Riding crop case not just about section 59
Sir Humphreys blogger Zen Tiger has done a post on the riding crop case, where a parent was acquitted of assault after disciplining her child. He focuses on the outcome of this child being taken away from his parents. He implies that because the woman concerned was acquitted of assault, CYFS should return the child to her as she has not committed a criminal offence.
This boy was not removed from his parents pending a court case, even though CYFS told his parents that he would be returned if his mother was acquitted of assault.CYFS gave the big middle finger to the courts.
CYFS takes children away with no investigation whatsoever, based on its warped perception of what the "best interests of the child" is, even if the child's parent has later been acquitted in court of a criminal offence. Even if the case had NOT gone to court, this kid will still be attending boarding school paid for by the taxpayer. He will still have been given anti-psychotic drugs without his parents consent to control his behaviour. He would have still been verbally abused by his caregiver. And he would still want to go back home to his mum.
CYFS social workers believe that the "best interests of the child" has no bearing on whether the woman committed a criminal offence, because they maintain all smacking is a criminal offence. Consequently if any parent smacks her kid CYFS thinks it is in the childs best interest to be taken from his parents, and tries to use the courts to back their decision.This time it didnt work in terms of a conviction, but that didnt stop state-sanctioned kidnapping. THAT is the issue, and it is so wrong.
Child, Youth and Family is guilty of breaching the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), and a letter is to be sent to the Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro under 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(a) of the Childrens Commissioner Act 2003 asking her to investigate the breaches and other irregularities. Apparently she has no discretion whether to conduct an investigation when she receives a request from another person or body.
Article 25 of UNCROC states that all children have to have a periodic review of their placement, including its location. This child has not, and no date is impending. As the sole legal guardian, this child's mother currently has no say as to where her child attends school, and, as mentioned, was not consulted when her child was given anti-psychotic drugs.
Either Kiro or CYFS Minister Ruth Dyson needs to explain why this boy was initially questioned by CYFS without his parents knowledge or consent, nor did he have the right to adult support, which is in breach of the Child, Youth and Family Act. Kiro needs ot explain why CYFS are not taking the wishes of the child into account, ( he wants to go back home to his mum), and why CYFS is telling the boy's mum that she was breaking the law by smacking her child.
It is not the intention of the United Nations Committee of the Rights of the Child that a child's parents should have a criminal conviction for disiplining their children. So why did CYFS push for a prosecution if it is so concerned with the best interests principle?
Because it is the intention of CYFS - and Kiro - that ALL parents who smack children should be taken to court with no legal defence as a back up, and CYFS will make damn sure that more parents face criminal charges for smacking their kids if Section 59 of the Crimes Act goes.
CYFS has broken the law. Why isn`t anyone - particularly the Minister - holding it to account.