Child beaters, round two

[PrincessBandit]

It's not the kids that are the problem. Raise them properly and you won't ever feel a need to smack them in the first place.

An overly simplistic point of view I think. Anyone who has raised children know that no matter how idealistic you are, how awesome a parent you think you are being, things just don't always go according to plan when it involves teaching your children how to develop into responsible, self controlled, intelligent beings. There are children who learn the easy way ( I believe according to my mum I was one of those) and then some who just have to learn the hard way (another member of my family, ahem, who shall remain nameless but is known to many here, was one of those).

I applaud any parent who can state outright "I've never had to smack my children and I'm immensely proud of the way they have turned out" - that would be the ideal. But the reality is that being able to discuss and reason won't always work, and when it does it's usually because the bond between parent and child has been well founded from infanthood and carries over into the older-child stage.

So good on those who insist they will take that approach, never stray off the path, and never stoop to using physical discipline (and trust me, the temptation will be there from time to time at least). I just hope you have kids who enable to you to carry it through! It's easy to blame parents for everything, but some have extremely trying children to bring up!

[idb]

I would prefer a referendum that said;
"Should a smack, in the absence of proper parental correction, be permitted on other people's children?"

[jono035]

I thought the anti-smacking legislation was about making behaviour that was illegal anyway easier to prosecute by removing any ability to mount a defence, rather than making unacceptable behaviour illegal?

I get nervous when politicians say things like 'Oh no, we wouldn't prosecute a case like that'... I've seen too many times when someone with their own axe to grind makes a big noise and uses some law like this to get back at someone... Some woman in the supermarket who decides that you giving a disciplinary smack on the bottom to one your kids is against her own world view that kids are precious petals to be wrapped in cotton wool (if you're the parent, it should be your judgement within the legal definition of 'reasonable') and kicks up a big stink about it... Your only defence being 'well yes, it currently is technically illegal but you said you wouldn't prosecute me!'...

Also, all this means is the discipline will happen behind closed doors instead when it does happen, which does what exactly for child abuse?

I firmly believe that a smack or 2, delivered promptly and decisively, did a better job than any amount of 'go and sit on the naughty step' parenting would have, even if only to have as the final last-word in the situation where the marching orders to the naughty step are greeted with a 'no, fuck off...'

[jono035]

And 9 point something million? We have what, 4.5 million ish people, half of those paying taxes = $4 each we're paying for this.

I was against the original approach due to the proposed implementation, not the idea behind it, but even I think the question is massively biased towards an overwhelming 'yes' response...

[Winston001]

What's the legal definition of "smack"... I expect that's relevant here as opposed to the dictionary definition.

Good question Ned. There is no legal definition. Just as there is no legal definition of push, slap, kick, punch, or blow. These words all come under the term assault which is defined as an uninvited or unwanted touching of a person.

As pointed out above, there is no anti smacking law. It's a fiction. The term arose from a politician's quip and has been seized upon as shorthand for taking away parents rights. Utter nonsense. The mistaken passion of decent people here who misunderstand the law is so frustrating. None of us support bashing kids yet we've been misdirected into arguing that assault on children is good parenting.

My problem is understanding exactly when I can (and more importantly can NOT) smack legally. As mentioned before - the legal definition of what constitutes a smack is also open to confirmation.

This is the dichotomy parents face - will they be breaking the law if they give a short smack on the hand or bottom? No.


59. Parental control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—


(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or......

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.


Think of it this way - would you want your child to look at you with fear in their eyes? Not sullenness or guilt - fear. Smacking too hard and too often will produce that, closely followed by resentment and later on, contempt. You instinctively know this anyway and have nothing to worry about.

[Winston001]

Was sitting with a mate and his now-adult children the other day when this subject came up. My mate never smacked his children - ever. They are great adults today.

These kids grinned and reminded their dad how he didn't smack even when they tried hard to push all his buttons. What all three of them remembered was he'd look at them and quietly say "I'm just really disappointed with you....." Crushing. It worked.

