How Could You? Hall of Shame-New Zealand-Foster Daughter case

This will be an archive of heinous actions by those involved in child welfare, foster care and adoption. We forewarn you that these are deeply disturbing stories that may involve sex abuse, murder, kidnapping and other horrendous actions.

From Christchurch, New Zealand, “a woman who endured “a living nightmare” while a child in state care has been paid a lump sum in compensation – and had her benefit slashed as a result. Emily Spink finds out why ‘Jackie’ says it feels like being “raped again”.

There is not a single aspect of Jackie’s* life that isn’t affected by the horrific abuse she suffered while in the care of the State.

“For me, it’s day-to-day whether I want to live. Whether I want to get out of bed or not. Or go to work because some days I just can’t face it.”

Jackie’s hands quiver as she flicks through the huge wad of notes and evidence that represent the 12 years she spent in foster homes.

​Now in her 50s and a beneficiary, Jackie is up against the system once more.

In June 2015, Jackie accepted an offer of settlement for a claim regarding her sexual, physical and emotional abuse suffered in state care.

At the age of 7, Jackie was placed in the first of three foster homes.

Jackie says she and her sister endured a “living nightmare” of sexual abuse at the hands of her foster father. When she was 12 years old he was charged with several offences related to the alleged abuse but was eventually acquitted in the Supreme Court.

Jackie moved to another foster family but her troubles were not over. “We came with quite the history of being troublesome and liars. And the same sort of thing, more abuse and of course at that stage, nobody believed me because I had already had this major court case and we’d lost.

“We were deemed to be trouble.”

Finally, in July 2015 she received a substantial amount in compensation. She has not told family or friends how much and does not want to make the sum public.

She was also given a formal letter of apology from the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, after she opted for the government’s fast-track process to resolve her case of abuse and neglect.

The apology was a significant moment for her. “I was after someone to say ‘yep, we know you were telling the truth and we’ve made a huge mistake, we’re really sorry’.”

‘I FEEL LIKE I’M BEING RAPED AGAIN’

Just over a year later, in September 2016, Jackie was told she was no longer eligible for a $65 accommodation supplement because her increased assets took her over the threshold.

“I don’t think that is fair, because actually this is money that has paid been paid to me for the government’s crap. It is nothing to do with the money I’ve earned now. It’s not a bonus,” Jackie said.

Information provided to claimants, including Jackie, outlined that settlement payments were not considered income or cash asset for the purpose of assessing a person’s entitlement to a benefit for 12 months after the date of payment. After the 12 month period, the payment “might affect your benefit”.

For over a year, Jackie and an advocate had queried legislation regarding how the compensation “might” affect her weekly benefits.

“I feel like I’m being raped again.

“That whole process, of ‘we’ll give you this’ and now we’re going to take it all away.

“This money is tainted to me now. It’s costing me financially but it is also costing me emotionally.”

Ministry of Social Development (MSD) national commissioner Penny Rounthwaite​ said the woman had been told she was no longer eligible for the accommodation supplement.

“She currently has a sum of money on term deposit earning interest. This interest, along with her income from part-time work, is charged as income against her supported living payment, which results in a slight reduction in her weekly benefit payment.

“Accommodation supplement has a cash asset limit of $8100. Now that the 12-month grace period for her ex-gratia payment has ended, the amount [Jackie] has invested on term deposit excludes her from being eligible for this assistance.”

Jackie’s years of abuse have brought on depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder.

While unable to sustain full-time work, she worked part time in child protection and had helped produce a health and wellbeing radio show for the last 14 years as a volunteer.

“I’m in counselling once a week. I see a doctor once a week. This has been years of my life and in fact, it doesn’t even amount to a thousand dollars a year of my life.

And I haven’t been able to work full time and establish myself.”

The compensation process had taken four years and in her bid for justice, Jackie had to repeat her harrowing story to two panels.

PENALISING BENEFICIARY VICTIMS IS ‘DRACONIAN’

Since the claims resolution process was introduced in 2006, and as at September 30, 2016, the Government had made 893 payments, including fast-track offers, for claims relating to the period until the end of 1992.

A further 43 payments were made for claims from 1993 to 2007.

In total the Government spent nearly $18 million.

Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust manager Ken Clearwater said he was not aware of any beneficiaries that had been affected, like Jackie*, but he knew it was a risk.

“It was always something that came up for us, because most of the guys that we work with are on benefits. It’s appalling really. It should not affect it at all.”

He said those involved with the trust had compensation payments ranging from $12,000 to $20,000.

Clearwater said beneficiaries who received compensation “should not be penalised”.

“Many of them have had to wait for so long as it is now, and then to get what they’re entitled to and then be penalised on top of that, it’s just absolutely appalling.

“It saddens me that this is how we’re doing it.

“You can never replace what happened to them, but you can make their life easier by being there for them.”

Wellington human rights lawyer Sonja Cooper and her firm were working with clients who had been abused in care right up to the present time. A growing number of their clients were in care from the 1990s onwards.

“We have over 800 clients who were in the care of, or under the notice of the State.”

She labelled the regulations that reduced Jackie’s benefit “draconian”.

“They permit the Crown/State to take away statutory entitlements for day-to-day living, on the basis of an ex gratia payment (or other compensation) which is to recognise past harm that the State has caused, and which has resulted in life-long damage which is often why the person will be on a benefit in the first place.

“We have a very clear view that the State should not give, on the one hand, and empower itself to take back on the other hand,” said Cooper.

“It is also a disincentive to any client to save, in order to improve their longer term life prospects, which is anathema to the whole purpose of compensation, one would have thought.

“Further, given the nominal amounts paid by way of compensation to most claimants, this is a further insult to an already deficient and unfair settlement process (for most claimants anyway),” she said.

‘FRIVOLOUS’ SPENDING MAY BE PENALISED

Jackie said the claims process was “not as clear cut as you might think”.

Jackie said she had been asked to prove how she spent her money.

In a statement to Stuff MSD said there were no restrictions or expectations placed on what Jackie could do with the payment.

“On occasion a settlement “package” might include, in addition to a payment, an offer of specific services to the claimant that are paid by MSD on invoice from a supplier. This is always done with the agreement of the claimant.”

However, Jackie disputed this statement.

Information sent to her via email in September from MSD stated spending her compensation on outstanding accounts such as power, phone and car were deemed OK as “the payments made are for everyday purposes or reducing personal debt liability”.

“If the money is spent frivolously for non-essential items for example a $15000.00 ring we can apply Section 74 (d) of the Social Security Act.”

The section stated the chief executive may, in the chief executive’s discretion “refuse to grant any benefit or may terminate or reduce any benefit already granted or may grant a benefit at a reduced rate in any case where the chief executive is satisfied … that the applicant has directly or indirectly deprived himself of any income or property which results in his qualifying for that or any other benefit or an increased rate of benefit.”

“I still think that actually, if I wanted to go buy a $15,000 ring I should be allowed to. This is money that’s meant to compensate for all the s… I’ve been through,” Jackie said”

Compensation for abuse in state care hits Christchurch victim’s benefit[Stuff 12/1/16 by Emily Spink]

REFORM Puzzle Piece