Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill

Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru)

Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill

CADRP-355

CADRP-355

 

About you

Individual

1      The Bill’s general principles

1.1     Do you support the principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill?

— Yes

1.2     Please outline your reasons for your answer to question 1.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

There is much misinformation on this topic so I recommend you consider the relatively brief and easy to read review of the scientific research on parental physical discipline which was part of the American Psychological Association's resolution recommending against parental physical discipline (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/physical-discipline.pdf). The research evidence is strong and robust that hitting children: (a) harms children in a variety of ways (see evidence on physical and psychological problems short and long-term); (b) increases (i.e., contrary to personal opinion, does not *decrease*) antisocial and similar behavior problems, including that hitting increases peer violence by modeling aggression as a way to resolve conflict; (c) does not result in increased arrests or criminalization in the many countries that have adopted prohibitions of hitting children--these policies simply serve to point to families who are in need of social services and guidance on alternatives (d) and the review points to research on countries around the world that underscores the harmful effects observed from hitting children appear regardless of how normal it is considered in that country or how warm parents behave toward children.  We no longer consider hitting intimate partners acceptable when a generation ago, it would not have raised eyebrows.  Why do we consider hitting children--who are vulnerable and necessarily attached and dependent on those how hit them--acceptable?

1.3     Do you think there is a need for legislation to deliver what this Bill is trying to achieve?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

Given the reasons stated above, providing those who hit children a defense not only validates hitting children but actually leads to their not receiving guidance on alternatives that would actually be better for them, their families, and communities

2      The Bill’s implementation

2.1     Do you have any comments about any potential barriers to  implementing the Bill? If no, go to question 3.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

-

2.2     Do you think the Bill takes account of these potential barriers?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

-

3      Unintended consequences

3.1     Do you think there are there any unintended consequences arising from the Bill? If no, go to question 4.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No--as noted above, this does not lead to criminalization; it simply leads professionals to provide services to those who need alternatives

4      Financial implications

4.1     Do you have any comments on the financial implications of the Bill (as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum)? If no, go to question 5.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

-

5      Other considerations

5.1     Do you have any other points you wish to raise about this Bill?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

I am a clinical child psychologist and researcher in the US and thus can speak to this issue, not from a personal standpoint, but from the more dispassionate stance of someone who knows what the research says rather than be swayed by personal opinions.