by Jan Logie
Today the Government released their long awaited white paper on vulnerable children. This is the paper that is going to radically reduce child abuse in this country. The paper talks tough but in fact it misses the point entirely.
Over the last several years there has been an increasing awareness of the connection between domestic violence and child abuse, yet no attention has been paid to the implications of this in the white paper.
International research clearly shows that the presence of one form of violence is often associated with the other.
Reinforcing this is the evaluation of programmes designed to reduce child abuse that show that effectiveness is reduced whenever domestic violence is present.
The White paper does not acknowledge the critically important reality that intimate partner violence exists in the majority of child abuse cases. This omission means it will face the same fate and be ineffective in curbing child abuse because quite simply domestic violence is present.
How do we identify and intervene early and safely when intimate partner violence also exists?
This paper offers no consideration for this in any of its proposals. The government wants to treat all families where child abuse exists as though the presence of domestic violence makes no difference to how we respond or the type of services families need to rebuild.
This is the paper’s downfall
Unless child protection practitioners and our government are able to take domestic violence seriously and develop the relevant training and risk assessment processes that take account of the specific needs of children who live with domestic violence, effective services to children and their mothers will flounder.
Police note that in New Zealand approximately 70% of Domestic Violence cases children have been abused as well as the partner and given they estimate that only around 25% of cases are reported the size of the connection cannot be underestimated..
I am concerned that with no clear definition of vulnerable children the only indication I have of who may be considered vulnerable is the number of children identified “at risk”- 20,000 I am concerned that this number corresponds to the number of children already identified by Bennett who she says will be monitored under new obligations for beneficiaries
Is this just a co-incidence?
In reality abuse happens across the socio-economic spectrum. It simply manifests differently. Women’s Refuge tends to provide emergency housing for women from low incomes but also provides support for women in all income brackets. Research around the world confirms that abuse is not the domain of the poor. Focusing on beneficiaries will miss all other New Zealand families where abuse occurs..
Research clearly shows us that children who witness domestic violence are as much, if not more at risk of negative outcomes as those who are directly abused. In 2010 alone Police reported approximately 95,000 children were present at domestic violence incidents. Studies in Australia show that these children when referred to protection services are unlikely to be judged as substantiated cases of abuse.
Currently these children sit in a waiting room until things get worse.
Under the proposals from the white paper they will still be sitting in the same waiting room.
When child protection services do kick in they will not know how to address the domestic violence or support the protective parent and they will not understand how important this will be to the children and their future.
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by Jan Logie on Thu, October 11th, 2012
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Paula’s “dob in a child abuser” scheme sounds more like a beneficiary bashing type response than an initiative to deal with the causes. This sort of simplistic response ignores the all the other things that would make a difference and the contributions of people like Celia Lashlie in her book “The Power of Mothers”.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/paula-bennett-child-saviour.html
We can can all play spot the abuser, but once they have been identified what then? You are quite right to point this out, Jan.
Things that would have made a real difference:
-Tougher measures in dealing with alcohol.
-Greater focus on the whole curriculum in schools, not just literacy and numeracy. The ability to solve relationship problems and have empathy for others is just as important as adding numbers and writing a report.
-Greater support services for families, especially young mothers, so that problems can be identified early.
-Living wages, so that families are not stretched to the max with financial concerns.
-Role models of young boys other than Mike Tyson.
-Good housing for all, so that we don’t have multiple families squeezed into one substandard house.
-A strong Green presence in the next Government.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Yet the study, Vulnerable Children, finds,”Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a very high “capture” rate.” http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/vulnerable-children/index.html
And also The Greens keep talking about the association between child poverty and child abuse so call for the focus to be on reducing poverty. But now you are saying it happens across all socio-economic levels.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
Lindsay, as a teacher I know that family violence occurs across the financial spectrum, but I also know that dysfunctional families become more so when you add poverty. To only focus on beneficiaries is unfair.
Physical violence is often thought to be what typifies child abuse but psychological abuse and emotional neglect can also occur (but is harder to identify and pin down) and this can also occur in more affluent families.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
If a government has limited resources it makes absolute sense to focus on the group from which most of a problem arises. That is not to say they need scrutinise the children of all beneficiaries and that’s not what is proposed.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
We can all appreciate the fact that there are different forms of abuse, however the kind of abuse that sends children to hospital, or kills them is overwhelmingly performed by beneficaries. The MSD report says 83% of it.
We can talk down the number, blame poverty if we want, but that doesn’t explain why all poor people don’t abuse their kids. Lets call it for what it is, moral failure on behalf of the abuser.
