Family Integrity

Tag: Family First NZ

  • Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 July 2010

    Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step

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

    Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ, and says that it will be an important first step in identifying and targeting the real causes of child abuse.

    The call comes following the death of 6 month old Cezar Taylor. More than 20 children have been killed since the passing of the anti-smacking law, maintaining the rate of child abuse deaths that existed before the law change.

    “We are tip-toeing around the real issues of alcohol abuse, drugs, declining rates of marriage, increasing levels of violence and sexual content in our media, and welfare which rewards dysfunction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on these difficult issues as well as mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF and CYF reports.”

    “The 88% of voters in the recent Referendum who opposed the anti-smacking law are NZ’ers exasperated with the fact that politicians and government funded groups seem more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”

    “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 http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=41369

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

    18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009

    19. 13 month old New Lynn 18 Feb 2010
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626907

    20. Infanticide Waltham 18 Feb 2010
    Police investigating the death of a baby who was found at a Christchurch address yesterday are looking for the child’s mother.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3342576/Police-appeal-for-dead-babys-mother

    21. Cezar Taylor 6 months July 2010


    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

  • 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

  • Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 January 2010

    Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    Family First NZ says that ‘time out’ is now being labeled as harmful to children based on flawed ideology and without any research to back up the claims, as was the case with the smacking debate.

    “Last week, an Australian parenting expert labeled time out as shameful and humiliating, joining other so-called parenting experts who claim that time out creates hurt, anger and defiance in a child ultimately harming them. They also claim that nervous habits can result, and that children should not be told they are naughty,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Once again, these unsubstantiated and ideologically flawed claims and latest fads in parenting by academics simply undermine the confidence of parents to raise their children in a positive and common sense way. Where does it stop? Will it soon be unacceptable to withdraw privileges or ‘ground’ a child – perhaps it will soon be even unacceptable to frown at a child who is misbehaving!”

    “Great and law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to changed their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology. Yet all these techniques have been proven throughout the generations to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “The discipline, training and correction of children, and techniques being used to achieve this, are being demonized with no justification.”

    “For example, research earlier this month has shown that light smacking is not harmful and can even be beneficial to children.”

    “Parents should be given the freedom and respect to raise their own children in a common sense and non-abusive way rather than being harassed with the latest theories of child rearing from so-called experts,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    It’s time the government listened to thorough and balanced research, and to the experience of parents and grandparents on smacking, time out and other issues related to raising responsible and law abiding citizens, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of academics and state agencies who have misdefined positive parenting and child abuse.”

    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

  • Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    MEDIA RELEASE

    4 January 2010

    Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    Family First NZ is welcoming the latest research showing that light and reasonable smacking is beneficial to children in their development, and despite claims by government funded groups, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use.

    “Previous research has not been able to compare children who have been smacking with those who have never been smacked, because children who’ve never been smacked were hard to find as most kids received physical discipline at least once in their life,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “But due to the pervading anti-smacking ideology, this has changed.”

    “Yet this study found that young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been smacked. Children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined. Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.”

    Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children. Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

    This follows earlier research from Duke University which showed that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use because parents are less agitated and more consistent.

    “This is more evidence to go alongside previous NZ-based research from Professor Fergusson at Christchurch School of Medicine and from Otago University showing that light smacking is not child abuse, is actually beneficial when used in a positive and loving family environment, and should definitely not be a criminal offence in this country,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to change their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology.  Yet these techniques are proven to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “It’s time the government listened to the thorough and balanced research on smacking and the concerns of parents and grandparents raising or who have raised great kids, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of government funded groups which should be focusing on actual child abuse.”

    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

  • 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

  • PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    13 December 2009

    PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law

    Family First NZ says that an expert legal opinion on the smacking law published in the latest NZ Law Journal is confirmation that John Key needs to amend the law, not the guidelines, in order to deliver what he has told NZ parents.

    The article by Prof Richard Ekins from Auckland University entitled “’Light Smacking’ and Discretion” says

    • the 2007 Act makes it quite clear that parents who lightly smack their children for the purpose of correction commit a criminal act – contrary to the ‘sales pitch’ by politicians. It also criticises a number of MP’s for the way they have tried to present the effects of the new law
    • any Police policy not to prosecute light smacking is unlawful.  ‘If the Government wishes to protect “good parents” from the criminal law then it cannot rely on s 59(4) but must instead invite Parliament to enact legislation specifying when and how reasonable force – a light smack – for the purpose of correction is justified.’
    • ‘The Police guidelines for the new s 59 demonstrate a tension between the presumption that light smacking of a child is inconsequential – effectively the Government’s position – and the Police Family Violence Policy’ – namely zero tolerance
    • the police guidelines indicate that a parent who lightly smacks their child on more than one occasion or who smacks more than one of their children should be automatically prosecuted
    • ‘Reasonable persons accept a duty to obey the law and hence are concerned that the law be reasonable. Because the Act makes it unlawful – a criminal offence – for any person to act in this way, the prospect of being accused, convicted, and punished, while not unimportant, is of secondary interest.’

    “John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores 87% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague. Legal experts agree with him. It is a badly written law as it stands,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “As the Ekins article says, good parents’ primary concern is that they operate under reasonable laws because they accept a duty to obey the law. They may obey the law but that doesn’t mean they agree with it.”

    “The PM said earlier this week that a light smack is ok and shouldn’t be criminalised – a view shared by more than 80% of the country.  But that’s not what the law says, as proved by this article,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Mr Key should take legal advice – not political advice – and amend the law to deliver what he wants, thereby giving parents certainty that they are parenting within the law. Then perhaps we can start to focus on the real causes of child abuse and the rotten parents who are abusing their kids and don’t care what the law says.”

    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

  • 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)

  • Families Warned Pillow Fight May Be Assault

    MEDIA RELEASE

    3 December 2009

    Families Warned Pillow Fight May Be Assault

    Family First NZ says that a decision to drag an uncle through court for having a pillow fight with his nephew is an example of the ‘discretion’ test failing and laws such as the anti-smacking law effectively targeting good parents.

    The case was thrown out in the Wellington District court today just before the trial by jury started.

    “While we acknowledge that this uncle is no saint, the facts of this case and the evidence presented to the police clearly shows that this was no assault yet the police proceeded with a prosecution right through to a trial by jury,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “It is incredible when a harmless playful gesture between an uncle and a nephew with a soft pillow becomes an assault charge, and suggests that the zero tolerance policy for family violence is overriding discretion and a common sense approach. It also shows confusion over the definition of violence.”

    “Police effectively don’t have discretion. This reinforces why many people want the anti-smacking law changed to bring certainty to what is or isn’t allowed rather than depending on the ‘inconsequential’ test. Parents deserve that measure of certainty as to how the law will be applied.”

    “Fortunately the court has seen the facts for what they are, but that may come down simply to who the judge was on the day.”

    “Parents who previously had faith in police discretion have every reason to be hugely concerned by this case,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    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