Category: News Media/Press Releases

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0712/S00093.htm

Questionable smacking case before the court
Sunday, 9 December 2007, 2:45 pm
Press Release: The Family Party

http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz

The Family Party is raising concerns over the arrest and prosecution of a single father of four, who has been charged with assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new anti-smacking legislation.

The Nelson Mail reports the man ‘hit’ his son on the bottom with a wooden spoon for disobedience. He is also alleged to have ‘clipped’ the boy around the face. The boy later called the police and the father was arrested, handcuffed and put before the courts. He is now barred from associating with his son until he next appears before the court. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4315830a11.html refers.

“Without knowing the full circumstances of this case it is difficult to comment on criminal liability, particularly with regards to the ‘clip around the face’ allegation. But for all we know, it could have been a clip around the ear, which many of us got at some stage growing up from a parent, school teacher or even the local constable. My concern is that we could have a decent father trying to raise four children on his own, who is now facing the full force of the justice system for administering discipline in his own home according to his Christian values,” says Mr Lewis.

Mr Lewis emphasised a cautious approach to the case without knowing the full circumstances but noted the fathers comment about only occasionally using the wooden spoon when his son’s behaviour was particularly bad. Lewis also points out that the use of emotive words (in reporting) such as ‘hit’ don’t necessarily reflect the true circumstances of the case.

“There was quite possibly a better way to handle this situation without arresting a father of four and throwing him in the clanger! But that’s what repealing Section 59 was all about,” Mr Lewis added.

ends

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/12/08/stories/2007120853521300.htm

French parents back smacking

Emilie Boyer King

Most French children are used to the odd spank from their parents, and many think there is nothing wrong with that, a new survey suggests. An Internet poll by the Paris-based Union of Families in Europe (UFE), an organisation which defends families’ rights in France, shows that 65 per cent of children in France think la fessee — French for a smack on the bottom — is a normal part of their upbringing, with more than half thinking they de serve it.

Spanking is certainly central in a French education if the survey is anything to go by. More than 95 per cent of the 2,000 grandparents, parents, and children polled said they had been spanked at some point in their lives.

A nationwide poll carried out nearly 10 years ago revealed that more than 85 per cent of French parents spanked their children compared with 87 per cent in the new survey. While spanking may still be popular in France, other forms of punishment, such as a slap on the cheek or a kick are rarely used and are considered dangerous by many parents, the survey showed.

— ©Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2007

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4315830a11.html

Dad argues for right to hit son
By SALLY KIDSON – The Nelson Mail | Friday, 07 December 2007

SPARE THE ROD: Rowan Flynn of Nelson is prepared to go to jail to assert his right to smack his four children.

A Nelson father charged with assaulting his son, in one of the region’s first prosecutions under a controversial new child discipline law, says he is prepared to go to jail for his right as a parent and a Christian to hit his child.

Rowan Flynn has been charged with two counts of assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new legislation, which came into effect in June and removed a parent’s right to use “reasonable force” when discipling a child.

The 52-year-old denied the charges when he appeared in the Nelson District Court this week, and has chosen to have a judge and jury hear the case.

Mr Flynn, who has four children, told the Nelson Mail his son called the police two weeks ago after he hit the boy.

Mr Flynn disputes the police summary of facts. He estimated that he hit his son five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and said it was a “tiny issue” that blew up.

While the police visited him at home to talk to him, they did not take any action at that stage, he said.

“But I made it quite clear to the cop that if it was needed again, I would smack.”

Mr Flynn said that about a week later, he “clipped” his son around the face.

Several days later, he was at home cooking dinner when the police arrived and he was arrested.

Mr Flynn said he wanted to speak out about his case because he thought he would not have been charged under the old law.

“I believe very strongly in smacking as a form of discipline. I’m a Christian, and believe it’s what I’ve been commanded to do.

“I’m not going to lay down and take it. I’m going to kick and scream to the very end.”

He said he only occasionally used the wooden spoon, when his son’s behaviour was particularly bad.

He believed that passages in the Bible gave him the right to use the spoon, or “rod”.

“Parents must have the right to correct their children and give them a good whack if that’s what they need.

“All this law is doing is making criminals out of good parents. I’m not afraid to say `I smack my kids’.”

He believed that smacking was effective because it was an immediate form of discipline.

“We have to have it there, because the kids just know they can get away with anything if it isn’t there as a punishment.

“I don’t beat my kids. I don’t thrash them.

“This new law is going to destroy families. It’s already started.”

Mr Flynn, who is separated from his wife, said his son had been living with him under an informal arrangement until he appeared in court on Tuesday.

Mr Flynn was granted bail but refused to sign the bail bond because of a condition that he not contact his son. He said he was handcuffed, searched and spent several hours in a holding cell before being released. He intends to appeal the bail condition, and is due back in court on January 18.

Nelson Bays police area commander Inspector Brian McGurk declined to comment on the prosecution, other than to say it had always been illegal for a parent to assault a child.

A 33-year-old Masterton man recently became the first parent convicted under the new legislation. Last month, he was sentenced to nine months’ supervision and counselling for grabbing his son and smacking him three times.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who campaigned for the legislation, said the law had changed to put the rights of a child to be free of violence before the rights of the parent.

