Editorial - Tuesday August 13, 2013

Kids pay the price

IT IS difficult to think of one law that has been enacted in this country specifically for the benefit of children that has had the desired effect, starting with the abolition of corporal punishment in schools. Banning the strap and cane, we were told, would lead to a gentler society. It has not. What that particular legislation did was lay the foundation for a series of laws that have changed the way in which children relate to their families and society, to our collective detriment.

As is so often the way with political brainwaves, banning corporal punishment has had a ripple effect, to the point where the rights of juveniles have become enshrined in law, in equal measure disempowering parents and others who once had control over how children were taught the social skills society deemed desirable.

While the bulk of young New Zealanders may have suffered no harm as a result of being spared the rod, some have, not so much from escaping corporal punishment as from the environment that has been built around it.

The latest manifestation of this unhealthy environment was the removal of a parent's right to use 'reasonable' force in chastising their children. This measure, which its supporters claimed would address this country's appalling penchant for abusing and killing children, has done no such thing. As opponents pointed out, a law stating that parents have no right to lay a hand on their children would be observed by those who agreed with that philosophy and ignored by those who did not, and worse, who saw no harm in administering beatings, or had such little control over their own behaviour that children in their care were in danger of coming to significant harm, or dying.

Fears that good, loving parents would find themselves in court over very minor instances of corporal punishment have waned a little, but there have been many stories of parents being parted from their children, and charges being laid, while the rate at which children are suffering genuine abuse seems not to have abated at all.

Now a Far North mother has drawn attention to an even more pernicious law that most were probably unaware of, but which has been in place longer than the banning of smacking. She was outraged to find that her 13-year-old daughter not only had the legal right to request the implanting of a contraceptive device in her body, but that she was permitted to do so without her parents' knowledge, let alone approval. Having done that, only the child had the legal right to ask that the device be removed, presumably regardless of any physical and emotional side-effects she might be experiencing.

The law, as the writer understands it, actually goes further than that, allowing for children to undergo abortions, again without parental knowledge or approval. This in a society where parental approval is needed for the administering of a painkiller or participation on a school excursion.

This law, and others, are predicated on the belief that children are entitled to certain rights. There is no argument with that. Every child in this country has the right to expect to be fed, clothed and educated, to be provided with a home, protected from harm, and to be given every opportunity to fulfil their potential.

Every parent should also have the right to raise their child in the manner they choose, providing they meet certain standards that society demands. Parents should not have the right to raise children in a manner that is harmful to those children; children should otherwise be expected to acquiesce to their parents.

The prescribing of contraceptives, and the approval of abortions, clearly fall into the realm of parental decisions. A few weeks ago, one more Far North mum found that the former at least does not.

To be fair, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where a juvenile girl could benefit by having access to medical services, including contraception, without the knowledge of her parents. Those who are being abused at home, for example, are more likely to avoid medical care if it is only available with their parents' knowledge. The chief executive of Te Tai Tokerau PHO pointed that out last week, saying there was more to be gained by continuing to engage with a child than losing contact by virtue of a legal requirement to involve her parents. And clearly a 13-year-old girl who is seeking contraception has a need for professional help. The problem is that the law that gives her access to contraception three years before the age of consent would seem to cater for a very small proportion of children, while offering the potential for a severely negative impact on the lives and families of the great majority.

It would also be fair to question the ability of a 13-year-old girl to accurately portray her relationship with her parents, and the likely ramifications of their involvement. In the old days, boys who were caned at school rarely told their parents, who would probably have sided with the caner. The modern phenomenon of parents defending their children against the likes of teachers (or police officers) was still many years away. Boys kept quiet not because their families were dysfunctional or they were being abused, but because they feared their fathers would repeat the punishment.

Is it not reasonable to assume that many 13-year-old girls who want contraception don't wish to involve their parents because they are afraid of their quite proper reaction? It would be a rare 13-year-old who piped up in the middle of dinner to announce that she was about to have a contraceptive implant placed in her body however well she got on with her parents.

The girl whose experience was made public last week is from a loving home, with parents who only want the best for her. Whatever prompted her request for contraception, it is difficult to believe that her home environment contributed. Her parents were simply under the misapprehension that they had the right to make certain decisions on behalf of their daughter, and that the prescribing of contraception was one of those. The fact that they were wrong came as a body blow to them.

Professor Lord Robert Winston, whose television series Child of our Time should have been compulsory viewing for every parent and politician in this country, and who arguably knows more about how children develop than the average Cabinet Minister, sees a great deal in common between puppies and small children, in that neither are born with what people (and dogs) generally regard as necessary social skills, and must be trained. Nor are children blessed with adult judgement. That comes over time, as they observe what others do and absorb the lessons they receive.

A 13-year-old girl, however beautifully mannered and socially graceful, does not have the judgement needed to make potentially far-reaching decisions about her medical care. They belong to her parents, not to the child or medical professionals who have no knowledge of her medical history or family background, and certainly not to politicians.

Our Parliament devotes an inordinate amount of time to amending laws that don't work as they were supposed to, which says something about the ability of our legislators. This particular law doesn't need amending though. It needs rescinding.

However badly some parents might raise their children, this level of political intervention, for which children ultimately pay the price, goes far beyond the pale and should not be tolerated.