|
Gaunt and soft-spoken, with earnest eyes framed in black-rimmed glasses, 15-year-old Faisal (name changed) looks more gangly geek than teen terror.
But to his parents, the Secondary 4 Express stream student has committed a major transgression: He spends up to eight hours daily hooked to the computer.
After a falling out with his father over his computer use and argumentative ways in March, his 44- year-old mother dragged the boy not to a counsellor, but to court.
She applied for a Beyond Parental Control (BPC) order, which can lead to a child being sent away to an institution for up to three years.
The tool is usually reserved for serial runaways, violent teen terrors and those experimenting with sex, crime or drugs.
But over the past few years, more parents have been pleading with the courts to push their kids into State-approved homes for the most ridiculous of reasons, says Dr Carol Balhetchet of the Singapore Children's Society. It screens BPC applications to make sure only the deserving ones wind up in court.
Some come because their child won't do his or her homework, others because the child comes back at 6.30pm instead of 2pm.
The numbers speak for themselves. In 2002, around 35 per cent of all BPC applications resulted in a court order. By last year, this number had fallen to 24 per cent of all applications, or less than one in four.
BPC applications, meanwhile, hit their highest note in seven years, at 676.
In the first four months of this year, there were a further 296 applications. Only about 18 per cent of these resulted in a BPC order. The rest were either dismissed, or the children sent for counselling.
Interestingly, the number of applications from divorced, widowed or single parents has dropped significantly in recent years.
Housewife mothers form the largest number of complainants and they sometimes haul in kids as young as seven.
In the wake of the rise in frivolous applications, counsellors say that changes in the law to ensure compulsory counselling for parents - or possibly a fine for their kids' transgressions - could help make disciplining a child once more the prerogative of mums and dads, rather than the State.
The Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which governs the BPC process, is being reviewed.
Outsourced parenthood
Unfortunately, too many parents are trying to 'farm out their parental responsibilities to the State', notes Dr Balhetchet, director for youth services at the Children's Society. A trained counsellor,
she did her PhD thesis in juvenile delinquency.
'Children who are dragged to the court by parents for a trivial reason see it as an emotional betrayal, which could hurt their relationship even more,' she says.
But many parents beg to differ. In Faisal's case, his mother says that she was worried about the boy's deteriorating relationship with his sales executive Dad. The duo had come to blows once.
She concedes that, most of the time, Faisal finishes his homework before logging on. In fact, their middle child's 'computer addiction' may be the result of overly strict parental control. The boy was, for example, not allowed to go out with friends for fear that he may develop 'bad habits'.
'His father does not like him on the computer so much. He would not listen to us, so we wanted
the court to send him away,' says Faisal's mother, a housewife who wanted to be known only as Madam Siti.
That threat is becoming increasingly common, says Dr Balhetchet: 'Parents often use the BPC order to frighten a child into obedience.'
Some months ago, a well- groomed tai tai, with a designer handbag and timid husband in tow, dragged her recalcitrant 14-year-old daughter in to apply for a BPC order. The reason? The girl had got herself a tattoo and skipped a few classes.
'Just by the way she spoke to us, we could make out that she was someone who always nagged rather than listened,' Dr Balhetchet says.
'The girl was sullen and her mother kept frightening her by saying she had the power to send her to the Girls' Home.'
Thanks to an efficient system of sifting the grain from the chaff, most of such cases are dismissed at the pre-screening stage.
Parents and children also have the option of attending counselling sessions ranging from a month to six months.
But these options, which are not compulsory, are rarely taken up.
Among the counselling options available is Beaconworks, a free service run by the Children's Society, which seeks to counsel both parents and children.
Faisal, Madam Siti and her husband are now on the programme, which involves weekly sessions for the child for up to six months. Parents are required to turn up for counselling at least once a month.
But out of the 676 parents who applied for BPC orders last year, only 44 agreed to join Beaconworks.
In view of this reluctance on the part of parents to acknowledge that they, too, may need professional help, Dr Balhetchet suggests that the CYPA be amended to exert a tighter rein on parents.
One way to deter frivolous complaints is to mandate counselling for parents too. Currently, this is optional, except in cases where the judge issues a mandatory counselling order.
Another way is to fine parents of delinquent children who fail to fulfil their parental responsibility.
In Britain, parents of delinquent children who are unwilling to try to improve their child's behaviour can face a fine of up to £1,000 (S$2,670).
Singapore's CYPA already has a clause that can lead to parents being fined up to $2,000 for failing to comply with any court order pertaining to BPC cases. But there is nothing to deter parents from approaching the court with frivolous applications.
Refundable Baby Bonus?
Other programmes for delinquent kids are seeing an eager bevy of parents who want to foist their kids on the State. Introduced in 1997, the six-month Guidance Programme aims to rehabilitate first-time offenders involved in petty crimes, such as shoplifting, by counselling them, rather than charging them in court.
Parents, too, are required to attend some of the sessions, but in about 15 per cent of the cases, they don't turn up even once, points out community welfare officer Winston Seah from the Care Corner Family Service Centre, Admiralty.
'These parents see the Guidance Programme as punishment for their children and not them, and so see no reason to attend,' says Mr Seah, who regularly counsels young offenders on the Guidance Programme.
There is not much that officers like him can do if the parents don't turn up.
This needs to change, says Ms Melissa Lim, centre director of the Students Care Service at Yishun, who also counsels such youth.
'If a child fails to turn up for counselling, we can close the case unsuccessfully and return him to the courts. But if parents don't turn up, there is not much we can do. Perhaps that is one area the CYPA review can look into,' she says.
Member of Parliament and well-known family lawyer Ellen Lee suggests that the new CYPA could include clauses that make errant parents return their Baby Bonus or tax incentives.
The trouble, says family lawyer Veronica Joseph, is that the law right now is 'too broad'. The CYPA does not really stipulate what behaviour constitutes 'beyond parental control'.
'It would be good if, during the review, the lawmakers stipulate some situations that could constitute BPC,' she says.
Mandatory counselling, too, would help. 'If parents know they must commit their time to these sessions, they will think twice before lodging frivolous applications.'
Other areas of the law could also do with some tweaking, she adds.
A few years ago, Ms Joseph appeared in a case where the grandparents sought custody of a teenager. The parents were estranged and facing allegations of child abuse.
Although the grandparents were willing to look after him and the teenager himself wanted to live with them, he was sent to a 'cold institution' because his mother wanted it, said Ms Joseph.
She adds: 'He had family who were ready, able and willing to take him in. This was another instance of parents pushing their kids over to the State.'
Laws that prioritise familyarranged care rather than institutional care should be encouraged, she says.
But some experts, like National University of Singapore law don Chan Wing Cheong, who specialises in child-related laws, say this trend of overzealous parents trying to thrust their kids onto the State is not necessarily a bad thing.
'More parents turning up at the courts is a cry for help. We should look at how to help them best rather than fine them,' he says.
Indeed, services such as the Children's Society's Beaconworks counselling programme can help cement fractured parent-child relationships, as Faisal and his parents are learning.
Counselling sessions have shown that her husband's quick temper played a big role in her son's rebellion. 'My father does not scold me as much now,' says a beaming Faisal. 'I can even go out to play football with my friends on weekends.'
radhab@sph.com.sg
Send your views to suntimes@sph.com.sg
Kids' bad behaviour: Should parents be fined? Log on to straitstimes.com to vote
|