“What the law is about is protecting babies, children and young people from violence.”

Ms Bradford said there were many alternatives to hitting children.

“It’s a huge fallacy to think that beating them is helping them. It’s hurting and humiliating them.”

4 December 2007

It’s OK to Smack – American College of Pediatricians
The American College of Pediatricians (ACP), a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialise in the care of infants, children, and adolescents has released a position statement on the smacking of children.

“This research backs up the argument put forward by Family First and other pro-family groups against Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

“The ACP reviewed the available research on corporal punishment and concluded that disciplinary smacking by parents can be effective when properly used. They say that the evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan when not relied upon solely to control their child’s behaviour.”
“They say that smacking is most appropriate with children 2 to 6 years old, and when milder types of correction have failed.”

The ACP has published a one page handout for parents titled “Guidelines for Parental Use of Disciplinary Spanking.” This can be viewed here:
http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=1607656558&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10040

They have also published an extensive review of the scientific literature on smacking.

Family First is welcoming this balanced, objective and thorough research on the issue of smacking by professionals.

“It flies in the face of the blind ideology peddled by the UN, politicians, Children’s Commissioner, and child welfare agencies who have failed to identify and deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First continues to call on both the government and other political parties to change the current law on smacking so that parents who use the types of smacking recommended by the ACP are not committing a criminal act, and not be at the mercy of police discretion or unwarranted CYF investigation.
ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

It’s Okay for Parents to Spank
MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — The American College of Pediatricians carefully reviewed the available research on corporal punishment and concludes, in its position statement on the subject, that disciplinary spanking by parents can be effective when properly used. “It is clear that parents should not solely rely upon disciplinary spanking to accomplish control of their child’s behavior. Evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan,” notes the just-released position statement.

“When a child defies a parent’s instruction, spanking is one of a few options parents can consider to correct the misbehavior,” says Den Trumbull, MD, FCP, principal author of the statement. “Spanking is most appropriate with children 2 to 6 years old, and when milder types of correction have failed.”

The complete policy and position statements with guidelines can be found at http://www.ACPeds.org

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well- being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society.”

29 November 2007

Daughter (16) Hidden from Parents Under Privacy Act

Family First is blasting the effects of the Privacy Act which has meant that a Manukau City family has been unable to find out where their runaway daughter is.

“It is a disgrace that the role of parents and the right of parents to know where their children are, is being undermined by privacy legislation and the so-called rights of children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“This is not a dysfunctional home where the child is unsafe. This is not a family who don’t care – in fact they have spent hours roaming the street since the November 6 disappearance of their 16 year old daughter. Yet despite all that, the police are protecting the whereabouts of the daughter. The parents have been left in the dark. According to the Manukau Courier the police are saying that a young person under 17 can dictate whether their parents are told where they are.”

“Politicians, with the support of the UN, Children’s Commissioner and Youth Law Project to name a few, have sought to increase children’s rights without considering the vital role of parents, and ways of strengthening families rather than splitting them.”

“On one hand, a parent is responsible for the actions and costs of their child in the community and school, but at the same time their role is being undermined by criminalising effective methods of parental correction, providing the Independent Youth Benefit, provision of contraception and abortion without the consent or even knowledge of the parents, and the recent example of a school dobbing in a parent to CYF for giving their child a light smack.”

“The Privacy Act and children’s rights are being used as a blunt instrument against parents,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“If the government wants parents to be responsible parents, the law must firstly respect their authority and role.”

ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3756724&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsectionParents threatened by violent children

28.11.2007

By CARLY UDY Frightened parents are taking out protection orders against their children after being threatened with knifes or assaulted as a new type of family violence escalates in the Bay. Others are feeling suicidal and depressed trying to cope with children as young as seven who are physically violent towards them. Local social agencies say sibling violence and kids being violent towards their parents are both issues “escalating” in the Bay. Agencies say the problem is widespread, with doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers and business people all seeking help for their abusive children, who range in age from primary school age to young adults.

