Tag: Police

  • Baby deteriorates in hospital after alleged assault

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4830730a11.html

    Baby deteriorates in hospital after alleged assault

    Tuesday, 27 January 2009

    The health of the 10-week-old baby attacked at the weekend has deteriorated and it is now listed as critical, police say.

    A 28-year-old man is due to appear Lower Hutt District Court on Thursday charged with assault.

    Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Cooper said the baby was now in a “pretty serious” condition with a head injury and charges would likely be upgraded if the child died.

    Police have refused to say whether the accused is the baby’s father.

  • Mum fearful of school fines

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4803156a11.html

    By REBECCA TODD – The Press | Friday, 26 December 2008

    A Christchurch mother is angry at the prospect of having to pay heavy fines because she cannot get her son to go to school.

    Under new laws passed by the National-led Government, parents of truants can be fined $300 for the first offence and $3000 for subsequent offences.

    They can also be fined $3000 if they fail to enrol their child in school.

    In the past, parents could be fined $150 for the first offence and $400 for subsequent offences.

    Michelle Chalmers said her 14-year-old son had not been in school for much of this year, but she could not force him to attend.

    “We haven’t got any control, but we are being prosecuted,” she said.

    “How do you forcibly get them out of bed, into school and keep them there, and even if they are there, how do you make them learn? I just don’t understand what they want us to do.”

    Chalmers put much of her son’s problems down to lead poisoning from eating flakes of house paint as a baby. He was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) before starting school and has behavioural issues that have brought him close to expulsion.

    At 14, he was diagnosed as dyslexic, but Chalmers said it was too late by then to make him want to be in school and learn.

    “I was dropping him off, seeing him walk in and picking him up at the same place, only to find out later he had been bunking,” she said.

    The former Aranui High School student was no longer enrolled at any school, but Chalmers had not been threatened with prosecution despite her son’s prolonged absence.

    “There’s nothing I can do to stop it and it’s heartbreaking,” she said.

    “I know I’m not the only one out there.”

    Linwood College principal Rob Burrough said the move to heavier fines was positive, but cases needed to be looked at individually.

    “Part of it is parental issues and part is student problems, so I think a $3000 fine will have some impact, but there needs to be a multi-pronged approach,” he said.

    “Some parents have lost control of their children by their own admission, and so this is a burden for them.”

    Linwood has been trialling anti-truancy programme Rock On, in which the Ministry of Education, police, Child, Youth and Family and truancy services work with the school and parents to get students back in school.

    Canterbury police youth services co-ordinator Senior Sergeant John Robinson said police were working on their third prosecution this year for parents of truants.

    “We’ll never prosecute anyone if the child is the issue, only if the parent is the issue,” he said.

    Heavier fines sent a message to people that attending school was a priority.

    “No parent wants to be held out there having to front up before the court and told they are not a particularly good parent because they can’t get their kids to school,” Robinson said.

  • Police called to house before boy’s injuries

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4800519a11.html

    Police called to house before boy’s injuries

    Monday, 22 December 2008

    Police have previously been called out to the Northland home of a 15-month-old boy who remains in a serious condition in hospital today with head injuries.

    Neighbours said police were often called after all-night parties at the Kerikeri house where the boy lived with his 21-year-old mother, her partner and at least one other person, The New Zealand Herald reported today.

    The boy’s birth father was “not in the picture”, police said.

    The house is on Cobham Rd, the same road where murdered teenager Liberty Templeman’s body was found last month.

    Kerikeri police began a criminal inquiry at the weekend into the boy’s injuries, which are expected to leave him blind and with permanent brain damage.

    The boy was taken to Bay of Islands Hospital in Kawakawa and then flown to Auckland’s Starship Hospital on Friday night, where he underwent urgent surgery.

    The child is now in the custody of Child, Youth and Family Services.

    Far North area commander Inspector Chris Scahill said police had not been called out in relation to the boy in the past.

    He did not know at this stage if the boy’s parents were known to police and establishing that would be part of the inquiry.

    Police yesterday conducted a detailed scene examination at the house to try to establish if that was where the boy sustained his injuries.

    They also spoke to the mother and other relatives at the boy’s bedside at Starship.

    Mr Scahill said police were continuing their inquiries with the boy’s family and other people relevant to the investigation.

    They appealed for anybody with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the boy’s injuries to contact Kerikeri police.

  • Police Confirm Prosecutions For Smacking

    MEDIA RELEASE
    19 December 2008

    Police Confirm Prosecutions For Smacking

    LAW CONFIRMED AS SPECTACULAR FAILURE
    Latest figures on police activity following the anti-smacking law confirm that police are wasting valuable police time and resources investigating unwarranted complaints against parents, but they also confirm that they are prosecuting parents for smacking.

    “There has been a 30% blow-out in total CYF notifications in the last 12 months to just under 100,000, a 27% increase in referrals by police to CYF, and an increase in police investigations for smacking since the amendment. Yet the number of cases warranting further investigation by CYF has declined!” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Most concerning is that parents have been prosecuted or referred to CYF for minor smacking. Our fears of prosecutions have been confirmed.”

    “Sadly, the rate of ‘child assault’ prosecutions is decreasing and actual child abusers are not being caught and the ‘roll of horror’ of child abuse deaths continues with cases including 16 month old Sachin Dhani, 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn, 3 year old Nia Glassie, Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa, Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed, 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni, and 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu.”

    “Green MP Sue Bradford is quite correct. She said ‘The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.’ We agree.”

