23 September 06 A
Licence for Parents Printer
friendly version (PDF) View >>>
The whole country continues to wait anxiously for
news that the killer of Chris and Cru Kahui, the twins
brutally murdered in July, has been arrested.
Born eleven weeks premature, the two tiny babies had
only been kept alive through the round-the-clock dedicated
care of the doctors and nurses at Middlemore’s neonatal
intensive care ward. Yet, just six weeks after going home –
while technically still patients of
Middlemore
Hospital
- the babies were dead of massive
brain injury consistent with being smashed against a solid
object.
The brutal death of
these babies has given rise to a range of initiatives aimed at
reducing the country’s atrocious rate of child abuse: a
child in
New Zealand
is killed every five weeks, and in this year alone, 250 babies
have been taken into Child Youth and Family care, almost
double the rate of two years ago.
Last Monday one such
initiative to emerge from a meeting of senior social workers,
paediatricians and child advocates was the introduction of a
“parents licence test”. This test, which all New Zealand
parents would have to sit in order to be able to keep the care
of their children, would be administered when a baby is born,
and repeated when they turn 1, 3, 5, 8, 11 and 14.
The parents licence
test was proposed by Judge Graeme MacCormick, a former Family
Court judge, who suggested that parents who refused to be
assessed or accept help should immediately be referred to
Child Youth and Family with a view to suspending any child
related benefits and removing their children.
In an interview on
Radio NZ, when concerns were raised about the excessive level
of intrusion into family life that the proposal would create,
Judge MacCormick argued that a universal system was necessary
to avoid stigmatising those high risk families where children
were in danger. He went on to justify universality by
arguing that:“Children are children of the country as well as
their parents… and social justice for the child over-rides
parenting rights”. (Radio NZ interviews on the matter can be
heard on Tuesday’s Nine to Noon, click
here >>>
and Checkpoint, click
here>>> .)
The Parenting Licence
Test concept has won the full support of the Children’s
Commissioner who has already proposed a national database of
children. But the problem is that these responses to reducing
child abuse are typical of a big government approach whereby
the so-called solution involves building a more intrusive
bureaucracy, which will impose high levels of state
intervention on all families with children, rather than simply
targeting the minority of families where children are at
serious risk.
In an article How
the Government Creates Child Abuse, political scientist Stephen
Baskerville warns: “the real scandal is the armies of
officials who have been allowed to acquire - using taxpayers'
dollars - a vested interest in abused children. Devising child
abuse programs makes us all feel good, but there is no
evidence they make the slightest difference. In fact, they
probably make the problem worse. Child abuse is largely a
product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work
industries. It is a textbook example of the government
creating a problem for itself to solve. Child abuse is
entirely preventable. A few decades ago, there was no child
abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the
divorce revolution. It continues because of entrenched
interests who are employed pretending to combat it” (to read
the full article click
here>>>).
The Parents Licence Test would indeed create an army
of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. The end
result would be that families going through rough patches –
where, in spite of the turbulence, children are in no danger
of abuse – would suddenly find themselves being investigated
by risk-averse Child, Youth and Family social workers.
Meanwhile the five percent of seriously dysfunctional
families, like the Kahuis, where the children are at grave
risk of abuse, do not get the targeted assistance they need
for fear of stigmatisation over the fact that they are a sole
parent family on welfare – and Maori!
This week’s NZCPD guest commentator, Bruce Logan,
the founder and a former Director of the Maxim Institute, in
an article entitled Welfare – who needs it, discusses
this contemporary orthodoxy of being non-judgemental about
people in need and concludes that rather than helping those
who are disadvantaged, such an approach is harming them (click
here >>>).
If state intervention
really worked, the Kahui twins would not have been allowed to
go from hospital to that Mangere house: “Down a narrow right-of-way,
it is small and shoddy”, the Herald reported. “The walls
are grey-blue fibreboard, misted with green mould, the
guttering sprouts grass and weeds. The high back fence is
topped with two lines of barbed wire…Until last Tuesday 12
people and two small babies lived in this cramped
three-bedroomed house, drinking, smoking dope and cigarettes,
partying, fighting”.
Of the fourteen
people living in that state house, only one had a job.
Estimates are that well over a thousand dollars a week in welfare
benefits was going into that household: “Party nights are
Tuesdays and Thursdays, when the rest of the adults get their
benefits. The parties rage through the night until the
fighting gets dirty and the sickening crunch of bodies being
hurled against walls begins. Alcohol is a priority. One night
recently, a 16-year-old fled to a neighbour's place after one
of the older men tried to sexually abuse her. "It was
3.30 in the morning," said the neighbour. "She was
terrified. We took her in but we were scared too".” (To
read the full report click
here>>>.)
A nurse visited Chris
and Cru Kahui in that three bedroomed house where fourteen
people lived, and while the twins were judged healthy, two
weeks later their 12-month-old brother and a six-month-old
cousin were removed by CYF, so malnourished they had to spend
two days in
Middlemore
Hospital
.
A hospital social
worker informally raised concerns about the home situation of
the twins with a Child Youth and Family worker, “but the
alert did not reach the threshold required to constitute a
formal notification”.
The government would
be well advised to forget about political correctness and
target these seriously dysfunctional families with their
parental licence test. But they urgently need to go further.
At the heart of the child abuse problem in
New Zealand is welfare dependency: not only the lack of
responsibility that arises when a welfare habit replaces a
work ethic, but also the breakdown of the family and the
alienation of biological fathers - traditionally the primary
protectors of children – that occurs when unmarried mothers
realise they can get more money from the DPB if they remain
single than if they live as a family with their child’s
father. Replacing the present system, which seriously
undermines the family unit with one that strengthens it should
surely be a key recommendation coming out of meetings like the
one last Monday!
The
poll this week asks: Would you support the
introduction of a universal 'Parents Licence Test' for all
parents?Go to poll
>>>
Your comments and contributions are welcome. Send your comments here
>>>.
Opinions expressed are those of the contributors, and do not
necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.
The NZCPR does not receive
any government funding or support from any political party and has no
party affiliations.