"Homeschool" abuse cases...How do you respond to questions?

[myfunnybunch]

How do you respond to people who ask about abuses cases involving children who were homeschooled, or whose parents claimed to have been homeschooling?

 

I'm not talking about busybodies or those looking to point fingers, or those who want to light torches and bang drums. I'm talking about a real discussion with people who are genuinely concerned and have some valid points to raise.

 

There has been a case of horrific neglect and torture recently in our community that led to a young teen's death. Her parents had withdrawn her from school and claimed to be homeschooling her. Had she been in school, it's possible, likely even, that she would still be alive. There is no way that level of neglect and harm could be hidden if she had been allowed to have regular contact with adults outside her family.

 

The person with whom I had this discussion works in law enforcement and saw the way this poor child died. (I do not know specifics.) The questions he asked me were "How could this have happened?" and "What if.......(oversight, other adults, accountability)."

 

I'm curious what kinds of responses you might offer.

 

Cat

[Jean in Newcastle]

The only homeschool abuse case I've personally known of was more of neglect than outright abuse. There was spousal abuse in the home, though. In this case, many people did know of the problems. Neighbors, family members and friends knew that there were problems. I knew there were problems (but not that it extended to abuse or neglect) due to extreme poverty. I provided clothing, food and vitamins for the children. I also provided some books and curriculum. I offered some more help but it was rejected. Eventually some other people, who knew the situation more than I did, reported the situation to the authorities. The kids were taken from the home. So in this case I knew of anyway, the community and family were the ones who stepped forward even without a school there to do so.

[specialmama]

I would agree with Jean, that the community and other family members are there, that you don't need a school. There are always bad apples on any tree you look at: there are bad preachers, but that does not mean that all churches are filled with child molestors and the like, there are bad doctors, but that does not mean all doctors will harvest organs from a live person without their permission. I don't think anyone likes to paint with a broad brush, it's called stereotyping or prejudice, so I'd be sure to include that in any conversation I had with people about cases like this. It is a horrible thing that happened to this girl, and perhaps she would still be alive had she been in school. But if her parents were sick enough to torture her slowly, who is to say that they wouldn't have killed her quickly after school one day? Some people are just capable of such horrific things, and if they're deteremined to do some evil deed, then they'll find a way to do it, one way or another (if attending school or not.) We can play the what-if game forever, but the fact remains that these parents were not fit parents, regardless of where the girl was schooled.

[pqr]

The response is that terrible things happen and yes they do happen in homeschooling families as well. To deny that would be rather stupid, ..... but HS tends to be far safer than any other system and as LE he should know that.

 

A basic truth is that not every child can be saved (despite our best efforts) and excessive interference in family by government does not make things better, it generally makes them far worse.

 

Offer that good people with the welfare of children at heart are involved in public education....and look at the hash they have made of it.

 

How many lives are ruined because public schools cannot, do not, will not (take your pick) provide an education?

How many lives are ruined because public schools engender, support, advocate, thrust down the throats of children (take your pick) skewed moral beliefs?

How many lives are ruined because public schools undermine, ignore (take your pick) parental rights?

How many lives are ruined because public schools through laziness, ineptitude, incompetence (take your pick) allow schools to become dangerous places for children?

 

If he answers honestly then the answer is simple and it is that the nightmare of public schools is a prime reason for many HSers to pull their children and that, as the state is incapable of properly operating these institutions, there is no way it can effectively monitor HSers. To attempt to do so would draw efforts from public schools, where they are needed (however ineffective they may be), and would have a detrimental impact on HSing and would not save children from true abusers.

 

If HSing were made illegal…..Thrusting our children into the system would result in far more being lost than any who would potentially be saved.

Edited December 24, 2009 by pqr

[mazakaal]

I think I would point out all the cases where children were 'in the system' and yet still died horrible deaths. And I'm not just talking about kids who were in school, but kids who were on the rolls for CPS and yet they were not properly followed up on. They 'slipped through the cracks' and were lost to us. It is a horrible thing when it happens, but even with government involvement, children still die horrible, unnecessary deaths. And to add innumerable children to the 'high risk' list for CPS to be keeping track of simply because the children are home educated will take CPS man hours away from the children who really need it. There will most likely be more deaths in true high risk children because of how much time case workers have to spend keeping track of home schooled kids.

[RegGuheert]

...the parents of that child had been homeschooled?

 

I wonder if we would even be having this discussion. Most likely these parents were educated in public schools. Apparently "the system" either served them poorly or did not identify the threat or both. Simply put, more government is not the answer to the breakdown of the family in our society.

[Peela]

Its is just the thinking of institutionalised people, that thinks that people should not be trusted with their own children's education or lives, because of rare cases like these. Our society is so conditioned to look up to external human authority, whether its government, the school teacher, any official, rather than within. Obviously it's a community issue, and nothing to do with homeschooling, and there will always be cases like this as long as our society has poverty and neglect in it.

It's like all these laws that get passed to protect everyone from themselves, that in the end just imprison everyone. The answer to neglect and abuse in the community is probably complicated but banning homeschooling sure isnt going to solve it.

[DawnM]

I knew several cases where public schooled children were killed by their parents. I also know of public school children who have killed public school children. I also know of abuse to ps children that went on for a very, very long time before it was caught.

 

Silly to pin it on the schooling choice.

 

Dawn

[LizzyBee]

How do you respond to people who ask about abuses cases involving children who were homeschooled, or whose parents claimed to have been homeschooling?