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

[jono035]

Was sitting with a mate and his now-adult children the other day when this subject came up. My mate never smacked his children - ever. They are great adults today.

These kids grinned and reminded their dad how he didn't smack even when they tried hard to push all his buttons. What all three of them remembered was he'd look at them and quietly say "I'm just really disappointed with you....." Crushing. It worked.

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

I think it depends on where you sit in the nature vs nurture debate... I figure it is a mix (I really believe in black and white situations), so that worked well for him because his kids had the correct nature for that to be an appropriate approach... I don't know whether that would work in all cases though...

[JimO]

Yes two who have grown up and are now in the workforce, so you could say I'm an 'experianced' parent. What I do for a living is not relevant.

Skyryder

well it just that i thought you must be a limp wristed social worker or even a laibore politician from your posts on here, all my boys were smacked, they are all high achievers at school, one has been asked to put himself forward for head boy for next year, two of them have played rep hockey and soccer since they were 11 and one is going to Ireland to play in the Milk Cup representing NZ, so a smack didnt do them any harm eh!!

[Skyryder]

How is it JK's fault? The call for a referendum got the required signatures, it has to happen.

It was one of Keys election policies.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

That is the key to good parenting. For those that do not understand this they resort to inflicting pain as a means of correcting bad behavour.

I personaly found rewarding my two girls simply for being themselves was fundamental in the respect and friendship that they now show to each other.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I thought the anti-smacking legislation was about making behaviour that was illegal anyway easier to prosecute by removing any ability to mount a defence, rather than making unacceptable behaviour illegal?

The law was changed to remove reasonable force as a defence in child assault by a parent or caregiver.

It could be argued that society bought this on themselves due to the inabilty of juries to come to a common sense verdict of assault when an object was used to discipline a child.

I'm not going to argue that line of reasoning myself as this has been covered in earlier threads.

Most think that Bradford bought this up entirely on her lonesome but this was not the case. She had much support from many childhood agencies who were aware of this problem.

While I have never questioned the intent of those parents who believe that a smack is acceptable I also believe that the intent of Bradford's bill is something that many opponents have overlooked. That too me is the tradgedey of this current referrendum. It is not about parents rights it is Family First, a party that can not get seats into Parliment, useing children as a means of promoting themselves.

Skyryder

[ManDownUnder]

That is the key to good parenting. For those that do not understand this they resort to inflicting pain as a means of correcting bad behavour.

Skyryder

Don't get me wrong - I am 100% with you on that one. I di however add the caviat that reasonable force will be needed in some circumstances, especially if they are potentially harmful to the child, and the threat is immediate

[Deano]

What all three of them remembered was he'd look at them and quietly say "I'm just really disappointed with you....." Crushing. It worked.

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

Would that work on an 18 month old throwing a tanty ? Perhaps when they are a bit older and have more understanding but.

[MisterD]

It was one of Keys election policies.

A referrendum on MMP was one of Key's election policies, not the anti-smacking bill. This is purely a Family First driven exercise...I know we usually disagree about matters political Skyryder but you do usually engage your brain.

[Skyryder]

A referrendum on MMP was one of Key's election policies, not the anti-smacking bill. This is purely a Family First driven exercise...I know we usually disagree about matters political Skyryder but you do usually engage your brain.

The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says.
The law was hot on the agenda at the NZ Forum on the Family in South Auckland yesterday, with Mr Key saying a strong referendum result should give a National government the confidence to change the legislation.

Mr Key said he supported New Zealanders' right to a referendum. He criticised Labour's preference for a stand-alone ballot, rather than holding it with the upcoming election.
He said if National gained power it would consider reforming the anti-smacking law.

From
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacki...ectid=10531208


It’s semantics to suggest that the Nats did not have an election policy on this.

One thing I did get wrong was saying Family First a political party. Mind you the difference between them and the Kiwi Party is indiscernible.

Brain fully engaged.............I think.


Skyryder