Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Anti-Smacking Law Wasting CYF Time – Missing Real Abuse

    MEDIA RELEASE

    1 August 2008

    Anti-Smacking Law Wasting CYF Time – Missing Real Abuse

    Family First NZ says there is further evidence that CYF’s limited resources are being wasted, with a ‘blow-out’ in CYF notifications but the levels of actual abuse not increasing, or at worst not being caught.

    Waikato figures reported in the Waikato Times today, show an increase of notifications from 5,973 to 8,629 but those requiring further action have fallen significantly from 3729 to 3308 that same year.

    “This is a 44% increase in the demand on CYF services yet the identification of actual child abuse has dropped 11%. This is consistent with a disturbing trend nationwide,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “This is perfect proof that the ideologically flawed anti-smacking law has resulted in unwarranted reports of good parents which is a waste of the limited resources of CYF.”

    Figures from CYF’s national 2007/08 Third Quarter report show a 32% increase in notifications over the previous 12 months but numbers requiring further action remaining the same.

    “If the figures could be attributed to a rising intolerance to child abuse and domestic violence, we would be seeing an increasing rate of cases requiring further action – but we are not. That is simply because of a misguided law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “CYF resources are being wasted because of a law that labels good parents as potential child abusers, and distracts CYF and Police from dealing with the real causes of child abuse and actual child abuse.”

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers according to recent research).

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Father of the Year 2008

    http://www.kiwifamilies.co.nzTopicsCompetitions.html
    The first Sunday of September is nearly upon us again, so we’re opening up our second annual “Father of the Year” Award.  We have some cool new sponsors on board with lots of exciting prizes for New Zealand’s best dads! Make your nominations here…

  • Alarm over teen abuse of parents

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4657233a19716.html

    Alarm over teen abuse of parents

    SMH | Friday, 15 August 2008

    Teenage children are bashing and bullying their parents at an increasing rate in Australia, a largely hidden form of abuse that can arise from violent role models or overindulgent parenting.

    Studies in NSW and Victoria show an increasing number of parents are the victims of physical and psychological violence perpetrated by their children, usually adolescent sons directing their attacks on their mothers.

    A new Victorian report reveals a 23 per cent increase in domestic violence involving a person aged under 19 between 2002 and 2006. One in 10 of the state’s police family violence call-outs involves an adolescent perpetrator, and about 3500 cases happen each year.

    While NSW police do not have readily available statistics, a recent study by University of Western Sydney researchers found 51 per cent of women experience some form of violence at the hands of their children. And the researchers say the figures could be even higher, because the shame and secrecy associated with child-parent violence prevents many mothers from reporting the abuse to authorities.

    Jo Howard, a clinical family therapist who co-wrote the Melbourne report, said mothers often suffered years of violence before calling the police or seeking other assistance.

    Many parents were confused about whether their children’s violence was normal teenage behaviour, and they minimised serious abuse as “just mucking around”.

    “They would absolutely have to be at the end of their tether to call the police,” she said. “A lot of parents don’t even know they can call the police with these kinds of issues. It’s absolutely the last step.”

    Ms Howard’s report documents adolescent violence in 10 families. Almost all of the sons had experienced or witnessed abuse by their fathers or other men – towards their mothers and sometimes themselves – and most also had learning and behavioural problems from an early age.

    Mothers told the researchers how their sons would spit at or punch them, swear and call them names, threaten to use weapons such as knives, steal money, break objects and not allow them any privacy, even in the bathroom. They talked about always being fearful at home, and worried about how the young men would treat future girlfriends.

    Ms Howard said another scenario in which adolescent violence was increasingly common was where stressed parents working long hours overindulged children and failed to set boundaries.

    “Parents are trying to compensate for not being available, [they] are generally wanting to give their kids the best,” she said.

    “Then the kids just start to use quite bullying tactics and slowly over time they will start to up the ante until they are smashing things and becoming quite abusive.”