If we excuse it we are imposing the tyranny of low expectations on beneficaries. Why should we not expect them to behave like adults and care for the children they produce and we support financially?
It’s passed time we rolled back the DPB to its original intentions – support for mothers who are in a relationship in the nature of marriage and are abandoned or abused by their partner. Today 33% of those starting on the DPB are teenage girls. These kids are then channeled into homes where they are many times more likely to be abused. Why do we support this?
Like or Dislike:
7 
5 (+2)
And the DPB covers working mothers who lose their jobs, as well as people separated from working partners while raising up children.
Your inference that those who choose to end a relationship (without having been abused or abandoned) should not receive DPB is an attempt to introduce fault/consequence for leaving a male partner and keep them beholden (limit their free will). This is similar to denying a worker the right to leave a job and receive UB while looking for a new one, even though employers can sack workers (without redundancy) and look for replacements. The logic of patriarchal capitalism.
Why is it that not all people on high income invest in tax avoidance? And not all invest their wealth to no purpose other than to become wealthier (making untaxed CG)?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
I think the point that Jan is trying to make is that being a beneficiary is not the cause of child abuse, though it may be the case that reported child abuse is more prevalent amongst beneficiaries than other groups. It is surely better to target actions towards abused children, irrespective of which socioeconomic group they come from.
Let’s take this line of thought a bit further. If poverty is associated with child abuse, is it legitimate to target families based on their tax returns? This would capture low income working families as well as beneficiaries. It may well be that poverty is a cause of violence, but it is wrong to assume that because one is poor, they should be assumed to be violent.
There are analogous situations in other areas. For example: should the police be able to “target” people who they think might be up to no good based on their skin colour?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
If we excuse it we are imposing the tyranny of low expectations on beneficaries. Why should we not expect them to behave like adults and care for the children they produce and we support financially?
Absolutely spot on.
Most of this argument is really an argument about appeasing poor behavior and they are saying people like you and I have no right to object to people that stubornly refuse to participate in civilized society.
I would prefer the mongrel mob living in my street compared to a certain class of ‘modern’ beneficiary, and I know of people that actually live in that situation and prefer it too.
That is how bad some of this ‘class’ of welfare dependency is in this country, it is a symptom of an unbalanced system in desperate need of reform. It is destroying people and destroying whole communities, this class of beneficiary is a construct of poor governance, not a reaction to poor economic performance or right wing ideology.
The Greens (and others) are deliberately confusing and ignoring the obvious welfare abuse that occurs in this country.
This represents the greatest threat to our welfare system in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Samiuela said, “…it may be the case that reported child abuse is more prevalent amongst beneficiaries than other groups. It is surely better to target actions towards abused children, irrespective of which socioeconomic group they come from.”
I agree. But the Vulnerable Kids Information System was designed around children from beneficiary homes because that’s where most of them live. However if a child was present at a family violence incident attended by the police and mandatorily reported to CYF I would expect that child would enter the at-risk database irrespective of benefit status. And other identified risk-factors from the model would also apply irrespective of benefit status.
SPC said to Brendan, “Care to provide any evidence for your claim that 33% of new entrants on the DPB are teenagers?”
I believe that should have been (about sole parents on the DPB) “… a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.”
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/sole-parenting/understanding-sub-groups-of-sole-parents-receiving-main-benefits.doc
That’s a minimum figure because it is “Derived by comparing the birthdate of the sole parent with the birthdates of all the children included with them in periods when they received benefit as a sole parent over the previous 10 years. In the case of older sole parents, this will not be as good as an indicator of early parenting because some first-born children may have already turned 18, or may have left the care of the parent, before the beginning of the 10-year window.”
That is the pathway onto the DPB that holds the most risk for children.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
To SPC
Yes, with reference to 33% of DPB recipients starting out as teenagers refer to research here:
http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Forum/Barbara-Collins-Teen-parents-and-benefit-receipt-paper.pdf
Section 23.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
If a man beat up his wife, her lady neighbours told their husbands, who went and ‘had a word’ with the beater about acceptable social behaviour in their neighbourhood. Same thing with a child abuser male or female, the neighbours did not accept such antisocial behaviour and dealt with it. Same thing with a child/youngster who was offending society with their behaviour, a clip over the ear from a friend’s dad usually reslted in another from your own and you never risked that again.
