Garth George: Woman tells of losing son in court farce

While a parliamentary select committee is hearing submissions on the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which would deprive all parents of the right to physically discipline their children, a pertinent little drama is being played out on the sidelines.

A Timaru mother, who was acquitted by a jury of a charge of child abuse for taking a riding crop to her 12-year-old son, has told the sponsor of the law change, Green MP Sue Bradford, and Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro, that she will issue defamation proceedings against them if they quote her case again in the smacking debate.

"I am fed up with you deliberately misleading and misinforming the public about my case to push your own anti-social political agenda," the mother has told Ms Bradford and Ms Kiro. "If you are heard to quote this case again you will be formally served with defamation proceedings."

And in an effort to set the record straight, the so-called "horsewhip" mother has given her side of the story.

She says her son had a type of brittle bone disease which led to behavioural problems for several years.

Late last year she was working with the school and a psychologist on plans to help her manage her son's behavioural problems.

She had a call from the school to say that her son had deliberately kicked a hole in a toilet door and sworn at the deputy principal.

When they got home she "bent him over the table and gave him six whacks on his trousered bottom" with a small bamboo cane of the type used to stake small pot plants.

"He apologised for his behaviour and ... told me he wouldn't behave like this again and I took him back to school, where he complied with what was required of him there."

Some two weeks later the boy was asked to help bring in firewood for the night. But, the mother related: "He picked up a baseball bat and swung it full force at my husband's head, screaming that he would give him permanent head injuries. Fortunately my husband was able to block the blow and disarm the boy."

This time the mother, unable to find the bit of bamboo, used a small riding crop to administer a short sharp lesson which, she said "gives a stinging sensation which is memorable but not injurious. I have tried it on myself."

The discipline, she said, was effective. The lad gave her a hug and apologised and from then his behaviour changed radically for the better. School staff agreed there had been a huge improvement.

But, said the mother, a social worker from the Special Education Service who was at a school meeting "went purple and nearly fell out of his seat" when told of the discipline used, said she was not allowed to discipline in this manner and that it was against the law even to smack (which, of course, it isn't). He contacted CYFS.

"Two social workers from CYFS arrived at my place of work some two weeks later," says the mother, "and in a very officious and high-handed manner insisted on interviewing me in front of my staff and members of the public, telling me I was abusing my child.

"They refused to leave my workplace, even though I was due to finish in an hour and told them I would be happy to discuss this with them at home after work. They kept on insisting that it was against the law to hit a child, including smacking, and quoted 'violence begets violence'.

"The social workers ... 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 ex parte order seeking interim custody for my son, on the grounds that he was being physically abused. The ex parte order meant we were not even informed they were doing this and we had no right to defend it.

"The Family Court awarded CYFS interim custody of my son, based on the hearsay of one social worker alone and without calling evidence to substantiate the social worker's claim."

The mother said CYFS took her son and a social worker went to the police. The police interviewed her and, she said, "it was clear to me during the interview that the police officer was supportive of my actions".

Charges were not laid until about five months after the interview and, according to the mother, with a great deal of reluctance by the police but under pressure from CYFS.

The mother said she did not give or call evidence at the trial and it took the jury less than an hour to decide unanimously, on the prosecution evidence alone, that she was not guilty.

The mother said that even though the court had ruled an assault did not occur, CYFS refused to return her son, on the grounds that he had been assaulted.

"I have spoken to four different CYFS social workers about smacking and they all hold the belief that it is against the law to smack children; that smacking constitutes violence and 'violence begets violence' (their favourite quote).

"I have pointed out that this is contrary to the law which allows for reasonable physical discipline and have been told that this is not relevant, that the department has an anti-smacking policy and maintains the right to uplift and hold children who are being disciplined this way.

"The implication of this is that they believe their policies are above the law."

Meanwhile, CYFS, with the connivance of the Family Court, still has the boy in custody although, according to the mother, he desperately wants to come home.

The mother said social workers had put her son on Risperdel (Ritalin), the side-effects of which had been tiredness, lack of motivation and inability to focus on things for long.

His behaviour deteriorated to the point that he had been suspended from school four times and was now in a private boarding school 300km distant, paid for by the taxpayer.

The mother described the Family Court system as "farcical. The words of social workers are taken as completely true and the court always supports CYFS in ex parte applications for interim custody. Children are subsequently removed from their homes on suspicion alone.

"My son is begging CYFS and his Family Court lawyer to be allowed to come home, and we are begging to have him here, and they refuse outright, saying that the Family Court process must follow through," the mother said.

I tend to believe what this mother relates, and I suspect she is just one of many parents who have been the victims of the legendary inefficiency and incompetence of CYFS and the star-chamber machinations of the Family Court, which, for all the plausible platitudes of its chief judge, Peter Boshier, has little credibility with the public.

I have no doubt that Ms Bradford, Ms Kiro, CYFS and other assorted social workers, Family Court judges and others who stupidly see smacking as abuse are all sincere in their beliefs.

The trouble is that, in the eyes of most reasonable New Zealanders anyway, they are all sincerely wrong.