- Email: [email protected]
Response to Deborah Daro and Rosina Becerra
Besharov
306
Response to Deborah Daro and Rosina Becerra Douglas J. Besharov American Enterprise Institute
I was delighted by the favorable reviews of my book from both Deborah Daro and Rosina Becerra, so it is probably bad form to disagree with one point in Deborah Daro’s otherwise positive comments. However, I am concerned about her suggestion that child protective agencies should not try to screen out cases of “reasonable’ corporal punishment and cases that are the “unfortunate by-products of poverty such as dirty clothing, missing breakfast and mildly unsanitary homes”. My position on “reasonable” corporal punishment is based on the law, not my personal views on the subject. As I explain in my book, in all states, the law is clear: parents have the right to discipline their children-so long as the punishment is “reasonable’ or not excessive”.i Even though a growing number of people believe that all forms of corporal punishment, no matter how moderate, are emotionally harmful to children, and should be considered maltreatment, parents have a legal right to use reasonable force in disciplining their children. To put it bluntly, parents are allowed to spank their children’s bottom with their hands. In most jurisdictions, a hairbrush and even a belt (not the end with the buckle) can be used--so long as no serious welts or cuts result. The punishment, however, must be “reasonable”. By definition, a parent who intentionally engages in seriously harmful behavior is not A child’s misbehavior, no matter how egregious, being “reasonable”. never justifies conduct whose reasonably foreseeable consequence was--or could have been--the child’s serious physical injury. ‘Thirty-three (33) jurisdictions have specific provisions excluding reasonable corporal punishment from their definitions of child abuse or neglect. U.S. National Center On Child Abuse and Neglect, Analysis of State Child Abuse Laws, 1984 Table II (1986). In other states, the defense is established by court decision. See. e.g. Bowers v. State 283 Md. 115,389 A.2d 341,348 (1978).
Symposium
Review
307
The issue of poverty-related neglect does indeed involve a policy call. But I think there is wide support for the position I took and, again, it is reflected in the provisions of state law. Most cases of physical neglect involve poor and minority families. Compared to the general population, families who are reported for maltreatment, nationwide, are four times more likely to be on public assistance and almost twice as likely to be black. About 30 percent of abused children live in single-parent households and are on public assistance; the comparable figure for neglected children is about 45 percent.2 Lest all low-income families be stigmatized, though, it is important to remember that most poor families do not abuse or neglect their children. In any one year, fewer than one in five welfare families are reported for suspected abuse or neglect, and an even smaller percentage of such reports are substantiated.3 Poor children should be assured of their basic needs, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. But when the problem is the parent’s low income, the answer must come from income support programs (such as public assistance, food stamps, medicaid, and child support). Child protective agencies have not been established as society’s response to poverty, and for them to assume this role weakens their ability to respond to serious cases of actual abuse and neglect. Almost all states, therefore, have statutory provisions designed to delineate differences between welfare and child protective functions. In the District of Columbia, for example, the law expressly excludes from the definition of child neglect ‘deprivation...due to the lack of financial means. ‘I4 Other states prohibit a finding of abuse or neglect unless the parents are “financially able” to care for their children or were “offered financial or other reasonable means to do so”.5 Based on the writings of Dr. Barton Schmitt (1981) who for years worked at the Kempe Center, Figure 1 lists the situations of poor child rearing to which reporters frequently overreact. 2American Humane Association, Trends in Child Abuse and Neglect: A National Perspective, p. 24 Table IV-3 and at p.97,Table A-IV-7 (1984). See generally Besharov, “How child abuse programs Hurt Poor Children,” 22 Clearinghouse Review 218 (1988). 3Author’s estimate based on Social Security Bulletin (1984) reporting that, in 1983. 3,721,OOOfamilies received AFDC. 4D.C. Code 16_2301(9)(B)(1981 and 16-2301(24)(Supp. 1988). ‘See. e.g. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act 1012(f)(i)(A)(1988).
Besharov
308
Nevertheless, poor children who are actually neglected need protection. The neglect of children is not excused simply because the parents are poor. Instead, laws establish ” a minimum baseline of proper care for children that all parents, regardless of lifestyle or social or economic position, must meet”.6 The challenge is distinguishing between poverty and child neglect. In my book, I suggest that potential reporters ask themselves two questions: 1. Does the care of the child fall below commonly accepted community standards? To justify a report, the deviation must be clear, and should not be the product of reasonable differences in culture or lifestyle. Children, for example, must be fed nutritionally adequate meals. Soda and potato chips do not constitute an adequate diet. 2. Has the child’s physical or mental condition been impaired or is it in danger of being impaired? Again, using nutrition as an example, if the child seems hungry and emaciated, a report should be made.
