Author: HEF Admin

  • Smacking the Parents

    http://www.nkmr.org/english/taboos_smacking_parents_by_james_heartfield.htm
    .

    The consequences of Sweden’s anti-smacking laws for family life should be a warning to Britain,
    reports James Heartfield

    (This short article first appeared in the June 1999
    issue of LM Magazine.)
    Smacking the Parents
    A 23-year old Eritrean refugee, raising her two girls on her own, was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for having spanked her youngest daughter, aged six. The children were placed in an orphanage. They spoke no Swedish and thought that the police bad taken their mother away and shot her, as the Ethiopian police might have. A stepfather who slapped his two boys, aged 11 and 12, after they were caught stealing, was imprisoned for a year. A young Thai widow who slapped her 14-year old daughter’s face was imprisoned for a month, and all four of her children taken from her to a foster home. The 15-year old daughter of a Bosnian refugee was fostered after her mother disciplined her with a belt. The foster parents’ address was kept secret from her family. As Harrold-Claesson says, ‘the law targets immigrant parents, and parents with strong religious beliefs’. According to Sweden’s National Board of Welfare, no immigrant can avoid prosecution by referring to the child-rearing practices in his home country.
    The Swedish law is supposed to protect children. But according to Harrold-Claesson, ‘the effect on children is devastating: they lose contact with their families and their playmates to be “replanted in new soil’. She says that ‘real abusers are more devious than the parents who discipline their children out of love, hiding nothing’. But the real damage is done by the law itself: ‘To fail. to discipline a child, not to give it any boundaries, is real cruelty.’ In Sweden even sending, a child to his room, ‘room arrest’, is illegal, seen as cruel treatment and deprivation of liberty.
    Harrold-Claesson objects that the authorities start out with an assumption that ‘the family is principally bad – in Sweden the family does not count’. Through the crazy theories of psychologists, ordinary family relationships are viewed with suspicion. ‘One mother I defended was accused of having a “sick symbiotic relationship” with her daughter – they meant that she loved her.’ Where parents are unable to cope because of problems like alcoholism or addiction, the social services stop grandparents from taking the children in, on the grounds that they are to blame for the parents’ shortcomings – they raised them that way.
    Harrold-Claesson has successfully defended many parents against imprisonment, even taking Sweden to the European Court itself. For her efforts she has been marked down as a troublemaker. ‘I’m branded as a child abuser’, she says, matter-of-factly. Now the courts in Gothenburg stop her defending parents, by refusing to appoint her as a public defender. ‘You are not to talk about human rights in Sweden, because we are supposed to have them already’, she says.
    In the 1980’s right-wing governments in America and Britain tried to enforce personal morality in the name of ‘family values’. That led to bigotry and discrimination. Those ‘problem families’ that failed to live up to the ideal were pushed around, and sometimes broken up. But the reaction against ‘family values’ is in some senses even worse.
    For many caring professionals it seems that there is a predilection to believe the worst of ordinary families. Their reverse image of the ‘family values’ ideal is the assumption that all families are potential sites of abuse. If Sweden is anything to go by, a British law against what many consider to be normal parental discipline could act as a green light to childcare professionals to break up families, imprison parents and send children to or secret foster homes.

    Angels of Antichrist

    Confident Parenting

    Helena Lufuma Case

    The Fight for the Family

    Back to Article Index

    Article Archives

  • 2005/06 Estimates Vote Child, Youth and Family Services -Report of the Social Services Committee

    Section 59 of Crimes Act 1961
    Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 refers to the use of force towards a child by way of
    correction. Regardless of any criminal action, the department takes independent action if it
    believes a child is in need of care or protective services. Thus, the section does not prevent
    the department intervening directly with a family if this is deemed appropriate.
    The department is moving this year to provide a specific service for children witnessing
    family violence.

    Also from the Transcription at the bottom:
    Scott: Can I have a sup on that. I just want to ask what the department’s opinion
    is on section 59.
    Dyson: The department doesn’t have a view on section 59.
    Scott: What I want to know really is does that defence cause difficulties for the
    department? Do people use that defence? Do they know it’s there even, or
    does it not register?
    Tyler Our work is quite different and we take a look independent of any other
    statutes, whether or not according to the definitions in our Act the child is
    in need of care or protective services. Regardless of any criminal action, we
    will take action independent under our statute. So that can never be used as
    a defence.
    Dyson So the recent case would not stop Child, Youth and Family intervening
    directly with that family, if Child, Youth and Family determined, under our
    criteria, that it was appropriate. It is irrelevant what the correct decision is in
    terms of intervention.
    Scott So it’s totally separate what happens with the police as to what happens
    with Child, Youth and Family?
    Dyson Yes.

    Again just snippets from this for the full transcript go to:

    http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/Content/SelectCommitteeReports/ssvotecyfs06.pdf

    2005/06 Estimates Vote Child, Youth and Family Services
    Report of the Social Services Committee

    Introduction
    Appropriations sought for Vote Child, Youth and Family Services in 2005/06 total
    $457.331 million, an increase of $24.619 (5.69 percent) million compared with 2004/05
    estimated actuals.
    Total departmental output expense appropriations are $386.250 million, and nondepartmental
    output expense appropriations $70.716 million. Capital injections of $12.375
    million will be provided.

    Whole-of-government approach
    The department seeks to engage with organisations in the government sector to help young
    people and children, and we were informed that it has the confidence and capability to do
    so. This broad approach is important because various factors affect family security,
    including the security of home tenure, family income, and school attendance.
    1
    Non-governmental organisations
    Such organisations take on cases requiring family support rather than investigation, and can refer them back to the
    department if an investigation is required. The organisations will report back on their work
    and a steering committee has been established. It is hoped that earlier engagement with
    families will prevent issues that might lead to abuse or neglect.
    Notifications
    Over 53,000 notifications of possible abuse or neglect were received over the 12 months to
    May 2005, significantly more than in the previous 12 months. These notifications involved
    about 30,000 individual children. Of the notifications, 11,488 were substantiated.
    The department advised us that notifications have increased for various reasons. There is
    more awareness and less tolerance of child abuse or neglect. Organisations are more
    proactive in responding to suspected child abuse, and likely to engage the department
    earlier. The department also believes that it is becoming more responsive, and understands
    better the subtleties of child abuse and neglect.
    We will continue to monitor this trend.
    The department is assessing its response to notifications, and assured us that sustainable
    high-quality services will be delivered despite the increased demand. Many calls to the
    department seek advice or help in locating services, and the department is working with the
    Ministry of Social Development to set up a help line to address such needs.

    Clientele
    Forty three percent of clients are Maori, 31 percent are New Zealand Pakeha, and 6.25
    percent are Pacific Islander.
    Children in care
    More than 4,000 children are in care. About 50 percent of them are in family placements,
    many of which are long-term. We expressed concern that the department may override the
    opinions of parents whose children have behavioural difficulties. We were told that if a
    parent is concerned that a social worker is overriding their decisions they should talk to the
    supervisor or a manager. After an investigation a social worker decides whether a child
    needs care and protection, and this is discussed at a family group conference. If there is no
    agreement, the decision is made by the judiciary. The importance of the proper process
    being followed and the balanced consideration of different perspectives was acknowledged.
    Contact with children
    We noted the importance of the department maintaining contact with children who have
    been brought to its attention. We were advised that if a social worker visits a child and he
    or she is not home, this fact is recorded and the home is revisited. Finding a child can be
    difficult, and may require the department to work with schools, the Ministry of Social
    Development, the public health sector, and the police. This difficulty reinforces the
    importance of investigating quickly.
    Safety
    We expressed concern at the death of a young person at the Kingslea Residential Centre,
    and another under a non-governmental organisation’s care. We were told that the
    department works with the Children’s Commissioner over response strategies, which are
    then communicated to the front-line and agencies involved. The death of the young person
    in the non-governmental organisation’s care will be subject to a coroner’s hearing. The
    department will talk to the commissioner after the coroner’s hearing, and examine the
    coroner’s recommendations. We were assured that the case was thoroughly investigated.
    Investigation of deaths
    We note that if a child dies in a hospital there may be a full investigation involving all those
    who had contact with the child, and an examination of the child’s treatment to improve
    practice. However, when a child dies in the community there is no such review unless the
    coroner or the police decide to take action.
    We were told by the department that after a child’s death a report is written for the
    commissioner, who decides whether a full review is called for. Sometimes both the
    commissioner and department undertake reviews. The deaths of children known to the
    department are often due to natural causes, and are noted in hospital reviews. The
    department sometimes has in its care children whose health is fragile. It has been
    examining thematic reviews of the cases of children who die, so as to learn from these and
    to provide this information to front-line staff. We believe that the case for full investigation of
    child deaths has merit.
    The complaints process
    We noted the process for complaining to the department has caused confusion. We were
    told that a clear and robust complaints process is being installed.
    Section 59 of Crimes Act 1961
    Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 refers to the use of force towards a child by way of
    correction. Regardless of any criminal action, the department takes independent action if it
    believes a child is in need of care or protective services. Thus, the section does not prevent
    the department intervening directly with a family if this is deemed appropriate.
    The department is moving this year to provide a specific service for children witnessing
    family violence.
    Social workers
    The department has 2,362 full-time equivalent staff, 17 percent of whom identify
    themselves as Maori.
    The department employs 1,150 social workers. The number of social work staff has
    increased in the last two years. In 2003 the benchmark for social work staff was 982; it is
    now 1,122.
    Shortages
    There are some staff shortages. Auckland is the most difficult area for which to recruit
    front-line social workers, and some graduates are reluctant to move there. The recruitment
    of New Zealand social workers by other countries is a problem.

