MR BOON: Good afternoon, Mrs Begam, could I just ask if you’d please state your full name for the Court?
MS BEGAM: Naseza Shareen Begam.
MR BOON: And are you a social worker for Oranga Tamariki [“OT”, the New Zealand government department responsible for the well-being of children], is that right?
MS BEGAM: Correct, yes.
MR BOON: And you’re the allocated social worker for these two children …, is that correct?
MS BEGAM: Yes.
...
MR BOON: And so again Ms Begam, would it be helpful in your opinion again if there was that slight extension to the guardianship order that allowed the Chief Executive [of OT] to, in the exceptional circumstances, approve that without having to go through the court because there are some delays with the court process?
MS BEGAM: Yes. Yes, I believe so, this would be in the children’s best interests.
MR BOON: In terms of the contact reports, what – if you just maybe generally say how the contact reports have been in terms of Ms Y’s contact with the children?
MS BEGAM: As per the contact reports, the contact is going really well. No issues identified, no concerns raised by the contact supervisor. Things are really child-focussed. Ms Y talks about positive things with the children. She encourages them to do their best. So nothing of any concerning nature has been reported so far, your Honour.
MR BOON: And did you supervise some of those yourself?
MS BEGAM: Yes, I did. I think I did a few. And it went really well. I don't have any issues.
...
MS X: In this particular report Dr Mona states:
“Both kids displayed symptoms of suppressing their emotions. When I enquired with them [the eldest] said,
‘We are fine. If we talk about our feelings, we will be in trouble.’
It was explained to both kids they would not be in any trouble, however they found it hard to believe. I asked them in every session if they felt safe in their home. They both confirmed they felt safe and rated this 8 out of 10, indicating a strong feeling of being safe. In our last appointment, [the youngest] mentioned they had some visitors from OT at school. When I questioned what that was about, [the youngest] said,
‘Dad threatened to strangle us. I was scared so I told Mum.’
[The eldest] also confirmed what his sister reported.”
So with regards to this particular disclosure of the children stating that Mr X had threatened to strangle them, you’ve sworn to the court that yourself and Eunice Dunn appeared at school for the children?
MS BEGAM: Correct.
…
MR BOON: And have there been any other concerns? In relation to the contact have there been any concerns in terms of – you’ve said that it’s gone well, but any concerns in terms of things said by either Ms Y or Mr X?
MS BEGAM: In terms of contact?
MR BOON: In terms of during contact.
MS BEGAM: Sorry, I don't understand the question. Like –
HIS HONOUR: Well I guess I directed that contact [between the children and Ms Y] was to be supervised, and that supervision wasn’t for physical safety, it was for emotional psychological safety – and that’s the right phrase. And what I need to – I get to know, you’ve raised the fact that there’d be no concerns raised during contact, the positive conversations between the children and their mother, and you know a child-focussed approach by Ms Y to the children. Has there been anything said that has concerned you during that contact, at all?
MS BEGAM: No.
HIS HONOUR: By the children, or by Ms Y?
MS BEGAM: By the children, yes. So when I supervised a few contacts when I also transported them to and from the venue. So after contact they would have like questions for me, for example,
“Why is the contact supervised?”
“Why can’t I be with Mum?”
“Why can’t we go back to the previous arrangement of shared care?”
and
“Am I able to please speak to the presiding judge and express my opinions?”
and, yeah, so those are the things that the children have raised with me every time I see them.
HIS HONOUR: And what have your responses to the children been?
MS BEGAM: My responses have been that Mum and Dad are going through some difficult phase currently, so the judge has intervened to help in that space. And we will continue to have conversations and see where this leads, because I have not been able to give them a definite answer. Yeah. But every time I see them, they have these questions for me, always.
...
MR NIEMAND: I want to just ask you when Mr X talks about this in his affidavit, and he answers it – I'll read you just a paragraph that relates to that. He talks about the incident, a discussion with the children having seen a clip of the Simpsons episode with Homer strangling Bart and naturally asked about it, Mr X says he explained to the children:
“This isn't suitable…”
He explained it wasn’t a child-suitable programme. He says there was a discussion about stress, anger and emotions, how these can build up and how some people react and Mr X saying:
“Sometimes all they want to do us hug their kids all the time and sometimes they just want to strangle them.”
