Family Integrity

Tag: CYFs

  • Mums Still Smacking, Want Law Change not Discretion – Poll

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 March 2010

    Mums Still Smacking,

    Want Law Change not Discretion – Poll

    Family First NZ says that almost half of our mums of young children have admitted smacking illegally in the past 12 months, and three out of four mums want the government to adopt a law change rather than rely on police (and CYF) discretion.

    These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ. The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 1,000 people, and also found continued confusion over the legal effect of the law.

    “This poll confirms that the Prime Minister has not reassured parents. They are still concerned that he is willing to retain a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, extremely vague, and had to whip his MP’s to support.”

    “Immediately following the referendum last year, polling showed 52% wanted a law change and 27% supported no law change but greater discretion as suggested by the PM. That has now almost returned to the 80% benchmark of opposition to the law that has been present for the past 5 years.”

    _________________________________________________________________

    KEY FINDINGS

    Extensive support for a law change across all demographics (4 out of 5 people)

    3 out of 4 say the law is not at all likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse

    Only 1/3’rd of respondents actually understand the law correctly

    45% of mums of under 12’s have smacked illegally in past 12 months

    1/4 of mums more likely to vote for political party that commits to changing law

    _________________________________________________________________

    “A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment. That’s what parents deserve, what they want, and what the politicians should respect and act on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    As a result of this poll, Family First is continuing to call on the government to adopt ACT MP John Boscawen’s private members bill which is similar to National MP Chester Borrow’s proposed amendment. National MP’s were supporting this amendment until they were whipped to vote for Sue Bradford’s bill at the last minute.

    The poll was conducted between 24 and 28 March 2010 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



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

  • Pro-Spanking (Smacking) Studies May Have Global Effect

    Pro-Spanking Studies May Have Global Effect

    Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 11:11 AM

    By: Theodore Kettle

    Two recent analyses – one psychological, the other legal – may debunk lenient modern parenting the way the Climategate e-mail scandal has short circuited global warming alarmism.

    A study entailing 2,600 interviews pertaining to corporal punishment, including the questioning of 179 teenagers about getting spanked and smacked by their parents, was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    Gunnoe’s findings, announced this week: “The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data.”

    Those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.

    Another study published in the Akron Law Review last year examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime.

    A key focus of the work of Jason M. Fuller of the University of Akron Law School was Sweden, which 30 years ago became the first nation to impose a complete ban on physical discipline and is in many respects “an ideal laboratory to study spanking bans,” according to Fuller.

    Since the spanking ban, child abuse rates in Sweden have exploded over 500 percent, according to police reports. Even just one year after the ban took effect, and after a massive government public education campaign, Fuller found that “not only were Swedish parents resorting to pushing, grabbing, and shoving more than U.S. parents, but they were also beating their children twice as often.”

    After a decade of the ban, “rates of physical child abuse in Sweden had risen to three times the U.S. rate” and “from 1979 to 1994, Swedish children under seven endured an almost six-fold increase in physical abuse,” Fuller’s analysis revealed.

    “Enlightened” parenting also seems to have produced increased violence later. “Swedish teen violence skyrocketed in the early 1990s, when children that had grown up entirely under the spanking ban first became teenagers,” Fuller noted. “Preadolescents and teenagers under fifteen started becoming even more violent toward their peers. By 1994, the number of youth criminal assaults had increased by six times the 1984 rate.”

    Since Sweden, dozens of countries have banned parental corporal punishment, like Germany, Italy, and in 2007 New Zealand, where using force to correct children entails full criminal penalties, and where a mother cannot even legally take her child’s hand to bring him where he refuses to go.

    The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, meanwhile, challenges laws permitting any physical punishment of children and has called on all governments in the world to prohibit every form of physical discipline, including within the family.

    In the U.S., the National Association of Social Workers has declared that all physical punishment of children has harmful effects and should be stopped; social workers are being trained to advocate against physical discipline when they visit homes. And in 2007, San Francisco Bay area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber unsuccessfully proposed legislation imposing a California state ban on spanking children under the age of four.

