Further Evidence Heard About Hohepa Home

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30482, 2 July 1964, Page 14

Further Evidence Heard About Hohepa Home

To offer parents of intellectually handicapped children forlorn hopes of curing them was nothing short of cruelty, Marianne Frances Wilby, principal of the special training centre in Merivale lane, told the Heathcote County Council last evening when the hearing of argument for and against the establishment of a Hohepa Home at 141 Hackthorne road was continued.

Mrs Wilby had been asked by Sir C. M. Roper, who is appearing for the New Zealand Trust Board for Home Schools for Curative Education of Intellectually Handicapped Children, whether she would agree that the board’s system of teaching and way of life enabled the children to learn.

To suggest such a hope, Mrs Wilby said, would be cruel to the parents concerned.

Last night was the fifth night of the hearing which has been adjourned sine die. An estimated 57,000 words of sworn evidence has so far been heard. To Mr Roper, Mrs Wilby said she had originally declined to give evidence but was subpoenaed by Mr J. G. Leggat, who is appearing for some 30 objectors in the immediate vicinity of the proposed home. She said it was the practice for witnesses to appear on subpoena where Government departments were concerned. Mr Roper: How many patients do you have at Merivale lane?

Mrs Wilby; We do not call them patients. There are 48 regular pupils and four visiting country children. Mr Roper: You have stated that you have not seen the property 141 Hackthorne road yet you say it is not suitable. Mrs Wilby: Any house that has two storeys and stairs would, in my mind, be quite unsuitable for this kind of child.

Mr Roper suggested that the children had to be taught to walk up and down steps and stairs. Mrs Wilby replied that some would never be taught She denied that Instances of children from the centre getting into mischief had

been caused through a breakdown in supervision. The behaviour of intellectually handicapped children could be summed up in three categories, she said. They were unpredictable, imitative and showed repetitive patterns. Normal children could be reestrained and reasoned with.

Charles Frank Billcliff, of 143 Hackthorne road, senior lecturer in education at the Teachers’ College, said one of his reasons for objecting was the small area of the proposed site and its closeness to neighbours. “The establishment of an institution for ineducable children in an established residential area will detract from the value of neighbour-, Ing properties,” he said. A situation “latent with troubles and even danger” would be invited if the home! was established without a defined minimum of trained staff. The amenities of the neighbourhood were likely to be affected adversely. “To recruit dedicated staff, the board must compete with the State services, which pay a living wage to their employees. There is no evidence that the board has trained either teachers or nurses,” said Mr Billcliff. The site was also too small, was on a slope, and although there was an absence of ground fog, severe north-east winds could affect the health of the children. “The ideal of integrating the handicapped into the community is not furthered by assembling a larger group than the community normally meets and placing them in the middle of a residential district adjacent to a school,” said Mr Billcliff. Mr Roper Do you feel very strongly about this matter?

Mr Billcliff: It is not a matter of feeling—it is a matter of considering advantages and disadvantages. Other objectors heard last evening were Eric Othmar Lenz, senior lecturer at the education department of the University of Canterbury. Reginald John Rowe, a company director, Donald Winston Jewett, a company director William John Gendall. sales supervisor. The county clerk (Mr W. H. Scrimgeour) announced at the start of the hearing that the objection of E. C. Thompson had been withdrawn.