 

I'm not talking about busybodies or those looking to point fingers, or those who want to light torches and bang drums. I'm talking about a real discussion with people who are genuinely concerned and have some valid points to raise.

 

There has been a case of horrific neglect and torture recently in our community that led to a young teen's death. Her parents had withdrawn her from school and claimed to be homeschooling her. Had she been in school, it's possible, likely even, that she would still be alive. There is no way that level of neglect and harm could be hidden if she had been allowed to have regular contact with adults outside her family.

 

The person with whom I had this discussion works in law enforcement and saw the way this poor child died. (I do not know specifics.) The questions he asked me were "How could this have happened?" and "What if.......(oversight, other adults, accountability)."

 

I'm curious what kinds of responses you might offer.

 

Cat

 

There was a case here in NC where two siblings died; one killed the other, then him or herself. There was horrible neglect and abuse involved. The family claimed to be homeschooling, but was not registered with the state. Therefore, under NC law, they were not homeschoolers; they were simply truant. Just because people claim to be something does not make it so. Nevertheless, would homeschool oversight have prevented this tragedy? No. First of all, they weren't registered, so truancy officials would have been the responders, not homeschool overseers. But more to the point, social services was in the home often and repeatedly, and they were either unable or unwilling to remove the kids from the home. Adding homeschool officials to the family's list of overseers wouldn't have changed a thing.

 

In the case in the op, if homeschooling were illegal and the family couldn't hide behind that shield, would the girl's death have been prevented? Not necessarily. I've heard of multiple cases of ps kids who were killed or severely abused by their parents or a stepparent. When we lived in Baltimore, a girl was starved to death by her family. They never claimed to be homeschooling her; they simply stopped sending her to school, and if anyone bothered to check on why she wasn't in school, they didn't uncover the abuse. A little girl in rural western MD was abused by her stepfather. Social services checked on her several times, but didn't have enough evidence to remove her from the home. One weekend, her sf beat her to death. Unfortunately, he didn't just hit her with a blunt object and get it over with. He spanked that poor child for hours over the course of the day until she started seizing. At that point, they either took her to the ER or called 911, but it was too late.

 

It's horrible and tragic that there are kids who live such miserable lives. But as to the question of whether increasing homeschool oversight would help, I really doubt it. If SS is involved and can't do anything, what good will increasing hs oversight do?

[G5052]

There are evil homeschooling parents, evil public school parents, and evil private school parents. What happens at home is not necessarily a reflection of school choice, but more what is in the hearts of the parent(s). I have several friends who teach at pricey private schools ($14,000-20,000/year), and even they have stories of kids who are at risk at home because of parental alcohol/drug abuse.

[stripe]

VERY UNFORTUNELY, there are cases all over the place of neglect and abuse. There was that boy on Medicaid who died from a dental infection. There were all those children in foster care who continued to be abused. There was that whole slate of unaccompanied children traveling on airplanes who got "lost" for hours and sent to the wrong city. Children chained in the basement that are neither sent to school NOR homeschooled. I think it's more a societal problem than an educational problem. I am horrified by the children who have been kidnapped in homes for years and no one noticed, or worse yet, thought people were weird but did nothing.

 

However, I think personally it's an example of why ALL of us should be concerned about each other. Get to know our neighbors and so on. Talk to people we see. Raise an eyebrow at really bizarre people we see, and just stop for a minute to check on each other. I read something that freaked me out that said something about how much we accept as normal to see a screaming child with an adult, and we always defer to the adult's explanation, and how situations like this make it impossible for us to help a kidnapped child -- because we always sort of assume that a screaming child is misbehaving.

[lionfamily1999]

What about the deaths in DC of children in foster care, or in the care of family members? The little boys locked in a cellar living off plaster? They weren't hs. They were supposed to have oversight, I mean social services was already involved.

 

I don't think there's much that can be done in these cases, other than after the fact. We are in a system that has punished the innocent assuming it will lead them to the guilty and that has not proven true. We raise the bar over and over until even the people that try to comply fall short. They're punished, because they don't hide their failures, yet the ones that are actually and purposefully breaking the laws go undetected.

 

If we were to compare the numbers of abused children that attend school elsewhere and abused children that are hsed it would probably either end up statistically the same (ie 1 for every 1000) or else I believe it would tilt towards those that attend school, if only because they come into contact with more would-be abusers, as well as having to submit to the authority of many more would-be abusers. If we were to compare numbers of those under ss eye and those not, it wouldn't surprise me if the results were much the same.

 

Abusers are good at what they do, else abuse would've been stomped out long ago. To make the assumption that additional oversight would do anything more than make abusers more crafty, their victims more cowed and innocents more likely to be found guilty; imo that's just to simplistic. It's not as though an abuser is not capable of change, I think sometimes we forget that. It's not as though they are not human or capable of understanding what's going on. They read the same news, they're aware of all the systems that everyone else is and they react. It's not a static organism, we're not isolating protons. We're trying to second guess human beings that have already proven themselves great at disguising their abusive tendencies and bending the will of their victims to have them disguise their own issues as well.

[kalanamak]

So in this case I knew of anyway, the community and family were the ones who stepped forward even without a school there to do so.

