s/o abuse screening: How should the community at large deal with child abuse?

[Seeker]

Sadly, they don't. Some even let their kids die instead of subjecting themselves to scrutiny.

Therein lies the problem! Having been one of the abused, we did see doctors, but had they interrogated families as they do now, I most likely would not have had any medical help at all.

[Dawn in OH]

In reply to the thread title; "How should the community at large deal with child abuse?" I think the first step for everyone to understand and be on the same page about what exactly qualifies as child abuse. Everyone seems to have their own definition.

 

I had a neighbor 5 years ago call Child Protective Services on me because I only took my 2 & 3 year old children out to play in the hot summer Florida sun for 2 hours a day! The nerve of me. Clearly everyone defines "abuse" and "neglect" differently.

 

Is spanking child abuse? According to some parents, yes, it is.

Is going to bed without dinner child abuse? According to some parents, yes, it is.

 

Is applying hot sauce to a child's tongue child abuse?

Is soap in the mouth child abuse?

Is being forced to go to church child abuse?

Is biting back a toddler who bites child abuse?

Is denying your child a sip of water with a meal child abuse?

 

Everyone of those questions could be answered yes by some parents. Everyone of those questions could be answered no by some parents.

 

The Child Abuse Council of Santa Clara County says:

 

 

 

• Child abuse is physical -- shaking, hitting, beating, burning, or biting a child.
  
• Child abuse is emotional -- constantly blaming or putting down a child; excessive yelling, shaming.
  
• Child abuse is sexual -- incest, any forced sexual activity, exposure to sexual stimulation not appropriate for the child's age.
  
• Child abuse is neglect -- a pattern of failure to provide for the child's physical needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; a pattern of failure to provide for the child's emotional needs, such as affection, attention, and supervision.
  

 

It's fairly vague isn't it?

Edited October 30, 2009 by Dawn in OH

[lionfamily1999]

It's been my personal experience that the violent offenders I knew were extremely eager to believe the worst of others. In general, people who do evil tend to imagine everyone else does too. People who work hard to do the right thing assume everyone else is trying just as hard. Innocent people tend to be naive. Perverse, cruel people tend to be cynical...

That's been my experience as well.

The world looks very different when you see the worst of it every day.

I'm friends with most of the local cops, a dispatcher, and nearly all of our EMTs/Paramedics. I have seen the jaded, everyone is guilty of something, but (BUT) they don't condemn everyone. IOW, everyone's guilty of something, but that does not mean everyone is a criminal, iykwIm.

However, I find the screening questions from medical personnel acceptable. While they can seem condescending, I think the questions represent a middle road -- not ignoring a possible problem, but not immediately reporting, either.

 

Even if there is no visible physical reason to suspect abuse, I can tolerate a seemingly nosy question if it means that some child somewhere may get the help she needs...

I've btdt. Dd fell off a pull-up bar and smashed her nose :( The trauma of the fall (black eyes and grossly swollen nose) was nothing compared to the sneaky, scary questioning of the hospital staff. They asked us (my mother, myself and my sister, yes we travel in packs). Then, they asked dd. Then, they asked dd again, on the way for X-rays. And again, during her X-rays. And again, coming back from her X-rays. She was terrified. By the time we were reunited in the ER, she was sure that she was guilty of something! She just knew she was in deep trouble for falling off the pull-up bar. Can you imagine, my 5yo dd felt guilty and bad for getting hurt. She ended up, for the last round of questioning we were all together, crying!

 

The questioning can be pretty darn abusive, imo/ime.

 

I'd like those convicted of crimes involving children and crimes involving substance abuse to automatically lose the privilege to parent and be in the presence of children.

 

I disagree. There are people with addictions/substance abusers that are not abusive to their children. Really, why not just say anyone guilty of anything in a court of law? I mean, why should speeders have kids? They endanger their childrens' lives every time they get in the car.

Those who have been hurt by their parents/family/relatives in this way, need to stop the cycle. This can be somewhat complicated, and a long process. . .*but* it's a sure method for stopping abuse, because the truth is, most severe abuse is generational in nature.

There is abuse by strangers.

It usually comes down to the pastor/therapist/teacher/parent either minimizing what happened or debating endlessly internally about whether or not they can trust that the child has been truthful.

 

Sexual abuse is easy to lie about and difficult to disprove. It stinks that there is a hesitancy there, but what do you do if it was a lie? What do you do if an overzealous prosecutor pushes it all the way to a jury trial? Aquittal, after those charges are published, means nothing. That person's life is effectively screwed.

