Anti Smacking Bill
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6011
Printed Date: 01 April 2026 at 1:48pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Anti Smacking Bill
Posted By: AnnC
Subject: Anti Smacking Bill
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:26am
|
i am sure not everyone agrees with this or does agree with it, but I think it is wrong.
I have smacked my other two children at various stages of their lives, mainly a smack on the hand or bottom, NOT beating them. I am not in agreeance that a politician can tell me it will be illigal to do this when it is clear I am not ABUSING my children. There is a website where you can download a petition form for a referendam on it which I encourage you all to do http://www.familyfirst.org.nz - PETITION I have decided I can not sit and wait to see what is going to happen as if it does become law I have only myself to blame, so I am have downloaded the form and endeavour to get 20 signatures (they need 300,000) and send it away. If everyone on these forums get the same as me they will be well on their way to getting the amount needed. BTW - 'I' have not decided weather to smack Rhyley yet or not but I do beleive the choice is the parents and NOT the government Abusers will still abuse ------------- Ann 
Also Mum to Josh (15) and Brooke (10) |
Replies:
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:31am
|
I had a talk to someone at my work the other day about it as I am terribly uninformed.
I'm not sure which side of the fence I am on... will have to do more reading, but she mentioned repealing 'Section 39' (I think?) which is the law that lets you get off being prosecuted for smacking your child around (I'm talking 'beating' here) by saying that you are allowed to use 'reasonable force'. The problem has been that 'reasonable force' is really contentious and many a caregiver/parent who has severely beaten their child has gotten off due to this clause. There are laws that say you are not allowed to hit another adult... reasonable force or not... yet we are allowed to do it to our children because they are our "property" - and this much I think is wrong. So the aim of the repeal of section 39 is to stop those that hit their children hard enough to cause significant harm and then using their smart lawyers to get them off. The police aren't going to come around and arrest you for giving a light tap on the bottom - but they will (and always have done) if there is evidence of violence. [Hrmmmm... so I guess I am for the repeal  ]
|
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:46am
|
It is a contentious issue, and I think there will be a lot of debate on this. But for my part, and this is PURELY MY OPINION AND VIEW ONLY - I am absolutely for the repeal of section 39. I do not believe that any child should be physically smacked for any reason, and I have to admit to being horrified at the poll on the Oh Baby homepage that shows that 59% of Oh Baby parents will or do smack their children. There are plenty of other ways to discipline children rather than resorting to physical violence. And I KNOW that some people are saying "yes, but I don't beat I just smack", etc etc, but there are some parents out there who do not, or can not tell the difference, hence our disgusting child mortality rate in this country. We need to nurture and protect all our children in this country, and if a law change is needed to protect our babies, then so be it.
Rant over, and out. |
Posted By: Roksana
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:49am
|
I some times smack Zaara's hand (not hard at all) and she doesnt even cry...but gets the point!!
I also dont agree that we cant smack children...I didnt think that smacking is abusing your children. I guess they really need to refine the term!! ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: mummy_becks
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 11:13am
|
I have to agree with you Ann. We smack Andrew on the hand (the palm side) or on his bum if he has been naughty. We don't beat him so this law (if it passes, to which I hope it doesn't) is pointless. Sue Bradford thinks its going to stop people from assulting their children - i'm sorry what dream world is she living in???? - its not going to and its going to put good parents that use a smack with their hand in prison. I have signed that petition and will give the link to DH to sign as well. And then a few friends that think it is stupid as well. ETA: We were smacked/disiplined as children and we came out alright, my cousins who were never smacked/disiplined as children have had run in's with the law and 3 have spent time in prison. ------------- I was a puree feeder, forward facing, cot sleeping, pram pushing kind of Mum... and my kids survived! |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 11:16am
|
IMHO (and this is MY personal opinion, not related to the opinion of OHbaby! as a whole) is that whilst the way that Section 39 is worded is ambiguous, criminalising parents for smacking their children is not the answer.
