. It is vital that the voices of Ngā Mōrehu and all survivor groups are centralised in this RC. It is essential that as Ngā Mōrehu/survivors are supported to speak out. Our silence does not belong to Oranga Tamariki, MSD, the Family Court or any system, and positional people that trough feed off the backs of our mokopuna. We will no longer be silent so that others can remain comfortable. These systems have no right to keep us from protecting ourselves, our whānau and future generations of our people!

RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Tangata whenua must have their own stream in the Royal Commission, their own panel of chosen experts, and advisory survivor roopu, all with appropriate resourcing.

 

  • Change the timeframe to include current abuse experienced by our young people state care.

 

  • Consider an appropriate restoration process that includes not just an apology but compensation for all survivors that come under the final terms.

 

  • If faith-based institutions want to be open and accountable for the way they failed to care for some of their wards, I suggest they combine their resources and establish their own inquiry. Perhaps run it alongside the Royal Commission, with an appropriate resolution process and compensation for survivors.

 

  • In the learning about how to make it different, the RC must investigate how institutional racism within the current model of child protection contributes to the gross over-representation of our mokopuna in state care.

 

  • Look to establish a totally independent (of MSD) quality assurance and accountability body to act as oversight to the practices of Oranga Tamariki. A body which also processes compliments/complaints from families and individuals experiencing this practice.

 

  • Look into a tangata whenua model/body responsible for approving social workers as culturally competent (fit and proper) to work with tangata whenua in need.

 

  • Look into the need for OT social workers to engage in external ‘culturally competent to work with Maori’ supervision for OT social workers.

 

  • If, the RC cannot do anything to put matters right for survivors (both present and historical), then just hand it all back to us, our lands, resources, our babies, everything!

Paora Joass Moyle

info@paoramoyle.com

Image (with permission) from Robyn Kahukiwa

Adding to the conversation on an Inquiry into the historical abuse of children in NZ state care

Recently we learned of Labour’s commitment to an Inquiry into the historical abuse of children in state care. This kōrero is written for women, particularly Māori women who experienced abuse whilst in state care. My karanga is for Ngā Wāhine Mōrehu and also for those who have passed on from this life with no acknowledgment for the abuse they endured. It is also for the many of our disabled whānau who are often forgotten in this converation. So while we are talking about the kind of Inquiry we might have, I thought I would take the opportunity to put a few truths on the table.

Just as many girl children were abused in state care as boy children

When I read a headline Abused Males Want a Royal Commission and I see the media coverage on the successful Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Conference recently held in Christchurch, I wonder if other wāhine survivors like myself feel like our specific experiences are marginalised? Thus, I wanted to make the absolute point that, female survivors want an Inquiry just as much as male survivors do and just as many girl children were abused in state care as boy children (see Stanley, 2016).

Apart from the recent Ngā Wāhine Mōrehu, female state care survivors (or care leavers) are almost entirely excluded from the Inquiry conversation. So why is it important to ALSO put women’s experiences at the forefront? If you know anything about children and abuse disclosure you will know that Māori and women are less likely to speak out about their abuse due to the intersectionality (what I refer to as the double whammy) of racism and misogyny/sexism.

Experiences such as, being used to trial gynecological and other medications, a practice of forced internal inspections for venereal diseases, forced contraception, and sometimes forced sterilisation. These practices were horrific and very traumatising for girls and young women. They have impacted generationally upon our whānau, from which we have not healed.

There are also specific issues from the past that directly correlate to what women, Māori women and whānau report they are currently experiencing in systems. In my research , Māori women speak of their experience of sexism, structural racism and cultural ignorance/intolerance in statutory social work and in the Family Court. This is linked to the increased number of tamariki Māori (0 – 5s) being uplifted by the state and fast tracked to permanency outside of their whakapapa. If, we truly want systemic change, we have to take a good hard look at everything and not just pati pati round the garden. This includes ALL abuse types.

All abuse of children in state care must be included into any Inquiry

It is vitally important that we have survivor groups out front informing the public (such as, the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Conference) about what historical state abuse is and who it impacts. We also need to be informing people about ALL abuse types being harmful to children and that they must be included into the Inquiry terms of reference.

Why would we consider excluding children like my 8 year bother who experienced electro-shock treatment in Cherry Farm, or those who were locked up 23 hours in solitary confinement? Or the perpetual emotional and cultural abuse we suffered, as evidenced in the 1978 ACORD Inquiry into the cruel and inhumane treatment…violence and assaults of children and sexual violation of girls and young women.”

Cultural abuse where we were separeted from our whānau, referred to as “imbreds” and “Pakeha girls were treated better than Māori girls who were seen as stereotypically bad, and troublemakers…put down and treated with contempt” and “they were stripping children of all their support systems and identifications and making them dependent on the internal system within the home…the institution makes the child obey in order to survive” (Mitchell, I. in ACORD 1978).

