The change of direction by this government is no better illustrated than by the move announced today to keep track of abusive mothers who have either had their children taken into care – or worse. This seems so sensible that one wonders why it is not already happening.
But then we have had nine years of a Labour government which believed that no-one should be “tainted” by their criminal offending, and offenders of all kinds should have endless “second chances”.
The example quoted in the Herald today epitomising the failure of the present system is Lisa Kuka, the mother of Nia Glassie. Kuka had had a child removed from her care in the past, but because there was no tracking of Kuka, she was able to give birth to and neglect Nia without the authorities being aware of Nia’s existence or what was happening in her short tragic life.
This will now change, thereby as a side effect removing the need for officials to literally stand by the bed as Chris Kahui’s new partner gave birth to another child fathered by him. The sad reality is that the mother of the dead twins – still in her thirties – has the ability to have perhaps eight more children. I believe she has already had six, two of whom are dead and the others removed into care.
No doubt some fools will say that this should not mean her “rights” to have more children should be constrained. I say that one abused child should move the onus onto the parents of that child to show that they are fit to have the care of more children, and allow the authorities to determine whether they can.
This is an easy statement to make, but the implementation of what lies behind it opens a Pandora’s Box of difficult questions. It has become a well worn cliche that one needs a licence to own a dog, but not to have children. Should this be the case? If one needs a licence to have children, who should decide whether one is granted? Should it be possible to reach a point where a person – male or female – is made physically unable to reproduce further? If that is ever the case, who would decide?
Those are hugely difficult questions, but in my view that should not prevent us having a discussion about them. The raw reality is that the present system of “interventions” – to use the present jargon – is not working, and children are being abused and killed every day.
It is probably fanciful to look to a return to families and communities of yesteryear when abuse and killing of children was much less frequent. If those families and communities are lost forever, we need to look at other ways of protecting our most vulnerable – no matter how difficult and distasteful they may be.
You can read the Experts Forum report on Child Abuse here.
NB: This post, like all others in this blog, contains my own views, which are not necessarily those of the ACT Party.
#1 by Andrei on March 3rd, 2010
It is probably fanciful to look to a return to families and communities of yesteryear when abuse and killing of children was much less frequent.
Actually that is the only real solution – if ACT were to look into how that might be accomplished and what policy directions to take with that as a fundamental they might actually get somewhere
#2 by Mike mckee on March 3rd, 2010
Good points david.
We do need to have this discussion.
#3 by kaplan on March 3rd, 2010
You can dress it up however you like, you can even single out only ONE case in your blog, but it’s just Eugenics without the title. Even more so when read in tandem with your post on Kiwiblog today.
I don’t think there is anyplace in modern society for this kind of discussion. It’s short sighted and lacks any kind of expansive lateral thinking.
#4 by Rose on March 4th, 2010
People talk about having the right to reproduce, what about the right of a child to have a life free of abuse? I agree with you David, people who have abused their own flesh and blood before should not have the right to have more children to abuse.
#5 by Aaron on March 4th, 2010
David Garrett is just saying what most of us are too scared to say. We need more politicians like him that aren’t afraid of the “PC/Ethics” police.
#6 by pollywog on March 4th, 2010
You do realise you’re punishing the son for the sins of the father, but more importantly, also punishing the unborn son and their son and so on and so on ?
Any child the offender has, including ones to be had in the future, can transcend their life of abuse and possibly become the future leader, doctor or scientist who leads a nation, creates a cure or invents a time machine.
Imagine if Barry Crumps dad who was a serial abuser were sterilized before he had Barry ? There’d be no good keen men
#7 by Kelly on March 21st, 2010
@Aaron – I think there is a big difference between political correctness and ethics, don’t you? One is being afraid to step on someone’s toes and the other refers to basic human rights that aply to all of us. Yes, we don need politicians that aren’t afraid of being too PC but no, Aaron, no we do not need politicians who are willing to ignore ethics and human rights. The law is meant to be all about the best way to protect our rights as countrymen.
This discussion should be about if David’s proposition is against anyone’s rights. Is it against the parent’s right? Is there some right that the unborn child has?
#8 by Harry Young on March 22nd, 2010
Kaplan and pollywog, you are talking rubbish. To stop an abusive parent from abusing someone else is just common sense.
Eugenics is aimed at a certain race or persuasion. This is not.
If you want the likes of Chris Kahui/ Mascksena King & the tight 10, Lisa Kuka etc. bringing up additional children, you are condemning those children to misery and torture and quite likely to death. I conclude that you are stupid.