In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

How CYFS policy fails children.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 26, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

How CYFS policy fails children.
Monday, 26.03.2007, 08:42am (GMT12)

I've Been Thinking...

With apologies to Richard Prebble

If CYFS is handing out cigarettes as a reward for good behaviour, then can this be seen as an admission of a sign of things to come, is 'reward' to take the place of smacking?

Is it now to be the norm that young offenders will be rewarded for good behaviour and face no punishment if they do not behave, meaning, they will be bribed to behave and not bribed if they do misbehave?

What message is CYFS sending the young people of this nation with this policy?

If a child lights fires, will they be bribed not to with cigarettes rather than being given a smack? Where is the incentive for the child to stop lighting fires? The fact is, there isn’t any, but there is a greater incentive to not light fires because they are rewarded; once the bribes stop, the fires will be lit again.

Of course, the bribes will stop once the child becomes and adult, and when they are caught, they will be thrown into prison. Is CYFS failing our children with this policy?

And what about the anti smacking bill itself? There’s a report on this site about a similar law in Nevada,
USA, where children phoned welfare about their parents smacking them when they didn't, as a way to punish them.

Does this mean that parents will have top bribe their children NOT to call welfare? Will parents have to live with the knowledge that if they do something the child doesn't like, and then they will be punished? Does this mean that adults will be prisoners of the child, always having to give in to the child, give them what they want, be it cigarettes, drugs, booze or even a car if the child is 15 years old? What will the child do if the parent says no to that bribe?

The fact is, the Family Court must place the welfare of the child first, meaning they *will* be believed if they make a complaint, and if they later retract it, then its too late, the social workers will claim the parents are forcing the child into a retraction.

Even worse though, is school yard bullies. We have all heard horror stories about children being bullied via TXT messages on mobile phones and even the internet. What’s to stop these bullies making false complaints about a child they are bullying? If these bullies number more than one, and let’s face it, bullies are cowards who prefer to act in groups, then what happens if this group makes a complaint that "Billy" told them his mother beat the living daylights out of him.

That’s more than one complaint, would CYFS ignore that? No, they won’t. Threes too many "what ifs" in this bill, I cannot see how it will work, sure, the Police and CYFS might get at the truth later rather than sooner, but in the meantime, families will be destroyed while the Police investigate and sooner, rather than later, they (and CYFS) will bogged down with complaints.

Just because the U.N. wants this law, doesn’t mean WE want it. Its time Sue "Moron" Bradford and this Government did what WE want them to do, and not some organisation in
New York, with faceless people we never voted for, want.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: