I completely agree with Message #393. For some reason, I thought you were saying that sexual abuse is more damaging than physical abuse because parents are disciplining their children and so have a reason.

I must have misunderstood.

Never would I say that. I'm solidly down with you on this one. Abuse is abuse, period. My only point was to distinguish between the two forms (sexual and physical) and the different workthrough problems. Others have suggested adding psychological. It's all psychlogical IMO. The physical scars are as nothing by comparison; unless you are unfortunate enough to be snuffed by a parent or surrogate who's a raving lunatic. I can't even read news reports of those cases, they pain me so.

I was lucky in some ways. I did not blame myself. And I got out of the house at 16 when I saw the real possibility of supporting myself by virtue of my musical talent. I cut all psychological ties and then later redeemed any lingering self-doubt when I was instrumental in reconstructing my father's mind after a stroke left him memory impaired. My workthrough was relatively easy. Residual anger took several years to expunge. And the process was by no means within my control; IOW I didn't think it through rationally. It unfolded and eventually I guided the process. Fortunately I didn't do anybody harm. For many others I see the repair process can be very hard and protracted. But then I see the same for those who are overconnected to parents, who cannot function alone and are also psychologically damaged...not through abuse but through misguided love. Go figure.

By the way, everyone, the ThomasD who is posting in this thread cannot be the usual ThomasD. Must be a woman friend or his wife filling in for him. Just compare his usual style -- a rat's maze of syntactical opacity and obsfuscation -- with "his" style in this thread, which manages to combine complexity and relative clarity in the subordinated sentence constructions. Just look at the near-run-on sentence in Message #375: it's now comprehensible, but the old ThomasD would have completely tangled up the meaning and forced the reader to linger tediously over his remarks. And does not the paragraph in Message #383 verge on the Elliotic?

The reports of thomasd's demise have been greatly exxagerated. S/he is alive and kicking in the Clinton thread.

PT,

Again, I agree. I think there is a spectrum for all three sorts of violence and a fairly clear line where it crosses into the area of severe psychological damage.

For sexual abuse, no doubt seems to exist in people's minds that *no* tolerance is allowed. There is a *much* higher tolerance to physical abuse, which is what you, Kurt, Diva, JJ, and I have been fighting the good fight against here.

No one disputes that emotional abuse is bad, but people seem less clear on what it is--they seem to only know when the damage has been done.

I think that's because sexual abuse involves sex, physical abuse involves hitting--what does emotional abuse involve?

But it seems so clear to me. A parent needs to provide:

1) Safety

2) Consistency

3) Unconditional love

4) Authority

5) Boundaries/Limits

And if I reverse 4 and 5 I have SCUBA.

I just threw those together, but I'll bet that practically every case of emotional abuse falls back into one of those categories not being provided.

Tommy,

I would actually argue the other way 'round.

The reason that many single parent families have higher rates of problems is because the parents are more likely to be troubled. The mothers are more likely to put up with an abusive boyfriend who abuses her daughter. This has probably always been true; these people were just hidden before because there was less divorce and less emphasis on the well-being of the child. But I feel sure that kids were getting seriously screwed up in two-parent families for many many years without the numbers being tracked.

So now divorce is easier and it's easier to track a good percentage of troubled parents by whether or not they're single. Before, they were hidden in troubled marriages, destroying their children without anyone caring.

Also, incestuous and violent parents are more likely to be hidden than prosecuted or counted in a two-parent family.

WRT: The "increase" of child abuse in recent years:

Speaking strictly from personal experience with, and knowledge of the Neglect and Abuse cases which pass through our court (but confident that this county is probably pretty representative), I must say that, since child abuse has become such an issue it is being reported (in all it's forms) at an incredibly increased rate.

However, I would estimate that the "reliability" rate for 3rd-party reports of child abuse is well below 50% - iow, less than half of the claims turn out to be true. Unfortunately, ALL of the reports are included in the national averages. There are alot of reasons for the increased reporting of abuse:

1. In more and more divorce and custody battles, frivolous abuse charges are made in an effort to make the other party seem unfit. Lawyers encourage this, because it is very effective in winning custody for their clients, which results in increased child support payments (which means the lawyers don't have to wait 5 years to get paid).

2. Reporting one's neighbor's "child abuse" has been a favorite tactic in neighborhood feuds for about the past decade. Although most of these charges are never proven, reporting the "crime" is itself a very effective tactic, because Protective Services must act on these reports. Being investigated is an extremely frightening, embarassing process. There is probably no better revenge. (A referee in my court, who hears alot of these cases, has told me that in many cases, when this happens, the response is that that person who is reported for abuse then turns around and accuses the accuser - which of course leads to another fruitless investigation).....(Cont'd)

(...cont'd):

3. Spousal Abuse legislation has opened up a whole can of worms wrt domestic problems as a whole. These laws (which were long over-due) have succeeded in providing, finally, a legal remedy for women (and men) who suffer under an abusive spouse. But they have also made it necessary for law enforcement to deal with ALL domestic disputes differently. Whereas, before, an officer called to the scene of a family fight was permitted to make an independent determination of the potential for (further) violence, and to act as a peacemaker, this is no more.

The officer must now remove SOMEONE from the scene if there has been ANY kind of physical contact. In many cases, parents are arrested for holding down their child as he/she attempts to run out the door to buy drugs, or to go hang out on the corner at 11pm. This, incidentally, also works the other way around - many kids are arrested for hitting dad/stepdad or mom/stepmom in self defense.

In alot of cases, this is the only solution which makes sense - if someone isn't removed, then someone's going to get hurt or killed. But in too many cases, this sort of thing happens as the result of an isolated incident. And when it does, it is not simply a matter of "sorting it all out". The case goes to court, and family members are *forced* to testify against one another. The ill-will (or bad karma, if you prefer) which this makes for can destroy otherwise good families.

Re. 407 -

joezan -

You can't simply rely on anecdotal evidence to say that increased reporting is the only cause of the large increase in child abuse statistics over the last 30 years. You must be prepared to show that 1) child abuse is *not* more likely in family structures other than that with two married birth parents and also that 2)the prevalence of these alternate family structures has not significantly increased over the same period of time. As a matter of fact, between 1969 and 1996, US Census figures show an increase from roughly 13% to 30% in single parent households with children under 18 relative to all households with children under 18.

thomasd; You can't simply rely on your own beliefs to discount the experience of someone who has spent more than 10 years working in social services.

JoeZan, your post reminds me of the child abuse witch hunts that have taken hold of communities coast to coast (Edenton NC - Spokan, WA) often in which scores of non-related community members are accused of sex with children, and the tide (estimates ran into tens of thousands yearly) of missing children that swept over the airwaves and milk cartons in the 80's although the FBI estimated, at best, 60+- yearly are missing and not the consequence of abduction by an estranged spouse. In plainer words, talk of child abuse is usually rife with statistical and anectdotal exaggeration, or the words become a loaded accusation such as "racism" for which there is no credible defense.

thomasd:

There is no doubt that reports of child abuse have increased drastically. I don't know how far off you and I are on what we believe to be the *causes*. On one level, I whole-heartedly agree that it seems to be much more prevalant in single-parent households - in fact, I know this to be true from personal experience. Probably 90% of the cases of child abuse that come through our court occur in non-intact, or single-parent homes.

But simply stating it is *because* the child lives in a single-parent home, that he/she is being abused is wrong. I would say, though, that a child is much more likely to be abused in a single-parent home, for many of the same reasons mentioned by others here.

Resources seems to be the key. This is an area where, imo, Churches and community organizations could do much more (child-care, respite services, etc).

Re. 406 -

CalGal -

You are arguing from the a priori assumption that two parent families are actually worse for the children, an assumption that is belied by the secondary indicators that consistently show increased social and psychological dysfunction of children of single parent families.

