Safety of Children
Robert Whiston has republished a comparison of child safety in married families and other types of families.
There is quite a lot of public debate, where advocates present partial and misleading statistics. In my opinion, Robert has quoted the most credible international sources available.
Thank you for posting this Murray. I don’t believe the statistics and conclusions presented by Robert Whiston will surprise most contributors to this forum. We have seen the numbers, the statistics, the evidence and the outcomes presented here many many times already. Sadly we are not the politicians; our vision, foresight and indeed our warnings are completely lost on those we entrust, with our votes, to maintain a modicum of sanity within society. We have all abdicated our responsibilities for future generations simply because we are not holding our politicians to account! Perhaps we need to send a copy of this to Paula Benefit and her brethren?
NZ children would benefit most if familycaught$ judges were knowledgeable about real reality!
Cheers, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.
If familycaught$ judges understood the child neglect risk factors between mothers/fathers, older/younger parents, mental illness factors, they would know to address each family on the facts of that case, rather than precedents from families in quite different situations. This is why NZ has so many children who progress poorly through education, it is because the children have spent so much time with the parent who neglects and doesn’t appropriately develop them.
If familycaught$ judges understood the child injury risk factors between mothers/fathers, older/younger parents, mental illness factors, they would know to address each family on the facts of that case, rather than precedents from families in different situations. This is why NZ has so many children injured and killed, it is because the children have spent so much time with the parent who neglects and doesn’t appropriately develop them and who is most likely to strike out in frustration, because they cannot understand what the children are appropriately asking for.
If familycaught$ judges understood the abduction risk factors, then fathers would be able to protect their own children from international abduction. The consequences of parental abduction are as listed above for neglect and injury and also include distrust of others and reduced ability to form trusting adult intimate relationships.
Making judgement on the facts of the situation, rather than misimpressions of risk, is set out in the judicial oath. I guess that was signed so long ago, the meaning has been forgotten. All that remains is bowing on entering a courtroom, the symbol remains and the importance is lost.
Although decisions should be made on the facts of the individual case, the relevant statistics of risk alert us and remind us that both mothers and fathers may neglect or injure children. Both possibilities should be looked at. The statistics should also remind us of the relative importance of different injuries. Injuries to mental health not sorted out, may in the long term cause cause far more suffering than broken bones or bruises. Presently we are dramatising visible injuries more done by fathers and turning a dangerously blind eye to emotional neglect of babies (which is mainly the province of mothers). We should be understanding all of the statistics, not focussing on a few of them.
If familycaught$ judges understood the difficulties that parents face and could steer outcomes towards making relevant helpful assistance to parents, then children in NZ would easily have better outcomes.
As a society, we pay a very heavy social price for the present unassistance given to parents. I suggest that familycaught$/Government relationship vandalism costs about the same as the total of leaky buildings, poor Government supervision of financial industry and poor Government supervision of workplace safety put together.
It all comes back to accountability that was never intended to work. When we pay “judges” the same, whether they do a good job, or a poor job or a disastrous job, then we are the monkeys! We need to effectively manage the judges, hands off no accountability is a recipe for disaster.
They have well shown their own inability to manage themselves constructively, let alone do their fundamental job competently. For 30+ years we have had an increasing crescendo of promises from familycaught$, against a background of slowly worsening performance. It is the facts that matter, not the smiley hollow dishonest promises. To give the best to our children, we must judge the performance of child protection in NZ. Then we must decide on the constructive plan of action.
The present familycaught$ has no possible role in the future of child protection.
They manage the theatrics of the role of judge, but not the competencies. We should be paying for competancy, not theatrics.
Dear Murray, Many thanks for citing my article. I do indeed use official stats in every instance simply because the matter is too inmprortant not to. The particular paper referred to is one of 10 I wrote in the late 1990s for presentation to parlaiment and precious little has altered in those years.
On the same sort of theme you might want to visit
which has an article by Donald Dutton (Canada). It is one of about 30 on that blog site. For even more info Google under “WordPress Robert Whiston.”