Do the statistics cited on children killed by parents examine parents who have adopted children?
At 11:28 AM -0500 12/31/01, John W. Kulig wrote: >"McKinley, Marcia" wrote: > >> Allen: >> Do the statistics cited on children killed by parents distinguish between >> biological parents and step-parents? >> >> Allen, >> This is what the Executive Summary of the National Incidence Study-3 has >>to say about perpetrator/child relationships: >> >> "Perpetrator's Relationship to the Child. The majority of all children >>countable under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth >>parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were >>maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% >>experienced neglect by birth parents). > ><snip> > >This appears to be at odds with the Daly and Wilson references provided by >Michael Ofsowitz that indicate a child is 40X more likely to be abused by >a step parent, and 70-100X more likely to be _killed_ by a step parent >(The fact that the step vs. biological parent ratio is much higher for >death than abuse argues against the old argument that biological parents >hide the abuse better. Since it is easier to hide a bruise than a dead >body, the step:biological ratio for abuse vs death would move in the >opposite direction.). Btw, this data (70-100X more likely to die at hands >of step parents) is the rate _after_ demographics such >as socio-economic status are accounted for - strong evidence for either a >biological or an evolutionary explanation. > >It is my understanding (based on reading Daly and Wilson's summary book >_Homicide_) that Canadian homicide police record whether parents were step >or biological, but the US does not - hence their heavy reliance on >Canadian data. > >The data cited by Marcia may be misleading. The fact that 78% of the >children countable under the Harm Standard had biological parents is not a >surprise since there are far more children raised by biological parents >(the old "base rate" problem). It is the _rate_ of abuse in step vs >biological households that is important (the data reported by Michael). > >Somewhere in Daly and Wilson's book (_Homicide_) they discuss how >primitive societies handle the problem of children after the father dies. >In some the brother assumes responsibility (in a polygamous society he's >marry his former sister-in-law). While this seems barbaric to us moderns >who take personal freedom for granted, the practice may be rooted in the >appreciation that children are better raised by family, not strangers. >Even when death and abuse do not occur, children are often a liability in >the dating that follow a divorce (Susan Smith drowning her children in >order to increase her chance of getting another husband >would be an extreme example). > >Interesting data to collect would be abuse rates for children born in a >family in which the father is not the real father (but doesn't know it). >Here you could separate the pure effects of biological relatedness from >the parenting role which generally co-vary. This data - for obvious >reasons - would be hard to collect! > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig >Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 >Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412 >--------------------------------------------------------------- >"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows >not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, >he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero. > > > >--- >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]
