The violent death of Jennelyn Kennedy in Port Moresby that received widespread public attention recently highlighted a number of things about the issues faced by modern day families and children in Papua New Guinea.

It also highlighted the decline in the traditional Melanesian family support system and weaknesses in the State systems in protecting the sanctity of families, especially the welfare of children.

Jennelyn’s story should be a lesson to parents and young adults planning to become parents and the State and its systems and processes in caring for families and children.

According to the information that is out in the public domain now, Jennelyn came from a broken home where her biological parents separated very early in her life. Her mother passed on early.

She was then brought up by her maternal relatives. Media reports stated that Jennelyn “married” Bhosip Kaiwi when she was 15 years old. According to PNG law, 18 years is the legally recognised age for someone to be regarded as an adult and be involved in adult activities like voting, driving, smoking, drinking alcohols and marriage. Jennelyn was denied the three years of childhood from age 15 to 18. She was denied the child protection she deserved in those three years.

The use of the term “married” for Jennelyn at age 15 by the media and others is inaccurate but that terminology has been used.

So how did Jennelyn end up supposedly ‘marrying’ a 19 year old young man as an under-age girl at 15?

Should someone have stopped this under-age girl from ‘marrying’? Who would that someone be? Her maternal relatives? The State? Family members of Bhosip Kaiwi?

The reports in the media stating that Bhosip Kaiwi took the 15 year old girl away and hid her for many months from relatives and even the State authorities is a lame excuse.

The fabled “long arm of the law” of the State should have easily reached to locate the under-age Jennelyn and the young man, even if the maternal relatives could not find Jennelyn during those early months of this illegal relationship. But this was not the case.

The State has an obligation to protect a citizen, even if parents and immediate family members and relatives falter in their roles to look after the welfare of their sibling.

The State’s lack of duty of care for an under-age citizen is as glaring as the neglect that it often accords to the mentally retarded marijuana addicts that roam the streets of our cities and towns nowadays. The mentally retarded marijuana addicts on the streets are seen as sub-human creatures not deserving of intervention by the ‘normal’ human beings. The dignity of a human being and sanctity of life is suspended when ‘normal’ people see the drug addicts on the streets. The State’s handling of Jennelyn’s case equates to the lack of respect for human dignity and sanctity of life. The same can be said about the approaches of her maternal relatives who did not do well enough to protect Jennelyn from an inappropriate and illegal relationship as an under-age kid at age 15. What about Bhosip Kaiwi’s family members? Wouldn’t they have done something to stop their son from entering into an inappropriate relationship with a kid at age 15?

The efforts or lack of it of the State systems and processes and those of the relatives of Jennelyn and Bhosip to protect a 15 year old child is unacceptable.

What happened during Jennelyn’s supposed marriage from age 15 up to 19 when she was killed are the

result of the lack of protection she received in the first place as a kid between ages of 15 and 17.

Bhosip Kaiwi is in custody awaiting the normal legal process to take its course to hold him accountable for allegedly killing Jennelyn. The spotlight has been on Bhosip Kaiwi alone in the last few weeks since the death of Jennelyn. He has been called names and demonized. The reaction of the public is understandable given the circumstances and manner in which Jennelyn died.

What then happens to those parties who did not do their part well enough to protect the child Jennelyn Kennedy between ages of 15 and 17? Shouldn’t they be held accountable as well?

PNG, as a nation, cannot continue to focus too much on the end result of our negligence or inability at prevention in the first place. It is understandable that there was public outpouring of anger and sympathy for Jennelyn since her death.

However, the public outpouring of anger and sympathy does not bring back her life. We as citizens, individually and collectively as members of institutions like the family unit and organisations in the public and private sectors must learn to prevent problems from occurring first and foremost. The various crimes committed from the start of the abuse of Jennelyn as a 15 year old kid to her death at age 19, were preventable if everyone close to her did his or her part.

That is the bottomline – doing our individually and collective bits to ensure problems from occurring in the first place.

There are hundreds of children like Jennelyn Kennedy below the age of 18 that have been abused in PNG.

They have been quietly suffering with lack of support or negligence from the adults who supposed to take care of them.

Many are victims of the break-down in the indigenous Melanesian family structures due to the modern influences where many Papua New Guineans are becoming more individualistic and thinking about themselves ahead of the collective good of others.

I hope the memory of Jennelyn Kennedy and the public outpouring of grief and anger over her death translates to a renewal of the spirit of Melanesian care and protection of family members, especially toward all children under 18 years of age.