 

As much as I dislike cutesy-wootesy sayings like "It takes a village" AND the snide response "I've seen the village...", we are social creatures and the wealth of our society has allowed people to live in isolated ways in numbers that boggle the mind. I do think we have a responsibility to our neighbors. There are sick people, bullying people out there, and we all know it. One can ask around, if one is questioning a situation, in a genuinely concerned way...not gossip.

[plimsoll]

This has nothing to with homeschooling. You are not responsible for these people's actions and you do not need to respond about them. Obviously these disturbed people were not homeschooling their children - they were just using that as an excuse to hide their abuse. If homeschooling were not available, they would have found some other excuse.

 

I repeat, this has nothing to do with homeschooling and everything to do with sick people abusing their kids. Don't let anyone try to turn it into a discussion of the pros and cons of homeschooling.

[babysparkler]

I also know of abuse to ps children that went on for a very, very long time before it was caught.

 

 

 

Yep. I was public schooled for 13 years, and never ONCE did anyone notice the abuse that was happening to me. Being in PS doesn't guarantee that abuse will be noticed/reported, so I don't think you can say that she would be alive today if they were not homeschooled... but had the child been public schooled, no one would be saying that it was the fault of the public school.

 

So sad.

[Penelope]

There is also occasional abuse that occurs at the hands of public school teachers. There was a lot in the news about that in the past couple of years.

[Joanne]

How do you respond to people who ask about abuses cases involving children who were homeschooled, or whose parents claimed to have been homeschooling?

 

I'm not talking about busybodies or those looking to point fingers, or those who want to light torches and bang drums. I'm talking about a real discussion with people who are genuinely concerned and have some valid points to raise.

 

There has been a case of horrific neglect and torture recently in our community that led to a young teen's death. Her parents had withdrawn her from school and claimed to be homeschooling her. Had she been in school, it's possible, likely even, that she would still be alive. There is no way that level of neglect and harm could be hidden if she had been allowed to have regular contact with adults outside her family.

 

The person with whom I had this discussion works in law enforcement and saw the way this poor child died. (I do not know specifics.) The questions he asked me were "How could this have happened?" and "What if.......(oversight, other adults, accountability)."

 

I'm curious what kinds of responses you might offer.

 

Cat

 

Homeschooling is a statistically interesting anamoly. That's why it gets mentioned and highlighted in reporting. It's also a hot button topic; it holds public interest. The inclusion of it in reporting abuse or death, however, leads to the homeschooling element being presented in a way that artificially elevates its importance in the event.

 

Thousands of public schooled kids are being abused without detection, intervention or accountability. Thousands of spouses and elderly are being abused in workplaces, homes, churches and are not being protected. It's a fallacy and myth that the structure of institutions = more safety. That's just not how it plays out.

 

Evil exists and manifests in all settings. Investigate the dead child's life and you will discover a long trail of red flags, people and probably institutions that allowed this to happen. To suggest that the same people and institutions would have caught it and interviened is unfounded conjecture.

[LizzyBee]

What about the deaths in DC of children in foster care, or in the care of family members? The little boys locked in a cellar living off plaster? They weren't hs. They were supposed to have oversight, I mean social services was already involved.

 

 

 

This reminded me of the case of a preschooler who was taken from her mother and given to a social worker for foster-to-adopt, and then killed by the social worker by being duct-taped in a high chair for hours on end. The girl had never been neglected or abused while in her mother's care - that was undisputed in the hearings. She was removed from her mother's home because of POTENTIAL abuse because the mother's boyfriend had a criminal record. Apparently, the state in which this happened had a very low threshold of evidence needed for removing kids from the home. The social worker worked for DCFS - maybe a little conflict of interest there????

 

There was a case in PA where a child was taken from her mother and given to another family for foster-to-adopt. The bio mom had visitation rights. As the family developed a relationship with the mom, they realized that her crime was poverty. She was not an abusive or neglectful mom; she just didn't have a whole lot going for her financially. By the time the family realized that the child should have never been taken from the bio mom, they had developed a relationship with the child and felt that it would be confusing and emotionally scarring for her to change homes again. After the adoption was final, they continued a relationship with the bio mom. Then the dad got a job in TX and the bio mom couldn't afford to move to TX with them. It was a heartbreaking case for all involved.

 

Okay, I just realized the 2nd story is really off-topic. Sorry about that.

[Tammyla]

You can't explain evil.

[radiobrain]

I will assume this has been stated before....

 

These people were NOT HOMESCHOOLERS they were evil, selfish people. PERIOD. If they went through whatever state requirements for HSing, they would be guilty of something (for lying on their paperwork to the state) or they were truant. They were not HSing. They were killing their kid. They used HS as a sheild, as many horrible people do (think if a pedophile becoming a priest or a scout leader, they were pedophiles using a position to get what they wanted, not being "turned into" a monster... they were monsters first.... so these people were not homeschoolers that became abusing murderers, they used HSing as a convenient screen).

 

People can be horrible, whatever choices they make in life, just like people can be wonderful *despite* choices they have made.

 

I hate it when anyone makes an assumption about any larger group, from the actions of few.

[KristenS]

There was a case locally where children died of neglect ... the utilities were turned off in the middle of winter and everything. I don't recall if the parent was charged with anything (I think so) but no one blamed the utility company, not for too long anyway, even though it seemed they knew it was a family residence.

 

This was a PS family, and it occurred over winter break. It was a tragedy for the whole community. To me, it seemed that the media spent more time trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it, than they did pointing fingers, which I liked. Not sure anything really changed as a result though.

 

Just goes to show, things happen quickly. Doesn't matter what the setting.

