Family Integrity

Tag: Correction

  • Sue Reid: Smacking laws were never about the real issue of child abuse

    This was in the NZ Herald .

    It is a shame that we have a Families Commission that is driven by ideology rather than listening to families.

    Chief commissioner Jan Pryor espouses her beliefs that “positive parenting should never include a smack” (Herald, April 3).

    Her so-called justification for the anti-smacking laws are inflammatory and continue to vilify good parents who may use a smack as part of good parental correction.

    As a mother of two young children, I resent the constant barrage that fully funded, power-packed organisations such as the Families Commission can constantly deliver from their lofty soap-boxes.

    One can be left wondering who represents mums like me who are focused on the task of raising good, law-abiding and positive contributors to society. Like many other mums, I know that I wish to parent within a sensible legal framework and we owe it to good parents to get this law right.

    The new flawed law has tried to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind and has put good parents in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society.

    Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change – the same rate as before the change. The smacking laws were never about addressing the real issue of child abuse but to undermine and criminalise good parents.

    Contrary to Pryor’s comments, the new law did introduce a new criminal offence – smacks for the purpose of correction, no matter how light, are a crime.

    Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for “minor acts of physical discipline” and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated – yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.

    And there has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF’s notifications, but the cases warranting further investigation haven’t increased – in other words, valuable resources and time are taken away from the front line to deal with the real cases of abuse.

    Family First NZ has plenty of evidence on its website of families being investigated and traumatised for complaints of light smacking, including parents who are referred to CYF by so-called helping agencies when they are simply seeking help, and of children ringing CYF to complain about their parents – imagine what that is like for a family.

    Pryor asks families to seek help but in a culture of being labelled “lowest common denominator”, this will do nothing to support and foster good parenting.

    She says “there is no legal justification for the use of force to correct a child’s behaviour”, so why does “positive parenting” not include correction? As a mother I need to be able to teach my child right from wrong and it is an ongoing process to “correct” my child’s behaviour – society expects me to fulfil this role.

    We can all lament the daily cases in the media whereby individuals have not “corrected” their behaviour and have become a blight on society. Many parents would testify to aspects that are less than positive in the training of a child for the adult world.

    I am sure the child does not see “time out” in a positive light nor see grounding as positive. Parents are often seen in negative light when they proceed with knowing best what will work for their child.

    The role of parent is set apart from other relationships such as in the workplace or a sports team. Parents have the reserved responsibility to raise, train and shape the will and character of their child to maturity. Adults have already mastered that task – so the argument that Pryor puts forth about smacking another adult is null and void.

    It is important to progress through to a referendum in July. This issue continues to be a strong, unresolved matter for most parents. After all, this was a citizens’ initiated referendum and the democratic process needs to complete its cycle by asking the voting public, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?”

    People who don’t like the question in the referendum simply don’t like the answer they come to.

    Organisations such as the Families Commission would better serve families when they consider the attitudes, needs and requirements of families rather than using their government-funded weight to impose a flawed ideology on to good, healthy, functioning families.

    * Sue Reid is a researcher and writer for Family First NZ.

  • Smacking Equated with Torture and Death Penalty

    MEDIA RELEASE

    20 May 2009

    Smacking Equated with Torture and Death Penalty

    Family First NZ says that the United Nations Committee on Torture has equated a kiwi parent using a smack for the purpose of correction as a form of torture, and compared the anti-smacking law to the abolition of the death penalty.

    “This report has been promoted by groups supporting the anti-smacking law including Plunket, Barnardos, the Families Commission and EPOCH and shows a view of parenting completely removed from reality,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “To link a parent who corrects a child using a smack with torture, the death penalty, and tasering of violent offenders is both breathtaking and insulting, and shows why these groups have failed to get the huge majority of NZ parents on side in this debate.”

    “They argue that the anti-smacking law has been introduced to meet the recommendations made by both the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee on Torture.”

    “This simply reinforces the overriding concern that the anti-smacking law had nothing to do with child abuse and was more to do with an ideologically flawed and UN-driven agenda.”

    “But 80% of NZ’ers knew that the anti-smacking law would have no affect on child abuse anyway,” says Bob McCoskrie. “It’s time we tackled the real causes.”

