February 28, 2021

Schools in behaviour battle

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4711549a11.html

Schools in behaviour battle

By JOHN HARTEVELT – The Press | Wednesday, 01 October 2008

High-decile schools grappling with misbehaving students want more help, as a new report reveals they use less than a quarter as many social workers as low-decile schools.

Two teacher conferences under way in Wellington this week are discussing strategies to deal with increasingly extreme incidents of disruptive behaviour in the classroom.

The New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI), which represents 47,000 primary school staff, yesterday issued guidelines for dealing with troublesome pupils.

NZEI vice-president Ian Leckie said extreme misbehaviour crossed class boundaries.

“You’ve only got to look at the child who is very spoiled and from a very well-to-do background whose mother won’t buy them the lollies in the supermarket,” Leckie said.

“What that indicates, too, is that some of these behaviours even manifest before they start school,” he said.

“The ongoing need to be able to deal with that is very, very clear.”

A report by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) released today said there was “a very big difference” between the number of social workers in schools based on socio-economic factors.

A survey showed 81 per cent of primary school principals at decile one and two schools had or were considering the introduction of social workers, compared with only 17% of principals in decile nine and 10 schools. Social workers were available or in the offing at 25% of decile three to eight schools.

Leckie said increasing the number of guidance counsellors at primary schools was “an absolute priority”.

“And that is because of the inordinate amount of time that is taken to deal with every incident,” he said.

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) opened its conference yesterday, with strong interest from teachers in a workshop to discuss bad behaviour.

“People were all supportive but wanted more, really,” said Martin Henry, who chaired the PPTA workshop.

“Clearly the issue of highly disruptive kids goes across all deciles,” he said.

“It may be that you don’t need a whole social worker in your school but you need access to the sort of resources that you get from CYFS (Child, Youth and Family), from the police and from the other things that are on offer that’s the sort of discussion going around at the moment.”

Henry said there was a systemic problem with the way society dealt with marginal children, but there was more that teachers themselves could do within the classroom.

The NZCER report shows at least half of the nation’s schools had not had training on key areas such as positive approaches to student behaviour. Only one-third of principals said their school could afford the professional development it needed.

“We know that the more professional teachers are the better their impact on kids,” Henry said.

“We want to see more of that and we want to see it more tailored to the individual schools.”

German Court Keeps Five Kids Because Parents are Homeschoolers

http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/200808010.asp

Germany
Germany

August 1, 2008

German Court Keeps Five Kids Because Parents are Homeschoolers

A homeschooling family in Southern Germany spent six hours in a grueling German Family Court session this week with the hopes of regaining custody of their six homeschooled children, who have been held in state custody since January. After the long and confusing session, the Gorbers regained custody of their 3-year-old son. The judge, meanwhile, retained custody of five other Gorber children now being kept in foster care and youth homes pending a court-ordered psychological evaluation of the parents. The court did allow increased visitation for some of the children up from one hour every two weeks that had been permitted since the children were seized in a surprise raid by the youth welfare office (“Jugendamt”) and police.

In January of 2008, Jugendamt and police officials surrounded the German home of the family while Mr. Gorber visited his wife at a local hospital where she had been admitted due to complications from her pregnancy with her ninth child. The oldest son, age 21, and a daughter, age 20, were not taken by the authorities, but all the other children were removed despite their repeated protests.

The siblings reported that the 7-year-old was gripped around the waist by a youth home music teacher, dragged kicking and screaming across the courtyard and thrown into a van. The terrified 3-year-old clung to his 20-year-old sister so tightly that even the police and Jugendamt could not separate them. Both had to be taken to the youth home, where at last the little fellow’s strength gave out and he could be taken into custody.

The children then received psychological exams which all reported that they were normal and well-functioning. Although these evaluations attested to appropriate parenting, the judge indicated that he was unwilling to allow the other children, all of school age, to return home because he did not believe the father’s assurances that he would enroll the children in school.

Someone who attended the six-hour hearing described the scene as “bedlam in the courtroom, without any attempt by the judge to impose discipline. The parties kept interrupting each other and everyone spoke at once.” Some of the children have reported that their court-appointed attorneys said they will fight to keep them in foster care despite the children’s firmly stated desire to return home to their parents.