Today, adults are assaulted and abused on the street, when they tell kids not to do something they get “warra yu gonna do about it eh!” spat at them from a range of inches; wives get beaten and everyone around ignores it as not their problem, children get abused and nobody knows anything about it. Why, because if you interfere it’s more likely that YOU get done for a criminal activity than the abuser does.
Until and unless we get back to a situation where there is respect for each other and the police, anti-social behaviour is not acceptable and people learn basic self discipline when young, our society is going to end up fiddling while the nation burns.
Government shold be of laws, not of men, and we need to get our laws back on track and properly policed by all.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Wow
What a list
-Tougher measures in dealing with alcohol – Lets make the drinking age 60, then the black market will employ more people
-Greater focus on the whole curriculum in schools, not just literacy and numeracy. Yeah, as long as we raise empathetic people who are illiterate our average standard of living will rise – Yeah Right
-Greater support services for families, especially young mothers, so that problems can be identified early. Instead of having the tools as a parent to teach them respect, manners and self disciplin.
-Living wages, so that families are not stretched to the max with financial concerns. We cal all aford to pay more for everything we consume so that we can increse wages for those involved in producing them.
-Role models of young boys other than Mike Tyson. A self-made millionaire who has risen from a single parent family living in state-housing, or someone who encourages people to only accept the laws they agree with and break the others?
-Good housing for all, so that we don’t have multiple families squeezed into one substandard house. I for one would have no problem in paying an extra 5% tax so that those not earning enough to afford decent housing can live on me – Yeah Right
-A strong Green presence in the next Government. Happy with that, but GREEN not Watermelon, which is why the current party will stay on the sidelines for as long as the Liberal Psrty in the UK did.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
sprout – “Greater focus on the whole curriculum in schools, not just literacy and numeracy. The ability to solve relationship problems and have empathy for others is just as important as adding numbers and writing a report.”
Except that IS what you have been teaching for a long time now and it just isn’t working. The recent “focus” on literacy and numeracy is largely a parent/employer/National government initiative because the education elite seemed to have got hopelessly sidetracked on to focussing on everything EXCEPT literacy and numeracy. Even now teachers are fighting to keep their soft subjects and that probably explains why there is so much pushback on national standards – because teachers might have to teach “boring” “hard” stuff. Much more “fun” to do art, and kapa haka and “enviro”. Your comment is just another example of that.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
I have never seen a dysfunctional couple who I didn’t think both parties were as crazy as each other. Thus, the religious right and their obsession with same sex marriage is one of the biggest cases of self delusion around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The case for a focus on an integrated data base of child abuse victims was made for the Ministry of Social Development in research commissioned from CARE at Auckland University (their view on this below).
However as you say – commissioning another report on the profile of the abuser – and the connection to any warning flag of spouse/partner violence could allow a preventative intervention to protect children – especially when children witnessing a parent being the victim of violence is a categorised as a form of child abuse. Thus, that is occuring (before a child witnesses it), should be part of the notification process.
Ministry of Social Development commissioned the University of Auckland’s to consider how predictive modelling could be used to target early intervention to reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect, and improve outcomes for children and young people.
The University of Auckland’s research developed a predictive risk model for children in a cohort who had contact with the benefit system before age two. These children accounted for 83% of all children in for whom findings of substantiated maltreatment were recorded by age 5.
This research indicates that predicting risk modelling had a fair, approaching good, power in predicting which of the young children having contact with the benefit system would be the subject of substantiated maltreatment by age five. This is similar to the predictive strength of mammograms for detecting breast cancer in the general population.
This report provides further detail on the predictive risk modelling system outlined in the White Paper for Vulnerable Children. The research indicates that bringing together administrative data can significantly improve the identification of at-risk children by linking Ministry of Social Development (MSD) benefit, care and protection and youth justice data.
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/vulnerable-children/index.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Quote: “International research clearly shows that the presence of one form of violence is often associated with the other”.
Of course it is. Fucked up people do fucked up things – to ANYONE they can get away with doing it to. When you see that guy with a hateful, intimidating, tattoo-ridden face walking down the street…hiding inside his hoddie…UNDERSTAND that he/she SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN.
Bring on the reproduction licenses.
When are you fools going to cut the crap and just do what needs to be done?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
…… bring on the reproduction licences ?????? ha ha ha ha ha
Hitlers dead Andrew ……… stop trying to channel him, it comes across as real black humor. Reproduction licences phwwahhahahah.
Let me guess …… Andrews going to be a reproduction inspector, he will stop unlicensed fornicating wherever it may occur. Sounds like a great idea ….. hahahahha
P.s andrew, fucked up people say fucked up things …. keep talking sunshine
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)