In two parent families, your hypothesis about troubled parents 'destroying' their children only holds if *both* parents are dysfunctional, which is quite unlikely, given random matching.

Also, even if for no other reason, single parenthood is significantly more stressful, which aggravates any personal problems that the single parent may be struggling with.

CristinO -

Are you saying that the entire body of statistics about child abuse and neglect are worthless? I would necessarily disagree with that.

Re. 412 -

joezan -

I'm sure there is somewhat more of an inflationary factor wrt child abuse reporting than there was several decades ago. The possibility of such factors is why I also try, for my own understanding, to look at cross-sectional studies that have relevance as well as other societal trends, before reaching a conclusion.

Thomasd: No, I'm not saying they are worthless what I'm saying is that they do not offer the whole story. You have repeatedly claimed that increased reporting necessarily means an equal increase in incidents and several people have said why this is most likely not true. Joezan, who has experience in this field, has supported our claims and yet you discount his experience as merely 'anecdotal'.

Re. 416 -

CristinO-

No. First of all, I didn't say joezan's *experience* was anecdotal. I also never denied that there was some increased inflation of child abuse reporting. I am maintaining that child abuse is increasing in reality, despite changes in reporting, and you seem to object to that.

I don't object to the premise I object to the way in which you attempt to use statistics which are not conclusive to argue that there is an horrific epidemic of child abuse in the last few years the likes of which the world has never seen.

Re: 413

You did not read well. CalGal has never maintained that two parent families are inherently more detrimental to child welfare than single parent families and she is not saying so now.

What she is saying is that abuse in a two parent family is more easily hidden than that in a single parent household. I tend to believe that she is correct.

There is no such thing as "Random" pairing. Abusers will seek to pair with those who will accept their abuse. Victims of abuse will seek to pair with those who abuse them----------it's what they know and a role that they understand. Often a person with only latent tendencies toward abuse will become actively abusive if paired with a person for whom being abused is simply viewed as a fact of life.

In these situations--------the most likely for child abuse--------there is often no question of "outing" the abuser or reporting the abuse. That would require that someone in the family be healthy enough to act outside the pattern of abuse. Sometimes one parent is moved to do this to protect the children, but all too often the abused parent is completely dominated by the will of the abuser. Or both parents are abusive.

Re. 418, 419 -

In 418, CristinO sez-

"I object to the way in which

you attempt to use statistics which are not conclusive to

argue that there is an horrific epidemic of child abuse in

the last few years the likes of which the world has never

seen."

Whew! Boy, you sure set me straight! Guess I was completely wrong about everything. We'd better just not mess with those those 'horrific epidemics', huh?

On second thought, I'll wait for CalGal's response to the post I directed to her.

Tommy,

Chris is exactly right as to my meaning.

People who are more likely to suffer and/or tolerate abuse will choose people who are abusers. So while a married woman who suffers from this may tolerate it in order to preserve the marriage/her sense of security, a single mother who has an abusive boyfriend may be more likely to report it. I'm just saying the numbers could possibly be skewed.

It's not marriage or lack thereof that causes abuse, IMO, it's the people. The higher numbers of single parent family abuse can be attributed to two areas that seem believable to me (I have no proof, this is just an interpretation):

1. People who have troubled lives involving abuse, etc., are more likely to get divorced;

2. People who have troubled marriages are less likely to report problems.

If I were to guess, I would say that abuse levels are fairly constant throughout time—it's just that our definition, reporting, and marriage mores have all changed.

Tommy,

"Also, even if for no other reason, single parenthood is significantly more stressful, which aggravates any personal problems that the single parent may be struggling with."

That's a bit of a blanket statement. I realize I'm atypical, but I can tell you that my stress levels dropped dramatically when I got out of my marriage. Yes, being a single parent is tough. Having someone choke you because he's fed up with arguing is somewhat tougher.

FWIW, I am *certainly* typical of the people Chris is describing in her last post (those more likely to tolerate abuse) and I *do* know what I'm talking about.

My marriage was extremely violent. The police were never called. It never occurred to me.

Suppose that, instead of spending large chunks of time and money on therapy, I just assumed that the next guy would be different. And found a boyfriend who beat me up—or beat up my son. Or, if I had a daughter, raped her.

Was the cause of the abuse the boyfriend, my single parent status, or the fact that I was incapable of making wise decisions as to who I should be involved with?

Thomas: You've weakened your credibility by trotting out the "single mothers are the bane of the world" argument ten too many times. Everyone expects you to do it. No one believes you about it and so to see it brought up yet again even in a situation where there is some actual correlation you have to counter the fact that everyone knows your bias on the matter and is looking for it.

You stated your rather alarmist position.

You were asked for evidence and back-up.

You didn't really comply.

You were asked agian.

You did comply.

The reliability of your evidence was questioned.

You stated the evidence again.

The questions about your evidence were given some validation.

You stated that the validation was negligible.

I'm not calling you a liar, Thomas, but I and others doubt the veracity of your position and the conclusions you draw from the statistics that you provided. They don't prove what you say they prove.

That there may be some increase in child abuse in the last 20 years is possible and actually likely, but that it has increased some 400% is a ridiculous notion to entertain without more reliable evidence than you have provided.

No one here is arguing that child abuse is not a serious issue. No one is saying that we shouldn't be doing more about it. But as I recall it your original premise was that child abuse had increased in wildly rampant numbers because of the increase in single and unwed motherhood.

I had no intention of answering for CalGal, but thought that you might want to take some time to re-read what she wrote and get the sense of it rather than making it up out of whole cloth. I continued to comment because it is an issue about which I have interest and some amount of knowlege. If I misrepresented CG in any way she will make no bones about it, but I hardly think she will decry me for pointing out to you that she does not automatically or even more often favor the single pare

Well, this response will probably also be inadequate to the last few posts, but, first of all:

CalGal, I'm truly sorry to hear that things were like that in your marriage.

CristinO, I don't think of single mothers as being 'the bane of the world'; rather, I think that correlating the incidence of broken families to conditions that affect children (the *next* generation) is important in somewhat the same way taking a temperature indicates that a fever from an illness exists.

Even though abusers and abuse enablers exist in two parent families, I think this structure has significant advantages, nonetheless. First, there's one additional wage earner. Secondly, there's usually two role models available for children to model themselves after. Even if one is an abuser, the children can still go to the other parent.

Single parent families are here to stay, of course. And I think that, given sufficient means, or social support structure, the penalty to the children isn't nearly as great. But we're not *that* well-to-do, and our social safety net isn't *that* good.

Oops. I just realized something, and I'd better mention it quick, before it gets taken wrong; in my last post, where I mentioned abusers in two parent families, I should point out that I was not in any way *advocating* that such families should hide the problem or even stay together.

Tommy,

Thanks. (smile)

"Even if one is an abuser, the children can still go to the other parent."

Okay. Suppose you have a father who is beating the shit out of you.

You go to your mom for help. She….what? Says, "oh, sweetie, I'm so sorry?" Gives you lots of love? Ice on the bruises?

If she doesn't remove you and herself from the dangers of this person RIGHT AWAY, then she is no better a parent than the abusive father.

What sort of role model is that? What kind of ideas does that give a child about love, responsibility, security, parenting? Relationships?

No. Parents that do not spare their children from abuse are no better than the abuser. Their motives are different. But the damage done to the child is as bad. In many ways, it can be worse. Because yes, the child usually prefers this parent. But so? What have they learned? Be passive? Take the shit that's dealt you?

A child who is beaten (or sexually abused, same pattern) will learn to identify with either the abuser or the victim role. In either case, the parent who doesn't protect their child is helping to create another generation of trouble just as surely as the abusive parent.

Oops myself.

If the parent *does* leave to protect the child (which was, actually, why I left my marriage, even though I was the one being hit), then he or she is de facto creating a single-parent family.

