'Behaviour school' for parents gets backing

Three out of four New Zealanders want judges given the power to start cracking down on the parents of wayward children.

The idea of sending parents of delinquent children to parenting school and fining them if they failed to attend has the backing of Police Association spokesman Greg O'Connor.

Commenting on the findings of a Herald-DigiPoll survey, Mr O'Connor said he was often stunned at the "ignorance" many parents displayed about bringing up children.

He supported the idea of judges being empowered to send parents or their children to behaviour school.

He also approved of fining parents who failed to attend the classes, as long as there were enforcement measures in place for fines defaulters.

"If you don't have sanctions, it just becomes a joke."

Mr O'Connor believed judges should be able to take enforcement further, by issuing orders such as "booze bans" for parents who do not follow court directions.

He realised such legislation would create more work for police, but said that was just a fact of life.

"There's not many things that don't create extra work for police when you are dealing with criminals.

"We are inevitably the last stop; there's nothing after us."

Opposition justice spokesman Tony Ryall said he had seen such "tough love" programmes working in other countries, and the schemes were a viable alternative to the "liberal" New Zealand model, where parents go to Family Group Conferences "and sing Kumbayah".

He said the threat of fines or community work was enough to get parents along to similar programmes in Britain, and parents valued a similar scheme in Los Angeles. National would instigate such a programme if it became government, he said.

National's leader, Don Brash, recently said National would grant the Youth Court the power to issue new parenting orders such as those used under the British system.

Under the British scheme - introduced in 1998 - parents of young criminals must attend counselling sessions and are encouraged to control their children.

That could include ensuring they attend school regularly, avoid certain places, or remain at home during certain hours.

The orders are made by Youth Court judges and, if children breach them, their parents can be fined.

It is claimed the system has helped to halve youth offending.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Phil Goff said such measures already existed in New Zealand in the Family Court jurisdiction, where parents could be prosecuted for contempt if they failed to carry out court orders.

But in the Youth Court arena, offenders between the age of 14 and 17 years are considered responsible for their own actions.

The spokesman said Mr Goff did not think it appropriate to burden parents - many of whom were already struggling with debt - with extra fines for erring children.

Child, Youth and Family would not comment on the survey as it was part of a current political debate.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said his organisation had worked with many of the parties to see such laws introduced, and approved of targeting parents of young delinquents.

"If we are going to break the cycle [of crime], we have to target the parents initially."

But he was not sure that fining absent parents would do much good. It could ultimately harm the children further, he said.

Prince of Wales Trust chief executive Peter Allen said he would like to see any such idea well thought out before it was instigated.

"It is hard to know if that has got merit or not. Parents should sometimes be held responsible; sometimes it is just kids out of control."

The trust is a North Island-wide organisation that helps troubled young people aged 14 to 24 years, and Mr Allen said the parents were often as exasperated by their child's behaviour as the courts were.

"Quite often the parents have come as a last resort. They have tried all sorts of things ... but generally they have reached the end of their tethers and just let [the children] go."

Although court-ordered programmes for parents might have some merit, Mr Allen was not sure fining non-attenders was a good idea.

"Haven't we already got hundreds of millions of unpaid fines?"

Success would depend heavily on the presiding judge, he said.

"If the judge is wise enough, and had the powers and used them correctly, maybe there is room for a law change."