Human Events, vol. 58, no. 16, 29 April 2002, p. 14.
The Truth About Child Abuse
BY STEPHEN BASKERVILLE
April is “Child Abuse Prevention Month,” according to
the Department of Health and Human Services. Kinaya
Sokoya, director of the D.C. Children's Trust Fund,
suggests we use the occasion to “raise the public's
awareness” about child abuse through “public
education” and “funding parent-support programs.” In
plain English, what this means is more government
programs of questionable efficacy.
It is not likely we are going to reduce child abuse by “educating”
anyone, especially given the message Ms. Sokoya sends to child abusers:
“In order to take good care of your child, you must take good care of
yourself.”
The public is already aware that we are in an epidemic of child
abuse. Less widely known but still well understood among researchers is
what causes it. What we lack is the resolve to face the politically
incorrect truth.
The massive growth of child abuse coincides directly with the divorce
revolution and fatherless homes. As Sokoya tacitly acknowledges, child
abuse takes place overwhelmingly in the homes and at the hands of single
parents.
A study just released by the Heritage Foundation confirms that
children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent
home than in an intact family. “Contrary to public perception,” write
Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks, “research shows that the most likely
physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male
in the household.” A 1996 HHS study found that “almost two-thirds [of
child abusers] were females,” and mothers accounted for 55% of child
murders according to a 1994 Justice Department report.
As Maggie Gallagher writes in her 1996 book, The Abolition of
Marriage: “The person most likely to abuse a child physically is a
single mother. The person most likely to abuse a child sexually is the
mother's boyfriend or second husband. . . . Divorce, though usually
portrayed as a protection against domestic violence, is far more
frequently a contributing cause.”
The only thing unusual in the sensational case of Andrea Yates is
that the couple remained married. Most child abusers first eliminate the
father through unilateral divorce or separation, whereupon they can
abuse his children with impunity.
As the Heritage report confirms, the safest place for a child is an
intact, two-parent home – that is, a home with a father in it.
Children’s natural protectors are their fathers. Even feminist Adrienne
Burgess observes that “fathers have often played the protector role
inside families.” Removing the father is what exposes the children to
danger.
Yet removing fathers is precisely what family court judges routinely
do at the mere request of mothers, who file two-thirds to nine-tenths of
divorces. Ironically, this is often effected with trumped-up charges of
child abuse, though statistically biological fathers seldom abuse their
children (6.5% of child murders, according to the DOJ study). Judges
claim they remove the father, even when no evidence of abuse has
occurred, to “err on the side of caution.” In fact they are erring on
the side of danger, and it is difficult to believe they do not realize
it.
Dickens observed “the one great principle of the . . . law is to make
business for itself.” In this instance, family courts and child
protective bureaucracies make business for themselves by eliminating the
father from the home, thus creating the environment conducive to abused
children. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion seems inescapable that
we have created a massive governmental machine staffed by officials with
a vested professional interest in abused children.
This is a shocking statement, but it proceeds predictably from the
logic inherent to all bureaucracies: to perpetuate the problem they
ostensibly exist to address.
The logic is marvelously self-justifying and self-perpetuating, since
by eliminating the father, government officials can then present
themselves as the solution to the problem they themselves create. The
more child abuse – whether by parents or even by the social work
bureaucracies themselves – the more the proffered solution is to further
expand the child abuse bureaucracy. Waxing indignant about a string of
child deaths at the hands of social workers in the District of Columbia,
federal judges and the Washington Post find solace in the D.C.
government’s solution: hire more social workers (and lawyers too for
some unspecified reason). “Olivia Golden, the Child and Family Services'
latest director . . . will use her increased budget to recruit more
social workers and double the number of lawyers.” Lawyers, not fathers,
now protect children.
If we do not have the courage to tell the truth about who is abusing
children and the role of government in permitting and even encouraging
them to do it, then all our professed concern for children is mere
posturing. We do no service to children or to public awareness by
funding groups and programs with an interest in obscuring the truth and
exacerbating the problem.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Stephen Baskerville is a professor of political science at Howard
University.
We appreciate your visit, and value
your feedback! How can we make our site better? It would be very
helpful to know how you found us, what you were looking for when you
stopped by, whether you found the information here helpful, and what
suggestions you may have for future enhancements. If you experienced
any technical problems accessing portions of the site, If you found
a mistake, or have a suggestion as to how we can make this site
better, please let us know. Thanks!