Many in Europe are critical of Germany’s Jugendamt. Germany has Europe’s highest incidence of removing children from their homes. A recent article in Germany’s Zeitung newspaper showed figures indicating that the removal of children from their homes was up 12.5% this year in Germany while the number of abused children remained the same.

Opponents have accused the child welfare system in Germany of corruption driven by exorbitant payments by the government to children’s homes and foster care providers. This “youth welfare industry” is financed by a 21 billion euro budget. The local operating youth welfare committees include privately owned and for-profit children’s care institutions who participate with legal sanction on the committees with two-fifths of the total vote. No other child welfare system in the world is known to allow this type of intermingling between government and commercial enterprises. Such an intermingling would appear to create a serious conflict of interest.

This is of particular concern to homeschooling families in Germany in light of court decisions and a recent change to the federal youth welfare law that was signed by German President Roland Koch on July 5 of this year. The law, BGB 1666, establishes the standard by which family courts are to determine whether custody of parents can be taken away. The law was changed to make it easier for children to be removed by the Jugendamt when the children are “endangered.” But endangerment is not defined in the law. The highest German courts have ruled that homeschooling is not tolerated because it creates “parallel societies” and is an abuse of parent’s rights. Administrative agencies and courts have stated that the failure to send children to school is by definition “endangerment.”

Until last year, homeschooling families had mostly been harassed with exorbitant fines. This year however, Rosemarie and Juergen Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany were sentenced to three months each in prison for homeschooling. In a previous family court case involving the Dudeks, the judge declined to take away the parental rights of the parents. It was thought that the Dudeks cared for and educated their children too well to justify penal removal of the children under the legal clause “misuse of parental authority.” During the Dudek’s criminal trial the judge ordered a 900 euro fine against the family for not sending their children to school. Not satisfied with this “lenient” sentence, local State Prosecutor Herwig Mueller told Mr. Dudek “you won’t have to worry about paying the fine, because I’m going to send you to jail.” His appeal of the fine resulted in the latest prison sentence for Mr. And Mrs. Dudek.

More homeschooling families have fled Germany as a result of this persecution, as it now appears that family court judges and the Jugendamt are ready and willing to take children away from their parents simply because they are being homeschooled. Nevertheless, “We are greatly encouraged by the thoughts and prayers of American homeschoolers,” said Mr. Dudek in a recent phone conversation with HSLDA Staff Attorney Michael Donnelly. “It gives us hope to know that there are people who have the freedom to educate their own children at home. We so appreciate the letters and notes of encouragement. These letters help us maintain our focus and in seeking God’s will for our family.”

These cases are drawing attention within Germany and across Europe.

Kathy Sinnott, a European parliament member from Ireland, criticized Germany’s treatment of homeschooling and the way the Jugendamt treat non-German families residing in Germany. In a recent press release, Sinnot said “…Germany’s approach to home schooling compromises this [European law on mobility] and forces families to choose between a job and the best interests of the children. The need for family-friendly employment policies must be recognized throughout the EU. We need to have flexibility in the education of children temporarily resident because of work. There is also an issue around the attitude to non-German families in the German children’s courts. I hope the dialogue between the Commission and the German State will resolve this discriminatory situation.”

A member of the SPD party in Bavaria, Germany also stated in a recent radio interview that that “Imprisonment or fines in this matter are absolutely excessive in my opinion, because homeschooling can provide very high-quality outcomes. This topic is definitely one which we must work through politically. There can be no black-white declarations, but we must discuss this without ideological blinders on.” Although encouraging, it will take more than one or two members of state legislatures to effect the needed change.

Donnelly, during a recent trip to Germany to encourage homeschoolers and to work for change, met with the Gorber family as well as with policy and lawmakers at the European Union and in the German State of Baden Wurttemberg.

