SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Call from registered charity Family First NZ to politicians to change Anti-Smacking Law

by Leave a Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, has yet again called on politicians “to adopt the ‘Borrows’ amendment which did not ban smacking but which clearly stated what was abusive and what was not.” It has highlighted cases it claims “Reveal CYF Ignoring Intent of Ant-Smacking Law”.

Family First protest

NZPA Images
Reference: 25524
Photograph by Tim Hales

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interest-groups/3/5

Cases Reveal CYF Ignoring Intent of Ant-Smacking Law

Media Release dated 18 June 2012

Family First NZ has released further cases highlighting how the anti-smacking law is being used to criminalise and persecute good parents.

“These cases add to the extensive list of cases already listed on the website www.protectgoodparents.org.nz and our documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal” highlighting five families and the inaccuracies of the Prime Ministerial review led by Psychologist Nigel Latta,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“These latest cases show a disturbing trend. Not only are police resources being wasted on investigating ‘smacking’ allegations, but Child Youth and Family (CYF) are ignoring the intent of the law and are removing children from good homes where the parents may use a smack, are failing to adequately investigate the background of families before uplifting children and traumatising families, and are refusing to place children with extended family who may use a smack even when CYF acknowledge the expertise and safety of the parents. They are also ignoring the fact that in many cases, the police are seeing no reason to prosecute.”

At the time of the law being passed, Prime Minister John Key said “Good parents want to have confidence that they will not be criminalised by this legislation if they give their children a light smack. It sends a strong signal that the level of violence against children in our society is unacceptable, but at the same time gives parents confidence that they will not be criminalised for carrying out their normal parenting duties.”

“The law was always sold to the public by pretending that non-abusive smacking would not result in a visit by the police or a social worker to remove the children. But the cases released today – and previously – show the exact opposite is happening,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Parenting has been put on trial in New Zealand, and they have every right to be concerned about a flawed, confusing, and badly applied law.”

“It is significant that the ‘discretion’ clause only applied to police and not CYF. At least with the police, parents get to have their day in court to defend themselves – even if it means going all the way to the Court of Appeal as one of our cases highlights. But with CYF, they are unaccountable to the families.”

Family First continues to call on politicians to adopt the ‘Borrows’ amendment which did not ban smacking but which clearly stated what was abusive and what was not. This has been successfully used in other jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia.

ENDS

For case studies see:

http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/06/cases-reveal-cyf-ignoring-intent-of-anti-smacking-law/

Smack admission bars grandparents – NZ Herald

by Leave a Comment

Grandparents described as “the perfect family” have been banned from taking in their baby grand-daughter because they believe in smacking.

Brian and Hannah Johnson, of Tauranga, have two adult children of their own, have been Child, Youth and Family caregivers for a niece for 13 years, and have brought up an 8-year-old grandson since he was a baby.

But CYF has refused to let them take in their grandson’s 21-month-old half-sister because they told CYF they smacked their grandson occasionally as “a last resort”.

Mrs Johnson, 57, said a CYF social worker told her last week: “We were the perfect family, perfect grandparents, if it wasn’t for that little thing and that was smacking.

“I feel like our name has been tainted now,” Mrs Johnson said.

“I went out of my way, I worked for them for this long time unpaid, I have done it out of the kindness of my heart to be of service to them, I have been up to the CYF office so many times it’s not funny. I don’t feel like I’ve been fairly treated.”

She sought help from Ngai Te Rangi social services, the Maori Party, the Social Development Ministry, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett and finally the Family First lobby group.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie said the Johnsons’ experience, and six other new cases he has documented, showed “good families” were being penalised by the 2007 law change that banned parents from using force against children for “correction”.

“Not only are police resources being wasted on investigating ‘smacking’ allegations, but CYF is ignoring the intent of the law and is removing children from good homes where the parents may use a smack,” he said.

For full story by Simon Collins see: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10813892

THE LAW

Allowed:

Parents can use reasonable force to: Prevent harm to the child or others.

Stop the child committing a criminal offence.

Stop offensive or disruptive behaviour.

For “the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting”.

Not allowed

It is illegal to use force for “correction”.

Debate needed to understand purpose of marriage – says registered charity Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

“Gays and lesbians have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage. The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.” Bob McCoskrie – National Director Family First NZ

In its Media Release dated 6 June 2012, Family First NZ, a charity (CC10094) registered with the Charities Commission, on 21 March 2007, says:

“The variation in recent results of same-sex marriage polls, and the influence of the question asked, simply highlights the need for a robust debate on the issue.

“In the US, polls have also shown support for same-sex marriage increasing, yet in 32 states where the issue has been on the ballet, voters have rejected it. Experts have said that the phrasing of the question can determine the outcome of the poll,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“A Research NZ poll last year of 500 people found that 60% of those polled supported the right of same-sex couples to marry – similar to tonight’s Close Up poll. However, earlier polling of 1,000 NZ’ers through independent research company Curia Market Research found greater support for maintaining the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. All this suggests that there is debate to be had on this issue.”

“At the end of the day, same sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone. If the law was redefined to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking, for example, polygamous, polyamorous (group), or adult incest unions,” says Mr McCoskrie. “If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go.”

“Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, and it has always been associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the necessity of the two sexes,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Gays and lesbians have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage. The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.”

ENDS

Media release: 6 June 20122

Posted by Bob McCoskrie, Director Family First NZ

http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/06/debate-needed-to-understand-purpose-of-marriage/

Same-sex ‘marriage’ and “gay” adoption debate fuelled by polyamory advocates

by Leave a Comment

Lover of twins adds new twist to moral debate.

Belle Glasby, Marc Glasby and Dorothy Loader appeared on television talking about their ‘poly’ relationship. Marc Glasby and his two partners – wife Belle and identical twin sister Dorothy – last night poured new fuel on the growing debate over sexuality and marriage in 21st century Australia.

Their appearance on SBS Television’s Insight programme added polyamory to the already furious debate over same-sex marriage and the associated debates over gay adoption and lesbian access to IVF birth programmes.

Advocates of polyamory – intimate relationships involving three or more people – have ruffled feathers in the gay community, caused grief for the Greens, and strengthened religious determination to preserve male-female marriage as the nation’s only legal option.

The debate is being hammered out in a parliamentary inquiry into two bills aiming to legalise gay marriage and to recognise those performed abroad.

Gay marriage was a fraught issue long before polyamory’s entry. It split the Labor Party and became policy only after Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who opposes the move, struck a deal requiring a conscience vote in Parliament.

The Opposition opposes same-sex marriage, while the Greens’ policy advocates marriage for all, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

For full story by Greg Ansley, published 30 May 2012, see:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10809419

[Read more…]

Good parents are being criminalised under anti-smacking law, contrary to PM’s assurances

by Leave a Comment

Parents’ hell after choice to strap child. By Ian Stewart. Fairfax NZ News. 3 June 2012.

A  mum’s “considered decision” to strap her son led to an assault conviction, and a judge told her that thinking about it first made it worse than if she’d done it in anger.

The woman and her partner, both South Island teachers, were convicted after they strapped their 8-year-old son, over his pyjamas, with a belt in January last year.

But after taking their case all the way to the Court of Appeal, they were discharged without conviction.

Anti-smacking law critics say the case is an example of good parents being criminalised, contrary to assurances from politicians when the law came in.

Full Story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7036188/Parents-hell-after-choice-to-strap-child [Read more…]