    “You know a law is completely ineffectual when the proponents applaud it because of its lack of impact and the problem and rate of child abuse remains,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First is calling on the National government to amend the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime, and good parents are not victims of a law which should be targeted more effectively at child abusers.

    ENDS
    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – National Director
    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Child force-fed wasabi and mustard, court hears

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4786639a11.html

    Child force-fed wasabi and mustard, court hears

    By GLENN McLEAN – Taranaki Daily News | Tuesday, 09 December 2008

    A Taranaki real estate agent charged with serious child abuse has been accused of force feeding a child spoonfuls of wasabi and mustard.

    The agent, who has interim name suppression, denied five charges of assaulting a child, as well as charges of ill treating a child and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    The agent appeared in the New Plymouth District Court yesterday for a depositions hearing that is expected to finish today.

    Crown prosecutor Cherie Clarke said the agent is accused of deliberately slamming a door on a child’s hand, punching a child in the head and stomach, bending her fingers back, force feeding the child mustard, the hot Japanese condiment wasabi and hand soap, as well as making the child drink perfume.

    Ms Clarke said the offending was punishment for the girl after she forgot to do things like get the washing in or wipe down a bench.

    After the police got involved the child was taken out of the defendant’s home.

    It was after that happened the Crown says the accused put a block on the child’s cellphone and told her that it would only be unblocked if she told police or the defendant’s lawyer that she was making the accusations up.

    Two child witnesses were called to give evidence yesterday.

    The first, a friend of the alleged victim, told the court she had seen the accused force a teaspoon of wasabi into the mouth of the girl.

    “She was trying to spit it out because it was so hot,” the witness said.

    The young witness, who was giving evidence from behind a screen, also saw the accused punch her friend, slam the door on her hand, as well as forcing her to “basically do all the jobs you have to do in the house”.

    The second witness, the complainant in the case, said she never told anyone about the abuse because she thought she would get teased.

    She denied making the accusations up when cross-examined by defence counsel Kylie Pascoe, although she admitted running away from home and stealing money from people at school.

  • Persecution of Parents To Be Investigated by National

    MEDIA RELEASE

    5 November 2008

    Persecution of Parents To Be Investigated by National

    Family First NZ is welcoming comments by senior National MP Judith Collins that if elected, National will check whether the anti-smacking law has resulted in needless prosecutions and persecution of parents.

    “We have stacks of evidence and testimony that good families have been targeted by this flawed law and that it has failed to deal with actual child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Families have been referred to CYF by schools, neighbours, members of the public, their children, and even their children’s friends for non-abusive smacking. And some families have also undergone police investigation.”

    “This has caused huge stress and anxiety to families who are simply trying to raise good law-abiding kids in an appropriate way.”

    “All the records show that police and CYF notifications have sky-rocketed yet there has been no corresponding increase in actual child abuse being discovered or prevented.”

    “For people like Sue Bradford and Helen Clark to try and argue that it is not an anti-smacking law is to deny the reality of how it is being treated by the authorities, and what their intention was from day one.”

    Family First NZ has already sent a large file of cases to National leader John Key highlighting good families being persecuted and prosecuted as a result of the flawed law, and will continue to collate evidence of the harmful effects of this law.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Bradford Encourages Parents to Carry On Smacking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Another Smacking Poll – Same Response

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 September 2008

    Another Smacking Poll – Same Response

    Family First NZ says that the NZ Herald poll showing 86% opposition to the anti-smacking law is further proof that the law is fundamentally wrong and should be changed.

    “This is not 86% of NZ’ers who want to ‘thrash and beat’ their children as was suggested by the prime minister last year,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This is simply NZ’ers saying that a law supposedly designed to tackle child abuse should not end up targeting good parents raising great kids.”

    “Appropriate smacking for the purpose of correcting, training and teaching should never be a crime exposing parents to possible police investigation and CYF intervention.”

    “The law is fundamentally flawed because it fails to deal with the problem it was supposed to – child abuse – and implicates law-abiding parents in the process.”

    The latest poll follows a string of similar polls in 2008 including:

    u 74% parents should be able to smack Research International Feb 2008

    u 85% want law changed to allow light smacking Curia Research – poll commissioned by Family First May 08

    u 85% anti-smacking law should be scrapped TVNZ Website poll June 08

    u 81% say there should be referendum on smacking legislation at this year’s election NZ Herald Poll 25 June 2008 Total Votes: 4624

    u One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective? No 87% Unsure 7% Yes 7% Littlies Magazine online poll July 2008

    “The guarded support for the ‘compromise’ amendment is parents simply hoping that the police may use some common sense in applying this flawed law. Yet evidence has shown that this is not the case, and many parents are more concerned about the way CYF are using the law for unwarranted intervention in good families.”

    “The message is loud and clear to the politicians,” says Mr McCoskrie. “We don’t need a costly referendum to tell us what we already know. Simply change the law so that good parents are not criminalised, and then start targeting the real causes of child abuse including drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

  • Section 59 old and new

    Old Section 59:

    Every parent of a child and…every

    person in the place of the parent of

    a child is justified in using force by

    way of correction towards the child, if

    the force used is reasonable in the

    circumstances.

    New Section 59:

    Parental Control

    (1) Every parent of a child and every

    person in the place of a parent of the

    child is justified in using force if the

    force used is reasonable in the

    circumstances and is for the purpose of —

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

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

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

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

    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or

    in any rule of common law

    justifies the use of force for the

    purpose of correction.

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over

    subsection (1).

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