The Children’s Court

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1024, 15 July 1930, Page 8

The Children’s Court

Anomalies and Injustices Under Child Welfare Act (Written for THE SUN) THERE are grave doubts as to the usefulness and proper conduct of our Children’s Courts set up under the Child Welfare Act of 11)25. While the Act provides for the attendance, of court and child welfare officers and persons immediately concerned with the proceedings (as well as “any person representing a social welfare agency engaged in work for the benefit of children, and any other person specially permitted or required by the court to be present”), it excludes representatives of the Press.'' This is not conducive to that confidence in, or respect for, this court, which is felt toward other judiciary institutions.

Clause 31 of the Act states that ‘'when a child is brought before a Children's Court charged with auy offence it shall not be necessary for the court to hear and determine the charge, but the court may, in its discretion, after taking into consideration the parentage of. the child, its environment. history, education, mentality, disposition . . . make an order committing the child to the care of the superintendent, or make any other order in relation to the child that the court would .have power to make if a complaint in respect of the child had been made under section 13”—which section has powers so wide that almost anything could be done under it. When it is remembered that particulars as to the delinquent or neglected child’s history and environment are obtained from a report made by a police officer who often gets his information from neighbours—neighbours may be actuated by spite or malice —and that the child's mentality or disposition is judged by an officer of the Child Welfare Department whc has no special training for this duty it is apparent that a grave injustice may be done and the public be quite unaware of the proceedings. It has been reported by persons interested that the department’s officers show little regard for the feelings of the child or his parents, and that distressing and harrowing scenes often occur in these courts. Though it i 3 desirable in the interest of the child ren and their relatives that their names should not be published it is highly desirable that complete reports of the court proceedings should appear in the newspapers. The contention that the publication of reports of some cases of bad behaviour may incite other children to emulation does not hold good. Against this is the idea that their attention will be drawn to the tact that mis demeanours bring punishment, and a salutary lesson be learnt thereby.

Though drawn up by thinking men in the interests of delinquent, neglected or indigent children and hailed as a desirable piece of legisia tion, the Child Welfare Act has many faults aud efforts are already being made in a certain quarter to bring about necessary alterations. In these days when psychologists and psychiatrists find the child mind an intricate field for study, the fact that one official, without special training, may report to a magistrate upon a child’s mentality thus influencing a decision as to its future treatment and surroundings, is decidedly wrong. Medical opinion states that an advisory board consisting of experts, of

whom at least one should l»e a women, should examine these children as to mentality and disposition. When a child is found to have peculiarities ot character or mind no steps are taken to find foster-parents specially suited to care for such a child nor are the persons chosen as guardians informed of the child’s idiosyncrasies. Many of the homes in which these children are. placed are unsuitable for various reasons, and a practice exists of “boarding out” with farmers in remote districts, of both Maori and pakeba children, who are set to arduous work, thus providing free labour for their foster-parents who are paid for their keep. It is held by those who have ! made investigations into the working of the Act that, before a child is taken ! from its natural guardian and permanently placed under the care of the | State, inquiries should be made to ascertain if some near relative is preI pared to act as foster-parent. It often ! happens that when sickness or death | robs the child of one or both parents i and before relatives can come to his | aid and offer a home, the child weli fare officer has taken charge and had \ the orphan committed to an institu- | tion. Steps may then be taken by ; the relatives to regain possession, but [ the proceedings are troublesome and I protracted, and end in many cases in ! merely having the child transferred ! but still under the jurisdiction of the departmental officers. Even when a delinquent child’s behaviour has im proved so as to warrant his resuming life with his parents complete dis charge before he is 21 years of age is difficult to obtain, for the reason ! that the superintendent is vested with i powers of deeming if it is in the young person’s best interests that he be returned to his natural guardians. Children committed by the court to the care of the child welfare officers are often sent to foster-homes in distant districts where relatives are unable to visit them; this entails hardship and estrangement. There is a general impression existing that besides the very obvious faults of the Act itself the carrying out of its provisions by the officers is often faulty and conducive to distrust and mis understanding. It is easy to see that all is not well, and when we realise the extensive powers given by Ul2 Act, the human frailty of responsible individuals, the natural proneness to misdemeanour of even well-trained high-spirited children the wide interpretation often given to the term

“delinquent and indigent.” it behoves us to endeavour to bring about a change long overdue. M. B. SOLJAK.