Abuse of children also happened in religious based care

I grew up in religious based children’s homes. From the outside they looked like any ordinary homely setting but within a week of going into care the abuse began. We know that 60% of all victims of historic sexual abuse were abused while in religious based care. The vetting of caregivers was not a priority because the assumption was, that they were good Christian folk.

There were also good Christian folk from the community who could access “underprivileged” children to go on outings, camps, overnight stays, leading to weekends and school holiday stays. They were Doctors, Judges, Lawyers, Police, and other respected community leaders. Any Inquiry needs to include those abused in religious based care, not just in he bigger institutions we hear so much about, or it risks excluding more then half the victims.

Any Inquiry must be independent

I am just one voice, a wāhine toa survivor, of Ngā Wāhine Mōrehu. I claim the right to speak out on this kaupapa, to be respected as a leader and an ‘expert’ on this kaupapa by virtue of lived-experience. I am one person but I speak powerfully on behalf of hundreds of voices who have been rendered silenced.

I do NOT believe that an Inquiry can be run by MSD/Ministry for Children. That is an instant failure that repels survivors, much like putting the head of the Catholic Church in charge if it. If we truly want systemic change then only a Royal Commission, with full powers and a dual focus on both redressing past injustices for survivors and creating better futures for children, will achieve this.

Hei aha, if we have to have the Minister for Children leading the charge then like Māori Women’s Welfare League did last week, I urge her to consult widely. Ensure that provision is made for lived-experience to be at the change table. Self-appointed expertise and ‘Officials’ who do a catch-up read of a report or two must not get to form the terms of reference. It must include a variety of lenses especially when considering previous reviews and recommendations such as Puao te ata tu.

Consultation must include survivors, survivor groups and organisations with a history of involvement in or supporting those in state care. We do not want a token Academic exercise producing a glorified literature review and the like. An Inquiry must include all institutions and children’s homes of any description (either run by churches, charities or the NZ state) and all forms of abuse; not just limited to sexual abuse. LET’S DO THIS!

Finally, for those supportive of a Royal Commission of Inquiry here is a survey intended to help shape the Inquiries terms of reference. Mauri ora koutou.

Paora Crawford Moyle

info@paoramoyle.com

Excluding essential Māori knowledge in social work: The enhanceR2P project

Two years ago I challenged the (enhanceR2P) project because I believed it was really important research in terms of gauging ‘how’ and ‘what’ students were learning in NZ social work. (See this blog for background detail: https://pmoyle.com/2015/12/10/pakeha-doing-research-on-maori-the-enhancer2p-project/)

It presented as a one-size-fits-all, white-is-best team and research methodology. I questioned it because I didn’t want social work to miss exploring how institutional racism in mainstream social work programmes starved students of the knowledge they needed to engage well with Māori. Especially, since Māori are the predominant client group transacted through statutory child protection…and then pipelined to the prison system.

At the time I asked questions, the enhanceR2P team were all Pākehā academics. When I challenged them about having “no Māori at the table,” they vehemently denied the research was monocultural but rather it was “open” and “collaboarative.” Shortly, after they added the Māori Chair of the SWRB to their team. But as I said at the time, adding a nice Māori does not make the research “bicultural” or Māori inclusive or even friendly. Tokenism is still only littlebitism.

This week I got an email from the Social Work Registration Board (SWRB) stating that they support the enhanceR2P project and were sending the project’s online surveys to all registered social workers. Of course they support it, the SWRB Chair sits on the project team!

As a fee paying registered social worker who is Māori, I DO NOT SUPPORT this research! Even the Wananga refused to participate in it because they did not want to just hand over their teaching knowledge to Pākehā centred research. And why should they when they were not invited to be a part of the inception of the research/terms of reference, only the four involved Universities. It’s the same tiko as Universities calling themselves Wananga (when they are far from qualified to do so) and kicking up a stink when Wananga go to call themselves Universities.

Looking at the enhance2RP online surveys, nothing appears to have improved over the two years in terms of including Māori and exploring how institutional racism insicial work impacts them. Example, putting into your findings the use of “Te Reo Māori terms and terms from Pacific languages” does not reflect their “inclusiveness” into the project. Again it is veenering us on and boxing us to tick.

And the Project Advisory Group make up; just more social work elitsim that support the status quo. Same with the project’s Māori and Pacifica stakeholders groups that do not appear to have influenced the research methodology used. And all the Human Ethics approval in the world means nothing when it excludes approaches that invite essential Māori knowledge currently missing from social work education.

