- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Judge tells smack father: 'You can't get away with that now'

Judge tells smack father: 'You can't get away with that now'
A father convicted of assault after smacking his son on the bottom has been told by a judge that parents cannot get away with such behaviour any longer. The eight-year-old boy suffered a bruised shoulder after his 33-year-old father pulled him onto a bed and bent him over his knee, smacking him three times with an open hand across the buttocks. The man, whose name was permanently suppressed, was sentenced to nine months supervision including anger management at Masterton District Court yesterday. Police claimed the boy also suffered bruised buttocks, but the defendant disputed this, the Wairarapa Times-Age reported. The man had arrived at his home in Masterton from work in the evening, to be told the boy had been in trouble at school. He had confronted the boy in the bedroom where the offence occurred. He later told police he had over-reacted and lost his temper. Judge Anthony Walsh told him, "one time, maybe, you could have got away with this, but you can't do that now". Judge Walsh said there were "other ways of disciplining, short of violence." "You must understand that what you did amounted to an assault. Our law has been amended so that children are protected." Judge Walsh asked the man's partner, who was seated in court with a victim's adviser, how the boy was now. "He's playing on it, like, 'you can't sit next to me, Dad,'" she said. The woman said her partner was still relating to his son, "but not the disciplining  I'm doing that."
"As a parent, all parents know children can be challenging," Judge Walsh told the defendant. "But you're the adult, and you need to take responsibility and sort it out."

What part of 'don't hit the kids' don't he get?


At 22/11/07 12:55 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pleased you blogged this Bomber. One either has zero-tolerance for violence or one doesn't -- and smacking/hitting kids is violence no matter how you slice it. I wish more people would be as consistent.

All adults have to do is keep their hands off kids and they won't come to the attention of the authorities - how hard is that?

BTW I read your article on abuse in magazine that The Warehouse is handing out at the moment - well done.

At 22/11/07 1:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Por Guy, next the kid will be a druggie, alcoholic or in prison. All because some soft cock leftie said his parents couldnt dissapline Him. The kid WILL live to regret his actions.
Hell he could grow up like Bomber. Shit we cannt let that happen.
This countries fucked when this sort of thing happens.

At 22/11/07 3:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the first poster. Zero tolerance for violence against kids.
The kid had a bruise on his shoulder, (verified by the Mum taking a pic)and also alleged brusises on his bum (which was denied by the defendent). I dunno if that would have passed the "reasonable force" clause in the old Act.

At 22/11/07 6:21 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a difference between beating you're children and disciplining you're children; yes all discipline doesn't mean smacking a child, yet in some cases it does, I don't believe this was a case that crossed the line...

If I found myself in this situation I would drop my child off at the courts and tell them to look after him and leave.

"Fathers rights"

At 23/11/07 12:46 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good on ya "Fathers Rights", I was supprised that the first case like this was one where the dad seems to still be in the home. I suspected that this law would first be tried out on a Dad only getting access to his kids,,,
I for one am VERY careful how I handle my kids, esp. now with this damned bill in place, now parents have to use voice and other techniques to correct their kids, and this can last longer if used wrongly than a simple tap on the bum would, but now all the leftist pricks will come out and moan at me...


Post a comment

<< Home