Family Integrity

Tag: Family First NZ

  • Parents Reject Anti-Smacking Bill

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0808/S00017.htm

    Parents Reject Anti-Smacking Bill

    Saturday, 2 August 2008, 4:07 pm
    Press Release: Family First

    MEDIA RELEASE

    87% Of Parents of Young Children Reject Anti-Smacking Bill

    Family First NZ says that the Littlies website poll which found that 87% of parents of young children don’t think the anti-smacking law is effective is confirmation that NZ’ers have soundly rejected the law change and its time the politicians listened and changed it.

    The www.littlies.co.nz poll asked “One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?” 87% said No, and a further 7% were unsure. Only 7% said it was effective.

    According to their website, Littlies Magazine is the country’s fastest growing and only monthly parenting magazine. They reach more families with children 0-5 years than any other parenting magazine in New Zealand (81,000 families).

    “This is the voice of kiwi parents. The opposition to the anti-smacking law is just as strong as it was when it was first pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and follows on from other polls which have recorded similar opposition.”

    A Research International poll in February found that 74% parents believed it should be legal to smack; a Family First commissioned poll in May found that 85% wanted the law changed to allow light smacking; a TVNZ website poll in June found that 85% wanted the anti-smacking law scrapped; and a NZ Herald poll in June found that 81% wanted a referendum on the smacking legislation at this year’s election.

    “The anti-smacking lobby has tried to argue that NZ’ers have changed their mind on the legislation and that the 390,000 NZ’ers who signed the petition were either misled or have changed their mind. These arguments have been found wanting and smack of desperation,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “It’s time to tackle the real causes of child abuse, violence and crime without criminalising the efforts of good parents raising productive and law-abiding citizens of the future.”

    “NZ can lead the world by being the first country to reverse this flawed law before its effects are fully felt by families and the community,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

  • Police ‘Taxi Service’ for Truant Sets Dangerous Precedent

    Original article:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4642055a11.html

    MEDIA RELEASE

    August 2008

    Police ‘Taxi Service’ for Truant Sets Dangerous Precedent

    Family First NZ says that a dangerous precedent is being set by the police by taxiing a truanting 14 year old to school every morning, and fails to deal with the underlying problems.

    “The causes of truancy are predominantly a lack of parental supervision or a breakdown in the functioning of the family to the point that the parent has no control over the actions of the child,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “In this case, reported from Christchurch and under a new scheme called Rock On, the police are simply fulfilling the role of the parent and are providing a short term solution to a potentially longer term problem.”

    “The problem, which is becoming more common, is that a student is being left to fend for themselves – in this case from 6.15 in the morning. Schools are already expressing concerns that children are being dropped off at schools earlier and earlier.”

    30,000 students are absent without leave every week in NZ, and the truancy rate has increased 41% since 2002.

    “Research is quite clear that parental supervision needs to be in place at key times of the day, including before and straight after school, to ensure that the child doesn’t become at-risk.”

    “Unfortunately, the expectation on both parents to work, economic pressures on families, and the hours that parents work, means that children and teenagers are more likely to be unsupervised at key times,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Shift work can also mean that mum and dad are at home at completely separate times for their kids.”

    “It is time we expected and enabled parents to fulfil their important and essential role of supervising their children rather than trying to put ‘rescue nets’ and programmes in place which simply mask the problem.”

    “But this will mean a huge ‘mind-shift’ in terms of respecting the role of parents and supporting that role.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • More Good Parents Victims of Anti-Smacking Law

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00332.htm

    More Good Parents Victims of Anti-Smacking Law

    Monday, 28 July 2008, 8:29 am
    Press Release: Family First


    More Evidence of Good Parents Victims of Anti-Smacking Law

    Family First has published advertisements in the Sunday papers highlighting further cases of good parents being reported, investigated, persecuted, and even prosecuted as a result of the anti-smacking law.

    “All NZ’ers want to tackle the issue of child abuse but the anti-smacking law, and the compromise brokered by John Key, has not brought about the desired result,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Even the architect of the bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, has admitted that the bill was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse and child violence.”

    “But now we have good parents being caught in the cross-fire of our worthy desire to tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    Family First has documented evidence of a number of disturbing cases including:

    * a father separated from his children for 6 months by CYF because of malicious claims by mother that he had smacked them – CYF eventually re-allowed access but only due to a strong supporter who knew the system
    * a father prosecuted and convicted because of pushing the upper arm of his daughter 2-3 times and demanding she listen to her mother
    * a father dragged through the court process only to turn up to the court case and the police to admit they had no evidence
    * a stepfather who had to physically restrain the arms of his stepdaughter, being interrogated for 2 hours almost 7 months after the incident, and 6 months later still not knowing the outcome
    * a CYFS Community Panel Board member telling Family First “I can say without a doubt, that in my time I have seen a small but a definite increase in ‘good’ parents being investigated by our CYFS case workers.”

    Other cases are documented on our website http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/CASES

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers, according to recent research).

