• Full Story

Pregnant drink-driver not allowed to keep baby

Email
Print

Pregnant drink-driver not allowed to keep baby

3News NZ

The New Plymouth woman was stopped on March 17 with a breath alcohol reading of 841mcg per litre of breath, more than twice the legal limit of 400mcg

The New Plymouth woman was stopped on March 17 with a breath alcohol reading of 841mcg per litre of breath, more than twice the legal limit of 400mcg

A pregnant New Plymouth woman is set to have a fifth child taken from her after receiving her eighth drink-driving conviction.

Tina Maree Hotene was jailed on Friday for 12 months and disqualified from driving for 15 months after being stopped on March 17 with a breath alcohol reading of 841mcg per litre of breath, more than twice the legal limit of 400mcg.

Judge Allan Roberts says the jail term would mean the child wasn't going to be subjected to alcohol while Hotene was carrying it.

Child, Youth and Family central regional director Tania Harris told the Taranaki Daily News that Hotene would not be allowed to keep the baby.

"Given her history and her inability to keep her unborn child safe, the right decision has been made here," Ms Harris said.

She said Hotene, who is in her 40s, had four other children with a former partner, all of whom were taken from her care and placed with other family members.

Another child from an on-again, off-again partner remains in the care of the father.

A spokeswoman for Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said CYF had been made aware of 148 babies removed from their families in the past year soon after birth.

NZN

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

12/06/2012 6:38:44 p.m.

james wrote:

The old alcohol ay. . . Thought that would be last century by now!

12/06/2012 6:01:55 p.m.

Brett wrote:

I think alot of the previous comments have been made based on the new charge of DUI however there is more to this woman other than having a problem with alcohol. Ask why were the other FOUR children removed. the other children have been placed with family members so its not like she doesn't see them.

12/06/2012 4:15:12 p.m.

Ironside wrote:

This raises many questions. Should driving offenses be used for removing children from parents? Recidivist DUI can indicate some serious personal issues that may affect parenting. As can repeat speeding, driving while disqualified/ with out license, having an unwarranted and regoed vehicle, careless driving in general. How will this new precedent of using traffic offenses against mothers affect fathers and 2 parent families with children? Will couples now have their children removed through a fathers DUI and speeding tickets? Where will this path takes us in NZ....

12/06/2012 4:08:14 p.m.

wondering wrote:

I am wondering had she been a middle aged male politician, lawyer or All Black, would her kids been removed from her?? One rule for all. While this does indicate other issues , should driving offenses by a female be a measure of abusive parenting?? Which road is this taking us down??

12/06/2012 1:28:33 p.m.

DB wrote:

Im sorry did that say 8th drink driving conviction?? Was the 3rd not enough? Did the judge think "oh maybe this time she will learn the lesson". I can safely say that even this jail term wont stop her. These are the people who not only personally cause issues in society, they help bring up family's and communities that cause the issues for our society. They are failures and just don't care.

12/06/2012 1:15:23 p.m.

Floral paisley wrote:

This is a dangerous precedent to make. While this lady is not a salubrious example of motherhood; should a driving issue be the prime instigation for removing children from a mother? Do all other DUI or other driving offense recidivists have their children removed by CYF? Or only single mothers? There is no indication here that she drove with children or otherwise put them at risk. The brutal decisions here are based on moral panic speculation. Whose children and grandchildren are next ???

12/06/2012 12:20:43 p.m.

matt wrote:

Would foreced steralisation be an option now?