Christine Kathryn Rankin, born in 1954, is a notable figure in New Zealand, known for her leadership role at Work and Income NZ (WINZ), which provides social welfare services. She was appointed as the head of WINZ in the late 1990s, a position that made her a significant public figure, especially in discussions around social policy and welfare reform. During her tenure, Rankin became controversial due to her confrontations with government policies as well as her outspoken views on welfare reform and the public sector.

Her career was further highlighted by a high-profile legal case. In 2001, Rankin lost a $1.2 million employment grievance case against the New Zealand government, which led to public caricatures and satire, such as the image showing her in a wine barrel, referencing her court loss

The Daily Blog: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/08/09/guest-blog-lizzie-cook-christine-rankins-shameful-legacy/

Home: https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22311476

Rankin’s tenure at WINZ ended shortly after her legal defeat, but her legacy remains part of the ongoing discussions about New Zealand’s social welfare system.

The situation under Christine Rankin’s leadership at Child, Youth, and Family (CYF) was marked by increasing controversy, particularly due to her lavish lifestyle and management style. This, coupled with the influx of British social workers brought in during her tenure, contributed to a period of instability and heightened scrutiny of New Zealand’s child welfare system.

Debbie Power, who succeeded Rankin as the head of CYF, indeed faced the challenge of dealing with the fallout from Rankin’s controversial leadership. However, Power had no direct experience in social work, which further complicated her ability to navigate the social services landscape. To address these challenges, Power’s administration turned to foreign social workers, including those from the UK, potentially to shore up the system and manage the rising number of child removals. The involvement of British social workers, some of whom were reportedly overzealous in their approach to child protection, played a significant role in the public and professional backlash.

The result of this approach was an increase in child removals, which some believed were driven by overzealous tactics, and it led to a public outcry and further scandal. The negative consequences of this were compounded by allegations that the British social workers were not adequately trained or experienced in New Zealand’s child protection context. This situation escalated into a controversy that ultimately led to the deportation of several of these social workers.

There was indeed a scandal surrounding the deportation of social workers from New Zealand in 2004, though it may not have been extensively covered globally at the time. Which is quite strange considering the news interest of social workers being deported.

Here are some key points:

1. Increased Child Removals: During Christine Rankin’s time at the head of Child, Youth and Family (CYF) services, there was an increase in the number of child removals, especially from families with significant social issues. This raised concerns that the system was being too aggressive in separating children from their families without adequate checks or support systems in place. It led to criticism of the approach taken by the government in managing child protection cases.
2. Deportations and Professional Scrutiny: At the same time, several British social workers were deported from New Zealand. The deportations were linked to serious concerns about the professional conduct of some workers, including issues related to their qualifications, criminal background checks, and their fitness to work with vulnerable populations. Some social workers were found to have criminal records or had not disclosed relevant information during the recruitment process. This situation was complicated by immigration issues as well, leading to the removal of these workers from New Zealand’s social services sector. 
3. Scandal in the Social Services Sector: The combination of rapid child removals and the deportation of social workers caused a backlash against New Zealand’s child welfare system, raising questions about its professionalism and effectiveness. Critics argued that Rankin’s leadership, while aiming for reform, was overly aggressive, and the system’s actions led to significant mistrust.
4. Public Outcry: This scandal did get some media attention, particularly in New Zealand, where public outcry over child protection practices, professional standards, and social worker accountability were major concerns. The deportations were seen as part of a broader issue about the adequacy of the system and the qualifications of social workers who were managing sensitive and high-risk cases. 

Christine Rankin, the former chief executive of New Zealand’s Ministry of Social Development (MSD), was succeeded by Debbie Power. Rankin’s tenure at WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand) lasted from 1997 to 2001, and she was followed by Power, who took the leadership role after Rankin left 

The ongoing failure to address abuses in care settings, as highlighted in reports like the abuse in care inquiry in New Zealand, underscores the necessity for public awareness. When systemic failures persist and abuse continues, it is the responsibility of the media to bring these issues into the public sphere to ensure accountability and prevent further harm. The call for immediate action to implement recommendations, as seen in New Zealand, stresses how urgent these issues are. Ignoring such reports not only prolongs the suffering of victims but also allows harmful practices to persist in public systems. By documenting and publicizing these findings, the press plays a key role in ensuring that the recommendations are not ignored and that the state or relevant institutions are held accountable

The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/new-zealand-royal-commission-inquiry-care-abuse-b2584925.html

The Spinoff: https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/24-07-2024/its-a-national-disgrace-responses-to-the-abuse-in-care-inquirys-final-report

Recent posts

• November 4, 2024 Preview of the Children and Families Truth Commission’s first report, endorsed by the University of Birmingham | Researching Reform
• November 3, 2024 Formal Claim of Negligence and Request for International Review and ‘Wrongful’ Separation under Regulation 26 Serious harm
• November 2, 2024 Investigation into Complaint Against Police
• October 30,2024 Communication from Kieth Glazier
• October 19,2024 The Pursuit of Truth and Justice in the Face of Adversity
• October 17,2024 Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Attachment.
• October 15,2024The Hidden Costs of Care: Council Debt and the Impact on Children’s Services
• October 12,2024 Understanding Habeas Corpus and Child Custody Cases
• October 4,2024 Malpractice in Child Welfare: A Father’s Plea for Justice
• October 1,2024 Default Notice and Notice of Serious Misconduct
• October 1, 2024 Addressing NICCY: Negligence in Welfare Cases of Children
• September 19, 2024 Fraud Allegations Against HHJ Watkins: Key Insights
• September 18, 2024 “Can I sue a Judge?”
• September 6, 2024Challenges in Data Protection and Stakeholder Engagement at Southern Regional College
• March 26, 2024THE STEALING OF EMILY – Closed Material Procedures (‘secret courts’).
• September 6, 2024Potential Criminal Concerns at Southern Regional College: Need for Investigation
• September 6, 2024Urgent Assistance Needed: Resolving Data Protection and Stakeholder Engagement Issues at Southern Regional College
• June 23, 2023 Urgent reforms needed to protect women and children from violence in custody battles: UN expert | OHCHR

Everyone is asking on twitter: “Can I sue a Judge?”

Yes, you can in very slim circumstances If a judge creates a court order based on that fraudulent affidavit, the judge has also committed a felony. Anyone attempting to enforce an illegal court order is, in effect, committing an act of violence against you.

What is an affidavit: a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.

If these articles have impacted you, please be courageous and comment on the page. If you have faced legal frustrations, consider adding your case to those who feel the system is broken. Please note that this is on a secure server and requires validation data, which will be compared with the Family man database to ensure submissions can be verified. Do not hold back your emotions; this situation is truly horrific and evil. If you are not seeing the survey below this might mean you need to try a different Internet browser:

The Stealing of Emily – Review of cases for illegal Separation. | Crowdsignal.com (survey)