 

We all would wish that girl be alive and in a healthier home environment. But I don't think PS would have completely guaranteed that. Though for her sake, I wish it could have. Horribly horribly sad.

[lionfamily1999]

This reminded me of the case of a preschooler who was taken from her mother and given to a social worker for foster-to-adopt, and then killed by the social worker by being duct-taped in a high chair for hours on end. The girl had never been neglected or abused while in her mother's care - that was undisputed in the hearings. She was removed from her mother's home because of POTENTIAL abuse because the mother's boyfriend had a criminal record. Apparently, the state in which this happened had a very low threshold of evidence needed for removing kids from the home. The social worker worked for DCFS - maybe a little conflict of interest there????

 

There was a case in PA where a child was taken from her mother and given to another family for foster-to-adopt. The bio mom had visitation rights. As the family developed a relationship with the mom, they realized that her crime was poverty. She was not an abusive or neglectful mom; she just didn't have a whole lot going for her financially. By the time the family realized that the child should have never been taken from the bio mom, they had developed a relationship with the child and felt that it would be confusing and emotionally scarring for her to change homes again. After the adoption was final, they continued a relationship with the bio mom. Then the dad got a job in TX and the bio mom couldn't afford to move to TX with them. It was a heartbreaking case for all involved.

 

Okay, I just realized the 2nd story is really off-topic. Sorry about that.

That's just it though, and I do think it fits. These people were or weren't hsers. It didn't matter and it doesn't matter and it doesn't make anything different. Like the other pp's story about the little girl freezing to death (?, assumption, they mentioned no utilities). Oversight doesn't do anything for these things. I mean, the first child you mentioned was in the care of someone that is in charge of overseeing others.

 

It goes back to the idea that abusers adapt. I mean that abuser became exactly what no one would've suspected... a social worker.

 

It's crazy, imo, that we think we can find abusers by creating more positions with more power over more people. That just seems like a recipe for abuse.

[LibraryLover]

I don't try to defend hsing in these situations, as it's not really about hsing. Everyone knows bad things happen pretty much anywhere. Most thinking people get this. It sounds like he is trying to figure out how that child could have been saved. All the what ifs must be torture to people who have to respond to these terrible situations. As he is in law enforcement, he's seen enough to know that bad things happen...and they defy explanation.

Edited December 24, 2009 by LibraryLover

[stripe]

There was a case in PA where a child was taken from her mother and given to another family for foster-to-adopt. The bio mom had visitation rights. As the family developed a relationship with the mom, they realized that her crime was poverty. She was not an abusive or neglectful mom; she just didn't have a whole lot going for her financially. By the time the family realized that the child should have never been taken from the bio mom, they had developed a relationship with the child and felt that it would be confusing and emotionally scarring for her to change homes again. After the adoption was final, they continued a relationship with the bio mom. Then the dad got a job in TX and the bio mom couldn't afford to move to TX with them. It was a heartbreaking case for all involved.

That's just incredibly disturbing and shows a lack of respect for the parent/child relationship and an attitude that poor people have no rights. This is an abuse of a system designed to prevent parental neglect. I object to not-abused women using shelters and the legal services of battered women's groups for the same reason.

[GoVanGogh]

Many years ago, I was a journalist and covered a symposium on child abuse. I don't remember the exact numbers - and it was 15+ years ago so they would have changed - but the majority (like 90-95 percent?) of cases of child abuse happen to children under age 3. One of the speakers said newborns with colic and toddlers potty training are the most vulnerable. I read a large city newspaper daily and the articles I have read over the years back up that info.

 

Likewise.

My son had awful food allergies when he was younger. I spent a lot of time researching allergies, causes, what to do, etc. One of the books I read (and wish I had written down the title!) had an entire chapter devoted to child abuse. The author said that many children that are abused have undiagnosed food allergies. Food allergies and "colic" do go hand-in-hand in newborns.

 

Anyway. Whenever I have been confronted by that question, I do point out that the majority of cases are NOT in school age children. Unless we want to live in a society where children are turned over to the state at birth, there really isn't a way to track children from birth to school age. Children are hard work. They cry. Endlessly, sometimes. They make messes. They have accidents. Potty training isn't easy. Maybe we need to address those issues, instead of blaming it on the educational choices of the parent/s.

 

On another point, I read a research piece a few years back that showed that the majority of children that died of abuse were killed by their mother's boyfriend. Again, that is an issue that needs to be addressed by society. It is not related to how the child is educated.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that abusers can be found anywhere. I wanted to point out the recent news story about the pediatrician that is accused of abusing 100 young patients! So yes, sadly abusers are found everywhere.

[Maria from IN]

Many years ago, I was a journalist and covered a symposium on child abuse. I don't remember the exact numbers - and it was 15+ years ago so they would have changed - but the majority (like 90-95 percent?) of cases of child abuse happen to children under age 3. One of the speakers said newborns with colic and toddlers potty training are the most vulnerable. I read a large city newspaper daily and the articles I have read over the years back up that info.

 

 

I saw a similar study several years ago that said that 95% of all child abuse deaths happen before the age of 6, meaning that they aren't even in school yet, so how could teachers and staff "keep an eye out?"

[Ellie]

Well, you know, abuse happens, regardless of the dc's place of education. Sad but true. It does not mean that hsers need to be under more scrutiny; goodness knows public-schooled dc, who are seen daily by professionals, are still abused.

