Family Integrity

Tag: Police

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Child death probe upgraded to homicide

    Child death probe upgraded to homicide

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2933240/Child-death-probe-upgraded-to-homicide

    Stuff.co.nz

    Last updated 16:54 05/10/2009

    Police are treating the death of a Waikato toddler last month as a homicide.

    Hail-Sage McClutchie, 22 months, died in Waikato Hospital on September 27 after being taken there by ambulance from Morrinsville the day before.

    Acting Waikato crime services manager Inspector Russell Le Prou said expert medical advice indicated the young Hamilton girl – known as Sage – had suffered non-accidental injuries.

    “As a result of this expert advice, our initial inquiry work and a post mortem examination, this inquiry is now a homicide investigation.”

    Mr Le Prou said police were waiting for further forensic results before commenting on Sage’s cause of death.

    Twelve detectives are working to establish how Sage suffered her injuries.