    Risk-estimation system
    The risk-estimation system helps social workers assess the level of risk of children. The
    system is used in nearly all appropriate cases, and the department is pleased with this
    uptake.

    Appendix
    Approach to this examination
    We met on 16 June and 14 July 2005 to consider Vote Child, Youth and Family Services.
    Our examination took one hour and 36 minutes. Evidence was heard from the Associate
    Minister for Social Development and Employment (Child, Youth and Family) and the
    Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and advice received from the Office of
    the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Library.
    Committee members
    Georgina Beyer (Chairperson)
    Dr Muriel Newman (Deputy Chairperson)
    Paul Adams
    Sue Bradford
    Judith Collins
    Hon Taito Phillip Field
    Bill Gudgeon
    Moana Mackey
    Dr Lynda Scott
    Hon Judith Tizard
    Evidence and advice received
    In addition to the standard Estimates documents, we considered the following evidence
    and advice during this examination:
    In addition to the standard Estimates documents, we considered the following evidence
    and advice during this examination:
    · 2005/06 Estimates: Vote Child, Youth and Family Services – transcript of the
    hearing of evidence
    · Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, Developing the Differential Response
    Model, 20 May 2005
    · Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, The Year Ahead (2005/06) –
    Making a Difference for Children, Young People and Families, 2005
    · Finance and Expenditure Committee, 2005/06 Estimates Examination, Vote: Child,
    Youth and Family Services, May 2005
    · Hon Ruth Dyson, Child, Youth and Family: A Year of Progress – Working for the
    Safety and Well-Being of Our Children, 2005
    · Office of the Auditor-General, 2005/06 Estimates Examination Briefing to the Social
    Services Committee, Vote: Child, Youth and Family Services, 16 June 2005
    · Parliamentary Library, Estimates 2005/06: Vote Child, Youth and Family – Issues Paper,
    30 May 2005

    Then there is the transcript that makes for interesting reading:

    Corrected transcript
    Estimates: Vote Child, Youth and Family Services
    Social Services Committee
    23 June 2005
    Members
    Georgina Beyer (Chairperson)
    Dr Muriel Newman (Deputy Chairperson)
    Paul Adams
    Sue Bradford
    Judith Collins
    Hon Taito Phillip Field
    Bill Gudgeon
    Dr Lynda Scott
    Hon Judith Tizard
    Staff
    Graham Hill, Clerk of the Committee
    Paul Bellamy, Research Analyst, Parliamentary Library
    Paul Mahoney, Research Analyst, Parliamentary Library
    Mere Te Huki, Parliamentary Officer (Committee Support)
    Witnesses
    Hon Ruth Dyson, Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)
    Paula Tyler, Chief Executive
    Dr Marie Connolly, Chief Social Worker
    Debbie Gee, Communications Manager
    Lorraine Williams, General Manager, Operations
    Shannon Pakura, General Manager, Service Development
    Bernadine MacKenzie, General Manager, Quality Assurance
    Craig Smith, Acting General Manager, Strategy and Planning
    Jo Mika-Thomas, General Manager, People and Capability
    Viv Rogers, General Manager, Organisational Services
    Lynda Angus, Regional Manager, Wellington/Central Regions
    Stewart Bartlett, Lawyer

    Again only notes here:

    Dyson: So we are now moving into a phase of what I describe as performance
    excellence, and that is not a term that I would use lightly.

    The department will maintain delivery of
    sustainable quality services, despite that growing demand.

    But I also have to say that praise of the organisation should be given as well.
    They have a very, very hard job and they are doing it increasingly well, and I
    am very proud to be their Minister.

    Tyler: Interestingly, I guess even though we do have increasing calls, we don’t
    actually see an increase in our substantiated cases that is above and beyond,
    I guess, normal population growth. Certainly, our vision means that all New Zealanders do care about
    their children and do work together to prevent child abuse, neglect, and
    offending.

    The first is that we know that increased media concern about child abuse
    does result in more calls to our call centre… We do know that, as our society becomes
    concerned about family violence, the police, in fact, are responsible for a
    huge increase in our notifications.
    We also are actually becoming more responsive and this is due to more
    understanding in our system and in systems internationally about the
    subtleties of child abuse and neglect. Again, moving from that, bumps and
    bruises are sort of a very visible sign of abuse to some of the more subtle
    effects of neglect and emotional abuse over time.

    In terms of performance, we have been really proud of the performance
    over the past year on all of these areas. I will talk to each one of them
    separately. In terms of productivity, we have actually immeasurably
    increased our productivity by 43.6 percent. I felt a little bit odd about using
    these sorts of figures and talking about productivity, but what it really
    means is that the effort that we spent has been more directed and
    streamlined, and that has allowed almost 13,000 more investigations to
    occur now in this period than we would have been able to do at 2003
    productivity rates. So that is really significant. What it means is that kids are
    being seen in a more timely manner and determinations of whether children
    have been abused or neglected are being made much more quickly, so that
    issues can be resolved.

    So what
    we have done is clarify and streamline our investigative processes. That has
    meant that social workers have more time to undertake restorative work for
    children and families; they are not spending all their time investigating; they
    are spending more time moving children and families to well being.

    For New Zealand to be one of the jurisdictions that is managing to
    continue to attract increasing numbers of qualified staff is really very
    significant. So we are quite proud of this.

    . We are listening to vulnerable children and
    young people and we are going to increase participation of young people
    through the revitalisation of family group conferences.

    We are going to bring our understanding and experience of vulnerable
    young people and children to policy tables across the sectors of
    Government where the services that are provided there make a huge
    difference to the success for our children. We are going to work very
    closely, and more closely, with NGOs and communities across the country
    to make sure that we are serving children in the right way and to involve
    them in terms of service provision.
    Our strategic objectives reflect that, in addition to focusing on service and a
    positive future, which means that children do not linger in our care, but
    rather go into long-term sustainable family situations. We are going to
    continue to focus on building our understanding of the needs of children
    and how best to do that, and making better and better decisions about our
    allocation of resources, time, effort, and money.

    Even though we have over
    4,000 children in care though, I would just want to point out that probably
    close to half of those children are in family placements and many of those
    placements are, indeed, long-term placements for children. So sometimes
    the figures don’t necessarily reflect the reality for children. Our policies are
    being finalised and implemented this year.

    We are going to provide more real
    practical support to social workers on the front line as well. We are moving
    into the second phase of our youth justice capability review and will be
    implementing some significant changes this year as well.

    And, of course, measuring on outcomes, outputs, and effectiveness
    performance and intake and intervention. In conclusion, one of the things we are going to be doing much in
    the next year, and we have already begun to increase, is our active
    involvement with other Government agencies on policy and programme
    development levels in terms of more integrated service delivery for children
    and young people with NGOs and other community organisations, and a
    broad-based community approach as well. Thank you.

    Collins: Minister, you have discussed, and seem to be very pleased with the better
    information systems that the department is bringing in, so we can find a
    good outcome for kids, so it is finding out as well why we have more
    notifications. Does that now mean that we are going to be able to find out
    just what the make-up of the homes where some of these children coming
    into CYFs care actually comprises, like they have for other countries, such
    as other children in the home with very young parents, having a home that
    is dependent on welfare, and a home with no dad, or no mum, or whatever.
    Are we going to be able to do that, because we have not until now?

    Tyler: Certainly, we will be able to do that. The issue for us is a bit of a translation
    issue, because our system is not a bad system, but it is a case-management
    system. So the information that is stored is relative to the situation for each
    particular child. It does not lend itself to us, for instance, asking right across
    the system what is the particular status of the child, what have we done, etc.
    etc. So it is very good, if I am a social worker and looking at a child’s file,
    what has ha ppened and needs to happen. The system has not been as good
    as a management information system. So now we are going to be making
    modifications to that system, and adding to it, so that we can ask those
    questions and get those answers.

    Smith: Perhaps the most profound use we have made of Dr Fergusson’s study would be in a suicide strategy. As a reslut of using that study, and the Otago Medical School study, we have created a youth suicide programme that is world-leading. We have halved the level of youth suicide in the Child, Youth and Family population in the last 3 years and international jurisdictions are lloking really closely at it. What we want to do from here is to use the approach that we have teken in the youth suicide strategy and apply it to our wider research programmes. So we are probably one of the better users of the Fergusson study.

