|
 
NEW ZEALAND DEBATE
Discipline and abuse — a fine line
If there is one parenting issue designed to generate
emotional and sometimes heated debate, it is the way in which we choose
to discipline our children. Most parents would say that, within the
boundaries of what society deems ‘normal’, how we discipline is very
much our own business. We mould our children’s behaviour as we see fit,
often following the pattern of our own parents, moderated by our own
reading, learning and experience. For some parents, smacking is part of
the discipline package, but if a private members bill, seeking to repeal
Section 59 of the Crimes Act is passed, smackers will be law breakers.
Chief reporter Sue Newman talks to a woman who discovered just how far
the powers of those who seek to protect children can be.
Ashburton woman Jennifer Davies (her name has been
changed to protect her identity) is an average Kiwi mum. She has five
ordinary Kiwi kids. Sometimes they’re angels, sometimes they’re tough
little tykes, but underneath they’re just like anyone else’s children.
The Davies family was like most Kiwi families, unremarkable, until the
day Jennifer disciplined her son with a piece of cane. The day she
picked up that cane and struck her son across his backside, Child, Youth
and Family stepped in and her family was torn apart.
In the ensuing 14 months, Jennifer has been to hell
and back. She has been charged under the Crimes Act with assault, has
been tried and found not guilty, her son has been removed from his
family and in spite of Jennifer having been cleared of all charges, CYF
will not give him back. The 12-year-old wants his mother, badly. But
instead he is institutionalised in a boarding school, a stranger in a
strange place. Jennifer disciplined her son in a way she believed best.
She did so while smacking was still legal. She dreads to think what
would happen if section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed.
Most parents, if they are honest, will admit to giving
their children the odd smack. Most parents in the new anti-smacking
environment will be criminals, she said. With her children Jennifer has
employed a range of disciplines according to the personality of the
child. Time out is used most often, but with her son, this simply
doesn’t work. The boy deliberately damaged property at his school. When
questioned, he swore at staff. Jennifer was called and the subject of
discipline was discussed. “I picked him up and took him home, bent him
over the table and gave him six smacks on the bottom with a small cane,”
she said.
Prior to smacking her son, Jennifer had explained what
she was doing and why. “I have never disciplined my children in anger,”
she said. The smacking left a small mark on her son’s leg, no welts, no
blood, no bruising. A short time later another incident where the same
child pushed the boundaries of good behaviour arose. This time the
potential was there for a very serious outcome. The boy swung a baseball
at his stepfather’s head. If the blow had not been blocked the
consequences of that temper flare could have been far-reaching. “My son
could have landed up in court for attempted murder – or worse,” Jennifer
said.
The same procedure was followed – an explanation and a
few whacks on the bottom with a riding crop. “And those few whacks were
a light sentence for what could have happened.” This appeared to prompt
a turnaround in the child’s behaviour, and he became a good student and
seemed much happier at home, Jennifer said. “It was like we had a new
child. He’s actually said that everybody needs a good tong-up
sometimes.” Because of his difficulties at school her son had been
receiving counselling through Special Education Services.
At one session the counsellor asked Jennifer why she
thought her son’s behaviour was so much better. She told him he had been
smacked; her response was to change the life of the Davies family,
perhaps for ever. “I told him about the discipline and he just said that
I couldn’t do that. He called CYF and they arrived at my place of work
to interview me. It was like the Gestapo coming in, it was terrible,”
she said. Two days later Jennifer discovered CYF had been to court and
obtained a court order for custody of her son. She was devastated and
her son bewildered at his treatment.
The issue did not end there. Jennifer was to be
charged under the Crimes Act with assaulting her son. She had her day in
court, discovered a social worker had lied in an affidavit, was
acquitted and the slate, technically, was wiped clean. She had not
broken the law. But the taint lingers on. One year later, a not guilty
verdict and Jennifer is still fighting to regain custody of her son.
CYF’s reason? “They say the discipline method I used was inappropriate,”
she said. The official response to her son’s behaviour problems was
medication. She claims the drug used, Risperdal, has a long list of
side-effects.
It has been banned in the United States because of
these side-effects, Jennifer said. “The state insists he take this every
day to modify his behaviour. Funny, when a whack on the bottom, which
has no long-term side-effects, sufficed to bring about a change in
behaviour for the better. The state’s ideal – remove the child from a
secure and happy family environment and medicate him until he is a
zombie. His parents’ ideal is to give him a paddle on the bum if
necessary and have a happy, balanced child. Which scenario truly
represents abuse?” Jennifer claims her son is now permanently
emotionally scarred, not from the discipline he received, but from the
trauma of being removed from the family he loves and who love him.
CYFS have demanded Jennifer undergo a parenting course
to learn about non-violent forms of disciplining her children. “But I’ve
told the department and my kids have told them that smacking is not the
only form of discipline in our family.” In an odd twist to the story,
Jennifer, the mother deemed unfit to care for her son by CYFS, is used
as a respite carer when school is out.
The child now attends boarding school – paid for by
the state – but during holidays he comes home. “Apparently, he’s safe
with me during the holidays, but not during the school term.” While he
is desperately unhappy, the life he spends bounced between boarding
school and home is a much better deal than when he was placed fulltime
in foster care, Jennifer said. “When he was in foster care he had a
terrible time at school, his behaviour deteriorated and he was
suspended. CYFS ended up sending him home to be sorted out and when he
seemed okay, they sent him back to foster care again. It didn’t take him
long to realise he could use this as a tool to get home again.”
Her experience with CYFS was nothing short of bizarre
– heart- breaking and bizarre, she said. “Once you’re in the system,
there seems to be no escape. The only reason they give for holding my
son is that they do not like the form of discipline I’ve used, but it
was discipline designed to counter bad behaviour, and it did.” The
state, she said, is abusing her son through their care arrangements and
his medication, but there is nothing she can do to stop it. “How many
other parents will face this scenario if section 59 is repealed. “The
state is undermining parental authority and this will be to the
detriment of society.”
While hers might be an isolated case, if Section 59 of
the Crimes Act is repealed, parents accused of assaulting their children
by smacking may well be clogging up the court system, Jennifer said.
“People need to know that the reality is they will have their children
taken away and they will be like me, fighting to get them back.” As
heartbreaking as her experience has been, Jennifer said she is speaking
out, not for herself, but as a warning to other parents. “Anything that
can be done to stop this private members’ bill going through to stop
other parents going through this has to be done.” Smacking and abuse or
violence are very different, Jennifer said. “I’m not guilty, I’ve been
acquitted and yet I’m still being punished. The emotional cost has been
terrible, but the financial cost has been crippling.” Parents must stand
up and be counted – now, she said. Submissions on the bill close on
February 28.
What is Section 59 and what does the private
members’ bill seek to change?
Section 59 of the Crimes Act – “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.” A proposal to ban smacking is contained in a
private members’ bill sponsored by Green Party member Sue Bradford. An
explanatory note to the bill reads in part: “The effect of this
amendment is that the statutory protection for use of force by parents
and guardians will be removed. They will now be in the same position as
everyone else as far as the use of force against children is concerned.
The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194
(a) of the Crimes Act.”
Who is opposing the bill and why?
A group called Family Integrity is running a public awareness campaign
about the implications of the bill, which it says goes over the top,
criminalising most acts of parenting and creating an environment where
parents will live in fear of being charged with abuse. “If this bill is
passed, effective parenting will be outlawed,” Family Integrity says.
The group is an informal association of families and individuals from
all works of life who are opposed to unjustifiable government
interference in family matters. It is a completely independent
association and is not part of, aligned with or committed to any
political party, church denomination or lobby group.
Where can parents who believe they have been
unfairly treated by CYFS go for help?
Jennifer and countless other parents around New Zealand, who believe
they have been unfairly treated by CYFS, belong to a support and action
group, PANIC PANIC – Parents Against Negative Intervention by Child
Youth and Family Services, was founded in 1998. It is Christian based
and offers support and advice for parents and caregivers who believe
they have been badly treated by CYFS or other social agencies. While it
supports those who believe the system has failed them, PANIC recognises
the commitment and care provided by CYF social workers to protect
children in actual cases of abuse.
While Jennifer Davies now lives in Ashburton, this
incident did not occur in Ashburton and did not involve Ashburton CYF
staff.
Editorial
February 2006
http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/index.asp?articleid=6829
home
/
Previous
viewpoint |