In the past two weeks, seven incidents of this type of violence have been referred to family support organisation Toughlove, by Tauranga Moana Abuse Prevention Strategy (TMAPS). Examples include a 15-year-old holding a knife up to his mum and dad, then hitting them because he couldn’t get his own way. In another case, a 14-year-old screamed at his parents and tipped over furniture when he wasn’t given money to top up his cellphone. Tauranga police say they attend such incidents on a semi-regular basis and have prosecuted abusive children through both the Tauranga District and Youth Courts for it. “Who does a parent turn to when your kid is threatening you with a weapon? You turn to the police and so you should,” Sergeant Jason Perry, former family violence co-ordinator, said. “These are good parents and it’s a terrible position to be in, to have to call the police on your own children.” Julia Silvester, community social worker for Toughlove, said the problem was widespread across all sectors of society. Just last weekend, a 19-year-old from Tauranga was arrested after allegedly stabbing his mother’s boyfriend following a domestic incident. And in August, a 19-year-old man from Tauranga admitted stabbing his 40-year-old mother multiple times with a paring knife because “she made him sick”. Statistics show violent offending by teenagers nationwide has increased, and earlier this month the Bay of Plenty Times reported that local principals want more counsellors in primary schools because social issues at home were rubbing off on youngsters at an earlier age. “There are parents with bruises on them because their children are kicking and punching them because they can’t get their own way, and there are seven-year-old’s being stood down from school,” Ms Silvester said. “Someone was telling me they were in the supermarket the other day and overheard a three-year-old tell his mother `I’ll do what I like, you can’t smack me.’ This is a three-year-old,” she said. “There are parents out there who are literally scared of their seven and eight-year-olds, they’re scared of what they’re going to do.” And the problem is just as bad with older children. Toughlove heard about a brother and sister in their early 20s who were physically fighting at their mother’s home in Tauranga. “Someone is going to get killed _ that’s the reality,” Ms Silvester said. “It can start over the smallest things like fighting over the remote, money or a cellphone and it just escalates. “They kick and punch each other, they’re not hospitalising each other but they’re assaulting each other. Before you know it, it’s World War 2.” Jessica Trask, family violence co-ordinator for the Tauranga Moana Abuse Prevention group, said half of all murders in New Zealand resulted from family violence. “These are young people with no conflict resolution skills. There needs to be boundaries in place [from day one] and following through with the consequences. It’s good basic parenting. Don’t wait until it’s too late,” she said. Les Simmonds, clinical director for Relationship Services in the Bay of Plenty and Gisborne, said just because a child was violent did not mean their parents were. “Children have always challenged their parents. It’s a developmental thing but the violence isn’t,” he said.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00382.htm

Double standards on smacking law
Thursday, 22 November 2007, 2:11 pm
Press Release: The Family Party

Richard Lewis, leader of The Family Party, says yesterday’s criminal conviction of a Masterton father who smacked his child three times on the bottom with an open palm is a massive over-reaction and the outcome of very bad, anti-family law.

“Based on the details that I’m aware of, this father was doing the responsible thing of addressing his son’s bad behaviour at school. He’s done what many thousands of responsible kiwi dads have done in the past and probably continue to do, and that’s smack their son on the bottom with an open palm in appropriate circumstances,” says Mr Lewis.

He says parents should maintain the right to apply responsible corrective discipline in their home without fear of prosecution.

“We are all against abuse. But there is a world of difference between abuse and an open palm smack on the bottom. Most New Zealand parents know the difference. The hypocrisy of all of this is that a senior government minister can punch a fellow MP in the face and get away with it while this father is dragged before the courts and given a criminal conviction,” Mr Lewis added.

He warns that parents found in similar circumstances are in grave danger of unwarranted state intervention and prosecution.

The Family Party aims to restore parental protection by reinstating Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed parents to use ‘reasonable’ force in circumstances deemed to be appropriate and reasonable.

ends

MEDIA RELEASE
22 November 2007

Key Must Commit to Protecting Good Families From Bad Smacking Law

Family First NZ is calling on National leader John Key to commit to changing the anti-smacking law after a father was the first parent convicted of assault for smacking his 8-year old on the bottom.

“John Key said that the law should not criminalise good parents for lightly smacking their children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Here we have a young family, an expectant mother, a father attempting to do his very best, and a law which treats him as a criminal rather than a system that offers the support, encouragement and resources they may need.”

“While community organisations working with at-risk families and Plunket are driven to their knees because of a lack of adequate funding, there seems to be no shortage of resources in investigating good parents who use a light smack.”

Family First has highlighted five cases already where CYF and Police have conducted intensive investigations of families simply because of supposed ‘abuse’, including a grandmother interviewed by police for smacking a swearing granddaughter in a Warehouse store, three police appearing on the doorstep of a home where a 2 year old was having a bedtime tantrum, and a mother dobbed into CYF by the local school.

There are similar cases being notified to Family First NZ on a weekly basis.

“And many parents are confirming that children are telling them “you can’t touch me or I’ll tell the police’”

“We are creating a ‘paranoid parenting’ environment,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“This case has confirmed kiwi parents’ worst nightmare. This law will target good parents while child abuse continues at the same rate, and the real causes of family breakdown and stress, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and other significant issues are ignored.”

“The predictions made by the many community groups and 83% of NZ’ers opposing this law have, unfortunately, proved true.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

22 November 2007 – The Dominion Post – Three smacks and he’s ‘guilty’

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4283366a10.html

Three smacks and he’s ‘guilty’
By TANYA KATTERNS – The Dominion Post | Thursday, 22 November 2007

A father who spanked his eight-year-old son on the bottom three times for misbehaving at school is one of the first to be convicted of assault under the law against smacking.

The Masterton man was sentenced to nine months’ supervision yesterday after admitting he had grabbed his son by the shoulder, held him on his knee and hit him with an open hand.

Green MP Sue Bradford has welcomed the conviction, saying the case is a good example of the May law change working as intended.

The controversial legislation removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

But opponents say the conviction is a disgrace.

Family First national director Bob McCroskrie said parents had every reason to be concerned.

“It’s the first of what’s going to be many cases of the law targeting good parents. Our predictions have come true.”

Masterton District Court judge Anthony Walsh told the man, whose wife is expecting their fourth child: “While you may have gotten away with this in the past, it is a case of not now.”

