[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: marital violence as child maltreatment
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3018.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=240033518-01022001>Contact the National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges for excellent resources regarding this</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Joseph A. Vorrasi
[mailto:jav9@cornell.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:29
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Child Maltreatment Researchers<BR><B>Subject:</B> marital
violence as child maltreatment<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<P>Might anyone be able to point me to (1) information on how many states
currently consider marital violence a form of child psychological maltreatment
or (2) a discussion of this debate? I'm reviewing the literature for a paper
on the lasting effects of marital violence on children. Thank you.
</P><BR><BR>
<P>--------------------------------------------- </P>
<P>Joseph A. Vorrasi </P>
<P>Family Life Development Center </P>
<P>Department of Human Development </P>
<P>Cornell University </P>
<P>N-218 MVR Hall </P>
<P>Ithaca, NY 14853 </P>
<P>phone: (607) 254-1374 </P>
<P>fax: (607) 255-8562
</P>
<P>--------------------------------------------- </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Feb 01 15:02:14 2001
Status: U
Return-Path: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Received: from elist01.mail.cornell.edu (elist01.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.28])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12190;
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:46:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15829;
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:46:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from elist01.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA15179;
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:35:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6])
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12384
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist01.mail.cornell.edu>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:50:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23052
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist01.mail.cornell.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:50:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange.jwbpinellas.org (exchange.jwbpinellas.org [209.241.105.130])
by cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23018
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:50:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <AD7B4E5F7900D211995700A0C9A779AA2A2F0C@EXCHANGE>
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-PH: V4.1@elist01.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
From: Kathy Peters <KPeters@jwbpinellas.org>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: RE: marital violence as child maltreatment
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:48:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C08C7F.9C6B1E98"
Message-Tag: 1816
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu01/000107/15:22 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3018.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=420105118-01022001>Specific to Florida, the Florida Senate Interim Project
Report 2001-008, Protecting the Child and Adult Victim Where Domestic Violence
Exists is very specific to Florida Laws and interpretations of the law where
abuse, neglect, and maltreatment exists. Failure to protect is a hugh
issue here. New laws have been put in place to assist the battered victim,
and the state is trying to collaborate among cross systems to meet the need of
these children </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Joseph A. Vorrasi
[mailto:jav9@cornell.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:29
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Child Maltreatment Researchers<BR><B>Subject:</B> marital
violence as child maltreatment<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<P>Might anyone be able to point me to (1) information on how many states
currently consider marital violence a form of child psychological maltreatment
or (2) a discussion of this debate? I'm reviewing the literature for a paper
on the lasting effects of marital violence on children. Thank you.
</P><BR><BR>
<P>--------------------------------------------- </P>
<P>Joseph A. Vorrasi </P>
<P>Family Life Development Center </P>
<P>Department of Human Development </P>
<P>Cornell University </P>
<P>N-218 MVR Hall </P>
<P>Ithaca, NY 14853 </P>
<P>phone: (607) 254-1374 </P>
<P>fax: (607) 255-8562
</P>
<P>--------------------------------------------- </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Jun 11 16:23:39 1998
Status: U
Return-Path: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18046;
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:14:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24241;
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA19092;
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6])
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA29214
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA10484
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from beirut.fcs.wa.gov.au ([202.14.101.1])
by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10043
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gwmail.fcs.wa.gov.au (gwmail [202.14.101.6])
by beirut.fcs.wa.gov.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13467
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:21:26 +0800 (WST)
Received: from mail-Message_Server by gwmail.fcs.wa.gov.au
with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:20:47 +0800
Message-Id: <s58011ef.001@gwmail.fcs.wa.gov.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:19:40 +0800
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-PH: V4.1@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
From: "Kathy Wood" <kathyw@gwmail.fcs.wa.gov.au>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Abuse-proneness measurment instrumen
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu id FAA29215
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN
** High Priority **
hi all,
sherrill makes a good distinction in looking at potential for re abuse, which is very important.
i have been watching the discussion with interest. in a previous life (haha) was involved in the area of policy/programme/procedure development in the area of foster care. one of hte old chestnuts that always came up was "design an assessment tool to identify and/or predict whether a carer will be abusive." this is as nigh on impossible for carers as it is for parents.
what i think we can do is identify circumstances/issues/situations which may make it more likely for a person to hurt a child but that is very different to 'reading the future' about WHO is likely too. unfortunately people who abuse children dont come with stamps on their forehead saying they can hurt kids and usually people who have, are also reluctant to advertise the fact, which is a bit unfair i think (haha)
i also think that it is a 'package' of information which helps us to determine risk to a child and in turn, what 'package' of supports/services are required to prevent or reduce the risk. looking for 'predictive' factors in a parent is only one part of the package.
i would suggest there are factors about a parent eg, substance abuse, mental illness, intellectual disability, own past etc to name a few can be identified.
we also need to look at the child ( i am NOT blaming the child here) are there factors about the child which place that child a greater than normal risk???, eg age, health, etc etc.