“This poor, simple family is being crushed by unbearable pressure from the German state’s police power, primarily because they are homeschoolers,” Donnelly said. “This father of nine, a woodworker, told me how difficult this is and the incredible strain it’s placing on his children, his wife and himself. As longtime homeschoolers, they have irritated the local youth authorities who needed only the pretext of the hospitalization of the mother and other exaggerated claims to seize the children.” Donnelly noted that “while there are some policy makers in some of the states who are willing to take on this important issue of human rights, most couldn’t be bothered. It is going to take increased public awareness and international pressure to confront German Society with this outrageous behavior. Unfortunately it looks like more parents will have to go to jail and more children taken into state custody before German public policy makers wake up and do something. It’s very disturbing that Germany can get away with this kind of behavior with such little public comment by other Western governments.”

HSLDA is committed to working with national and international ministries and associations to support German homeschoolers in their fight to be free from persecution. The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental human right, and HSLDA is grateful for the support of its members to defend this freedom here in the United States and abroad.

If you would like to send a note of encouragement to the Gorber Family write to them at:

Family Gorber
Max-Mutscheller-Str.2
88662 Überlingen
Germany

Silence is Golden – “Don’t Talk to the Police”

12 June 2008 Family Integrity #398 — Silence is Golden

 “Don’t Talk to the Police” by Professor James Duane

and

“Don’t Talk to the Police” by Officer George Bruch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


Watch an engaging and fascinating video presentation by Professor James Duane of the Regent University School of Law, explaining why — in a criminal matter — you should never, ever, ever talk to the police or any other government agent. It doesn’t matter if you’re guilty or innocent, if you have an alibi or not — it isn’t possible for anything you say to help you, and it’s very possible that innocuous things you say will hurt you. Definitely worth half an hour of your time. Also hear a rebuttal from Virginia Beach Police Department Officer George Bruch, who says that Professor Duane is right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gidday all,

Here again at the bottom is the Stuff article proposing new powers for Police to issue safety orders on the spot (forbidding one person from going anywhere near another person, persons or place) merely on suspicion of “family violence”. Vindictive elements of society are able to wreck havoc on families of whom they “disapprove” by making anonymous tips to police without fear of “civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings” against them “unless the information was disclosed or supplied in bad faith” (CYPF Act 1989, Section 16). Such people are now defacto part of the government spy network, with unelected yet powerful bureaucrats such as Cindy Kiro publicly saying she wants to see neighbours dob each other in for mistreating their children. Problem with that, of course, is some neighbours think home education, instruction in Christianity, eating meat, not eating meat, not getting vaccinations are all acts of abuse.

The outrageous outcome of the twin murder case of the Kahuis — noone is to be charged with their torture and murder — is at the least instructive to us who feel we may be maliciously accused due to vindictive elements of society using the every-parent-is-guilty rewrite of Section 59. And the instruction is: Silence is Golden. Say nothing. Or if you say anything at all, let it be the phrase, “I have nothing to say.”

Most of us do not like this at all. I don’t like it. I prefer to believe that Truth will prevail and that our police believe and seek the same. Then I remember the Arthur Allen Thomas case, the David Bain case, the cops acquitted recently for pack rape when they were manifestly guilty of grossly immoral and unprofessional conduct at the very least. I also prefer to operate on the assumption that I have nothing to hide and welcome an inspection. (Or if I’m guilty, I am willing to face the consequences of my guilt.) But then I remember the many home educators I’ve personally dealt with who have, for whatever reason, received negative ERO reports, usually because the review officer appeared to have a bad hair day (although I’ve also witnessed straight-out anti-Christian prejudice.) Then I remember two successive top ERO staff in charge of the home schooling unit tell me, in nearly the exact same words, that they can tell within 30 seconds of entering a home whether they’ll be getting a positive or negative report…to me this speaks of a wholly subjective process based on things the ERO officer sees, senses, smells and hears rather than on the facts of the case. Then I also remember ex-Labour MP Margaret Autin telling me face-to-face that if she had it her way, home schoolers would be subject to every OSH, MoE, ERO regulation in the book because we are, in her eyes, defacto institutions! Then I remember a past MoE official, one who processed all exemptions for the lower North Island, telling me that at least 50% of the MoE staff at head office would shut all of us home educators down over night if they could.

Then I watched these two video clips, one by a lawyer, the other by a career policeman specialing in interviewing (he says they no longer use the word “interrogate”) suspects. It is American and set against the American written Constitution. Nevertheless, it clearly explains how fallible human foibles can nail innocent persons. It also explains why we have certain “rights” as citizens and yet how easily and casually we will waive those rights because of sheer ignorance and naivite.

