Family First has been misled - Nigel Latta

Print

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 8:46a.m.

Psychologist Nigel Latta

Psychologist Nigel Latta

Lobby group Family First is often not given the full story when it champions parents it feels have been prosecuted for minor child discipline offences, psychologist Nigel Latta says.

That can lead it to throwing weight behind parents who don't deserve it and in so doing mislead the public, he told Radio New Zealand today.

In one case a parent prosecuted for hitting a child with a pillow "at face value ...an extreme over-reaction" turned out to have more than 70 convictions for violent offences.

A review report by Police Commissioner Howard Broad, Social Development Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes and Mr Latta was released yesterday, saying they had found no evidence police or welfare staff were reacting inappropriately.

The law as it stands bans smacking for the purposes of correction, but police have the discretion not to prosecute for inconsequential smacks.

Mr Latta reviewed several individual cases highlighted in the media by opponents of the law.

He said he was personally reassured the law change made no difference to the way the police and social workers did their job.

Family First forwarded cases to Mr Latta, In all of them he felt Child, Youth and Family and police behaved in an appropriate fashion.

Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie rejected any suggestion it had been misled.

It had not relied simply on what prosecuted parents told it, but in some cases had provided the police statement of facts, and sentencing notes.

Despite the review finding the opposite, he still did not accept the law was working.

He said the review didn't look at effect of the law on the general confidence and psyche of parents, or whether children felt parents now had less power over them.

His "general feedback" indicated there had been changes in parenting.

Both he and ACT MP John Boscawen told Radio New Zealand they could find minor cases where parents had been prosecuted.

The Government has said it will not change child discipline laws, with Prime Minister John Key reassuring parents they won't be prosecuted for a light smack.

Mr Key said the law was working the way Parliament intended, and again said he would change it if parents were prosecuted for lightly smacking their children.

He was asked at a press conference whether he was saying it was acceptable to lightly smack a child.

"Yes, I think so," he replied.

"It's up to individual parents to decide how they're going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child."

The review report contained several recommendations, including establishing a helpline for parents who were approached by authorities about smacking their children.

Mr Key said the recommendations would be implemented.

Family First said if so many support mechanisms were needed to ensure the law worked, then it needed changing.

NZPA

Listen to Nigel Latta talking on RadioLIVE

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

08 Dec 2009 07:33p.m.

Steven Quirk wrote:

Lets not forget the type of people that the likes of Bob Mcroskie and family first rubbed intellects with.Im sure that the victims of Graham Capills sick violence and others who have found themselves victims of violence, whether the hand is opened or closed,have not seen the hand of his shabby god intervening.Thank god for real people who care enough for the children of our nation that would spare them the rod of christian ideals.Good on ya John Key

08 Dec 2009 10:50a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

I think this is an overly charitable interpretation. Wake up, New Zealand. Family First is a militant fundamentalist pressure group and scientifically illiterate when it comes to the findings of mainstream pediatrics and developmental psychology on this issue. How much long will money be wasted on shrill, unrepresentative pressure groups like them and denied to families and children at real risk from family violence?

Someone needs to say it. Bob McCoskrie is today's Patricia Bartlett.

08 Dec 2009 09:49a.m.

cynical wrote:

If some good parents have been prosecuted (I presume that is what is meant by "minor cases") it does not follow that the law is working. We have to remember that only lawyers like to be in Court. We do not - we need to provide for the children, not feed lawyers. Did these good parents get properly reimbursed for loss of income, costs. stress and anxiety? If the seabed and foreshore act can be adjusted to suit Maori, why is it so difficult for the anti smacking law to be adjusted to reflect what is actually meant by it?
I suppose the reluctance means that we simply do not trust the legal profession. After all, it was that lot who argues that causing injury or death can be reasonable, or "not intended", even with a weapon. Perhaps best not to trust them indeed.