A Human Rights Review Tribunal has found an Auckland primary school unlawfully collected and misused sensitive medical information about a mother and her son, resulting in prejudicial treatment of the pair by staff and ending with an expensive settlement. Herald journalist Mike Scott examines the case and why the school remains unnamed. 

The school outing was the first of a young boy’s school life and a chance for a 5-year-old and his mother to feel part of a new community. 

Instead, it was an excruciating ordeal and one of several painful experiences the boy would endure in his first year of school. 

Getting on the bus to return to school, the small, blond-haired boy with learning difficulties – because of being born extremely premature – was already screaming. 

Hungry, overstimulated and unable to regulate his emotions, he spiralled and physically lashed out at the person he trusted most – his mother. 

The boy landed blows all over her, including her arm, freshly broken and in a cast after a fall the day before. 

She tried to hold him at arm’s length as other children, teachers and parents looked on. “I couldn’t breathe,” she said later. 

Another child sitting beside them began crying and was moved away. The distressed mother and her son were left alone. The screaming, flailing and humiliation continuing for the entire journey back to school. 

Only once the bus arrived at school did another parent intervene. 

The tribunal found an Auckland school used sensitive information about a mother’s past to treat her and her son prejudicially. Photo / Mike Scott 

At the time, the mother did not understand why no one had stepped in to relieve a distressed child and an overwhelmed parent. 

But now, after years of persistent calls for justice, she finally has a Human Rights Review Tribunal ruling telling her why. 

The tribunal found staff at the Auckland primary school unlawfully collected and misused highly sensitive medical information about the mother and her son. The information included past drug use and sex work by the mum. 

The tribunal determined the information should never have been in the school’s possession and was used to form prejudicial views that shaped how mother and child were treated poorly and differently to others while he attended the school, causing humiliation, loss of dignity and harm. 

The mother and son have been awarded more than $29,000 in damages. 

“It’s quite disheartening knowing that it’s historical information that has no relevance whatsoever to me as a mum then,” the mother told the Herald after the tribunal ruling was released last month. 

“And now it has tarnished what should be one of my child’s best childhood memories – starting school.” 

However, the tribunal has permanently suppressed the name of the school and the identities of its staff to protect the child from future discrimination. 

It has left the mother, her now 11‑year‑old son, and the teacher aide who spoke out to support them, feeling their long fight for justice remains incomplete. 

‘It’s not who I am now’ 

In the boy’s second week of school, a special educational needs co-ordinator (Senco), who was a senior teacher, and a deputy principal met with a Starship community nurse to discuss support for the child. 

During that meeting, the nurse provided copies of the mother’s medical records – an action that Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) later said was wrong and formally apologised for. 

The file included a confidential 11-page child‑protection report containing highly sensitive medical, family and social information about the mother and son. 

It included details of a traumatic pregnancy, the boy’s extreme premature birth and the mother’s past methamphetamine use before she knew she was pregnant. 

It also contained later paediatric assessments showing the child was developing well and had been discharged from specialist care. 

The mother only became aware of the privacy breach after a teacher aide told her the school held her medical file. Photo / Mike Scott 

The information was then shared with another agency, the Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) service, and staff at the school. 

(Later in the year the RTLB service would recommend the school destroy its copy of the medical records and obtained the mother’s permission to retain its own copy.) 

The mother only learned the sensitive information had been shared when a conflicted teacher aide confided in her. 

Talking to the Herald last week, the mother said she was distressed after being told the school held her medical file. 

“It’s not something that you’d ever want the people at the school that your child’s going to to find out, especially because it’s not current. 

“Because it’s not who I am now. It’s not who I was when he first started school. It was who I was before I became a mother.” 

She said her meth use stopped when she found out she was pregnant. 

Despite evidence from the RTLB service, ADHB and staff who worked at the school in 2019, the school repeatedly denied having received or holding the medical records. 

The tribunal ultimately rejected those denials, finding the school had collected, retained and misused the information, resulting in harm. 

‘It’s disgusting’ 

In mid-2019, on the last day of term, the “very excited” young boy was taken by his nervous mother for a pre-school visit. 

The mother was worried. The boy’s premature start in life – born at 24 weeks – meant he had behavioural and learning difficulties and she was concerned about how he would cope. 

“I had a panic attack and a staff member came and pulled me away from the crowded room into an empty room, away from everyone, to help me calm down and see if I was okay.” 

The staff member was a teacher aide with 18 years’ experience, including working with children with special needs and their parents. 

The teacher aide talked with the mother and learned about the boy’s premature birth and the mother’s diagnosis of PTSD, high-functioning anxiety and depression. 

It was information that would help with the boy’s transition to school, and the teacher aide asked whether she could share it with the school’s Senco, someone she worked closely with and respected. 

The mother gave her permission. 

The tribunal heard evidence that a teacher aide was told by a special educational needs co-ordinator the mother was a meth addict and dangerous. Photo / Mike Scott 

Later, when the boy started at the school, the Senco told the teacher aide she had obtained medical information regarding the boy. 

Pointing to documents, the senior teacher erroneously claimed the new pupil was not born premature and his issues were related to the mother’s drug use, the tribunal report states. 

The Senco teacher said it proved the mother was a “liar”, a “meth addict” and a “street worker”. 

