Belly baby:“Kiwis do not like the law, we should not need it, true harm to a child should ALWAYS BE PROSECUTED.”

Well it rarely is and never has been common and never will be. Kiwi’s can just suck it up. It isn’t about good parents it is about nailing the bad ones with something/anything. I’ve said this a few times and a few different ways now.

You any idea in Oz how many good parents have their kids removed via false allegations? Bring it back home Belly because there’s a lot of parents and children here suffering.

“And far too much true harm is done, but smacking can, to me, prove love for a child, some never have a chance to learn about boundary's and manners respect and accountability for actions.”

Surely from what you are saying we can announce that parents should step up their game… why stop at smacking, beat the little buggers – they’d learn even more wouldn’t they?

How come I can manage not to hurt children to teach boundaries and accountability while commanding respect? I am not handed angels Belly, I often have destructive little bullies walk through my door.

I don't follow the "give me a child until 7 blah..." Just give me a couple of weeks.

“I could forever, without stop, post about poor parenting poor handling of children by schools courts an endless list, but I do not think good parents are safe in NZ.”

If it is so important to the Kiwi parents to not be “done” for smacking then they can just chose to learn a better way now.

Jewely hang in there, no way I will change my views we Aussie have as many dreadful parents as any nation.
Lets not get into Kiwi vs us, but smacking kids is not crimson evil.
Surely my post says it like I think, prosecute every time a kid is hurt, but do not make silly laws.
Our laws Australian laws, are good enough, but it is not true about the loony tunes who often rule in courts.
Some, most need a good lesson in thinking as the public does.
And the police who make judgments they are not paid to make, and fail to act on true bashing of kids.
FIRST step in child protection, sack DOCs, every one of them, pick normal humans to sit in judgment in courts, get police who understand, specialists, to investigate child complaints.
But laws like this PC rubbish no way.
Again it is the failure of the above, total failure long term failure that makes for idiot laws like this.

“FIRST step in child protection, sack DOCs, every one of them, pick normal humans to sit in judgment in courts, get police who understand, specialists, to investigate child complaints."

Belly I gonna slap you sideways, you rattled that one off without thought cause I know you don’t want the dude next door sitting in judgment of whether your parenting skills are adequate.

DoCS are the specialists. They need adjusting is all. I don’t mean to make light of it, they stagger me with their case planning and I can see the damage they do on a daily basis. They’ve even reduced me to tears several times in the last few months after all that time fostering in NZ with dry eyes. But the reality is we need them, we just need them to be better.

Hey no bashing men!
Got a laugh out of that big muma.
But sorry DOC,s are not the experts never they are part of the problem never the answer.

Belly:”Hey no bashing men!”

C’mon, you can take it baby.

“But sorry DOC’s are not the experts never they are part of the problem never the answer.”

I wish I could fix that, wish I wasn’t so trapped in to having to cave each time they demand I be the one that places a child where I can see it doing no good or further harm. But your average caseworker is all qualified, knows the laws and the policy and I have yet to meet one that personifies evil. Fractelle got it right ages ago when she said something like removing a lot of middle management would help.

Wish my hair hadn’t gone orange! Anyone a hair dresser or partnered to one?

Belly, Re: your response to me:Here here.

Children were apparently protected prior to the change. Correct me if misinformed but googling indicated that prior to the change:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 stated that “every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstance.”

That would indicate that prior to the change parents were able to smack providing they didn't use unreasonable force. There was a push to change that in spite of it being counter-democratic. Why was there a change?

The obvious inference is that the law change was driven by ivory tower anti-smackers and good parents are not safe in NZ no matter how carefully crafted things are to cloak the change otherwise.

I also have concerns about the attitude of the NZ politicians toward democracy.

The new law is apparently this:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328291.html#DLM328291

So the basic premise in subsection (2) (curiously not in subsection (1)) is that it is a criminal offence for parents to use force for the purpose of correction. They are able to use reasonable force on children in certain limited circumstances (subsection (1))providing it is not for that purpose (see subsection 3). So presumably you can grab a kid to keep it from running in front of a truck but you can't smack them to stop them and a parent can grab a kids hand if they try to grab a saucepan of boiling oil but if the kid keeps going back the parent can't smack them to stop them. The onus is on the parent to keep the kids in areas without environmental hazards or to continually restrain them. A kid strangling their baby brother would appear to be covered in (1) but toddlers are too young to have criminal responsibility and anyway subsection (3) prevents correction so that is out too. The police have a hazy discretion which they would presumably be loathe to rely upon unless they can figure out what it means. What have I missed?