SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review – Family First NZ Media Release

by Leave a Comment

FAMILY FIRST NZ, a register charity lobby group, issued the following media release on 24 August:

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review

A Timaru couple whose experience of the anti-smacking law was used in the Prime Minister’s report on Section 59 by psychologist Nigel Latta, and whose integrity and honesty was called in to question along with a number of other parents, now have the government paperwork to prove that the report is based on false information, and are demanding an apology.

The parents’ experience has been featured both in NZ on the documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal”, and on 60 Minutes in Australia.

Parents Erik and Lisa Peterson whose children were removed from their home for 72 hours because of a botched CYF investigation over a smack have fought for over three years for the truth to be told. In their letter to Nigel Latta, they say:

“Your summary was based on our case file, and we took a great deal of issue with it. We also took great issue with you calling our integrity and honesty into question, albeit indirectly, on national television. You will by now have received a letter from the Ministry of Social Development containing a number of corrections to the error ridden file that you based that summary on. (Review panelist and MSD Head) Peter Hughes says your summary was accurate because you read our case file – the same case file which required a staggering two and a half pages of corrections! ….

“Mr. Latta, the section 59 Review states that you found “the agencies responded appropriately and proportionately” in each of the cases. I cannot speak for anyone else, but our family was not treated appropriately or proportionately. CYF were responsible for at least three breaches of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 in the investigation of our family. Until very recently, they were also in breach of the Privacy Act. Hardly appropriate behaviour. We lost our children for 72 hours because the local workers couldn’t be bothered to meet on a Friday afternoon. Hardly an appropriate or proportional response.

“It is my view that you owe our family an apology. I would suggest our experience is not unique among those families reviewed. It is most probable that you owe several families an apology.

“With hope of closure after a three and a half year battle. Erik and Lisa Petersen”

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ adds: “The Latta review contained glaring errors including misrepresentation of basic facts, contained alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive, and failed to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow the voices of families who had been victims of the new law to be heard. It also failed to examine the outcomes of the investigations and whether the law was being applied as Parliament intended. It clearly is not.”

A group of parents, whose experiences were included in the report, released a statement immediately after the Prime Minister and Nigel Latta presented the report in 2009, saying

“This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides. 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.”

“The Peterson’s have sought to set the record straight. We will be encouraging other parents misrepresented in the report to do likewise,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Official Information Act documentation requested by Family First seems to indicate that the review involved only two meetings of the full panel, ‘rides in a cop car’, sitting at the Police Communications Centre for a couple of hours, and misinterpreting and misrepresenting cases put forward by us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “New cases are being brought to our attention on a regular basis – many of which have been featured in the media.”

The full evidence of the Petersen case and four others can be viewed here www.protectgoodparents.org.nz

ENDS

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”.

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…]

World Leading Neurosurgeon Dismisses Anti-Smacking Law

by Leave a Comment

In a Media Release issued today …. Family First NZ [a registered charity with the Charities Commission] is welcoming comments made today by an internationally renowned neurosurgeon visiting the country rejecting the anti-smacking law and labeling it as part of a ‘politically correct bandwagon’. [Family First has vigorously lobbied for some years now to have the law repealed or amended]. 

Dr. Ben Carson, Director of Paediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, is in Auckland to raise funds for the Starship Foundation to help rebuild their Neuroservices and Medical Specialty Wards. 

When asked about smacking and NZ’s anti-smacking law on Newstalk ZB this morning, he said

 “I think (smacking) is very appropriate when they’re very young and cannot reason. A smack – and I’m talking a smack and not a beating – can be very appropriate for a child who’s trying to establish themselves as the authority and doesn’t recognise where the real authority lies and doesn’t have the mental capacity to engage in intelligent conversation. And I think it’s completely wrong for people to get on their politically correct bandwagon and saying ‘you may never smack a child and if you do that that’s child abuse’.”

 “Dr Carson as a paediatric neurosurgeon can understand the difference between a smack and child abuse – as can almost 90% of NZ’ers. Dr Carson speaks common sense which is sadly lacking in Parliament, but his words will be appreciated by good kiwi parents who are doing their best to raise law abiding productive members of society in a non-abusive manner,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

ENDS