Parents Against Negative Intervention by CYFS - PANIC

PO Box 7071 Palmerston North

Director: Phone 06 357 7402 Email: jktonson@xtra.co.nz Website: www.panic.org.nz

FEBRUARY 2006 NEWSLETTER

Bill to Repeal Section 59 seriously threatens family life

The Bill will criminalise parents who smack their children

The Bill will undermine the authority of parents and increase State control

The Bill will not lower abuse rates – it will lead to increased assaults on children

The Bill will lead to many more children removed and damaged by CYFS

Section 59 excellent law

Section 59 is an excellent piece of law which protects parents using normal discipline for correction purposes from claims that they are abusing children. Removing section 59 will expose parents to complaints of assault if they apply or threaten to apply some kind of force. At present juries in supposed assault cases are able to decide if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances, and if it is used by way of correction. Contrary to the view of a liberal minority they are doing a good job – a jury of twelve New Zealanders is wiser than Sue Bradford and her mates with their warped ideology that says “physical discipline equals violence.”

The last bastion of family independence

Section 59 is the last bastion of law protecting the family from unwarranted interference and ultimate control of children by the Government. The Bill threatens the integrity of the family unit as it completely undermines a parent’s authority. As Craig Smith of Family Integrity says, “If you can’t use force, you can’t back up your authority.” This Bill will remove from children’s lives the blessing of responsible, hands-on parenting as it outlaws any form of discipline that requires force.

Bradford’s Bill unnecessary and destructive

Sue Bradford’s Bill is promoted as a measure to stop violence against children but there are already laws against this. The Bill’s statement of purpose is “to stop force, and associated violence and harm under the pretence of domestic discipline, being inflicted on children.” This statement is misleading, for the Bill will criminalize all force, not just that associated with violence and harm. Violence and assaults against children are already illegal. Repeal of section 59 to stop abuse of children is therefore unnecessary.

Other authorities are allowed to use force

There is no plan to repeal Section 60, a companion to Section 59, entitled “Discipline on ship or aircraft” which allows a master or officer to use force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline if he believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary, and if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Thus limited force may be used against children or passengers on ships or aircraft but parents would not be allowed to do so in the home! Note Section 42 which authorises individuals in the community to use reasonable force to prevent the continuance or renewal of a breach of the peace. Also as we know all too well CYFS (Child Protection Act ss.72,73 & 75) and the Police are allowed to use reasonable force to uplift children or detain those suspected of committing a crime.

Parent’s unique authority will be removed

The Bill will remove protection from parents using force so that they will be reduced to “the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned.” This will greatly reduce a parent’s authority as they will be disempowered from employing discipline with their children as this of necessity involves the use of force. This also ignores the unique relationship of responsibility for training and discipline parents are expected to exercise with their children (The Repeal of Parental Authority, Craig Smith)

Effects on general parenting

Effective parenting will be made almost impossible if the parents cannot exert their authority over their children. A child’s behavior can’t be controlled if they willfully reject the parent’s instructions and the parents are barred from using force to ensure obedience. Parents use force of various kinds to ensure that their children are fed, clothed, washed and rested properly. If they could rely only on their children going along with parental suggestions in these areas, the parents could be charged with neglect under Section 152 of the Crimes Act. If a child is disobedient, the use of some kind of force may be required to ensure safe and responsible behavior such as a) Wearing a seat belt, b) Prohibiting drinking, smoking or ingesting or injecting either legal or illegal substances the parents consider harmful; c) Avoiding company with people likely to be injurious to the child’s well-being.

Reactions to recent court cases

The reaction to various recent Court decisions acquitting parents of a charge of assault is based on lack of knowledge of the details of the cases and fails to recognize that juries of twelve sensible people regarded the supposed assaults as reasonable use of force in the circumstances. The use of instruments to smack children is not necessarily assault and in one case the jury found the use of a riding crop to have been reasonable correction in the circumstances.

The Swedish experience is frightening

Sweden abolished their version of our “Section 59’ in 1966 and, in 1979, added a clause to the Parents Code, “AGA,” which was interpreted to ban smacking of children. Within two years of AGA, about 24,000 children were removed into Social Welfare. Few were in danger of anything but a sore bottom. In Sweden today there is about three times the number in care per head of population compared to Britain.

2) Hundreds of Swedish parents are jailed every year for punishing their children. Two examples: one month in jail for a slap, and for punishing her daughter with a leather belt, another mother is jailed for two years and all her four children are removed to separate locations, never to be seen again. 3) The Swedish Ombudsman for children reported increased assaults against children under 15 years old: 489% between 1981 and 1994, and 589% between 1983 (980) and 1996 (5043), partly because of increased reporting, but also because violence did increase, especially “very serious violence.

A Swedish Police Chief with a law degree has said, “[AGA[ is so dangerous it must be repealed. Many parents are afraid of their children and dare not chastise them because they know they can be reported to the Police, indicted and fined or sent to prison. The law against physical punishment of children is dangerous, because it does more harm to the children than a spanking from mother or father. When the authorities – social or police – intervene in the life of a well functioning family, its life is destroyed. There is nothing that can mend the hurt and pain and bitterness that the authorities cause, and the children are the losers.”

Action Station

Write a submission (by Feb 28) to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee of Parliament telling them that you oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. It can be very short giving only one reason (e.g. it will make parents into criminals if they continue to smack their children) plus one recommendation (leave Section 59 intact, just as it is).

Send 20 copies addressed to: Clerk of the Committee, Justice and Electoral Committee

Parliament Buildings, WELLINGTON

PANIC is also sending a submission. If you have evidence of how CYFS has used their opposition to smacking children to tear families apart, please write to us so we can include your story.

Difference between reasonable force and assault

There is a world of difference in parent’s motivation and attitude between assault and reasonable force, between hitting and smacking. Assault, such as hitting a child anywhere on the body is used by the perpetrators to satisfy their anger while controlled smacking is designed to produce good outcomes in the children. Parents or other adults cannot hide behind section 59 and get off from a clear case of abuse. There is no evidence of this from the reported cases of child abuse. In 13 years from 1990 to 2002 only 18 cases featuring section 59 were documented – that is 1.4 cases a year. Therefore, of the 1,415 reported cases of child abuse/assault recorded in NZ for 2004, we can expect s.59 to be used as a defence in a minuscule 0.1% of cases.

Conflict of ideologies

The Bill is an ideological attack on the effective discipline of children, coming from a minority liberal humanist religion-philosophical position, and conflicting with a traditional and Christian view of the family. The Christian view of the family regards it as having independence and authority from God, that is, a sphere of sovereignty, with the ability to conduct its affairs including correction of children, without undue interference from Government. The Government has its own sphere of sovereignty, and should intervene in people’s lives only when good laws are broken.

John Tonson

PANIC Director