Is there any doubt CYFS is above the law?

When this sort of thing appears in news reports:

CYFS said the foster parents, Ann and Don Eathorne, had been caregivers since 1999, and in 2002 there had been two allegations of abuse from two children who had previously lived with them.

The allegations were investigated, the children were relocated and the Eathornes were reminded that physical punishment against children was unacceptable.

“Physical Punishment” is legal, but not if you are dealing with a certain government department. Since when are people allowed to define what they want the law to be and enforce that fantasy?

CYFS said TVNZ’s report was unfair in its portrayal that the children were only taken from the family due to the foster mother smacking one of the children on the hand when there had been a number of complaints to do with corporal punishment.

So it’s not just one legal smack they’re talking about.

They also said the report cast doubt over the children by containing several statements that portrayed the children as untrustworthy.

They’re foster children – if they are more likely to tell the truth than foster parents, then CYPS have another problem. Either they are hiring untruthful foster parents, or they are taking well-adjusted children out of their families.

The BSA agreed with CYFS that broadcast did not include that the foster children had been interviewed separately before they could collude and their stories of abuse were consistent.

Before they could collude? That scarcely seems believable. Aside from the fact that the parents were acting inside the law.

It would appear that the children in this case are taking full advantage of CYFS’ fantasy.

TVNZ they did not want to risk defamation in relating details of the previous court case in which some of the charges were dropped, and the only charges the Eathornes had pleaded guilty to were smacks on the hand with a spoon.

%d bloggers like this: