SUFFER the little children
Nia Glassie’s horrific killing was supposed to be the last. Ten years and 94 lost lives later, an inquest will be held into the death of Moko, 3. Jared Savage looks at what is being done to counter the scourge of child abuse.
“Nia was supposed to be the last one, wasn’t she?” was Mark Loper’s response when asked for an interview.
The most senior detective in the Bay of Plenty wasn’t being glib about the death of the Rotorua toddler; just speaking in the matter- of- fact manner of a police officer who’s seen it all.
Nia Glassie was 3 when she died on August 3, 2007, after weeks of torture; including being bundled in a clothes dryer and spun around on a washing line until she fell off.
The abuse she suffered was “chilling”, as Coroner Wallace Bain put it.
“I have never had to endure such horrendous evidence which led to the death of this little girl in horrific circumstances,” he wrote in his findings.
“My earnest wish is that no one ever has to experience that again.”
Nia wasn’t the last one for Loper, or the many others who try to fix the broken lives of thousands of children around New Zealand.
Or for that matter, Bain.
In a few weeks’ time, he will preside over a three- day inquest into the death of Moko Rangitoheriri, like Nia aged 3 when he died.
There are many parallels between their tragic lives and the Coronial hearing will seek to piece together the circumstances leading to Moko’s death.
But, perhaps, the biggest question that needs to be asked is — what are we doing about it?
IN ANNOUNCING the decision last year to hold an inquest into Moko’s death, Bain drew specific similarities to Nia Glassie.
He said there were a number of clear recommendations in his Glassie inquest findings to ensure “tragic deaths such as hers, and now Moko’s, did not occur in the future”.
The announcement ended with a warning.
“The inquest into the death of Moko will also specifically look at what steps, if any, have been taken by those identified as having some responsibility in keeping children safe, and if those steps are adequate.”
Though many changes have been made since Nia died, at Moko’s inquest, scheduled to start at the end of August, Bain is likely to hone in on “monitoring”.
Perhaps the most controversial recommendation he made was the compulsory monitoring of children, especially of solo parents, up until the age of 5. No red flags were ever raised about Nia, a 3- year- old.
Once at school, teachers and other staff can raise concerns about a child. But until then, Bain said, there was no guaranteed check on their welfare.
Plunket nurses, as part of the Well Child services provided by the Ministry of Health, do visit homes and have identified safety concerns in preschool age children.
“The problem is that [ Plunket] is voluntary and the obvious outcome is the risk that the very children in need will be the children of parents who choose not to [ take part],” wrote Bain.
He made the “strongest recommendation” for compulsory monitoring through a Well Child provider until the age of 5.
“We must urgently return to the ‘ good old days’ where every child was seen regularly by the Plunket nurse.”
IN MANY cases of child abuse, more than one agency held a piece of the puzzle. But because they weren’t sharing what they knew, no one was able to put the picture together. And another child would suffer.
This fatal flaw has been highlighted in inquiries since the death of James Whakaruru in 1999.
“Effective information sharing is one of the key areas where agencies can make a difference to our most vulnerable children,” Bain wrote in his 2011 findings about Nia.
“The Privacy Act is causing serious problems . . . in my view the care and welfare of young children in New Zealand, the prevention of child abuse, overrides any privacy interests.”
The stumbling block was the “serious and imminent threat” threshold which needed to be reached, before information could be shared.
“Imminent” was often misunderstood, or caused confusion, and used as grounds to withhold information from a partner agency.
So, in 2013, the Government removed the stumbling block — now only a “serious threat” is necessary.
And sharing information about children is now much wider than the most serious cases.
Thousands of children do not reach the threshold for statutory “care and protection“, but could easily slip through the cracks without their families getting help they need.
Four years ago, Children’s Teams were set up in Rotorua and Whangarei. The approach has been expanded to Hamilton, Gisborne, Whakatane, Horowhenua, Manurewa/ Papakura, Whanganui, Marlborough and Christchurch.
Families identified as vulnerable are — with their consent — referred to the Children’s Teams whose members include staff from government agencies such as the police, as well as professionals from iwi, health, education and social services.
The group then discusses what help i s needed, draws up a single plan, and appoints a “lead professional” to work with the family and ensure the plan is delivered.
For example, the family could come to the attention of the Children’s Team because of a referral from a doctor. But the underlying cause of the illness is a damp, cold house so finding a safer place to live is identified as the solution.
The whole point is to “join up the dots”, says Deanne McManus- Emery, the leader of the Hamilton team. “To stop the free flow of children going into state care.”
Though it sounds simple in theory, McManus- Emery says the approach can still be difficult in practice.
“For years, we operated in our own little silos . . . so this is a huge shift to challenge thinking, behaviour and attitudes to put the child, and their voice, at the centre of everything we do,” she says.
“Part of my job is to drive accountability. We are in period of change over the next four years, but the willingness and commitment is certainly there.”
Other findings from the Nia inquest are now a reality. Whanau, friends and family members were aware, or should have been aware, of the abuse she and her sisters suffered, Bain said. “There needs to be a criminal sanction here and compulsory criminal reporting is a must,” he wrote in his findings.
The following year, the Crimes Act was changed to make it an offence for someone who lives with, or is “closely connected” to a child to fail to protect them from physical or sexual abuse.
Turning a blind eye, or closing ranks as a family, is now punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
However, just nine people have been prosecuted — with only seven convictions — since the law came into power five years ago, according to figures released under the Official Information Act.
Bain would not take credit for these particular changes.
But his high- profile findings came at a time of public anger and discontent at New Zealand’s shameful record, and the Government reacted.
There was the Mel Smith ministerial inquiry, a Green Paper, a White Paper and thousands of public submissions leading to the Children’s Action Plan and a new law — the Vulnerable Children’s Act.
And the realisation that tinkering around the edges with Child Youth & Family was not enough.
THERE HAVE been umpteen inquiries, reviews, restructures and reports into New Zealand’s shameful record of child abuse.
And, according to the most recent led by Paula Rebstock, Child Youth & Family has been confused about its role since being formed in 1989.
Leadership was uncertain where CYF fitted in with other agencies and about how to balance immediate goals, such as keeping children safe, with longer term objectives of preventing harm and revictimisation.
“At the same time, there has also been a high level of understandable public and agency concern around some high- profile cases involving failure to identify and/ or respond to serious abuse or neglect,” said the first of the two Rebstock reports.
“CYF has responded to this situation by de- prioritising prevention and care, which are less visible to the public and do not attract the same degree of attention.”
The result was that CYF was neither stopping abuse or breaking the cycle; six out of 10 children referred to the agency in 2014 were
In my view the care and welfare of young children in New Zealand, the prevention of child abuse, overrides any privacy interests. Coroner Wallace Bain