Who Is to Blame ?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 546, 26 December 1928, Page 8

Who Is to Blame ?

PARENTS’ SHARE IN CHILD CRIME

IP you want to know the child, see the parent. ' This advice, embracing as it does a substantial measure of eommonsense, is the basis upon which many social workers construct a healthy criticism of the constitution and administration of the Child Welfare Act. It is almost universally agreed that the structure of the legislation is wrong, and a separate department for social welfare, governed without the Education Department is advocated in Auckland.

Because a child is brought to the bar of justice through conditions not of its own making, it is considered to have a valid claim upon the State. The principle underlying the establishment of Children’s Courts is that the child shall be saved to the State and not punished by it. Care and protection of potential citizens—the community’s greatest asset—strike the dominant note in the court’s influence. That, as the ideal of a child welfare system, probably could not be imiit ire zK IK iK

proved, but the operation of the New Zealand Child Welfare Act over the past two and a-half years has left in the minds of those closely connected with it the impression that already a complete revision is necessary if the best results are to be obtained. While the child may have a moral claim upon the State, there is a school of thought which says that much of the responsibility for juvenile delinquency lies at the door of the parents themselves.

Parental neglect and bad example are often reflected in the waywardness of youth, and the question is raised as to whether the mother and father should not be punished more than the child when cases are brought before the Children’s Court. Magistrates do not possess power to fine parents for the crimes of their children, however.

“It is the parent who is to blame and who should be punished,” one man said when discussing the operation of child welfare in Auckland. “The Act provides for taking a child away from a bad home environment and placing it in the care of the State, but no provision whatever is made for punishing the parent who, in the

majority of cases, is the actual wrongdoer. These are the people whom the fabric of the Act has shielded from the publicity they richly deserve.”

No one has disputed that the intentions behind the child welfare movement in this country were of the best. Few have questioned that the scheme was badly drawn, and requires drastic revision.

TO SEPARATE SOCIAL WORK Among those who believe that a department of social welfare should be established is Mr. C. J. Tunks, one of tbe most prominently-known social workers in Auckland, who explains that the job of a child welfare officer is that of a specialist, just the same as an educationist occupies a special position in his particular line. “I would go further,” Mr. Tunks said, “and I would revise the whola of the legislation in New Zealand relating to children and consolidate it. This then could be administered with other social statutes under a separate department, wherein the superintendent would be directly responsible to his Minister.”

It is generally agreed that the question of child welfare is closely associated in some degrees with that of education, but in its other phases it is considered to be solely a social work without the jurisdiction of the Education Department. At the present time the Superintendent of Child Welfare at Wellington is answerable to the Director of Education, who, in turn, keeps in close touch tvith the Minister.

TRAINED OFFICERS WANTED The need for training welfare officers under a special courfee Is widely recognised in Auckland, where a great many juvenile offenders pass through the hands of the Children’s Court officials. It is suggested by Mr. Tunks that boys should be chosen with consideration to their adaptability to tbe job, and coached in the ethics of social operations, later emerging as officers under the department and carrying on the field work. Since the industrial schools were abolished shortly after the war, the home has been the objective of social reformers. “If you want to effect a social reform you must not make a frontal attack,” one man said. “You must enter by the back door and lay the groundwork of your influence, so that the whole community will be imbued with the possibilities of your scheme. The home is the place in which to begin. There you will find the best field for checking youthful delinquency.” A great deal of effective work in moral uplift has been accomplished by organisations like the Big Brother Movement, under the Y.M.C.A. and the Young Citizens’ League, which has for its chief sponsor Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., of Auckland. These institutions—and many of a similar nature—have been operating unostentatiously through the community, and exerting just that “back door” influence which is wisely declared to be of benefit in raising the moral standard of the young people.