Seems that someone just twigged that Nigel Latta tells parents to lock their children in their rooms for timeout.
Which is funny, because it strongly suggests that certain “child advocates” weren’t watching when those comments were broadcast to the nation.
But former Green MP Bradford, whose anti-smacking bill afforded children the same legal protection from assault as adults, warned such actions could have “a lifelong impact” on the locked-up kids.
“Locking children up when you are angry, frustrated or just sad could really damage the children psychologically and cause all sorts of problems later,” Bradford said.
I saw Latta’s reply on Breakfast TV (on Yahoo!Xtra). He explained again that this simply an alternative to sitting there and holding the door shut. Like all good dicipline methods, it only needs to be used a few times then the child learns that they are best to avoid it.
He then turned to Sue Bradford and her claims of “damage”. He pointed out that it’s a large part of his job to read and keep up with the latest research in the field of child rearing, and in doing so he has yet to see a single study that backs up the claims that Sue’s making.
Which should not be suprising, since Ms Bradford is little more than an angry ex-MP with no training whatsoever in the area.
“There have been horror stories in the past from children being locked in small spaces and left as punishment. It is a form of cruelty and mental violence.” Whangarei-based barrister Michael Gardam, convener of the New Zealand Law Society’s youth justice committee, said he was “taken aback” by Latta’s advice.
Mr Mr Gardam also misses the point and attacks a straw man.
I don’t know if it is good advice, personally speaking.” Barnardos’ northern regional manager Glenys Knowles said: “We would encourage parents to pick up the phone, grab hold of some resources and talk to some other parents. But bolts on doors … It is not something that Barnardos would advocate. If parents are struggling they should ask for help.”
Given their previous advice along the same lines, we should not be suprised that Barnardos’ suggestion to deal with a naughty child is to “grab hold of some resources”.
I can just see it now:
Child: No, I won’t stop hitting kitty
Parent: Hm, what would Barnardos advise? I know, I’ll ring them.
[1 weeks later...]
Parent: Ah ha! Now I have resources! Look at these pamphlets Barnardos just sent me, now you really must stop hitting kitty!
Child: <dials telephone>
Parent: What are you doing?
Child: Why do you care?
Parent: I’m your parent. I have resources. You must now obey me.
Child: <to telephone> Hello? Is that CYFS? Yes, my mother beats me. Right now she’s threatening me with a rolled up paper… she’s not allowed to do that, right?
Parent: Ahem, look. Why don’t you go down to the mall with your friends?
Child: Oh, sorry everything’s fine now.
<Child goes to the mall and targets Joe Public instead>
I’m sure we’ll all be fine.
Update: For reasons unknown, comments on TVNZ are running about 4:1 against Sue.
Update2: Hm, given how upset Sue is over this, she must have been outraged at the “Corrections (Mothers of Babies) Amendment Bill“
Oh wait, it’s hers. Funny how that works.
Written by scrubone
Comments Off