You've really got to wonder about the discretion of whoever decides whether or not to prosecute a case. This foster mother case for instance, where an elderly lady who had fostered more than 50 children was prosecuted for not ensuring her 13 year old foster child stayed in school, shows a complete lack of judgement and empathy by whoever gave the go-ahead for it.
I'm so glad that she wasn't convicted.
Related link: Foster mother escapes conviction
Wellington District Court judge Tom Broadmore said the woman did not deserve a conviction and questioned whether she should have been prosecuted.
''It is not easy to see how anyone could have tried harder and over a longer period of time as a parent to get her to school,'' he said.
''It does make one wonder whether the prosecution was initiated without full consideration of the consequences.''
The judge said the woman, whose has raised over 50 foster children, had taken on the girl when she was two, after her adopted daughter all but abandoned her.
He said the woman had tried to get help, gone to CYFs and worked with social workers to get her to school but the now 13-year-old girl had refused to go.
If taken to school she would pretend to go in then walk out.
''You had made a constant effort since 2009 to deal with this as well as other issues,'' Judge Broadmore said.
I'm so glad that she wasn't convicted.
Related link: Foster mother escapes conviction
Another issue here is that the person responsible for laying charges against her needs to be brought before the courts for (a) potentially destroying a person's life for no good reason and (b) checking to see if they are periodically abusing their power in these matters.
ReplyDeleteIt would be good for the courts to assess if bureaucrats are actually culpable for the mental distress and financial cost such actions cause.