Which is worse?

Income is far more closely correlated to abuse than family structure is; single parenting doubles the chance of endangerment by "some type of child abuse or neglect" but the probabilities of (various kinds of) abuse range from 12 to *60* times worse when comparing families that make less than $15k a year to those that earn more than $30k a year. (The above from a NIS study, q.v.; many details, but it does sum up: "Family income is the strongest correlate of incidence in nearly all categories of abuse and neglect...".)

Single-parent families are even more likely to be in poverty in this country than two-parent families, since we consider parenting too sacred to be helped with money. (Or is it money that's sacred?) All young families have been sliding down the economic scale for the last twenty years; and note "Five out of six poor children who live in young families would still be poor even if America returned to the higher marriage rates of twenty years ago. Moreover, there is strong evidence that rising economic distress has contributed to family break-up."

Re. 428 -

chloel -

The information in your CDF link is a very significant reason why I'm for removing the marriage income tax penalty and increasing the per-child tax deduction to an amount closer to what it originally was in inflation-adjusted dollars as practical steps to encourage two parent families.

"You are arguing from the a priori assumption that two parent

families are actually worse for the children, an assumption that is belied by the secondary indicators that consistently show increased social and psychological dysfunction of children of single parent families."

Chloel, thank you...

I'm glad someone else picked up the fallacy in thomasd's argument as stated. IMO, poverty is far closer to being the causal correlative for abuse than is the single parent family. But are you saying thomasd, that couples should remain coupled simply to raise their income levels? That would be absurd. Are you seriously of the mind that removing the marriage penalty and increasing the per-child tax deduction will keep families together? That's doubtful. The focal point then shifts to the sexual inequality in the wage structure. Fixing that would do a hell of a lot more to ameliorate the poverty status of one parent families, which for all intents and purposes means those headed by a sole woman.

Or are you perhaps just philosphically opposed to single parent families?

I'm actually pretty suspect as to any causal (is that the right word?) relationship between poverty and abuse, as well.

Women, in particular, are more likely to report violence if they have nothing to lose. At lower income levels, they're either already on welfare or it's not such a drop.

Also, people who have been abused are quite often unable to function well. So they're more likely to be poor.

IOW, you could argue that abuse causes poverty *in some circumstances* and that poverty releases some people from fear of the financial repercussions of leaving an abusive partner.

But the notion that being poor and stressed causes abuse is not valid, to me. You've either bonded with your kids or you haven't. If you have, you won't be abusive. If you haven't, it probably wasn't the poverty that prevented it.

Should be " I'm suspicious of" or "I suspect the relationship..."

not "I'm suspect."

Oh sorry...you meant "causal." Yeah that's ok.

Re. 430 -

I won't pretend that the advantages of two parent families to children are only financial (that wouldn't be honest), but it seems clear to me that two wage earners will do considerably better than one in a household (or one than zero), everything else being equal. I await with interest any attempt of yours to dispute the above hypothesis.

Also, if household income were the only variable to affect the incidence of child abuse, why hasn't the EIC had a significant impact, since single parents are the greatest beneficiaries of this program?

Did anyone catch this Morning Edition clip?:

Child Abuse Countersuit -- NPR's Wendy Kaufman reports that jury deliberations have begun in Wenatchee, Washington. A Pentacostal minister and his wife, the central figures in a 1995 child sexual abuse investigation, claim they were falsely accused and are suing for damages.

The Real Audio clip is here

NIS doesn't claim income is the only variable, just the best-correlated. And many of us have come up with possible causative reasons in several directions between poverty and abusive family structures of several types.

thomasd, given data finding money *more* important than family composition, why are you calling for changes in the tax code to increase two-parent families? We should concentrate on decreasing child poverty, and keep a hopeful eye out for ways to increase the number of caretakers per child. (Two seems low, to me.) Moreover, "that two wage earners will do considerably better than one in a household (or one than zero), everything else being equal" is missing one of the serious arguments in the CDF study; that where the income of a family has stayed the same over the past decades, it is depressingly often because both parents now work fulltime. This is not good for the children either.

Do we know what effect EIC has had on abuse? do you have figures indicating that it should get single parents across the income differential cited by the NIS? without that, there's no reason there to believe EIC should have a big effect as currently implemented.

I (like ptboya) start looking at the sexual inequality in the wage structure; if women more reliably earned living wages, and men did their share of the unpaid labor (freeing women up to earn), fewer children would be at risk of poverty. Sweden taxes everyone to subsidize children, which essentially attacks the unpaid labor problem by paying for it, but I gather the tactic works; Sweden's worries about its children are tame by our standards.

CalGal, I agree that a good parent won't abuse even in the stresses of poverty, but aren't there weakly attached parents? or parents who depend on social norms or kin support?

Tommy,

You haven't answered points in any of my posts. I'm curious. Do you realize that there may be an entirely different way of looking at it?

IOW, long-term abuse might be a cause in *forming* single-parent families, as a *cause* of poverty.

I'm not offering this as proof, just as a different way of thinking about it.

CG: Help me develop a theory here.

Abuse is about power and powerlessness. An abuser is a person who feels powerless and so lashes out against others to gain a sense of power.

Could we decrease the rate of abuse by decreasing feelingings of powerlessness?

Many abusers got their feelings of powerlessness by being victims of abuse themselves. On the other hand not all victims of abuse become abusers. I'm guessing that they fall into two categories----those who get over their feelings of powerlessness and those who continue in the role of victim never "graduating" to abuser.

How do we stop this cycle? It cannot all be solved by building better parents. (Well, actually, maybe all the evils of the world could be solved by such, who knows?)

How much of it do you think is societal? Victimization by the society in which we live and feelings of powerlessness within it that cause the borderline abuser to go full blown.

I'm just brainstorming here. Does it sound at all plausible?

Chloe,

"CalGal, I agree that a good parent won't abuse even in the stresses of poverty, but aren't there weakly attached parents? or parents who depend on social norms or kin support?"

Oh, yes. My quibble is that when this happens, I don't see it being related to income. And then, as I said, it's not easy to overcome an abused childhood and become a normally functioning adult who can hold down a job, build a career, etc. The odds are against you—what's amazing is how many people *do* make it, whether they end up being abuser or abused with all their success. Still, it could be that a disproportionate amount of poor people also were abused children.

I don't wish to say that I think poverty is a result of child abuse. I'm just saying that I don't see poor people being any more likely to abuse their children than rich people if there isn't some *other* reason.

Also, all I'm saying (to be dreadfully tedious about it) is that this is a potential interpretation of the data. I have no facts to back me up.

Chris,

That's a great question and one I could go on about forever. However, my ex will *not* be happy at the fact that I'm late for picking up Spawn, so I'll make a few comments and bust out for home.

Interesting how you say powerlessness. I always say abuse is about control. And yet, of course, that turns out to be the same thing--the abuser needs to feel more power.

"On the other hand not all victims of abuse become abusers. I'm guessing that they fall into two categories----those who get over their feelings of powerlessness and those who continue in the role of victim never 'graduating' to abuser."

Actually, from what I've read, it's a process of identification. Some abuse victims identify with the abuser, others with the victim. Also, some abusers hit their spouses, others their kids. What causes that choice? Control again? Do women who become abusers hit their children because hitting their spouse is less likely to be under their control? Is the rise in husband battering a reaction to women feeling more empowered, so those who have been distorted by abuse are now more likely to be able to feel a sense of control over a man?

To save me typing it in again, there's a post or two in Big Questions about Donald Dutton's book, The Batterer, and his theory (the psychological theory) as to how batterers are formed. The primary cause (in his view) is an abusive childhood--both physical and emotional abuse.

"It cannot all be solved by building better parents."

