Family Group Conferences or ForeGone Conclusions (FGC)

I am going to call this section of my webpage the truth about the lies, because I am going to attempt to expose some of the fables about CYFS, FGC’s and what who or want can be done to bring CYFS into line.

Does FGC mean “Family Group Conferences” or “ForeGone Conclusions” as I now call some of them and will explain why?

I make these comments because in some cases, (not all) CYFS control, who can attend, and they can filter the information they deem should be presented at the conference to the detriment of a good outcome being reached.
If key people are excluded or not enough of or the right information is given, this can dramatically affect the possibility of any outcomes being reached before the conference has even taken place.

Potentially CYFS can make sure they get the outcome they want by providing the only options, via information and people, they want presented to the FGC. The unchallengeable opinion of the FGC coordinator can make or break a FGC or influence an outcome based on their opinion only and that can depend on what mood they are in or if they like you or not.

The outcomes of an FGC can be predetermined before the FGC even takes place, by excluding people and information, only allowing that which CYFS want to be presented to the FGC. They can influence the result (if needed), while seemingly giving the family a choice and doing what is required by law as to arranging the FGC..

CYFS can also put unreasonable timeframes, therefore: restrictions on the FGC, making it impossible to reach an outcome in the allotted timeframe resulting in a none-agreement.
In the event of a none-agreement is returned after and FGC is held CYFS get the power back, to come up with a solution. Owing to the fact the family was unable to come to any agreement even if it was CYFS fault for the reasons outlined above.

As a side note, some families have stated they only really had one option presented! So felt compelled, to go along with it, rather the risk CYFS making a decision for them, that most likely could be different to what the family wanted. They would rather have little say, than none at all! So agreed, based on that conclusion. So given CYFS claim, that 90 per cent of cases family group conferences, agree about what should be done. Under what circumstances? Bring this conclusion about. This is the real question. Given some of the examples I have stated, if an agreement was under duress, or influenced by controlling the amount or type of information, along with people and timeframes available to the conference, this truly can be said, ‘hardly keeps within the spirit of the FGC ethos.’ Some could call that; abuse of power or manipulating the system for their own gain. Which it is!

CYFS can in fact hold a FGC without the family if they refuse to attend so basically at times they are blackmailed into turning up and going along for the ride even if they know it’s a fast. It seems strange to call it a Family group conference if none of the family turn up, but never mind that LOL
How about telling the family an FGC is being held, the whole family decide not to attend and do not. Often CYFS claim one was held. Strange? The ‘F’ (Family) part of the FGC was not in attendance.

Just to clarify a point, family members have given CYFS lists of people they wanted invited to the FGC, CYFS lots the lists or the invitations got lost in the post, or CYFS claimed they did not know about the people who missed out and blame the family for not telling them. That’s the subtle approach when I talk about people be excluded, or they will make a time for the FGC wherein certain people can’t come and say “sorry we tried, but can’t suit everyone’s needs”

Now in brief, if you read CYFS own webpage, then some off the stuff I allege has happened; is a breach of their own guidelines and protocols for example: http://www.cyf.govt.nz/1258.htm

Under The heading Family Rights:
… give and be given any necessary information…
…. take as much time as necessary to find solutions….

In some cases after having these mistakes pointed out to CYFS they still “surprise, surprise,” refused to see the error of their ways or mend them! One family who was so disgusted and outraged about CYFS mistakes leading up and during and FGC asked for another one to make up for it. 22 family members signed a partition that went to CYFS, the family court and counsel for the child. It was presented to CYFS, still no comment on that apart from CYFS refuse to hold another FGC for that family? “I was not surprised because the fact is CYFS don’t want that family to reach an agreement and CYFS have taken that power and right away from them as that FGC was doomed to fail before it even started for some of the reasons mentioned earlier. These are not isolated cases or one offs’

I would like CYFS to read this comment I have come across:

“Please note that any two people who attended the Family Group Conference can request the Care and Protection Co-ordinator to reconvene the Family Group Conference if they have serious concerns for any reason that cannot be resolved informally”

Source: Pamela Putland Care & Protection Co-ordinator prepared this information,
Children Young Persons & Their Families Service Otara
www.hrs.org.nz/fostercare/Files/FamilyGroupConferences.pdf.