    Dyson: But it is clear that there has been an increased societal
    intolerance for child abuse. That is a really good thing. We should have zero
    tolerance for child abuse and neglect. It reflects on the demands to the
    department.
    Certainly, society has changed in its attitude towards child abuse and
    neglect. A number of organisations have become much more proactive in
    their response to suspected child abuse, or even dysfunctional families in,
    schools, police, other social services agencies that are now more likely to
    engage Child, Youth and Family at an earlier stage. So that’s raised
    awareness and intolerance.

    Collins: But the increase every year does tend to indicate that there must be
    something increasing it. It is not just people’s awareness. It has to be-
    Dyson: That is why I think it would be useful for us to talk more about the nature
    of the cause.
    Pakura: What I can tell you is that we have had 53,000 notifications to date, and
    only 11,488 have substantiated child abuse and neglect findings.
    Collins: Actually, 11,000 is disgraceful.
    Pakura: I agree, but in terms of the number of notifications we have there are
    significant other notifications that reflect behavioural problems, custody
    issues advice. So 11,400 are child abuse and neglect.

    Adams: How many, if any, of your social workers have had a CYFs involvement
    with their own families?
    Pakura We’ll have to come back on that. I don’t have that with me.

    Newman: And can you just tell us what the caseloads are like?
    Pakura: The average caseload of a social worker at a national level is between 23 and
    25.

    Newman Does that mean you have problems in some provinces and cities? Where do
    you have staff shortages?
    Mike-Thomas The most difficulty in recruiting into the front line social work line is in
    Auckland. It is where we have the most positions that we need to fill.
    Newman Can you give us a reason?
    Mika-Thomas I have had some discussions with the schools of social work recently in
    terms of their graduates and where they are going. One of the comments
    they make is that who wants to go and live in Auckland, if they are not from
    Auckland. It is a very fine city and I used to live there myself. For some
    people who have not lived in Auckland, moving to Auckland, it is a big city,
    it is expensive, and all of those kinds of things.

    Bradford: There has been a case
    in Wellington recently where a little baby was killed. In tracing the
    experience of what had happened with that kid there had been CYFs
    involvement. What got me about what came out in the paper was that CYFs
    had visited the home a number of times and had just said: “No one home.”
    I am just wondering what the best practice is, and what you are doing about
    that, about visiting homes and there is no one there. Obviously, that case is
    on somebody’s books. Somebody is very worried, to some extent, about
    what is happening in that home. But they go there and there is no one at
    home, so they go away, and another month later they go back. That is what
    it looked like from what was in the paper..
    Pakura We do go back.
    Bradford: How soon do you go back when that happens?
    Pakura: The social worker will diary it and the social worker will go back. The other
    things that we do is we do searches. Sometimes we will talk to MSD to see
    whether they are transient and we also talk to the police to see whether
    there is a connection. We try to track and in some cases it is really, really
    difficult.
    Bradford: But you are really trying. That 23 to 25 cases, someone in those sort of
    situations, as you get better, they will be trying to track those babies and
    children?
    Pakura: And contact the school, the public health nurse, Plunket, and all of those
    agencies.
    Bradford: So you are really trying?
    Pakura: And quite often we get calls from other agencies saying that they have come
    into contact with the family there, and so we’ll send our people out.
    Bradford: So the transience that is behind those children’s lives is a huge part of the
    problem?
    Tyler: It is one of the reasons as well that shortening our investigation times is so
    important. Then we don’t lose track of children.
    Bradford: What worried me about it was it looked like a month between each visit. I
    thought, goodness, what’s happening in that month that they have not gone
    back.
    Pakura: Sometimes it won’t be a visit, it will be a phone call, they’ll try and track
    around. So they will use a number of mediums to try to track the family.
    Newman: Do you normally do a full investigation whenever a child who is associated
    with the department dies?
    Pakura: What we do is we make an assessment. Every time a notification comes in it
    is categorised and we make a judgment about what kind of response-
    Newman: After a child has died?
    Pakura: After a child has died we talk to the Children’s Commissioner and we make
    a judgment on whether a review is required. We do a report to the
    Children’s Commissioner.

    Tizard: I have been talking with the people in the child mortality study in Auckland
    and their concern on that matter was that where a child dies in hospital
    there is a full investigation absolutely regardless, where everyone who has
    come into contact with the child is talked to, every treatment, or action of
    staff, or anyone in the hospital is examined on a no-faults basis in an
    attempt to improve the practice.
    Their point is when a child dies in the community, unless the coroner
    chooses to take action, or the police, there’s never that sort of review. I
    wonder if it might not be useful for us to think about that difference and try
    to satisfy all of our concerns; that that should perhaps be an ordinary
    requirement for every child who dies.
    Dyson: Maybe if you want to go through the basis on which the Children’s
    Commission determines whether there should be an inquiry-
    Pakura: We do a report to the commissioner within 5 days. The commissioner looks
    at that, the chief social worker goes back and has a discussion. The
    commissioner will ask for further information, she will require further
    reports. The commissioner will then decide whether she wants us to do a
    full review. Sometimes Child, Youth and Family does a review and so does
    the Children’s Commissioner.
    Tizard: I am sure that that happened. My point is that what Starship Hospital in
    Auckland was saying was that they were finding better practice coming out
    of talking to everybody involved for every child. They are sure that they
    have saved lives and prevented injury through that process, not by saying
    that somebody at the top hasn’t dealt with the child saying well, perhaps,
    this is an inevitable and regretful occasion. It is what they do with every
    child and they believe that has improved their practice.
    Tyler: I have just a comment and that is that children who die who are known to
    us often die of natural causes and are picked up in hospital reviews and we
    have some very significantly medically fragile children as well sometimes. So
    the levels of review are a little bit different as they relate to practice.
    Tizard: But the hospital’s point-I’m sorry to go on-is that, yes, children do die of
    natural causes. But even when that has happened, there have been
    occasions where they have picked up-
    Dyson: So the investigation has a chance to look at best practice.
    Tizard: That they can do better.
    Tyler Perhaps Marie could comment, because she has been involved in these.
    Connolly: Since I have been in the department we have actually been looking at issues
    relating to children who die who we have some connections with. What I
    think we are finding is how important it is to learn from the experiences
    absolutely. We have been looking at thematic reviews of children who die,
    so that we can start picking up across those different cases the learnings
    from them so that we can then feed that back into the front line and
    practice notes and we can start having the dialogue around what risks there
    are for children.
    So, as Paula said, there are a range of children for whom we have some
    connection who die. Some are non-accidental injury, some are illness. Each
    will give us different sets of learning experiences that we want to capture
    and look at.
    Bradford: It is very impressive to hear of the progress that’s been made, but there’s
    one area that at least from my knowledge it still seems there are huge
    problems, and that is in relation to youth justice facilities in the number of
    children and young people who are having to stay in police cells. The courts
    are still bringing that out, and this is despite the efforts that the
    Government has made to improve and extend facilities.
    I guess I really have a fundamental question, even when all the beds that are
    being built come on line and are fully staffed, with wonderful staff, and all
    the rest of it, which we hope will happen, or is happening, will there be
    enough beds then? I mean it feels that there may not be, just as our prison
    system is having the same problem.
    Dyson: You remember at the select committee last year I think we talked about the
    residential services strategy, where, clearly building more beds is part of the
    strategy, but it can’t be the only ones. We have looked at things like
    supported bail, police practice, judicial practice. Lorraine might want to give
    you a bit of an update on the sort of range of things.
    Dyson: The youth court judge has been raising the question. I think it is valid to
    raise an issue of beds, bed numbers, and Rolleston is opening soon. That
    will put another 12 beds to be available, but that is not the only solution.
    You just cannot keep building more beds. You have to look at the whole
    picture and the range of things that are available.
    Williams: Just a bit of a brief summary. We have 90 justice beds on tap now and
    another 12 coming on in October. We do need, as the Minister said, to
    identify other ways that we can actually help with these young people. It
    appears to be that the more beds we put up the more demand there is for
    them.
    Bradford: But are those other ways happening?
    Williams: Yes, they are. We have working groups looking at them at the moment.
    Bradford: They are not actually implemented yet.
    Pakura: We have the supported bail programme. That has come in since January
    2005 and that is looking at supporting 300 children who come on-stream.
    That is a direct programme to minimise the use of residential beds and
    police cells. So that is the programme we are focusing on now.
    Bradford So that is booked in?
    Pakura It started in January.
    Dyson: What is that 300 figure. Is that 300 at once, or 300 over a year, or-
    Pakura: When the programme is fully implemented, which will be at the end of
    2007, we will be able to service 300 young people. So we are piloting it at
    the moment. So the supported bail is a direct effort to manage the beds and
    keep children out of police cells.
    Dyson: It’s not very many at the moment, but actually we are not talking about very
    many young people across the whole country, anyway. So you only have to
    take a few out of those police cells, or youth justice residence facility. They
    are supported appropriately, they are safe, the community is safe, so it’s a
    really valid option. You don’t have to take very many out to fill up those
    beds.
    Bradford: And supported bail would tend to leave them at home, whatever their home
    is-
    Pakura: At home with their caregiver with some support around them, yes.
    Collins: In the youth justice area and the work that so many social workers have
    with family group conferences, there’s been, over the years, constant
    complaints about social workers not having the work up to date, not having
    reports due in time for family group conferences, or nothing actually
    happening after the family group conferences. What have you done to deal
    with that issue, and has there been any marked improvement?
    Pakura: Eighty-five percent of young people who get referred to family group
    conferences, 64 percent only have one, so that is significant, and 85 have
    two. The referrals to FGC are from the Police. So it is police that are meant
    to bring the information to the family group conference. There was an issue
    about the capacity of the organisation to respond to plans. We’re working
    with community agencies and families to see how we can be supported, and
    the young person can be supported, to deliver on those plans.
    Collins: So you’re looking at it, but has there been an improvement yet?
    Pakura: Yes, there has.
    Scott: I have two sups now, because one was on family group conferences. It was
    the question I was going to ask. We were talking about health before. In the
    health area now you have very good complaints assessment processes. In
    my electorate office I have had a lot of people come to me over the last 6
    years with complaints about CYFs. One of those main complaints has been
    when they have a complaint they just don’t know where to go. Normally,
    you would make them go through the process first, unlike the health system
    where it is very clear where to go. And the other complaint is about after
    the family group conferences CYFs not following through on their part of
    the bargain. They do not know who to turn to in a complaints assessment,
    not to be vindictive, but to say “I’ve got a problem here.” So they come to
    me, which seems inappropriate, and I intervene to find out where they
    should go and how they should solve this. I wonder whether that has been
    improved.
    Tyler: Actually, we are in the process of putting in place a robust complaints
    process. It was one of the things that I identified as well when I came in as
    needing to be done. Ultimately, the chief executive is responsible, but that’s
    not the best way to solve problems-to go directly to the chief executive.
    So we will have in this fiscal year a very clear complaints process that
    advances in a very logical way, so that if people do not get satisfaction we
    can move it up the ladder. But it encourages the organisation to solve the
    issue closest to the child.
    Scott: So will each MP’s office get told about that?
    Dyson: We will make sure that yours is one of the first. The other thing I am
    looking at is part of the complaints procedure. I think it is very important
    that people understand what they should expect. Here is what you should
    get out of this process. A lot of people have unrealistic expectations of
    things. If we say: “This is what you should get. This is how long it should
    take. If you don’t get X, Y and Z, here’s the process to follow.” So that will
    be on both sides. It is not just an opportunity to complain. It is also a much
    clearer understanding of what people should be getting out of the process.
    So that is important for the person going into it. I think a lot of people go
    into FGCs not really understanding what the outcome should be.
    Scott: Yes, but a lot of the complaints have been: “Look I wrote down what the
    plan was, and this hasn’t been done; that hasn’t been done.”
    Dyson: I wasn’t saying that the criticism wasn’t valid. I am just saying that that is an
    important part of the complaints procedure. They should know what to
    expect.
    Scott: The other thing was back to the original question, which was about youth
    justice. How much is alcohol and drug abuse a problem with these children
    who you are dealing with. Now that we have shut down the Hamner beds,
    do we have beds to deal with alcohol and drug issues, because it is a big
    problem with the suicides as well?
    Pakura: Drug and alcohol is not the most significant issue in youth justice.
    Education outcomes is.
    Scott: Sorry, what is?
    Pakura: A significant number of youth offending takes place between 9 and 3.
    Scott: So they’re not at school.
    Pakura:: And second on the list is drug and alcohol. We are working with health to
    help us with programmes for young people.
    Scott: What I asked was, do you have enough beds to deal with children with
    significant drug and alcohol problems, because we shut some of them
    down?
    Pakura: In terms of do we have enough beds for these young people-
    Scott: To deal with their serious addiction.
    Pakura: I think what we try to do is keep these young people in the community with
    their families and their carers and try to bring the programmes to them.
    Scott: Is that working?
    Pakura: For the most part, yes, it is.
    Bradford: Just the last part, it’s only partly about youth justice, but there has been two
    cases-the one at Kingslea where a young person committed suicide in
    Kingslea, and the other case I was particularly worried about was the case
    up north where I live where a young person died while in an NGO
    provider’s care-supposedly in their care-and their disappearance was not
    reported for a long time. It seemed that the whole thing was really tragic. I
    just wondered in both those cases what steps the department’s taking to
    resolve the problems that have been shown by both those things.
    Connolly: In both of those situations, and in others, we look to consult with the
    Office of the Commissioner for Children and to work out strategies from
    there in terms of how we respond, rather than addressing the particular
    cases that you are speaking about. What we do from there is consult the
    Children’s Commission, decide what the best approach is, if there are
    practices used that emerged during that, we seek advice from the Children’s
    Commissioner on how we might do that. Then we would communicate that
    to the front line or to the agencies that are involved.
    Bradford: But surely, with a community-based NGO-type providers you would take
    quite urgent action to try to ensure what I would call a higher quality
    service?
    Pakura: Yes, absolutely.
    Tyler: We don’t wait in those situations.
    Dyson: That particular provider in this instance isn’t a provider currently.

