Maori try to get baby back from Pakeha
Relevant offers
A Maori toddler will grow up in a Pakeha family despite the objections of her biological father, who wants his daughter brought up in her own culture.
A judge ruled on the girl's future this week, after a year and a half of legal wrangling.
The birth mother gave her daughter to the Pakeha woman when she was just hours old. Their informal care arrangement was later formalised in Lower Hutt Family Court with the consent of the birth parents. But they later changed their minds, and the birth mother began a legal challenge to take back the girl.
Now a High Court judge has decided the best interests of the two-year-old - who cannot be identified - lie with the care couple. They will continue to have primary care but must ensure she has continuing contact with her birth family and raise her to know her Maori roots.
The care parents say they want the best of both worlds for her and hope everyone can make it work. "Now that the appeal is over it feels like we can finally breathe," they said in a statement yesterday. "Our life has been on hold during this process and the toll it has taken on us all emotionally and financially as a family has been huge."
Justice Warwick Gendall confirmed the original care arrangement and asked the adults involved to accept the court's decision. Conflicting emotions were getting in the way of co-operation between the birth parents - who are Maori and Cook Islands Maori - and the care parents. The arrangement was not necessarily permanent, he said.
Otago University family law expert Mark Henaghan said the court would be reluctant to change a settled arrangement in which the child was well cared for and loved. Pakeha were capable of encouraging cultural development: "All New Zealanders should be deeply interested in Maori culture, it's a healthy thing."
The judge had to look at what was best for the child now, and care arrangements could change in future, he said.
The case began when the birth mother became pregnant and did not want another dependent child. At the time, she wanted to give up her baby.
Justice Gendall's decision said the baby's biological father may not have known his daughter was to be handed over. The birth mother may have felt pressured to stand by her decision. The care mother may also have unintentionally pressured the mother when she was vulnerable. A planned adoption did not proceed for various reasons.
Neither birth parent now wants non-Maori bringing up the girl, with the father especially adamant that she should be raised in her own culture. He does not live with the birth mother, but they have other children together and a continuing relationship.
In his judgment, Justice Gendall said the child should have an assured place in her whanau, hapu and iwi, with access to Maori language, knowledge and tikanga.
"I have referred to children belonging to themselves, not parents, biological or otherwise," he said. "As taonga, children are to be treated with respect, responsibility, love and care by all members of the group."
He found the risks of moving the child from the only parents she had known far outweighed any perceived risk that she might not experience her heritage, culture and birth families.
A Family Court judge previously heard the birth father had a history of domestic violence, although its extent was disputed, and the birth parents said their relationship was now strong. However, the judge said he lacked confidence in the stability of their relationship.
TIMELINE
May 2008: Baby girl born. Within hours she is put in the care of a Pakeha couple under a private arrangement with the birth mother. The care mother has treatment to be able to breastfeed the baby.
July 2008: The birth parents consent to the care parents having an interim parenting and guardianship order.
December 2008: The birth parents consent to the care parents having a final parenting order preserving the birth parents' reasonable contact.
February 2009: The birth mother asks the Family Court to discharge the parenting order and return the baby to her.
March 2010: A Lower Hutt Family Court judge makes a day-to-day parenting order favouring the care parents.
August 2010: A High Court judge upholds the Family Court decision.
HOW IT HAPPENED
The mothers became friends through a shared interest in fitness. When one became pregnant she agreed to give the baby to the other.
The birth mother had second thoughts and wanted the baby back.
The father apparently knew little about the arrangement and now objects to the child growing up outside her own culture.
The child has remained with the care parents, to whom she is securely bonded.
stuff.co.nz
idk, is this a big enough issue for ontd_f? i guess it'll get rejected if it isn't :( I see a couple of issues at play here, although it might be the way the article was framed (while one of the biggest news providers in NZ, fairfax media produces some of the laziest journalism). While NZ has nothing like Australia's Stolen Generation, there was a certain amount of deliberate cultural anhilation that went on in the name of 'assimilation', to the extent that te reo Māori was on a pretty rocky ledge until about the 1980's when the Kura Kaupapa Māori (Māori language primary schools) were founded. I'm pretty certain too that there is a significant amount of institutional racism within our foster and adoption systems (and when our abominably high rates of child abuse are brought up, they are basically blamed entirely on Māori), and it seems that the Pakeha couple got to keep the toddler as a function of this and of class privilege; the birth mother not being able to support another dependant child. also there is the assumption that a pakeha couple can give this child any kind of 'cultural upbringing' that isn't coloured by them being pakeha. then again though, i don't know if i could justify taking a child away from what is the only family she knows (thought the amount of time it looks like it took to get this to court might have worked in the adoptive parents favour). idk idk someone help me here.
oh also the article, being from a NZ paper, assumes a certain amount of Māori language knowledge (as have I). Pakeha is the term for white people in NZ. Whanau is your extended family, iwi is your tribe, and hapu is your sub-tribe. Tikanga is kind of like, custom, culture, the way that Māori specifically do things, and taonga means treasure. god knows i'm not by any means an expert, and i know there are other kiwis here, if i got something wrong please, please, please call me out.