    Contrary to popular belief, the pediatrician and leftist political activist Dr. Benjamin Spock did not popularize parental leniency. In early editions of his famously bestselling book, “Baby and Child Care,” Spock did not rule out spanking, (although he did later); on the contrary, Spock called for “clarity and consistency of the parents’ leadership,” considered kindness and devotion to be a necessity for parents who spank, and believed that the inability to be firm was “the commonest problem of parents in America.”

    Spock’s 21st century disciples, however, depart from his original precepts. DrSpock.com, which “embodies the strength and identity of world-renowned pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, providing parents with the latest expert content from today’s leading authorities in parenting,” and embraces Dr. Spock’s “philosophy and vision,” declares that “Punishment is not the key to discipline.”

    The parental guidance website contends that “Spanking teaches children that the larger, stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right.” DrSpock.com concludes that “The American tradition of spanking may be one reason that there is much more violence in our country than in any other comparable nation.”

    Of like mind is the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose official policy says: “Despite its common acceptance, spanking is a less effective strategy than timeout or removal of privileges for reducing undesired behavior in children. Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use.”

    The academy adds: “The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.”

    “Timeout,” a widely popularized alternative to physical discipline in which a child is separated from a situation or environment after misbehaving, was devised in the 1960’s by behavioral researcher Arthur Staats as “a very mild punishment, the removal from a more reinforcing situation.”

    Gunnoe’s findings are being largely ignored by the U.S. media, but made a splash in British newspapers. It is not the first time her work has been bypassed by the press. Her 1997 work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression also went largely unreported.

    Nor is she alone in her conclusions. Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley and her teams of professional researchers over a decade conducted what is considered the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study yet done. They examined 164 families, tracking their children from age four to 14. Baumrind found that spanking can be helpful in certain contexts and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.”

    She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers.

    As in climate change, politicians all over the world seem out of touch with the most rigorous science regarding parental discipline. The newest research could constitute powerful ammunition to parents rights activists seeking to reverse the global trend of intrusive governments muscling themselves between the rod and the child.

    From:

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

  • Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 December 2009

    Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    WORK STILL TO BE DONE TO GIVE PARENTS CERTAINTY ON SMACKING LAW…

    Family First NZ has released its annual list of the top family issues to be tackled, and heading the list for 2010 is the protection of children from ‘corporate pedophilia’ and reducing the ‘raunch culture’ which is harming the self-esteem, body image and academic performance of young people – especially young girls.

    “The recent marketing of sexualised shirts by Cotton On Kids to be worn by babies, the provocative Little Losers line targeted at young teenagers by clothing store Jay Jays, sexually charged billboard advertising in public places, and graphic sexual music videos, dolls, and tween magazines and websites which encourage young people to look older and act older are examples of marketers crossing the line of what is acceptable and appropriate for our communities and for the protection of our children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “A premature interest in a sexy appearance, an obsession about body image as a teenager, and an undermining of the social prohibition against seeing children as sexual objects and sexually attractive, are all huge warning flags that profits are currently more important than protecting the wellbeing of our children.”

    Also in the list is a call to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the real causes of child abuse, and a number of measures to recognise and respect the role of parents, including parental notification laws and amending the anti-smacking law to give parents certainty under the law.

    The list calls for the urgent establishment of an independent CYF Complaints Authority, and amending the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels.

    “There is still huge work to be done on reducing our child abuse rates, but also making sure that CYF and other statutory agencies don’t overstep their levels of intervention. The government is also hoping that the smacking debate will disappear, but while parents are trying to raise law abiding productive members of society, the debate will not be going away. It will become an election issue if the government doesn’t act to amend this law.”

    “The current government is attempting to stay clear of anything that might suggest social engineering,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “But there are a number of social issues which this government must tackle if they wish to be respected by parents trying to raise children in an increasingly difficult culture which undermines their efforts.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    FULL LIST

    1. Laws and Codes of Advertising to protect children/young people from sexualised images and marketing of sexual messages towards children

    The Australian Childhood Foundation released a report in Apr 2007, which showed that problem sexual behaviour in children as young as six, often appears to be influenced by sex imagery in the media. This is challenging the previously held view that most child sex abusers were responding to having being abused themselves.