You know? In a *very* broad sense, speaking of many types of abuse, I'm not sure that's all that out of line to say.

See ya later!

Well, CalGal -

Re. 427 - I'd evaluate on a case-by-case basis. In your case, I'd say you did the right thing.

-half an hour hiatus here -

Sorry, I'd respond to more, but, unfortunately, I have to run now.

Have a good one.

CalGal -

"I'm just saying that I don't see poor people being any more likely to abuse their children than rich people if there isn't some *other* reason."

What should NIS have been looking for that they didn't find, to correlate better than poverty? Granted, child abuse could cause enough poverty to show the correlation. I don't think I found a longitudinal study on the subject.

What I thought about weakly attached parents was that once some parents are like that, it seems possible that the parents in that category who also are poor will be worse parents. E.g., they can't hire a babysitter and get away from the kids sometimes; everyone in the extended family is working so Aunt Jane doesn't get the chance to lean on them to be better parents; etc. Plausible? it makes neither the poverty nor the iffy parenting sufficient for abuse, but the combination may be.

Chloel,

"What should NIS have been looking for that they didn't find, to correlate better than poverty?"

Probably history of abuse (sexual or physical, emotional is hard to question for) and/or parents who were addicted to drugs or alcohol?

And then see if that's consistent across income levels?

The problem is, that's a much tougher survey to do, isn't it? (g)

I see what you're saying--basically, the more money, the better the support system. I agree that in cases where the abuse is mitigated by stress, it sure wouldn't hurt.

"Probably history of abuse (sexual or physical, emotional is hard to question for) and/or parents who were addicted to drugs or alcohol?

And then see if that's consistent across income levels?"

I'd bet alcohol and drug abuse is pretty consistent across income levels (particulary alcohol addiction). Yet physical abuse is not. The combination of drugs and poverty is far more volatile than the former by itself, so this stands to reason.

History of abuse is certainly an important factor, but anecdotally in my own case it was not a factor...my father, unlike his father and myself, is the isolated batterer. Poverty was not a factor in my case either but I'd bet that family history of abuse (the violent cycle) is expressed more within poverty.

Anyway, whether or not you see poverty as the most significant statistical proximate cause of abuse it is, imo, the best candidate for the ultimate cause.

PT: It seems that perhaps abuse is either better hidden by the affluent or it is more prevelent amongst those who are increasingly powerless, or some combination of the two.

Perhaps. But I'm doubtful that *physical* abuse is as common among the affluent for the following reasons. The affluent are generally busy, unless we're talking landed gentry. Emotional abandonment by parents is thus more likely than physical abuse. The affluent can also purchase effective resources to deal with their children's problems. They don't have to feel alone dealing with problems beyond their control.

PT,

That last post is simply not true.

People abuse because of an internal reaction to stress. But what kicks off the stress could be anything. Usually events that feel like they can't be controlled, whether internal or external.

You're also assuming that rich people go, "Jeez. I've got to stop hitting my kids. Maybe a shrink is in order."

Not any more than one would say, "Jeez. I've got to stop having sex with my kids. Maybe a shrink is in order."

There is a place, near the middle of the spectrum, where a parent who is stressed and out of control might slap their kid more because they're having a bad day. And in some of *these* cases, money and support might help.

But do you honestly think that a parent who smacks their kid against a wall or chases them down to where the kid is on the ground, hiding the sensitive parts against the kicks, is doing it because they don't have enough money? No.

Here neither you or I had families in poverty and yet childhoods that weren't all that fun. There is little question that spousal abuse has few links to income. So why all of a sudden is physical child abuse linked to income?

Cal and PT...your posts reflect the two consensus approaches to the examination of causality for child abuse...Psychological(Cal) and Sociological/social institutions/strata(PT)...both have merit and are clearly worth discussing.

"People abuse because of an internal reaction to stress. But what kicks off the stress could be anything. Usually events that feel like they can't be controlled, whether internal or external."

This is well-stated as a model IMO. The stress of poverty is constant and heavy. It is humiliating in a society that demeans poverty as ours does. It exacts its toll in stress upon relationships of all kinds, expecially on families. Both the spousal and the parent/child relationships are affected by the stress of poverty. Affluence, as you and I know, is not a cure-all but I'm sure it eases many of the family stresses found in poverty. Perhaps it creates different ones? Personally, I've been rich and poor: I'd prefer the problems of being rich any day thank you very much.

'You're also assuming that rich people go, "Jeez. I've got to stop hitting my kids. Maybe a shrink is in order." '

No I'm not. I'm assuming only that they *can and do* resort to outside help at a higher frequency...not that they will. I'm talking aggregates here.

"There is little question that spousal abuse has few links to income."

I'm not sure this statement is true. If you have any further info please point me to it.

Celebrity Status

PsychProf,

Yeesh. Where were you earlier in the DV debate? (g)

I think until that post I've been making it clear that my views on this were interpretative and I *do* pretty much follow the psychological theory. Sorry it wasn't clear in that post.

PT,

I should have been clearer in that post.

My belief is that women who are poorer have more incentive to call the cops and report domestic violence than women who are well off. They have less to lose. That's my theory as to why the numbers are higher.

But in *any* event, the profiles for spousal abusers is identical, regardless of income. So even *if* there are less of them in the upper income levels, they aren't hitting for any different reasons. In that sense, there is no "link" to income. (We can debate the other one separately.)

"I'm assuming only that they *can and do* resort to outside help at a higher frequency...not that they will. I'm talking aggregates here."

I know you are. But with the exception of someone who is feeling a lot of stress and acting it out on their kid (which is *not* the standard profile of an abusive parent), most abusers do *not* see themselves as needing help. They don't even see what's happening as their fault.

If you would like to read about a civil action I am presently

litigating against the federal law enforcement agencies I

grossed over $10 million in asset forfeitures for as a

federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (

R.I.C.O. ) Informant/Victim when I attempted to obtain

government intervention to protect a baby girl who was

being exposed to heroin and cocaine by her dope-fiend

crack-head prostitute mother.........................

Then go to my TRIPOD Home-Page and read about what

happened after I became a federal R.I.C.O.

Informant/Victim in order to report child abuse/neglect and

the commission of State and Federal offenses by the

baby's mother and the mother's criminal associates who

were enaged in "police protected" organized crime.

My real name appears in a front-page Detroit Free Press news article which was published on December 5, 1992.

That newspaper article and others, which relate to this

story, can be found on my TRIPOD Home-Page.

Mr. Rico:

Hang on. There's going to be a delay as we leaf through, print out, and highlight texts from the cited resources. This'll take awhile...

Hey "grantman"........you are welcome to attend the upcoming public trial in the Detroit U.S. District Court if I don't have an "accident" like Robert Demoff ( the owner of the police protected prostitution front - Jumbo's Bar ).

Of cousre I might just end up with a bullet in my head or vanishing like Jimmie Hoffa. But then the Federal judge might just start wondering what's going on in the McNamara Building around the corner from her courthouse in downtown Detroit.

Oh.........I forgot to tell the special agents in federal law enforcement ( "fags in the suits" ) about my special "insurance policy" before they f@*ked me up my a$$ as a federal R.I.C.O. informant/victim.

Opps...........too late now!

Rico:

Would the dope-head, crack-fiend prostitute happen to be your ex?

>456. joezan

>Rico:

>"Would the dope-head, crack-fiend prostitute happen to be your ex?"

The dope-fiend crack-head whore mother was not my "ex". And I was not the pimp or the dope-man who was stringing her out on smack and crack when she was pregnant !

I just didn't want her baby girl to be "turned out" by a dope-fiend crack-head whore or her pimp, when the mother ended up "used up" in the future and was no longer able to turn "tricks" to support her heroin and crack cocaine addiction and her pimp's addiction.

