My reasoning is thus. The police are processing 69% more complaints yet CYFS is only processing 54% more complaints and most of these are from the police, rather than the public . This increase from the police is from domestic violence call-outs, rather than people dobbing in “smackers” (you can read that here). Thus little of the increase to CYFS is from private notifications of abuse. You can therefore assume that little of the increase in police cases is from increased “dobbing” but from actual increased abuse.

Bear in mind that unemployment stats often run in direct proportion to abuse stats, so this will account for some rise. However, I think the jump is far too high to be explained by unemployment alone. Hence I think this supports my theory that the repeal of section 59 has made abuse worse.

I think an urgent study into this should be done, before we destroy yet another generation of kids with our social experiments.

I am inclined to agree with you. We all know what healthy and balanced personalities Sue Bradford and Herr Helen Clark have, and clearly they are eminently qualified to tell the rest of us how to raise our children.

Yet the number referred to CYFS (minor cases) rose by 54% and most were from the police. This tells us that it is likely that the rise in convictions is not because more people are being “dobbed in” but because there are more cases of child abuse.

I don’t see how you can reach this conclusion (although my brain has been fried this week). The increase in referrals from police may be due to an increase in the number of people being dobbed in to the police.

How do you feel about the state’s latest attempt to turn you into an unpaid policeman?

http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/so-called-abused-children-to-go-onto-database/
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..So-called abused children to go onto database

Care to give example of one such cases?

And do you know how many cases exactly where parents used correction as an excuse for assaulting their children and got away vs those that didn’t get away with their action?

I have asked this question to someone with law expertise and access to the information database. The answer is, only very very few, and they got away because the evidence weren’t convincing, not because they used ‘correction’ as excuse.

I certainly produced evidence. I don’t think it is conclusive evidence, but it is suggestive. You could argue that the increase in child abuse convictions is entirely due to increase reporting of offenses, but the fact that CYFS’ increase comes mostly from the police indicates otherwise. Another indicator would be the death rate from child abuse, which is entirely unrelated to reporting of offenses, of course. Unfortunately, I can’t find these stats except as five year blocks.