It staggers me that people have been able to use Section 39 and the words "reasonable force" to justify beating and, in some cases, killing of their children. That to me speaks of serious flaws in the courts system - I suspect some judges need to be given a copy of the dictionary with the word 'reasonable' highlighted. I do smack my kids. Well not my kids plural, at this stage only Maya of course. I don't smack her often, and prefer to use Time Out, but in some instances a quick tap on the bottom with an open palm is the only thing that works. I have never smacked in anger, if I feel myself getting angry and frustrated then I take "Me" out of the situation because I'm the adult and I need to keep control of myself. I have also smacked Maya on a couple of occasions to wake her from a night terror. She gets wound up and cries and screams and is really upset but is fast asleep and I can't calm her down until she wakes up. Once she is awake the night terror is over. -------------  Maya Grace (28/02/03)
 (02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 11:22am
|
It's good that you are a sensible mum then Becks, but the whole point is that there are so many parents out there who are NOT, and by repealing section 39 we are protecting the children who have the misfortune to belong to those parents. People will not be jailed for giving their child a tap on the hand, but they WILL be jailed for using a riding crop and stick to beat their child in the name of 'discipline"(case in point being used at the moment to show ridiculous nature of current law).
But it appears that this is a subject that holds a great emotional battle, and everyone will probably feel very strongly one way or the other. And actually, I think it may be best for me to refrain from making any more comment on this forum regarding it as I am so opposed to smacking children in any way, shape or form that I may start to offend people who do think its ok to smack or hit children. |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 11:27am
|
Just my opinion:
I think the bill is a load of crap. It's not going to solve the problems of family violence etc. Just like laws that are around where you must have a rego and warrent on your car to drive it, people still do it despite the law. Same will apply with this law. Those who think light smacking is fine will continue to do it but be paranoid and possibly prosecuted for doing it but those who they really need to stop, the ones that beat the crap out of their children are still going to do it. DH and I were both smacked as children, we aren't violent people, so Sue Bradford using the arguement of smacking a child makes them more prone to violent behaviour is flawed. I see nothing wrong with a light smack if a child is being extremely naughty. DH and I have already discussed this, we both have no issue with light smacking this child (once old enough). I've even chatted about this with a friend who is a psychologist, she even smacks her lil girl and I think if it was going to do some real damage mentally she would know about it! lol The money spent on this stupid bill could be put better use, getting things like MAIN off the ground (that's the Manawatu Abuse Intervention Network) and getting initatives like that running all over the country. But despite that, I think the bill will go ahead which sucks! |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 11:33am
Eek - just reminded me my warrant expired on the 28th of Feb  Must take it in...------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
kebakat wrote:Posted By: EllenMumof2
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 11:55am
|
mmmmmmmm don't get me started on this one Whats NZ coming to??? I so don't agree with this bill. http://pregnancy.baby-gaga.com/">
 http://lilypie.com">
  http://lilypie.com">   |
Posted By: my2angels
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 12:02pm
|
hehe and i just remembered my rego has just run out!
Ummm I dont really know much about it to be honest, was thinking yesterday i must find out what the actual details are. I dont really smack kobe, have maybe once or twice and even then it wasnt any harder than if i was playing round ie playing drums on his bum or something which he thinks is hilarious. How strict is it going to be, like if someone saw me smack him are they able to ring and have the cops around or something? How do they distingush between smacking and beating or in the eyes of the law are they one and the same? |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 12:08pm
|
I guess Maya's fear of being smacked is summed up by the fact that I often tell her when she's being a monkey that I'll "beat her with a big stick" and she laughs at me - a great distraction! ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: my2angels
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 12:19pm
| Kobe was playing up and not getting into the car the other day, he kept saying he needed to find something so i told him he would find my foot on him bum if he didnt get in the car, he thought it was so funny and went around telling everyone he was going to put his foot up thier bum for the rest of the day! |
Posted By: Two Blondinis
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 12:21pm
|
We haven't made up our minds re. discipline methods for Caitlin (for when she's old enough to know better), I wasn't smacked as a child but DH was and we're both fine!
I personally think they DO need to re-write the section to make sure these evil, sadistic people can not EVER get away with beating their children! There is a huge difference between smacking and beating. The aim is to rid the Act of these loopholes where parents have been getting away with injuring their children and in some cases killing them (how this could ever be seen as "reasonable" I will never know). Like with all things the commen sense approach should be applied. No one will be jailed (I would hope) for tapping the childs bottom/legs/hand when there are so many more people that use bats, sticks, belts and worse! The Act is not for us responsible parents who would never dream of using such actions against our beautiful children. I personally don't think having an Act in place will make any difference as the people who carry out these crimes obviously can not tell the difference between right and wrong so I doubt that just because there is another law in place they will stop absuing their children. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
 
|
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 1:14pm
|
i think the point of the act was just so people who are abusing their children can't use that section to get off lightly - and in that case, I'm all for it. HOWEVER, i think a lot needs to be put in place to show parents other methods of discipline - (not us of course, we are all perfect!!), but I know my other kept telling me to give Jake a smack, but he responds SO much better to time-out. initally I thought that tijme out was a crock, but honestly it works so much better. i also noticed over xmas when my PIL smacked Jake (so unimpressed with this but thats another story) that Jake started being more violent. THat said, I do smack Taine on the hand when he misbehaves.
I think National want to amend the bill to clarify what reasonable force is and isn't but Sue won't let them . I hate to say it, but I like the national version much better - it seems to be less aginest parents smacking and more againest people abusing. |
Posted By: Bombshell
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 1:22pm
|
wel i wont get too involved in this discussion as I am anti the bill...the people who beat will continue to do so...and keep me in work!!! It is like dog licenses - we do pay ours but there are the likes of those in Otara etc that dont and just keep having dogs...this bill wont stop those in the system who do more than a simple smack!
We have decided that DH wont be smacking..he is huge, has force in his smack on my butt let alone a child..even in jest...and we wont risk it...but i will if need be - eg quick on hand etc... also reasonable force defence may be required still esp in cases of autism etc where a parent requires force to control their child...dont criticise that until youve lived even a day in their shoes with an unruly child with twice the strength of an adult. ok done...this is a topic where debate on the issue is highly likely to inflame and antagonise... |
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 2:34pm
|
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill
Just wanted to give a bit of background info as I have found it to save those that can't be bothered from wading through all the info. Sue Bradford wants to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows for reasonable force when physically punishing a child. - To prevent the clause being used to defend child abusers - As a step towards moving away from a culture of violence - To give children the same rights as adults (UN Declaration of Human Rights) In effect this means that all physical punishment of children will be an offence up to the discretion of CYFS/Police when they recieve complaints. The Greenies claim that it is not likely that a mother is going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking her child for doing something naughty in the way that most people don't get charged with assault when it is a minor case. The Nats want to amend the bill to provide further clarification of what is reasonable force. Along the lines of excluding the use of implements when punishing - eg a jug cord. I think those are the main points. More stuff from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00195.htm - Scoop |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 3:22pm
|
There are a lot of good points here. I have been following this one in the news for a while now, so I thought I'd also fill in some "gaps". (This is fact and only a couple of "IMO's", which I have made clear.)
