Submitted by crinadmin on
Sweden's legal and social changes to improve parenting skills and reduce family violence have been recently criticised in New Zealand by Jamaican-born Swedish citizen Ruby Harrold-Claesson. Mrs Harrold-Claesson uses inaccurate and misleading statements to support her views. She is being brought to New Zealand by the fundamental Christian organisation, Family Integrity, to make a submission to the Select Committee to support their belief that children need to be physically punished in order to be disciplined. Plunket, Barnardos, UNICEF, EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) and Save the Children have examined information and research related to the changes made in Sweden. This brief summary of facts has been prepared to clarify the situation in Sweden. Sweden implemented the change New Zealand is considering over 50 years ago, in 1957.
Since 1957 in Sweden, parents charged with assaulting their children have gone through the investigation and prosecution system in the same way they would if they had assaulted an adult with the added scrutiny that any action taken would have to be demonstrably in the child's best interest.
A parent in Sweden is extremely unlikely to be convicted of assault if they merely smacked a child. To be convicted first the offence would! have to be detected and reported. The police have full discretion to act in the child or the public's best interest and to determine whether or not a reported assault warranted investigation. Any investigation would have to yield sufficient evidence to show that a criminal assault had occurred. A decision to proceed would have to be demonstrably in the child's best interest (the benefits of proceeding must outweigh the potential damage). The prosecutor would have to believe that the evidence will support a conviction and that prosecution would be a better route that summary punishment or a waiver of prosecution. Finally, a judge would have to be convinced that the assault took place and that the child's best interests would be served by punishing the parent. In 1979 a statement was added to the Parents Code which explicitly prohibited corporal punishment. This addition was intended as a guideline for parents to follow and as a means of changing attitudes toward the use of force in childrearing. The Parents Code is a civil code (an expression of social values) and there is NO sanction, criminal or otherwise, for breaching the code's prohibition on corporal punishment. Sue Bradford's Bill does NOT introduce a ban on corporal punishment - civil or otherwise. In Sweden parenting education is encouraged and promoted, with parents actively encouraged to seek help with child management difficulties and to learn about alternative methods of discipline. Most parents participate in parent education and support programmes. Public support for physical punishment has declined since the early 80s. This has been most noticeable among the younger generation of Swedish parents [2]
Over the past 20 years in Sweden there has been more use of care and support measures ! put in place with families in their homes. These measures are designed to improve parenting support and skills and prevent family breakdown and family violence. This reflects the country's attitude to improving the quality of life for children and families and respecting their rights. It's important to know that support people are assigned to many families who are under stress, and when children are removed from their homes this often means that the whole family is removed to a special facility that provides 24 hour support and assistance to families. Research shows that since the early 80s to 1995, the number of children in Sweden coming into care has dropped by over a quarter, youth crime has remained the same, and youth alcohol, drug use, rape and suicide rates have all decreased.[3] Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years.
It is important to remember that the Swedish legal system, and their child welfare and child protection services operate very differently to those in New Zealand and care needs to be taken when trying to compare statistics and other information. Additional information Ruby Harrold-Claesson: ..is a founding member and president of the small organisation the Nordic Committee on Human Rights. However the stance of Mrs Harrold-Claesson and the NCHR is at odds with the stated aims of the committee which says on its website that its work is based upon: The UN Declaration of Human Rights;
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child None of these conventions support the use of physical punishment of children, in fact Article 19 of UNCROC specifically states that all parties to the convention must protect children against all forms of violence, Article 24 also states parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. Under Article 3 of UNCROC it also states that all actions concerning children should be carried out with the best interests of the child as the pri! mary consideration. The UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 5 states no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.