Well given 7 of the 22 family members signed the FGC partition were actually at the FGC I think that number far exceeds the 2 required in the quote . Yet strangely enough CYFS still do not to this day, want to hold another FGC , nor run it properly, to make up for their mistakes. Or were they mistakes!

Guess who CYFS usually seek about input into holding another FGC if mistakes are made or people not happy? You got it, the same person who ran it. So much for’ conflict of interest!’ They go to the person who caused the problem, to fix the problem if they please, and by having another FGC so soon after the last one, would by virtue owning-up to the fact there was a problem they created LOL, That’s a no brainer in my book.

In all; this is not reason enough to need another FGC, lets look at more:
I asked CYFS to reconvene a FGC because a family was not given enough time or information and people who we wanted to attend were not invited as CYFS and the family agreed and believed would happen at that time.
Given my aforementioned statements and issues I raised . Now; lets take a look at CYFS own webpage:

After the FGC
The coordinator has responsibility for seeing the plan is reviewed. If it is not working, or circumstances change, the coordinator must be told immediately and another FGC may be called.

After an FGC, a number of circumstances changed and a number of people who attended the failed FGC requested another one be held. CYFS said they did not see the need and it was not, in their view, in the child’s best interests to call another FGC. to spite all that had happened and changed since.. .

Hang on; I thought it would be in the children’s best interest to ensure the family got enough time, the right people and information in order to have the best chance possible to reach an agreement among themselves which should be in the child’s best interests. The child’s own family, doing their utmost and best for one of their own, is surely well and truly in the child’s best interest?

Now if all that was not enough I can give CYFS even more of their own advice:

The challenge to the Department of Social Welfare from these findings is to minimize the degree to which things go wrong, while maximizing the benefits from the process for the families involved.

M. Gilling, L. Pettersen and B., Walker (1995) Family Members' Experiences of the Care and Protection Family Group Conference Process¸ Social Policy Agency, Wellington.

Do CYFS ever read what others in the department write, I mean come on that’s good advice only if it was followed. But hang on there is even more:

“Family empowerment will occur when there is a genuine partnership between the family and the professionals”
Social Work Now/Number 11/December 1998 page 17
www.cyf.govt.nz/documents/swn11.pdf


Cool, another Gem and good words of wisdom one would think. However, none of that happened with some of the FGC’s I attended or heard about. In fact the opposite could be said! Not only did CYFS not plan the FGC very well,( either through deliberate actions or crass stupidity), they attempted to use the process to hide behind and intimidate people.

I think this is rather ironic, myself having to point this out to CYFS , given they think I am a crap Social Worker compared to their so called high standards, I seemingly failed to reach.

Anyway back on track, at one FGC, CYFS coordinator decided to invite the police under the excuse to provide information. The information they claimed was around the charges and nature of the offending. However after the FGC it was clear to those there the police were not needed for that reason. The information was crystal clear, self explanatory and required no commentary at all.
Someone attending the FGC claimed CYFS invited the police to intimidate them and that idea seems more plausible then the one CYFS offered. CYFS backed off the idea of the police coming when this was pointed out the “intimidation Factor”. That really set a good tome for the FGC NOT.

Yet the police patrolled the area of where the FGC was held, at least three times.
Funny when one wants them in the area to sort hoons, they are scarce as church mice.
At one FGC a Social worker abused a client stating they could not do anything about it because of the confidentiality agreement and legal privilege. This is an out-right abuse of a legal process!

I would like to go into more details to prove this information is based on actual events and not made up. However, I can only talk about the process and planning in a way that does not identify the people. I have been to a number of FGC’s all around New Zealand and this is a collection of views rather than to many specifics.

Now as many of you might be aware, all social Workers have; A codes of ethics, conduct as well as; all sorts of Act’s and guidelines they are meant to follow. Public servants are meant to set the example and be held up to an even higher standard. I have advised all these people of the problems but to no avail.