The current legislation (section 59) allows for parents to use "reasonable force for the purposes of correction". It's not well defined but most people understand that a smack is fine and a whipping is not. Apparently there have been less than 20 cases in the last 11 years that someone has been taken to Court for beating their kids in some way, and has used this rule as an excuse (it's still up to Judge and Jury after that though anyway). Sue Bradford is proposing to change the current law to take out all force, except where it will save the kid right then. So if your kid is about to get run over, you can do whatever it takes to move them out the way. If s/he starts kicking and screaming in the supermarket, you can remove them against their will. That's basically it. There will be no okay's for correction so smacking WILL be out, but it's not being defined in black and white so this means it will be up to a Judge to decide every time (not the Police - they have to follow through on every report they get). The National Party want to define what is reasonable force and I think this is a great idea. But Sue Bradford has said my bill or nothing, she doesn't agree with defining force - a lot of people say this is because she really IS against all force even though she's very careful what she says about that. A New Zealand QC has recently given an opinion (it was on stuff news the other day) to the effect that removing a child against his/her wishes to put them on a naughty mat or similar, would be in breech of Sue Bradford's bill - because there is no exception for that type of thing. A lot of people go on about discriminating against children, I personally think that's bollocks. Adults go to prison or pay fines when they are "naughty". Children need something immediate so they can understand consequences... and obviously we don't want them sent to children's prison! So IMO it is therefore "right" for the parents to have some control in their early years. ------------- |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 3:37pm
|
AnnC, do you know when the petition needs to be in by? I can't find it on that website link. ------------- |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 3:44pm
|
[QUOTE=Bombshell] the people who beat will continue to do so...and keep me in work!!! It is like dog licenses - we do pay ours but there are the likes of those in Otara etc that dont and just keep having dogs...this bill wont stop those in the system who do more than a simple smack!
I agree, bombshell, its like the STUPID microchipping law. Personally, I feel that, like the microchipping law, the people who it is meant to affect will carry on flouting the law regardless. ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: BaAsKa
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 4:51pm
|
Theres going to be alot of people who will get all up in arms if they see some inocent person smacking their child on the hand in the supermarket which will lead to this parent going through the ringer for nothing!!! Now if the clause was ONLY to stop criminals from getting away with beating under that clause in court then yes but not if its going to pull up inocent parents who smack their kids (not BEAT!!!).
As if making this clause stronger is going to stop the actual child beaters out there!!! they will do it no matter what just as it is ilegal to do many things such as drink drive yadayada but that certainly does NOT stop people from doing it and nor will this, itl just serve to make things more complicated for the inocent parents that believe in smacking. I do smack Bay and fair enough if others dont believe in smacking their children but my son is a very well adjusted child who is not violent and is very loving so i dont think it will screw him up for life. |
Posted By: AnnC
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 6:23pm
|
i don't know when in by but i thought if i gave myself a week then that should be ok.
I am reading this with interest and i do wish these politians 'on high' would too. I do like nationals take on it to defy more detail, i have never used anything but my hand and don't believe jug cord/wooden spoon or anything else but thats not to say those that hv had used them are abusers either - mil has admitted breaking a wooden spoon on DH he got her that wild, also a wonderful 'second' mum used jug cord on her kids and we had dads belt. And i can say all these grown up children are not violent in anyway. Bombshell - I agree with special needs children they are pretty strong - I know first hand. ------------- Ann
Also Mum to Josh (15) and Brooke (10) |
Posted By: 11111
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 7:17pm
|
I don't want to get too much into this, and I have not read all the post's so sorry if I repeat some of waht has been said. How ever Bombshell I do agree with pretty much all I have read of your post's. My biggest concern with this law change is Kid's are not stupid and hte school's will be teacing them thing's. What if you have a clever 8 year old who pinished like grounded for hitting a sibling etc does not like the punishment so head's off ot school or somewhere and say's my Mummy/Daddy smacked me." The school will be abliged to report anything like this and all tho chances are the parent will be cleared they will still have to go through the wringer with SYF"S investgation's. Also our social worker's have a hard enough work load as it is just to have more added to the pile now while they are busy investgating inniconet parent's how many childrewn are being beaten and not getting the attention from the system they need I think more children will slip through the crack's. Anyway that is all I have to say on the matter. I personal don't think smacking is the most efective dicipline. ------------- Deborah Mum to:   
|
Posted By: 11111
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 7:22pm
|
I totally agree I was a nanny for a family with a very serve (SP?) special need's child and is requried some physcial force to get her home from thing's like the park and in a public place someone could think it was too harsh and report it. This child bit, pulled hair smacked kiked, pinched etc now I never hi her back. I diod have to hold her pretty forcefully however ti get something done what on earth are parent's in this situation surpose to do. It's not like they have alot of option's. reasoning with a child like this is not possible. Alot don't have that kind of understanding. ------------- Deborah Mum to:
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 7:34pm
Willie smacked Maya for the first time ever a couple of weeks ago. It was even lighter than I would smack, but she got such a fright, she couldn't believe he'd smacked her and kept saying "Daddy smacked me". She stopped doing what she had been doing tho. Oh and Mr Big and Tough "I'm a big, scary truck driver" spent the rest of the afternoon sulking around the house and saying to me "it's your fault, you made me do it, you should have made her settle down" coz he had such a major guilt complex... ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 7:46pm
|
Hear hear Baysmum!
