"Families First is a family advocacy group, committed to supporting parents and children in the family unit. It supports the rights and responsibilities of parents to protect and guide their children and to bring them up in a reasonable manner, according to their religious and philosophical convictions."They are against a "law against smacking". It is interesting that most of the families I know who share this view rarely need to smack their children and many never do. Families First have several papers looking at the situation in Sweden where the smacking ban has not only failed to achieve a decrease in violence against children but has been associated with the opposite outcome.
Monday, 6 August 2007
Families First website
From the website:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Part of the problem here, Father, is that parents misunderstand their rights and duties following the 1995 Children (Scotland) Act. There was similar legislation in England & Wales.
Chastisement to a reasonable degree is still lawful, but it is hardly ever employed; children can then become horrible oiks with impunity. Then there is the other end of the spectrum, sadly, where there is still abuse.
Don't get me started Fr. i've seen Catholic Families smack their children & i personally don't like it. i know Joanna B warned me about playing into the government's hands on my anti-smacking post..but i can't see why parents would be worried. If they don't smack what's the problem. i also have seen 'poor' 'deprived' families using this form of punishment ..& it is awul to watch.
We were brought up being smacked. Did it do us any harm? Yes! i was determined never to smack my children.
Big people smacking/tapping even small people never!
i'm on my own on this one..nearly every post supported some form of smacking.i don't believe that is right Fr about the Catholic families hardly ever using corporal punishment..i think all those i know do.
A contentious issue..but i find it a very poor form of discipline & can't imagine St Joseph resorting to it.
Well i've donned my armour!
Jackie - replying to your comment, I realised that this was worth a post on its own. Thank you for raising the question.
When my father got six of the best at school, he always used to thank the master afterwards - which infuriated him, because he couldn't thwack him again, having done the quota!
So anonymous it didn't much work then!
Families First (whoever they might be) ought to update their wweb site. It makes reference to the General Election of 2005!!!
If they had there would be little fuss on this subject because, following that Election the Labour Government 'pulled its punch' and backed down on proposing a smacking ban.
Sadly, parents have not been, nor ever will be, banned from smacking their children. This is in clear contravention of the European Human Rights legislation among others.
Yes, I am a dad, yes, I am a professional social worker, yes, I have worked in child protection. I have never smacked my children and I often feel like marching straight up to smacking (sometimes more like beating) parent and saying: come on then, pick on someone your own size.
The biggest problem with the smacking syndrome is that, 9 times out of ten it is wholly inappropriate. Often the kid is just doing what kids do e.g. running, skipping, screaming, shouting but the parent is frazzled, tired, self-centred, whatever, and lashes out.
Smacking is bad psychology too. Often the smack, when it comes is so far removed (in time) from the triggering event that the kid just cannot match the two so it just comes out as a 'clump' undeserved.
Sadly, parents have not been, nor ever will be, banned from smacking their children. This is in clear contravention of the European Human Rights legislation among others.
And European Human Rights legislation is an unchangeable canon, right?
Maybe it's the Blackfen culture but I just don't see all this public beating and abuse. A parent beating a child badly in public would run a real risk of getting beaten up themselves - and/or reported to the police.
But parents will smack a child's hand, and then take the sweet packet they have pulled from the supermarket shelf and put it back. That seems to me quite immediate.
I'm not saying that is the best way to go about things but I do think it is down to the parents not me or the State.
Sadly, parents have not been, nor ever will be, banned from smacking their children. This is in clear contravention of the European Human Rights legislation among others.
William, how is lawful chastisement contrary to ECHR? Please explain.
This is a statement which was given to a Parliamentary Select Committee which was working on the Children Act (2004).
Statement from:
Association of Directors of Social Services
British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
British Association of Social Workers
Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Parenting Education and Support Forum
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
"WE DO NOT believe that clause 56 of the Children Bill represents a safe or workable way forward for children and child protection. To us, the only alternative to the status quo is to give children the same protection as adults have from assault.
Our concerns are that:
CLAUSE 56 SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE
By retaining the defence of "reasonable punishment" in relation to common assault, clause 56 maintains the legality of hitting children and sends the message "carry on smacking". Clause 56 would prevent those working with parents and in child protection from delivering the only clear and safe message – that hitting children has no place in positive discipline.
