Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill
|
Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru) |
Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill |
|
CADRP-20 |
CADRP-20 |
About you
Individual
— No
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
To teach a child consequence by only verbally challenging does not demonstrate the physical consequence of danger e.g a child attempts to place their hand near a fire stepping out into a road without looking. A mild smack would be appropriate in that it would demonstrate that if that was a shock then the shock of them placing their hand in a fire or stepping out into a road with oncoming traffic, would be much worse.Merely verbally gesticulating that these kind of actions are dangerous has no tangible value to a child who's reasoning skills are still being developed. removing the ability to physically chastise further removes the comprehension of tangible consequence. in the presence of danger as a result of their own actions.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
no as there are already many legislative laws in place to protect children otherwise the likes of social services would never exist.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
The European court of human rights as agreed in principle reasonable chastisement. implementation of the bill would undermine the parental role and the bill of human rights.thus polarising Wales against the wider world giving the view of a nanny state
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
no as wuite a large number polls have stated three quarters of all those interviewed are opposed to the legislation.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
The burden on the already over stretched resources of social services will be increased to the point that they will be inundated with 'reasonable chastisement' cases when they could be looking at genuine cases of child endangerment and in some cases may very well overlook such cases with fatal detriment to those children who need protection as opposed to criminalising parents for parenting with common sense.
Criminalising parents in such a way for practising common sense parenting would marginalise a large majority of loving parents and as such they would be classed as abusers potentially losing their jobs.as a result of criminal records
There would be a grey area confusion in what is considered abuse. making what is currently considered genuine child abuse a further extreme on the definition scale.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
again its an unnecessary expenditure at the cost of the tax payer to provide a service the removes parental rights to parent with common sense. a mild smack does not denote physical abuse it is a tool to condition a response to common dangers that cannot be made tangible through verbal gesticulation (do not put your hand in the fire do not step into oncoming traffic do not touch a boiling kettle do not drink/eat poisonous items etc etc)
the expenditure in implementing the legislation would be better utilised enforcing current law and protecting genuinely endangered children reducing the strain on an already over stretched social services
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Please use common sense and not middle class social media commercialised views in order to portray a world of no consequence to actions. reasonable chastisement is a fundamental right as agreed by the EU court of human rights. It feels an attempt to enforce legislation as a step to differentiate us from the EU as a result of Brexit.