CONTROL OF A CHILD.

Otago Witness, Issue 3775, 20 July 1926, Page 61

CONTROL OF A CHILD.

AN UNUSUAL CASE. WELLINGTON, July 15. A dispute which attracted a good deal of attention in Auckland some months ago is recalled by a petition presented to Parliament to-day by Harry Robert Willis, of Auckland, a tramway employee, praying that his 13-year-old son, now in toe care of the State, be restored to him. The petitioner says that, while he was on active service, his wife was charged with an offence and his children were committed to a receiving home. He succeeded in having them licensed to hipi, and they lived with him and his wife until recently when the elder boy was taken away by the authorities without warning or explanation while the petitioner was at work. He afterwards found that the boy was accused of having played truant from school and having stolen an apple from a hawker. Actually, he had played truant for a day and a-half, and he absolutely denied the charge of theft. Later the boy ran away from tne Auckland Receiving Home and went to his own home. He was taken back and very severely thrashed. The petitioner, hearing that his son was to bo removed from Auckland, went to the home to inquire about it, and was told by an official: “We have taken the child away because you were making too much fuss of the child.” The Petitioner then said: “A man ought to shoot Mr Cupit for taking away his child.” For this he was charged with threatening behaviour, but on his expressing sorrow Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., dismissed the charge without calling evidence. Later he was charged with harbouring the boy, and was convicted by Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. The magistrate prohibited publication of any of the facts of the case. The petitioner says that he makes no complaint against the presiding magistrate, but against the law. He is advised that under “The Child Welfare Act, 1925,” he is no longer the guardian of his child and that he has no legal redress although the child was taken from him through no fault of his own, and while he was fighting for his country. He says that he communicated with the Prime Minister, who replied on June 30: “I am informed that the department is quite prepared within a reasonable time to view this point (the return of the child to his parents under license) favourably. In the meantime it is considered desirable that he should have a disciplinary period of detention in a home.” The petitioner knows of 1.0 reason why the boy should be disciplined, as no charge has been made against him. He is advised that the department is determined to keep the boy and to prevent his parents from having access to him. He therefore prays that the order taking away ms guardianship be cancelled and the child be ordered to be returned to him at once.