Child Protection in New Zealand
By Teresa Pitman

Twenty years ago, New Zealand introduced the concept of Family Group Conferencing as a foundation of child protection services, and over the past two decades, the implementation of this concept has changed how the services are provided and even the ways that social workers think about cases.

Debbie Sturmfels, Manager of Care and Protection, Service Development, Child, Youth and Family (CYF) within the Ministry of Social Development in New Zealand, says: “When I go out of the country and talk to others in this field, I realize that we work under a different paradigm. I went to Australia recently for a meeting with social workers from several different countries to talk about permanency. As our discussions went on, I realized that they were talking about making the plans and decisions about the child. They weren't talking about the family. I kept wanting to ask „but where is the family leading you? What is the family saying?'

I met Debbie Sturmfels in the fall of 2008, when I was invited to New Zealand to speak at a conference and took the opportunity to tour the North Island. New Zealand is a beautiful and scenic country spread over two islands. North Americans tend to think of it as being close to Australia, but the distance from Auckland, NZ, to Sydney on the east coast of Australia is almost as far as the distance between Toronto and Calgary – and it's all ocean in between. The population is about 4,280,000 and about 560,000 of those residents are Maori. Another 640,000 claim some Maori ancestry.

While there are several medium-sized cities, much of the country is rural. There are indeed more sheep than people; in fact, at present there are about 10 sheep for every human in New Zealand, and this is down from the 1982 level of 22 sheep per person.

Given the country's small size and population, child protection is administered nationally.

Sturmfels explained that over the years the large Ministry of Social Development has undergone many shifts in how it was organized, but currently the Child, Youth and Family Department covers Youth Justice and Child Protection. Sturmfels leads the development of new care and protection services, develops policies and supports the front-line social workers, working with the Office of the Chief Social Worker

In 1989, New Zealand introduced Family Group Conferencing as it was embodied in The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act passed that year. As with First Nations children in Canada, the native Maori children were over-represented in New Zealand child protection cases. This Act was developed through extensive consultation with the Maori leaders and incorporated some of the Maori beliefs and ideas about children and family.

“Under the legislation, we have to have Family Group Conferencing before we can go to court,” says Sturmfels. “The definition of family is broader than the nuclear family and may include people who are not blood relatives.” This is based in part on the Maori definitions of extended family or “whanau” (pronounced far-no or far-now) as the family group is called in the Maori language. While Family Group Conferencing is required by law at certain points in the case, Sturmfels would like to see it used more often. “We have drawn up principles of practice for child protection and we try to bring the principles of FGC into other aspects of our work,” she says. “We want people to really think about what family-led practice means, and about what things they need to be mindful of.”

Just as in Ontario, the well-being of the child is paramount, and the emphasis, Sturmfels says, is on “family-led service.” Sometimes these two values clash. “Then we need to seek the balance – protecting the child within the family,” she explains. “No matter what actions the family has taken that may have harmed the child, they are still to be involved in the process and the decision-making.”

When a child needs out-of-home care, there are three possible levels:

1. The families make decisions for themselves. If the family makes its own placement, there is funding available to help them arrange and support this plan. A family member – perhaps a grandparent – can ask for a Family Group Conference and as a group, the family might decide to have the child live with a relative or another suitable person, without involving the Child Protection Services at all.

2. The state (Child Protection Services) might instigate or be involved in the Family Group Conference and thus be involved in the decision-making for the child being placed within the extended family, and in providing services if needed.

3. The child may come into care.

When a child lives with other family members, or comes into care, there is often a shared guardianship arrangement with the birth family, meaning that all parties have a say in major decisions about the child. The state and the birth family may share guardianship of the child. “This can be a challenge for the front-line worker,” says Sturmfels. “It does introduce new complexities, as the family caring for the child may now have to deal with the problems of the birth family as well.”

Recognizing that families who provide this care for children, whether with CYF involvement or without it, will need assistance, the Ministry gives them access to a wide range of services including counselling, disability services and legal services if needed.

With these principles in place, Sturmfels says New Zealand is continuing to seek improvement. “We are really concerned about the children in our care and the outcomes for them. They come in damaged and they leave no better,” she says. “At the most basic level, children need permanency, stability, belonging, and attachment in order to thrive. How do we achieve that? That's the big question.”

Often if it is clear that the child will not be going back to his or her birth family, plans may be made to find a permanent placement within the family or extended family. “We can do parenting orders so that there is shared guardianship between the child's birth parents and the person caring for the child,” she explains. “This is much the same as a shared custody agreement when a husband and wife split up and have children who need to be involved and connected to both parents.”

New Zealand is also hoping to improve services and supports for older youth. At present, young people in care leave the system at age 17. “We tend to concentrate on the younger children,” Sturmfels says, adding that those still in care at age 17 usually have high needs and significant difficulties. “We are trying to think differently about this age group, and to give a stronger voice to children so they can participate more in the decision making.”

Another area of change is increased collaboration with the educational and health care systems. “Both of these are complex systems,” says Sturmfels. “Kids in care are especially vulnerable and require more services.”

When children come into care, they are given a comprehensive assessment of health and education needs to be brought to the family group conference for use in planning. “We tend to be focused on safety and not paying as much attention to health and education,” comments Sturmfels. “But we realized that many of these children have ongoing health problems and will need to be connected to the health care system throughout their lives, not just during the short period of time they may be in care. It was an Aha! moment. It's much bigger than what CYF needs, it's about what the child needs.”

Collaboration of this kind, of course, has its own challenges. “Working collaboratively with three government ministries that don't always match up well isn't easy. You quickly realize that you each have your own language and structures. There's also the challenge of keeping this work within our family-based process – health care workers are not used to the family calling the shots,” she adds.

This expanded sharing of services to children is still being tested out as a pilot project in some New Zealand communities. It does seem like a natural evolution, perhaps, from the collaborative approach inherent in family group conferencing.

It will also mean further changes in the ways that social workers engage and work with families, but Sturmfels sees this as a good thing: “Some people adopt collaborative work easily, almost instinctively. Others find it hard to work with others this way. I almost think it's a personality trait, but it's a skill you can develop. You need to be really secure in your own role, but know that your role will be challenged and will change.”

Perhaps that's not a bad motto for child protection workers around the globe.

About the Author

Teresa Pitman worked as Communications Coordinator for Halton CAS and Peel CAS, and, as a freelancer, has provided various writing and communications services for OACAS and several CASs in Ontario. She is the author or co-author of twelve books on parenting topics and writes for magazines and newspapers as well.

Previous article: Book Review: Tug Of War: A Judge’s Verdict on Separation, Custody battles, and the Bitter Realities of Family Court

Next article: Correction: Anti-Oppression in Child Welfare: Laying the Foundations for Change