 

I would refuse to discuss it in detail with someone who is probably already anti-homeschooling, KWIM? There would be no point.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Ellie

[lionfamily1999]

Many years ago, I was a journalist and covered a symposium on child abuse. I don't remember the exact numbers - and it was 15+ years ago so they would have changed - but the majority (like 90-95 percent?) of cases of child abuse happen to children under age 3. One of the speakers said newborns with colic and toddlers potty training are the most vulnerable. I read a large city newspaper daily and the articles I have read over the years back up that info.

 

Likewise.

My son had awful food allergies when he was younger. I spent a lot of time researching allergies, causes, what to do, etc. One of the books I read (and wish I had written down the title!) had an entire chapter devoted to child abuse. The author said that many children that are abused have undiagnosed food allergies. Food allergies and "colic" do go hand-in-hand in newborns.

 

Anyway. Whenever I have been confronted by that question, I do point out that the majority of cases are NOT in school age children. Unless we want to live in a society where children are turned over to the state at birth, there really isn't a way to track children from birth to school age. Children are hard work. They cry. Endlessly, sometimes. They make messes. They have accidents. Potty training isn't easy. Maybe we need to address those issues, instead of blaming it on the educational choices of the parent/s.

 

On another point, I read a research piece a few years back that showed that the majority of children that died of abuse were killed by their mother's boyfriend. Again, that is an issue that needs to be addressed by society. It is not related to how the child is educated.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that abusers can be found anywhere. I wanted to point out the recent news story about the pediatrician that is accused of abusing 100 young patients! So yes, sadly abusers are found everywhere.

My dh was, at one point, my boyfriend. He loves dd as much as any biological father could. That is my problem with society addressing these statistics. I know dh is not alone. I know there are a multitude of step-fathers, that were at one point "Mother's boy friend," that do not deserve the suspicion that those statistics put them under. The same way I know that not every single ps child graduates without having learned anything, although some do. The same way I know that not all hsers are "Protestant Fundamentalists" although many are.

 

I really don't think that putting an entire group under the heading of "possible abusers" does any good, and I firmly believe it does plenty of wrong. Everyone is a "possible abuser." There are examples of every type of person out there being abusive. I'm sure if one dug far enough one could find out a one-armed-hermaphrodite that abused a three-legged dog, it does not mean that if you have a three legged dog you should be leery of one-armed-hermaphrodites. It means that one-armed hermaphodite abused a three legged dog, and it doesn't even mean they'd be kind to two or four or eight legged dogs either and it certainly does not mean that every one-armed hermaphrodite is a dog abuser.

 

IOW, I think we punish the innocent too often in our quest to stomp out abusers and I think that gives the abusers an even greater hiding spot. While we're out pointing at every hser, mother's boy friend, youth leader and priest, the real bad guys are already changing their cover, or (as I believe most likely happens) having a delightful time leading the charge.

[Renee in NC]

My dh was, at one point, my boyfriend. He loves dd as much as any biological father could. That is my problem with society addressing these statistics. I know dh is not alone. I know there are a multitude of step-fathers, that were at one point "Mother's boy friend," that do not deserve the suspicion that those statistics put them under. The same way I know that not every single ps child graduates without having learned anything, although some do. The same way I know that not all hsers are "Protestant Fundamentalists" although many are.

 

I really don't think that putting an entire group under the heading of "possible abusers" does any good, and I firmly believe it does plenty of wrong. Everyone is a "possible abuser." There are examples of every type of person out there being abusive. I'm sure if one dug far enough one could find out a one-armed-hermaphrodite that abused a three-legged dog, it does not mean that if you have a three legged dog you should be leery of one-armed-hermaphrodites. It means that one-armed hermaphodite abused a three legged dog, and it doesn't even mean they'd be kind to two or four or eight legged dogs either and it certainly does not mean that every one-armed hermaphrodite is a dog abuser.

 

IOW, I think we punish the innocent too often in our quest to stomp out abusers and I think that gives the abusers an even greater hiding spot. While we're out pointing at every hser, mother's boy friend, youth leader and priest, the real bad guys are already changing their cover, or (as I believe most likely happens) having a delightful time leading the charge.

 

It is unfortunate that good people get lumped in with bad. My dh has been an EXCELLENT stepfather to my 16yo. He was once the "mother's boyfriend" as well.

 

The reality is that children have a higher risk of being abused in certain relationships. So much so, that I have said that if something happened to my dh, I would *not* remarry until my children are grown. I just can't risk it again, especially considering that my 2 daughters are among my youngest children.

 

Men in general are suspect and that is unfortunate. The majority would never harm a child!

[Tammyla]

:iagree:

 

Well, you know, abuse happen, regardless of the dc's place of education. Sad but true. It does not mean that hsers need to be under more scrutiny; goodness knows public-schooled dc, who are seen daily by professionals, are still abused.

 

I would refuse to discuss it in detail with someone who is probably already anti-homeschooling, KWIM? There would be no point.

[Margo out of lurking]

The cases that I'm aware of, the parents were not hsing legally anyway. Like a previous poster said, often these questions come from people who already have an ant-hsing bias. It's not up to me to defend a criminal.

 

Not quite on topic, but up until recently, I've always been strongly against any type of regulation of hsers. Then I started working at the library, and I see some of these kids who are clearly being seriously neglected in their education. Most are not families who have a long term commitment to hsing, but some are. It's very sad, tragic.

