Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1934. COAST CHILD WELFARE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 November 1934, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1934. COAST CHILD WELFARE.

DEPARTMENTAL economies are to be encouraged, generally, but there are exceptions. One such is the apparent decision of the Education Department headquarters to deprive the West Coast district, from Buller to the far South, of a resident Child Welfare Officer. Last week, Miss Carter, —whose good work for several years in the district earned the praise of those who knew the extent of it, —left on transfer to Christchurch. It is understood that no successor is to be appointed, but this district’s supervision is to be attempted to be met by occasional visits by an official from Christchurch. The West Coast should protest against this policy o4‘ saving at the expense of the children’s welfare, and it is to be hoped that district women’s organisations will help to restore what is the Coast’s due. Mr. J. O’Brien might, be asked to use his influence in this direction. By the nature of things, little publicity is given to the work of the Child Welfare Officer, but the need for it is stressed' by those who can speak with authority. A large district has to be covered, and although the treatment of children on the Coast is maintained on customary high national standards, instances arise, as in all other districts, where protection and guidance are desirable. The duties of a Child Welfare Officer

include visits to homes where chil- ’ dren board, who have been eomi mitted to the care or supervision of the State, aid and advice to unmarried mothers and their children, to assist in cases of children brought before the Children’s Court, where such Officer can be of great assistance to the presiding Magistrate, and generally to make it her special business what would otherwise be everybody’s, and therefore, in practice, nobody’s. The need for an officially appointed woman, possessing tact and courage, to undertake desirable

investigations and supervision is obvious. Only one actually resident in the district can carry out the work properly. Any system of sending a Christchurch official to the Coast when there was not much doing in Christchurch, or of visiting this area when Court proceedings were to take place here would be most unsatisfactory. Before the Child Welfare Act came into force, there were far more regrettable happenings where the treatment of children were concerned, than there are to-day. In any district where the Act was allowed to become almost as a dead letter, the youngsters would pay the chief penalty. It is true that there are honorary ] Child-Welfare Officers in each area,

but these are usually busy people, and they would not claim to be able to do all that is desirable. Recourse to the police has its disadvantages, and, indeed, there can be no question what the children’s interests demand. The deterrent effect of a resident Child Welfare Officer must not be under-estimated. Child Welfare work cannot be conducted by correspondence, nor at a distance. Child-saving is more important than money-saving. It would be easy to dilate on the possibilities of hardship arising to Coast children, especially the more handicapped of them, if adequate supervision of their welfare is not forthcoming, but the bare statement that they are to be deprived of what has been the means of great benefit to them, should- be enough to arouse Coast women and others to prevent the administrative wrohg.