And to add to the general topic... I smack our girls too but our "rules" are, if you're angry, take a break before dealing with the situation, and if there is a consequence that would teach the lesson better (like cleaning up a deliberate mess for example) we take that route. So basically we only smack for defiance - if I say not to touch something or not to walk onto the road etc, the kids have got to know there's no being silly about that. And Emma - poor Willy! ------------- |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:06pm
Yeah, poor Willie...  ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: AJs_Mum
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:17pm
|
In my opinion only -
I get that some kids i.e those with autism are extreemly hard to deal but for all others those that are just difficult or just plain kids ... I have one question: Since there are so many other ways to discipline your child why do you WANT to smack them? |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:23pm
|
I don't think it's fair to say I 'WANT' to smack her - but on occasion it works as an effective punishment. If I did it too often I'm quite sure it would lose it's effectiveness - Maya knows that if she gets a smack it is the absolute end of the line of how much I will tolerate from her.
I hate smacking, and can usually divert the situation before it gets that far but every now and then the boundaries get stretched a little too far. She's only four and it's my job as a parent to ensure that she grows up with appropriate boundaries and values so that she can make good decisions later on in life. Just want to qualify again that these are my personal views and not those of OHbaby!... ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:26pm
|
As an aside, I actually think that smacking autistic etc. kids is ethically questionable (JMHO). Smacking, like any other form of discipline, is really only effecive if the child understands the process that has led to it ie. that it is a consequence of certain behaviours. I'm not sure that kids with intellectual, social or even behavioural disorders would neccessarily make that cognitive connection, in which case it's pointless and becomes punishment out of frustration rather than as a consequence of bad behaviour. ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: aimeejoy
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:36pm
|
My turn! I haven't read all of the other replies either so will probably repeat.
I personally dont agree with the new bill - mainly as it isnt going to stop the people it is aimed at, but I do think the 'reasonable force' statement needs to be more defined for those that DO abuse. With Hannah, we had tried a little smacked hand, but she usually laughed and hit back, so that didnt teach her anything other than to hit, and it was me losing my cool and snapping more than anything. The only time I think I would smack now (bearing in mind that my child is only just one!!) is if its a danger situation (like run out on the road) and I want her to know it is serious and to remember it. If I smacked her all the time for more minor things, when it really is serious, it wont seem like it IYKWIM (kind of like the boy who cried wolf!) BTW, well done Ann. Will go have a look at the link now. ------------- Aimee Hannah 22/10/05 Greer 11/02/08 |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:51pm
|
What scares me about it, is the "smart ar$e" older kid who didn't get their way for something, so makes a complaint to the police to "get back at mum and dad". My brother did that heaps of times, ringing social welfare cos mum had grounded him, or wouldn't do what he wanted.. (yes, he was a naughty child)How embarrassing the first few times, as they have to take all compliants seriously...
