It
is an article of faith among "child savers" that "child abuse
crosses class lines." They tell us that we are as likely to find
maltreatment in rich families as in poor, but the rich can hide from
authorities. But like most child saver "truisms," this one is false. Prof. Leroy Pelton of the
University of Nevada – Las Vegas School of Social Work, calls it "The Myth
of Classlessness."
Like
the tailors in the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes, the child savers have
invented a whole group of invisible, middle-class child abusers only they are
wise enough to see. Of course there are some middle class child abusers. But
the evidence is overwhelming that poverty is by far the most important cause of
child maltreatment -- and the most important reason families end up in
"the system" whether they have maltreated their children or not.
The
federal government's Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
(NIS-3) compared families with an annual income of under $15,000 to families
with an annual income over $30,000. Their findings:
The
study emphasized that the findings "cannot be plausibly explained on the
basis of the higher visibility of lower income families to community
professionals."[1]
Studies
in which all the subjects are equally open to public scrutiny (groups made up
entirely of welfare recipients, for example) show that those who abuse tend to
be the "poorest of the poor."[2]
The
Myth of Classlessness doesn't just run counter to research. It runs counter to
common sense. It is well-known that child abuse is linked to stress. It is
equally well-known that poor families tend to be under more stress than rich
families.
The
gap between rich and poor is widest in the area of "neglect" -- which
makes up by far the largest single category of maltreatment reports. That's
because the poor are included in our neglect laws almost by definition.
What
is neglect? In Ohio, it's when a child's "condition or environment is such
as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming his
guardianship." In Illinois, it's failure to provide "the proper or
necessary support ... for a child's well-being." In Mississippi, it's when
a child is "without proper care, custody, supervision, or support."
In South Dakota, it's when a child's "environment is injurious to his
welfare."[3]
Such
definitions make a mockery of the oft-repeated child-saver claim that "we
never remove children because of poverty alone."
Imagine
that you are an impoverished single mother with an eight-year-old daughter and
a four-year-old son. The four-year-old is ill with a fever and you need to get
him medicine. But you have no car, it's very cold, pouring rain, and it will
take at least an hour to get to and from the pharmacy. You don't know most of
your neighbors and those you know you have good reason not to trust. What do
you?
Go
without the medicine? That's "medical neglect." The child savers can
take away your children for medical neglect. Bundle up the feverish
four-year-old in the only, threadbare coat he's got and take him out in the
cold and rain? That's "physical neglect." The child savers can take
away your children for physical neglect. Leave the eight-year-old to care for
the four-year-old and try desperately to get back home as soon as you can?
That's "lack of supervision." The child savers can take away your
children for lack of supervision.
And
in every one of those cases, the child savers would say, with a straight face,
that they didn't take your children "because of poverty alone."
Or
consider some actual cases from around the country.
· In Orange County, California,
an impoverished single mother can't find someone to watch her children while
she works at night, tending a ride at a theme park. So she leaves her eight-,
six-, and four-year-old children alone in the motel room that is the only
housing they can afford. Someone calls child protective services. Instead of
helping her with babysitting or daycare, they take away the children on the
spot.[4]
· In Akron, Ohio, a grandmother
raises her 11-year-old granddaughter despite being confined to a wheelchair
with a lung disease. Federal budget cuts cause her to lose housekeeping help.
The house becomes filthy. Instead of helping with the housekeeping, child
protective services takes the granddaughter away and throws her in foster care
for a month. The child still talks about how lonely and terrified she was - and
about the time her foster parent took her picture and put it in a photo album
under the heading: "filthy conditions."[5]
· In Los Angeles, the pipes in
a grandmother's rented house burst, flooding the basement and making the home a
health hazard. Instead of helping the family find another place to live, child
protective workers take away the granddaughter and place her in foster care.
She dies there, allegedly killed by her foster mother. The child welfare agency
that would spend nothing to move the family offers $5,000 for the funeral.[6]
· In Paterson New Jersey, parents
lose their three children to foster care solely because they lack adequate
housing. When the children are
returned, one of them shows obvious signs of abuse – bruises and new and old
burn marks -- in foster care. The parents are suing. And so is their first caseworker. He never wanted the children taken
away. He’d even found the family a
better apartment. But that’s not what
his superiors wanted. Indeed, the
caseworker says that because he insisted on trying to help the family, and
refused to alter his reports to make the parents look bad, he was fired. Why
were his bosses so anxious to take away the children? There was a rich, suburban couple ready and waiting to adopt
them. And according to the lawsuit
filed by the caseworker, a supervisor told him that “children should be taken
away from poor parents if they can be better off elsewhere.”[7]
It
is NCCPR’s position that no child should ever be removed from the child's
family for neglect alone, unless the child is suffering, or is at imminent risk
of suffering, identifiable, serious harm that cannot be remediated by services.
Even
when child savers don't remove the children, the "help" they offer
impoverished families can be a hindrance. For such families, demanding that
they drop everything to go to a counselor's office or attend a parent education
class is simply adding one more burden for people who already are overwhelmed.
Step
one to ensuring they can provide a safe environment for their children is
offering help to ameliorate the worst effects of poverty. Family preservation
programs do just that, (see
Issue Paper 10). And that is one reason they succeed where other efforts
fail.
Updated January 1, 2008
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect, The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3),
September, 1996, Chapter 5, pp. 2-17; Summary: Chapter 8, pp.10-11. Back to Text.
2. e.g. Bernard Horowitz and Isabel Wolock,
"Material Deprivation, Child Maltreatment and Agency Interventions Among
Poor Families," in Leroy Pelton, ed., The Social Context of Child Abuse
and Neglect (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1981), p.138. Back
to Text.
3. Ohio Statutes, Sec. 2151.04; Illinois Statutes,
Chapter 23, Sec. 2053; Mississippi Statutes, Sec. 43-21-105; South Dakota
Statutes, Sections 26-8-6 and 26-8-2. Back to Text.
4. Laura Saari, "Checking Up on the Children,"
Orange County Register, Jan. 17, 1999, p.E1. Back to
Text.
5. Donna J. Robb, "Child Abuse Charge Unfair, Group
Says" The Plain Dealer, March 11, 1998, p.1B. Back
to Text.
6. Nicholas Riccardi, "Grandmother Blames County in
Latest Death of Foster Child" Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1999,
p.B1. Back to Text.
7.
Jennifer V. Hughes, “Lawsuit Says DYFS Ordered False Reports,” The Record,
May 4, 2001, p.L3. Back to Text.