Here are just a few examples from the online surveys[1] that broadcast how this project will benefit indigenous NZs (about as much as a bicycle will Nemo):

  • No where in the surveys or online project information is Te Titriti o Waitangi referred to, or bicultual pracitce or indeed institutional racism that plagues social work. Yet “cultural sensitivity” (a term that went out with the Ark) gets to feature, but NOT “racism sensitivity.”
  • Question 19, in Survey 1 – the example of statutory social work given is, “removing a child.” Could you not use another example? Because according to the stats it is Māori under 5s that are the most increasing client group for uplifts whilst non-Maori are decreasing. If you as a team had a mind for how harmful cultural genocide is to Māori, you might have used some discretion here.
  • Māori and Pacifica are still, “othered” add-ons, veneered to your project. See examples, question 23 and 35, Māori and Pacifica are boxed as “service users groups” and under “specialist knowledge held by social workers.” Where is the box for Pākehā (who are also a culture) and if you were as “collaborative” and “inclusive” as you espouse your team to be, then I wouldn’t need to be pointing this out.
  • Under the “Supervision” section in your surveys, there is a question that refers to “cultural and kaupapa Māori supervison” as being “choices” and “are they helpful to social workers.” Once again ‘add-ons’ because the white-stream is the norm. I’d argue that Kaitiakitanga, or bicultural professional supervison needs to be a requirement for all social workers working with Māori, particularly those working in MCOT, where our babies are prolifically uplifted for being “vulnerable” (poor, brown and powerless).
  • Question 72 where “new social work graduates have mentioned certain topics they say they wished they knew a lot more about” your survey lists “Working with Māori” in the same column as, “dealing with hostility, aggression or conflict, assessing risk, good record-keeping, acquiring advanced and specialist skills and knowledge qualifications, the evidence base for your area of social work practice – what works” and more…This is very telling!

Now more than ever, social work needs to wake up to it’s racial targeting of Māori; not pretend it’s not happening so as not to offend white-fragility that permeates the profession. We need to work collectively on all research that has the potential to effectively challenge white-is-right myths. Such as MVCOT’s insistence on being a ground breaking model for addressing Māori over-representation and doing so whilst ignoring it’s rife institutional racism.

Th enhancer2p research is about as arrogant as any white streamed research could possibly be and the SWRB supports it! Challenge the status quo of non-Māori deciding what IS Māori and what’s BEST for Māori. Unlearn the lies and so too the lie that Academic knowledge makes one an ‘expert’. Pffftttt, lived-experience and indigenous knowledge, old and new is available to us all and that is where the real solutions are. What’s the point in having a voice if you havent got the courage to use it. Be a spanner for whānau, not a cog for the State!
[1] http://www.enhancer2p.ac.nz/2017/08/newly-qualified-social-workers-survey/

Video of original challenge to the project team: https://youtu.be/dWD0ZCi5NOI

It sticks like a knife in our collective guts

Every time Anne Tolley and Bill English talk about the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, or oppose an inquiry into the historical abuse of children in state care, it sticks like a knife in my guts.

I am Ngāti Porou through my mother, and I’m Weira — Welsh — through my father. After spending 14 years in state care, and 25 years in social work, I consider myself an expert on what it is truly like for a child with Māori whakapapa to grow up separated from all that intrinsically belongs to them.

I was five when I was taken into state care, and 18 when I was finally able to escape it. My mother, miserable and unwell, had left us, for her own survival as well as ours, to escape my father’s violence. She was deemed to have “abandoned her children”, and so my father was awarded legal custody of us.

He then applied to Social Welfare to have us temporarily placed in its care. On my fifth birthday, he took me and my two brothers (my older sister was placed with other caregivers) to a children’s home, and left, promising to be back for us soon. I waited every day for weeks and months after that, but it would be many years before I saw him again.

Over the years, other children came and went, but my siblings and I stayed in those homes. To everyone who came to visit and view the “underprivileged” children, we looked well adjusted and cared for.

But our experience contradicted appearances and we suffered things children are not supposed to: psychological, sexual, and other physical abuse over many years. It still makes me sick to say that.

I didn’t bear it silently. I fought to protect my brothers and me from the abuse we experienced from adults charged with our care. I spoke out at every opportunity. But I was never believed. I was labelled a troublemaker and my complaints were ignored. I still suffer from the guilt of not being able to do more to protect my brothers.

It was a difficult and lonely navigation for us. The perpetual emptiness was a feeling we all experienced. As property of the state, the effects of separation and abuse manifested in many ways. Some were immediate and obvious: the disruptive behaviour. Bed-wetting. And some were repressed and long term: the inability to form trusting and lasting relationships with others — a common experience for those who’ve been in state care.

We are survivors, although none of us came through that experience unscathed. Even after I left state care, the trauma followed me. For many years, I tried to fill the emptiness with drugs and alcohol, and toxic relationships.

But, as my brother Tipene said to me: “Our stories have to be told. How would people know what it’s like for a child to go through state-imposed trauma unless we all tell our story?”

There are still thousands of kids in state care who don’t have a voice. And too many of them are Māori. According to the Children’s Commissioner, Māori make up 61 percent of all kids in state care and 71 percent of the total in youth justice residences.

If that isn’t institutional racism, what is?

Many of us squirmed at the naming of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki — at the tacking on of a bit of Māori with no mind of how ignorant it is to put “vulnerable” and “wellbeing” together in the same title.

One cancels out the other, just as “automatic uplift” cancels out our tamariki.

The “vulnerable”, however, fits like a glove when we consider the extent of historical state abuses on tamariki who continue to be removed in great numbers from their whānau and placed with non-kin.

As I’m writing this, friends and followers of my activism are high-fiving me on the government’s backtracking on the removal of whānau-first placement protections for tamariki in the proposed Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) bill.

The bill is part of the government’s overhaul of Child, Youth and Family (CYF).

The current law gives priority to placing a child with a member of their whānau, or wider hapū, or iwi.

But the new bill, as it stands, removes that priority and instead puts the emphasis on the child’s safety.

After fierce opposition from many Māori, including the Māori Party and Tariana Turia, Anne Tolley said last week that she was prepared to reconsider the wording of the bill.

But I don’t believe there’ll be much of a backtrack at all. As Anne Tolley told the Stuff website, she won’t be budging on ensuring child safety is the single most important priority.

Her justification all along has been that Māori children are more vulnerable than non-Maori when returned to their whānau because they are at high risk of being re-abused.

But what she failed to mention is that this was occurring most often as a result of the dump-and-run, patch-and-dispatch practices by social workers who don’t value the needs of Māori children as highly as non-Maori.

What’s been happening is that tamariki and rangatahi in “the too-hard-basket”— those deemed high need, difficult to place, or “runners” — were returned home before it was safe, and often without safety plans in place.

Victoria University criminologist Elizabeth Stanley talks at length in her book The Road to Hell, about how Māori children were uplifted at 4–5 times the rate of non-Māori — not just for abuse and neglect but also for just being Māori.

As she writes:

“Child welfare officers encouraged the public, teachers and religious leaders in delinquency spotting. And complaints regularly saw the very presence of Māori children to be the problem. In their referrals “concerned” citizens objected to Māori because they were Māori and displayed an astonishing antagonism towards them. Māori children steadily came to notice for their potential delinquency, and this targeting was the starting point for the over representation of Māori within institutions.”

It is overwhelmingly Māori children who are returned to unsafe homes so that social workers can get their caseloads under control. It is not unconscious bias but racial bias that makes a senior manager target Māori, allocate and then de-allocate cases to get it off the waiting list and without actually doing the work of assessment and investigation.

I have witnessed all of this as a CYF social worker. And when you challenge this, it is denied, buried and you become a “troublemaker”.

And where do we put all these uplifted children? Possible whānau placements are thwarted by social workers who choose not to undertake whakapapa searches (as happened with me and my siblings).

Or because willing whānau who turn up at an FGC (family group conference) can’t be used immediately, or at all, because all members having contact with a household have to be investigated and police-checked before they can be used.

This is why children are placed with unapproved and unsafe caregivers, or in motels with Armourguard minders, or in police cells for days on end — or returned to unsafe homes only to come through the CYF door again.

Anne Tolley has ignored multiple recommendations to establish strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. Instead her ministry consults and engages with and privileges organisations like Barnardos and Open Home Foundation.

It’s the same old policies of propping up white-is-right foster care organisations, but failing to support parents and whānau as the first and fundamental carers.

Bill English, interviewed on The Hui, denied again the need for an inquiry into the state’s epic abuse of children in care. What this says to survivors is: “It didn’t happen.” Or “You weren’t beaten or raped that badly”.

It sticks like a knife in our collective guts. And while it’s fantastic that Susan Devoy and others are calling for the inquiry, it shouldn’t be forgotten that Māori have been calling out state abuse of our mokopuna for decades. For example, in the landmark Puao-te-Ata-tureport in 1988.

Bill English and Anne Tolley keep referring to April 1 when the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki will kick in and miraculously make children safe. That’s like saying cigarettes are safe because Big Tobacco says it is.

Āe, we absolutely need an inquiry to know the scale of the state’s historical abuse on children. Without it, the cogs in the machine keep churning, trucking and trafficking.

(Credit to E-Tangata where this peice first featured, March 2017: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1180552365404385&id=605464909579803 )

Paora invites you to contact her at: https://www.paoramoyle.com