[Laurie4b]

There was a case here in NC where two siblings died; one killed the other, then him or herself. There was horrible neglect and abuse involved. The family claimed to be homeschooling, but was not registered with the state. Therefore, under NC law, they were not homeschoolers; they were simply truant. Just because people claim to be something does not make it so. Nevertheless, would homeschool oversight have prevented this tragedy? No. First of all, they weren't registered, so truancy officials would have been the responders, not homeschool overseers. But more to the point, social services was in the home often and repeatedly, and they were either unable or unwilling to remove the kids from the home. Adding homeschool officials to the family's list of overseers wouldn't have changed a thing.

 

In the case in the op, if homeschooling were illegal and the family couldn't hide behind that shield, would the girl's death have been prevented? Not necessarily. I've heard of multiple cases of ps kids who were killed or severely abused by their parents or a stepparent. When we lived in Baltimore, a girl was starved to death by her family. They never claimed to be homeschooling her; they simply stopped sending her to school, and if anyone bothered to check on why she wasn't in school, they didn't uncover the abuse. A little girl in rural western MD was abused by her stepfather. Social services checked on her several times, but didn't have enough evidence to remove her from the home. One weekend, her sf beat her to death. Unfortunately, he didn't just hit her with a blunt object and get it over with. He spanked that poor child for hours over the course of the day until she started seizing. At that point, they either took her to the ER or called 911, but it was too late.

 

It's horrible and tragic that there are kids who live such miserable lives. But as to the question of whether increasing homeschool oversight would help, I really doubt it. If SS is involved and can't do anything, what good will increasing hs oversight do?

 

I believe in that particular NC case that social services had also been involved with the family. It wasn't even an issue of "nobody reporting." It had been reported.

[LizzyBee]

Many years ago, I was a journalist and covered a symposium on child abuse. I don't remember the exact numbers - and it was 15+ years ago so they would have changed - but the majority (like 90-95 percent?) of cases of child abuse happen to children under age 3. One of the speakers said newborns with colic and toddlers potty training are the most vulnerable. I read a large city newspaper daily and the articles I have read over the years back up that info.

 

Dh and I never went out along together when dd8 was little. I wouldn't leave her with a babysitter because the child cried with a piercing scream all. the. time. I was seriously afraid someone would hurt her.

[jujsky]

I really don't think that putting an entire group under the heading of "possible abusers" does any good, and I firmly believe it does plenty of wrong. Everyone is a "possible abuser." There are examples of every type of person out there being abusive. I'm sure if one dug far enough one could find out a one-armed-hermaphrodite that abused a three-legged dog, it does not mean that if you have a three legged dog you should be leery of one-armed-hermaphrodites. It means that one-armed hermaphodite abused a three legged dog, and it doesn't even mean they'd be kind to two or four or eight legged dogs either and it certainly does not mean that every one-armed hermaphrodite is a dog abuser.

 

 

 

Well said!

[GoVanGogh]

Re: Boyfriends.

I have searched the internet to locate the original article that I read, but have not been able to find it. The only statistics I have found are from 2001. The article I read was 2009 or 2008 and it was published after we, locally, had numerous similar child abuse cases within a very short time period.

This website does address my original comment.

http://www.pcsao.org/ChooseYourPartnerCampaign.htm

[myfunnybunch]

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies. I found echoes of my own response in many of your posts, and some helpful ideas and ways to frame my thoughts a little more clearly in others.

 

It sounds like he is trying to figure out how that child could have been saved. All the what ifs must be torture to people who have to respond to these terrible situations. As he is in law enforcement, he's seen enough to know that bad things happen...and they defy explanation.

 

Yes, this. This is the place he's coming from. He sees many things that no one should have to see. He is definitely pro-homeschooling--I am his ex-wife and homeschooled our daughter--and understands that it is not a homeschooling issue. I believe that this is a family who saw a homeschool loophole, they were able to legally hide horrific abuse. She was withdrawn from school and hidden from the community so that there was no one to see and help. The newspaper has written the story from this perspective as well, as an abuse case involving homeschooling rather than an "abused homeschooler". The questions he asked, and which probably are and will be discussed throughout our community, are valid, I think, and deserve a thoughtful compassionate reply.

 

Cat

[jujsky]

Dh and I never went out along together when dd8 was little. I wouldn't leave her with a babysitter because the child cried with a piercing scream all. the. time. I was seriously afraid someone would hurt her.

 

That was my daughter! I often said to DH that living with her didn't make me condone child-abuse, but made me understand how it could happen. Sleep deprivation with a constantly screaming baby? I can totally see it -- especially if there is one parent taking primary care of the child and he/she doesn't have any outside help or support. I was lucky because just when I'd reach my limit, DH would step in and vice-versa. There were plenty of times after hours of walking around the house bouncing her or rocking her to no avail that I would just have to place her in her crib and let her scream while I collapsed, crying from exhaustion and frustration outside her bedroom door. I also lived in constant fear that social services would be called on us for suspected abuse because she cried constantly, and it was brutal, piercing screams. I only left her with her grandparents. Both DH and I were like that as babies, so the grandparents on both sides had lots of empathy for us, and tons experience with screaming babies.

[Renee in NC]

Re: Boyfriends.

I have searched the internet to locate the original article that I read, but have not been able to find it. The only statistics I have found are from 2001. The article I read was 2009 or 2008 and it was published after we, locally, had numerous similar child abuse cases within a very short time period.

