Dunedin North MP
Mr Hodgson has given Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge and his staff until this week to say what actions they propose to take to try and settle the issue.
If they do not come up with a timetable, Mr Hodgson says he will pass the matter on to the Barnardos Trust Board.
Contacted by the Otago Daily Times, Mr Hodgson confirmed he had sent the letter but did not wish to comment further.
Duncan (not his real name) has been trying since 2002 to get Barnardos to investigate and resolve his claim that a supervised access co-ordinator employed by Barnardos at the time wrote an untrue memorandum about him to the Family Court, told untruths about him to Barnardos staff members and used her position to restrict or stop his contact with his children for a total of five months.
Among the co-ordinator's untrue statements were that he was on a methadone programme and had asked a female access supervisor out on a date.
The co-ordinator admitted her memorandum to the Family Court was untrue after being challenged by Duncan's lawyer.
When contacted, Mr Edridge said he had already apologised to Duncan for deficiencies in the way Barnardos had dealt with his complaint, but would not apologise for the co-ordinator's actions because he was not employed by the organisation at the time.
What the staff member said in 2002 had been "opinion based on good faith", he said.
Duncan says Barnardos has never adequately dealt with his complaint, never reached a conclusion about his complaint, and never apologised. But his biggest concern was that the incorrect memorandum was still held by the Family Court.
Barnardos maintains supervised access was stopped because Duncan did not stick to the rules in the contract parents sign when supervised access sessions begin.
Over the years, Duncan has gone to many people including Mr Hodgson, Child, Youth and Family (CYF) and the Privacy Commissioner for help.
He says he was heartened when a CYF review released last November concluded Barnardos could have more rigorously followed its own complaints procedure, did not maintain sufficient records of its investigation into his complaints, significantly delayed responding to his complaints and appeared unwilling to review alleged statements made by staff in 2002.
Duncan, whose children now live with him part of the week, said he was was very surprised when a CYF staff member apologised to him for the undue length of time it had taken them to complete the review and presented him with a compensation cheque for $5000.
"They said they had failed in their moral duty to deal with my complaint in a timely fashion. I didn't ask for a cent. It never occurred to me that a government department would offer me money."
He said he accepted the money to help offset legal and administration costs associated with getting access to his children reinstated, and with pursuing the complaint.
It was ironic CYF said it had failed him because its investigation had taken two years, when Barnardos had offered him nothing even though the dispute had dragged on since 2002, he said.
Mr Edridge said it was clear the catalyst for Duncan's complaint was "a very bad relationship" between himself and the co-ordinator.
He was not sure any letter or report from the co-ordinator remained with the Family Court.
However, when pressed, he said Barnardos had not checked with the court to see if a document existed, but would undertake to ask, if that was what Duncan wished.
Duncan said he had already sent copies of the memorandum to Barnardos. It was unlikely Duncan would receive a public apology or a financial settlement, Mr Edridge said.
"There are still staff around who feel abused by [him]."
