Subject: RE: male vs female perpetrators
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:44:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Tag: 1505
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu01/000107/15:22 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Hi. I've been lurking here for months, but I have to speak up here.
I am not a researcher, I am a Child Protection Worker in New York State. I
don't have immediate access to statistics, but just based on my caseload,
and my personal experiences, I have to say that, anecdotally at least, many
more women are indicated for child maltreatment than men, simply because
most of the families we encounter are single parent families with female
heads of household. It's a matter for some comment when you get a married
couple on a report.
If the children are being maltreated by Other Responsible Adults,
such as non-resident lovers or babysitters, the mothers are often indicated
for Failure to Protect. And the service provisions are aimed at the mother.
We even have financial policies about naming services cases after the
mother, on the assumption that she is the stable adult in the family. In
many of the cases we get, men come and go, and are rarely considered part of
the family; they are like stray cats that stay as long as they are fed, but
are easily distracted, frequently wander off and never come back. It's not
important when they leave, because another stray will be along. These men
never bond very strongly to anyone in the household, not to the mother,
their own bio-children (if any) nor to any of the other children. They
rarely cooperate with services. So even if they are indicated, they are
unaffected in any measurable way; they just move on to another family.
Sometimes, in cases involving Domestic Violence, the service plan
may actually require the mother to exile the offending male until he
finishes an anger management or batterer's therapy program (6 months, here).
Some of the men do not come back after that period of exile; they perceive
the order to have terminated the relationship. If they don't go back, they
don't have to take the classes.
Thus, a male perpetrator may have (short-term) access to more
children, but the mother's behavior toward her own children, I think,
because of her long-term access, and more intense bonding, is probably much
more significant. If she is competant, appropriate and supportive, her care
can mitigate much of the harm done by any short-term offender. If she is
not, her actions (or lack thereof) can exacerbate it. Therefore, much of
our services interventions are aimed at making the mothers more competant,
appropriate and supportive.
And we always have to take into account the inevitable difference
between frequency of actual occurrence, and frequency of reported
occurrence. We believe that families in the inner city get reported more
frequently because they live more closely packed together, and have a wider
circle of acquaintance, often, than suburban or exurban families.
Is there any measureable scientific data to demonstrate whether
people living in inner city areas actually abuse their children more than
other families, or are just reported more often?
Like Maria Robinson, this is just my opinion; your mileage may vary.
Yours, from the trenches...
[ Home |
About NDACAN | Datasets |
User Support |
Contribute Data |
Summer Research Institute ]
[ CMRL List Serve | Bibliography
| Measures Index |
Useful Links | Search ]
Copyright © 1996-2012 National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect
