��һ�ǿ�����

• A 15-year-old boy, in Oranga Tamariki care, lived in a motel for more than a year with round-the-clock minders.
• The boy spent his days gaming, visiting his girlfriend and taking a state-paid trip overseas.
• Two youth court judges expressed concern over the lack of education, psychological support, and appropriate housing for the teen.

When a Youth Court judge asked a 15-year-old boy how long he had been living in a motel, with round-the-clock minders, he was taken aback by the answer.

“Nearly a year,” the teen replied.

“A year?” the judge exclaimed.

During that year, Oranga Tamariki sent *Cody on a state-funded trip to a Pacific Island, with his now-estranged mother, to see if he could connect with family.

The boy told the court this had “not gone well”, and after the trip last August, it was back to the motel.

Cody was in Youth Court in Tauranga, facing relatively low-level charges, and Judge Paul Geoghegan asked him how he spent his days, and what education he was receiving while living in the Tauranga motel.

“None,” he replied, describing waking up late, eating, gaming, and seeing his girlfriend. He also had an Oranga Tamariki-appointed mentor he would meet with on occasion.

Cody was supervised by Oranga Tamariki-contracted APEX minders, who, in pairs, were on 48-hour shifts at the motel. It’s understood there were a limited number of carers on rotation.

Youth Court judge Christina Cook commented at a later hearing that the “cost to the taxpayer must be horrendous”, and remarked that it was “not a way to live”.

One of the reported constants the teen appreciated was a weekly meeting with a psychologist from Auckland.

However, an Oranga Tamariki social worker told Judge Geoghegan, at the hearing in March, that a “leadership-led” decision was made to stop that.

Judge Geoghegan issued a minute, in which he said the teen was “simply treading water” and “there may be psychological needs which are not being met”.

Judge Paul Geoghegan. Photo / Andrew Warner

After being granted permission to report on proceedings by three separate Youth Court judges, ��һ�ǿ����� sent questions to Oranga Tamariki about Cody, primarily focused on why he was at the motel for so long, what led the organisation to place him there, and how much it cost to keep him there.

Oranga Tamariki was also asked about what provisions were made for his food and education, and how much the trip to the Pacific Islands cost.

However, Oranga Tamariki declined to provide responses saying: “the leave that has been granted to [��һ�ǿ�����] does not authorise Oranga Tamariki to provide you with information about the young person and matters addressed in the Youth Court”.

Tamariki and whānau services national commissioner North Alison Cronin provided a general statement that said typically young people only spent one night in a motel, and most children and young people will stay for three nights or fewer.

She said “occasionally” young people may need to stay longer.

“These young people may have high and complex needs which can make it difficult to find appropriate placements for them,” she said.

“Some may have behaviours which are extremely challenging to safely manage, and which pose a risk to themselves or others in a group setting.”

She said sometimes they might stay longer because of proximity to whānau, continuation of education, or access to support services while a longer-term placement is found.

Data released by Oranga Tamariki under the Official Information Act said that as at July 1, 2025, 18 tamariki and rangatahi in the care of Oranga Tamariki were staying in motels.

Oranga Tamariki had more than 4100 young people in its care at that time.

Oranga Tamariki didn’t keep specific data on the number of children sent overseas, while in its care.

“Information on tamariki and rangatahi travelling overseas for any purpose, including to connect with whānau, is not recorded in fields that can be extracted from our case management system as structured data,” it said.

“This information would be stored in the narrative case notes for the tamaiti or rangatahi in question... Oranga Tamariki would need to review individual case notes for all tamariki and rangatahi, which would require substantial manual collation.”

Charges due to boy’s ‘frustration’, says Judge

Cody, who turned 15 in February, was charged with wilful damage, speaking threateningly, threatening to kill, and unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle.

Judge Geoghegan felt the charges were to a “considerable degree”, because of the boy’s “frustration” with his current circumstances.

The judge couldn’t move ahead with the Youth Court charges without a plan for more appropriate housing and education, and without a psychological report, which had been cancelled.