    ENDS

  • Parents Assaulted by Anti-Smacking Law

    td{ font: normal 10pt arial}

    This advertisement appeared in all national Sunday newspapers…
    To read, click on the image below
    FORWARD IT ON TO OTHER CONCERNED PARENTS

    If you can’t see image, CLICK HERE

    Thanks for helping us defend good parents while demanding action on real child abuse
    www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Family First NZ comment on Vigilance needed still on child abuse

    From Family First NZ Website:

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/media_centre/recent_news/news/vigilance_needed_still_on_child_abuse.html

    Green Party MP Sue Bradford addresses the Children's Issues Centre national seminar in the Tower Lecture Theatre, at the University of Otago College of Education in Dunedin yesterday. Photo by Peter McIntosh.

    Green Party MP Sue Bradford addresses the Children’s Issues Centre national seminar in the Tower Lecture Theatre, at the University of Otago College of Education in Dunedin yesterday. Photo by Peter McIntosh.

    Vigilance needed still on child abuse

    should read Vigilance needed to keep smacking banned!)
    Otago Daily Times 26 July 08
    The repealing of section 59 of the Crimes Act was not “100% safe” (TRUE) and it was important to stay vigilant, Green Party MP Sue Bradford told those attending the Children’s Issues Centre national seminar in Dunedin yesterday. “There is still an ongoing political battle and it is not completely won.(TRUE) ” Ms Bradford is one of six speakers at the seminar, which is focused on moving on from the repealing of section 59.

    Polls showed the law change was a major election issue for about 5% of voters (TRUE), Ms Bradford said. The “most powerful forces” working against the law change were those involved in the petition for a referendum on the issue (FALSE – IT’S THE HUGE PROPORTION OF NZ’ERS). There was no question the petition had been “amazingly successful” (TRUE) given that it was very difficult to meet the required 10% target, she said. “They have poured a huge amount of time and money into it. (TIME YES MONEY NO) ” More signatures were collected for the petition after the first petition fell short (FALSE) when more than 5000 signatures were declared invalid (FALSE). A report on the validity of those further signatures was expected at the end of August.

    “I feel sure some of the people who signed it then have changed their mind since (FALSE), but that doesn’t negate the legality of those signatures.” Any potential threat to the law change would depend on the make-up of the next government (TRUE). Her biggest concern would be any attempt to change the law to define an acceptable level and nature of violence, as that would send the message violence against children was acceptable (FALSE), she said. The role of academics and researchers in any future debate would be “incredibly important”.

    There was no evidence people were being “dragged off to court” for minor offences (FALSE) and she welcomed research presented at the seminar which showed 44% of voters were in favour of the new legislation (FALSE), she said. “While Family First are creating the perception 80% are against it, I feel this is much more in line and that the proportion is about 50-50. (FALSE)”
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/14996/vigilance-needed-still-child-abuse
    Family First Comment: Note that there is no reference to the continuing rate of child abuse deaths, the skyrocketing rates of CYF notifications, and the continued horror stories of real child abuse happening where there is drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, dysfunction etc.

    “The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.”
    Sue Bradford – National Radio – 21 Dec 07

    Read Family First Media Releases
    Discredited Anti-Smacking Advocate Back in NZ
    Anti-Smacking Conference At Venue Where Research Contradicts

  • Discredited Anti-Smacking Advocate Back in NZ

    MEDIA RELEASE

    July 2008

    Discredited Anti-Smacking Advocate Back in NZ

    Family First NZ says that Canadian researcher Joan Durrant, who is currently in NZ as a guest of the anti-smacking lobby, has been discredited with her claims made during the anti-smacking debate.

    “In fact, her evidence was not even accepted in her home country of Canada when they were debating a similar section to NZ’s s59 of Canada’s Criminal Code,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    A document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH in 2006 stated that “In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years.” This was based on a 2000 paper by Joan Durrant A generation without smacking – The impact of Sweden’s ban on physical punishment published by Save the Children which said “The rate of child homicide … in Sweden is something like one every 4 years”

    “This statement, now referred to as the ‘Swedish myth’, has proved to be completely inaccurate and Morgan Johansson, the public health minister, said in 2006 that ‘every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years.’ Even NZ’s Children’s Commissioner has acknowledged that Durrant’s figures were wrong.”

    “Durrant also uses a completely irrelevant definition of child abuse, and excludes the killing of children as a result of neglect, intentional killings, post-natal depression, babies killed within 24 hours of birth, and those accompanied by suicide by the abuser. She has adopted a definition by Somander and Rammer (1991) which also excludes child deaths due to poverty, marital conflicts, alcohol abuse, sparing the child the kind of life led by the perpetrator, and giving no reason for killing the child.”

    “No wonder she has misrepresented the effect of the Swedish smacking ban on child abuse rates! Even UNICEF reports have ignored her definition,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Dr Robert Larzelere, who was one of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ’s s59 of Canada’s Criminal Code and a member of the Task Force on Corporal Punishment for the American Psychological Association, says that a careful review of Durrant’s findings reveals that her conclusions reflect her “unconditional commitment to an anti-smacking perspective more than an objective appraisal of the data available from her sources.”

    Other conclusions by Dr. Durrant have been criticized by other authors, including her conclusions that the Swedish spanking ban led to decreased support for spanking (Roberts, 2000), that child abuse has not increased since 1979 (Lindell & Svedin, 2001), and that child abuse fatalities have been almost nonexistent since then (Beckett, 2005).

    “Family First NZ welcomes open, honest, and robust debate on the anti-smacking law, but Joan Durrant has been well and truly discredited as part of this debate,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Read More: “Sweden’s smacking ban: more harm than good” Robert E Larzelere PhD

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Anti-Smacking Conference At Venue Where Research Contradicts

    MEDIA RELEASE

    24 July 2008

    Anti-Smacking Conference At Venue Where Research Contradicts

    Family First NZ says that it is highly ironic that the anti-smacking lobby is gathering together at Otago University this coming weekend to try and sell the deeply flawed anti-smacking law.

    Otago University research showed that reasonable and appropriate smacking for the purpose of correction was not harmful and in some circumstances was actually beneficial in the development of a child.

    “The Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study released in 2006 found that children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “They had similar, and sometimes even slightly better outcomes, in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.”

    “Just up the road at the Christchurch School of Medicine, Professor David Fergusson found there was no difference between not smacking and moderate physical punishment. The research said ‘It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences’.”

    “We hope that delegates at the conference will take time to examine the local research which contradicts the ideology behind the flawed anti-smacking law, will heed the warnings of the Swedish experience where the smacking ban has done more harm than good, and will respect and heed the call of over 80% of NZ’ers to change the law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Greens Decide Parents Should Now Be Listened To

    MEDIA RELEASE

    23 July 2008

    Greens Decide Parents Should Now Be Listened To

    Family First NZ says it is highly ironic, and hypocritical, for the Greens to be demanding that the government listen to the concerns of parents worried about the health risks of locating huge telecommunications tower masts next to pre-schools and schools.

    Green Party Press Release “Dear Helen, please listen to the parents” – 23 July 2008

    “For the past two years, the Green party has completely ignored the voice of over 80% of NZ’ers who opposed Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, and have shown no concern that over 50% of our parents have admitted breaking the law and are risking investigation by police and CYF,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “The Greens are completely correct to demand that the concerns of parents are given weight regarding the location of phone towers and associated health risks, but they can’t have it both ways.”

    “They can’t ignore the views of parents on how they want to raise their kids legally and reasonably, yet demand that parents be heard on other issues.”

    “The Greens need to respect the important role of parents on all issues – not just those that they agree with them on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Family First: CAN YOU HELP US?

    17 Jul 2008

    CAN YOU HELP US

    ‘SLEDGEHAMMER’

    A FEW MYTHS

    Myth #1 : There have been no prosecutions under the new anti-smacking law


    FALSE

    Myth #2 : The anti-smacking law has not resulted in good parents being investigated and interrogated by the police or CYF


    FALSE

    We have evidence of a number of examples that expose these myths, including:

    * a father separated from his 2 kids for 6 months by CYF because of malicious claims by mother that he had smacked them – CYF eventually reallowed access but only due to a strong supporter who knew the system
    * a father prosecuted and convicted because of pushing the upper arm of his daughter 2-3 times and demanding she listen to her mother
    * a grandfather prosecuted and convicted because of tipping his defiant grandson out of a bean bag-type chair to get him moving
    * a father dragged through the court process only to turn up to the court case and the police to admit they had no evidence
    * a stepfather who physically restrained the arms of his stepdaughter being interrogated for 2 hours almost 7 months after the incident, and 6 months later still not knowing the outcome
    * a CYFs Community Panel Board member telling Family First “I can say without a doubt, that in my time I have seen a small but a definite increase in ‘good’ parents being investigated by our CYFs case workers – up to 5% of our cases. Any child who mentions to a school teacher that they have been smacked or touched in any physical way is brought under investigation and their names are indelibly logged onto our data base as a potential ‘abuser’ . I really feel sorry for these ‘good parents’ because of the fear that we as an organisation now engendering upon their parenting practise. Sadly good parents are being lumped in together with the really bad ones.”

    NZ’ers deserve to be told

    the truth.

    WOULD YOU CONSIDER HELPING FUND FULL PAGE

    ADS IN SUNDAY STAR TIMES and NZ HERALD

    (giving nationwide coverage)

    We need to raise $13-14,000 by the beginning of next week to achieve this.

    If you would like to invest in helping us ‘SLEDGEHAMMER THE MYTHS’

    CLICK HERE

    Every little bit helps . (All donations qualify for the 33% tax donation rebate.)

    Thanks for your support and consideration. We must do all we can to defend the role of parents and the well-being of our children and families in NZ.

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    www.familyfirst.org.nz