My Mummy’s a criminal

I often get a bit tired of hearing about the smacking debate, but just thought it was newsworthy that a website Protect Good Parents went online today.

Administered by the Family First Lobby, it features a video which I’ve embedded here with a bit of a commentary. It features five families that were criminalised as a result of the anti-smacking law and comments on a review by psychologist Nigel Latta, a review that the government has claimed is evidence that that the anti-smacking legislation is "working", because nobody has been criminalised.



Provocatively entitled My Mummy’s A Criminal this 30 minute video aims to show that people were getting investigated, arrested, prosecuted and hassled by CYFS for smacking their children. It shows interviews with smacking parents and how CYFS failed to follow its own procedures in investigating alleged smacking.

One family faced around 15 charges of abuse. It went to court. The lead juror was appalled she had to use her jury service time – almost four weeks - to preside over such a case, only to acquit them of all charges in 25 minutes. The juror says:

I was embarrassed…. I was so embarrassed to be a New Zealander. This poor wee girl that has fallen in love and married her man, ends up in what should be the happiest time of her life being tortured. Who really was cruel.

However, CYFS did not respect the acquittal as this family still do not have their children. There has been no contact for more than two and a half years - that’s eight months after their acquittal.

Another family was having difficulty with one of their children so they went to CYFS for help, but the parent was told the problem was with him - he had an anger problem.

Another parent poked her son with a pen. While that is not really “smacking” it does seem that it is something pretty trivial to get arrested for, and then put in a police cell. After appearing in court four months later, this parent was discharged without conviction because the judge said the pen was used “in a manner which was tapping a child on the back of the hand”.

One family got their kids taken away from them after alleged abuse caused by smacking and later received an apology from CYFS for the way they were treated. Their case was given a “critical” rating, a rating given to cases of rape or broken bones, and normally requires removal of children within 24 hours. Yet their kids weren’t taken away from them until three days later. They are now trying to have incorrect facts about their family in the Latta report [PDF] reviewed.

John Key was asked in 2009 whether a parent who smacked a child on the leg in the back of a car would get arrested. His response?

Well, I don’t think you could get arrested for that.

The video showed an interview of a person who was apparently convicted - not just arrested - for doing just that, although details are rather skant.

The video also mentions the Latta review [PDF] . One of the parents claimed that the review incorrectly states that their daughter was sexually abused; this family is alleging four breaches of CYFS procedure that were hidden from Latta. Another part of the report says that one parent was convicted of assault when he in fact was not.

Lawyer - and Labour Party candidate for Carterton - Michael Bott says the Latta review was a rubber stamping exercise.

Prime Minister John Key also features in the video, as does Labour leader Phil Goff. In 2009 Key said:

If you lightly smack a child, you shouldn’t be prosecuted, and you certainly shouldn’t be investigated. If the law doesn’t work and people do start getting arrested, or start getting prosecuted, I will change the law.

In 2008 John Key said

if we start seeing… good parents being hauled before the courts – then I’m going to do something about it.

John Key was handed a copy of the video on July 8.

Meanwhile latest figures show that 64 children have died while in the care of Child, Youth and Family over the last 10 years. A third were recorded as suicide.

Read more...

Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

I attended a forum by the Family First lobby in Auckland yesterday, predominately to hear how John Key and Phil Goff would respond to questions from Family First’s Bob McCoskrie.

I came away wondering why their answers were so non-committal given that both leaders’ offices were sent a full list of questions beforehand, of which I have a copy. So rather than getting sprung, they had plenty of time to prepare answers to uncomfortable questions on the usual Family First topics; same sex adoption, euthanasia, child prostitution and parental notification for teen abortions. As both got the same questions they could have even shared notes.

Both were asked about marriage and family. Key said that marriage was a partnership between two people, and commitment was the key to a successful marriage.

Goff also said it was between two people- with legal safeguards built into that.

When pressed about the gender of these “two people”, Key was asked whether he’d vote for a gay marriage bill.

“That’s something I’d have to think through,” he said.

Pretty non-committal, really.

Goff’s response to a similar question on #Goffchat on Twitter wasn’t much better. ”Labour supported civil unions, when National opposed them. Not intending to make further changes”.
So that’s an “I don’t want to tell you”, from Key, and an “I don’t want to progress this”, from Goff.

Key was then as asked whether he thought the safest place for a child to be was in a marriage relationship. His one word answer: “Yes”. Goff said the gender of parents was irrelevant to good parenting. He said that a stable supportive and healthy environment ( to bring up kids) was his bottom line.

“It’s not the gender of parents, but the ability for parents to provide a stable loving environment – what would be different about parenting if it was biological?”

So that’s a “yes” from Key, and a “not necessarily” from Goff.

When asked if life starts at conception or later on, Goff said, “ 12 weeks, 20 weeks, who is to say?

Key said, “Well, you certainly hope it is before the first Plunket visit” - another throw-away line. He wasn’t asked when he thought the first Plunket visit should be, but instead he was asked whether parents should be notified should their teen be considering an abortion.

“In my view for the most part yes, unless there is a very very good reason, I think parents should be told”.

Goff said while it was desirable for counsellors to encourage a girl to talk to her parents, “would a girl confide in a counsellor if she thought that the counsellor would go directly to her parents – my guess is that she wouldn’t”.

So that’s an “I don’t know and don’t particularly care” from both Goff and Key on when life starts. It’s a "no" from Goff on parental notification - and a "sort of yes" from Key.

They were also asked whether they believed in God and faith. Instead, both gave answers on what they didn’t believe in.