Example Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) http://www.anzasw.org.nz/code-of-ethics.html,
Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) http://www.swrb.org.nz/Documents/Forms/conductmay.2005.pdf.pdf and guidelines http://www.swrb.org.nz/Documents/Code-of-Conduct_Guidelines.pdf
State Services Commission ( SSC) Code of conduct for the State Services, http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?DocID=6320 This page has a heap of information on it about integrity etc.. you can download http://www.ssc.govt.nz/upload/downloadable_files/Code-of-conduct-StateServices.pdf

So you might say what difference does registration and the Codes make? My answer is:” none” from what I have seen. In fact, it gives CYFS FGC coordinator a license to do what they want and get away with it. As: they investigate themselves and none of the other professional bodies can independently verify things by sending in their own auditors or investigators.
A lesson should have been learnt between what worked with the old and now new Police Complaints Authority and something like that system implemented within CYFS to help keep things above board. Having said that, as bad as the old Police Complaints Authority was, its still far better then anything CYFS have ever had in operation to date, for dealing with complaints and investigations..
The new complaints system know as the “Chief Executive's Advisory Panel”
has all the bad flaws expressed above and; one even far worse! They report to Peter Hughes. Given his track record of sticking up for CYFS, even when found to be in the wrong! And in spite of the overwhelming outcry of such. I feel sure there will be improvement. “NOT!”
You can click on this like to find out about them http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/contact-us/complaints/ce-review-cyf-complaints.html
Also note how they suggest you go to the Social Workers Registration Board, Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC), and Office of the Ombudsman, The problem with all these is getting inside CYFS to get the truth. Investigations are limited to file case notes, reviews, people can’t be summoned in person, and witnesses called to give evidence under oath. Anything before the court can’t be investigated by the OCC, and remember court is about who can win the argument, not the truth and the only people who can lie in court without committing purgery is the lawyer! So in reality, these other people you can complain to, really work off the information CYFS provide. And; it’s your word against CYFS. They have the odds hugely in their favour.
One webpage said it nicely”CYFS cover there own asses and would not let a complain proceed if they could not; forget lose or hide information that might be incriminating to them” The system relies on CYFS own honesty… That’s a recipe for success and public confidence in the new complains system, NOT

The only way to resolve the issues --- is to have independent advocates/investigators in each office, to oversee things in a monitoring type role. To observe and keep things honest. Attending interviews/interventions, review case notes, visit clients and interview whomever they will, if things look dodgy or pear -shaped. If CYFS have nothing to hide, they would welcome this.
My criticisms of the Ombudsmen (OOC) offices, (swrd) are simply that they can’t get to the truth with their limited powers, set down by the government. I want it to be clear, I am not saying any of these people are dishonest or not trying their best with what they have, it a systemic fundamental problem, not of their making.
Yes I realize that sounds like a conspiracy theory but if you remember what happened with Taito Phillip Field” Ingram inquiry as an example of what I mean”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taito_Phillip_Field the government is well versed on setting things up to look good that can really do nothing. After the” Ingram inquiry” cleared Mr Field the police charged him. The issue was not with Dr Noel Ingram QC, who is creditable and honest, but the lack of powers he had to get to the truth. You can read more on http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/07/the_conduct_of_taito_phillip_field.html
So I think it is good that Mel Smith has a lot of credibility and is the new Panel Chair, to hear complaints into CYFS, but the system has been set-up to fail and whitewash problems for the reasons I have already outlined..

I mean, come on, there is an overwhelming, very clearly, a lot of disputes about the way families are treated by CYFS. Yet no one of the aforementioned codes or complaints system can in any way help as CYFS are a law unto themselves. I have as yet to hear the (SWRB), (ANZASW) or (SSC) do anything apart from create more bureaucracy to require people to measure up to an unenforceable standard, which afterwards they will not be required to meet again. Most clients are never told their rights, nor it seems, the outside organizations, Social Workers are meant to be accountable to the likes of (SWRB), not that they can really help anyway as aforementioned. That way CYFS can get away with more.
Some CYFS managers are so departmentalized they actually can’t see the problems with many of the concerns I and many others have raised and these are the people who hear the complaints and investigate them within there own organization.