This website does address my original comment.

http://www.pcsao.org/ChooseYourPartnerCampaign.htm

 

What a great thing to do! My research is old as well - I did an involved research project on abuse in 1999 and that figured prominently in my data. The website you listed says 7% of all abuse and neglect cases. Neglect is not usually a boyfriend issue - I wish they had separated out the abuse cases.

[lionfamily1999]

It is unfortunate that good people get lumped in with bad. My dh has been an EXCELLENT stepfather to my 16yo. He was once the "mother's boyfriend" as well.

 

The reality is that children have a higher risk of being abused in certain relationships. So much so, that I have said that if something happened to my dh, I would *not* remarry until my children are grown. I just can't risk it again, especially considering that my 2 daughters are among my youngest children.

 

Men in general are suspect and that is unfortunate. The majority would never harm a child!

That's just it though. They're more likely to be abused by a family member, do you keep your kids from your family? They're more likely to be abused by a church leader, nix church, or just children's church?

 

So, we attempt to protect our children, as it should be. I do not believe, however, that society should come up with new stereotypes that create monsters (or the spectors of monsters) from good, decent people.

 

I would hate to think that my mommy protectiveness could've kept me from dh. I hate to think that others could be in that situation (missing 'the one' from fear). I hate, detest and loathe the idea of an abuser targeting a single mother, I know that happens as well. I don't think the answer is really to be found in "society" though. I think it's found in the individuals keeping an eye on things and seeing the signs when they're there.

[Renee in NC]

That's just it though. They're more likely to be abused by a family member, do you keep your kids from your family? They're more likely to be abused by a church leader, nix church, or just children's church?

 

So, we attempt to protect our children, as it should be. I do not believe, however, that society should come up with new stereotypes that create monsters (or the spectors of monsters) from good, decent people.

 

I would hate to think that my mommy protectiveness could've kept me from dh. I hate to think that others could be in that situation (missing 'the one' from fear). I hate, detest and loathe the idea of an abuser targeting a single mother, I know that happens as well. I don't think the answer is really to be found in "society" though. I think it's found in the individuals keeping an eye on things and seeing the signs when they're there.

 

I am WAY more careful with the people we know than with strangers. The reality is that children are abused by people they know - family, friends, neighbors, teachers, etc. So, yes, I am very, very careful about those types of things. I would not let my child be alone with another adult in a church setting (and parishes have the "two-deep" rule just like Scouts.)

 

The fact that a man would seek out a woman with a large number of children (unless he has a large number himself) is a red flag to me. I had one ds when I met my dh. I know that I could change my mind. Besides this is hypothetical - as far as I know he isn't dying anytime soon.

 

By the time I recognize the signs, it is too late - it's already happened.

[stripe]

Pregnant American women are incredibly vulnerable to homicide at the hands of their husbands/boyfriends (link is to a govt document on this). That doesn't mean that women shouldn't get pregnant, or that all expectant fathers crack. It means that this is a big problem that we shouldn't dismiss.

 

Anyway here are some stats on child abuse deaths: "More than 40 percent (42.2%) of all fatalities were children younger than 1 year, 16.5 percent were children age 1 year, 10.7 percent were children age 2 years, and 6.3 percent were children age 3 years. Therefore, 75.7 percent were younger than 4 years old. Nearly 13 percent (12.9%) were between the ages of 4 and 7 years." (From the fatalities section of this report, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/index.htm ) By my calculations, that leaves 11.4% over the age of 7.

Edited December 24, 2009 by stripe

[6packofun]

I ask what an educational method has to do with the deliberate, evil choice those parents made to harm their children.

[Lilymax]

Not quite on topic, but up until recently, I've always been strongly against any type of regulation of hsers. Then I started working at the library, and I see some of these kids who are clearly being seriously neglected in their education. Most are not families who have a long term commitment to hsing, but some are. It's very sad, tragic.

 

:iagree: I am politically conservative and am rarely in favor of more government regulations, but...when I saw the mess a relative of mine is doing with hs'ing her autistic DS, it makes me wish that her state had tighter controls in place.

 

Hers is a long, complicated story that I'll spare you from at the moment, but "educational neglect" definitely applies. If she had to report to someone, at least there would be hope of him getting the intervention he needs.

[Jean in Newcastle]

:iagree: I am politically conservative and am rarely in favor of more government regulations, but...when I saw the mess a relative of mine is doing with hs'ing her autistic DS, it makes me wish that her state had tighter controls in place.

 

Hers is a long, complicated story that I'll spare you from at the moment, but "educational neglect" definitely applies. If she had to report to someone, at least there would be hope of him getting the intervention he needs.

 

But you see, this proves the point that often someone else in the community knows - like you, a family member. The first step (which you and others may have done) is to try and advocate for the boy within the community of your family. And the ugly and uncomfortable fact is that if you are ignored and it is real neglect then it should be reported to the authorities so that they can investigate it.

 

Now the flip side is that there is a lot of educational neglect happening in the schools too - not to everyone, but to those kids who fall through the cracks. Kids can fall through the cracks in any educational setting - at the public school, a private school and even at home.

[dragons in the flower bed]

The questions he asked me were "How could this have happened?" and "What if.......(oversight, other adults, accountability)."