“The reasons for that are unclear given the quite dire situation which I believe exists in [Cody’s] particular circumstances,” the judge said.

It’s understood Cody had a long history with Oranga Tamariki’s Care and Protection arm, and Oranga Tamariki’s typical care arrangements had been tried without success.

The judge acknowledged the teen’s mother had “washed her hands of him”, his father’s whereabouts were unknown, and efforts to connect the teen to whānau in New Zealand had fallen on “barren ground”.

The teen’s lawyer, Peter Attwood, told the court the teen’s charges weren’t serious enough for him to be remanded in a youth justice residence, and he, the social workers, and police all agreed the National High Needs Hub needed to find a place for him.

“The hub” is a centralised Oranga Tamariki unit, that receives referrals to care and protection residences with specific wrap-around supports.

But no one could tell the judge why “the hub” hadn’t accepted the referrals and found a placement.

Cody was first referred there in mid-December last year, and nothing had been progressed.

Been at the motel ‘a hell of a long time’, says judge

At a crossover court appearance a month later, where both Care and Protection and Youth Justice social workers were in attendance, little had changed.

At that hearing, Judge Christina Cook reiterated Judge Geoghegan’s concern, noting the teen was still living in a motel, albeit absconding in breach of his bail conditions to spend time with his transient girlfriend.

The teen’s youth justice social worker said this worried her.

“I don’t know where he is, who he is with, and if he’s safe”, she said.

“We [social workers] stay awake at night worrying about the likes of [Cody] and if he’s okay.”

Judge Cook was particularly concerned about the abrupt end to Cody’s meetings with the psychologist, and was baffled by the delay in response from “the hub”.

“Which is immensely frustrating and it is easy for me to say that, but I am not the one who has to live day-to-day in a motel supported by carers.”

Despite the less-than-ideal circumstances of being housed at a motel, Judge Cook was told the teen’s key social worker on the ground had done an “incredible amount of work”.

��һ�ǿ����� attempted to speak with that social worker, who arguably understood the nuances and challenges of Cody’s situation better than anybody, but she said she’d been told by Oranga Tamariki management not to speak to ��һ�ǿ����� about the case.

Judge Cook spoke directly to the teen, acknowledging he’d been at the motel for “a hell of a long time”, but it was “nothing to do with the people in this room, it’s somewhere up the chain”.

Both Judge Cook and Judge Geoghegan directed minutes to Oranga Tamariki, raising their concerns about Cody’s circumstances.

At an appearance on May 26, it was advised that a placement had been found, supported by an iwi provider.

He would be the sole occupant of a home, with specialist support and carers.

��һ�ǿ����� was granted provisional permission to report on Cody’s circumstances, but only once the teen had been advised of the new arrangement, and safely relocated to the new residence.

The teen was transferred in late June, and questions were then put to Oranga Tamariki on June 30, but a media adviser indicated they needed more time.

In the meantime, Cody’s matter was called in the Tauranga District Court for the final time.

At a hearing on July 7, his offences were discharged under section 282 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, meaning he will not have a criminal record.

His lawyer, the police, social workers and the judge all agreed the teen needed a fresh start in his new residence, out of Tauranga.

There had been concerns he would refuse to leave Tauranga, but the transfer had gone smoothly and Attwood told the court he was “finally” getting the therapeutic intervention he needed.

Youth advocate Peter Attwood.

Attwood said there was little need for punitive action, as his core needs had always been care and protection, with youth justice “has been used as an arm to crank” that side of things.

Judge Louis Bidois agreed with a social worker that to transfer the charges to a different location would just be another “weight on his shoulders”.

��һ�ǿ����� understands that his new placement hasn’t been without incident, but his iwi are sticking by him. It’s also understood his particular care arrangement falls under a relatively new care provider.

*The teen’s identity is subject to statutory suppression, as is the case in all Youth Court proceedings. A pseudonym has been used.

Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at ��һ�ǿ�����. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at ��һ�ǿ�����talk ZB.