    Newman: With regard to that case where a young boy went missing and was drowned,
    was anybody held accountable or responsible from the department? I
    understand the mother had not given him permission to go, so clearly,
    something odd happened.
    Connolly: I am not sure that I can really answer that question for you.
    Newman: Can you tell me why you can’t answer the question?
    Pakura: Stu, can you answer that?
    Bartlett: The matter regarding the young man in Northland is going to be subject to
    a coroner’s hearing. That hearing is likely to take place no earlier than
    November this year. We obviously do not want to and cannot talk about
    the detail of the matter before it goes through the coroner’s court. But what
    I can say, without going into any detail, is that on first brush it does not
    look like consent involving the department is an issue in this case, so to that
    extent it does not seem necessary that we should be looking at any kind of
    accountability issues in respect of the department.
    But we necessarily need to wait to see what the coroner has to say about the
    issue, because it is a complex issue in relation to that case. We would
    certainly be wishing to talk to the Children’s Commissioner after the
    coroner’s hearing, have a look at what the coroner’s recommendations are
    in that case, and go forward from there.
    Newman: Presumably, you do some preliminary work anyway, to figure out-
    Dyson: There’s been a lot of investigation, not just into that case, but into all similar
    cases, and fortunately there are very few of them. You can have an absolute
    assurance from me that that was investigated very thoroughly, including the
    issue that you raised.
    Beyer: Lynda, have you got any more?
    Scot:t Two of them have been answered, but it does go on from this about NGO
    providers. One of the changes that are being implemented is to look at
    those sort of cross-sectoral initiatives and the use of NGOs in different
    ways. I think the comment was made a lot of them are coming to the table
    to want to deal with them. Can you tell me how that’s going, what NGOs,
    what are your lines of accountability, how you are going to follow that up?
    Pakura: Over the last 18 months we have enjoyed a really good relationship with our
    NGOs. We have talked with them about the capability and capacity. They
    have talked with us about what parts of the work that we do that they could
    undertake. In terms of differential response, we have had a magnificent
    response from the NGO sector. They are meeting with us in July to provide
    some feedback on the work that they have been doing. Recently, we put
    together a steering committee that involves three significant NGOs that are
    going to be part of an ongoing process about how we continue with this
    work and-
    Scott:Can you tell me who they are?
    Pakura: Russell Martin from Open Homes, there is a representative from Waipareira
    Trust, and Barnardos.
    Dyson: What about talking about the piloting of the differential response, because I
    don’t think the committee has had that information.
    Pakura: Towards the end of last year we piloted differential response-43 providers.
    They have engaged with us at a local level. They have accompanied us out
    to families, picked up the work which requires family support, rather than
    investigation. So the ongoing work has been picked up by those agencies
    and it has made a huge difference to support of families, really. They have
    engaged with the NGOs positively.
    Scott: So does funding flow?
    Pakura: Yes.
    Scott: From that, once they are approved, funding goes to you from your
    department to them?
    Pakura: The NGOs can also refer back to us if they have through the engagement
    they find that there is a requirement for an investigation, they absolutely
    have the ability to refer back to us to conduct a forensic investigation.
    Dyson: This is hopefully, and I doubt whether it would be in the short term,
    avoiding the need for investigation in future so that we can get in and have
    engagement with the family at a much earlier level to stop the sort of issues
    that might lead to abuse or neglect.
    Scott: Like the Taming Toddlers programme on telly, have you seen that?
    Dyson: No, I haven’t seen that.
    Scott: It’s really good. It’s just behavioural management, that’s all.
    Gudgeon: With the increasing staffing especially in Maori and Pacific Island areas, it
    indicates that not all is well in these communities. What are the things that
    are really happening that people require your assistance? It was mentioned
    by an MP from the Government that there has been an increase in Maori
    qualifying and Pacific Island people qualifying in the social area. What are
    the other things that are happening out there that people require your
    assistance?
    Dyson: I am not sure if the two are related and the point that Jo was making earlier
    was that of our existing social work staff, there has been a higher percentage
    of qualified staff from our Pacific existing staff and our Maori existing staff.
    So that was the point that Jo was making. Of our total staff who are moving
    into registration, a higher number of Maori and Pacific staff are becoming
    registered. So it is a separate issue from what are the causes of phone calls
    to our call centres.
    Gudgeon: Is that telling us that with Maori and Pacific Island increasing in qualified
    staff that more and more Maori and Pacific Island people are coming to the
    fore?
    Dyso:n It’s showing that they are quicker off the block and getting professionalised
    within Child, Youth and Family.
    Gudgeon: And what is happening in the Maori and Pacific Island communities? I
    suppose naturally they will go to these people for counselling?
    Pakura: Not necessarily. What some of our Maori families would do is go to an iwi
    social service or a Pacific Island social service to look for support. Quite
    often the families that come to our attention, a significant number of them

