Against violence in family

Media know how to lure our attention. People like to read and hear about violence because of some reasons. In the same moment they feel disgusted or outraged, but they willingly look at headlines foreshadowing crime stories. The more they are outraged, the more eagerly they follow the terrible stories. When they hear about children who are victims of violence, they are especially concerned.

Not surprisingly there are many news about such incidents. They are often accompanied with discussion about efficiency of current low against violence at home. Lately we could observe a real struggle for more powerful legal tools to protect DV victims. It fruited with new version of an act against domestic violence. This upgraded act doesn't differ much from last version but it has some very controversial statements, which caused a real struggle before voting. The new law set up special committees which are meant to invigilate family without any injunction and violate its privacy. Moreover, it allows social worker to take a child away from home without previous court's decision. As social workers usually base on "Social Worker Guide" it's good to know, what does it label as DV. Among others these are "imposing personal opinions" or "criticism of sexual behavior". Supporters of new act say that anyone sane wouldn't take a child away from its family because of these reason. Still, it allows social workers to do it.

http://walktherapist.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/it-was-just-a-spat/

If it happens, it would be definitely unexplained harm to family and to children themselves. Tearing family apart must be hurtful even if this family isn't perfect. This kind of legal acts have already functioned in the world, so we're not talking about abstract future but about something that we can observe and estimate.

Children taken from their parents can be adopted and have new houses. Can you imagine what do they feel?

Sweden is probably the best example. Social workers can take children away from their families for over 30 years. They say that they do it to protect children. Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a lawyer and chairwoman of Nordic Committee on Human Right admits that they often don't have any rational reasons to do it. Usually, if they take a child, they never give it back. It is always a trauma for kids.

Children in Sweden know their rights. Since preschool they are teched, that their parents can't smack them and if they do, children can report it so parents would be punished. 3-years old boy or girl can't predict the real consequences of this kind of "report".

As a result there is about 20 000 children per year taken away from their homes.

There are absurd trials, because teenagers were smacked by their parents, when kids did really something evil causing serious harms to their siblings.

There is a document prepared by The Nordic Committee for Human Rights which points the results of the Swedish anti-smacking law. I would like to cite just few sentences:

• The law against physical punishment does more damage to children than a smack from a mother or father. When the authorities intervene in the life of a well-functioning family, its life is destroyed. There is nothing that can mend the resulting hurt, pain and bitterness, and the children are the losers.
• When children are removed from their supposedly 'abusive' parents and taken into care, they suffer the torture of forced separation from parents, brothers and sisters, and other relatives and friends. They are also exposed to the risk of real abuse. Such children are frequently subjected to physical, mental, and even sexual abuse, but social workers seldom listen to the complaints of children in care.
• The 1979 law has caused incalculable damage to countless families where allegations have been made and investigations carried out, even where the charges have been dropped at an early stage.

The whole act you can find here: http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm. It is worth reading.

Of course there are families who really don't menage with their parental duties. In many countries, also in UK, state doesn't always help them to solve the problems. There is another option: forced adoption. Is it a happy solution for everyone?

If "anti-smacking law" is so bad, why do politicians still force it? ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman Stephen Franks says: "It has nothing to do with reason. There's no evidence that banning smacking would save a single child from brutality. Some earnest people of good intent are caught up in this - but, mainly, this is about political elites wanting to look good to their mates." Here you read more: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0311/S00517.htm and http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0610/S00150.htm.

This nightmare is going on in many countries.

Many social workers are not well educated or trained people. In Poland these are very often nurses who started their work when social workers were meant to help to take care of health in families. Should they have so big authorities?

Can you imagine how easily it becomes to blackmail someone with such powerful instruments?

What if someone corrupt a social worker?

In the end I would like to recommend two more links: http://www.mothers-for-justice.net/ and http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/.

1. What do you think about Polish new act against violence in family?

2. Imagine that your child was taken from you. How would you feel? What would you do?

3. Have you heard about "Kocham, nie biję" campaign? Do you think it could influence on social atmosphere during discussion about changes in anti DV legislation?