Which he says was in a light-hearted way. He says he then followed it up and said:
“But I just want to hug you. There were hugs and kisses,”
and he realises that perhaps that was not the wisest comment to make. That’s the gist of his affidavit response.
Are you able to tell the Court whether that is consistent with your understanding of the discussion that Mr X had with Ms Dunn?
MS BEGAM: Um, no, your Honour. When Ms Dunn called – so this is a discussion I had with Ms Dunn, as per Ms Dunn when she called Mr X to discuss the concerns and to notify him that we have seen the children at school, Mr Dunn’s response was [Mr X gave] no response at all. He didn’t comment on the two children having confirmed that he said to them that:
“I feel like strangling you.”
So there was no comment at all from Mr X.
...
MR NIEMAND: Looking at what – because I appreciate what you reported in terms of what the children said, it’s relaying the conversation, it’s not word for word what the children said, but if you think back about what the children reported about the incident compared to Mr X’s affidavit, are those two compatible, I suppose? Is it possible that what Mr X said happened based on how the children relayed it, in your view?
MS BEGAM: I don't think so. Because when we spoke with the children, so we saw one after the other, separately, and they were very clear, I could see their body language, could see the emotions. [The youngest] was, like, she was quite emotional, about to cry, so we had to change the subject and, you know, divert attention. Both of them were very consistent with what happened, so what they said is that they were playing in the lounge area. Mr X has allocated some chores for them to do. He came back to see they haven’t done the chores. Mr X got upset and said to them that:
“I feel like strangling you.”
And as per them, Mr X appeared angry and upset and they felt upset as well. They did not feel unsafe, but they felt upset.
MR NIEMAND: Do I take it from that that your sense from your discussion with them was that it was I guess a comment made by Mr X as opposed to Mr X threatening to strangle them?
MS BEGAM: (no audible answer 15:38:49).
MR NIEMAND: Hold on, let me just rephrase that. That the children interpreted that as a comment made by Mr X in frustration as opposed to making a threat that he was going to physically strangle them?
MS BEGAM: (no audible answer 15:39:06).
MR NIEMAND: Do you want me to start the question again?
MS BEGAM: Yes please.
MR NIEMAND: Sorry. Your sense from your discussion with the children, which is how I understand your answer, is it that they interpreted the comment as something that Mr X said in frustration as opposed to a comment made by Mr X suggesting that he was going to go over there and physically throttle them?
MS BEGAM: Correct, yes.
HIS HONOUR: So the link between (inaudible 15:39:37) the comments made and the fact they felt safe, do you imply from that response from both children, they didn’t think he was going to hurt them?
MS BEGAM: Correct, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: They didn’t think they were at physical risk from him?
MS BEGAM: Correct.
HIS HONOUR: It was a father who was frustrated and those were the words he used, so they report those words?
MS BEGAM: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Do you think they understand what the word “strangle” means? Did you find out whether they did?
MS BEGAM: We did, your Honour. So [the youngest’s] – [both children’s] explanation was to choke someone. That was the explanation.
HIS HONOUR: So they understood the word but they didn’t think it would lead to action, so it wasn’t a threat that he was going to do it, it was a phrase used in frustration because they knew he was annoyed at them?
MS BEGAM: Correct.
MR NIEMAND: So for clarification, the context – I guess I just want to make sure I understand it – wouldn’t be unlike a child for example saying:
“Oh, if I don’t do my homework my mum’s going to,” – “If I don’t clean my room, Mum’s going to kill me,”
kind of that type of comment?
MS BEGAM: Mmm.
MR NIEMAND: Without suggesting that that is actually what will happen, do you understand what I mean by that?
MS BEGAM: Yes, I do, but I think that would be in a different space. Because what Mr X stated to the children obviously had an impact on them because of their presentation, the body language, they were quite upset, very upset indeed. So I think that’s different to what I was a witness to when we interviewed the children.