    In the University of Western Sydney study of more than 1000 mothers from the Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Penrith areas, 51 per cent reported some form of child violence ranging from physical abuse to more common forms such as swearing, denigrating, “silent treatment” and aggressively making demands.

    Mothers were most fearful of sons aged between 13 and 18, and the younger the child when the behaviour began, the longer it continued and the more severe the violence became.

    Lesley Wilkes, from the university’s school of nursing, oversaw the study, which also found that mothers who were young, single, had low education or were in casual employment were the most likely to suffer abuse from their children.

    “Teenagers may swear at you once but they shouldn’t be doing it every day [and] no teenager should hit their mother,” Professor Wilkes said.

  • Working for Families breaches International law.

    Thanks Ruby for bringing this to our attention:
    Hi Everyone,

    Working for Families breaches international law.

    I imagine you have seen this article:

    Wednesday, 2 July 2008, 3:18 pm
    Press Release: Public Health Association

    2 July 2008

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00026.htm

    Working for Families breaches international law: policy research

    Policy research from the University of Otago Wellington has found that in the initial development of Working for Families (WFF) (2002-May 2004) the Government failed to consider children’s rights, including their right to health, breaching binding international law.

    Keep up your good work.
    All the best
    Ruby Harrold-Claesson

    http://www.nkmr.org

  • New Zealand continues to follow Sweden

    From Family First NZ Media Release:

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2008/eight-smacking-prosecutions-in-six-month-period/

    “According to the Police Executive Meeting 6 Month Review papers, there have been no prosecutions for ‘smacking’, but the paper (Official police papers) says that “eight ‘minor acts of physical discipline’ events against children were prosecuted with six yet to be resolved.”

    This is what Ruby Harrold-Claesson informed us back in March 2007 about Sweden

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2007/emails-from-ruby-harrold-claesson/

    March 2007

    [4] – “There has been no increase in the number of parents drawn into the Swedish criminal justice system for minor assaults in the past 25 years.”

    Rebuttal: Before 1978 no parent would have been drawn before the police and prosecutor like the priest who had slapped his 16-yr old daughter. (See Case 1 in my Case Law). Deborah Coddington quoted Prof. Christian Diesen in her article “Anti-smack campaign fails to pack a punch”, (http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=271&ObjectID=10393619). Diesen said that there are “7000 reports of child abuse per year in Sweden, but only 10 % are prosecuted.” These are statistics from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
    Diesen says “only 10% are prosecuted.” He wants to see more prosecutions – even if the parents should be found not guilty.

    Recent statistics show that there are 11 000 reports of child abuse per year in Sweden and that there has been a 14% increase between 2005 – 2006. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm

  • Eight Smacking Prosecutions in Six Month Period

    MEDIA RELEASE

    10 August 2008

    Eight Smacking Prosecutions in Six Month Period

    Family First NZ says that claims that there have been no smacking prosecutions are false and misleading.

    Official police papers obtained by Family First NZ under the Official Information Act show that prosecutions against parents who use minor physical discipline or light smacking are being masked under a category that has no statutory definition.

    According to the Police Executive Meeting 6 Month Review papers, there have been no prosecutions for ‘smacking’, but the paper says that “eight ‘minor acts of physical discipline’ events against children were prosecuted with six yet to be resolved.”

    “The problem is that there is no statutory definition for either ‘smacking’ or ‘minor acts of physical discipline’,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “So rather than call them smacking and draw attention, they are simply being classified under this undefined category.”

    “These so-called minor acts also show a 200% increase in families being investigated over a six month period yet less than 10% were serious enough to consider warranting a prosecution. This would suggest that there is a huge drain on police resources in trying to meet the requirements of this flawed law.”

    “It is concerning that the anti-smacking law is being promoted as working by playing around with definitions, and that so many families are being investigated for minor acts. It is important to remember that there is still a definition of ‘child assault’ and this is the category that we should be throwing the resources and weight of the law at.”