What are the environment factors and external stressors??, is the family homeless, living in poverty etc, that both the child and the parent have to deal with.
the type of abuse will also have different factors, eg grooming opportunities in sexual abuse are seldom a factor in physical abuse, especially 'inappropriate discipline scenarios'.
often a persons propensity to harm a child is not known until they have a child (many a child protection worker has admitted they shudder at some of the things they have said to parents before they became parents themselves) or are put into a stressfull enough situation which makes them lash out in some form. unfortunately that is a risk we all take, the child, the parents, the workers etc.
in addition to trying to 'predict' potential for abuse, we must also look for safety factors. what is it about some people who face the same stressors which make them lash out, but another person doesnt. maybe the person who doesnt lash out can teach us as much as the person who does. there needs to be a balance. risk factors need to be viewed in the context of the safety factors around them, and vice versa. eg an overcrowded household with all the elements of poverty, alcohol abuse etc at first look may seem very dangerous for a child. however closer examination of safety factors may reveal rules in the house about who is there, when, where the drinking occurs, proximity to the children etc. dont scoff, this may often be true.
we dont often give families credit or opportunitiy to show their protectiveness and if we dont do this ( in a managed way) how can they ever demonstrate their protectiveness, parental skills or abilities, limited though they may be. if we only focus on the negative we may never see the positive.
anyway i am raving on a bit i know, it is late in the day and i am tired. i am concurring with some of the comments made in some of the responses, but i dont want to sound too critical or negative toward you.
please dont be deterred from your evaluation, the work you do will be important to add to our work and experiences as well.
who knows you may in fact come up with the definitive predictor model, which would make our jobs easier for whcih we would be eternally greatful, and probably make yourself a fortune, for which you could be eternally greatfull haha. (i am only attempting to inject humour, i am not laughing at you) sherrill is correct, when she says it is hard to read emails without the physical cues.
anyway, enough for now, take care and good luck with you study, i look forward to hearing more about it and other peoples comments
Kathy Wood
Asst Custodian
Child Protection Services Register
(08) 92222 700
>>> Sherrill Clark <sjclark@uclink4.berkeley.edu> 11/06/98 >>>
In response to Rob's question (see below), even though he didn't ask me...
This is a great example of what I was talking about and I really
appreciate Rob and Des for bringing it up. (I really do--I am
NOT being ironic here.)
What i think is going on here is the application of Fisher, when
Bayes is more appropriate. I think what Des is writing about
is, given parents who have abused, what is the risk of reabuse.
What Rob is asking is, given an abused child, what is the risk
of reabuse. These are very different situations which lead to
very different probabilities of risk and strengthens my resolve
that we need to be very careful with these instruments because
there is a strong tendency to misinterpret them as well as the
results.
>Des Runyan wrote:
>> Comments on the use of risk assessment instruments.
>>In the context of child abuse, single parents are at 3 times
>>greater risk for >>physical abuse of their children (Gallup
>>poll 1995) but the predictive power >>of knowing that "risk"
>>factor is low. Among children who have been >>substantiated
>>for abuse, the recurrence rate is around 25% and this factor
>>is >>likely to be even more predictive among single parents.
>> [snip]
>> When a "risk assessment" tool is applied in to a population of people with
>> a low rate of child abuse, even with a very "good" or nearly perfect
>> instrument, the majority of identified families at risk will be "false
>> positives and the penalty that the families pay for false identification
>> may be too great to be acceptable. If the same tool is applied to a group
>> of previously reported parents, almost completely without regard to how
>> good the tool is, the risk assessment tool will look great.
Then Rob wrote:
>Des: Did I understand you correctly that the probability of
>abuse in previously abused kids is 25%? Is that for all
>maltreatment or only certain subtypes? Do you recall which
>studies found that? I appreciate it.
>
>Rob Clyman
Sherrill Clark, MSW, PhD
California Social Work Education Center
University of California at Berkeley
School of Social Welfare
120 Haviland Hall
Berkeley CA 94720-7400
(phone 510-642-9273)