CLAUSE 56 DOES NOT DETER DANGEROUS FORMS OF PUNISHMENT
By removing the defence in relation to assaults which cause visible or provable injury, clause 56 would effectively encourage parents who are committed to using corporal punishment to favour assaults which are unlikely to cause visible bruising or marks but which may risk causing serious injury – for example blows to the head, shaking, and so on. The clause could not be amended to ban ‘risk of injury’ because experts agree that all physical punishment of children carries some risk of injury.
CLAUSE 56 IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY PROSECUTIONS
The proposed change in the Charging Standard, suggesting that minor injuries – minor bruising – should in future be charged as "Actual Bodily Harm" (ABH) could lead to a substantial increase in prosecutions which is most unlikely to be in children’s interests. While the vulnerability of the victim is plainly a factor to be considered in prosecution and sentencing decisions, this proposal seems inappropriately punitive (the maximum sentence for ABH is five years imprisonment) and discriminatory. Some children bruise easily while others – for example black children – do not show marks from hard blows.
If the Standard is to be that minor bruising justifies an ABH charge, there will be no possibility of the police and others being able to avoid formal investigation and intervention in such cases. Evidence will have to be collected on the precise degree of injury, even though this may be inappropriate treatment of a family in difficulties.
CLAUSE 56 HAS NO CLARITY OR LEGAL CERTAINTY
As the Joint Committee on Human Rights notes in its nineteenth report published on 21 September 2004: "There is general agreement that the present law is unsatisfactory because it leads to too much uncertainty about what exactly constitutes ‘reasonable chastisement’. In our view the new clause [clause 56] perpetuates this uncertainty, because it requires proof of harm and there is a great deal of uncertainty about what degree of harm is required. For example, will hitting resulting in a reddening of the skin be charged as common assault or actual bodily harm, and for how long need it subsist in order for it to cross the necessary threshold?"
CLAUSE 56 WOULD NOT SATISFY HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS
The UK’s human rights obligations under international and European human rights instruments would not be met, as has been confirmed by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report.
CLAUSE 56 WOULD NOT WORK TO CHANGE THE CULTURE
The primary purpose of the law reform we seek is to change the culture and to provide a clear basis for public education and for child protection. Clause 56 will not achieve this.
CLAUSE 56 WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON THE MEDICAL PROFESSION
Paediatricians and GPs would have to make extremely subjective judgments on what constituted minor bruising. They would be required to make fine distinctions in an area where there is a sparse evidence base. It is difficult to accurately determine the cause of a bruise or its severity. A recent review of bruising in children has also shown it to be impossible to age a bruise. There is a danger, if doctors are seen as part of a legal process, that the bond of trust with the family could be damaged.
Removing the defence completely to give children equal protection will mean that the law protecting children is just as clear as it is in relation to assaults between adults. The de minimis principle will apply to trivial assaults and as the DPP and Joint Committee on Human Rights have confirmed, there are very few if any prosecutions for minor assaults on adults and the same will be true for children. We are confident that given appropriate guidance, drawn up with the involvement of those practically involved in child protection, the law can be implemented in the best interests of children and families. There is no reason for any change in the significant harm threshold for formal investigation.
We call upon the Government to reject Clause 56 as it stands, and to give children precisely the same protection in law as adults."
Needless to say, this being a NEW Labour government, the clause was left in the Bill despite the efforts of the child protection experts. The hysterics of the Daily Mail won the day yet again.Funnily enough, they used much the same, emotional arguement as yourself, Father. The State must never take over the authority of a parent. It's hogwash, of course. Parents 'may use reasonable chastisement' against their kids is now enshrined in the law of the land (S58, Children Act, 2004.
Well i say thankyou William! i agree it's bad psychology..when i was ill once a nurse reminded me not to 'lash out' at the children! i looked in amazement at him..why would i do that..i've never hit my children. This is where i think it's an important practice to choose not to smack. Then you would never be tempted to lose your temper, smack harder than necessary..or smack inappropriately. It's a great freedom for a family really..i would hate mine to be waiting on their next demeanour & smack. i'm sorry but i can't call it love!
William - thank you for posting that 2004 statement. If I understand it correctly, that recommendation, if followed, would leave parents liable to an assault charge for smacking their children, even were there no injury or risk of injury.
This is what I disagree with. I don't necessarily think it is the best thing to smack children (I am impressed with Jackie Parkes' approach). But I don't think it is for the state to make that decision for parents.
You say that this is an emotional argument and is hogwash. I consider it to be a fundamental issue concerning the role of the family and the state.
Post a Comment