There is a published book you can download from

http://www.youbethejudge.org/resources/books/You_Be_The_Judge_full_version.pdf

, that seems to typify the problems within CYFS many years on. I keep referring to this book because it’s not anonymous the fact it’s still up seems to suggest it’s the truth. If it’s not true then why have the people not been done for deformation or slander and the webpage served with a court injunction to remove the book?
If you goggle CYFS blogs and WebPages you will find about 300+ a lot are anonymous and I don’t agree with that sorry to say, however if people have children in CYFS care could understand why they have chosen this method given they might get payback for speaking out, e.g. access cut etc. I can tell you that after speaking out; coincidentally that seems to have happened to some families. Graeme’s family has one of many example of this happening to them further down this page.

The reality is; the issue is not with the CYFS system per say, but rather the integrity of those who are meant to be running it. I have been to some FGC’s that were brilliant, the coordinator did a fantastic job and some FGC’s were successful and others not! However CYFS did their best to foster a really good environment to help no hinder the decision making process, which is the main thing on their part to get right.

So that’s what seems to be going on in some cases.. Mean while Ruth Dyson and Peter Hughes can boast of a “world class system” as they call it,( 3rd world?) I think it has a long way to go and given all the reports, huge, ongoing mistakes and failures publicly noted. They both seem unable to grasp or address them. Why you might ask, because the advice and people involved are part of the problem, not the solution. This is all fixable, if only the will was there to do so. And: CYFS would listen and take things onboard rather than fight them and the people bringing it to them!

Now to the staff members at the Greymouth office, yes it is ironic I am giving out advice particularly given I went for two job interviews and did not measure up to the high standards CYFS required, (according to them ). As well as, my writing and spelling is not the best. However that does not change the fact I am qualified and getting shitty with people who mention me, saying I need to learn to read, write and spell first before I try to tell you how to do your job . This is beside the actual point and is not helpful for you or the clients. I realize there might not be any love loss from CYFS to me; however I don’t take it personally. … In the words of triple H “ Don’t hate the player hate the game”

It is ironic how Christine McKenna said having a family member in CYFS care could affect the credibility of the local office if they employed Graeme Axford. Yet all the time she had someone there (Elizabeth Matich) who is implicated in the “youbethejudgebook” and I think that by far creates a bigger credibility issues for your office. I call that gross hypocrisy.
Not only that Christine McKenna called Graeme Axford and some of his family members up to the office on 10 June 2008, in which Christine asked what his family thought about Graeme protesting outside their office. Ironically enough most did not know and to be frank, did not care. Then Christine tried to suggest this could have a detrimental affect if our family member in their care found out about it and could find it upsetting etc… Some at the meeting felt this could be miss/construed as blackmail and using a child to try and put me off protesting.

When are CYFS ever going to learn “insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results” threatening Graeme does not work as others at CYFS now know. Maybe that’s why Christine McKenna endorses Elizabeth Matich, given they seem of the same ilk.

We believe Christine McKenna and her office has taken on an unpleasant demeanor towards our family member Graeme Axford, both personally and professionally as noted on this document and on his webpage. She has watched two abusive processes take place, second job interview and FGC, all the time playing on the fact a family member of his is in CYFS care which was not of his doing. That all seems like, underhanded and dirty tactics being employed. If she would like to dispute these claims then go ahead, we will publish her reply unedited or altered in any way. I think by now Graeme has proven just how wrong about him you are.
This is many in our families’ views and if you take one in the family on more people will get evolved.

This document is a collaboration from a number of sources who helped with the spelling and grammar along with providing information/support and verifying facts. Graeme Axford does not agree with the tenor in some parts of the document but respects others people freedom of speech and expression therefore publishes this document on that basis.

Go ot my new blog, which follows on from this one:
http://familygroupconferences2.blogspot.com/