The Timaru riding crop case - all in one post

I have been following the case of (name suppressed), the woman who was acquitted in a Timaru court of two charges of assault - for using a bamboo cane on her son on 22 October 2004, and on another occasion, a riding crop. She was deemed to have used reasonable force in the circumnstances, which is a legal defence when physically disciplining children for correction. Yet her son was not goiven back to her by Child Youth and Family, who still has care of the child.

I have interviewed ( name supporessed) several times and written about her case on this blog. The second charge was added as the incident happened at a later date, but hte charge sheet was unaltered, and it was not read out incourt, according to the famiy's lawyer. I assume it was not give to the jury either.

Here's the summary on one blog post for anyone who has missed it.It is a very long post,but one worth reading, so go get a cup of coffee or a glass of wine. Then read on.

This case highlights why parents must be allowed to have the legal option of smacking their kids - and the authorities must let them, and not tell parents that smacking is illegal when it is not, or either attempt to take their kids off them or refuse to give them back once the parents have been acquitted of all charges of smacking kids within the law.

The first instance was when the boy was misbehaving at school and was taken home and given the cane. The second incident has a bit more of a story to it.

The second time was when 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 him 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) worker 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 an interview conducted wiht the woman.

"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 mother 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. Thats because CYFS had indicated he would be returned if the case was won. That still hasn't happened. The family had a family group conference, but the CYFS social worker deliberately withheld the outcome. That outcome was that the child should be in the care of his mother. That should have been the end of it

"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 recently 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.

What's also concerning is that this woman has had to go to court to try and retain custody of her 11-year-old daughter that CYFS is trying to take off her.

The mother told me that the social worker believes that because the woman's husband has a conviction for incest 30 years ago that he is an unsafe parent and should not have his stepchildren living with him as he is considered at "extreme risk" of sexually abusing his stepdaughter.

The daughter is distraught. So distraught that she has written a letter to the judge.
To the judge of the Family Court

I'm writing to tell you that I do not want to be taken away from my mum or my step dad. My mum has never done anything to hurt me K (stepfather) has never done anything to hurt me.

I feel safe with mum and K and I don’t want to live anywhere else Mr (social worker) has said that I said K hit me and that mum hit me with the riding crop and the cane. I have only ever seen the social worker once and school last year and I did not tell him these things at all. K has never hit me

I know all about K.'s past and (withheld) and I know he would never do anything like this to me. If anything ever happens to me I will tell Grandad or my teacher or mum, even if I was told not to. I love Mum and K. Please don’t let CYPS get custody of me or I will be very sad. CYFS got custody of my brother nine months ago and is still not home. I do not want this to happen to me
PLEASE HELP ME STAY WITH MUM AND K….

Whatever happened to the wishes of the children in this case?

This case is the very reason why parents must be allowed to have the legal option of smacking their kids - and the authorities must let them, and not tell parents that smacking is illegal when it is not.

Had the law been upheld, this woman will be living with both her kids. She now has the risk of losing them purely because those with power preach and practise that it is illegal to smack your kids, even if you have been cleared in court. And because they say so, you are an unsafe parent.

Child Youth and Family has now given the family a plan that will be monitored by the social worker. The plan instructs that no physical discipline is to be used by the caregivers or the parents. The family also has to attend a parenting course to teach them how to discipline their child without smacking, even though the parents have not broken any laws in disciplining her children..

This is state -forced parenting by stealth. It is OK to drug a kid up but not even his own parents are allowed to physically discipline him within the law.

The state clearly considers it illegal or wrong to use reasonable force when disciplining a child despite the current provisions in the law. Remember this family has been acquitted in court, but has to go through this whole process purely because a Government Agency has its own view and is thumbing its nose at any court decision it disagrees with.

The boy concerned was not only drugged up with risperdal, he was also given ritalin and smashed off his face when he last met his family, according to his mum. Child Youth and Family are trying to place this boy into a North Island boys home - away from his parents who live in the South Island. So that would make access hard, wouldnt it. Is Child, Youth and Family making it hard on purpose?

In court, the boys mothers lawyer successfully showed that the CYFS worker had outright lied in his affidavits to court but that didn't matter.

The boy, apparently under the influence of the drugs, and in an "adverse mood" told the judge that he didnt want to go home. The judge then said she didn't want to go against the wishes of that child. Yet ever since the first court case the wishes of this child, and his parents, were irrelevant. Why, now now, all of a sudden are the childs wishes relevant, yet the parents wishes are not?

His caregiver who hadn't yet given evidence, and was described by CYFS as a hostile witness, was next to give evidence and was not heard. She was going to give evidence about the effect of the drugs on his mood and how he very clearly regularly stated he wanted to be at home with his mum. The trial was halted.

When the mother said she wished to continue with the trial the judge then said if they did so based on what she had already heard matters could only get worse and she would remove her daughter from her care as she was deemed unable to keep her safe based on her partner's 30 year old incest conviction.

This is what she said.

"I have done nothing wrong and yet my child has been taken away from me and this seems to give the right to the family court to obey them or face having my other child removed.

"When I walked out of the court my son was waiting there fully expecting to come home with us. He burst into tears when he was told he couldn't, because of what he had earlier said to the judge. He was crying that she had twisted his words.Our witnesses and the CYFS caregiver were all extremely upset that they had not been heard. They all fully supported us.

"I cannot sleep at night. The injustice of what we have experienced is so cruel. I just want my son home with me again"

The woman has told me that the social worker was 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, went to court to stop her daughter being taken away from her, and back again 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 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?

If there is any case that is evidence of why Section 59 must not go in its entirety, this is it. Now CYFS have custody of the boy for a while yet. I realise this story is unbalanced and I only have one side of it. How can I get the other side when nobody will give it? So far, Child Youth and Family has refused to answer this question:

Is it lawful for Child, Youth and Family to take a child away - or keep him away - from their parents after they have been smacked using reasonable force, especially when the parent concerned has been acquitted in court?