    And a recent report by the American Psychological Association points to the dangers when sexualisation leads to girls viewing themselves as objects and having an unhealthy preoccupation with appearance. The pressure can lead to depression, eating disorders, and poor academic performance.

    Advertisements for kids’ products should not include sexual imagery, imply that children are sexual beings, or imply that owning a product will enhance a child’s sexuality.

    As prominent Australian psychologist Steve Biddulph said, “…smarter parents protect their kids, but as the media environment and the shopping malls deteriorate, the kids with not very bright parents have their mental healthy and sexual health degraded.”

    There is also research suggesting that pedophilia and child pornography is being driven by the sexualisation of children in mainstream marketing.

    2. Parental notification

    A parent is required to sign a note giving permission for a child to go on a school trip to the zoo but does not have to be notified or give consent if the same daughter wants to use contraception or have an abortion, and can actually be sneaked off for the procedure by Family Planning or the school nurse. Some young girls have been targeted for vaccines by family doctors without the knowledge of the parents.

    If parents are expected to support and raise their children to be law-abiding and positive members of our society, then these same parents should be kept informed and involved in the ongoing welfare of that child, and not undermined by laws which isolate children from their parents.

    3. Establishing a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse

    We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by the various UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports.

    Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with at least 18 deaths since the law was passed. Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.

    Children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse. An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step

    4. Amending the anti-smacking law to provide certainty for parents

    The Prime Minister has confused parents by saying recently that a light smack is completely ok and should not be treated as a criminal offence, yet only a few months earlier admitting that the effect of the law is that smacking is a criminal offence.

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

    A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment – the Boscawen amendment. The politicians should demand a conscience vote on this issue, and the law should give parents certainty as to whether they are parenting within the law or not.

    5. Establishing an Independent CYF Complaints Authority

    Families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF social workers have no independent body to appeal to. This is grossly unfair when families are at risk, ignored, or are being ripped apart often just based on the subjective judgment of a social worker.

    An independent CYF Complaints Authority is also in the best interests of social workers as it will provide an independent body to ensure that appropriate policy and procedures have been followed. This will result in public confidence and accountability for actions and decisions by CYF workers.

    There is a Health and Disability Commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority, even a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. We desperately need an independent body to hear complaints about the highly sensitive nature of intervening in families.

    6. Amend the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels

    The politicians gave local communities a ‘hospital pass’ when they changed the law and left the local councils the impossible job of balancing the requirements of the law with the huge concerns of families. They cannot now ignore the pleas from communities throughout NZ who are saying that the decriminalisation of prostitution has been a spectacular failure.

    The opposition to a residential based brothel in the Wellington area, opposition to a brothel in the main street of Dannevirke, opposition to brothels being zoned for the main shopping areas in Lower Hutt, opposition to a sex parlour operating in the same building as a preschool in Wellington, Hamilton City Council’s successful restriction on residential brothels, and attempts by the Manukau City Council to tackle the problems of street prostitution, shows that communities are not accepting the liberalised laws.


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

  • Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’

    MEDIA RELEASE 16 December 2009

    Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’

    “Why were we never consulted” – Parents

    We, the parents who were accused of misrepresenting the facts of our smacking cases and therefore misleading Family First, are refuting the claims, and reject the findings of the report commissioned by the Prime Minister.

    Why were we never consulted in the process? It appears that our accounts of what happened and the supporting documentation we provided, including court, police and CYF documents, to Family First has been ignored and the only opinion that matters has been that of the police and CYF. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow our voice to be heard.

    The report contains glaring errors including

    • misrepresentation of basic facts,
    • contains alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive,
    • fails to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults
    • reports a case where the police prosecution was dismissed by the court, yet the report still argues that all police action was appropriate
    • fails to address a number of cases where parents were investigated by police or CYF for erroneous claims of smacking made by passers-by or the children themselves ringing 111

    In one of the cases, the parent involved says

    CYF fully acknowledge that their handling of this case around alleged smacking was inappropriate and breached good practice.  They have apologized, both in written form and in person, and freely acknowledge that their failure to adhere to good practice caused undue stress to the family.  Although it was certainly appropriate to investigate, the separation of the family for 72 hours should never have happened.