    require support, rather than intervention. Some of that is to do with the
    isolation of those families. They are away from their family supports, so
    they require a further support.
    Gudgeon: Are there any other cases-supplementary to the question-that the things
    that are happening out there, there is a real struggle for people in
    communities? What are the things that are really happening out there that
    people need help for, besides what you have just mentioned?
    Dyson: You are sort of going across a whole range of social services I guess with
    your question, which is a little outside the Child, Youth and Family
    mandate. But of course, fundamental to the security of a family is the
    security of tenure of their home. We know that if a person has a home that
    they can afford to stay in, they are much more likely to be stable in their
    family environment and in their community.
    The engagement with school is a critical factor, with kids between 5 and 16,
    that they are able to get to school, and that they are not truanting. That is a
    critical factor. The family income is really important. The fact that we are
    now facing a problem with getting enough unemployed people is something
    that will obviously reduce that financial tension and self esteem that we
    have in families where they have long-term unemployment.
    So all those issues contribute to the security and well being of a family. That
    is where it is really important that we continue to take a whole of
    Government approach both in terms of the overall vision of our society but
    also right down to the operational level and the sorts of things that Paula,
    Shannon, Lorraine, and Jo have been talking about really indicate that Child,
    Youth and Family has now got the confidence and the capability to engage
    much better with the broader section-with education, with housing, with
    health, and with police. Those departments have all been mentioned at
    various stages of it.
    Field: Supplementary to Bill Gudgeon’s question, what I was trying to highlight
    with my question was the fact that CYFs clientele is hugely overrepresented
    by Maori and Pacific children. The concerns this committee
    originally had, and that was what was really behind my question, was
    ensuring that we had enough qualified social workers Maori and PI to be
    reflective of the clientele base of CYFs. That is what I was getting at, Bill.
    Perhaps, just to highlight that issue, if you could just answer that question.
    What is the percentage of Maori clientele; what is the percentage of Pacific
    clientele for CYFs services?
    Pakura: Forty-three percent are Maori, 31 are New Zealand Pakeha, 6.25 are Pacific
    Island, and there is a group that choose not to disclose their ethnicity.
    Adams: You monitor your performance excellent in regard to outcomes for these
    children that you are dealing with. I understand you have a lot of homes
    they go into, and all that. Do you have a standard where that child is
    actually a functional member back into the community again. Do you have a
    measuring stake for that?
    Tyler: There’s a real challenge in terms of measuring outcomes for children, but
    we are right sort of on the leading edge with that. I would ask Craig to
    comment on that. It is a very good question.
    Smith: This is a really challenging question. Measuring outcomes in child welfare is
    quite difficult. You are not just measuring the completion of an act or a
    process. You are thinking about how have you changed the complex
    dynamics of human behaviour, not only with an individual but within a
    whole family in a social system. We are really well advanced in terms of our
    outcomes thinking. We are strongly connected into the work that is being
    done around the social report and the outcome measures that will occur at a
    national level. You might recall the latest one in terms of our population is a
    reduction in child deaths. If you look at the work from the baseline review
    it is made very specific what our outcomes are-reduction in the current
    maltreatment and reduction in reoffending.
    We are having a meeting later this morning to present our service
    framework for measuring performance improvements to the officials
    advisory group which report to joint Ministers. So we are well along the
    track, but we are not naive enough to think that it’s going to be a simple
    matter.
    The reason it’s complex is that measures in social situations are dynamic,
    and it is quite possible for us to put in place a measure around one element
    of human behaviour, but then it has an adverse consequence on another
    element. For example, reducing in the recurrent maltreatment might
    inadvertently increase the number of children in care.
    So if we are going to introduce a measure such as reducing the recurrent
    maltreatment, we also have to have balancing measures that are about
    understanding the likely unintended consequences in other parts of the
    system. It is a complex area. We are working quite closely with international
    experts, one of whom is a colleague of Paula’s from Canada, a man called
    Nico Trocme who is a professor from Toronto University. He’s agreed to
    be part of our reference group. He is probably the world-leading expert on
    outcome measures in child welfare.
    Scott: Can I have a sup on that. I just want to ask what the department’s opinion
    is on section 59.
    Dyson: The department doesn’t have a view on section 59.
    Scott: What I want to know really is does that defence cause difficulties for the
    department? Do people use that defence? Do they know it’s there even, or
    does it not register?
    Tyler Our work is quite different and we take a look independent of any other
    statutes, whether or not according to the definitions in our Act the child is
    in need of care or protective services. Regardless of any criminal action, we
    will take action independent under our statute. So that can never be used as
    a defence.
    Dyson So the recent case would not stop Child, Youth and Family intervening
    directly with that family, if Child, Youth and Family determined, under our
    criteria, that it was appropriate. It is irrelevant what the correct decision is in
    terms of intervention.
    Scott So it’s totally separate what happens with the police as to what happens
    with Child, Youth and Family?
    Dyson Yes.
    Adams My second question is that I have had probably too many cases come to my
    electoral office that have concerned me, where there is a situation where
    parents have a child who has got into behavioural difficulties. The parents
    seem to be overridden by the department on restrictions or things they
    want to do with their own child. Everything tends to lead towards the rights
    of the child, rather than responsibility of a parent, and you have major
    conflicts where they are wanting to put certain disciplines in that they
    believe is correct for the well-being of that child, yet the department
    overrides them. How do we handle those sort of problems?