That is what usually happens to the daughters of dope-fiend crack-head whores when they are faced with quiting dope or finding a new way to keep supporting an old habit.

The baby was not mine - if you are wondering about that also. Or I could have just taken protective custody of her myself without having to seek government intervention as an informant.

The baby's mother ( Miguel Brennan ) "turned out" a 16 year old ( Melissa Isaacson - a.k.a. "Tammy Ireland" ) in 1989 for Walter James Hart Jr. - a.k.a. "Prince".

Melissa took over 6 months before she trusted me enough to help her escape from her pimp, who had been beating her.

In January 1990, I picked Melissa up from the house in Detroit she was confined to at that time and I drove her to a "safe-house" ( the Hill-Top Motel on Telegraph Road ) where she could hide for a few days. I gave her around $100 so she could get a room until she could go back to doing what she had chosen to do - working as an exotic dancer at a Lincoln Park Lounge ( the Atlantis ). She went back to the same type of work she was in before she met Walter James Hart Jr.

Oh....the "sicko's" out there are

[ Message #457 continued ]

Oh....the "sicko's" out there are probably asking themselves if I gave Melissa the $100 for the room in order to obtain her "services". Well "sicko's" out there, the $100 was given to Melissa without any "strings" attached in order to get her back on her feet. I never saw her after that day in January 1990 - although she did testify against Walter James Hart Jr. and Ronnie Hudson years later.

Melissa should not have been working as a 16 year-old exotic dancer before she met Hart at the Dizzy Duck ( an all nude club - juice lounge in Detroit ). She met Hart at that club and went home with him one night. You can guess what took place after that.

I went to federal law enforcement a month after helping Melissa escape from her pimp and told them about Melissa also in order to insure that Hart would not bother Melissa in the future. The feds had the local police bust Hart in June of 1990 and then the F.B.I. took over the case after that.

Hart was indicted for Mann Act violations ( white-slavery ). "Prince" had transported Melissa ( a minor ) across state lines to Washington, DC for the purpose of prostitution.

There is a January ( 9 ? ), 1991 newspaper article published by the Detroit News concerning Hart's arrest by the F.B.I. and his indictment for Mann Act violations involving Melissa.

The Federal judge ( Rosen ) in Hart's case was led to beleive that the feds had just stumbled on to Hart accidently after he was "poped" by local police. The feds were told where to find Melissa on the day I first approached the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Customs Service in February 1990 as a federal informant/victim who was seeking protection for the baby of the mother who had "turned out" Melissa as a prostitute in a house on Everette Street in Southfield, Michigan in 1989.

Hart was found guilty of the Mann Act and in 1993 he pled guilty

[ Message #458 continued ]

Hart was found guilty of the Mann Act and in 1993 he pled guilty to one count of racketeering in front of Federal judge George Laplatta in Case No. CR-92-90018-AA-Laplatta in order to avoid going to trial for racketeering. His uncle, another pimp named Ronnie Hudson, was found guilty of racketeering by a jury in July 1993 ( in Case No. CR-92-90018-AA-Laplatta ).

Hart got a total of 87 or 89 months for both the Mann Act violation and the racketeering count he pled guilty to.

Hart made a deal with the feds.

Hudson got 20 years ( the maximum sentence ). Hudson was a scapegoat who had the "MONEY". Hudson's "MONEY" ended up in the pocket of my dear uncle Sam - who lives in Washington, DC.

My uncle Sam f@*ked me up the a$$ like a $2 whore.

RICO don't take it that way from no bit@h, let alone a "fag in a suit" that carries a badge.

Now I'm trying to f@*k my dear uncle up his a$$ in the Detroit U.S. District Court. But the bit@h don't like to take it the way he gives it to others !

The baby girl is 8 years old now and in the process of being adopted by people that will take care of her properly ( I am told ). When Danielle Ashley Brennan turns 18 years old, she will be able to sue ( the federal law enforcement agencies I informed to in 1990 and 1991 ) for civil rights conspiracy - Conspiracy to Obstruct Rights.

Local and federal law enforcement failed to file the "mandatory" child abuse/neglect report(s) with social services as required by the Michigan Child Protection Law ( as well as the Federal child abuse reporting laws which took effect on November 29, 1990 ).

Remember parents and children - listen to the politicians in Washington, DC !

"Just say NO to drugs" - because drugs are bad for you .................

UNLESS you are the baby of a dope-fiend crack-head whore whose mother just happens to be working

[ Message #459 continued ]

Remember parents and children - listen to the politicians in Washington, DC !

"Just say NO to drugs" - because drugs are bad for you !

UNLESS you are the baby of a dope-fiend crack-head whore whose mother just happens to be working as a prostitute in a prostitution front protected by vice and narcotics detectives from the Detroit Police Department's 13th Precinct !

"Ho ! .....Ho ! ........Ho !" - quote from Ronnie Hudson ( a convicted pimp ).

Sincerley yours,

Robert Karol - R.I.C.O. Informant/Victim/Witness

Anybody remember the firestorm that erupted during the Reagan administration when there was an attempt made to have ketchup listed as a vegetable for school lunches? Oh, the acrimony! Oh, the vituperation! Oh, the lofty contempt for the evil Republicans who were dishonest enough to foist this atrocity on our children! (it *was* pretty bad, just like the following):

Well, they're back at it again, only, this time, under Clinton:

Salsa a veggie in school lunches, from USA Today:

A new Department of Agriculture rule allows schools to receive federal reimbursement for meals that include salsa as one of the required nutritional components. But the salsa must be made from all-vegetable ingredients - no stabilizers - and be served in quantities of at least one-eighth of a cup. The supposition is that kids are more likely to eat salsa than broccoli.

Salsa is good for you, provided the restrictions you mentionl. I'm pretty sure the main ingredient of Catsup is sugar, isn't it?

Re. 462 -

Ganstamoll -

The major ingredient and source of Vitamin C (and other phytochemicals) in both ketchup and salsa is tomatoes.

Tommy,

You never answered my questions.

Salsa at least still resembles tomatoes, doesn't it?

Re. 464 -

CalGal -

Would you be so kind as to direct my attention to the questions you want answered, so I don't spend my time on the wrong ones?

thomasd. Correct, but..."tomato concentrate, distilled vinegar, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, salt, onion powder, spice, flavoring."

as opposed to

"tomato, onion, green pepper, water, black pepper, onion powder, spice."

Tommy,

First off, I realized afterwards that I sounded snarky. Didn't mean to, I was just interested in discussing it further.

See Message #421 and Message #422

In general, what I'm asking is if it's possible for you to see another way of framing the issue. You tend towards "single mothers cause x,y, and z". I'm saying that there's another interpretation, which is single mothers who have a history of x, y, and z, can often recreate the situations in their own adult lives.

And I gave you a specific example to go along with it.

Also, Message #426, which addressed your argument that in a two parent family, an abused child will at least have *one* safe parent.

Tomato concentrate (aka tomato paste, a staple in pizza and spaghetti sauces) is not nutritionally different than whole tomatoes. Also, many recipes for both salsa and ketchup use concentrates of various sorts, although none are required for either.

high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, salt....

Calgal, in 421, you state:

"It's not marriage or lack thereof that causes abuse, IMO,

it's the people. The higher numbers of single parent family

abuse can be attributed to two areas that seem believable

to me (I have no proof, this is just an interpretation):

1. People who have troubled lives involving abuse, etc.,

are more likely to get divorced;

2. People who have troubled marriages are less likely to

report problems."

First of all, the proportion of people who will abuse children under any circumstances is quite small. You seem to want to ignore the facts that parenting is usually a cooperative effort in most two parent families, and that the greatly heightened stress and lack of resources in the great majority of single parent families will affect behavior (abuse and neglect) considerably to the detriment to the children.