A Maori toddler will grow up in a Pakeha family despite the objections of her biological father, who wants his daughter brought up in her own culture.
A judge ruled on the girl's future this week, after a year and a half of legal wrangling.
The birth mother gave her daughter to the Pakeha woman when she was just hours old. Their informal care arrangement was later formalised in Lower Hutt Family Court with the consent of the birth parents. But they later changed their minds, and the birth mother began a legal challenge to take back the girl.
Now a High Court judge has decided the best interests of the two-year-old - who cannot be identified - lie with the care couple. They will continue to have primary care but must ensure she has continuing contact with her birth family and raise her to know her Maori roots.
The care parents say they want the best of both worlds for her and hope everyone can make it work. "Now that the appeal is over it feels like we can finally breathe," they said in a statement yesterday. "Our life has been on hold during this process and the toll it has taken on us all emotionally and financially as a family has been huge."
Justice Warwick Gendall confirmed the original care arrangement and asked the adults involved to accept the court's decision. Conflicting emotions were getting in the way of co-operation between the birth parents - who are Maori and Cook Islands Maori - and the care parents. The arrangement was not necessarily permanent, he said.
Otago University family law expert Mark Henaghan said the court would be reluctant to change a settled arrangement in which the child was well cared for and loved. Pakeha were capable of encouraging cultural development: "All New Zealanders should be deeply interested in Maori culture, it's a healthy thing."
The judge had to look at what was best for the child now, and care arrangements could change in future, he said.
The case began when the birth mother became pregnant and did not want another dependent child. At the time, she wanted to give up her baby.
Justice Gendall's decision said the baby's biological father may not have known his daughter was to be handed over. The birth mother may have felt pressured to stand by her decision. The care mother may also have unintentionally pressured the mother when she was vulnerable. A planned adoption did not proceed for various reasons.
Neither birth parent now wants non-Maori bringing up the girl, with the father especially adamant that she should be raised in her own culture. He does not live with the birth mother, but they have other children together and a continuing relationship.
In his judgment, Justice Gendall said the child should have an assured place in her whanau, hapu and iwi, with access to Maori language, knowledge and tikanga.
"I have referred to children belonging to themselves, not parents, biological or otherwise," he said. "As taonga, children are to be treated with respect, responsibility, love and care by all members of the group."
He found the risks of moving the child from the only parents she had known far outweighed any perceived risk that she might not experience her heritage, culture and birth families.
A Family Court judge previously heard the birth father had a history of domestic violence, although its extent was disputed, and the birth parents said their relationship was now strong. However, the judge said he lacked confidence in the stability of their relationship.
TIMELINE
May 2008: Baby girl born. Within hours she is put in the care of a Pakeha couple under a private arrangement with the birth mother. The care mother has treatment to be able to breastfeed the baby.
July 2008: The birth parents consent to the care parents having an interim parenting and guardianship order.
December 2008: The birth parents consent to the care parents having a final parenting order preserving the birth parents' reasonable contact.
February 2009: The birth mother asks the Family Court to discharge the parenting order and return the baby to her.
March 2010: A Lower Hutt Family Court judge makes a day-to-day parenting order favouring the care parents.
August 2010: A High Court judge upholds the Family Court decision.
HOW IT HAPPENED
The mothers became friends through a shared interest in fitness. When one became pregnant she agreed to give the baby to the other.
The birth mother had second thoughts and wanted the baby back.
The father apparently knew little about the arrangement and now objects to the child growing up outside her own culture.
The child has remained with the care parents, to whom she is securely bonded.
stuff.co.nz
idk, is this a big enough issue for ontd_f? i guess it'll get rejected if it isn't :( I see a couple of issues at play here, although it might be the way the article was framed (while one of the biggest news providers in NZ, fairfax media produces some of the laziest journalism). While NZ has nothing like Australia's Stolen Generation, there was a certain amount of deliberate cultural anhilation that went on in the name of 'assimilation', to the extent that te reo Māori was on a pretty rocky ledge until about the 1980's when the Kura Kaupapa Māori (Māori language primary schools) were founded. I'm pretty certain too that there is a significant amount of institutional racism within our foster and adoption systems (and when our abominably high rates of child abuse are brought up, they are basically blamed entirely on Māori), and it seems that the Pakeha couple got to keep the toddler as a function of this and of class privilege; the birth mother not being able to support another dependant child. also there is the assumption that a pakeha couple can give this child any kind of 'cultural upbringing' that isn't coloured by them being pakeha. then again though, i don't know if i could justify taking a child away from what is the only family she knows (thought the amount of time it looks like it took to get this to court might have worked in the adoptive parents favour). idk idk someone help me here.
oh also the article, being from a NZ paper, assumes a certain amount of Māori language knowledge (as have I). Pakeha is the term for white people in NZ. Whanau is your extended family, iwi is your tribe, and hapu is your sub-tribe. Tikanga is kind of like, custom, culture, the way that Māori specifically do things, and taonga means treasure. god knows i'm not by any means an expert, and i know there are other kiwis here, if i got something wrong please, please, please call me out.