[Harriet Vane]

 

Sexual abuse is easy to lie about and difficult to disprove. It stinks that there is a hesitancy there, but what do you do if it was a lie? What do you do if an overzealous prosecutor pushes it all the way to a jury trial? Aquittal, after those charges are published, means nothing. That person's life is effectively screwed.

 

If the accusation is false, the accused lives under the cloud of that accusation. True.

 

If the accusation is true and the child is left under the power of the abuser, the child's life is effectively ruined.

 

I absolutely ALWAYS err on the side of protecting the young when it comes to pedophilia.

[smrtmama]

I read about half of the 'abuse-screening-questions' thread. It got me thinking.

 

If you are opposed to screening questions from doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. how do you believe the community at large should deal with child abuse?

 

What help should be available for children who are beaten, burnt, choked, whipped, and locked up for 'discipline?'

 

I, too, have felt irked at those screening questions -- particularly if I was in a hurry or had a very sick child and just wanted to get home, but I don't have a better alternative to suggest.

 

So, I wonder what those of you who are opposed to those types of questions would prefer for child-abuse prevention/intervention.

 

I am not opposed to screening questions. I support them wholeheartedly. In fact, I think that everyone should be a mandated reporter and be obligated to intervene if they suspect abuse is happening.

[Dawn in OH]

If the accusation is false, the accused lives under the cloud of that accusation. True.

 

If the accusation is true and the child is left under the power of the abuser, the child's life is effectively ruined.

 

I absolutely ALWAYS err on the side of protecting the young when it comes to pedophilia.

 

I agree with you, but I'm disturbed because a lot of psychologists, police and attorneys lead children into saying someone is guilty that isn't. Some children are too young to understand what is going on and are lead to give false accusations/testimony because that's what the psychologists, police or attorneys wanted.

[lionfamily1999]

If the accusation is false, the accused lives under the cloud of that accusation. True.

 

If the accusation is true and the child is left under the power of the abuser, the child's life is effectively ruined.

 

I absolutely ALWAYS err on the side of protecting the young when it comes to pedophilia.

I could not agree with always. I knew a girl growing up, that everyone knew was a liar. She lied about everything, even silly things there was no reason to lie about. She was also manipulative (that doesn't feel like the right word, but I'm guessing you'll know what I mean). She charged a friend's father with sexual abuse. After she did, her little sister did, then her 'best friend' did.

 

He did not do it. It was pay back, because his daughter did not want to 'be friends' anymore. You can guess the ages, from the terms used ;) We were all very young.

 

Now, her parents and the other girl's parents report this, charges are filed. A psychiatric evaluation is done and the first girl is taken off the witness list. Why? Well, because she's a pathological liar!

 

He will never get those years back and his name is mud here, that will not change. I will not get those years back, and I'm still accused of telling lies for him. His daughter will not get those years back, either.

 

All because no one wanted to take any chances that this girl was right. I do think there has to be discernment, there HAS to be someone willing to question the veracity of these claims, because so many lives are affected. Not just the accused, whose life will never be the same, but the accused's family and friends as well.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Unfortunately, we also know that civillians will not be able to relate.

 

Civilians eh?

 

PTSD is real, but it's not the only disorder under the sun.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Civilians eh?

 

PTSD is real, but it's not the only disorder under the sun.

 

Yes. the term is widely used (in my area) to mean someone not in the profession referred to. Does not have to mean non-military. Now I'm done, as it seems your primary goal is to pick me/my posts apart.

[Seeker]

I read about half of the 'abuse-screening-questions' thread. It got me thinking.

 

If you are opposed to screening questions from doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. how do you believe the community at large should deal with child abuse?

 

Every state has child protection services with anonymous reporting in place. I suggest that these services be used when necessary, but more importantly, I believe that we need accountability of these services because the greatest problem lies in their inconsistency.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Seeker

[Elizabeth Conley]

Yes. the term is widely used (in my area) to mean someone not in the profession referred to. Does not have to mean non-military. Now I'm done, as it seems your primary goal is to pick me/my posts apart.

 

It's clear that I've stepped on your toes, and made you feel that I'm attacking you personally. I apologize for this. I won't respond to any more of your posts, and hopefully you'll feel more comfortable soon.

 

Blessings,

 

Elizabeth

[Harriet Vane]

I agree with you, but I'm disturbed because a lot of psychologists, police and attorneys lead children into saying someone is guilty that isn't. Some children are too young to understand what is going on and are lead to give false accusations/testimony because that's what the psychologists, police or attorneys wanted.