 

My response would be that this is a rare occurrence, even more rare within the homeschool community, and that even though my heart aches for this girl, it's not fair or desirable to change the laws that govern everybody because of this one freak incidence. Homeschooling laws that we have serve the community well; homeschoolers in general are excelling. As much as I wish we could write some law down somewhere that would save every horrendously maltreated child, I know the best way to make child torture even more rare is widespread cultural change, and many homeschoolers are at the forefront of that change.

[Mommyof4ks]

I think I would point out all the cases where children were 'in the system' and yet still died horrible deaths. And I'm not just talking about kids who were in school, but kids who were on the rolls for CPS and yet they were not properly followed up on. They 'slipped through the cracks' and were lost to us. It is a horrible thing when it happens, but even with government involvement, children still die horrible, unnecessary deaths. And to add innumerable children to the 'high risk' list for CPS to be keeping track of simply because the children are home educated will take CPS man hours away from the children who really need it. There will most likely be more deaths in true high risk children because of how much time case workers have to spend keeping track of home schooled kids.

 

:iagree:

[StartingOver]

Her parents had withdrawn her from school and claimed to be homeschooling her. Had she been in school, it's possible, likely even, that she would still be alive.

Cat

 

I really hate it when people use homeschooling as an excuse. These parents ( and I think I know what case you are talking about ) are sick. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with homeschooling. They could have just said that she went to live with an aunt, grandparents, cousins. Or other excuse.

 

I don't know the answer but I feel that the lack of community is the issue. It used to be that people lived in towns with their extended families. Cousins, grandparents, aunts and uncles were near by. People used to sit on the front porch and visit with neighbors. People in the neighborhood were involved.

 

I know it isn't always the answer, and wasn't even back then. But I think we really lost something when people started not wanting to get involved. We are a nation of protecting our own small families, not wanting to step on others toes.

 

There really is no answer. But there had to be neighbors, family members, the mail man, etc....... someone missed seeing this child. Someone could have spoken up. If it was the case I believe it is, the siblings could have spoken up.

 

But then again we are a nation that mind our own business, sadly.

[melmichigan]

I really hate it when people use homeschooling as an excuse. These parents ( and I think I know what case you are talking about ) are sick. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with homeschooling. They could have just said that she went to live with an aunt, grandparents, cousins. Or other excuse.

 

I don't know the answer but I feel that the lack of community is the issue. It used to be that people lived in towns with their extended families. Cousins, grandparents, aunts and uncles were near by. People used to sit on the front porch and visit with neighbors. People in the neighborhood were involved.

 

I know it isn't always the answer, and wasn't even back then. But I think we really lost something when people started not wanting to get involved. We are a nation of protecting our own small families, not wanting to step on others toes.

 

There really is no answer. But there had to be neighbors, family members, the mail man, etc....... someone missed seeing this child. Someone could have spoken up. If it was the case I believe it is, the siblings could have spoken up.

 

But then again we are a nation that mind our own business, sadly.

 

 

:iagree: I am pretty sure I know of the case you are mentioning. It's big news here, the talk on the local HS boards, and I'm sure I will be answering the very same question after the holidays when our activities in the HS community resume. My heart goes out to your community. At the same time I don't think it was relevant to homeschooling. The proverbial ball was dropped so many times in this case, it saddens me that so many opportunities were missed for various reasons. Not that it is always the case, but in this situation I do agree with HSLDA's statement in response to the newspaper articles.

[Audrey]

How do you respond to people who ask about abuses cases involving children who were homeschooled, or whose parents claimed to have been homeschooling?

 

I'm not talking about busybodies or those looking to point fingers, or those who want to light torches and bang drums. I'm talking about a real discussion with people who are genuinely concerned and have some valid points to raise.

 

There has been a case of horrific neglect and torture recently in our community that led to a young teen's death. Her parents had withdrawn her from school and claimed to be homeschooling her. Had she been in school, it's possible, likely even, that she would still be alive. There is no way that level of neglect and harm could be hidden if she had been allowed to have regular contact with adults outside her family.

 

The person with whom I had this discussion works in law enforcement and saw the way this poor child died. (I do not know specifics.) The questions he asked me were "How could this have happened?" and "What if.......(oversight, other adults, accountability)."

 

I'm curious what kinds of responses you might offer.

 

Cat

 

I acknowledge that these cases do, indeed, exist. There are people who don't deserve to be parenting, let alone homeschooling, and who will abuse children under the guise of homeschooling. There are weirdos, perverts and fanatics who use homeschooling to cover up what they inflict on their kids.

 

There are also people who do all of those nasty things and send their kids to public school, or don't bother to send them at all (truant as opposed to claiming to homeschool).

 

The bottom line is that I, personally, do not believe everyone *should* be allowed to homeschool. When confronted by examples of these extremists and abusers who use homeschooling as a front, I am honest and tell the person inquiring that I agree. Those people *are* extremists and abusers, and that I am terribly sorry that they are the example too many people see. I am sorry that they ruin homeschooling for the rest of us who actually are educating our own children in a loving, compassionate, intelligent manner.

 

I don't appreciate being lumped in with fundy whackjobs and perverted abusers, but I can understand how that is the predominant profile that most people associate with homeschooling. The media, as well as the whackjobs and abusers, do homeschooling a great disservice. The only thing I can do is make sure that those in my sphere of influence know that we are not *those* kind of homeschoolers.

Edited December 25, 2009 by Audrey

[Mrs Mungo]

How often do we see thread titles such as "oh my gosh, this is why I homeschool," harping on some news story that reflects poorly upon the public school? What's the difference?