Most of the families with children I know of regard parenting as a *cooperative* effort. That means that if one parent starts getting out of hand, the other one will take measures to protect the children. This check on inappropriate behavior simply doesn't exist in one parent families. And there aren't enough 'abusers', such as you will have it to go around such as to account for single parenthood being preferable (for the children's welfare) in more than in a few percent of families.

Re. 422 -

CalGal -

You, apparently, were one of the unfortunate few. As sad as your experience in marriage was, as much as I agree that you and your child are better off now, your rather exceptional and unfortunate experience in marriage is far from sufficient to cause me to derive an indictment of marriage as an institution, or even to draw the conclusion that its benefits to the children involved are neutralized in most cases.

Tommy,

"greatly heightened stress and lack of resources in the great majority of single parent families will affect behavior (abuse and neglect) considerably to the detriment to the children"

I'm not ignoring that "fact". The problem is, it's not a fact. You look at the numbers and come up with one interpretation. I look at them and come up with another. If you can cite to me any study that says the *reason* (as opposed to interpretation) why more abuse occurs in single parent households, let's discuss. Otherwise, it's just your interpretation against mine.

"That means that if one parent starts getting out of hand, the other one will take measures to protect the children. "

That's not what you said, earlier. You said they'd have the ability to bond with the "good" parent. Also, you have this weird idea about abuse. If the worst that was happening was a stressed out parent slapping a child, fine. But *real* abuse isn't the sort of thing that starts like that and gets worse. It's about control, and feeling the need to assert it wherever possible. So that sentence simply isn't reality in a two-parent family. The one parent gets out of control; the other parent often stands by, helplessly, trying to figure out a way to keep the marriage together. That's to say nothing of the situation where both parents are abusers. Which is not uncommon. (my own situation, for example.)

Finally, I've *never* said that single parent households are de facto better than two-parent households. All I'm asking you to consider is that the reasons you're using are backwards.

But I think the first step would be for us to classify the sort of "abuse" we're talking about.

GanStaMoll

Is salsa better for you than ketchup?

I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

(As an aside, food ingredients are required to be listed in declining order (with some special rules), the use of high fructose corn syrup as an ingredient separate from corn syrup may be a clever way to avoid the fact that the total corn syrup contribution is greater than the tomato)

However, Tommy is quite correct to say that the media reaction to the Reagan administration decision is all out of proportion to the relative merits of salsa versus ketchup.

Re. 473 -

FTC -

Flash: Both ketchup and salsa are mostly.....tomatoes! Not a whoop's worth to choose from between the two as far as nutritional value, except that ketchup is more concentrated.

Take it from me, no ketchup I know of has more total sweetener than tomatoes. Such a concoction would be intolerably sweet. I retch just thinking about it. Also, there's plenty of salt in many salsas.

Re. 472 -

CalGal -

I had typed a lengthier response to your post, but then the Fray crashed. (Thanks, Slate!), and it was lost. But, to summarize :

You sound very much like you are extrapolating your personal experiences to marriages as a whole. That lack of separation between your own history and the effects on children of single parenthood as a social phenomenon is one reason why your particular set of assumptions don't seem convincing to me.

You can't form an serious argument by ignoring the serious financial, emotional and time disadvantages that single parents are beset with, compared to two parent families.

Both cases apply that I claimed; that children can 'bond' with the good parent and that that parent that influence the other parent (why not; are we only animals?).

Also, there's an ocean of statistics that all say: 'Single parents are worse for children that two parent families.' Whatcha got that trumps that?

Tommy,

"You sound very much like you are extrapolating your personal experiences to marriages as a whole. "

You probably didn't mean that as an insult. Trust me. It was. No such thing, dufus. (and I meant that last affectionately. Or I will, I'm sure, once I've finished being annoyed.)

I really have never tried to claim that single parenthood is a good thing. If you find me a post where I say otherwise, let me know.

I'm saying that you are wrongly attributing the causes of abuse to poverty and stress. If you take poverty and stress out of the picture, then you have to come up with some other reason for the cause of abuse. I think you will find the causes to be the same regardless of income or class.

And there is no such thing as a child who has two parents where only one of them is abusive. If the other parent knows about the abuse, then the child is living with two abusive parents.

tommasd -

I respectfully suggest you go back and re-read CalGal's posts. In addition, personal experience is not to be scoffed at. I was in a very dysfunctional emotionally abusive family. When my older brother began to act out in rather severe ways, my parents took him in for counseling. The counselor saw two white, middle-class, college-educated parents and leapt immediately to the conclusion that nothing could be wrong with the parenting in the family and dignosed my brother as hopelessly insane. I was luckier. I acted out by attempting suicide starting at age 12. No one noticed and I wasn't very good at it, so I survived. I am not trying to glean sympathy. Nor am I trying to say that all abusive families are like mine.

However, the tendency was, and still is, to not 'see' abuse that is going on in middle-class to well-to-do families. While the child whose parents are poor is readily believed if they are brave enough to tell someone about it, the child whose parents are in an upper-income level is more likely to be sent to counseling to find out why they feel the need to lie.

thomasd -

Another example. My first career was as a horseback riding instructor. Two of my students, both teenage girls were sent to an Aunt's house (mother's sister) while their parents went on a second honeymoon in Europe. While with the Aunt, the girls told that the father had been sexually abusing (raping) them each starting at age 13. The reaction of the Aunt and of the community at large was outrage that these spoiled brats would dare damage the reputation of this fine man. I think the reaction would have been different if the girl's family had been poor and/or non-white.

to continue . . .

The 'fine man' committed suicide three weeks after returning home to the accusations. The mother disowned the girls for ruining her life. The Aunt also disowned them. They moved in with their older sister (25 , a college graduate and on her own). The older sister told me she was sorry that their father had committed suicide because she had wanted the chance to testify about what he had done to her if he had gone to trial.

This was 10 years ago. To this day, most of the people in that community blame the bratty girls for destroying this 'wonderful man'. After all, he was white, good-looking, well-to-do, and very involved in charity and church functions.

I'll bet no one lists those three girls as victims of child abuse when compiling statistics.

I've got to go. I look forward to reading your responses tomorrow.

Some of the self-appointed data police here in the fray are going to attack you people for your "anecdotal data."

But for whatever it's worth my anecdotal data also shows no socio-economic component to child abuse. I have observed it in families of various levels of income and social status.

BJ -

My point is that the statistics are skewed by the unconscious (or conscious) predjudices of the people taking and interpreting the statistics.

Is there a higher incidence of child abuse in low income families because of the pressures of being poor; or because low income family members are more likely to report it because they have less to lose; or because high income families are better able to conceal it; or because the people taking the statistics are less likely to perceive child abuse in 'fine upstanding pillars of the community'; or a combination of all of these factors?

CalGal's point was (I think) that looking at the coorelation doesn't necessarily indicate cause. Is there a higher incidence of child abuse in single parent families (a 'statistic' I am doubtful of, but let's go with it anyway) because single parents are more likely to abuse; or because single parents are more vulnerable to the 'predators' in our society; or because they are single in the first place because they are troubled; or because they are more likely to be poor and stressed out; or (again) are the statistics skewed by the predjudices, expectations, and perceptions of the people taking and interpreting the statistics?

IMHO There really is NO single, simple answer or cause and effect going on here. It is VERY complicated and complex. The 'causes' of child abuse are as varied as all the 'anecdotes' of every abuser and abused individual.

That doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done about it. I just think we should try to be a little less judgemental.

Correlations NEVER indicate causality.

484. Wombat - July 5, 1998 - 6:28 PM PDT

TD:

Ketchup was introduced as a "vegetable" to cut costs in a program that the Reagan administration would have probably preferred to eliminate. Salsa was introduced as a "vegetable" to provide additional variety as well as something that schoolkids, particularly in the Southwest, might actually eat. (Personally, I would prefer ketchup to salsa).

