This is one of those horror stories from the Family Court system which has had disasterous consequences for the children caught in the middle, as told by a third party who observed the process.
I was contacted by the mother 3 years ago, and in following this saga I have had my eyes opened to the devastation caused by our adversarial Court system. The mother has waited for 4 years for the system to do the right thing by her daughters, and it hasn’t. She is now picking up the pieces with the one daughter who has managed to escape the completely inappropriate environment the Courts consigned her and her younger sister to, on the forceful advice of the Lawyer for Child.
Family background:
These parents were together for 19 years and had two daughters, born in 1995 and 1997. The mother worked as a Nurse Aide right up until her first daughter was born. The father was on a Benefit for most of his working life.
When the daughters were growing up the mother made sure they were involved in lots of extra-curricular activities, enrolling them in Drama and Modelling Schools, Singing, Dancing and Swimming lessons. When the youngest daughter was aged 10 her Agent arranged an audition for her, and she was selected for a part in a movie. The mother took her to the South Island and Germany where this was filmed. There is no doubt that this mother played a very supportive role in her daughters’ lives, encouraging their talents and opportunities for life experiences.
Shortly after returning from Germany, life began to unravel for this family as follows:
In 2008 the father started becoming abusive, and was found to have been using drugs. Over time their relationship deteriorated and he left home, eventually taking one and then both of their daughters with him (then aged 11 and 13). The mother’s first step was to hire a lawyer for her two daughters.
Thus began a prolonged Family Court process during which the the first Judge (who retired in the middle of this case) granted the father an interim parenting order so the girls could stay with him.
Lawyer for Child:
The Lawyer for Child then embarked on a mission to champion these girls’ cause regardless of whether what the girls said they wanted was in their best interests, watching these girls’ attitudes towards their mother become vitriolic and hateful with no effort to encourage Counselling for them, at the same time undertaking to systematically victimise and destroy the mother.
According to www.justice.govt.nz , the overriding factor of the Lawyer for Child’s duties is“the welfare and best interests of the child.” He/she must also “remain independent and keep focused on the child and the child’s needs and views.”
Surely they must also ascertain who is influencing the child, and realise that what a young teenage girl says she wants is not necessarily what is in her best interests.
If a child has developed an unnaturally intense hatred of their mother, surely it is worthy of an independent investigation to find out the cause of this. Instead, the Lawyer for Child in this case seemed hellbent on championing her clients’ cause and winning her case at any cost. She succeeded in winning the case, but it has been at a tragic cost to these two girls and their mother.
The Family Court:
Over the course of two years this case was heard by two Judges because the first Judge retired mid-case.
The first Judge had been unhappy at the extent of the children’s exposure to the parental conflict, and by the degree to which they had become involved and had clearly and emphatically taken sides against their mother. He was concerned in terms of their psychological and emotional safety. He said the girls, particularly the eldest one, seemed to be “up to their necks in what was going on between the parents”. He also noted in his summing up that “this matter is heading for a radical level of intervention if there is any further deterioration in the circumstances of these children”. Sadly the second Judge was not as enthusiastic about protecting these girls.
In February 2011 the second Judge handed day-to-day care to the father despite his background of drug and alcohol convictions and assaults, because the girls said they wanted to live with him. The father had even accumulated two marijuana convictions in the couple of months prior to this decision, but the Lawyer for Child insisted that these were “low level”.
During the Family Court process the mother undertook Counselling, as had been suggested by the first Judge to hear this case. However in the second Judge’s final summing up he commented “ the mother was contemplating undertaking Counselling but there is no indication that she has pursued this”.
And yet I have the following letter from the Counsellor she saw:
I began seeing (name withheld) for counselling in February 2010. She was advised by
the courts to have family counselling but as her daughters were not willing to come,
(Name withheld) decided to go ahead with the counselling for herself. I saw her about 8 times. She was always cooperative, open and honest and clear about her own part in the break down of the family. She was willing and keen to work on her issues and I found her a pleasant and cooperative client. She stopped counselling for financial reasons.
During the Family Court process the mother complied with all Court Orders for various Assessments, which ended up working against her. Obviously she was “psychologically distressed” by what was happening to her daughters – but this was translated into being the cause of the problems with her daughters, not as a result of the problems.
This mother’s situation was very like the case published in the Herald on 24.4.11 in which an ADHB psychologist told CYF that a mother had a personality disorder and severe problems – her daughter was also caught up in an acrimonious parental separation. That mother said “These people were intent on labelling me and estranging me. They were intent on abnormalising me and keeping me away from my daughter”. As a result of that case, the child was released into the care of the father. The Auckland District Health Board subsequently agreed to pay the woman $6000 after she took the case to the Human Rights Tribunal. The child later returned to live with the mother.
The mother in the case I am describing was awarded access visits with her daughters, but after the very successful first one, she was never allowed to see them again. She was told her daughters didn’t want to see her again. The only communication she received from her eldest daughter was by text, verbally abusing her and blaming her for everything that went wrong in their lives. Her youngest daughter refused to speak to her.
What has happened to these girls?
In January 2011 the eldest daughter turned 16, and when day-to-day care was awarded to the father in February 2011, she was deemed no longer under the Courts. However she continued to live with her father. In August 2011 she ran away from her father’s house and because she had no financial means of support, she became homeless for a time. She was caught shoplifting and subsequently banned from one of The Warehouse stores for 2 years.
