452. Clause 31(d) of the Terms of Reference requires the Inquiry to make findings on the circumstances that led to individuals being taken or placed into care during the Inquiry period.

453. Between 1950 and 1999 State and faith-based institutions had hundreds of thousands of people in their care. The wide definition of care in the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference means there were many different pathways into care, from State-enforced removals, court orders, or a lack of alternative options through to voluntary relationships such as private schooling and pastoral care.

454. The Inquiry finds:

a. People were more likely to be placed in State and faith-based residential and institutional (direct or indirect) care if they had experienced poverty, family crisis or violence, parental abuse and neglect, or were Deaf, disabled or mentally distressed; particularly if there was a lack of support for the household from others.
b. The effects of colonisation, urbanisation, the break-down of social structures, and racism saw Māori more likely to be placed in State care.
c. In some situations, a care placement was necessary for the health and safety of the person concerned. Decision makers believed that out-of-whānau care would lead to better life outcomes. Those beliefs were usually genuinely held but often without foundation.
d. Parents were often convinced, sometimes through religious affiliation, that care placements outside the home or mainstream education would provide superior environments or opportunities for their children.
e. In the State care system, decision-makers included social workers, police, judges, health professionals and needs assessors who generally had limited involvement in, connection with, or understanding of the most affected communities (including Māori, Pacific, Deaf or disabled communities, those with mental distress).
f. The State often used formal powers as well as compulsory and institutional care options in a discriminatory way., Formal legal orders were more often used against Māori rather than supporting in-home, whānau, hapū, iwi or community care.
g. Many survivors experienced multiple placements, between different settings, often due to perceived delinquency or a lack of support within care residences or institutions.
h. Children, young people and adults in care did not always understand why they were being moved or where they were going next. They were often scared, confused, and missed their whānau.
i. Decision-making was often influenced by ableist and disablist attitudes which led to the segregation and social exclusion of Deaf people, disabled people and people experiencing mental distress.
j. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori were the majority in social welfare care settings and were over-represented in all other institutional and compulsory care settings.
k. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori were more likely to be sent to harsher institutions such as borstals and social welfare residences and institutions.
l. The State often failed to assess, or inadequately assessed, children, young people and adults in care for trauma and support needs when deciding on care options.
m. The State almost always failed to consider or recognise an ao Māori (Māori world) view, tikanga, te reo and matauranga Māori when removing or placing tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke Māori in all care settings. These failures were both in the method of removal and the appropriateness of placements.
n. The State did not typically consider placements with whānau, hapū or iwi for tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke Māori. Nor did the State actively support sustained connections to whānau, hapu, iwi or community for those in care.
o. Between the 1950s and 1980s, tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke Māori experienced heightened State surveillance and targeting by NZ Police and other State agencies, which contributed to a disproportionate number of tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke Māori entering State care. Wahine Māori experienced heightened State surveillance for running away, staying out or behaving in ways perceived as promiscuous.
p. Deaf, disabled and mentally distressed children, young people or adults were placed in most care settings. Many settings were established only for disabled and mentally distressed people. There were special, segregated residential schools for Deaf children and young people.
q. There was an over-use of institutional care for Deaf, disabled and mentally distressed children, young people and adults.
r. Deaf, disabled and mentally distressed children, young people and adults were often denied or restricted from involvement in decisions about their own lives.
s. For many Deaf, disabled and mentally distressed people, formal State care was the only option the State provided, often for their entire life. The State failed to provide any alternatives.
t. The State generally failed to consider or recognise Pacific world views, cultural values (fa’asamoa, anga, fakatonga), Pacific languages and Pacific knowledge when removing or placing children (fanau), young people (tagata talavou) or adults (tagata matua) in all care settings. both in the method of removal and the appropriateness of placement. These failures were both in the method of removal and the appropriateness of placements. Wider kāinga (family) or Pacific communities were not generally considered as an alternative option for care. Between the 1950s and 1980s, Pacific Peoples experienced heightened State surveillance and targeting by NZ Police and other State agencies, contributing to a disproportionate number of Pacific Peoples entering State care. Challenges with immigration, including language barriers, poverty and societal attitudes also contributed to Pacific Peoples entering care settings.
u. Between the 1950s and 1970s, many unmarried pregnant girls and women were placed in faith-based homes. These homes often facilitated the subsequent adoptions of babies. These placements and adoptions were usually the result of family, religious and societal attitudes including racism.
v. Adoption practices facilitated by the State or faith-based institutions for Māori were discriminatory and ignored whangai Māori practices. From 1950 to the mid-1980s, adoption practices legally severed tamariki and rangatahi Māori from their whakapapa and identity.