The father, 33, who has name suppression to protect his son’s identity, smacked his son on October 29. He had returned home from work to hear that his son had caused some problems at school.

The boy was in his bedroom and his father decided to confront him about his behaviour, the court was told.

Becoming frustrated, the father grabbed his son’s clothes at the shoulder and pulled him on to the bed.

The father then flipped the boy over his knee and smacked him three times on the bottom with an open palm, before roughly sitting him back up.

The eight-year-old had bruising to his shoulder, the court was told.

The boy’s mother, pregnant with the couple’s fourth child, is understood to have taken a photograph of the bruise and shown it to a relative, who told police several days later.

The father admitted he had lost his temper. He refused to comment as he left court.

Judge Walsh, hearing the case in Masterton’s newly established domestic violence court, said the smacking law change had redefined the way old attitudes toward disciplining children were viewed.

“Our law was recently amended to make it clear that children should be protected. There are other ways that must be taken to discipline children, short of violence, and that means time out and loss of privileges.”

Judge Walsh told the father: “A lot of us are parents, we know children can be challenging – but we are the adults.”

The father, who pleaded guilty to assault, and his wife had already sought help with anger management, parenting skills and relationship counselling before yesterday’s sentencing.

He was sentenced to nine months’ supervision – which means the state will now pay for the counselling.

The law took effect in June, after National inserted a clause stating police should not prosecute inconsequential smacking, though guidelines for officers do not define “inconsequential”.

Police were told by their bosses that it would be a matter for the courts to determine in test cases.

Ms Bradford said she was pleased the case had been prosecuted.

“Hitting a child is an assault and there is no longer the protection that there used to be where a case like this would never go before the courts.”

Police national headquarters had no figures on smacking-related convictions since June. A report is being prepared.

19 November 2007 – The Dominion Post – Hands off our lives say voters

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4278853a10.html

Hands off our lives say voters
By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Monday, 19 November 2007

Voters fear Government is exerting too much control over their lives – and they believe it has got worse in the past two years.

The finding in the latest Fairfax Media-Nielsen poll suggests the backlash over the so-called anti-smacking bill has left its mark, but could also be a response to the campaign against Labour’s bid to overhaul electoral finance laws with a regime criticised as draconian and a limit on free speech.

Two thousand people protested in Auckland at the weekend against the Electoral Finance Bill, due to be reported back to Parliament today after being watered down by a select committee.

In a poll of 1082 voters, people were asked whether the Government had more control over people’s daily lives than they would like and 57 per cent answered yes. A further 37 per cent of voters rejected the proposition and 6 per cent did not know.

When asked whether the level of control had increased, decreased or stayed the same over the last two years, 61 per cent said it had increased, which points to the smacking debate as a major factor.

Civil unions, Labour’s push to decriminalise prostitution and even sensitivity over the recent police raids may be other factors.

Labour has come under concerted attack from National and conservative Christian groups for running a “nanny state” agenda.

Family Party co-leader Richard Lewis said the Labour Government had continued to ram through unpopular policies.

“The message I’ve been getting for some time now is that the Government has been stepping into areas they shouldn’t be when it comes to parental responsibility and the balance of rights of New Zealanders,” he said.

Labour’s backing for the smacking legislation – which removes the defence of reasonable force for parents facing child abuse charges – sparked one of its biggest declines in popularity since it got into government.

The latest poll shows Labour back on the path to recovery, with 40 per cent support, just 5 points behind National. But it suggests some concerns about government interference have stuck.

Six months on from the introduction of the new smacking laws, however, those working at the coalface say fears that sparked the backlash have proved unfounded.

Police are due to release a major review of the change within weeks, but family law and child welfare experts say there has been no noticeable change to the way child violence is being reported.

There have been just two media reports of possible cases of parents being reported for smacking, with no action taken, while Child, Youth and Family reports there has been no significant rise in child abuse notifications since the law change….

16 November 2007 – The Family Party – Anti Smacking Law Poses Significant Risks

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00277.htm

Anti Smacking Law Poses Significant Risks
Friday, 16 November 2007, 11:07 am
Press Release: The Family Party

Richard Lewis, Leader of THE FAMILY PARTY, says a recent report from the Ministry of Social Development that there has not been a “huge increase in numbers of notifications,” since the law was passed in May, is no reflection of the ever-present danger the law poses to New Zealand families.

“The government is hardly in a position to make credible statements on the affects of a law they rammed through parliament despite overwhelming public opposition. What we do know is that the law has not stopped incidents of abuse in the home. And we also know the law exposes decent, law-abiding parents to significant risk of unwarranted state intervention” says Mr Lewis.

The anti smacking bill’s architect, Sue Bradford, says a public smack could be a sign of bigger problems occurring behind closed doors. A NZPA report quotes Ms Bradford as saying, “while on the surface it might appear like a simple smack…what we don’t know is what else is happening in that family with that child, or other children, or the mother or some other family member.”

Mr Lewis says Ms Bradford’s statement reveals the true intent of the law, which is to gain unlimited access into the homes of New Zealand families.