She later admitted that during this time she had become pregnant to her boyfriend and had an abortion. In desperation she rang her mother asking for help to get a Benefit so she could find somewhere to live. She was not interested in moving back with her mother.
Her father was giving her $50 a week of the Benefit payment he was receiving for her.
The WINZ Case Worker asked the girl why she couldn’t live at home. She replied that there was violence in the house.
The WINZ worker suggested the girl contact her father and ask him to release all of her Benefit to her – but the girl refused to have anything to do with him.
Her behaviour was confused, volatile, aggressive, very angry, and she continually used foul language. It became apparent that this was the result of the kinds of things that had happened in her father’s house – but all she would say was that she had experienced a great deal of stress at home with her father. The WINZ worker told the mother of her concern at the girl’s fragile mental state.
The girl told the WINZ Case Worker that they had been told by their father that the Courts wouldn’t allow them to see their mother. This was not true, but seems to account for the mother’s inability to see them again. The mother was told by the father that he couldn’t make the girls want to see her.
The girl’s boyfriend wanted to end their relationship but rather than leave her living on the street, he made her contact her mother and ask to come and see her. Once the girl arrived her mother asked how long she was staying, and her reply was “Forever”.
The girl continues to live with her mother and has now been going to Counselling for some time. It took a long time for her to begin to open up about her experiences and why she was so angry. As a result of what she told her mother, the girl has now laid an assault complaint against her father with the Police.
She has told how on this occasion her father grabbed her by her ankle and twisted it, punched her in the mouth and pushed her through a glass door – then jumped on her and started strangling her. Her sister and another man in the house pulled the father off her
There was a friend who did not see the assault, but who saw the injuries from the assault and was prepared to be a witness to this but Police decided not to interview her.
The mother told the Police how concerned she was for the safety of her younger daughter who is still living with her father.
What have the Police done about this complaint?
Initially the mother was told they were short-staffed and didn’t have time to investigate it; she was also told it was up to the Police to decide if they would proceed with a case against the father. Eventually they visited the younger girl and she denied that anything ever happened to her sister – so they dropped the case.
Apparently it did not occur to them that the younger girl might have been afraid to dob her father in. At no time did they bother to interview the other people who witnessed the assault or those who saw the injuries afterwards.
CYF:
In spite of the Courts telling the mother that if there were any further concerns for the girls’ welfare, CYF would deal with it, CYF have wiped their hands of these girls, even though they have been made aware of the older girl’s assault charge against her father.
CYF are not interested in the older girl because she is now 16 and out of the system – and they are also not interested in the other girl’s welfare.
The mother visited the CYF Office and requested written notification that they had closed the case.
On over-hearing her name, a second woman came out and spoke very curtly to her in front of her 12 year-old step-daughter, saying “You won’t be seeing the Site Manager – Goodbye and have a good day”.
The mother has now spoken to the Operations Manager who has agreed to send her the document saying they have closed the case.
The School Principal:
The mother tried to make an appointment with the younger girl’s school Principal, to show him the older girl’s complaint of assault against her father, and to ask the school to keep an eye on the younger girl for any signs of physical abuse or distress. The Principal refused to see her, saying it was nothing to do with them and she didn’t have custody of her daughter.
The situation as it stands now:
The younger girl has now turned against her older sister because she has gone back to her mother. Her texts to her mother and sister show a lot of hate and confusion, the same as the older girl’s used to be before she started counselling. Their father destroyed the older girl, and the younger girl continues to believe her father’s lies, as her sister used to.
Now the older girl has started revealing what life was like with her father, no-one is interested. Why can’t the authorities see that of course the younger girl is going to stand up for her father – she would face the consequences if she didn’t. It’s a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, where the kidnapped person forms an emotional bond with the kidnapper, who in this case successfully convinced his daughters that their mother is an evil person.
The fact that these two girls were consigned to what became a miserable existance with a father who associates with drug users and is one himself, is a travesty of justice, and the system needs to be exposed. This mother has waited in vain for the system to do the right thing by her daughters – and it hasn’t. Now she is picking up the pieces of her eldest daughter’s life and helping her put it back together. The girl is now on a Disability benefit due to the ongoing need for Counselling to help her recover from the trauma of 3 years of living with her father, and having an abortion.
The younger girl is now into her 5th year of living in that environment, with witnesses to the father using P. How long will it be, if ever, before she is rescued from her situation, and what emotional condition will she be in? Will the mother be left to pick up the pieces of this girl’s life and try to put it back together too?
This is not the kind of future this mother envisaged for her beautiful, talented daughters when they were together and they had their lives ahead of them.
Why have the authorities who are supposed to protect our children, placed them in the care of someone with drug convictions and associations, and then abandoned them?
This mother is extremely worried for the emotional and physical safety of her youngest daughter, and no-one is prepared to do anything about it.
The mother’s new lawyer has now had affidavits signed by herself, her eldest daughter and a man who smoked P with the girls’ father in another house, and is asking for a re-hearing in the Family Court based on this evidence.
At this point in time we do not know if the Judge is going to allow the re-hearing, or what the outcome will be if he does allow it. Will he finally agree to remove this girl from that environment, even though she insists she wants to stay?
The mother knows the daughter cannot be returned to her care because of the girl’s hatred of her – she will have to be taken somewhere where she can receive the help she needs before that relationship can begin to be retrieved.
Even if the Judge agrees to remove the younger girl from her father’s care, this mother is desperate for her story to be told. Someone needs to be held accountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment