Parents hit back over smacking

Parents whose smacking cases were investigated in a review of the anti-smacking law say they were ignored in the "one-sided" report.

The cases were used by Family First to argue that good parents were being turned into criminals.

But as part of the three-month review, clinical psychologist Nigel Latta, police commissioner Howard Broad and Social Development Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes examined 11 of the cases.

They found all had other aggravating features and were not as they were reported on the lobby group's website. None stood up to scrutiny.

Mr Latta said the responses by police and Child, Youth and Family in the cases were appropriate and proportionate.

In a statement issued by Family First, the parents said they rejected claims they had misrepresented the facts, and they rejected the report's findings. Their accounts were "ignored and the only opinion that matters has been that of the police and CYF", they said.

The "one-sided report" had glaring errors, did not consult parents and contained alleged actions that had no basis in court.

"We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation," they said.

Last week, Prime Minister John Key said the review showed the law was working.

Mr Latta said there was no suggestion in the report that the parents were "child abusers".

In some cases they were normal parents who it later turned out had done nothing wrong. However, it had been appropriate for police and CYF to become involved, he said. "It was also our clear view that the police and CYF's response post the law change was the same it would have been prior to the law change."

There would always be cases where authorities are seen to over-react but there was no way around it. "It would always be my view that we should err on the side of overreacting rather than under-reacting. If we don't, then children will die," Mr Latta said.

It was his view that Family First did not have the background details that turned out to be crucial, on why CYF or police became involved.

"I do not think this was a wilful act on Family First's behalf in any way, they simply did not have this information."

In a blog this week, Mr Broad wrote there were always two sides to a story. In the cases put forward by Family First, the police actions seemed extreme when considering one side of the story but "things often look very different in context".

- © Fairfax NZ News