“This really is another example of state intrusion of the worst kind. Sure, there are legitimate cases of abuse that we are all concerned about. But the police and government departments were already adequately empowered to deal with such cases under the Crimes Act. Bradford’s law gives the state unlimited power to enter a home and scrutinize the lives of decent, law-abiding parents, which is inherently unjust and abusive,” he added.

Mr Lewis says The Family Party aims to protect the rights and responsibilities of parents.

ENDS

9 November 2007 – Family First Disgusted with Ministry of Education Over Sex Abuse

MEDIA RELEASE
9 November 2007

Family First Disgusted with Ministry of Education Over Sex Abuse

Family First is shocked and disgusted with the actions of the Ministry of Education who knew about allegations of sexual abuse at Hato Paora College but did not instruct the school to contact police.

“It is quite incredible that schools will rush to CYF to report a hand-smack yet are willing to hide a far more serious case of sexual abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Both the Ministry and the Board of Trustees failed to contact the police despite the serious nature of these allegations. Any complaint of this type should be referred automatically to the police so that they can undertake their own investigation.”

“For a government ministry to hide this information shows just how confused they are in determining real abuse versus the role of parents and reasonable parental correction.”

This case follows other cases of government inaction in dealing with the real causes and cases of child abuse.

The Government admitted last year that it was powerless to intervene after it was revealed that teachers with a history of drugs, violence and sex offences had been allowed back into the classroom.

In July, it was revealed that a teacher convicted of sexually molesting a nine-year-old boy had been supported by his union when he was stood down from an earlier job for looking at child porn, and an art teacher who posted hard-core pornographic pictures of himself and two women on internet sex sites – with messages for girls “the younger the better” to contact him – had been allowed to continue teaching.

The Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) tried to keep the case secret, and the Teachers Council would not reveal the teacher’s name.

“It’s time the government and its departments figured out the real meaning of abuse, and started targeting it with full resources and an automatic referral to the police,” says Mr McCoskrie. “They are protecting ‘their own’ yet have no problem dobbing in good parents.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00389.htm
New Psychological Testing of Children is Abusive

Sunday, 28 October 2007, 1:38 pm
Press Release: Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Citizens Commission On Human Rights New Zealand Established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights

New Psychological Testing of Children is Abusive

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights are warning people about behavioural screening programmes for children and the use of drugs for learning disorders in an exhibition now on.

Commission director, Mr Steve Green is concerned about the new “b4 school checks” pilot programme currently being advertised by the Counties Manukau District Health Board because of their psychological screening component for four-year-olds.

“People are not aware that these psychological screening programmes are not based on medicine and the assessments often lead to treatment of fictitious mental disorders,” Mr Green said.

The Commission said that the psychological testing of four-year-old for behavioural problems to be used by the “b4 school check” programme is a five-minute checklist a parent fills out.

Such tests, the Commission claims, are unscientific as they claim that a small child who cannot stay still for long and who fidgets is abnormal.

The Goodman Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is the one being used in the “b4 school check” for psychological and behavioural problems and its results can be wildly out with over 50% of children apparently abnormal, the Commission claims.

The Commission fully supports the actual health checks for the “b4 school checks” but says the psychological testing stigmatizes children with mental disorders that in reality do not exist.

“These labels stay with a person for ever and most people are not aware that mental disorders are voted into being by a panel of psychiatrists at a convention. There are no scientific or medical tests that support mental illness or disorders,” said Mr Green.

He also said that psychiatry has no test for normal behaviour and so the abnormal can be cultural and language differences which are not taken into account.

Ends

30 October – Office of the Children’s Commissioner – Children’s Commissioner backs charter

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00389.htm

Children’s Commissioner backs charter
Tuesday, 30 October 2007, 11:36 am
Press Release: Office of the Children’s Commissioner

Children’s Commissioner backs charter for children and young people in care

As a champion for the rights of every child and young person in New Zealand, Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro supports the charter for children and young people in care, launched by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) today.

“The development of this charter and its implementation plan shows Child, Youth and Family’s commitment to ensuring that children and young peoples’ rights are promoted and protected while they are in care.

“My office has heard directly from children and young people in care that they want a pamphlet on their rights and they want to know who to talk with if they have concerns or complaints.

“Four young people spoke at the Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, hosted by my office in February last year (2006). When asked what children and young people in care need in order to blossom, they identified four important areas that required attention. These are: stigma, rights, resilience and stability.

“One of the speakers pointed out that the care system is there to protect them from others, not others from them.

“Being placed in care can be an extremely traumatic time for children and young people. I support them in their desire to have up-to-date information about their rights and about what to do if they are not happy with their situation. It is important that we listen when children and young people voice their opinions and that they can see the powerful effect they can have on policy and practice when they do.

“I believe it is important that all children and young people in New Zealand are aware that they have individual rights, as per the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).

“I commend CYF on its implementation plan that allows for all children and young people to receive a copy of the charter as they come into care; for those already in care to have a meeting with their social worker to explain what the charter means to them; and for all caregivers to be made aware of the charter as well. I believe this process will be valuable in developing a relationship of trust that children and young people in care must have with their social worker.

“We are keen to see the charter work in tandem with a youth-friendly complaints process.

