![]()
CHAPTER 1
UNDERSTANDING CHILD MALTREATMENT
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this chapter you will understand:
The importance of the ‘rediscovery’ of child abuse
That notions of child maltreatment and child protection are historically and culturally specific and change over time, within and across cultures
That opinions as to what causes child maltreatment depend on how child abuse is defined and constructed
Dominant definitions and theories of maltreatment
Cross-cultural issues in relation to defining maltreatment
The rights of children in relation to significant harm.
Children, like adults, are victims of violence in all countries of the world and it has always been so. This violence can take many forms: physical, sexual, emotional or psychological. It can be perpetrated by a range of different people, individually and collectively, and can result in a wide spectrum of initial and long-term harms and injuries. Yet not all violence to children is thought of as child maltreatment. For example, definitions generally exclude violence outside the family by peers (bullying and gang or youth violence), war and organised violence. Children are also dependent on adults to have their needs met. This varies according to age and ability, but all infants begin life as dependants. Fundamental needs of shelter, warmth, clothing, food, access to health care and social relationships are the right of all children (UN CRC 1989) yet not all of these are available to all children. Even when they are not, this is not always thought of as neglect or maltreatment. Excluded from maltreatment definitions are children who die of starvation because of their region or country's circumstances, such as famine or war; children who die of AIDS who have been denied access to health care; and children who are homeless and live on the streets.
From these fundamental starting points it becomes evident that child maltreatment is very difficult to define. Though most can agree that it happens and that it is a bad thing, there is debate across the world about what are acceptable and unacceptable treatments of children, who is responsible, what is a crime against children, what should be a crime and what is morally unacceptable. In all countries there are debates about what should correctly be identified as maltreatment.
Childhood itself is socially defined (James and Prout 1997) and the definition of what a child is varies across the world. For example, the age of consent to sexual relationships is generally seen as an indicator of ability to make adult decisions. Yet across European countries this ranges from 12 to 17. In Malta and the Netherlands the age of consent is 12. In Spain it is 13; in Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Portugal, Germany and Iceland it is 14; in Poland and France it is 15; in Finland, the UK, Cyprus, Norway, Czech Republic, Switzerland and Uzbekistan it is 16; and in Ireland it is 17.
THE REDISCOVERY OF CHILD ‘ABUSE’
Actions that would now be included under the definition of child maltreatment, such as leaving babies to die, throwing them in rivers to see if they survive and beating children until they were seriously injured, have all been acceptable at some point in the history of civilisation (De Mause 1976). However, our understanding that certain harmful practices towards children constitute abuse depends on more recent history.
It is broadly accepted by large numbers of health and welfare professionals that the Western world's rediscovery of child abuse is attributed to Kempe et al. (1962). These two paediatricians identified, with the help of paediatric radiologists (Caffey 1946), a new syndrome, known as ‘battered baby syndrome’, which later broadened out to include child physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. From a non-American perspective, there is some debate as to the authenticity of claims to the discovery, or even rediscovery of child abuse by the Kempes. For example, Wolf (1997) suggests that interest in child abuse was certainly a characteristic of National Socialism and Nazi Germany. As a consequence it contributed to a deep scepticism of the right of the state to intrude into family life in Germany even today. Child-saving movements emerged across Europe in the late 1800s leading to the establishment of several societies for the prevention of cruelty to children, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in England in 1887 (Ferguson 1990). However, whether it was recognised in the same way or not, what is certainly the case is that the rediscovery of child ‘abuse’ brought renewed attention, new laws and an investment by governments and children's organisations in various countries designed to better protect children.
DEFINING CHILD MALTREATMENT IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Definitions of what is harmful to children are subject to cultural variation and personal value judgements (Giovannoni and Becerra 1979, Korbin 1997). All practitioners working with children must be aware of their own values and opinions and must ensure that these are compatible with child-care work. It is therefore important to know how you personally define child maltreatment. Child-care practitioners can find they are confronted with a lot of ‘grey areas’ where they must decide whether or not something is, or isn't, child maltreatment. Though there are procedures and official definitions (see below and Chapter 2), these must be put into practice by individuals. As part of the UK's first national prevalence study on child maltreatment, a randomly selected sample of 18–24 year olds (N = 2,869) were asked what they considered to be acceptable and unacceptable ways of treating children. Because definitions of maltreatment change over time and across cultures (Department of Health 1995), one aim of this study was to find out what the general public considered to be child maltreatment in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Their responses are given in Development Activity 1.1. As a beginning activity to find out where you stand on the definition of child maltreatment you might consider what your response would be.
Views about what are acceptable and unacceptable child-rearing practices will be influenced by personal experience. If physical punishment is seen as an important part of being a good parent within a given cultural group, then it may be considered abusive not to discipline children in this way. We also know from research that people who have received physical punishment, sometimes involving severe physical violence, are less likely to view this as wrong or abusive (Kelder et al. 1991; Bower and Knutson 1996). It may be helpful to think about the influence of your own experiences of childrearing when you work on Development Activity 1.1.
Globally, definitions of child maltreatment reflect levels of awareness, beginning with physical abuse and neglect and expanding to incorporate emotional abuse, sexual abuse and commercial exploitation. Most definitions include an identifiable harm and responsibility for care in their criteria (Gough 1996). For example, an early definition by the Council of Europe defined children who were maltreated as:
Those subjected to physical injury and those who are victims of neglect, deprivation of affection or mental cruelty likely to jeopardise their physical, intellectual and emotional development, where the abuse is caused by acts or omissions on the part of persons responsible for the child's care or others having temporary or permanent control over him [sic].
(Council of Europe, Recommendation No R (79) 17)
This definition refers primarily to physical abuse and neglect. As awareness has grown of sexual abuse and commercial exploitation, including child prostitution and child labour, these have been given their own definitions. A widely accepted definition of child sexual abuse was that offered by Schecter and Roberge (1976):
The involvement of dependent, developmentally immature children and adolescents in sexually abusive activities they do not fully comprehend, to which they are unable to give informed consent or which violate social taboos of family roles.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1.1: UNACCEPTABLE WAYS OF TREATING CHILDREN
Ways of
treating children | NSPCC
Childrearing Study
(Cawson et al. 2000) | Your opinion | Your experience |
| Warning about fear figures (e.g. ‘bogey man’) | 41% Occasionally justified 44% Never justified | | |
| Slapping with an open hand | 52% Occasionally justified 37% Never justified | | |
| Isolation (e.g. sending/locking child in room) | 41% Occasionally justified 50% Never justified | | |
| Silence (not speaking to a child) | 32% Occasionally justified 61% Never justified | | |
| Verbal threats of beating or similar (not acted upon) | 27% Occasionally justified 67% Never justified | | |
| Making the child miss a... |