You owe it to your family to watch this video clip and fully internalise their contents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

***

And here are two more links from another Lawyer:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZePEy7OxV9s

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoY9VxSsIc

 

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

 

Our Home….Our Castle

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4579630a11.html

Police get new powers in domestic incidents

By BEN FAWKES – The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Police who attend suspected domestic violence incidents will have the power to issue “on the spot” safety orders lasting up to three days under tough law changes proposed by the Government.

The safety orders are part of a raft of changes announced by Justice Minister Annette King to the Domestic Violence Act and welcomed by support groups.

The safety orders would last for up to 72 hours and could be issued in circumstances where police suspected domestic violence but did not have enough evidence to make an arrest.

Other proposals include stiffening the penalties for breaching court protection orders, with a maximum penalty of up to two years jail to give judges an “appropriate sentencing range”.

“When you get problems, often deaths, it is when you get breaches of protection orders,” King said.

The courts would also be allowed to consider making protection orders on behalf of victims and access to counselling programmes for both offenders and victims will be improved.

The proposed law changes were currently being drafted and were expected to be put before Parliament within weeks, King said.

Chief Families Commissioner Rajen Prasad welcomed the proposals and said he hoped they would contribute toward a reduction in domestic violence.

“Better enforcement by the police and courts and better access to programmes will improve safety in families and encourage people to seek help to change their abusive behaviour.”

National Network of Stopping Violence national manager Brian Gardner also backed the proposals, particularly the safety orders which he said had worked well in Western Australia.

“It gets the men out of the house and gives them time to cool down and allows the victims to think about what they can do to keep safe.”

Allowing courts to impose protection orders would give financial relief to victims who he said were currently having to pay around $1500 “on a good day” to obtain a protection order, Gardner said.

But the proposals received a scathing response from the National Party, who said the Government was copying its own policies.

“We believe giving police the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders for suspected victims of domestic violence will be very effective in putting their immediate safety first,” National’s law and order spokesman, Simon Power, said.

Violent crime had risen by 32 per cent under the Labour Government and Power said on-the-spot safety orders were first mooted by National Party leader John Key last November.

“On-the-spot protection orders are a good idea, we believe they will work, and are flattered Labour thinks so as well.”

King said the initiatives pre-dated National’s announcement and were the result of more than a year of research.

“The discussion paper went out in December last year … it had been worked on for months before that.”

—–Original Message—–
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson 

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: SV: Police get new powers in domestic incidents

Hi Everyone!

They talk about “abusive behaviour”. What about the abusive behaviour of the CYFS and the children who are being told that their parents do not have the right to correct their unacceptable behaviour?NZ has discrimination against children and Rödeby Cases around the corner.

At present, through the NCHR, I am involved in a case in Stockholm in which the 10-yr old daughter of Pakistani parents – both social workers educated in Sweden – informed her school teacher that her parents had smacked her. The girl was taken immediately (April 14, 2008). Since then they have not been allowed to see or talk to their daughter. In the meantime, they questioned her younger brother, who told them he had not been smacked. He too has been taken into care. The girl has retracted her statement but no one will listen to her. The Administrative Court in Stockholm confirmed the care order on May 30, and the parents and the children are totally devastated.

The parents also face criminal charges for assault of their children.

What a crazy country Sweden is! And NZ has joined the ranks!
What beats me most is that as many as 22 countries have adopted anti-smacking laws and that the European Council and the UN recommend that ALL countries should have such a law! Well, I’m sure that neither Jamaica nor France will follow suit.

Kind regards

Ruby

http://www.nkmr.org

‘Loving’ family goes into hiding, fears separation


http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/html/Articles/ArticlesPrint.aspx?id=32644359013c4766974d2ffd571eed6a

‘Loving’ family goes into hiding, fears separation
Friday, 11 April 2008
By Sophie Rishworth
A large family “living rough” on the outskirts of Tiniroto has gone bush as the nation’s media tries to track them down.

Yesterday, camera crews and repo rters from at least two television channels and one national newspaper were pursuing them after East Coast MP Anne Tolley drew national attention in Parliament to their lifestyle.

