Family Integrity

Year: 2009

  • Law continues to be a dog’s breakfast

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Law continues to be a dog’s breakfast

    Kiwi Party leader and Anti-smacking referendum organiser Larry Baldock called on the Prime Minister to stop wasting taxpayers money defending the indefensible!

    “Let’s understand what John Key is saying,” said Mr Baldock. “He is advising parents to break the law if they want to by smacking their children if they believe that is the right thing to do. Then he spends our money setting up a special hotline for those good parents who may have some pangs of conscience about breaking the law so they can ring in for reassurance about their criminal activity.  Why not just change the law?

    “All this comes after yet another report that has wasted more of our taxes, to defend a law that the PM called a dog’s breakfast.

    “The truth is John Key is afraid of Sue Bradford and all her anti-smackers. He will cling to any excuse to hold the line, rather than upset a small minority that have made it clear there will be ‘hell to pay’ if they are not listened too and obeyed.

    “That is why John Key said, “All I can tell you is if we went back and changed the law this is what I think would happen. There would be a very intense debate in NZ and those that are opposed to smacking could run a very ferocious campaign and at the end of that process right or wrong, some people would feel quite differently about it.” (JK Family Forum Sept 18, 2009)

    “It is ironic that the majority that have followed lawful and peaceful means of protesting this crazy law are ignored, while the Prime Minister bows to those whom he thinks would engage in a very ferocious campaign!

    Ends

    Contact
    Larry Baldock
    021864833

  • Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ

    MEDIA RELEASE

    7 December 2009

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ is dismissing yet another report on the anti-smacking law which fails to address the real issues and concerns over the law change.

    “This is the eighth report in just over two years on the law change. There have never been so many reports in such a short time frame on a law change in an attempt to sell it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The police have done six reports, a report from the ministry of Social Development, and now this report commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to the overwhelming rejection of the law in the recent Referendum.”

    “We weren’t expecting miracles in this report because one of the panel members Peter Hughes from the MSD has only recently released a report where he admits that he cannot conclude whether the law is achieving its purpose, and he cannot conclusively say that good parents are not being criminalized or victimized by this law with unnecessary state intervention. This is primarily because he doesn’t talk to them!”

    “A senior police office who examined the prosecutions of a number of parents as a result of the new law says that without exception, the public interest was not served in pursuing prosecutions.”

    “In the latest report, it fails in the following areas:

    • it fails to address the concerns of kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting
    • it fails to address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents, and threatening to report them to the police or CYF
    • it fails to address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents
    • it fails to address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence police which demands zero tolerance
    • it fails to address why so many cases of what are supposed to be ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments, and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all
    • it fails to address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.”

    “This report is another government-funded sales pitch for a flawed law which has been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders. John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores almost 90% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague.”

    “A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment-the Boscawen amendment. That’s what parents deserve” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Related document:

    Review of New Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family Policies and Procedures relating to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (pdf, 1675 Kb)

  • The Climategate Scandal

    The Climategate Scandal. (Part 1) 5.25 min

    The Climategate Scandal. (Part 2) 3.45 min

    The Climategate Scandal. (Part 3) 1.23min

  • Families Warned Pillow Fight May Be Assault

    MEDIA RELEASE

    3 December 2009

    Families Warned Pillow Fight May Be Assault

    Family First NZ says that a decision to drag an uncle through court for having a pillow fight with his nephew is an example of the ‘discretion’ test failing and laws such as the anti-smacking law effectively targeting good parents.

    The case was thrown out in the Wellington District court today just before the trial by jury started.

    “While we acknowledge that this uncle is no saint, the facts of this case and the evidence presented to the police clearly shows that this was no assault yet the police proceeded with a prosecution right through to a trial by jury,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “It is incredible when a harmless playful gesture between an uncle and a nephew with a soft pillow becomes an assault charge, and suggests that the zero tolerance policy for family violence is overriding discretion and a common sense approach. It also shows confusion over the definition of violence.”

    “Police effectively don’t have discretion. This reinforces why many people want the anti-smacking law changed to bring certainty to what is or isn’t allowed rather than depending on the ‘inconsequential’ test. Parents deserve that measure of certainty as to how the law will be applied.”

    “Fortunately the court has seen the facts for what they are, but that may come down simply to who the judge was on the day.”

