Update: Riding crop case kid is on drugs
Regular readers may be aware that I did a couple of posts about a woman who successfully used Section 59 of the Crimes Act to get off a smacking charge after hitting her child with a riding crop. Sue Bradford has repeatedly used this case as a good reason to ban smacking, has said this woman is an abuser and is repeatedly misquoting aspects of this case.
This story needs to be told. This is not fantasy. I am not making it up, just relating what I have been told
The woman has told me that the social worker has been finally taken off the case after a bit of pressure "higher up". This social worker was repeatedly telling her that if she smacked any of her kids again she would be breaking the law and will be charged. This social worker has no right to say anything of the sort. He has put the child in the care of CYFS who, the boy's mother told me, are using drugs to modify his behaviour.
This woman, who has final name suppression, is going to court on 14 September to stop her daughter being taken away from her, and back again in October to try and get her son back. Her drugged up son has been suspended from school after being in the care of CYFS. The boy's instant reaction when he got suspended was that he could just come home and be with his family, because it was obvious that his behavior was better when he was with his family, rather than being parented by the state. Poor kid. Whatever happened to the rights of the child and the legislation in the Children's. Young Persons and Their Families Act that note that the child's wishes must be taken into account. Did this child give consent to being drugged, as his mother has claimed?
I would have thought a short sharp smack with a riding crop - well, at least the palm of a hand from a loving parent - would be a much better way of curbing behaviour than drugging him up. It worked last time. This boy just wants to go home to his mum but the best the authorities can do is arrange for this boy to spend alternative weekends with the parents, despite earlier branding the boys step father as an unfit parent because of something that happened 30 years ago.
The social worker, I understand, informed the girl's biological father of the court proceedings even though he has a full protection order against him. The father was in court at the last hearing. He has threatened to kill members of his estranged family. He has already been to prison for a knife assault on his family. The family court ordered he was to have no access whatsoever until further order of the court - yet this social worker has involved him. Why? Are they pushing to award custody of these poor kids to him?
If there is any case that is evidence of why section 59 must not go in its entirety, this is it. If you are interested in checking out a site discussing issues surrounding section 59, then visit Every Blogger Counts
6 comments:
Your link to Every Blogger Counts doesn't work Dave.
I've put my own post up about how horrified I am about this.
And I just wonder if there is a political reason that he's not being returned. This case, as you mention, is the one cited as the reason for needing S59 repealed. How will it look to their cause if the child is returned to his family.
Screwy logic, I know, but then everything about these people is seriously stuffed.
The link works now
Dave
I look forward to seeing the social worker in court for breaching the order against the father at the very least.
I also look forward to a public apology to the family from both the minister and the head of cyps.
yeah right.
MikeNZ
this is typical cyfs i know just how this is i to had me stepson taken away his bilogical father and grand parent have criminal records and yet cyfs would rather see him there than with use.Boy always wants to come home and always makes a big scene when he has to go back to grandparents yet cyfs just say we are provoking him with adult isuesse what a lot of shit.We just love the boy nothing less.
In my experince CYFS use emotional abuse to prevent anything being discussed at all.
It is time we asked our politicians some very serious questions. surely if the boy wants to be home this is a waste of taxpayers money to keep the child in care. I feel for the mother who has displi9ned her son out of love not malice any way these are just my thougts.
Helena
I think a major point people are overlooking is the aspect of "anger".
A parent disciplining their children physically will generally do that in the absence of anger.
A person who abuses their children by taking the "discipline" too far is generally doing this in anger.
Children in this generation know that it is illegal for parents or teachers or police or anyone else in authority to lay a hand on them. Perhaps that has lead to the general decline in children's lack of respect for authority. Fear is not a bad thing. When people say i got hit when i was a child and it never did me any harm i would say they are those who were spanked not bashed. The ones who cry abuse were more than likely bashed not spanked.
Hope i have made myself understandable.
Claire
Post a Comment