I was going to blog about the Ombudsman's report into the use of s78 orders for removing babies at birth, but decided on a long thread instead. So bear with me. You can find the report here: https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources/he-take-kohukihuki-matter-urgency @BeddoeE @RSWcollective @FitzmauriceLuke @OCCNZ @NUMA_NZ

The headliners are incredible really. With no specific guidance and poorly understood legislation contributing, all 74 cases examined were 'without notice', there was limited observance of the legal requirement to provide 'assistance to discharge responsibilities' to families,

decisions were being made too late after cases, even those notified early, had no or little action taken. The effect of this was reactive practice, and families given no opportunity to even understand, let alone respond to the claims against them.

There was a lot of variability in practice, something we have examined extensively https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/9647 which led to facts such as 20% of cases not being referred to the C +P resource panel (legal requirement), no child and family consult in 1/3 of cases, (required by guidanc

In 64% of cases there was no professional's meeting and in over half, there was no family meeting or family group conference before removal. This lack of family inclusion is literally illegal. But there's more..

A report not in the public domain but referred to in the Ombudsman's report, was undertaken by the agency itself, which examined “153 of the 309 cases where pēpi were placed in its custody under section 78 orders between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2019” - a much larger sample

These figures uncover the extent of the widespread abuses of power able to occur when a practice such as ‘without notice’ orders becomes the norm rather than the exception. Only 40% of cases had a family meeting or hui a whānau before the s78 was made, only 33% had an FGC.

When reporting on the process for ways to share the concerns with the family, in only 10% of those 153 cases, was a home visit conducted. Imagine: the child protection agency assessing the risk of the family as so high that a s78 order for custody would

be made, but 90% have never had a home visit or family meeting to discuss this. Holy crap.

In 31% of cases, if support services had been offered to try and prevent removal was ‘unable to be determined’ from the files. If removal really was a last resort, one would think that including in the file all the ways that prevention measures had been tried would be required.

Despite the often mentioned other common risk factors of domestic violence and mental health problems, only 2% had been offered dv interventions or mh support, and only 5% home visiting services.

There is no mention at all of addressing other basic poverty related issues such as housing or income adequacy, despite there being 21 times the chance of ‘substantiation’ within the system if one is living in a high deprivation area.

In our recent interviews with social workers involved in these processes, we found people just as frustrated with the system they are employed by. They noted that often a notification is made early to Oranga Tamariki, but because it is not urgent at that time ..

or because a manager's view is that it won’t be accepted in case the pregnancy will not progress, the case is put on the back burner until it’s too late to complete the assessment properly, engage with whānau, or get the person into other preventive services before baby is born.

The variable nature of who undertakes the assessments is another key concern raised. Some are experienced swers with a realistic view of what parenting is actually like, often with childen themselves. But those without enough professional or life experience can have unreasonable

expectations and become stuck in making demands of women instead of working with them to find realistic and supportive solutions.

In short, the Ombudsman's report shows that the Hawke's Bay case was not a one off (as claimed). If the CE is going to stand before the Waitangi tribunal and offer to return children who should not have been taken, I would remind her that

The families covered by the report are only “20 – 25%” of all babies removed during that time period". Secondly, that time period actually was a period of a small decline in babies removed. The rates increased sharply from 2015. Justice for some should be justice for all.