“We would also like to see the charter embodied in the legislation to give it even more strength to ensure children and young people in care enjoy good health, education, safety and adequate resources and opportunities to develop to their full potential.”

ends

28 October 2007 – tvnz – Mother angered by anti-smacking law

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1418227

Mother angered by anti-smacking law
Oct 28, 2007 9:48 AM

A mother is speaking out about her family’s fear of being pulled apart thanks to the anti-smacking laws.

The woman, who wants to remain anonymous, has written a letter about her experiences to lobby group Family First.

She claims she was approached by CYF after her child’s school dobbed her in for smacking.

The woman says a teacher had been questioning the child about their home life, after an incident involving a classmate.

Family First Director Bob McCoskrie says it’s the kind of thing every parent fears from the anti smacking law, but says it’s not the only time the woman’s felt the effects of anti-smacking law.

He says she had previously given the boy a smack to get the boy off the trampoline and police arrived in 20 minutes saying a complaint had been laid.

McCoskrie says the incident was then referred to a foster care agency who contacted the woman.

He says no one wants to come to CYF’s attention, and it’s also a worry the school didn’t talk to the parents first.

McCoskrie says the law needs to be clearer so families who really need help can get it.

28 October 2007 – Stuff – School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4253352a10.html

School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
By RUTH LAUGESEN – Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son’s school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

“I don’t want to feel like a child abuser, and I don’t want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son,” she said. “It’s brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress.”

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

In the first incident, she came home one day in the July school holidays to find a card left by Child, Youth and Family asking her to contact a care and protection officer.

The officer told her the agency had received a complaint from the school after her son had hit another child with a ball. When asked why, the boy told the teacher he had been smacked that morning.

The mother of four said she had smacked him on the hand after he had “thrown a wobbly” instead of getting ready for school. The smack had left no mark.

She said hers was “just an average Kiwi family”. Both parents worked, did not smoke or drink or “have any addictions”. They smacked rarely, preferring to use time out. She said the care and protection officer had decided not to take the matter any further.

The school was unrepentant when her husband questioned its handling of the matter.

In the second incident, in September, three police officers arrived at her house after she smacked her child outside, and a neighbour complained. The police questioned her and the child separately before deciding not to take the matter any further.

A friend who was at the house at the time, Gabrielle Allen, said the arrival of police was astonishing and intimidating.

“My friend is loud, there’s a lot of volume. She’s just excitable. I think she’s a great mum, and she really loves her children. She’s consistent but she’s not over the top with discipline at all.”

The mother then contacted Family First, a lobby group that vociferously opposed smacking law changes passed in June. The organisation put her in touch with the Sunday Star-Times.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, “not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level”.

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskrie said parents now feared the law, and Child, Youth and Family.

A spokeswoman for Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said the minister did not believe the CYFs intervention was a result of the June law change, but reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse.

The Education Ministry said schools had not been given any fresh instructions about reporting smacking since the legislation came in.

26 October 2007 – dailymail.co.uk – Government u-turn as ministers tell parents they CAN smack their children

Government u-turn as ministers tell parents they CAN smack their children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489636&in_page_id=1770

UK Report
25th October 2007

Smacking ok:

The government will not ban parents smacking their children

Ministers ruled out a complete ban on smacking today after a Government review found the majority of parents opposed such a move.

Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan said the law would stay as it is after officials reviewed the way new rules were working.

Despite calls from many organisations for a ban, Mr Brennan said the evidence was that fewer parents now use smacking to discipline their children.

In a statement to MPs, he said: “Whilst many parents say they will not smack, a majority of parents say that smacking should not be banned outright.

“The Government will retain the law in its current form, in the absence of evidence it is not working satisfactorily.”

Mr Brennan’s announcement came after the Government conducted a review of the law, which changed in the 2004 Children’s Act.

Section 58 of the Act removed the the defence of reasonable punishment from parents and adults acting “in loco parentis” who are charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding or grievous bodily harm, or cruelty to a child.

At the time, ministers promised to review the law to assess whether it was working.

Officials surveyed parents, children and examined other evidence for the review, which took place this summer…..

But he continued: “Many organisations however support legislation to ban smacking.

“The police have discretion to deal with cases as they consider appropriate, taking into account factors including the evidence available, the public interest and the best interests of the child.

“The law is clear and section 58 has improved protection for children.

“But there appears to be a lack of awareness across different audiences about the scope and application of the law.

“In response, the Government will retain the law in its current form, in the absence of evidence it is not working satisfactorily.

“We will also do more to help with positive parenting.”

Shadow children’s minister Tim Loughton said: “This is a clear victory for common-sense.

“Clearly, if any adult is responsible for abuse and violence towards a child they need to face the full rigour of the law.

“But there is a world of difference between that and criminalising loving parents that use chastisement as they see fit in the interest of their child.…….

For full article and comments go to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489636&in_page_id=1770

Comments (20)

25 October – More Swedish Parents Smack Their Children

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/international/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?nyheter=1&programid=2054&Artikel=1673347

More Swedish Parents Smack Their Children

The number of Swedish parents admitting to hitting their children is growing, despite smacking being illegal here.

In a new study by Karlstad University 2.3% of parents say they physically punish their children, that’s more than double the figures from the last study from the year 2000.

Over 23% of parents say that they have shaken or pushed their children at some time over the past year. Staffan Janson, who was in charge of the study, says that he thinks that recent media coverage of parents needing to set boundaries for their kids has meant that some parents have gone too far.

25 October 2007 – Family First – Mallard Supported Anti-Smacking Bill – Should Resign

MEDIA RELEASE
25 October 2007

Mallard Supported Anti-Smacking Bill – Should Resign

Family First is calling on Labour MP Trevor Mallard to resign as a result of assaulting another MP.

“Not only has he set an atrocious example to our young people, but in May he voted for Sue Bradford’s bill to ban reasonable parental correction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Mr Mallard has seen fit to criminalise good parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction, yet has assaulted another MP. No reasonable force. Not for the purpose of correction. Simply a lack of control and discipline.”

“Mr Mallard can suggest that there were extenuating circumstances, but this same defence is not available to parents. Police discretion should not be available in an extreme case like this,” says Mr McCoskrie. “There was absolutely nothing reasonable in what he did.”

In the interests of maintaining the integrity and standard of political leadership, Mr Mallard should accept the standards imposed on all other New Zealand’s and resign.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

24 October 2007 – Family First – Smacking Law Affecting Good Families

Smacking Law Affecting Good Families
Family First is starting to be contacted by families who are being affected by Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law. These cases are heartbreaking and are proving that the law is ineffective, having no effect on rates of child abuse or child abuse deaths, and is penalising good parents.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE NEW ANTI-SMACKING LAWS (or you know of other families who have), PLEASE CONTACT Family First AS SOON AS POSSIBLE bob@familyfirst.org.nz

Family First will be releasing to the media examples of good parents being targeted by CYF, schools and police. Please contact Family First in the strictest confidence.

Please also join us in the “Great NZ Table Challenge” as we seek to gain the remaining 90,000 signatures required for a National Referendum on Child Abuse and Parental Correction.

Family First NZ is joining with a new group Unity for Liberty and other groups in inviting all concerned New Zealanders across the country to ‘take up arms’ – that means pens, tables and petition forms!

When : The Month of November (Saturdays, if you can do more days even better)
Where : The length and breadth of New Zealand
Why : To achieve the 300,000 signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum (already 210,000 collected)
How : By being available in your own communities for NZ’ers to sign the petition. Ring up a local shop and ask to run a table outside their business on a Saturday or for a few days. Perhaps a sports field – mid-week touch – flower shows – Expos – wherever there’s a crowd (the possibilities are endless!)

CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/sign_the_petitions.html

LET’S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED

20 October – Daily Mail – Toddlers allowed to run wild risk being violent adults, parents told

Toddlers allowed to run wild risk being violent adults, parents told
Daily Mail 20th October 2007

Curbing aggression in children in their pre-school years is the key to ensuring they do not grow into violent adults, parents are being warned. Toddlers do not learn aggression from other children, TV, video games or adults, says a leading child psychiatrist. Instead, most are naturally physically belligerent, claims Professor Richard Tremblay, from the University of Montreal.

He says children reach their peak of aggressive behaviour between 18 and 42 months. If parents fail to intervene at this stage, it could make the difference between a child growing up normally or turning into a violent adult. There is even evidence that uncontrolled aggression in the first few years is linked to criminal and drug-taking behaviour as adults, said Professor Tremblay. Professor Tremblay – who is due to present his research at the Royal Society in London today, warned: “Learning how not to be violent – which mostly takes place during the pre- school years – is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors.” READ MORE HERE: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/media_centre/recent_news/news/toddlers_allowed_to_run_wild_risk_being_violent_adults.html

Family First Comment : But didn’t Bradford, Clark and Kiro tell us that it was smacking, smacking and smacking that led to violent kids??? Perhaps a ‘reasonable’ smack is just what is needed! Yet more proof that the ban on smacking was ideologically driven rather than based on solid evidence and research.

23 October 2007 – NZPA – Summit to combat Maori child abuse

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4247015a8153.html

Summit to combat Maori child abuse
NZPA | Tuesday, 23 October 2007

ABUSE SUMMIT: Anglican minister Hone Kaa says Maori should take responsibility for child abuse in their community, and is organising a hui to address the problem.

The death of Maori children at the hands of their parents and caregivers is genocide, Anglican minister Hone Kaa says.

He yesterday announced a summit would be held in Auckland in November to tackle the issue of Maori child abuse.

He has invited Maori from the Waikato, Auckland and Northland to the summit.

The summit will be called Nga Mana Ririki, which means the Power of the Little Ones.

“Tamariki Maori are more likely to be abused and killed by their whanau than any other group in the country. It is time to stop this genocide.”

Dr Kaa said there had been much public discussion, but very little action, over the reasons why Maori child abuse rates were so high.

Ministry for Social Development figures show Maori children are almost twice as likely than non-Maori children to be assessed as abused or neglected. In 2003, the rate per 1000 was 11.9 for Maori and 5.9 for non-Maori.

Dr Kaa said it was time for Maori to take responsibility for the issue and develop solutions that worked.

The hui would be by invitation. Participants would hear from a range of Maori experts, and then draw up a strategic plan.

“It’s an ambitious project but I am absolutely confident in the ability of the Maori we are calling together. We converted from internecine warfare and cannibalism little more than a century ago, so I am sure we can stop abusing and killing our children.”