    Full report: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-7S49PY?OpenDocument

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Bradford Encourages Parents to Carry On Smacking

    From:

    http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/bradford-encourages-parents-to-carry-on-smacking/

    Bradford Encourages Parents to

    Carry On Smacking

    In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are misleading the public.

    In a media release from the Green party today, Bradford says ‘smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn’t.’

    Yet only last year, she told Newstalk ZB ‘it is already illegal to smack children but her bill removes a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.’

    And in the original 2003 media release from the Green party launching her amendment to section 59, it is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844

    “Sue Bradford is confused by her own law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and is misrepresenting the real effect and purpose of the anti-smacking law. She believes smacking is assault, yet more than 80% of NZ’ers continue to disagree.”

    “Otherwise, we can only conclude that she is telling parents to carry on smacking and if investigated by police or CYF, parents should tell them that they don’t understand the law and to get lost. Yet parents are getting referred to CYF and the police by schools, neighbours, social workers, even their own kids, for light smacking.”

    “If the politicians who designed the law are confused, where does that put parents who are simply trying to raise good kids without breaking the law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that it clearly states that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 86% of NZ’ers according to today’s NZ Herald poll), and to then tackle the real causes of child abuse.

    To comment go to: http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/bradford-encourages-parents-to-carry-on-smacking/

  • Critique of the so-called ‘anti-smacking law’

    Critique of the so-called

    ‘anti-smacking law’.

    Old Section 59:

    Every parent of a child and…every

    person in the place of the parent

    of a child is justified in using

    force by way of correction

    towards the child, if the force

    used is reasonable in the

    circumstances.

    New Section 59:

    Parental Control

    (1) Every parent of a child

    and every person in the

    place of a parent of  the

    child is justified in using force

    if the force used is reasonable

    in the circumstances and is for

    the purpose of —

    (a) preventing or minimising

    harm to the child or another

    person; or

    (b) preventing the child from

    engaging or continuing to

    engage in conduct that amounts

    to a criminal offence; or

    (c) preventing the child from

    engaging or continuing to engage

    in offensive or disuptive

    behaviour; or

    (d) performing the normal daily

    tasks that are incidental to good

    care and parenting.

    (2) Nothing in subsection

    (1) or in any rule of

    common law justifies the

    use of force for the

    purpose of correction.

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails

    over subsection (1).

    (4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

    Analysis:

    Subsection 4 is what is known as the ‘Key’ amendment because John Key proposed this amendment as a way, it is claimed, to make the law more acceptable to people and, it is said, to give police discretion in regards to whether they laid a charge or not. Three things regarding this amendment:

    1. The use of force to correct a child is said to be an ‘offence’. This term is used twice in the amendment. If one commits an offence which is a criminal offence – which the use of force against a child for the purpose of correction is according to this law – then the person who commits the offence is a criminal. The offence is an offence whether or not anyone knows about it, and regardless of whether or not a charge is made against the offending person for it. (A thief is a thief whether they’re caught and charged or not!)
    Consequently, the use of force for the purpose of correction under this law is by definition a criminal offence, and thus anybody who uses any force to correct a child is by definition a criminal. John Key/National acknowledge this in the amendment by the use of the word ‘offence’, and so did not moderate Bradford’s bill in the slightest with the amendment as they claim. Parents are still criminals if they use any force whatsoever for correction of their children, which is precisely what Bradford’s bill did all along without the ammendment.

    2. What this amendment did do was to add stupidity to perversity, in that right in the law itself, it was said that under some circumstances the law did not need to be enforced. Whoever heard of making a law which is not meant to be enforced? This is stupid. Why make the law? Laws are meant to be enforced!

    3. The amendment says that no prosecution by the police needs to proceed if ‘the offence’ – that is, the use of force for the correction of children – is inconsequential. With all due respect, this also is nonsense. The correction of children is meant to be consequential! It is meant to produce a consequence, a change of behavior. So what this is saying is that if the correction doesn’t correct the child and doesn’t change their behaviour, then you won’t be prosecuted, but if the correction does correct the child and does change their behaviour, as is intended by the correction, you will be prosecuted!