    “Parents who previously had faith in police discretion have every reason to be hugely concerned by this case,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Porn Free Streets

    Campaign

  • Mother jailed for assaulting kids

    Hall of Shame

    Mother jailed for assaulting kids

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3111544/Mother-jailed-for-assaulting-kids

    NZPA

    A woman who repeatedly assaulted her three children, including a one-year-old boy, has been jailed for 3-1/2 years.

    The 41-year-old woman has name suppression to protect the identity of her children. She was found guilty by a jury last month on nine counts of assault with a weapon and one of assault on a child under the age of 14.

    During the Dunedin District Court trial, the jury heard evidence that the children were assaulted over a 21 month period with weapons that included a jug cord, tent pole, belt and wooden spoon during various incidents in Napier, Gisborne and Invercargill.

    In sentencing today, Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said the children had “suffered tremendously” over the period of the offending.

    He said they were assaulted for everyday occurrences and lived in “a climate of violence and fear”.

    Five of the charges of assault with a weapon were representative charges and the judge said he was satisfied the assaults happened on a regular basis.

    He advised the woman to read the victim impact reports for the three children, who were aged from one to nine years when the offending started.

    He noted the woman had shown remorse after being found guilty but said it was unfortunate to put the children through a trial that included cross-examination in court by her attorney following their video statements.

    The woman strenuously denied 11 of the 12 charges, only conceding that she had hit one of the children with a belt because he put a hole in a wall.

    Her defence on that charge was one of reasonable force, a defence that is no longer available under new “anti-smacking” legislation but still applies in this case because the incident happened before the new law came into force.

    Judge O’Driscoll said he had considered not only making the woman’s name public but also the names of her three children so that the wider public would know what they had been through and show understanding for their resulting behavioural problems.

    Defence counsel Tim Fournier took some issue with the impact statements of the three victims, saying it was not proved their behavioural problems were solely the result of the assaults.

    However, the judge said the victim reports made “disturbing reading” and the children’s potential in life had been seriously compromised by that.

    The youngest boy was suffering from post traumatic stress and the other boys were having social difficulties, anger and grief issues and displaying violent tendencies.

  • Woman jailed over injuries to child

    Hall of shame

    Woman jailed over injuries to child

    NZPA

    Last updated 12:42 27/11/2009

    A woman convicted of inflicting head injuries to her then three-year-old son has been told he is likely to need care for the rest of his life.

    Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, was today sentenced to a total of five years’ jail on three charges relating to incidents in Auckland in June last year.

    In September, a High Court jury found Mikaio guilty of wounding son Benjamin with intent to injure and neglecting to provide him with the necessaries of life by delaying getting medical treatment.

    Mikaio admitted the third charge she was sentenced on – injuring with intent.

    That count related to an assault on Benjamin three days earlier, when he was struck on the body with a shoe and left with broken bones.

    Justice Forrest Miller said the head injuries the boy received in the later incident had left him with bleak prospects of leading a normal life.

    He noted a paediatrician’s evidence at trial that it was doubtful Benjamin, who now had difficulty walking and talking and needed to wear a skull cap when he went outside, would have independence as an adult.

    Justice Miller said Mikaio had shown remorse and contrition, had no previous convictions and was considered to be at a low risk of offending.

    He also accepted that Mikaio was under stress at the time through being pregnant and having four other children as well as Benjamin to look after.

    However, serious violence had been involved, the attacks had been prolonged and Benjamin had been vulnerable.

    The judge said Mikaio had also sought to excuse herself “by advancing the fanciful notion” that the head injuries were the result of an accident.

    Mikaio was charged after Benjamin was taken to Starship Hospital unconscious.

    During the trial, the court was told that Benjamin was brought up by his paternal grandmother in Samoa between 2004 and 2007, when he went to live with Mikaio in Auckland.

    However, mother and child had trouble bonding, and Mikaio found Benjamin troublesome and was also upset by his bedwetting.

    The cause of the assault in which Benjamin received his head injuries was apparently because he had wet his bed again.

    After that attack, Benjamin collapsed and Mikaio, who covered him with blankets and prayed for him, waited five hours before seeking help from a Samoan faith healer, who told her to get an ambulance.

    Justice Miller said Benjamin had nearly died from internal bleeding and he drew the inference that the damage to his brain could have been materially reduced if an ambulance had been called earlier.

    The defence had argued that Mikaio was not aware of how serious the injuries were.