The police won't be roound to arrest you anyhow, they are too busy arresting people who haven't micro chipped their bichon frises...  ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:53pm
|
Ohyeah, and I can't wait to be arrested for putting Jake in time out, as I am always putting him there against his will... ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:56pm
|
LMAO Annie, I seriously am LMAO! ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 9:15pm
|
my turn...
section 59... where to start. ok how bout it is an antiquated, out dated law made back when children werent even considered citizens..!!! 
and what do we, in 2007, want with a law that old that allows people to get off with murder or inflicting serious harm to a small innocent child; a child that probably looks up to their parents and places all their trust and childlike innocence in them.... Get rid of section 59 I say. 
However i also dont believe that making it illegal to smack is helpful either. Parents will be arrested and investigated by the police if found to be smacking a child and this will be a gross waste of police time in the majority of cases. There does need to be new laws and measures put in place to stop the violence towards children in this country, and more resources and more public awareness to help us help the abused children of this country. (Someone give me a ladder to get off this soapbox....) ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 9:29pm
Gsmum, I think we agree, so please don't take it personally when I correct something you have said.
The law doesn't justify that at all (and this is one reason why the National Party's amendment would be good)... this is what section 59 actually says:
------------- |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 9:31pm
|
I think the phrase "reasonable in the circmstances" is the major issue - or rather the way that people have been continuously allowed to stretch it to fit their own agendas. ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Paws
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:03pm
|
Deb I think you summed up nicely how I feel about it...
And yes as Emma says...it's the phrase "resonable in the circumstances" that is a big problem. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:12pm
|
unfortunately busymum section 59 has in the past been successfully used as a defence for these crimes against children, therefore i would say the law does justify it. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 10:22pm
That's a fair comment. I think it is very unfortunate that it has been stretched that far  ------------- |
Posted By: 11111
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 11:14am
|
Emma I was not talking about smacking the child sorry if it came across wrong, but you did have to physically restrain the child and it could look really bad to an outsider who was not totally aware of thr situation. I totally agree smacking a child with a disability like taht is totally pointless as they don't understand in the first place. ------------- Deborah Mum to:
|
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 11:44am
|
This subject is always going to be contentious and everyone will always have an opinion - so here is my 10cents worth. I dont have children yet, but have always been surrounded my kids in our family and have 3 god children who I spend a lot of time with. I personally dont beleive in smacking, as I think that its a 'short sharp shock' tactic, and kids dont have to 'think' about their actions. Most of my friends and family use the 'time out' method, and this seems to be effective...but like I say I am not a parent yet and will have to figure these things out when our little one comes along. In theory I agree with Sue Bradfords bill - but ONLY because she is actually doing something. I dont think that this will in any way stop parents / guardians / caregivers / grandparents (lets be honest - its not always parents) who beat the kids in their care. I think that it will make it harder for schools and CYFs to actually figure out who the real 'criminals' are.
------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: SMoody
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 12:21pm
|
The simple truth of the matter is each child is totally different and will need different discipline methods. For the one child you might just have to give a look and they know not to push that boundary again. For another it might be a smack on the bum to realise this is a NO NO.
I have used smacking on McKayla. Specially if it comes to power plugs and dangerous situations. She is too small for time out at the moment. You can only divert her attention for so long. She needs to realise there is boundaries for her own safety. by no means is my child harmed at all. You are going to start getting parents to scared too discipline their kids in any way as someone might be able to come and take them away and then you are going to end up with a huge problem when they are teenagers. I dont know how the current law is exactly. (too new to the country) but it sounds like there is too much of a grey area. So maybe it should be redefined. But I dont think smacking should be banned. Beating your kids, now that is a total different story all together in my book. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: nuttymama
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 12:57pm
|
It sucks pure and simply. I don't beat my children they get a quick smack if they are doing something dangerous and never when I am mad at them, but yet technically I am being put in the same box as a person that abuses their child!!!