    So Nationals claim, as was said to me by a National MP, that the amendment vastly improved the bill, is nonsense.

    One of the things that were said ad nauseam by Bradford and supporters up until the passing of the bill, was that ‘reasonable force’ was used as a cover for abuse, a legal means which was used by child abusers who were brought to court, to evade conviction. Over a period of 10 years, 15 or so cases of appeal to Section 59 as a defense were made, and in half of the cases, those charged were found guilty, so the claim by Bradford etc hardly holds. When the old S59 was used in a spurious way in a case – as Bradford and Co falsely implied happened a lot, the court understood this and prosecuted if necessary.

    Now regarding ‘reasonable force’:
    Force is not defined in this law. Nor is the word ‘physical’ used as descriptive or defining of the force. Nor is the force said to be smacking. The word smacking is not anywhere in the bill.

    Force however is defined in the Crimes Act in one place, as found below. This definition was the definition that always defined the ‘force’ in S59 of the Crimes Act. S59 was in the Crimes Act so as to provide parents with exemption from precisely this very definition being applied to them. This exemption was there because the correction of children was understood to be a necessary and indeed a primary role of parenting. With the new S59 having removed the protection parents had from using force for the purpose of correction, this definition below is what now applies to them – without any sort of mitigation – in all those situations where parents apply any force for the purpose of correction.

    Crimes Act, Section 2, defines assault thus:

    2. Interpretation –

    “Assault” means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.

    As can be seen in highlighted sections of the two versions of Section 59 at the top – the old and new, virtually all of the original S59 was included in the new S59. Critically, all the parts of the old S59 that were criticised by Bradford and co as providing the legal grounds for parents to abuse their children, are retained in the new S59! However, in the old S59 there was only one ground allowed for the use of reasonable force – the force was to be for correction, whereas in the new S59 there are four grounds where reasonable force – exactly the same term – is allowed.
    And not only were the allowable grounds expanded from one to four, within each of those four there are a myriad of possibilities available for parents to ‘abuse’ their children.
    So, if ‘reasonable force’ under the old law gave cover for people to abuse children, the new law has expanded that cover to give a vastly increased number of opportunities for abuse to occur! This shows clearly that it is not ‘force’, nor even ‘reasonable force’, that Bradford etc were against, but correction. They obviously do not want children to be corrected. If you ask why would they not want children corrected, I would say that is a very good question, and I think I know the answer.

    Now in regard to Section 1:
    Parts (a) through (c) all describe the type of behaviour by children, which parents traditionally would have corrected by the use of force. In other words, in the past, not only would parents have stopped the behaviour occurring, but they would have sought by means of correction to have stopped that behaviour being repeated. Now however, under the new S59, all the parent is allowed to do is to stop the behaviour occurring, but not correct the behaviour so that it does not occur again. Why were the people who voted for this bill, so intent on stopping the correction of behaviour? What do they have against correction?

    In regards to part (d), reasonable force is allowed for the performing of the ‘normal daily tasks that are ‘incidental’ to good care and parenting’.
    I would suggest that the correction of children is the very opposite of being incidental to good parenting. The term ‘incidental’ means ‘secondary’, ‘of less importance’, ‘of minor consequence’, ‘occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation’. Thus if I am right in saying that correction is the opposite of being incidental to good parenting, then correction is not secondary but primary, is of more importance rather than of less importance, is of significant consequence as opposed to being of minor consequence, and occurs as a result of intention and calculation, as opposed to resulting from chance or without intention or calculation.

    The law thus says that reasonable force is allowed for those parts of parenting which are of little consequence, but not for those parts of parenting which are of great consequence. This is utter madness.

    Written by Renton

  • Section 59 old and new

    Old Section 59:

    Every parent of a child and…every

    person in the place of the parent of

    a child is justified in using force by

    way of correction towards the child, if

    the force used is reasonable in the

    circumstances.

    New Section 59:

    Parental Control

    (1) Every parent of a child and every

    person in the place of a parent of the

    child is justified in using force if the

    force used is reasonable in the

    circumstances and is for the purpose of —

    (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

    (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

    (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or

    (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or

    in any rule of common law

    justifies the use of force for the

    purpose of correction.

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over

    subsection (1).

    (4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.