Child Protection. Freda Briggs
contact with children. We feel angry with child protection authorities that dismiss a report as “low priority” when we perceive the child’s situation as in urgent need of intervention. We feel angrier with the justice system when a child abuser is allowed to go free on the basis of a technicality or because the child is too immature to give testimony in court or because a short non-parole period, good behaviour bond or suspended sentence was handed down by a judge. Anger is a normal and healthy response if it is channelled into a commitment to helping children or changing unsatisfactory systems.
The professional who reacts strongly to cases of abuse is primed for action. The emotion-induced readiness to act can be usefully channelled into the child protection education for self, children and parents. Anger and frustration can lead to low morale and burn-out but, paradoxically, they can become motivating factors resulting in a greater commitment to help children.
What if we were abused in childhood?
Some uncomfortable feelings will relate to our past. Most people experienced some form of abuse at some time in their lives. If we can recollect our own responses, we can begin to understand the traumatic stress of child victims and their need for support. If we deny our own abuse, we are unlikely to respond effectively to the needs of children in our care.
If reminders still produce strong feelings of anger, guilt, embarrassment or other powerful emotions from the past, readers should seek specialist counselling to work through their feelings in a healthy way. This is important because when children’s cries for help revive feelings which have not been dealt with, we may freeze and become incapable of responding helpfully. Survivors of abuse often need frequent reminders that children are never responsible for what adults do (or did) to them. If we can work through our feelings constructively, we are likely to emerge stronger, more committed and better able to help children than those who have had no abusive experiences.
It is important to recognise the effects of our emotions for several reasons. They:
affect the way in which parents and children relate to us, making us approachable or unapproachable
affect the way in which we receive information, accepting or rejecting it, being judgmental or non-judgmental, appearing critical or uncritical, shocked or helpful
are disclosed in verbal expression and body language and they tell children and parents whether we are likely to be helpful, or unhelpful, critical and punitive
affect our perceptions of what we hear and see and affect our capacity to help
affect our capacity to make sound judgments relating to real-life situations
As professionals, we are not concerned with judgments; our responsibility is to protect children and keep them safe.
Conflict in sympathy for children v marginally abusive parent
Few cases of child abuse and neglect are straightforward. The range of emotions they elicit is often contradictory and confusing. In marginal cases of neglect or physical abuse, we may find ourselves sympathising with the perpetrators as well as the victims. At this stage, “at risk” families can be identified and helped.
Mature adults who are also parents are the ones most likely to identify with marginally negligent and physically abusive parents, recognising that children can be exhausting and infuriating and, at times, unresponsive to affection and attention. We realise that, placed in certain circumstances, most of us are capable of hurting a child. Idealistic young professionals who have been sheltered from the harshness of the world are the ones most likely to hold hostile opinions towards abusive parents, regarding any form of neglect as unforgivable. Alternatively, when professionals think that child abuse is committed only by criminals and the mentally ill, and are convinced that “none of our parents fits into those categories”, they may miss signs of maltreatment. They may also ignore evidence when it involves middle-class professionals and private schools, colleagues, acquaintances and people who have the capacity to influence the community in which they work. If our sympathy for neglected children overrides concern for parents, we are likely to alienate the family. Conversely, if all our sympathy is with parents, we are unlikely to make reports to child protection authorities when reporting is necessary, because we value our relationship with the adults more than we value the safety of children.
Almost everyone has a strong opinion about child abuse. Denial is usually accompanied by anecdotal evidence to the effect that someone was falsely accused of incest by a child who later withdrew the statement. No-one pauses to question the societal, family and court pressures that might have been placed on the child to retract the allegation because the explanation conveniently fits the stereotype. When a sex offender is found not guilty, that is readily interpreted as “the child was lying”. People accept this explanation because it doesn’t disturb their comfort zone as much as accepting that some fathers do abuse their own children. Denial is an easy option because acceptance places an obligation on community members to do something about it, especially when their work involves children and young people. Even when a former colleague has been convicted and victims are suing the school, staff often adopt the attitude that, “It happened a while ago and he left so we can forget about it” and security becomes lax once again.
References – Chapter 1
1 Scott, D. (2009), Child abuse and neglect in Australia today, Australian Centre for Child Protection: University of South Australia.
2 UNICEF (2009), website updated 30 September 2009 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_exploitation.html
4 UNICEF (2010), Facts on children, Child protection, http://www.unicef.org/media/ media_35903.html
5 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), Child protection Australia, 2007-08, Canberra, ACT: AIHW.
6 Briggs, F. & Broadhurst, D. (2005), ‘The abuse of foster carers’, The Australian Journal of the Institute of Home Economics, June. Briggs F. (2006), ‘Whatever happened to common sense?’ Keynote address for the Annual Conference of the Australian Foster Carers’ Association, Adelaide.
7 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), Child welfare, Series number, 45 (Table A1.5), Canberra: Child Protection Australia.
8 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), op.cit, (Table 2.8).
9 ‘The Cost of Child Abuse in Australia’ (2008), Report by Access Economics Pty Limited, Australian Childhood Foundation and Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia at Monash University.
10 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), op.cit.
11 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997), ‘Bringing them home: Report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families’, Sydney: HREOC.
12 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007), ‘Young Australians: Their health and wellbeing’, Cat. No. PHE 87, Canberra: AIHW.
13 Saunders, P. & Adelman, L. (2006), ‘Income, poverty, deprivation and exclusion: A comparative study of Australia and Britain’, Journal of Social Policy, 35(5), pp. 559-584.
14 Loman L. A. (2006), ‘Families frequently encountered by child protection services: A report on chronic child abuse and neglect’, St Louis: Institute of Applied Research.
15 Coohey, C. (1996), ‘Child maltreatment: Testing the social isolation hypothesis’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, pp. 241-254.
16 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, (2009), op.cit. (Table 3.5).
17 Chilcot, T. (2010), Queensland schools file, ‘12,000 child harm reports but only 858 found to be true’, Courier Mail, 23 July.
18 Scott,