    Pakura: The determination about whether a child is in need of care and protection is
    a judgment that is made by a social worker after an investigation. It then
    goes to a family group conference and the family make the decisions about
    what the plan is. So the determination about whether a child is in need of
    care or protection is either agreed to, or not agreed to, at a family group
    conference. If it is not agreed to, it then goes to the judiciary to make a
    judgment, to make a call.
    Adams: These are probably cases that have not got to that stage, but let me give you
    an example of a child living at his or her home and wants to move out of
    that situation because of restraints the parent is putting on for the
    protection of the child, and gets moved to a foster home, or a situation
    where the child has greater freedom and can work with people, or move
    amongst people, that the parents don’t think is good for the child. Why
    does the parents’ right get overridden?
    Pakura: I think that if a parent is concerned that their decisions are being overridden
    by a social worker, then they need to talk to either the supervisor or a
    manager. I cannot comment on individual cases. What I can say to you is
    that a front-line social worker’s role is to make a judgment, or to form a
    belief, about whether or not a child is in need of care and protection. And if
    the outcome is that a child is removed from the home, then that social
    worker will have made a judgment at that time.
    Adams: They move them not because of the protection issue-that’s where I’m
    coming from-but because of the-
    Pakura: But they will have made a judgment that the child is at risk, and they are
    required, having made that judgment, to ensure that the child is safe.
    Dyson: The issue for me, when I am looking at those debates-not very often, but
    occasionally happens-where a parent will say that child is better off in our
    care, and the considered judgment of the department is that the child is
    unsafe in that environment and therefore should be removed. But the issue
    for me is has the proper process been undertaken, have all the proper steps
    been taken, the full consideration, the fair-balancing of all the different
    perspectives, and in the end some of those will be wrong.
    A child may be taken out when he or she could have been left safe in their
    home. That is possible, and in exactly the same way a child could have been
    left in the house when it is unsafe for that child to be left there. But if we
    had the proper process, the best practice, the quality decision-making that
    we are talking about, that would be an absolute exception that that decision
    has been wrong.
    Beyer: Can I stop you there. We are going to run over time on this vote. With the
    indulgence of the Minister I am quite happy to run over time; it means less
    time for the next vote. I have a line-up of three questions. I would like all
    sups and all questions to be specific to the estimates please. Getting into
    cases that come to your office is all very well, but please relate it to the
    estimates, which is what we are focusing on.
    Adams: In all fairness, it is not a safety issue that I’m referring to, but I think it is a
    major problem. It is not the question of safety in the home, but it is a
    question of restrictions on the child, which I think is causing major
    concerns.
    Pakura: Yes.
    Newman: I have three very quick ones on three different things. A call centre audio
    recording, what progress has been made on that?
    Willams: We have audio recording in and operating and it’s working incredibly well.
    It also has a side effect. We are able to use it for training of our staff, so it’s
    been well embraced in the call centre and is working very well. We have had
    three requests for transcripts since we have been operating. So, it has been
    there since January and working very well.
    Newman: So every call is now recorded and archived. How long do you archive it for?
    Williams: Indefinitely. These days it comes out on such a small piece of technology
    that we keep it indefinitely. We record not only calls coming into the centre
    but the calls that are going out to our sites with regard to the case.
    Newman: My second question is that there was a call in February for an independent
    inspection of departmental residences by Youth Law. Can you tell us what’s
    happened as a result of that call to the department to do that. Was there any
    response to it?
    Dyson: I don’t recall that just off the top of my head.
    Tyler:: We can get back on that. We certainly do do regular audits of our residences
    as well.
    Dyson: I am sorry, I just don’t recall right now the Youth Law independent inquiry.
    Newman: Apparently it was Youth Law.
    Dyson: Is it all right to get back to you formally about that?
    Newman: Yes. And the third thing is, have you a breakdown of the number of repeat
    notifications that make up the number of established cases of child abuse?
    Dyson: As repeat notification so that the second notification is the child abuse
    issue?
    Newman: No, the fact that five notifications out of 11,000 established cases are about
    the same child-
    Dyson: It might be one incident, but also repeat notifications might be one incident
    that five separate people have rung about?
    Newman: No, I am thinking of one child, five separate cases.
    Dyson: Over a period of time?
    Newman: Yes. In other words, how many children are we actually talking about, and
    how many families.
    Smith: I can tell you roughly. I will have to come back in much more detail if you
    want the specifics. Probably of the 50,000 notifications we are talking about
    30,000 distinct children.
    Newman: And the next question that adds on to that is how many different families
    are we talking about?
    Smith: I cannot answer that, but it will be a smaller number. As a result of some of
    the inquiries that have occurred over the last few years it relates back to the
    earlier questions. We now have a policy to follow up on all siblings within a
    family to ensure that there are no safety issues for them. So one would
    expect that there would be a smaller number of families than there would
    be of distinct child notifications.
    Newman: Can you maybe give us a bit more information on that area.
    Smith: Certainly.
    Newman: That would be good, thank you.
    Pakura: We would need to be clear about the definition of family. For some families
    it means different things.
    Smith: I would like to just add one other point. Distinct notifications does not
    necessarily mean about the same issue. It may well be that within the 12-
    month period a child has moved into a different developmental stage, or a
    different set of circumstances, so it might be a new and unique problem
    that is being presented.
    Gudgeon: What is the percentage of Maori social workers employed by CYFs, given
    that Maori make up 43 percent of your clientele?
    Mika-Thomas: I don’t have the specific breakdown of social workers, but of total staff, I
    think, off the top of my head, 17 percent of our staff identify as Maori.
    Dyson: Is that satisfactory for your answer, or would you like the social work
    information?
    Gudgeon: I think I need a bit more information on that.
    Collins: Just a quick question on the truancy issue that Shannon brought up about
    the youth justice area. Do you view truancy, or caregivers allowing truancy
    if they know about it, to continue, as an issue that CYFs should have
    anything to do with?
    Pakura: We get referrals that relate to truancy to go to family group conferences.
    Collins: And then you go to family group conferences on those?
    Pakura: Yes. Child, Youth and Family convenes the family group conference on
    behalf of that person, yes.
    Collins: So you take some extra action?
    Pakura: Yes.
    Beyer: Thank you very much Minister.
    conclusion of evidence

  • Why are you concerned about the Repeal of Section 59?

    Question
    Why are you concerned about the Repeal of Section 59? I don’t understand your concern about the repeal of Section 59. Surely you don’t really think that parents who smack their children are going to be hounded, harrassed, scrutinised, or charged with a criminal offence as a result? Please think seriously about the real intent behind this action.

    Answer
    Thanks so much for your comments.

    I will think the best of the intent behind the moves to repeal Section 59, that they want to see child abuse drastically reduced. So do I. I’m sure near all of us want that.

    However, the bottom line is that legislation will not stop it. We all know that. Legislation against murder doesn’t stop it. Legislation against speeding doesn’t stop it. Legislation against theft doesn’t stop it. Legislation doesn’t do what we want it to do, if, and I’m using a qualified “if” here…..if the objective is to reduce to the point of elimination the incidence of child abuse.

    I’ve talked with MP Sue Bradford who has introduced this bill. I’ve talked with Dr Cindy Kiro, the Commissioner for children. I’ve talked with Dr Joan Durrant, anti-smacking expert from Canada. I’ve talked with Beth Wood from UNICEF. I’ve talked with national office staff from Plunket and Barnardoes. You know what I’ve found? These folks define “violence” and “abuse” in a very different way than you and I would. They DO see a wee smack on the bottom as abuse. They see a slap on the wrist as violence.

    Although they say they do not intend to see honest, caring, responsible parents hounded and harrassed for giving a wee smack now and then, and although they say there is no evidence that such harrassment happens in countries such as Sweden, I’m afraid I have to totally disagree with them. I do not know if they say these things from ignorance or from a desire to cloud and hide the facts.

    First, why would they promote having laws on the books that they say they do not expect the police to enforce? If ever section 59 gets repealed, it becomes illegal for parents to use any force at all with their chidren. At first this sounds unbelievable. But that is the effect of repealing Section 59: should a parent force a child to finish his veggies or go to bed against the child’s will, the parent has committed criminal assault. All it takes is for the child or any other person to lay a complaint about the use of the force, and both the police and CYPs will be knocking at the door.

    Second, there is plenty of evidence that this goes on. Visit our website,
    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz click on
    Research and visit two of the options: “Listen to Newstalk ZB Interview” and “Smacking the Parents”. Then click on
    Links Visit the “NCHR — Nordic Committee for Human Rights” link. There is enough there to keep you aghast for weeks. Some of the other Links we’ve listed talk of related things: how government run, so-called “Child Protection Services” are out of control in the USA, victimising and destroying families apparently at will and without fear of being brought to justice.

    I am convinced that whenever Government goes where it should not go, it makes worse the problem it ostensibly went there to fix.

    Sex education has caused even more youth to become sexually active and increased the spread of STDs. Drug education has increased the use of drugs. So called “education” run by the state, the state schools, have steadily dumbed down the entire population. Read the
    Ministry of Social Development’s own webpage about how 46% of adult NZers are functionally illiterate if you don’t believe me. These adults are virtually ALL products of the state schools. Read on that page the Maori statistics…they are heartbreaking, and we know that today’s adult Maori were almost totally and exclusively schooled by the state (not being big users of private schools…and the Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa have not been around long enough to be blamed for these statistics). Unemployment benefits have increased the number of chronically unemployed. I’ve tried to employ such folks…it’s as if they’ve had the stuffings kicked out of them…no more motivation to work or to learn how to work since it is so easy to stand in a queue to get a livable wage. The DPB has created a whole new class of citizen who leave school with the aim of going onto the DPB…I’ve met them. Sickness benefits have likewise created a class of chronically ill.

    The experience of Sweden and the USA shows that when the state gets involved in caring for children, real abuse increases: specifically the abuse of children being left untrained and undisciplined by their parents for fear of being charged with assault plus the children being taken from their parents when they did try to discipline using force. The parent-child bond is very resiliant and can take a lot of stress. But when it is severed, as when these state agents take children into state “care”, it is the children who suffer most, primarily via the emotional trauma but secondarily via physical and sexual abuse and exploitation in the hands of professional “foster parents”.

    The major concern is one I’ve alluded to already: that if Section 59 is ever repealed, ALL parents will become criminals as soon as they use any force whatsoever with their children. Actually, the definition of assault, in Section 2 of the Crimes Act, is so broad that a parent only needs to cause the child to believe the parent is going to use force to exert the parent’s will, and the parent is guilty of assault….no physical contact is necessary. This is what is destroying Swedish society right now. Parents are frozen into fear and impotence by the law and children are able to abuse, manipulate and misbehave at will. And by the way, the best statistics show that child abuse in Sweden has increased dramatically since smacking was banned in 1979: read it on our website, www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz, click
    Research then “Corporal Punishment of Children”, then scroll down until you find the three links together:

    **Sweden – “Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment Increases Aggression?”
    This paper reviews the evidence on whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has been associated with a reduction in child abuse.

    **Sweden – Assaults on Children in Sweden
    Assaults on Children  http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden2.html  Dr. Larzelere compares his conclusions and the evidence for them with those of Durrant (1999) regarding the success of Sweden’s ban on spanking. A more recent critique appears in the Autumn 2001 issue of Families First (page 12) pdf.

    **Statistics from Sweden – Assaults on Children based on police-record data of physical assaults of children under 7 years of age (Wittrock, 1992, 1995).

    and these links will show the unpleasant truth.

    Thanks again for your question and the opportunity it gave to answer you.