    In another case, the parent involved says

    The report has included material which paints me as abusing my child yet that evidence was never accepted in court, was only alleged, and the child even renounced those claims to CYF and said the complaint was made up – yet I am still painted as guilty.

    As parents referred to in the report, we believe that we should have had the opportunity to respond to the claims made by the police and CYF. This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides.

    portunity to respond to the claims made by the

    We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area.

    Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns.

    We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts.

    The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.

    Signed

    “John and Sue” – pg 27

    Parent – “Father charged for one smack” – pg 24

    Parent – “Father charged for shoulder shake” – p21

    “John and Mary” – pg 23

    “Tania” – pg 30

    “Briar” – pg 29

    “Jeff and Mary” – pg 28

    Parent – “My daughter ran from our house” – pg 31

    (page numbers refer to relevant case in Prime Minister’s Report http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Sec59_review.pdf )

    Information provided of police/CYF investigations but was not even included in review

    Mother suspended for tapping child on hand

    Father charged for ‘shoulder shake’ of boy refusing to get out of bed

    Mother of 10 year old who rings 111

    ENDS

    READ MORE Specific Detail Showing How the Report Misrepresents the Facts


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

  • Reviewing the Anti-smacking law

    Reformation Testimony

    The criminalisation of New Zealand parents who discipline their children biblically: Or who will you obey, God or man?

    New Zealand has a new law which makes the corporal punishment of children a crime. This includes smacking them with a wooden spoon or strap. The government has commissioned two reports, both of which claim that parents are unaffected by the new law. But the reporters failed to ask even one parent how he feels about this unwarranted government intrusion into his life. On some occasions the charges brought by the police have been dismissed in court. But the police, the psychologists, the ‘welfare’ agencies and the politicians are quite happy to see parents investigated, prosecuted and punished for using corporal punishment on children. Parents are now intimidated by unruly children who threaten to report their parents to the police if a parent dare touch them. Parental authority has been undermined by this wicked legislation. A government is supposed to reward the good and punish evil (Romans 13:1-7), but in New Zealand rewards the evildoer and punishes the good. Prime Minister Key claims that parents won’t be investigated for giving a ‘light’ smack, but if there is some other connected issue, then the police will investigate. Of course what constitutes a connected issue is left unexplained. The facts are that family members have been investigated for the most trivial acts of discipline which have been redefined as assaults.

    For the video response to the latest government spin go here:

    www.covenantedreformation.com/#cc

    Garnet Milne

  • Some Correction Needed, But John Key says it’s OK!

    From Family First NZ

    Some Correction

    Needed



    But John Key says it’s OK!


    Prime Minister John Key and Nigel Latta say the anti-smacking law is working well, that there is no evidence of good parents being criminalised, that Family First has been misled by parents , and that light smacking shouldn’t be a criminal offence .

    So here’s some questions:
    * Why did CYF formally apologise to this family for the way they handled a smacking complaint?
    CYFS says sorry to ‘traumatised’ family
    NZ Herald Jul 31, 2009
    * Why did this parent get prosecuted ?
    ‘I asked for help but instead got conviction’
    NZ Herald Jul 28, 2009 A Wellington solo father says he went to Child, Youth and Family Services for help – and ended up with a conviction for smacking his daughter.
    * Why was this family investigated and referred to a government agency?
    School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
    Sunday Star Times Oct 28 2007
    * The law (and Plunket / Barnardos / Childrens Commissioner / Families Commissioner) says a smack is illegal . But John Key says its acceptable and shouldn’t be a criminal offence . Who’s correct ?
    “Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said. Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not ‘for the purposes of correction’ and is given for one of the permitted reasons. “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said – Source NZ Herald
    (By the way, we agree!!)
    * Why didn’t the report interview and seek feedback from kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting?
    * Why didn’t the report address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents , and threatening to report them to the police or CYF?
    * Why didn’t the report address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents ?
    * Why didn’t the report address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence policy which demands zero tolerance?
    * Why didn’t the report address why so many cases of what are supposed to be serious ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments , and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all?
    * Why didn’t the report address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.

    WHY?
    When we get some answers we’ll let you know!

    But please be aware – the latest report does not answer these important questions .

