|
NZ Herald
November 26, 2003
Family structure not key to stopping child abuse
Emma Davis and John Read
The view of New Zealand as a paradise for children has suffered a succession
of blows in the past six weeks, beginning with a Unicef publication recording
our high rate of child maltreatment deaths.
It is perhaps to our credit that we find this as hard to live with as the
fact that we are not supreme in world rugby. As with the rugby we seize upon
explanations that travel so quickly they become accepted as fact between one
edition of the morning paper and the next.
Favourite explanations put forward to explain child abuse are: single
parenthood; women who "choose" to live with violent men; the
"abuse industry"; welfare benefits; and the child protection
system.
When we focus debate on notions of good and bad family structures, as a Herald
editorial did on Monday, and Carolyn
Moynihan did in this section last Thursday, we miss the keys to
preventing child abuse and promoting positive outcomes for children.
Steve Maharey's comments on the diversity of families have evoked letters to
the editor and even an editorial steeped in the delusion that dual-parent
families are, by definition, more supportive than other family structures.
The key issues for children are not whether the most important adults in
their lives are married, heterosexual or single. They are about having at
least one parent who is crazy about them and able to keep them safe.
They are about being surrounded by adults who respect and care for them and
each other. They are about living in families and communities free from
violence and abuse.
Research shows that poverty, social isolation and family conflict are better
predictors of poor outcomes for children than family structure.
Some single parent families are better placed to provide a nurturing
environment than some dual-parent families. However, no single or dual parent
family can do it all alone.
No one should be condemned to a life of violence. For some women, the choice
to leave a man to whom they have been committed (married or not) is a choice
to live without humiliation and fear.
To some, it seems harder to get out than stay. Few children would be better
off living in the dual-parent family immersed in violence and abuse than the
peaceful single parent family.
Child Youth and Family's policy on response to children witnessing violence
against their mothers is unclear. This is despite research estimating that in
30 to 60 per cent of families in which there is violence against the mother,
there is also violence against the children by the same perpetrator.
It is essential that links be forged between the investigation and support
processes triggered by violence against women and violence against children.
Responding to allegations of abuse raises conflicts that most of us would
rather avoid. Contrary to prevailing mythology about professionals busily
planting false ideas about abuse, many health and mental health professionals
are scared to even ask.
Within the wider community, many of us would probably rather hang on to our
innocent view of the world, in which all but a few families are safe places
where adults don't abuse children.
Some of those behind the Peter Ellis petition claim that the extent and
consequences of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, are exaggerated.
They offer images of over-zealous professionals operating in a clandestine abuse
industry.
For example, Barry Colman, publisher of the National Business Review, was
asked about the possibility that the Ellis campaign might make it harder for
children to tell adults about abuse.
According to Michele Hewitson in the Herald, Colman sincerely hopes children
are put off: "I hope we can stop this nonsense. These children were
traumatised by their counsellors and their parents. They're the ones who have
a lot to answer for."
Such public statements support a climate that hinders our ability to deal
effectively with the complexities of child abuse.
Similarly, Lynley Hood, in A City Possessed, derides precisely what just
might save lives: "To encourage the child protection movement to close
ranks, the Geddis-led National Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Child
Abuse recommended that all abuse allegations be investigated by specialised
personnel, trained and working together."
There is no place for conspiracy theories in a rational response to
allegations of child abuse.
The latest child death review is clear in its recommendation to look again at
multi-disciplinary trained teams, not to close ranks, as Hood puts it, but to
improve practice.
We have to get the right balance between hearing the abuse around us while
not creating a climate of resentment and mistrust that can be destructive to
a community that loves and protects its children. This is a difficult
tightrope to walk.
Those who use the Ellis case to denigrate child protection workers do not
help. Nor do those who promote the misguided notions that issuing marriage
certificates, or lowering benefits, would reduce child abuse.
Peaceful lives need a social context of interdependence. Loving
relationships, diverse nurturing families, caring friends, economic security,
healthy gender roles and engagement in vibrant communities are prerequisites
for violence-free lives.
However hard it is to report violence next door, it can be even harder to ask
for help. When things go wrong, it needs to be easy to get help.
The challenge for us all is to contribute to a society that is a fertile
ground for human development where violence becomes rare.
* Dr Emma Davis is programme leader
(children and families) for the Institute
of Public Policy, Auckland University
of Technology. Dr John Read is in the psychology department at the University
of Auckland.
www.peterellis.co.nz : Emma Davies and "Dr" John Read are
partners.
|