References Schmitt, B. (1981). Child neglect, in N. Ellerstein (ed.), Child abuse and neglecr: A medical reference, 304-305.
6Besharov, Practice Commentary the main volume (1983).
to McKinney’s
Family Court Act, 1012(f)(i),p.241
of
Symposium
Review
309
Figure 1. Situations of Poor Child Rearing to Which Reporters Frequently Overreact Case finding and reporting of neglect (especially physical neglect) has become overzealous in some communities. To be poor, out of work, living in marginal housing, and also accused of child neglect for conditions over which the person has no control is unjust. The following conditions are prone to over reporting. Cforhing neglect Examples are wearing tom pants, wearing cast-off clothing, or not having a raincoat or gloves. Nurrirional neglecr:
Examples are eating unbalanced meals, eating too many “junk foods”, or cultural food preferences. Even skipping breakfast can be normaI if it’s the child’s choice. We must remember that approximately one third of adults prefer not to eat breakfast.
Hygiene neglecr: Examples are coming to school with a dirty face, dirty hair, or
dirty clothing. If the child is not malodorous and the problem is periodic, it is probably of minimal importance. Home environment neglect:
Mildly unsanitary homes are quite common. We should not be over critical of housekeeping below standards, such as poorly washed dishes or a house that is covered with dog hair and needs vacuuming. Cultural deprivation or intellectual srimularion neglect: This term is often directed at families whose children allegedly are not talked to enough or presented with sufficient creative toys. All too often this term is applied to children with developmental delays due to normal variation or prematurity. Sufery neglect: Many nonnal accidents are called safety neglect to the detriment
of the parents, for example, blaming the parents for bums that occur on space heaters despite numerous precautions the parents have taken. On a practical level, some unsafe environments cannot be changed. Minor acute illness neglect:
Insect bites, lice, scabies, and impetigo occur in children form all socioeconomic groups. Often parents are blamed for diaper rashes and cradle cap. Parents may be criticized because they have not given their child antipyretics before bringing them to the physician for a fever. Parents may be blamed for not coming to the clinic soon enough for an ear infection that they did not know existed.
306
Response to Deborah Daro and Rosina Becerra Douglas J. Besharov American Enterprise Institute
I was delighted by the favorable reviews of my book from both Deborah Daro and Rosina Becerra, so it is probably bad form to disagree with one point in Deborah Daro’s otherwise positive comments. However, I am concerned about her suggestion that child protective agencies should not try to screen out cases of “reasonable’ corporal punishment and cases that are the “unfortunate by-products of poverty such as dirty clothing, missing breakfast and mildly unsanitary homes”. My position on “reasonable” corporal punishment is based on the law, not my personal views on the subject. As I explain in my book, in all states, the law is clear: parents have the right to discipline their children-so long as the punishment is “reasonable’ or not excessive”.i Even though a growing number of people believe that all forms of corporal punishment, no matter how moderate, are emotionally harmful to children, and should be considered maltreatment, parents have a legal right to use reasonable force in disciplining their children. To put it bluntly, parents are allowed to spank their children’s bottom with their hands. In most jurisdictions, a hairbrush and even a belt (not the end with the buckle) can be used--so long as no serious welts or cuts result. The punishment, however, must be “reasonable”. By definition, a parent who intentionally engages in seriously harmful behavior is not A child’s misbehavior, no matter how egregious, being “reasonable”. never justifies conduct whose reasonably foreseeable consequence was--or could have been--the child’s serious physical injury. ‘Thirty-three (33) jurisdictions have specific provisions excluding reasonable corporal punishment from their definitions of child abuse or neglect. U.S. National Center On Child Abuse and Neglect, Analysis of State Child Abuse Laws, 1984 Table II (1986). In other states, the defense is established by court decision. See. e.g. Bowers v. State 283 Md. 115,389 A.2d 341,348 (1978).