 

It's true that there are professionals who are either untrained in interviewing children or just plain incompetent. However, that still does not negate the need for mandated reporters (and everyday people too!) to report abuse rather than trying to finesse a situation along or agonize over whether or not they believe the child in question. Not reporting where there is real abuse has devastating effects--it doesn't make sense to allow a fear of a sub-par investigator to hold a person back from reporting real abuse.

[Harriet Vane]

I could not agree with always. I knew a girl growing up, that everyone knew was a liar. She lied about everything, even silly things there was no reason to lie about. She was also manipulative (that doesn't feel like the right word, but I'm guessing you'll know what I mean). She charged a friend's father with sexual abuse. After she did, her little sister did, then her 'best friend' did.

 

He did not do it. It was pay back, because his daughter did not want to 'be friends' anymore. You can guess the ages, from the terms used ;) We were all very young.

 

Now, her parents and the other girl's parents report this, charges are filed. A psychiatric evaluation is done and the first girl is taken off the witness list. Why? Well, because she's a pathological liar!

 

He will never get those years back and his name is mud here, that will not change. I will not get those years back, and I'm still accused of telling lies for him. His daughter will not get those years back, either.

 

All because no one wanted to take any chances that this girl was right. I do think there has to be discernment, there HAS to be someone willing to question the veracity of these claims, because so many lives are affected. Not just the accused, whose life will never be the same, but the accused's family and friends as well.

 

I would argue that this case, while very real and certainly devastating, is far less common than that of real abuse not being reported, or being under-responded to. And, the wrong that was done to this man, terrible though it truly is, does not negate the need to investigate real abuse concerns.

[Dawn in OH]

It's true that there are professionals who are either untrained in interviewing children or just plain incompetent. However, that still does not negate the need for mandated reporters (and everyday people too!) to report abuse rather than trying to finesse a situation along or agonize over whether or not they believe the child in question. Not reporting where there is real abuse has devastating effects--it doesn't make sense to allow a fear of a sub-par investigator to hold a person back from reporting real abuse.

 

I never said it did. But we need more people properly trained for dealing with children and this kind of abuse, with high morals that won't be either persuaded by a DA to lead a child in giving a false report, or become so defeated and hopeless by seeing so many abuse cases that they always assume the worst.

 

I agree that not reporting where there is real abuse has devastating effects, but so does reporting when there has been no abuse.

[Harriet Vane]

But we need more people properly trained for dealing with children and this kind of abuse, with high morals that won't be either persuaded by a DA to lead a child in giving a false report, or become so defeated and hopeless by seeing so many abuse cases that they always assume the worst.

 

I agree that not reporting where there is real abuse has devastating effects, but so does reporting when there has been no abuse.

 

:iagree:

[IsabelC]

I had a neighbor 5 years ago call Child Protective Services on me because I only took my 2 & 3 year old children out to play in the hot summer Florida sun for 2 hours a day! The nerve of me. Clearly everyone defines "abuse" and "neglect" differently.

 

Is spanking child abuse? According to some parents, yes, it is.

Is going to bed without dinner child abuse? According to some parents, yes, it is.

 

Is applying hot sauce to a child's tongue child abuse?

Is soap in the mouth child abuse?

Is being forced to go to church child abuse?

Is biting back a toddler who bites child abuse?

Is denying your child a sip of water with a meal child abuse?

 

Everyone of those questions could be answered yes by some parents. Everyone of those questions could be answered no by some parents.

 

I find it easy. Would it be abuse if you did it to an adult? If yes, then I need a very good reason to do it to my child.

 

Eg Is hitting a child abuse? Hitting an adult would be abuse. Is there a good reason why children need to be hit? No. There is no evidence that hitting has any positive effects, and there is some evidence that hitting could have negative effects. Therefore it is abuse.

 

Is restricting outside in the sun time abuse? I wouldn't do that to an adult. Is there a good reason to do it to a child? Well, if the child's health is at risk from burn or sunstroke and the child is too immature and inexperienced to appreciate the danger, that is an acceptable reason to set a limit. Therefore I would not consider this to be abuse.

[Dawn in OH]

I find it easy. Would it be abuse if you did it to an adult? If yes, then I need a very good reason to do it to my child.

 

Eg Is hitting a child abuse? Hitting an adult would be abuse. Is there a good reason why children need to be hit? No. There is no evidence that hitting has any positive effects, and there is some evidence that hitting could have negative effects. Therefore it is abuse.

 

Is restricting outside in the sun time abuse? I wouldn't do that to an adult. Is there a good reason to do it to a child? Well, if the child's health is at risk from burn or sunstroke and the child is too immature and inexperienced to appreciate the danger, that is an acceptable reason to set a limit. Therefore I would not consider this to be abuse.