    Have a great week


    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

  • Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ

    MEDIA RELEASE

    7 December 2009

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Related document:

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

  • New Deputy Commissioner Will Speak For Families

    MEDIA RELEASE

    25 November 2009

    New Deputy Commissioner Will Speak For Families

    Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of Parents Inc’s Bruce Pilbrow as Deputy Families Commissioner.

    “Bruce Pilbrow will bring some much needed balance at the Commission and rather than talking at parents, it will hopefully start listening to the voice of families and advocating for them in a relevant way,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Unfortunately it isolated itself by ignoring some of its own research and the voice of the overwhelming majority of parents when it supported ramming through the anti-smacking law without representing the concerns and views of parents.”

    “Pilbrow’s politically incorrect views on the smacking law – ironically shared by almost 90% of the country – shows that he’s willing to move past the rhetoric and ideology, and objectively examine the facts and experiences of families.”

    “The appointment suggests that the government is willing to have a diversity of opinion in the Commission. This can only strengthen the important debates to be had around family issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Issues such as the benefits of marriage, the harm of long term daycare for very young children, an independent CYF Complaints authority,  the sexualisation of children in marketing, drug and alcohol abuse in our communities, and broadcasting and advertising standards are all big issues for families which the Commission needs to tackle head-on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First would still like to see the appointment of a Minister of Families at the Cabinet table.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



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

  • MSD report on anti-smacking law reveals more wasted paper

    MSD report on anti-smacking law reveals more wasted paper

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader, Larry Baldock, said the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) report confirms there is no clear evidence anywhere that the law change is making children safer. If the Police and CYF continue to claim it is business as usual then how come politicians love to say, as the Minister has done again today, “that the law is working as intended!”

    Mr Baldock asked, “Was the purpose of the law to make life difficult for good parents while achieving no significant benefit for the poor kids in this country who are being abused and killed on a regular basis?”

    “Peter Hughes’ conclusion in paragraphs 2 & 79 basically reveals once again that he does not understand the reality of what has happened in the homes of good parents all over this country.

    “He states, “In summary, I have not been able to find evidence to show that parents are being subject to unnecessary state intervention for occasionally lightly smacking their children.”

    “On the contrary, State intervention occurred on a massive scale when 113 MPs passed a law making smacking a criminal offence.

    When little Johnny or Susie comes home and tells Mum and Dad that the teacher told them they could report their parents to the police if they gave them a smack, that, Mr Hughes, is state intervention of the highest order and is why a massive 87.4% ‘NO’ vote occurred in our recent referendum.

    “In paragraph 42 of the report Peter Hughes informs us that CYF has not altered its policy since the introduction of the ‘anti-smacking law’.  All that that confirms is that his department has had an anti-smacking policy in force for some time.  This will come as no surprise to those New Zealanders who have had dealings with CYF social workers and staff.

    Ends

    Contact
    Larry Baldock
    021864833

  • Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Essential

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 October 2009

    Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Essential

    ‘How many more children have to die before we do something?’

    Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Enquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ.

    The call comes following the suspected child abuse death of Wanganui toddler Karl Perigo-Check Junior which is the 18th case since the passing of the anti-smacking law.

    “We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

    “Over the past 30 years we have allowed a succession of policies to diminish the importance of family structure and marriage. We have watched as politicians have given adults the right to silence, bail and parole while the rights of children to be safe have been ignored. We have allowed children to be raised in homes with an unacceptable level of drug abuse, family dysfunction and physical and emotional harm. And we’ve allowed the media to fill our minds with increasing levels of sexual and violent images in the name of entertainment and freedom of speech.”

    “The 88% of voters who oppose the anti-smacking law are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children. They are simply kiwis who are exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed family welfare groups are more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”

    “Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with at least 18 deaths since the law was passed,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.”

    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie. www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

    HALL OF SHAME

    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007

    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007

    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007

    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007

    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa

    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu

    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury

    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008

    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008

    10.  16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008

    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009

    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009

    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009

    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09

    15. Three-year-old Kash McKinnon Palmerston North Aug 09

    16. Baby death arrest Green Bay 26 Aug 2009

    17. 22 month old Hail-Sage McClutchie Morrinsville 27 Sep 2009 

    18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42



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