WELFARE OF YOUTH

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 149, 19 March 1936, Page 13

WELFARE OF YOUTH

Stricter Control Urged ANOMALIES IN ACT Redrafting of anomalous features of tbe Child Welfare Act aud also stricter control over persons between the age of 17 and 21 were advocated by Ibe Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations at its conference yesterday. An Auckland remit, which was carried, suggested that the following clause should be inserted : —"'l’hat on complaint of any parent, or guardian, police or probation officer that a young person being over 17 years of age and under 21 years of age is delinquent or is living in an environment detrimental fo well-being, or has a tendency to delinquency, any justice may issue a summons requiring tbe said person to appear before a magistrate iu chambers. If it appears to such magistrate that such person should be under control, he may, without recording a conviction for any offence make an order placing such person upon probation under tbe care of a probation officer, with such conditions and upon such terms as the magistrate may think fit.” In proposing tbe remit, Mr. D. Donaldson said it had the strongest appeal of any before the conference. It was astounding that it was possible in New Zealand for a youug woman, lor instance, to leave home and live unmarried with a man. There was no law that could remove her from that position at present, and it was a stain on and a disgrace to the national life. What did it matter if such a provision would involve an extension of the State's operations aud further expense.’ One of the leading magistrates had stated that it was absurd to say that the clause would necessitate the appointment of probation officers— the present workers -would be ouiy too w filing to serve. A further Auckland remit, which was also carried, urged: "That the New Zealand Justices of the Peace Associations bog to draw the attention of the Minister of Education to the necessity for a review of the legislation concerning child welfare, and, that, in view of its many anomalies, the Child Welfare Act of 1925 and its Amendments of 1927 urgently requires redrafting.”

Mr. Donaldson said the remit was supported by the combined judgment of, he thought, all tbe women’s social organisations in Auckland, aud the representatives of judges who interested themselves iu social service. The Child Welfare Act was a long way behind the English Act, aud it should be amended along a number of important lines. Under tbe New Zealand Act it appeared that welfare homes might be closed and the children sent away, without any intimation being given to the parents as to their whereabouts. It was also extraordinary for British justices to learn that children brought before a court could be dealt with —on lines concerning parentage, etc. —without the actual charge being heard.