Christi,

Thanks for expanding on my points. I agree with everything you said.

BJ, I don't think either Christi and I were using anecdotal data to prove our point conclusively, but rather to suggest ways in which the statistics could be skewed.

CalGal -

Yes! That's what I was trying to do.

Thanks.

Hey, no prob.

I'm sorry this thread is getting RIPed. It was interesting, and I think there is more to discuss. But it will probably come up again.

Sigh.

CalGal, ChristiPeters-

Let's take a very simple case here:

One form of child abuse is neglect. Now, what form of family is more likely to neglect its children: one in which only one parent is available, or one in which two parents are available?

thomasd -

Logically, on the face of it, you would expect that the chances for neglect are greater in the single parent family. I have found that the world is not very logical when you are talking about the behavior of human beings.

I have personally known of three cases of severe emotional neglect and two cases of physical neglect. All five families were two-parent families.

Ooohhh, there I go again with the anecdotes!

I think that single-parenting has been given a bum rap.

No, of course my opinion hasn't been influenced by the fact that I am a single parent!

Tommy,

Sigh.

First off, I question whether or not it is more likely in *either* type of family. Statistics only show, as Christi mentions, that it is more likely to be reported in single parent families.

Even if, however, the numbers are true, your premise is that single parenting *causes* this neglect. As if this woman had remained married, it wouldn't have happened.

You are interepreting the data to say that stress causes abuse. Lack of resources causes abuse. I'm saying--no. That's not how I interpret the same data. *Possibly*, in the cases where a parent with weaker attachment to their children might be pushed over the line--sure. In that case, though, it would be financial resources rather than marital status. But this is just not the standard situation.

IOW, your question has *nothing* to do with what we're talking about.

Tommy,

Message #471

By the way--I just saw this.

Where the hell did you get *that* from my posts?

I've never said that marriage is bad. Nor have I ever said that single parenting is good. Would you please try and refrain from presenting my views as simplistically as yours? (marriage good, single parents, bad.)

Re. 490 -

"You are interepreting the data to say that stress causes

abuse. Lack of resources causes abuse. I'm saying--no."

What I see is that you won't give ground on *any* front: IYO, for the children, single parenting necessarily *has* to average out as good as two parent (or extended families) in *every* particular; either that, or there *cannot* exist any acceptable way to measure any differences.

Sorry. That straitjacket and set of blinders is not my size.

Tommy,

I didn't understand your last post (492).

If I understand your position, you're saying that single parenting causes an upswing in abuse numbers. That by eliminating or reducing single parenting we could reduce the amount of abuse.

I'm saying that I don't believe that to be true.

It has *nothing* to do with single vs. dual parenting, but rather what I've read (and know personally) about abuse.

In other words, you are using abuse numbers to buttress your argument that single parenting is bad. I'm not using *anything* to argue that single parenting is good.

My argument is that your argument is not valid. That to focus on single parenting as *any* cause of abuse is not so much an affront to single parenting as it is a tremendous affront to any effort to reduce abuse.

Now, what form of

family is more likely to neglect its children: one in which

only one parent is available, or one in which two parents

are available?

Is that two biological parents or one biological parent and a partner to the biological parent ?

If one parent is abusing or neglecting the child and the other parent ( or guardian ) knowingly allows that abuse and/or neglect to continue, then that person would be an "accessory" to the crime of child abuse by the other.

If two persons in an intimate relationship share the responsibility of children they created together, then will one person report the other in a case of child abuse and risk destroying their relationship by exposing child abuse ? Or will they let the abuse continue in order to sustain their relationship ? Depends on a person's priorities - children's health and welfare versus intimacy with one's mate !

Are men or women more prone to report child abuse/neglect ?

Which one is more likely to be the perpetrator in a child abuse case - the woman or the man ?

How many child abuse cases involve a non-biological parent as the perpetrator who is living with one of the child's biological parents ?

How many child abuse cases involve both of the biological parents as the perpetrators of the abuse and/or neglect ?

How many child abuse cases involve persons other than the child's biological parent ? ( Such as a foster care parent or a child's legal guardian )

There are a lot of different scenarios.

Re. 493 -

CalGal -

Then what's your explanation for the upswing in child crime, poverty and abuse in the last 30 years...or don't you have one? I *do*, you know.

Re. 494 -

"Now, what form of family is more likely to neglect its children: one in which only one parent is available, or one in which two parents

are available?"

The question is meant as a comparison of the totality of the two types of family structures.

My question is a little bit like asking if the POTUS is better off with two Secret Service agents looking out for his safety, as compared to one, without getting into their gender, ethnic background, training, etc.

Tommy,

As was mentioned many times earlier, we've changed the definition of what constitutes abuse. For the better, generally. A lot more gets reported.

Also, the welfare system freed up many women from staying with husbands or boyfriends if they were unhappy. The security of these payments might cause them to report abuse more often.

As Christi says, there is a great deal of abuse that simply goes unreported in two-parent, middle and higher income families. So the increase might actually be *more* if it were fully reported.

I'm not saying that this is *true*, Tommy. I don't know. I'm just telling you, again, that my interpretation is just as valid as yours. No one knows why the numbers are higher.

As I mentioned to chloel earlier, it would be interesting to interview reported abusers for *their* family history. Asking questions carefully to ensure that abuse is reported accurately. It might be discovered that a history of abuse is the common denominator of abusers--not income, stress levels, or marital status.

CalGal -

Here, here.

thomasd -

The factors involved in child abuse are many and varied. It's just way too complicated. There is NO single cause and effect. There is a mosaic of multiple causes and effects. Not only that, but there is probably many different mosaics.

This does NOT mean that we should give it up as a lost cause. It is very definitely worht society's efforts to discover these 'mosaics' and see what can be done to prevent families (of any sort) from abusing children. Children are our future.

I have a friend who is a prison psychiatrist. One of the things she has told me (and I have seen confirmed in articles) is that we 'know' how to make a 'monster'. Take a human child. Make sure that child has no one 'safe' to bond to. Make sure everyone the child comes in to contact with either hurts it or ignores it. Do all this from birth to 2 years of age. Congratulations, you have just produced the latest sociopathic human monster. She was telling me this because she was frustrated that a lot of this research is used to try and 'excuse' the criminal for his/her crimes because of the criminal's horriffic childhood. WRONG! Why? - Because we know that this treatment of a child will (most likely) create a 'monster', but we do NOT know how to make this monster back into a decent human being.

SO - If we don't want a society full of monsters, we'd better prevent child abuse.

Tommy,

"My question is a little bit like asking if the POTUS is better off with two Secret Service agents looking out for his safety, as compared to one, without getting into their gender, ethnic background, training, etc."

I've said this before, and RICO is making the same point--if one parent is abusive and the other tolerates it without reporting it, the child is being abused by both parents.

If the parent divorces the abusive parent rather than tolerate the behavior, then we've just discovered *a* case where a single parent family is safer for a child than a two-parent family.

A slap in the face is not the sort of abuse that is at issue here, either.

Thomas,

It has been stated repeatedly by many Fraygrants here that much of the upswing has to do with reportage not actual incidences. We are more aware of abuse now. We look for it. We have stricter definitions of abuse and we have lost a lot of the "none of my business how you raise your kids" attitudes that allowed so much abuse to go un-reported in the past.

Christi,

I'm falling on my knees and grovelling in appreciation. Prior to now, I've been the only one talking about creating monsters with abuse.

Yes. Monsters can't be fixed. And creating them is far too easy.

(I often refer to them as "broken people".)

Re. 497 -

CalGal -

If what you maintain is the case, then why do children from single parent families have so much higher likelihoods of criminal behavior, as well as poorer health and social and psychological dysfunction?

Well, I've got to go home now.

It's been interesting folks.

I hope this thread is revived sometime and gets more participation.

