'Smacking ban' to be passed?

[Ixion]

that's allowed under the new legislation

No it's not. To deter makes it "correction" which is speciically criminalised.

[The Big J]

does it? i might change my mind again!

[jrandom]

No it's not. To deter makes it "correction" which is speciically criminalised.

Just in case anybody who sees fit to hold forth here hasn't read the Bill:

Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

"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

"(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct
that amounts to a criminal offence; or

"(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

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

"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the
use of force for the purpose of correction.

"(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1)."

The select committee's comments are interesting:

The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services told us that it has various policies for dealing with situations that endanger children. It told us that it would expect the thresholds at which it removes children to remain the same if section 59 were repealed.

Also:

We note that there are several potential offences directly related to the care of children that are rarely prosecuted. Such an example is if a caregiver sends a child to its room against its will, this technically constitutes kidnapping under section 209 of the Crimes Act. However, the police are not regularly prosecuting parents for this. We consider that logic dictates the police will adopt a similar approach to parents who use minor physical discipline following the changes to section 59.

[Fub@r]

physical punishment when a child is over the age of two is lazy parenting

.. but there's nothing more effective than a short, sharp slap on the wrist to deter a little hand under that age that's reaching out towards a hot oven door ....

just my opinion

that's allowed under the new legislation

Big J that is incorrect. Sue Bradford gave the example last night similar to the above:

If your child is running out in front of a car you CAN use reasonable force to grab the child and pull them away from the danger ie: getting squished. But if you follow it up with a slap of the child you ARE BREAKING THE LAW!

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with the current legislation.........what we have is a serious problem with the judges administering it. If a judge is going to allow a parent to use the defense of Reasonable Force when they have beaten their kid serverly, or with a weapon be it a cord, tool or whatever then we need to get rid of the judges.

I saw earlier comments about the Family Court above and how they will be able to sort the difference out. Anyone that thinks that obviously has not experienced the female biased family court system. Changing the law will just see more dad's being denied access to their kids due to false accusations.

Currently for example my ex could say I threatened her on the phone, she can instantly get a protection order which also prevents me seeing my son and I have no right to defend it. It will take 6 months to be able to defend it in which time I would have to complete an anti violence course and only get 2 hour supervised visits with my kid to which I would have to pay the court to supervise. And after all that prove its a crock of shit and the ex can just walk away scot free. Awesome Family system we have

[The Big J]

ok, granted I'm wrong.
there not so bad admitting that.
my real main point is I agree with doing something about child abuse. The critics may have valid points that I haven't maybe thought through. But I see little by way of alternative suggestions. The judges interpret the law. they have little to do with it.

[jrandom]

for example my ex could say...

My dislike for that sort of vicious behaviour is the reason I've always tried to avoid fucking manipulative slappers. Or, at least, tried to avoid breeding with them.

YMMV.

[terbang]

Spare the rod, spoil the child..! Or so they once said. My old man used to dish out some serious hidings to us boys and yep we got him back (let the brake off his tractor and rolled it downhill into a swamp). Our teachers caned the shit out of us (I got over 150 in one year) when we were at school. We hated them for it, wore 3 pairs of undies, put books into our pants and broke damn near every window in the school. Late night visits to the the rugby fields on our trail bikes also showed them our appreciation for the cane. My boss kicked my arse when I was an apprentice and the NCO's kicked us around when in the army. Did it make any difference. No, not positive or negative. Now I have kids and we have gone off the idea of smacking them and don't. Give that stupid labrador a whack across her thick hide every now and then but that doesn't seem to work either. People, like their dogs, tend to perform better when the motivation is positive rather than negative.

[Fub@r]

My dislike for that sort of vicious behaviour is the reason I've always tried to avoid fucking manipulative slappers. Or, at least, tried to avoid breeding with them.

YMMV.

Yeah but its not always apparent till quite some way down the track.

Prime example of my ex:

Organise holidays, she decides drop off time doesn't fit her social schedule, I maintain it stays the same as I had plans with my son. Go to drop him off noone home, all phones are off, go to her work, her parents etc everyone unavailable.

Go to local cop shop explain situation, also that I believe within next 48 hours she will try have me done for kidnapping. I take my son home.

Now drop off time +36 hours I get abusive call from ex about how she on her way to cops to get me arrested for kidnapping, told her what cop shop to go to and how they were expecting her (did not go down well) but damn lucky I covered my arse that day or I would've been strung up.

Only reason I cover my butt so well is that from my experience the family court is a total crock

[jrandom]

Yeah but its not always apparent till quite some way down the track.

My sympathies. I know. It really, really sucks. Women can only really hurt you if they have your money or your children, and unfortunately, they're pretty good at getting both.

What can you do, eh?

At least you don't have to live with her any more.

[Motu]

You don't need to smack a child to abuse them.....come and stay with me for a weekend and I'll open the window so you can hear what goes on next door.I don't think they actualy get off their arse to hit the kids,but the verbal abuse is brutal....even if they don't know what a ''fucking little cunt'' is,they get the tone.And the neglect,sigh - at least if they got smacked it would mean someone was noticing what they were doing,my kittens get a thousand times more attention from their mother,and they are called animals....

[MSTRS:Me]

I used to share the sentiments of those who felt this law was PC Bullshit but having listened to a debate by Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford was surprised at how reasonable most of the steps seemed.

Yep. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As others have said - do not believe that no action will be taken against a parent who smacks. This law change is not about protecting children. It is all about control of the adult. And will do nothing in those (abuse) cases that have always occurred.

[yungatart]

I am vehemently opposed to child abuse, however I believe God gave children well padded buttocks for the purpose of administering discipline, although it was infrequently used in our house. Other things can, but do not always work - it depends on the child/cicrumstances etc.
But, what does this law do to protect the likes of the Kahui twins, Delcelia Whittaker, James Whakararu, ad infinitum, ad nauseum... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Those kids, and the hundreds like them are afforded no more protection under this law, than they were under the old law. They still have to be assaulted before anything is done to keep them safe.
Compulsory parenting licences and forced education of some of our parents would have achieved far more than making decent, caring parents in to criminals

[mstriumph]

You don't need to smack a child to abuse them.....come and stay with me for a weekend and I'll open the window so you can hear what goes on next door.I don't think they actualy get off their arse to hit the kids,but the verbal abuse is brutal....even if they don't know what a ''fucking little cunt'' is,they get the tone.And the neglect,sigh - at least if they got smacked it would mean someone was noticing what they were doing,my kittens get a thousand times more attention from their mother,and they are called animals....

is there a reason you don't dob?

no disrespect intended - just curious

[Lou Girardin]

Modern society is a tribute to Benjamin Spock and his permissive child upbringing theory's.
This law will be just as successful. I can just see all the child abusers saying "I better not beat the shit out of the kid now that it's illegal".

[kickingzebra]

Family Court judges... stupid

Have you not heard the stories of those who have been there done that? There are a million and one ways to beat the system that even the stupidest of off beat parents knows.

I cannot and will not trust my children to the court system, doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they don't know what the heck they are doing, likewise CYFs etc. People who intend well, but can't and don't understand what impact their heavy handed tactics have!

When I was a young guy I had to spend hours and hours and hours with these people trying to convince them I had never been arse raped by a person who eventually they stuck something to anyway. How many ways of saying NO can a child expect to know?!

I have no respect for those people, and ones like them. That was suring the Kiddy Fucker witch hunt of my youth, well, bring on another witch hunt, the bad parent one. As I say, the parents that care enough about their children to use any means neccesary to stop bad behaviour will go down in their droves, carted off to prison, and the caregivers who repeatedly abuse children in other ways will be laughing all the way to the graves of the families that have been broken.

New laws will never solve the inherant problems in humanity. I suspect better methods will be to better fund the organisations who care about the family - Parenting with confidence, Plunket etc, and include behavioural training in things like antenatal classes/post birth visits.

Support for parents who are at the end of a long tether is going to be cheaper in the long run, and easier to administer than big kicks in the arse for those who don't tow a line drawn in the sand by a half blind elephant.