YES they need to define the law "reasonable force" is such a vague term and open to so many interpretations, I remember a case a few years back where a woman poured bleach down her sons throat as she was angry about how he was talking. She got let off and the judge was quoted as saying "she's normally a good mother" and she was under a lot of stress due to the boys behaviour. BUT banning smacking is not going to stop the people who are doing it from doing it! People already know right from wrong and how far is to far. As far as i am concerned there is a huge amount of difference between a smack on the bum or hand and a whack in the head or with a weapon! It is going to get to the point where you as a parents are going to have to prove you didn't smack your child as opposed to them proving you did. My sixteen year old niece went through a real rough patch last year and she has said she was so angry at being grounded and at everything last year that had that been the law,she probably would have made and allegation just to make her nana pay for the sake of it. And that's the worry children will then have a tool and if they are that way inclined a way of holding their parents to ransom. We have to protect our countries children for sure I just don't think banning smacking is going to do what they hope it will do. ------------- Abigail 06/01/2005 Jayden 21/11/2001 Micheal 03/04/1997 |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 3:47pm
|
Something "funny" iread - you know that unicef thing about the best place to raise a kid and NZ came off really bad - the top three countries are ones that allow smacking!
As I said, I like the bill IF it is going to be used to stop people getting away with abusing children but Sue is dreaming if she thinks it will do anything towards lowering our horrendous child abuse statistics. As for what will, i'm sure if that were such a straight forward answer, it would be in place. |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 3:50pm
|
Ok, this is horribly un PC of me, but yhe only way to get the child abuse statistics down is to assess each "at risk" (in the opinion of the LMC's etc) fmaily before baby is allowed to go home, and not let that baby go home. ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 4:26pm
|
ahh jocobsmama but then once again who is to determine what or who is an "at risk" family. you cant take home a puppy from the SPCA unless you prove it is going to a good home and it has to have its jabs. do that with babyies and you take away a parents choice in how they wish to raise their babies. For example to some co sleeping is bad parenting so that could be deemed "at risk" as well. and whats to say that someone who has never been violent before wont suddenly become violent due to extreme PND or some other unknown or unseen reason. or is there a type of person you would deem "at risk".? ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 4:31pm
|
The LMCs do have a standard question as to family violence (something to the mother like, have you any reason to be afraid of violence in your home I think)... but IMO the real victims would be too afraid to answer that honestly anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 5:55pm
| my cousin left her baby at the hospital - they wouldn't let him go home as she was completel;y drugged to the eyeballs when they brought her in in labour (an no, not pain medication), and her little boy went through withdrawal in the hosptial. They rang cyps and she took off. Baby is now being fought over my her partmners parents and my cousins (the mothers uncle) |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 8:21pm
|
Gsmum, it wasn't so much how do "I" deem someone at risk, it was really just a "statement". I really couldn't see something like this ever *really* happening, it was a statement along the lines of "if you're gonna do this, why don't you just go the whole hog and do this instead?"
I would assume, though, that during 9 months of antenatal care, your LMC would have a fairly good measure of what type of home baby is going to. I don't mean co sleeping or formula feeding or anything else that some might say is "bad parenting" I mean evidence of drug taking and excessive drinking, evidence of violence, attitude towards differnt things might be a warning sign, and of course, as in the case of the Kahui twins, a history of children in cypfs/other gaurdians care. I realise that all an LMC can do is ring cypfs and warn them, and I know they do, but it seems to get well beyond this point before anything ever gets done, which is sad for those poor kids who don't ask to be born. Like you say, you can't take an animal home from SPCA without checks. ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 8:29pm
|
I know of cases where CYF has actually got Court Orders to take the baby, in place before the baby is even born - so when they are really concerned, they can action it. It seems we have so much of this in NZ these days though, sadly, that CYF can't keep up already - IMO. ------------- |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 8:34pm
|
You are so right, there! ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |