When did childhood become such a gamble?
A woman who left her five children locked in a van in an Auckland casino's basement car park, while she and her partner went gambling upstairs, has got off scot-free!
The 28yr.old woman and her 30yr.old partner appeared in the Auckland District Court on Tuesday: she was discharged, while her partner was convicted and discharged, and ordered to pay court costs of $132. Yeup, that's all!!
They pleaded guilty to leaving a child under the age of 14 without adequate supervision. They cannot be named in order to protect the identities of their children. Oh puh-leez! Those kids, aged ranged from 5mths to 9yrs, were found alone in the casino's car park around 11am on February 26: they'd been locked in the van for about 45 minutes. A passerby spotted them crying and alerted SkyCity, who found the parents gambling upstairs in the casino. Authorities were notified immediately and the kids were taken into care. The family already had a history with Child Youth and Family (CYF).
But by the time the couple entered guilty pleas in August, both had enrolled themselves in programmes. The father was undertaking a 'stopping violence' programme, and had taken part in problem gambling counselling sessions. So bloody what...?
Because they'd been caught gambling while their kids were LOCKED in a vehicle below them, and they pleaded guilty and dashed off to do a course or two... does that make them good enough to dodge a harsher penalty? No bloody way!
This is a straight-out case of child abuse, wilful neglect, possibly even unlawful detention, certainly pathetic parenting. For that, they faced the full might of our justice system...but one walked free while the other only paid $132! Remember that these two already had a track record with CYF, so it's not as if they made a first-time stupid oversight. Further, they got name suppression under the do-goody guise of "protecting the kids"! They'd be better protected by being removed from such irresponsible prats.
Tell me where the justice is in this case - coz it sure wasn't in the courtroom on Tuesday. I'd LUV to hear the judge's reasoning behind his decision. Un-bloody-believable!
 |
| Gambling on their LIVES... |
The 28yr.old woman and her 30yr.old partner appeared in the Auckland District Court on Tuesday: she was discharged, while her partner was convicted and discharged, and ordered to pay court costs of $132. Yeup, that's all!!
They pleaded guilty to leaving a child under the age of 14 without adequate supervision. They cannot be named in order to protect the identities of their children. Oh puh-leez! Those kids, aged ranged from 5mths to 9yrs, were found alone in the casino's car park around 11am on February 26: they'd been locked in the van for about 45 minutes. A passerby spotted them crying and alerted SkyCity, who found the parents gambling upstairs in the casino. Authorities were notified immediately and the kids were taken into care. The family already had a history with Child Youth and Family (CYF).
But by the time the couple entered guilty pleas in August, both had enrolled themselves in programmes. The father was undertaking a 'stopping violence' programme, and had taken part in problem gambling counselling sessions. So bloody what...?
Because they'd been caught gambling while their kids were LOCKED in a vehicle below them, and they pleaded guilty and dashed off to do a course or two... does that make them good enough to dodge a harsher penalty? No bloody way!
This is a straight-out case of child abuse, wilful neglect, possibly even unlawful detention, certainly pathetic parenting. For that, they faced the full might of our justice system...but one walked free while the other only paid $132! Remember that these two already had a track record with CYF, so it's not as if they made a first-time stupid oversight. Further, they got name suppression under the do-goody guise of "protecting the kids"! They'd be better protected by being removed from such irresponsible prats.
Tell me where the justice is in this case - coz it sure wasn't in the courtroom on Tuesday. I'd LUV to hear the judge's reasoning behind his decision. Un-bloody-believable!
No comments:
Post a Comment