Project manager Anton Blank pointed to the Smokefree campaign as an existing template for this type of project.

“Sustained communications and branding combined with community action and intervention services have resulted in a reduction of Maori smoking rates. We can do the same with Maori child abuse,” Mr Blank said.

The summit will open with a memorial service on November 25, and will run until November 28. The service, which is open to everyone, will be held at the Holy Sepulchre Church on Auckland’s Khyber Pass Rd.

Dr Kaa said politicians and decision makers would be invited to the last day of the summit, to review the plan and discuss how they might support Nga Mana Ririki.

10 October 2007 – Family First – PM Should Call for End to Death Penalty of Unborn Child

MEDIA RELEASE
10 October 2007

PM Should Call for End to Death Penalty of Unborn Child

Family First is calling on the Prime Minister to be consistent, and call for the end of the death penalty to both adults and the unborn child.

In joining Amnesty International’s call today to end the death penalty worldwide, the Prime Minister said “The death penalty violates the right to life and is by definition and in practice, a cruel and degrading treatment. It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent. It’s very nature means it cannot be reversed.”

Family First agrees, and therefore calls on her government to immediately change the law which allows the death penalty being inflicted on the unborn child because of the abuse of the ‘mental health’ exemption clause in the existing legislation.

“It is ironic that during the smacking debate, the PM argued that children should enjoy the same protection as adults – yet has conveniently forgotten this principle in relation to the unborn child,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“It is also hypocritical of Amnesty International to call for the end of the death penalty despite its recent decision to support abortion as a human right. They have no credibility on this matter anymore.”

“Family First awaits the Prime Minister’s amendment to the current abortion laws which allow, on average, 18,000 unborn children to be aborted every year.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Poll

Do you think that tougher penalties should be introduced for young offenders who commit serious crimes?

See story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4220854a10.html

Yes (2968 votes, 95.4%)
No (144 votes, 4.6%)

Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate.

It is not tougher penalties that should be introduced for young offenders who commit serious crimes. We need to be training the parents on how to raise up their children so that they do not commit minor or serious crimes.

We do not need the State interferring more in families.
We need to give the parents the tools to train and correct their children as necessary.

1 October 2007 – The Dominion Post – Police ‘powerless to act’ on child crims

“The reality is 15- and 16-year-olds don’t suddenly become violent,” Mr O’Connor said.

NZ First MP Ron Mark has drafted a bill that would lower the age of prosecution from 14 to 12, and introduce tougher penalties for young offenders who commit serious crimes.

We don’t need to lower the age of prosecution from 14 to 12 we just need to give parents the OK to discipline and correct their children. This is years of PC gone wrong where NGOs have been telling parents not to use reasonable force to correct their children. We are seeing the results and these results will be multiplied now that Section 59 has been amended.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4220854a10.html

Police ‘powerless to act’ on child crims
By EMILY WATT – The Dominion Post | Monday, 1 October 2007

Children too young to be prosecuted have been implicated in more than 8500 crimes in one year, and police say they are often powerless to intervene.

Officers say there is little they can do in the cases, such as a 10- year-old who attacked classmates with a piece of timber, two 12-year-olds with 33 burglary charges, and a 13-year-old who attacked police with a baseball bat.

One Lower Hutt 13-year-old in social welfare care for sexual offences abused two-year-olds four more times while in care, with police unable to act.

Police usually rely on care and protection orders to intervene with troubled children through the Family Court, but officers say this can be difficult when many of them come from working two-parent families where Child, Youth and Family is unlikely to become involved.

Justice Ministry statistics show police apprehended 700 children aged under 10 and 7900 children aged 10 to 13 last year for crimes including violence, drugs and burglary. Property offences were the most common crimes committed..

Police say anecdotal evidence suggests young people are offending younger and more violently. By the time police are able to intervene, when the child turns 14, the behaviour is often entrenched.

Children under 14 can only be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

NZ First MP Ron Mark has drafted a bill that would lower the age of prosecution from 14 to 12, and introduce tougher penalties for young offenders who commit serious crimes.

Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft and Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro have criticised the bill.

Police say they do not want to criminalise young people, but lowering the age of criminal responsibility would allow police to intervene and offer the help they need – before they became hardened criminals.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said police also wanted the Youth Court empowered to better deal with these young people quickly and more effectively.

Lower Hutt Youth Aid Sergeant Steve O’Connor said most children who misbehaved were dealt with effectively by parents and schools. But the small group of serious or recidivist offenders were slipping through the cracks.

Some of the behaviours seen by young children were “quite frightening”, including taking knives to school and assaulting other children.

Youth offending figures were “overwhelmingly under-reported”, because many police simply took the children home without documenting the incident. But if young offenders were not dealt with, they would go on to further crime.

“The reality is 15- and 16-year-olds don’t suddenly become violent,” Mr O’Connor said.

Mr Mark said the Justice Ministry statistics were further proof the age of prosecution should be lowered. “In four years’ time they will be the graduates of the failing youth justice system, and they will become the very adults that people are bleating about being in our jails.”

Mr Mark’s bill is being examined by a select committee.