As long as people are talking about statistics that aren't completely substantiated, I'll jump in with a personal perspective.
I know a very poor mother in the Appalachians who was accused of child abuse. She had her two year old boy taken away from her for about a month. She was accused of abuse by relatives by marriage who didn't/don't like her. (They went to court and clapped and cheered when her boy was taken away.) The evidence that the state had for taking the boy away was that: he had two bumps on his head, he was skinny and not talkative, some relatives said so, and he had a fever. (I don't know two year olds who don't get bumps on their heads or fevers. She and her other biological children are retiscent and skinny by nature.) For personal reasons, my husband and I put a fair amount of effort into talking to social workers and finding lawyers to help this mother get her child back. Without this, it is pretty unlikely that she would have gotten her child back. It is pretty likely that she would have been a substantiated case of child abuse. The last time I talked to her, she was not allowed to leave the state, needed to be tested for drugs (the tests had all come out negative), and had to take a parenting class. NO solid evidence was proven against her. My experience with her makes me wonder how many child abuse cases are wrongly substantiated, particularly against poor women with no husband. What I took away from the situation is that it is not unusual for social services to document child abuse wrongly. I also took away the impression that poor people are convicted more readily than people with money. Personally, I'd like to see more lifeguards and public beaches. (I believe that in some states that drowning is high because of swimming pool accidents, not bathtubs?) I've also been privy to a situation in which 'abuse' by my definition was sure to happen. A newborn child who had been placed for adoption was taken back at the last minute by an 18 year old living with a mother who she routinely got into physical (including knife) fights with. The girl had an ongoing fight with her mother about what would happen to that infant, and things were clearly going to stay that way. They lived in kind of a middle class neighborhood and had middle class jobs. >From my personal perspective, the problem may not be that cases are under reported or over reported, but that they are wrongly reported, interpreted and treated. I am leery of these classifications and how they are made and enforced. I'd like to see someone not personally invested in outcomes of 'clearing up abuse' or whatever, do an overhaul of the system. I'd like people involved in this sort of thing also to take a look at what model of parenting is seen as normal and healthy. It seems as if there are these generic middle class life styles that sort of dominate the concept of what is good for children. At 9:20 PM -0500 12/29/01, Al Shealy wrote: >> Hi >> >> I'm having some trouble with the statistics that tasha cited. > >I love this stuff. It makes for great discussion in Gen. Psych. when it >comes time for availability heuristics, etc. > >> >> >> > 2000 children per year are SUBSTANTIATED as >> > killed by parents. >> >> I have trouble believing this figure, although 2,000 would still >> represent a very small number out of the many millions of >> children in the USA. But elsewhere Linda Woolf noted that: >> >> >And now, let us look at the U.S.: >> >Total homicides: 15,533 >> >> Putting these figures together would mean that 13% of all murders >> were parents killing their children. Surely parents killing >> their children must be a pretty exceptional kind of murder, and >> rarer than this? I would be interested in the source of the >> 2,000 murders per year. Or is there some important difference >> between "being killed by" and "homicide?" >> > >Here's the data from the National Center for Health Statistics - 1999 >final data. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/mortdata.htm > >(I'm using 0-14 as "child" because their next grouping is 15-24. Also, >when I was 15-17 I deserved to be killed by my parents). >Cause of death: Number of deaths in children 0-14 >All homicides: 1139 >Homicides involving firearms: 282 >HIV: 104 >Falls: 120 >Drowning: 927 >Smoke/Fire: 605 >Motor Vehicles: 2605 > >My bumper sticker: Guns don't kill kids; water does. Just say "NO" to >baths! > >So it does look like 2000 murders by parents per year is a little high. On >the other hand, I would guess that many of the other deaths could be >attributable to negligence on the part of parents. I read somewhere (here >I go without a source) that about half of those smoke/fire deaths are >attributable to idiots who fall asleep with cigarettes dangling from >various parts of their deteriorating bodies. > >So, how much taxpayer money will be spent this year trying to prevent >pediatric HIV deaths and firearm deaths (386 deahths)? And how much will >be spent trying to prevent falls/drowning/fire/motor vehicle deaths (4000+ >deaths)? > >A.B. Shealy >Columbia State U. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 914-738-1147 fax: 914-738-1078 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
