Looking after the welfare of our most wayward young citizens is a thankless task. It is also an extremely demanding one and it should be acknowledged that, from time to time, as with any provider of services, there will be hiccups.
But notwithstanding the "unfortunate set of circumstances", nor the culpability or challenges that perhaps were posed by the person concerned, it cannot pass unremarked that a 15-year-old boy was detained in Dunedin's police cells for four nights over Easter.
Without passing any judgement on the individual concerned in this particular example, there will be those inclined to the view that a few nights in the slammer might cool the destructive, antisocial ardour of those young people who routinely demand the attentions of the police and other law enforcement agencies.
But this is a simplistic response to a complex problem, one that will likely involve any number of social deprivation indicators: dysfunctional families, family violence, alcohol and drug abuse, sexual abuse, poverty, criminal grooming and so on.
It must remain front of mind that however apparently "bad", foul-mouthed, aggressive or otherwise derailed a youth might appear, he or she is just that: a youth.
As a society we make special provisions for dealing with such individuals: through the youth court, for instance, and its special youth advocates and youth justice co-ordinators; and through Child, Youth and Family (CYF), the government service specifically charged with duty of care towards them, and thus equipped with the appropriated jurisdiction and specialist expertise.
While such organisations do not have unlimited resources, it must be asked whether it is good enough that 15-year-olds are held in police cells for prolonged periods of time; and if CYF, in this instance, has discharged its responsibilities appropriately.
According to the department there were extenuating circumstances: the youth in question had escaped CYF custody on the Thursday prior to Easter, was arrested on the Friday and held in police custody until the following day when he came before a justice of the peace. The police opposed bail and so he was remanded in their custody until a bed at a secure youth justice unit became available.
A bed did become available in Christchurch later that day, but not until after the youth had been remanded in police custody. The next opportunity to remedy that was on the Monday, when the youth was placed back in CYF custody - but there were insufficient trained staff available to provide "safe and secure" transport to Christchurch until the Tuesday. The police were not able to assist in expediting this move.
It is understood that at such times there may well be difficulties in meeting the requirements that young people should be placed in specialist secure youth justice premises.
But the sequence of events that led to the youth being in custody in a police cell for four nights begins to sound less like an unfortunate set of circumstances and more like mismanagement - involving a shortage of rostered CYF staff, a lack of immediately available CYF facilities, and a less-than-determined attitude on the part of various authorities when faced with the self-evident problem that failure to address such matters on the Saturday would mean another two nights in the police cells.
This is not the first time CYF in Dunedin has had difficulties in meeting the requirements for placements for young persons. It probably will not be the last.
It is of concern that on a previous recent occasion, when quizzed about the frequency of various types of placement - albeit of a lesser order than secure youth justice placements - the service admitted it did not keep such statistics.
This is an extraordinary admission: in so far as much of its work precisely involves the care and protection of young persons, how can the service gauge the extent to which it is able to perform appropriately if it does not collate the statistics to measure this?
Troubled youths who spin into CYF's orbit can be maladjusted or suffer disorders. For all their bravado, they are often confused and vulnerable. This after all is, in large part, why special provisions exist for their care under the law - and why, when those provisions are not met, questions must be asked.