Her concern was over the fact they were living in makeshift conditions and that CYF had not intervened.

The family’s 13 children were living without water, toilets and electricity and had not been attending school since August last year, she said.

But those who know the family say they are a “very loving” family whose only fear is being separated.

Sandra and Peter Smith, both in their 40s, in fact have 16 children, aged between 1 and 17, and have been living at various locations around Te Reinga, Tiniroto and Wairoa.

The children are described as happy, helpful and healthy, with the older ones helping out with the younger ones.

It is understood the family were victims of a violent home invasion in September 2006, when men brandishing guns, softball bats and bars forced their way into their Naenae home.

They have been transient ever since.

The family have applied to the Ministry of Education to home-school their children.

Nancy Brooking, who lived with the family for about five months when they stayed at her Te Mokai property, said both parents were very committed to their children’s education.

“The children were delightful, so happy and so respectful . . . if they saw me doing something, they would run over to help me.

“But they didn’t have the resources, they didn’t have anything.”

Ms Brooking worked in psychological services for 12 years at Rimutaka prison and said she has seen the end result of children who were not cared for.

“If this couple can get the support they need to continue to raise their children as they are, then the children will not end up where I’ve just come from. They are well cared for.”

The Smith children did not have any behavioural problems, she said.

Ms Brooking said she felt disillusioned after numerous approaches to agencies to get the family help with the resources they needed.

Social agencies seemed to view the parents as irresponsible in the way they looked after their children, when in fact it was quite the opposite, she said.

“They look at her and ask ‘why did you have all these children?’ In my tribe she would be a gem . . . I find her just amazing,” she said.

“She taught her children how to cook, how to grow vegetables and wanted to incorporate that into their education. She also taught them singing and interacting with each other.

The children had been to school but were subject to bullying and teasing about being poor and coming from a large family.

“They were teased about the fact they didn’t have what other children had, didn’t have the lunch that other children had — they just had peanut butter and bread.

“There was no bullying at home, no swearing — the older ones would always support the smaller ones. They are a really tight family unit.”

Ms Brooking said the parents struggled with transport costs getting the children to and from school.

She described Peter Smith as a quiet, reserved man who was very capable and intelligent.

“He was a top athlete when he was a young lad, but he had to leave school early to help his father.”

“I saw the same athletic ability in the children — they are very, very athletic.” .

Their dream was to have a little property where they could grow vegetables, home- school and raise their children, she said.

Ms Brooking said the conditions she was offering them were sub-standard and it began to worry her that the children were living in rooms that were leaking and the parents were sleeping on the floor.

But the family would rather stay together in sub-standard circumstances than have the children farmed out.

Ms Brooking said she asked agencies for help in improving conditions so the family could stay there, but received none.

The parents lived in fear of having the children taken away from them because of the substandard conditions.

They left Te Mokai and went to a campsite at Tiniroto over summer. From there, they moved down the road to a relative’s house at Te Reinga.

Neighbours say the parents kept to themselves but the children could often be seen playing in the yard, running around and laughing.

“The only crying we heard was from the wee baby. We never heard any fighting,” said the neighbour.

Child Youth and Family have said they will co-ordinate the support of other relevant agencies to help the family.

“The family have told us they are very upset at the large amount of personal information regarding them and their circumstances that has been discussed in public,” said national media adviser Lee Harris Royal.

“They have asked us to protect their privacy by not commenting on the family’s affairs in the media.

“We intend to respect their wishes.”

“Child, Youth and Family have been working with this family to find a solution to the issues they face.

“We will continue to do so. We are committed doing all in our power to support and strengthen this whanau.”

Story by The Gisborne Herald
Copyright © The Gisborne Herald

Comments on Locked up for smacking my son … How a slap brought police and social services in to tear a family apart

From:

http://familyintegrity.org.nz/

 

7 April 2008 Family Integrity #365 — One family’s ordeal…

Dear Friends,

This is a terrible story.

The outrageous antics of the Police and the social welfare agents are bad enough. But they are not the only villains in this story.

Have a read:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=557440&in_page_id=1879
The parenting practices of this apparently very typical family are also to blame. The practices, I believe, are quite common and typical. But let’s look a wee bit closer.