    “You know a law is a bad law when it fails to deal with the problem it was supposed to deal with, while good families become the victims of it because nobody can accurately define what the law says or means,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers, according to recent research).

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Muriel Newman: Making a Difference

    		 The Debating Chamber Forum Index
    New Zealand Centre for Political Research – www.nzcpr.com

    NZCPR Weekly

    Making a Difference

    This week, NZCPR Weekly looks at whether individuals can make a difference (printer-friendly view>>>), NZCPR Guest Sheryl Savill explains why she started the petition to hold a Citizens Initiated Referendum on the smacking ban, and the poll asks whether a smack should be a criminal offence.

    Can an individual make a difference?

    Sheryl Savill would like to think so. Sheryl is the instigator of the Citizens Initiated Referendum petition on smacking. Launched in February last year, her petition asked the question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    Sheryl, a young mother of two, whose husband is a police officer, is this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator. In her article she explains, “I am not normally one to get involved in politics or public demonstrations. But when I realised how the anti-smacking bill would directly affect the way I was raising my children, I just knew that I had to do something. And I discovered very early on that I wasn’t the only one who felt this way – many of the parents I talked to thought the bill was ludicrous. So ludicrous, they felt that there wasn’t even a need for a petition… surely our politicians weren’t that blind”.

    Well, Sheryl, it appears that they were (and are)!

    The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill – which repealed Section 59 of the Crimes Act to remove the defence of “reasonable” force for parents who physically discipline their children – was passed by the vast majority of Parliament in May last year. Only 8 MPs voted against it: ACT’s Rodney Hide and Heather Roy; New Zealand First’s Winston Peters, Ron Mark and Pita Paraone; United Future’s Judy Turner; and the Independents Gordon Copeland and Philip Field.

    Both Labour and National changed their stance on the issue, originally intending to allow their MPs exercise a conscience vote, but ultimately requiring them to vote along party lines. This turnaround was particularly damaging for Labour as before the 2005 election, the Prime Minister went on record stating, “As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No-one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court”. 1

    The resignation of Philip Field from the Labour Party in February 2007 had a major influence on the Prime Minister. Field’s resignation cut Labour’s majority and forced the Government to turn to the Green Party – but their support came at a high price which included government backing for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.

    For many New Zealanders the Prime Minister’s u-turn became symptomatic of the inherent problems with MMP. It demonstrated that under MMP parties are quite prepared to abandon any principles they might have held in order to retain power. It showed that under MMP, the needs of the electorate and the good of the country are all too often relegated to secondary considerations.

    Under the new law, any parent who uses any sort of force – verbal or physical – to discipline a child is breaking the law. And while the Police have the discretion not to prosecute a particular case, all cases must nonetheless be investigated by the Police and Child Youth and Family. That takes the state right into the heart of the family, judging parents and dictating how they should or should not raise their children.

    Sheryl explains that this was one of the main reasons that she started the Referendum petition: “The government was intruding yet again into the lives of parents, and as a mum, I was really concerned about the impact that this type of bill would have on my family. To remove and undermine a parent’s authority in their own home is a treacherous area for the State to wade into”. To read Sheryl’s article here>>>

    And the horror stories that are starting to emerge are very worrying with children as young as five telling parents that they have rights and threatening to report them to their teachers or the Police if they try to discipline them. If you have concerns about the effects of this new law, please feel free to share them when you vote in the poll.