Key on God: “I wouldn’t describe myself as atheistic or agnostic, I live my life by Christian principles, I live my life to help others. I can’t tell you what happens the moment you die”.

But he then said “I do think you have a spirit that moves to the next…..” but he then stopped abruptly, perhaps realising he had just said he didn’t know what happened in the afterlife, which in a way makes him a bit agnostic.

That response was similar to what he said in 2007, that is he said what he doesn’t believe, rather than what he does. He said then “I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.” He said his stock answer in 2006,also.

Goff’s response was similar: “I`m not an atheist. I don’t believe in the afterlife. I`m a person of faith – born and bred a Roman Catholic, and my life has been shaped by the Christian values I was brought up with.”

Later, Key also said he ”might support” laws on same sex adoption, and told conference delegates that the government may adopt National MP Sam Lotu-Ii’ga’s
Moneylenders (Licensing and Regulation) Bill [PDF] to address loan sharking.

Among the final comments from both:

Goff: “It’s too easy to be a plastic politician”.

Key, on personal attacks in the House: “Frankly, I think Pete Hodgson is a loser”.

So the two leaders did their best to say… well not much, hoping that they`ll get some votes out of it.

Instead both got standing ovations.

Read more...

An interesting debate

The Australian Sex Party and the conservative Family Party went head to head on Aussie TV this morning and you can see it here. From censorship to marriage, they disagree on nearly everything. While both think it is important to vote, I`m sure the Family First party won’t like this ad that encouraged people to enrol to vote.

Discussion on family and marriage was interesting – the Family Party considers marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Sex Party doesn’t– and it wouldn’t – the Sex Party spokesperson's sister has a same sex partner and a daughter, but noted that she can't get married.

The Sex Party prefers a woman prime minister- implying the current one, who does not share the policies of the Sex Party on marriage.

It`ll be interesting to see which party gets the most votes.

At the moment, 16% of the country have not decided on who to vote for on August 21.

Read more...

Family First approaches sex party for preference deal

Ha, this is so funny. Australia has a Sex Party, and the conservative Family First Party* approached it to do a preference deal in the federal election. The election will be run on a preferential voting system.

But despite the approach, the deal never happened. Or in the words of Family First:

We were talking with them (the Australian Sex Party) about the election ... and we came to an arrangement not to do an arrangement with them

That's a bit like a vegetarian going to a butchers shop and coming to an arrangement with the butcher not to buy meat.

*Nothing to do with these guys

Read more...

Don't be too hasty to report potential child abuse to CYFS: Children's Commissioner

Children's Commissoner John Angus believes that too many people are ringing up CYFS to report potential child abuse. Speaking at the Family First forum, Angus said that about 100,000 incidents are reported a year to CYFS - a huge increase in recent years - but the number of substantiated cases - around 13,000, nearly half being emotional abuse - has not had a anywhere near corresponding increase.

Instead, Angus says people should offer help, and socially interact more. Those who get involved in community groups such as play groups, sports groups and church communities are less likely to need the assistance of CYFS or draw the attention of the police -consequently limiting the number of referrals, and possibly the number of substantiated cases of child abuse - most of which are emotional abuse. Emotional abuse, Angus said at the Family First Forum, caused the most long term harm and results often from " bad choices about the company ( parents) keep and the relationships they form".

So Angus wants to support people to take action - not simply to ring CYFS as a last resort. So who is to run the parenting courses that have the potential to reduce family violence. Groups like Parents Inc. Such groups get no government funding at all, and at yesterdays Family First Forum, John Key was asked, for the second consecutive year, whether he supports - and would now lead - a Government that would provide some funding for groups such as Parents Inc.

I think you can guess what the response was. The verbal equivalent of a middle finger - but said in a very polite manner with a trademark smile.

Read more...

If you can't be a stable parent - don't have children

There. The statement is made. By Phil Goff. Yesterday.If you cant be a stable parent, don't have children. We as a community have to find ways to protect our children and give them the best start in life.. By implication, this means that if you cant give the kids the best start in life, don't give them a start at all.

It is appalling that 12,000 CYF kids are found to be abused and neglected every year - this really does have serious consequences. We should be outraged, we have to look at what we are doing as a community.

Oh, and abortion is not the answer. It is better to prevent conception than abortion, particularly when 2000-3000 people suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome(each year) . So kids, be careful when you have sex., don't get anyone pregnant - and if kids go off the rails don't blame CYFS. The main problem is the parents, not CYFS -and part of the context is the increasing stress in families.

If we reduce the number of disadvantaged kids we will reduce the number of criminals of tomorrow.

Thank you for reading. Your comments are welcome.

Read more...

PM says it is ok to smack your kids

I was at the Family First forum in Auckland today. John Key was one of the speakers. He said it was "ok to smack your kids", and the law is administered "the way I want it to be". Therefore in some situations it is fine to break the law provided it is the intent of parliament that the law be disregarded, particularly as Key himself has said that the law is a "dogs breakfast" and that " no-one knows what 'correction' or 'good care and parenting' is".

I do.

Key, commenting on administration of the anti-smacking legislation by Child, Youth and Family, said that "CYFS would not say 'do not smack a child'". Meaning that CYFS workers, although now told not to investigate cases of light smacking, would never tell parents that they could not smack.

Unfortunately for Key there was a woman in the audience - who so happened to be sitting behind me - who is on a CYFS care and protection panel. She told Key that social workers were in fact telling parents that they should not be smacking their kids. Key said he had a problem with that, and it needs to change.

He should talk to CYFS bosses about this, rather than telling family organisations that things need to change and doing absolutely nothing about ensuring that change occurs.

Read more...