What happened to 'Moana' was abuse at the hands of Oranga Tamariki
Thursday, 16 September 2021
OPINION: “Although she is not a daughter by blood, she is a daughter of my heart now.”
I read a lot of court judgements, but I’ve never read such a simple and powerful line nor one that touched me as that statement does. It was said by a gentleman from Hawke’s Bay who, with his wife, volunteered to look after children placed into care with Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry for Children.
The use of the word care is unfortunate, for what happened to the young girl at the centre of this case was abuse at the hands of Oranga Tamariki and some of those in the Ministry’s employment.
The child who is the focus of this story endured a brutal start to life. The details matter, but they cannot be reported, nor should they be. But what happened was beyond neglect. My heart sinks thinking about what that poor girl suffered in this land of plenty.
**READ MORE:
* Can Pākehā caregivers provide adequate cultural support for Māori children in care?
* Oranga Tamariki decision to be appealed by birth mother
* Judge dismisses Oranga Tamariki's bid to remove Māori girl from Pākehā couple
**
By the age of 3 she had landed in the hands of two caregivers who took this traumatised child into their home. They gave her what all 3-year-old children want and need: somewhere safe to live and someone to love them without hesitation or reservation.
That is where this story should end. Oranga Tamariki placed the child, named “Moana” in the media, with this couple and gave these caregivers the impression that Moana would be with them forever. A permanent placement.
The couple are not Māori. Moana is. In the scheme of the challenges that this young girl faces, addressing her cultural needs is low. This isn't the view of the Ministry for Children. They went about a long and duplicitous plan to take Moana away from her loving caregivers and place her with another couple with some family connections to Moana.
This could have been an excellent plan, had it been done at the start. These second caregivers, from the judgement, come across as decent people who would care and love Moana and bring her up within her culture. But by the time the Ministry stumbled across this couple, Moana had formed an emotional attachment to her new family, and they to her.
The problem is, and here is the punch, they were the wrong race. A decision had been made that, where possible, Māori children need to be with Māori caregivers.
Oranga Tamariki was placing adherence to a cultural belief, a policy, a dogma, ahead of the interests of a 6-year-old girl who had suffered grievously in her first three years and was thriving in her new home.
“From the very moment Moana went into the care of (the caregivers) she found; love, stability, devotion, nutrition, freedom from family violence and substance abuse.”
By contrast, the Ministry staff were so devoted to their new policy they disregarded the child’s interests. “The actions of social workers… were emotionally and psychologically abusive of Moana….The actions were driven more by Oranga Tamariki’s entrenched desire to remove the child from a stable placement than anything to do with her well-being, objectively measured.”
The judge thundered criticism on various staff members, the Chief Executive and the entire systemic regime of the Ministry. This is an incredible judgement that, by its nature, cannot be widely disseminated.
It should be. Redactions can be made and it must be re-issued. The country should bear witness to the malign state that the government agency empowered to care for the most vulnerable in our community has degenerated.
Ministry staff lied – relentlessly – to the caregivers, to themselves, and to the court.
They claimed that the caregivers were seeking to “strip Moana of her whakapapa”, yelled at her, and even claimed that wiping vegemite from the child’s face was wiping away the mother’s germs. These were shocking and false allegations that had little or no foundation.
They told the caregivers that a cultural assessment report was needed before placement would be permanent. Evidence emerged that this was a lie. The caregivers were effectively being set-up. They were going to fail and that inevitable failure used as a pretext to remove Moana.
Much of the case turned on the activity of one, relatively inexperienced, social worker. But the problem in the Ministry isn’t in one individual.
When the case started going badly the chief executive, then Sir Wira Gardiner, was so concerned at the way it was progressing he reached out to the judges in charge of both the District and Family courts to register his displeasure.
There is another column in the blatant attempt to subvert judicial independence, and Judge Peter Callinicos deserves an Order of New Zealand for standing his ground and speaking out. But for this column, it is enough to highlight that the Ministry’s first reaction to discovering its employee’s behaviour wasn’t to address the problem but to hobble the judiciary.
Ultimately, what gives me hope is the humanity and determination of the caregivers who have been given custody of Moana. At what must have been terrible legal and emotional toll, they stood up for her when no one else would. Distressingly, it seems they will need to do so again at the Court of Appeal.
This was the test. This is what parents do. This is all the proof anyone should need that they love this girl and, it is clear from the judgment, that love is reciprocated.
Oranga Tamariki is broken. You can’t fix an organisation that has fallen into such depravity that Judge Peter Callinicos exposed. It won’t be, of course. It will continue to damage families for many decades to come; driven by ideology and unchastised by this rebuke.
But for the moment, we should take a moment to appreciate that we have decent, bold and courageous people such as these successful caregivers who were prepared to make a stand for the daughter of their heart. They are the heroes of this story. I wish them and Moana all the best.
* Damien Grant is a business owner based in Auckland. He writes from a libertarian perspective and is a member of the Taxpayers’ Union but not of any political party.