CHILDREN BRUISED

Evening Star, Issue 22631, 24 April 1937, Page 22

CHILDREN BRUISED

SHARP INDICTMENT Of FOSTERMOTHER 11 CRUEL AND CALLOUS CGNfiUCT " A sharp indictment of the conduct of Clara Augusta llosina Beatrice Jane in. administering severe punishment to two of the four children committed to her care was expressed by Mr H. \V. Bundle, S.M., m the Police Court yesterday afternoon. Mrs Jane was charged with treating three children named Kinnaird—William (12), John Easton (9), and David (4)— in such a manner as to cause them unnecessary suffering, and was convicted on the first and third counts, that relating to the boy John Easton Kinnaird being dismissed. The magistrate strongly condemned Mrs Jane’s treatment of the youngest boy, saying that it was a degrading and disgusting thing that a strap, which he described as a most improper instrument, should have been used on him. Mrs Jane was fined £7 10s and costs, Mr G. T. Baylee intimating that he intended to lodge an appeal against the decision. When the hearing was resumed yesterday afternoon tlic case for the defence was heard. Mrs Jane, in evidence, said that *tne children were placed with her by Mr Dunkley, the manager of the Children a Host Home. She described the conduct and the measures she took to correct them. They were quarrelsome and tiresome. The two older boys were very rough and crude, and she could not control them. She had told Mr Dunkley that if they did not behave he would have to take them away. She took good care of them and bought them toys, which they smashed up. Mrs Jane described some of the dirty habits of the boys. She admitted strapping them as a correction. It was not severe—-in. fact, as severe as the strapping she had given her own children. She had never had any complaints before as to the treatment or children boarded with her —only gratiTo Senior-sergeant Packer Mrs Jane admitted that earlier she had said she would plead guilty “under extreme provocation ” and that her nerves ‘thad got the better of her. . Albert Anthony Jane, husband of the defendant, in speaking of the children, said that he had never seen such disgusting behaviour. They more than annoyed his wife. He himself was not on too good terms with them— -they did not appeal to him. He did not see any of them thrashed while he was at home. Mr Baylee; What sort of a temper has your wife?—A very good temper. Mr Bundle: What did you expect him to say, Mr Baylee? Mr Baylee: Of course, the wife is present. (Laughter.) Jane added that it was “ ridiculously wrong ” to say that Mrs Jane thrashed the children unmercifully. Sydney Dunkley, manager of the Children’s Rest Home, said that the home was closed at the time as a result of the paralysis epidemic. When one of the boys ran away to the father the latter made no complaints about bruises. He (the father) then warned the children to behave , themselves or he would come nip and give them the buckle end of the belt.” Jane subsequently reported that the children getting his wife down, and asked that they should be taken away. Witness asked them to carry on, as it was then very difficult to place them on account of, the epidemic, and they reluctantly agreed. Children had been placed with Mrs Jan© for five or six years, and it was his experience that she was kindness itself. Witness added that if the child of four were badly bruised on the buttocks Mrs Jan© must have been driven to desperation. If the oldest boy were marked on the shoulders and buttocks, as was stated, Mr Dunkley considered that this was not unreasonable punishment for a hoy of that age (12). It was necessary that there should be control. Mrs Veda Tate, an assistant of Mr Dunkley’s, said that the children seemed quite healthy and happy when they were taken home. Before reviewing the evidence the Magistrate said, as he had intimated during the hearing on Thursday, the charge relating to John Easton Kinnaird would be dismissed. As regards the other two boys the defence was that they were given reasonable correction, as was provided under the Children’s Act. The question for the consideration of the court was whether that punishment was reasonable or whether it constituted cruelty or illtreatment. Mrs Jane was, of course, entitled to punish them in a reasonable manner for any misdemeanours. But ideas as regards corporal punishment had undergone changes in recent years, and nowadays (and quite properly, His Worship considered) children were not subjected to the corporal punishment of years gone by. In the case of the oldest boy (William) the trouble seemed to have been that he had been a boy of dirty habits. But they were not habits usually prevented by physical punishment. His Worship considered that other than strapping was indicated here. It was quite clear that Mrs Jane lost her temper in dealing with him. The word “ wilful ” in the charge meant deliberate and intentional, and it was quite clear that she thrashed this boy intentionally. Such - a punishment was cruel, particularly for the offence the hoy had committed, and on that count she must be convicted. The Magistrate also entered a conviction in the charge relating to the boy David, aged four years. This case is in a different category, xlis Worship said. “ Mrs Jane says ho was a good boy, but committed childish offences at her home. Yet after the other boys had cleaned and washed him she straps and thrashes him. A strap such as that used here is a most improper instrument to us© on a boy or guch tender years. It is a degrading and a disgusting thing that a strap shouhl have been used on him for a child’s offence.” ~,,,, ~ The Magistrate added that he could not omit saying that he found it difficult to understand the mentality of the boys’ father. He went near them only once in the nine weeks they were av ' v ' a - v ; and gave as a very weak excuse that he “ did not want to disturb them. He could not absolve himself from responsibility for the children being badly treated. . ~ Considering the question of penalty. His Worship said that he would give due regard to the fact that Mrs J** l }® was getting on in years, that the children were not able to go to school at the time, and that they were probably a nuisance. That, however, was no excuse for cruel and callous conduct, particularly in the case of the young boy. Sho would bo fined £7 10s and costs (£2 12s fid). Mr Bayleo intimated that ho would lodge an appeal.