In clause (5) on pages 60 to 63, both inclusive, of the report the
Mazengarb Committee recommended that certain specific changes be
made as soon as possible in the legislation relating to proceedings in
the Children's Court. It was our duty to examine and report upon
each of these suggestions. Our comments are as follow:
_Paragraph (a), page 61_ (creation of a new offence) and _paragraph
(b), page 61_ (the compulsory attendance of parents at a Children's
Court)
Both of these recommendations have been given effect to, and they
are provided for in the legislation enacted late in the session of 1954.
_Paragraph (c). page 61_ (power of Court to make orders against the
parents of offending or delinquent children)
We agree with this recommendation, and we understand that the necessary
provision has already been written into a new Child Welfare Bill which
is in course of preparation.
_Paragraph (d), page 62_ (notification of fact of expulsion of a
child from school)
This proposal has already been given effect to by administrative
direction. We feel that legislation on this point will not be
necessary.
_Paragraph (e), page 63_ (notification to be given to principal of
a school where child found to be delinquent)
In normal practice the Child Welfare Officer does take a head teacher
into his confidence when placing a child in his school district and
actively seeks his co-operation. There are odd cases, however, where it
may be thought that an individual head teacher should not be given, in
the words of the report, all "the circumstances which led to the
delinquency". This would be a very rare occurrence, but the statutory
obligation to tell everything he knew on every occasion might prevent
the Child Welfare Officer's taking steps he believed to be in the best
interests of all concerned. The best results, we feel, will come from
wise administrative action and from a general improvement in the mutual
understanding between teachers and Child Welfare Officers.
The Committee felt that when information of this nature was passed on
to a Headmaster it should be treated as confidential. We feel strongly
that any child should always have a full opportunity of repentance and
of re-establishing his character, and where a child showed that
definite improvement had been made by him his chances of rehabilitation
should not be prejudiced by the fact of his earlier breach.
_Paragraph (f), page 63_ (recommendation that Child Welfare Act be
completely redrafted, etc.)
A complete redraft of the Act is now in course of preparation.
Further comments on paragraph (_f_) above were made by Dr Beeby. They
are as follow:
"We think that the right of appeal from the decisions of the
Children's Courts might be usefully made explicit in the Child
Welfare Act. We agree also that it might be well to provide for the
right of appeal against the Superintendent in certain
circumstances. If the system is to be workable and not brought to a
standstill by a mass of frivolous appeals, it will be necessary to
restrict the right of appeal. If an appeal were to lie every time
the Superintendent shifted a ward of State, the proceedings would
be endless. The only appeal, we think, should be one to have a
child discharged from the care of the Superintendent. Serious
complaints of ill treatment could be aired in this way. We are not
able to suggest, off-hand, exactly what the restrictions should be,
and very full discussions between Child Welfare authorities and
legal authorities would be necessary as a preliminary to effective
legislation on the point."
Little, if anything, appeared in the Mazengarb Committee's report to
justify us in thinking that a right of appeal of the kind suggested
should be provided. The Committee express the hope that a step of this
kind should not be taken unless sound reasons were advanced for taking
it.