Who Cares? The Rights of the Child and the Responsibility of State Duty-Bearers in the State Uplift Practice in Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

In Aotearoa New Zealand, between 2013 and 2023, 3036 babies (under 12 months old) were taken into State care, with Māori babies being disproportionately represented. In May 2019, a Newshub journalist filmed the planned removal (uplift) of a newborn Māori baby from their kin by the State welfare agency Oranga Tamariki at Hastings Hospital, leading to public allegations of human rights abuse, and discrimination, resulting in five separate inquiries. The primary focus of this research is on the child-only uplift journey from birth kin into non-kin State care, as led by public servants, applying domestic and international human rights frameworks, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Children’s Convention guide the New Zealand Government (the State) to offer “special protection” to children, their mothers, parents and families. After an uplift, the State, as represented by Oranga Tamariki and its delegated carers, takes on the legal parenting role in place of the child’s parents (‘loco parentis’). Despite the State’s responsibilities and resources, evidence shows that children in State care have unmet health, education, and well-being needs and face elevated risks of physical, sexual and psychological abuse. Findings informed by qualitative interviews with health, welfare, and justice practitioners, and public servants, indicate that current uplift and care practices rarely reflect Te Tiriti or human rights obligations and seldom serve the best interests of children, their kin, the public servants involved or society. Rooted in nineteenth-century, eugenics-informed child removal policies and practices, such as adoption, current State uplifts and State care practices perpetuate discrimination and abuse towards the individual, kin separation and abuse and intergenerational breaks and trauma, unlike strength-based, bioecological alternative care. This research offers suggestions for improved public sector policy and practice.