1. The counsellor maintained that the relationship between our 14-year old child and the adult
men was “love and romance”. Even though the counsellor and her supervisor knew that two
of the St John Ambulance men had conducted serious sexual crimes on our daughter
including having group sex with her. We were flabbergasted when the counsellor coyly
described our child’s group sex activities with adult men in this way.
2. After meeting with our daughter only for 30 minutes, the counsellor and her supervisor told us
their assessment was that our daughter was “at the greatest danger in the home
environment”. However, they could not tell us why, and what danger she was in at home.
Later, the counsellor explained to her counselling association that she had formed extreme
negative opinions about the girl’s father from the instant he walked through the door to bring
his daughter to the 30-minute counselling session.
3. The counsellor refused point blank to discuss the sexual crimes with our daughter in any way
because she maintained the crimes had no negative effect on our 14-year old child.
4. The counsellor said that it was impossible for any young teenage girl to be negatively
influenced by her peers or adult boyfriends, and that the only reason any girl would do what
she did with the sexual predators was because of poor parenting, particularly poor fathering.
They believed it was impossible for any child to be sexually groomed.
The names of these St John Ambulance men are in the public arena: Karl Berghan and Sam Brens.
Google their names for more information.
In 2012, the NZ Governor-General is due to present a second St John award to both Karl Berghan and Sam Brens.
Mr Berghan implied in the press that his award has been sanctioned by the Queen:
More information about the Governor General award is in this Sunday Star Times article of 8 Jan 2012 – “Alleged teen sex groomer in line for top award”:
A press release is here:
The counsellor was adamant that our daughter had a bad relationship with her father. We
disagreed strongly with this, our daughter has always had an excellent relationship with her
father. However, the counsellor and her supervisor said that this was impossible because if
the girl had an excellent relationship with her father she would have told him she was having
sexual relationships with older adult men.
6. They taught our daughter to spy on her parents and report back to the counsellor, in their
attempt to find the proof of poor parenting their crackpot theories required.
7. After meeting with our daughter for 30 minutes, the counsellor and her supervisor met with us,
the girl’s parents. We attempted to explain to them the effects of the grooming and the
underage sexual crimes on our daughter, however they were totally closed to all our
viewpoints and attempts to be heard. The counsellor told us: “I don’t need to listen to you –
I’ve had 20 years counselling experience and I’ve seen it all before”.
8. The counsellor said she was “100% certain” that the reason why the child became involved
with paedophile men, was because her father was too controlling. When we asked what the
father had done that was too controlling, they replied that they did not know, but that they
would find out. They admitted they did not know of a single thing her father had done that was
too controlling, and that the girl had not mentioned anything. The crackpot reasoning of the
counsellors appeared to be along these lines: the father is a successful businessman…..and
businessmen are controlling…..therefore the father must be controlling with his
family….therefore he is causing the problems his daughter is facing.
9. The counsellor appealed to CYF to immediately remove our daughter from our family, setting
off a chain of events that caused considerable long-term damage to our daughter and family.
A CYF formal enquiry later found that as parents we have acted in the best interests of our
daughter at all times.
10. The counsellor continued to have counselling sessions with our child behind our backs
without our knowledge, even though we had forbidden it. The counsellor and her supervisor
appeared to be hell-bent with their crackpot ideology on causing maximum damage to our
11. A large number of experts (see Appendix 3 below) have told us that our daughter’s reaction to
the grooming and sexual crimes was typical. However the counsellors said that there was no
connection between our daughter running away and the sexual crimes. The fact that when
she ran away the first time was the day her parents found out about the adult men, the fact
that she was running back to the men every time – the counsellors ignored this, and were
adamant that there was no connection between the adult men who were having sex with her,
and her running away to meet them.
12. The counsellor and her supervisor have no formal qualifications whatsoever.