    The law change proved to be very damaging for Labour, as the trend series for the Colmar Brunton political opinion polls shows. According to the poll taken in May 2007, just after the passing of the Bill, support for Labour had dropped from 39 percent in mid-April to 31 percent, their lowest poll rating since February 1997. In comparison, National rose in the poll from 49 percent to 56 percent, their highest poll rating since September 1990. With July’s Colmar Brunton poll showing Labour on 35 percent and National on 52 percent support, history may well show that for Labour, the anti-smacking bill was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Sheryl Savill’s petition for a Citizens’ Initiated Referendum is New Zealand’s forty-second petition since the CIR Act was introduced in 1993. While referenda have been proposed on matters as diverse as outlawing battery hens, saving forests, and changing the flag, only three have been successful so far. They were the 1995 firefighters referendum, supported by 87.8 percent of voters, and the 1999 proposals by Margaret Robertson to reduce the number of MPs and by Norm Withers to introduce tougher sentences for violent crime. They gained 81.5 and 91.8 percent support respectively.

    Parliament’s Clerk’s Office, which is checking whether the petition has been signed by 10 percent of registered voters, is expected to deliver the news on its success or otherwise by August 23rd. If successful, the government must announce the referendum date within a month, and the ballot must then be held within a year.

    Undoubtedly, the best time to hold a citizens initiated referendum is at an election. It ensures a far higher turnout at a much lower cost. However, it appears highly unlikely that the Prime Minister will want anti-smacking “nanny-state” accusations clouding the election campaign, even though putting her own political interests ahead of the wishes of the public will cost taxpayers an estimated $10 million – the cost of holding a stand-alone referendum.

    I started this column by asking whether an individual can make a difference. Sheryl is definitely making a difference.

    In my own way, I would like to think that I am also making a difference with the New Zealand Centre for Political Research. As many of you will know I established the NZCPR straight after the 2005 election, when I found that my nine-year Parliamentary term had suddenly come to an end. I believed that a public policy think tank could make a real contribution to changing the future direction of New Zealand by using research, publications and open public debate to promote the power of the free market as well as the benefits of liberty, responsibility and limited government.

    While most people were very encouraging, many said I would not be able to find the funding. However, I decided to put my trust in the readers, believing that if they agreed with what I was doing they would support me.

    In many respects the NZCPR has been an outstanding success. NZCPR Weekly is delivered to leading decision-makers and discerning readers through what is probably the country’s largest electronic mailing list, and, thanks to the enthusiasm of recipients, NZCPR newsletters are regularly circulated around the Internet – even making it onto Fox News!

    The NZCPR website (www.nzcpr.com) has grown in popularity now attracting around a million hits a month and evolving into a veritable treasure trove of services designed to keep readers well informed with live local news feeds on the HOME page, international feeds on the MEDIA page, and political feeds on the PARLIAMENT page.

    The NZCPR FORUM (http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/index.php) is an important part of the operation for it is here that your opinion counts. The wealth of weekly comments from readers can be found in HANSARD, the HOUSE is the window into Parliamentary business, and the GENERAL DEBATE features commentary and information that NZCPR subscribers would like to see promoted more widely.

    Christine Davey is a Forum contributor who is making a real difference. Mother of a P addict, Christine wanted to highlight how this dangerous drug is destroying lives. She started the blog “P” and the NZ Community on our Forum and has now built a comprehensive resource on the damage caused by P. Through the blog, Christine has gained the confidence to speak out, to challenge Members of Parliament, to write press releases, and now to become the Spokesman on Drug Issues for the Sensible Sentencing Trust.  As she recently explained to me, “All this has come about because you invited me to join your Forum 2 years ago – and look where I am now!” (To read Christine’s story visit her blog on http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20)

    With your assistance, the ideas communicated through the NZCPR are making a real difference and are helping to shape the future direction of New Zealand. But while our influence continues to grow, funding remains a real struggle. The New Zealand Centre for Political Research has become a full-time commitment, taking all of my time and effort to keep it going. If you value the work of the NZCPR, then please help me – I can only continue on with your support… if you would like to help, please click here>>>

    NZCPR POLL
    This week’s poll asks: 
    Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
    Please feel free to share your experiences of the new anti-smacking law.
    To vote click here>>>
    (Readers comments will be posted here>>> daily)

    FOOTNOTES:
    All articles can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE – click here>>>
    1 TVNZ News, PM’s stance on smacking questioned

  • Runaway girl’s parents give CYF joint custody

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4649975a11.html

    Runaway girl’s parents give CYF joint custody

    By AMY MILNE – The Southland Times | Saturday, 09 August 2008

    The parents of an Invercargill teenager have voluntarily signed joint custody of their daughter over to Child, Youth and Family in the hope it will prevent her from running away from home again.