When giving evidence at the tribunal hearing, the teacher aide said the Senco teacher told her meth addicts were dangerous, that she should be careful interacting with the mother, avoid being alone with her at school or going to her house if invited, “as she would be in danger of being hurt, or, in fact, something even worse”. 

The Senco teacher denied the conversation occurred, however, the tribunal found her evidence wasn’t “credible”. 

In contrast, the teacher aide’s evidence was “plausible, genuine and not contrived”, the tribunal report says. 

“This was somebody I really looked up to and I knew what she had done was very unprofessional,” the teacher aide told the Herald. 

“I didn’t ask for that information, but it was shared to me and what do I do with it? 

“I [couldn’t] talk about it because I knew then I would be breaching that parent’s right. 

“That was the very first time I had ever been a part of something that I knew was wrong.” 

The teacher aide felt conflicted knowing the contents of the medical file held by the school and felt compelled to tell the mother. 

The tribunal report backs the aide’s suspicions about the mother and son being poorly treated. 

It cites numerous incidents, including the traumatic bus ride, where no help was offered to the mother and another parent was instructed not to intervene. 

In its redacted decision, the tribunal says the mother and child’s treatment flowed from views formed after the medical records were obtained. 

It found the Senco concluded the mother “was dangerous” and that her son’s “developmental issues were attributable to her drug use”, making them “less deserving of empathy”. 

The tribunal says those views were likely shared with staff working closely with the boy. 

The tribunal also points to further non-empathetic treatment after misuse of the records, including the boy being excluded from class and the playground, and having his school hours reduced to two hours a day. 

As was standard practice for a child with additional needs, the school created a behaviour log (Blot) so staff could record observations and concerns to help guide how the boy was supported at school. 

The tribunal found the school poorly managed the log, keeping multiple versions, failing to provide all of them when the mother requested her records, and omitting important context from entries describing critical incidents, including the bus trip where the mother’s injured arm and attempts by others to help were not recorded. 

The tribunal says the actions reflected prejudicial treatment of the mother and child. 

There was also an incident where the boy, while in a tantrum, was videoed by two staff instead of them offering him comfort. 

While this was not considered a privacy breach in the ruling, the conduct was deemed inappropriate. 

“It’s disgusting,” the mother told the Herald. 

“Why would you not help him? Why would you just stand there filming him? 

“It’s like they didn’t care about him. Was it amusing to them? There’s no logical reason I can see why they would do that.” 

‘They were being set up to fail’ 

The teacher aide told the Herald the mother and son’s treatment reflected a broader pattern in how special needs pupils were handled at the school. 

When she started her job more than a decade ago, the school was a “beacon” for how to support children with learning and behavioural difficulties, she said. 

But the culture shifted under later leadership and by 2019 she said the school had changed significantly. 

Special needs students were increasingly seen as not “belonging” and as a drain on resources – especially those who arrived without approved Ministry of Education funding assistance, she claimed. 

Families were actively managed out of the school through shortened daytime hours, exclusionary practices and pressure that made it clear they were no longer welcome. 

“The whole ethos turned. 

The teacher aide told the Herald the stress of the case and the loss of her career had a serious impact on her mental health, including suicidal thoughts. Photo / Mike Scott 

“People I admired and respected – the people above me – I watched them change and become cruel to families with special needs children.” 

She said the mother and her son fitted that pattern. 

“It was like they were being set up to fail. 

“They didn’t fit the normal family. And he didn’t have funding.” 

The teacher aide decided to speak out but felt like a lone voice. 

She claimed she was bullied by school management and received no response from the school board of trustees or her union. 

The stress affected her mental health to the point she went on extended sick leave, eventually leaving her job and contemplated suicide, she said. 

“Trying to do the right thing nearly cost me my life.” 

The tribunal’s ruling was a vindication, particularly as it found her testimony credible, she said. 

However, the tribunal’s non‑publication order meant no one would know which school had acted wrongly or which staff were responsible. 

“I’m so frustrated ... where’s the accountability? 

“What did the school do to fix that problem so it would never happen again? We don’t know.” 

The Herald sought comment from the school but has yet to receive a response. 

The Ministry of Education said individual schools were responsible for handling sensitive information appropriately. The ministry was not automatically involved in tribunal proceedings involving schools. 

It also may not be aware of cases, particularly where suppression or non‑publication orders apply, the ministry’s group general manager for operational standards and support Helen Hurst said. 

The mother understands the reasons for the non-publication order but is still disappointed. 

“I slept like a baby the night I got the ruling back, it was like a weight was off my shoulders. 

“It was finally out there, even though we didn’t like the name suppression ... we didn’t want that.” 

The ruling came after years of attempting to retrieve the medical records from the school and get acknowledgment of wrongdoing from various agencies. 

“I probably wouldn’t have gone to the Human Rights Tribunal” had the school acknowledged wrongly using the medical records, she said. 

“I probably would’ve accepted their apology and moved on and everything would be okay.” 

The school was ordered to pay $29,100 in damages to the mother and her son. 

“It wasn’t about the money. It was about getting justice. 

“I didn’t do all this and go through all the stress and all the anxiety just to let them get away with it, especially knowing that I was in the right and they were wrong.” 

Mike Scott is an award-winning visual journalist with more than two decades of experience telling stories across multiple media platforms.