The children attended school. Simply being separated for at least 6 hours a day, 5 days a week will soon make the children strangers to their parents. In addition, we all know that children pick up all kinds of lousy messages and attitudes at school. Many teachers convey the anti-parent message that your parents are not allowed to force you to do anything, to discipline you or correct you. This is totally subversive of parental authority. So the first question: why do parents allow their children to attend these institutions where they are subject to such subversive propaganda? Probably the simplest answer is that the parents send their children to school in good faith and have no idea whatsoever as to what is going on. The typical answer to, “What did you do and learn at school today, Johnny?” is “Nothing.” Application: get your children out of such institutions. Ideally teach them at home or find a private school you can thoroughly trust.

The children were allowed computers in their rooms as well as other games and entertainment technology. That means a fair bit of what they did was unsupervised. Children need guidance in these areas. If the computers were connected to Internet, this was indeed a very foolish thing to do, leaving the children to surf the Internet unsupervised. Application: never let children have unsupervised time on internet and never let them have their own computer or TV in their rooms. This is just the same as leaving stacks of pornography magazines, books and films in their rooms. How can one be surprised if they then come out with vile speech and disobedient and disrespectful attitudes?

The children were allowed to develop friendships, spend lots of time and even stay over night at the homes of people the parents did not approve of. Again, this is incredibly foolish. Why do parents do this? Again, they do so in good faith, do not want to appear snooty or arrogant, want to apprear friendly and non-discriminatory toward neighbours, for after all, they are neighbours. (Actually we’re not sure if they were neighbours or not.) But the strongest influence that caused the parents to have such a hands-off approach to the shepherding of their children was that such an approach is what society today demands. Application: tell society and its demands to jump in a lake: your children are your responsibility and you must raise them according to what you believe is right. If you do not approve of certain people, do not let your children associate with them. This is impossible if they attend school, of course, so again home education is nearly essential. We must say more: if you disapprove of this or that, you must be clear about this to your children and explain why. More than that, you must approve, and even demand, behaviour and standards that you want to see in your family. Schooling institutions no longer propagate the higher standards of our Traditional Western Christian Civilization, but today they socialise everyone to a politicised list of so-called commonly held set of values. That is the formal curriculum. The hidden curriculum (what goes on behind the bike sheds and at recess and behind teacher’s back) socialises all to the lowest common denominator…and this is getting lower all the time.

The children were allowed to get away with saying “F…off, you cow,” to their mother who would give a few warnings about such language. Such language should have been rooted out years ago. Again, it is nearly impossible to do this if the children are at school, but at the very least they could have learned to never use that language at home, but only at school, as I did as a kid. But to tolerate them saying such things to their own mother is unbelievable. But then, the father did say the same thing to a social worker. Sure he was under duress, but it was a terrible example. The application is: don’t use language or act in ways you don’t want to see replicated in your own children. They need to know exactly where the boundaries are and that you will be swift and sure about enforcing the boundaries. Swift and sure about enforcement. Here we are up against it as the re-write of Section 59 categorically forbids parents from correcting or disciplining their children. It would seem the law we have is designed to prevent parents from doing their duty toward their children and to give children license to be as disrespectful and disobedience as they like.

So, the police and social welfare agents in this story were abominable, but they were following the trends and policies of their superiors. This is bad, and NZer will be suffering such interventions more and more. But none of this would have happened if the parents had closer relations with their children, if the family had been operating as a unit instead of as a collection of individuals living, most of the time, under the same roof. The parents and children were clearly NOT on the same page. Application: train your chldren to recognise that the agents of the state are sadly no longer to be trusted, but that they will divide, conquer and destoy your family, your reputations, your future employment prospects and even your ability to travel. So children must stick close to parents and stick up for them and never, never divulge to others outside your four walls what goes on inside your four walls. Your family’s private family life is no business of anyone else. If authorities come around and start getting nosey, you must all be agreed that “Silence is golden.” Simply say nothing — NOTHING — to any of these agents.

As this story dramatically illustrates, the state agents (schooling institutions, police, social workers) used the tactics of divide and conquer plus their privileged position of using force, to damage this family. Don’t let it happen to you.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)