the story behind the horsewhip smacking case

You may remember a while back there was a case where a woman was acquitted of child abuse after hitting her son with a horse whip after he "waved" a baseball bat at his step father's head.

As a result Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro is using this case as a justification for repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act without publicising the facts of what happened.

I have decided to tell this story because the media and the Children's Commissioner have distorted it. I got my information from an interview with the mother concerned, and if anyone asks for a copy of the full interview, I`ll email it to them. Prime Minister Helen Clark has asked for and recieved a copy. I didn't do the interview, and I can't name anyone due to final name suppression. The Herald quoted the woman as telling her social worker that her son was "a little arsehole". He was, afer all, causing trouble at school, kicking in walls and swearing at teachers, resulting in his mum caning him.

There's more to the story than meets the eye. It's a long post but I`d like you to read it.

Firstly, the child didn’t get hit with a horse whip. Secondly, nothing was said about the activities of Child Youth and Family social workers involvement in the case. Finally, CYFS promised the woman's son back if she won her case. She won, but does not have custody of her child as CYFS are refusing to return him home to her because they say the child was assaulted and therefore she is an unsafe parent.

But here's the story.

The boy was asked to assist his stepfather to get some firewood. He refused.Apparently he did not respond well to the man's encouragement to help. Instead he picked up a baseball bat and swung it full force at his stepdad's head screaming that he would give him permanent head injuries. Fortunately the man was able to block the blow and disarm the boy. If he had not seen the baseball bat coming, the consequences could have been dire, as the impact to his head could have seriously maimed or even killed the man because he has a closed head injury from an accident some years ago.

So his mother disciplined hom with a riding crop because she couldn't find anything else. Not a horse whip. A horse whip conjures up visions of a long stock type whip, where a riding crop is a small item, about 18 inches long and is designed to give a short sharp sting with no seen physical effects.

The discipline was controlled, over with very quickly and was very effective, according to the mother. Afterwards the boy gave his mother a hug and apologised for swinging the baseball bat and threatening his stepfather.

The special education services (SES) worke at the boy's school noticed a change in the boys behaviour at school and asked why there was such a positive change His mother told him about the disciplining. The SES worker told the boys mother that she was not allowed to discipline in this manner, that it was against the law even to smack - which of course is rubbish.

The SES worker then contacted CYFS. The following is part of the interview.

Two social workers from CYFS arrived at my place of work two weeks later and in a very high handed and officious manner insisted on "interviewing" me in front of my staff and members of the public, telling me I was abusing my child. They clearly had made up their minds that this was the case before even talking to me.

They kept on insisting that it was against the law to hit a child, including smacking, and quoted 'violence begets violence'. When they refused to leave, I left work myself and drove away as I was managing a tourist attraction and it was entirely inappropriate for them to even attempt to conduct an interview there.

The social workers took exception to my abrupt ending of their power trip and rang the police. They filed to the family court - without even investigating fully the circumstances of discipline and without offering the family any support - an exparte order seeking interim custody for my son on the grounds that he was being physically abused. The exparte order meant we were not even informed they were doing this and we had no right of reply to defend it. The court awarded CYFS interim custody of my son, based on the hearsay of one social worker alone and without calling evidence to substansiate the social workers claim.

The social worker then set on a campaign to get the police to prosecute me in order to bolster his claims of abuse."

>

The Police interviewed her. Charges were not laid for some five months after the interview and as I understand were laid with a great deal of reluctance and under pressure from CYFS. Even though the court of law has ruled an assault did not occur, CYFS are refusing to return her son on the grounds he was assaulted. He is currently living with a relative.

The nother says she has spoken to four different CYFS social workers about smacking and they all hold and maintain the belief that it is against the law to smack children, and that smacking constistutes violence and violence begets violence. She said she was told that it is their policy to remove children from the care of parents who smack to discpline

She said it was interesting that the social worker carried out an interview with her son without her knowledge and without offering him any adult support- which is in direct breach of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act. This social worker has put an application before the court for a declaration in respect of two of the woman's other children on the grounds that they "could be at risk of being abused" even though these children and family members have made it clear that this is not the case. When the family won the court case they were excited. Remember CYFS had indicated he would be returned if the case was won. That still hasn't happened.

After we won the court case the social worker rang the care giver and told he my son was not allowed to come home with me and I was not to be picking him up. He further told the caregiver I was not allowed to see my son.

He also as recently as last week physically tried to prevent my son from talking to me on the phone by trying to snatch away the phone as it was passed by my son’s caregiver to my son. I over heard him yelling "I SAID NO". This action frightened my son so much that he subsequently ran away from the social worker and rang me from a house where he felt safe. The person who owned the house described him as obviously frightened and crying.The social worker has denied me access to my son, without having a court order to support this, and even though I have had extended unsupervised access to him previously this year, which have included him staying with us for several days at a time and not wishing to return to his caregiver.

The social worker has even stated at one point that I am an evil woman because I stood with my hands on my hips and glared at him. Am I expected to be pleasant smiling and happy because he has wrongfully removed my son from my care? Get real.

The social worker has also told my son that I broke the law disciplining him the way I did. This has not only undermined my parenting in front of my son but it has caused a lot of confusion to my son. CYFS should have withdrawn their applications immediately upon the ruling of the jury and they have not. They should have retuned my son home and they have not. How can this be? CYFS are flouting the law in doing this

It is clear from the interview that this discipline was controlled discipline, not abuse. Cindy Kiro, however has a different view.

"They (do) it in moments of anger. This is often about parents venting their anger … not about teaching children how to behave properly."

Of course, she won't comment about the involvement and tactics of social workers in such cases.

an update is HERE