Symposium
Review
307
The issue of poverty-related neglect does indeed involve a policy call. But I think there is wide support for the position I took and, again, it is reflected in the provisions of state law. Most cases of physical neglect involve poor and minority families. Compared to the general population, families who are reported for maltreatment, nationwide, are four times more likely to be on public assistance and almost twice as likely to be black. About 30 percent of abused children live in single-parent households and are on public assistance; the comparable figure for neglected children is about 45 percent.2 Lest all low-income families be stigmatized, though, it is important to remember that most poor families do not abuse or neglect their children. In any one year, fewer than one in five welfare families are reported for suspected abuse or neglect, and an even smaller percentage of such reports are substantiated.3 Poor children should be assured of their basic needs, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. But when the problem is the parent’s low income, the answer must come from income support programs (such as public assistance, food stamps, medicaid, and child support). Child protective agencies have not been established as society’s response to poverty, and for them to assume this role weakens their ability to respond to serious cases of actual abuse and neglect. Almost all states, therefore, have statutory provisions designed to delineate differences between welfare and child protective functions. In the District of Columbia, for example, the law expressly excludes from the definition of child neglect ‘deprivation...due to the lack of financial means. ‘I4 Other states prohibit a finding of abuse or neglect unless the parents are “financially able” to care for their children or were “offered financial or other reasonable means to do so”.5 Based on the writings of Dr. Barton Schmitt (1981) who for years worked at the Kempe Center, Figure 1 lists the situations of poor child rearing to which reporters frequently overreact. 2American Humane Association, Trends in Child Abuse and Neglect: A National Perspective, p. 24 Table IV-3 and at p.97,Table A-IV-7 (1984). See generally Besharov, “How child abuse programs Hurt Poor Children,” 22 Clearinghouse Review 218 (1988). 3Author’s estimate based on Social Security Bulletin (1984) reporting that, in 1983. 3,721,OOOfamilies received AFDC. 4D.C. Code 16_2301(9)(B)(1981 and 16-2301(24)(Supp. 1988). ‘See. e.g. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act 1012(f)(i)(A)(1988).
Besharov
308
Nevertheless, poor children who are actually neglected need protection. The neglect of children is not excused simply because the parents are poor. Instead, laws establish ” a minimum baseline of proper care for children that all parents, regardless of lifestyle or social or economic position, must meet”.6 The challenge is distinguishing between poverty and child neglect. In my book, I suggest that potential reporters ask themselves two questions: 1. Does the care of the child fall below commonly accepted community standards? To justify a report, the deviation must be clear, and should not be the product of reasonable differences in culture or lifestyle. Children, for example, must be fed nutritionally adequate meals. Soda and potato chips do not constitute an adequate diet. 2. Has the child’s physical or mental condition been impaired or is it in danger of being impaired? Again, using nutrition as an example, if the child seems hungry and emaciated, a report should be made.
References Schmitt, B. (1981). Child neglect, in N. Ellerstein (ed.), Child abuse and neglecr: A medical reference, 304-305.
6Besharov, Practice Commentary the main volume (1983).
to McKinney’s
Family Court Act, 1012(f)(i),p.241
of
Symposium
Review
309
Figure 1. Situations of Poor Child Rearing to Which Reporters Frequently Overreact Case finding and reporting of neglect (especially physical neglect) has become overzealous in some communities. To be poor, out of work, living in marginal housing, and also accused of child neglect for conditions over which the person has no control is unjust. The following conditions are prone to over reporting. Cforhing neglect Examples are wearing tom pants, wearing cast-off clothing, or not having a raincoat or gloves. Nurrirional neglecr:
Examples are eating unbalanced meals, eating too many “junk foods”, or cultural food preferences. Even skipping breakfast can be normaI if it’s the child’s choice. We must remember that approximately one third of adults prefer not to eat breakfast.
Hygiene neglecr: Examples are coming to school with a dirty face, dirty hair, or
dirty clothing. If the child is not malodorous and the problem is periodic, it is probably of minimal importance. Home environment neglect:
Mildly unsanitary homes are quite common. We should not be over critical of housekeeping below standards, such as poorly washed dishes or a house that is covered with dog hair and needs vacuuming. Cultural deprivation or intellectual srimularion neglect: This term is often directed at families whose children allegedly are not talked to enough or presented with sufficient creative toys. All too often this term is applied to children with developmental delays due to normal variation or prematurity. Sufery neglect: Many nonnal accidents are called safety neglect to the detriment
of the parents, for example, blaming the parents for bums that occur on space heaters despite numerous precautions the parents have taken. On a practical level, some unsafe environments cannot be changed. Minor acute illness neglect:
Insect bites, lice, scabies, and impetigo occur in children form all socioeconomic groups. Often parents are blamed for diaper rashes and cradle cap. Parents may be criticized because they have not given their child antipyretics before bringing them to the physician for a fever. Parents may be blamed for not coming to the clinic soon enough for an ear infection that they did not know existed.