 

Well you and I are clearly rational and sensible people. Unfortunately, not everyone is. Like I said, too many people are confused about the definition of abuse. We need one clear universal standard. It shouldn't be necessary, you would think common sense would come into play, but obviously it doesn't for some people.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Originally Posted by lionfamily1999

I could not agree with always. I knew a girl growing up, that everyone knew was a liar. She lied about everything, even silly things there was no reason to lie about. She was also manipulative (that doesn't feel like the right word, but I'm guessing you'll know what I mean). She charged a friend's father with sexual abuse. After she did, her little sister did, then her 'best friend' did.

 

He did not do it. It was pay back, because his daughter did not want to 'be friends' anymore. You can guess the ages, from the terms used ;) We were all very young.

 

 

 

At that stage in life when all children are trying to understand the concept of truthfulness, some have help from their families, and others have families that trap the child in permanent dysfunction. A normal parent is truthful, and tends to ask the child regularly: "Is this real or pretend?" In a drama prone family, members of the family don't have the same "real or pretend" the rest of us do. The get into crazy battles with their neighbors and extended family over "issues" that are far more pretend than real by objective standards. They shriek a ridiculous accusation louder and longer than their bewildered target does, and in the minds of the drama prone family members, whoever shrieks loudest and longest is "right". Needless to say, the police and social services agencies are on a first name basis with everyone in the family!

 

Children who are raised in these families don't understand truth the way most people do, and often never catch on in adulthood. It's fairly easy to identify these people, and they're not credible witnesses of a sunrise, much less an incident of "child abuse". These people live for the drama. Their personal status is wrapped up in how much drama they can generate, and how miserable they can make their targets.

 

It is highly objectionable to see our legal system and social service organizations throw out common sense when a drama prone person makes an accusation of horrific abuse. These deluded authorities seem to think that if a totally unsubstantiated accusation is heinous enough, it must be taken seriously. Why? It makes no sense.

 

Crazy drama prone people are always trying to generate wild hysteria. The authorities know better than to take them seriously when they go into spasms over their neighbor parking too close to their property line. Why do the authorities entertain their lies when they make outlandish claims of child abuse or molestation?

 

There are definite differences between the demeanor of normal people reluctantly bringing forward their legitimate concerns and drama addicts making a play for attention. When we play along with a drama addict's persecution of a target, we're as bad or worse as they are.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Elizabeth Conley

[lionfamily1999]

I would argue that this case, while very real and certainly devastating, is far less common than that of real abuse not being reported, or being under-responded to. And, the wrong that was done to this man, terrible though it truly is, does not negate the need to investigate real abuse concerns.

Yes, investigate, but don't publish it until you have some REAL proof and use DISCERNMENT.

At that stage in life when all children are trying to understand the concept of truthfulness, some have help from their families, and others have families that trap the child in permanent dysfunction. A normal parent is truthful, and tends to ask the child regularly: "Is this real or pretend?" In a drama prone family, members of the family don't have the same "real or pretend" the rest of us do. The get into crazy battles with their neighbors and extended family over "issues" that are far more pretend than real by objective standards. They shriek a ridiculous accusation louder and longer than their bewildered target does, and in the minds of the drama prone family members, whoever shrieks loudest and longest is "right". Needless to say, the police and social services agencies are on a first name basis with everyone in the family!

 

Children who are raised in these families don't understand truth the way most people do, and often never catch on in adulthood. It's fairly easy to identify these people, and they're not credible witnesses of a sunrise, much less an incident of "child abuse". These people live for the drama. Their personal status is wrapped up in how much drama they can generate, and how miserable they can make their targets.

 

It is highly objectionable to see our legal system and social service organizations throw out common sense when a drama prone person makes an accusation of horrific abuse. These deluded authorities seem to think that if a totally unsubstantiated accusation is heinous enough, it must be taken seriously. Why? It makes no sense.

 

Crazy drama prone people are always trying to generate wild hysteria. The authorities know better than to take them seriously when they go into spasms over their neighbor parking too close to their property line. Why do the authorities entertain their lies when they make outlandish claims of child abuse or molestation?

 

There are definite differences between the demeanor of normal people reluctantly bringing forward their legitimate concerns and drama addicts making a play for attention. When we play along with a drama addict's persecution of a target, we're as bad or worse as they are.

Having gotten tread on by such people, I just wish our authorities were more willing to say 'no.' These same two girls (not the little sister) nearly destroyed a neighbor's marraige by making prank phone calls to his wife and himself. How no one could see that they were using sex as a way to destroy people, I just don't know.