    Kind Regards,

    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity
    PO Box 9064
    Palmerston North
    New Zealand
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

    Our Home….Our Castle

  • Robert E. Larzelere Ph.D

    Executive summary of “Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
    Robert E. Larzelere1 (1,2) and Brett R. Kuhn1 (1)

    (1) Psychology Department, Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska
    (2) Psychology Department, MMI, 985450 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, 68198-5450

    Abstract This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.

    to get the full copy email:

    Robert E. Larzelere robert.larzelere@okstate.edu

    or from the journal at http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0x4468k255187qg/


    Selected Publications on Physical Discipline by Parents by Dr. Robert Larzelere, with Internet Links

    Selected Publications on Physical Discipline by Parents by Dr. Robert Larzelere, with Internet Links (Oklahoma State University)

    Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8 (1), 1-37.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0x4468k255187qg/

    Larzelere, R. E. (2005). Differentiating evidence from advocacy in evaluating Sweden’s spanking ban: A response to Joan Durrant’s critique of my booklet “Sweden’s smacking ban: More harm than good”.Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
    http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/rdurrunl.75.pdf

    Larzelere, R. E. (2004). Scientific evidence on smacking. BMJ: British Medical Journal (eletter at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7476/1195).

    Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004) The intervention selection bias: An under-recognized confound in intervention studies. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 289-303.
    http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/130/2/289.html

    Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580-589. http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/128/4/580.html.

    Larzelere, R. E. (2001). Sweden: Data does not support success claims. Families First (Issue 2), 12-15. http://www.families-first.org.uk/nl/index.html & www.families-first.org.uk/pr/2001-11-01.html Updated and reprinted in 2004 as Sweden’s smacking ban: More harm than good. Essex, England: Families First. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf

    Larzelere, R. E. (2001). Combining love and limits in authoritative parenting. In J. C. Westman (Ed.), Parenthood in America (pp. 81-89). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. (http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html)

    Larzelere, R. E. (2001, May). We need the full picture on both smacking and vaccinations [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 84, 450. http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/84/5/450e

    Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of non-abusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3 (4), 199-221. (http://ipsapp007.lwwonline.com/content/getfile/4578/4/1/fulltext.pdf)
    This review was compared and contrasted with a review by Gershoff (2002) by the president-elect of the American Psychological Association: Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking children: The controversies, findings, and new directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 197-224. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB8-46MJPYH-2&_user=152108&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000012538&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=152108&md5=3c4b6ba8493fff1ea9e49d1682ba0cc8 Note that the Larzelere-Kuhn (2005) review follows the Benjet-Kazdin (2003) recommendation that the outcomes of physical discipline be compared with alternative disciplinary tactics that parents could use instead.

    Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Weak evidence for a smacking ban [letter]. BJM: British Medical Journal, 320, 1538-1539. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7248/1538/a)

    Larzelere, R. E. (1999). To spank or not to spank [Letter to the editor] Pediatrics, 85, 381-392.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/696?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=spanking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

    Larzelere, R. E., Baumrind, D., & Polite, K. (1998). Two emerging perspectives of parental spanking from two 1996 conferences. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 152, 303-305. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v152n3/ffull/plt0398-2.html

    Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L.(1998). Punishment enhances reasoning’s effectiveness as a toddler disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 388-403. Summary: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/Horn072998.html http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/wh072898.htm Article: http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00222445/ap020140/02a00090/0?frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=8b4e8a3b@okstate.edu/01cc99331600501b6b991&backcontext=table-of-contents&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/listjournal/00222445/ap020140%3fframe%3dframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d8b4e8a3b@okstate.edu/01cc99331600501b6b991%26config%3djstor&action=download&config=jstor

    1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on Corporal Punishment, co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, including a review of the literature by Larzelere and reply by Diana Baumrind: Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98(4), 824-831. (Summary included in http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/Advocate2.pdf )
    http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=117&sid=36c0289a-7fbc-446a-9f48-4dca187ee788%40sessionmgr2

    Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness of parental discipline for toddler misbehavior at different levels of child distress. Family Relations, 43, 480-488. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-6664%28199410%2943%3A4%3C480%3ATEOPDF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

    Larzelere, R. E. (1994). Should the use of corporal punishment by parents be considered child abuse? No. In M. A. Mason & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Debating children’s lives: Current controversies on children and adolescents (pp. 204-209, 217-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP6.pdf

    Other links on corporal punishment by parents available at http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/

    Chris Beckett’s article exposing the “Swedish myth” that no more than one child abuse fatality has occurred in any year in Sweden since they banned spanking there in 1979:
    http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/1/125


    Parental Discipline Bibliography

    Parental Discipline Bibliography

    Robert E. Larzelere, Ph.D. (Robert.Larzelere@okstate.edu)
    Dept. of Human Development and Family Science, 233 HES, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-2053

    Publications

    Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Enhancing behavioral parent training with an extended discipline ladder. The Behavior Therapist, 28, 105-108.

    Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8 (1), 1-37. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0x4468k255187qg/

    Powers, S., & Larzelere, R. (2005). Behavioral theory and corporal punishment. In M. Donnelly & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective (pp. 91-102). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Polaha, J., Larzelere, R. E., Shapiro, S. K., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Physical discipline and child behavior problems: A study of ethnic group differences. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 339-360.

    Larzelere, R. E. (2004). Scientific evidence on smacking. BMJ: British Medical Journal (eletter at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7476/1195).

    Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention selection bias: An under-recognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 289-303. http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/130/2/289.html

    Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2003). Discipline. In J. J. Ponzetti, Jr. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of marriage and family (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 462-469). New York: Macmillan.

    Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580-589. http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002/ or http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/128/4/580.html”>http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002/

    Larzelere, R. E. (2001). Sweden: Data does not support success claims. Families First (Issue 2), 12-15. www.families-first.org.uk/nl/index.html & www.families-first.org.uk/pr/2001-11-01.html Updated and reprinted in 2004 as Sweden’s smacking ban: More harm than good. Essex, England: Families First. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf

    Larzelere, R. E. (2001, May). We need the full picture on both smacking and vaccinations [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 84, 450. http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/84/5/450e

    Larzelere, R. E. (2001). Combining love and limits in authoritative parenting. In J. C. Westman (Ed.), Parenthood in America (pp. 81-89). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. (http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html)

    Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of non-abusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3 (4), 199-221. (http://ipsapp007.lwwonline.com/content/getfile/4578/4/1/fulltext.pdf)

    Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Weak evidence for a smacking ban [letter]. BJM: British Medical Journal, 320, 1538-1539. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7248/1538/a)

    Larzelere, R. E., & Johnson, B. (1999). Evaluations of the effects of Sweden’s spanking ban of physical child abuse rates: A literature review. Psychological Reports, 85, 381-392.

    Larzelere, R. E. (1999). To spank or not to spank (letter to the editor). Pediatrics, 103, 696-697. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/696?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=spanking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT”>http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/696?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=spanking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

    Larzelere, R. E. (1998). Effective vs. counterproductive parental spanking: Toward more light and less heat. Marriage and Family, 1, 179-192.

    Larzelere, R. E., Baumrind, D., & Polite, K. (1998). Two emerging perspectives of parental spanking from two 1996 conferences. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 152, 303-305. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v152n3/ffull/plt0398-2.html

    Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L.(1998). Punishment enhances reasoning’s effectiveness as a toddler disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 388-403. Summary: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/Horn072998.html http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/wh072898.htm Article: http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00222445/ap020140/02a00090/0?frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=8b4e8a3b@okstate.edu/01cc99331600501b6b991&backcontext=table-of-contents&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/listjournal/00222445/ap020140%3fframe%3dframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d8b4e8a3b@okstate.edu/01cc99331600501b6b991%26config%3djstor&action=download&config=jstor

    Larzelere, R. E., Silver, C., & Polite, K. (1997). Nonabusive spanking: Parental liberty or child abuse? Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 17(4), 7-17.

    Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 18 (3), 35-57. http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=DJTMPRBTUTM88LTN3WBU863T3LV58B3C&ID=71017

    Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98(4), 824-831. Summary included in http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/Advocate2.pdf Proceedings of the Scientific Consensus Conference on Corporal Punishment that invited this review and Diana Baumrind’s response: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=117&sid=36c0289a-7fbc-446a-9f48-4dca187ee788%40sessionmgr2

    Larzelere, R. E. (1995). Discipline. In D. Levinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marriage and the family, pp. 172-177. New York: Macmillan.

    Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness of parental discipline for toddler misbehavior at different levels of child distress. Family Relations, 43, 480-488. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-6664%28199410%2943%3A4%3C480%3ATEOPDF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

    Larzelere, R. E. (1994). Should the use of corporal punishment by parents be considered child abuse? No. In M. A. Mason & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Debating children’s lives: Current controversies on children and adolescents (pp. 204-209, 217-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP6.pdf

    Larzelere, R. E. (1993). Response to Oosterhuis: Empirically justified uses of spanking: Toward a discriminating view of corporal punishment. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 21, 142-147.

    Larzelere, R. E., Amberson, T. G., & Martin, J. A. (1992). Age differences in perceived discipline problems from 9 to 48 months. Family Relations, 41(2), 192-199.

    Larzelere, R. E., & Patterson, G. R. (1990). Parental management: Mediator of the effect of socioeconomic status on early delinquency. Criminology, 28, 301-324.

    Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Schumm, W. R., & Alibrando, S. A., Jr. (1989). The effects of spanking and other parenting characteristics on self-esteem and perceived fairness of parental discipline. Psychological Reports, 64, 1140-1142.

    Larzelere, R. E. (1986). Moderate spanking: Model or deterrent of children’s aggression in the family? Journal of Family Violence, 1, 27-36.

    Presentations and Unpublished Papers

    Larzelere, R. E., & Mandara, J. (2006, November). Bell’s control system theory: Reconciling developmental and behavioral views of parental discipline. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop preceding the annual convention of the National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, MN.

    Larzelere, R. E., Ferrer, E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2006, October). Longitudinal causal inferences given selection biases and regression artifacts. Paper presented at the 6th annual Winemiller Conference on Statistics in the Social Sciences, Statistics Dept., University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

    Larzelere, Ferrer, E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2006, August). Associations of a reasoning vs. punishment continuum with antisocial trajectories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Larzelere, R. E., Ferrer, E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005, August). What alternatives can pass the scientific tests flunked by spanking? (A methodological inquiry). Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

    Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005, August). Immediate effectiveness of disciplinary tactics by type of noncompliance (A reanalysis of Ritchie, 1999). Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

    Larzelere, R. E. (2005). Differentiating evidence from advocacy in evaluating Sweden’s spanking ban: A response to Joan Durrant’s critique of my booklet “Sweden’s smacking ban: More harm than good”.Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/rdurrunl.75.pdf

    Larzelere, R. E., & Baumrind, D. (2005, April). The role of power assertion in the effects of parenting styles on adolescent outcomes. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta.

    Larzelere, R. E., Ferrer, E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005, April). Do parenting practices predict subsequent child aggression after controlling for child effects? Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta.

    Larzelere, R. E. (2005, March). Children and violence in the family: Scientific contributions. (a submission to the UN Global Study on Children and Violence, on behalf of the American College of Pediatricians). Unpublished manuscript.

    Larzelere, R. E. (Chair). 2003, April). Linking physical discipline to child outcomes: When are causal inferences justified? Symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

    Larzelere, R. E. (2003, March). The difficulty of making valid causal inferences from passive longitudinal designs. Invited presentation at the conference “The Future of Longitudinal Studies,” Berkeley, CA. (http://ihd.berkeley.edu/larzelere.htm)

    Larzelere, R. E. (2002, August). Child outcomes of disciplinary reasoning: A literature review. Paper for a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

    Larzelere, R. E., & Smith, G. L. (2000, August). Controlled longitudinal effects of five disciplinary tactics on antisocial behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington DC.

    Larzelere, R. E. (1999, June). Discipline of children: To spank or not to spank? Debate presentation (with M. A. Straus) at the Second International Conference of the National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Bankff, Alberta. (Summarized at http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/debate.html)

    Larzelere, R. E. (1997, September). Implications of research on parental spanking for understanding the effects of parental discipline responses in general. University of Kansas Medical Center’s Department of Pediatrics Grand Rounds, Kansas City, Kansas.

    Larzelere, R. E. (1997, August). Premature advocacy against all parental spanking: Going way beyond science. Invited response to symposium, “Should APA take a position on spanking? A child advocacy perspective,” I. A. Hyman (chair), at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

    Larzelere, R. E. (1997, August). Critique of Straus et al. (1997) study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine and its implications for the broader topics of nonabusive spanking and parental discipline. Unpublished document sent to FAMLYSCI listserve.

    Larzelere, R. E. (Chair). (1997, August). Escalation processes within discipline incidents and their prevention. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

    Larzelere, R. E., Larson, D. B., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., & Pike, P. L. (1997, August). Conditions influencing reasoning’s effectiveness as a toddler discipline response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

    Lyons, J. S., & Larzelere, R. E. (1996, August). Where is evidence that non-abusive corporal punishment increases aggression? Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal.

    Sather, P. R., Larzelere, R. E., & Pike, P. L. (1994, August). Side effects of parental discipline responses to toddler misbehavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

    Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., & Rose, A. N. (1988, August). The Discipline Record: Assessing parental discipline of toddlers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta.

    Some of these materials can be found at http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/

    Locations of visitors to this page

  • International investigations into Swedish child abuse situation

    International investigations into Swedish child abuse situation

    Below:
    1. Short news report of situation
    2. Intro and credentials of lawyer in Sweden critical of Swedish anti-smacking law.
    3. Short report extract of European Children’s Ombudsman critical of Swedish data collection mechanisms.
    4. Short NCHR (Nordic Committee for Human Rights) criticism of investigative Committee on the Rights of the Child into Swedish compliance.

    1.

    Tue, 14 June 2005
    © 2005 Newstalk ZB News
    Smacking ban does not work, says Swede

    A Swedish lobby group says a total ban on smacking does not work.
    Sweden has already enacted legislation similar to that planned for New Zealand, which would prevent parents using physical force to discipline their children.

    Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, from Sweden’s Nordic Community for Human rights says as a result, parents live in fear and families are broken up on a regular basis by the authorities.

    She claims parents have been terrorised by officials, and children confiscated and destroyed by the system.

    She says 18,000 children are in care, and the foster home industry has become a cash cow.

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson says she is distressed another country wants to follow Sweden’s example where she claims social workers and the Administrative courts have total control over parents.

    2.


    Ruby Harrold-Claesson
    Chairman of The Nordic Committee for Human Rights
    Mrs. Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Lawyer, was born in Kingston, Jamaica, as daughter of Mr. and Mrs O. J. Harrold. She is married to Håkan Claesson, engineer. They have two daughters, Simone and Lorica and one son, Leif. Ruby Harrold-Claesson lives in Gothenburg, Sweden and can be reached at: + 46 – 31 – 70 20 385 (office); Fax: + 46 – 31 -70 25 242.

    Besides her mother language English, Mrs Harrold-Claesson speaks Swedish, French and Spanish.

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson started her academic career by studying Law and Political Science in France. In Sweden she has done post-graduate studies in Legal History, after which she took a Swedish law degree.

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson runs a private law firm in Gothenburg. Ruby Harrold-Claesson works with family law, e.g. guardianship cases and cases dealing with parental rights; criminal cases etc.

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson has referred several cases of breaches of Human Rights to the European Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    3.

    Skrivelse
    2004-12-22 Skrivelse:

    Observations of the Children’s Ombudsman with respect to the written replies of the Government of Sweden concerning the list of issues (CRC/C/Q/SWE/3) raised by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in relation to the consideration of the third periodic report of Sweden.

    6. Child abuse
    There is no data available on victims of child abuse aged 15 to 17 years of age. In the view of the Children’s Ombudsman, the fact that the statistical data on crimes against children 15 years of age and older is not separated from the data concerning adult victims makes the monitoring of the implementation of some of the rights contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter “the CRC”) difficult. The Children’s Ombudsman considers that this data should be further disaggregated, in particular by gender.

    3. Individual complaints mechanisms for children
    There are many complaints mechanisms in Sweden that in principle are available to individual children. However, most of these mechanisms may only issue recommendations concerning the issue at stake. In most cases, an effective remedy can only be obtained through a court procedure. As a rule, however, only the legal custodian(s) of a child can initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the child. Furthermore, as the Government notes in its written replies, there are no mechanisms that are especially designed for children. As a consequence, in practice only those children, whose parents are willing and able to complain on their behalf, have an effective remedy to possible violations of their rights.

    4.

    COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD CONSIDERS THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF SWEDEN
    On January 11, 2005, the Committee on the Rights of the Child considered the third periodic report of Sweden on that country’s efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

    Introducing the report, Elisabeth Borsiin Bonnier, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the work of her Government to implement the provisions of the Convention within Swedish society had been constantly on-going since the country had ratified the treaty 15 years ago.

    Committee Experts raised questions concerning child asylum seekers, the treatment of children with disabilities, acquisition of citizenship, and placement of children in foster families, among other things.

    Moushira Khattab, (Egypt), the Committee Expert who also served as country Rapporteur for the report of Sweden, said Swedish children were fortunate to enjoy their rights.

    The NCHR finds it surprising that Moushira Khattab, the person who has served as country Rapporteur for the report of Sweden, could say that “Swedish children were fortunate to enjoy their rights”. Judging from Ms. Khattab’s CV, her working languages are Arabic, English, French and German, it is quite obvious that she is unfamiliar with the tens of thousands of cases where the social services and the administrative court system in Sweden deprive children of their basic Human Rights to private and family life by forcibly taking them into public care and placing them in foster homes among total strangers. These child care cases are completely lacking in fairness, transparency, accountability and the rule of law. It is also quite obvious that Ms Khattab is not acquainted with the judgements in public care cases that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has delivered against Sweden since 1982. It is also quite obvious that Ms Khattab has never visited the NCHR’s web site where there is more than sufficient information to prove the serious violations of the basic Human Rights to private and family life of tens of thousands of children and their families.

    Ms. Khattab’s CV,