I would think that the number of children killed or abused by adoptive parents would be crucial to an argument about the relationship between biological relatedness and violence towards a child in the household. A step parent is a parent as a result of marriage. Adoptive parents, like many biological parents, choose to parent the child. In this country, becoming an adoptive parent is quite a demanding procedure. I'd be surprised if the rate of abuse was as high in adoptive parents as in biological parents. I'd imagine that it's lower. If so, that would refute the evolutionary perspective.
I also wonder whether the statistics about the 'biological parents' inadvertently include adoptive parents because birth records are changed so that adoptive parents look like the biological ones on paper. In general, I have a hard time accepting the evolutionary supposition that biological relatedness predisposes people to care for a particular child based on statistics comparing step parents to everyone else. First of all, step parents end up as parents as a function of another relationship (marriage). Furthermore, how can you control for the factor of the stress of the divorce on the second marriage? You would need to compare step parents with biological parents who were divorced from a previous partner, who yet had an ongoing relationship withpartner about children, I would think. At 2:52 PM -0500 1/2/02, John W. Kulig wrote: >Not that I remember ... JK > >Faith Florer wrote: > >> 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] > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >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]