    Janelle Savage, 14, was found in Christchurch on Wednesday night, ending three months of anguish for her parents John and Christine Savage.

    Police found Janelle, who had been missing from Invercargill since May 9, at the South City Mall in Columbo St about 6pm on Wednesday after a tip.

    Police placed Janelle in the care of Child Youth and Family, and yesterday her parents signed joint custody over to the organisation in the bid to curb her habit of running away.

    She was yesterday transferred from Christchurch to CYF’s Puketai Residential Centre in Dunedin.

    It was a decision the Savages grappled with but believed it was the right one.

    “Christine and I are finding this very tough,” Mr Savage said.

    “We love our daughter a lot and are trying to do the right thing … it’s a hard decision to sign her to Social Welfare (Child Youth and Family) — joint custody — it’s hard to do that to your own kid. But I’m hoping this is going to break the cycle and she’ll know the consequences for her running away.” Police knew little of what Janelle had been doing but believed she had been staying predominantly with a former Invercargill woman.

    The woman the Savages believed Janelle was staying with in Christchurch used to live next door to the family. Janelle had run off to stay with her four times now, Mr Savage said.

    He said the woman was a bad influence on Janelle.

    While Mr and Mrs Savage had not spoken to Janelle, they had received text messages from her saying she was “very sorry, she loves us and wants to come home”, Mr Savage said.

    “It brought a bloody tear to the eye, actually.

    “We love our kids. We love Janelle and we just want what’s best for her and it’s a wee bit hard when she keeps running away.” Janelle would remain at Puketai at least until Monday when a decision would be made about whether she would stay on, come home or be placed into another CYF home, Mr Savage said.

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

    This is a terrible situation. The parents lost the heart of their daughter to their neighbour and it has wrecked their family life. If you are in a similar situation I would highly recommend listening to this tape. It is excellent:

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2008/changing-the-heart-of-a-rebel/

  • T.S. Eliot on transmission of culture

    Quote from TS Eliot

  • Kiwi Party leader outlines first five pledges.

    Addressing his party’s annual conference today, party leader Larry Baldock announced their first five priorities for action they would be working on after the election.

    “Our number one priority is of course to stop the criminalisation of good parents by repealing the anti-smacking law. This has to be the most anti-family socially destructive legislation parliament has passed in a long while. Completing the petition to force a referendum was always only going to be the first stage of the battle,” said Mr Baldock

    “It is simply not good enough for John Key to say he supports the peoples’ right to have their voice heard in a referendum without committing his Government to abide by the result.

    “In fact when National’s leader John Key announced their pledge of 10 policy items at their conference last weekend not a single one of them addresses any of the social engineering Labour has forced upon the nation in the past 6 -9 years.

    National surely is the party to maintain the status quo, easy she goes, don’t rock the boat.
    It is essential therefore that the Kiwi party is able to exercise influence over National after this years election if voters want to see the social engineering of Labour repealed.

    “Our message to the voters in this election is this, give the Kiwi party your support on Election Day and the Bradford anti-smacking law will be gone by lunchtime. Once the law has been repealed we must then get serious about the nations child abuse by appointing a Royal Commission  to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in response to the more than 300, 000 kiwis that signed our petition on this matter.

    “Then we must restore our democracy by ensuring that we can have binding referenda on controversial issues. It must never happen again that more than 90% of our elected representatives could ignore 80% of the population ever again……….

    Contact Larry Baldock
    Party Leader
    021864833

    www.thekiwiparty.org.nz