BYE

Every day I wake up to reports of children, some only babies, cooked in cars, starved, beaten to death, and abused sexually by the very so-called adults who should be caring for them in every physical and emotional way. This is beyond understanding. I cannot believe the indifference of our country to this incredible offense to humanity. To harm an innocent,helpless child has to be the ultimate crime against mankind. And yet, the punishment is usually lenient.

Thomas,

I'd like to know why you have settled on single parent households as if they were a cause in and of themselves. They're not, you know. Divorce rates have skyrocketed in the last 20 years. What is causing that?

Tommy,

"If what you maintain is the case, then why do children from single parent families have so much higher likelihoods of criminal behavior, as well as poorer health and social and psychological dysfunction?"

I said,

"It might be discovered that a history of abuse is the common denominator of abusers--not income, stress levels, or marital status."

So I would like to see a study done on abused kids--regardless of their family status--and how they do as adults.

It's my belief that the results would be similar regardless of their parents' marital status, income, or stress levels. Same as with their parent's history of abuse.

If fathers are, in effect, such ciphers in families, what explains the figures below? (Statistics from Coalition of Parental Support):

* 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

* 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

* 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

* 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.

* 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

* 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

* 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.

* 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

Hey, guess what? Unless one is prepared to refute all of the above in #507, there *are* some real advantages to birth parents putting their kids before themselves (staying married).

Tommy,

Oops. I forgot.

Much earlier in this conversation, if you recall, I said that abused children tend to have problems with forming relationships. So divorce is much higher. IOW, a reason that single parents *might* have higher abuse numbers is because more single parents were abused as children.

Again--this is not to prove that single parenting is better. Rather that staying married is not the issue. The issue is eliminating abuse. For me, that involves better parenting. Not having people stay married.

I view the issue of abuse, marriage, single parenting, etc. as entirely separate from my beliefs about marriage at large. Safety of the child is paramount to me. However, in general, I believe that people in non-abusive situations take marriage lightly at times. While I disagree that the answer is to make divorce more difficult, I view that as an entirely separate issue from abusive relationships. So my resistance to single parenting being any major cause of child abuse is based on my beliefs about child abuse--it has very little to do with my thoughts on marriage.

Do you have figures for how many of these children come from motherless homes?

Tommy,

Where has *anyone* said that fathers are ciphers? Quit putting positions in my posts, dammit!

However. All of your data is consistent with my interpretation.

Re. 510 -

ChristinO -

No, I don't. But I wouldn't favor either sex as a single parent.

Thomas: Why do you keep insisting that anyone is arguing that two parent families are worse for children than single parent families?

NO ONE has said that. We all agree that in general it is better for a child to have two parents. I believe that in general it is better for a child to have not only two parents but a large extended family and good and involved neighbors, teachers and community figures.

If a child abuse case involves only a single parent ( without any links to a boyfriend or girlfriend "live-in" ) and the child abuser is that parent, then no other person exists within the family to report that abuse ( other than the children within that family ).

Are children likely to report child abuse which is or has occurred within their own family if they are living in a single-parent family ?

It would be easier for a parent to abuse their own children if there was no other adult living within that family stucture. In a two parent family unit, at least there is a chance that one parent could or would report the other if child abuse was occurring. Of course the children in a two parent family unit are still potential reporters of child abuse within their own family.

Economic factors would seem to be a major factor in a single-parent family. A single parent is forced to provide for their own family and the stress of earning a living to support a family by oneself ( over a period of 18 years ) would seem to be a risk factor that might contribute to or trigger child abuse in a single-parent family.

Being a single-parent also allows for child abuse to be perpetrated by others ( outside the family unit ) since the single-parent is forced to rely on others for child care when that parent is engaged in working "x" amount of hours per day and "x" number of days per week in order to support their family.

A single-parent family would not have the advantages of a two-parent family when it came to works issues and child care issues that a single-parent family faces alone ( if there is no support from other family members related to the single-parent - "grand" parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. ).

Rico,

I don't think that most abuse is caused by the parent stressing out.

As I said earlier, I do believe that in cases on the border, a good support system helps. While I agree that it's more likely that a two parent family will have that, I think you'll find that the support system is the deciding factor, not the existence of two parents over one.

Re. 511 -

CalGal -

Not so fast. What you're saying here, in effect, is that most of these single parent family problems ultimately are due to lingering negative experiences from prior two parent family associations. That doesn't make much sense. Children don't just stop accumulating formative experiences when they are living in single parent families.

I don't believe that child maladjustment statistics improve *at all* in the cases where single parenthood is multigenerational. Nobody seriously proposes that they do, as a matter of fact. Your interpretation would make that pretty much necessary.

IAC, it seems pretty damning that about 70% of children with social problems are living in single parent families, when less than a third of all families have that characteristic.

I think it's also important to note that single parents are under a magnifying glass with regard to abuse. Their ex and in-laws are watching, the school is watching, social services, the neighbors and the rest of the free world because it is expected that single parents are going to screw up. Particularly since most single parents are women and women are expected to screw up.

Tommy,

"What you're saying here, in effect, is that most of these single parent family problems ultimately are due to lingering negative experiences from prior two parent family associations. "

Where on *earth* do you see me saying that? I'm talking about the PARENT'S history of child abuse. In the case where the child isn't doing well, I'm saying that if you study abused kids regardless of their parents' marital status or income, you'll find the outcome is the same. That has *nothing* to do with what you've said in that above sentence.

"I don't believe that child maladjustment statistics improve *at all* in the cases where single parenthood is multigenerational. "

No. Never said it would. And no. My position doesn't make that necessary. What my position would make necessary (or at least be indicated) is that a multigenerational single parenthood family would abuse or not abuse their kids based on whether or not there is a history of abuse in the family.

Same with multigenerational two-parent families.

thomasd:

Please identify this "Coalition of Parental Support" whose statistics you quote in Message #507? Why should the accuracy of this group's figures be trusted?

Children are the responsibilty of the two persons who created them in a joint effort ( sex ). They do not come into being by themselves.

A major problem would seem to be "un-planned" pregnancies resulting from casual sex ( where both partners are seeking only pleasure and not pro-creation ).

When children create children, they usually do not have the maturity or economic means to support a family. Children do not usually posess the necessary emotional maturity required to take on the responsibility of caring for a baby.

Look at how children treat other children who are their own age as compared to how children treat other children who are younger than they are.

When adults create children, they may have the economic means to support the child, but they may also lack the emotional maturity required to raise a baby ( family ).

Look at how "some" adults treat other adults. "Some" adults act like children and never mature emotionally.

The relationship between two persons who create a child together may be fragile or non-existent regardless of the parent's age. If there is no commitment between the two persons who create a child, then how can there be a commitment to care for the child by one or by both of the child's parents ?

A child requires at least one parent's commitment to provide care.

Anybody can become a parent ( that is fertile and healthy ). It only takes one single intimate act between two persons ( if done the "old fashion" way ) to create a child.

Becoming a parent does not guarantee that you will be a responsible parent. Unfortunately, you do not have to be licensed by the State to create children. Kind of funny that child care providers are usually required to be licensed by the State to care for children though.

Maybe the State should be teaching sexually active people how to be responsible parents since pregnancy is a natural consequence to sexual relations between members of the oposite sex. Then again, how many people engaging in sex are actually thinking about the consequences of the act ? How many babies are "mistakes" or "accidents" and how many babies are created by persons who actually planned and prepared for their arrival ?

If a person gave you an object that you did not want in the first place, would you take care of that object in the future ?

If a person gave you an object that you did not want and were not capable of taking care of - what do you think would happen to that object in the future ?

How much child abuse is based on a person's intention to inflict actual harm on a child as opposed to how much is based on the neglect of the parent's responsibilities to provide care for the child ?