Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

I was speaking of abusive behaviour; we have agreed that not all corporal punishment is necessarily abusive.

Fair enough.

And the state putting some boundaries in place is worse than people being abused?

Yes that is what the State does now for example forcing single mums to go out to work.

We set a standard which will prevent behaviours which have been consistently shown to be damaging. That is why, for example, we have in Australia an understanding that corporal punishment with an implement other than the hand, hard enough to leave marks, or hitting more than six times, crosses the line.

Many nations have a total blanket ban which I would think won't be long before Australia follows as many political commentators are campaigning for now.

Or their own experience has led them to believe that abuse is normal and right? The "it didn't do me any harm" brigade of actually quite damaged people is real.

If their experience (psychological trauma) had led them to believe then its their psychological damage is what causes them to believe something that is rationally not the case. So being irrational they are not as capable of seeing things for what they are compared to someone who has no damage as they can see rationally in this situation.

Sure. But you haven't demonstrated any link between that and abusive behaviour.

It seems that the evidence shows both a direct and indirect link between parents who were abused as children and abusing their own child. There also is a link between witnessing DV and child abuse as well. Among other effects abused parents psychologic trauma or disorders seems to reduce their sensitivity to their childs welfare thus causing them to be more prone to neglect and abuse their child.

For mothers and fathers, there were direct associations between PTSD symptom severity and child abuse potential. Addressing parents’ PTSD symptoms and relationship conflict during the perinatal period using both systemic and developmental perspectives may uniquely serve to decrease the risk of child physical abuse and its myriad adverse consequences.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419300444

The findings of the present study are in accord with previous studies documenting the impact of childhood experiences of abuse on current parenting behavior (i.e., Dixon, Brown et al., 2005; Markowitz, 2001; Narang & Contreras, 2004; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), suggesting that individuals with a history of abuse are at increased risk for maltreating their children. Correlation analyses found that exposure to both childhood emotional and physical abuse were significantly associated with 6-month parenting opinions and a propensity for abusive behavior, as opposed to parenting knowledge.
The Influence of Maternal History of Abuse on Parenting Knowledge and Behavior

Key findings include: indirect effects between reported childhood maltreatment and abusive parenting via adult intimate partner violence; Thus, childhood experiences of maltreatment may alter parents’ ability to avoid negative and utilize positive parenting practices.

Thus, when considering interventions it is likely that it will be necessary to address multiple ecological levels simultaneously in order to begin to have an impact on the complex processes that link childhood victimization experiences with subsequent problems in parenting and ultimately with parents’ perpetration of maltreatment (Oosterman et al., 2019; Pittner et al., 2019).
Intergenerational effects of childhood maltreatment: A systematic review of the parenting practices of adult survivors of childhood abuse, neglect, and violence

On its own, no. I think there are other factors in play.

I'm not saying on its own though it depends on the level of risk as some situations like previous child abuse have a direct relation to being more prone to abuse a child. But nevertheless I agree there are several factors as to why parents abuse their child and all need to be considered based on the Risk and Protective factors.

That includes past child abuse, mental illness, severe stress, toxic environments, family setups and peoples and societies beliefs, attitudes and norms.

Definitely the former, and a bit of the latter.

Considering a lot of the research says theres a direct link between family setup and Risk and Protective factors its important to establish to what extent the research is flawed. You say its a bit flawed. A bit flawed seems to indicate that the majority is not flawed.

Also considering that you are so sure that family setup is not an important factor how do we know there is no bias in your thinking. I always worry when someone claims such assurity as I don't think there is and considering this is a complex and important issue I don't thing we can be so sure to exclude anything.

It means these things are related; it does not imply a causative relationship between the factors, or spell out which way that causation might run. (I'd argue, for example, that abuse is more likely to lead to family breakdown, than the other way around).

How would you then explain how compared to setups where the biological parenst are both engaged and present other setups have a direct association with much higher prevelance of child abuse. Surely that is a factor we must include when addresing child abuse.

I don't think there is one cause. You say its peoples beliefs and attitudes but this seems rather one dimensional thinking. I don't think there is any one cause but a number of factors that can lead to greater risk and protection as pointed out above for child abuse. So all need considering.

The problem is, when you keep talking about encouraging fathers to be involved, you don't specify this. It's as if you think invovlement, on its own, is enough, without looking at what happens in that involvement.

Actually I have many times by qualifying this with words like 'engaged, active and loving parents. I havn't used it 100% of the time but enough times to make it clear that they need to be involved, engaged with kids and their development and behaviour.

I would have thought this goes without saying because it would be illogical to try and prevent abuse by not also having quality parenting. It would defeat the purpose.

So given that I have made it clear its about encouraging parents, mothers and fathers to be actual mothers and fathers to their kids does this make any difference to the importance of enccouraging mums and dads to prevent child abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes that is what the State does now for example forcing single mums to go out to work.

Having a working single parent is nowhere near the issue that actually being abused is. Even so, the state doesn't force a single mum to work. What it does is reduce the welfare benefits available after the child is of school age.

Many nations have a total blanket ban which I would think won't be long before Australia follows as many political commentators are campaigning for now.

Which I don't really see as a massive issue. The main thing is that abuse is prevented.

If their experience (psychological trauma) had led them to believe then its their psychological damage is what causes them to believe something that is rationally not the case.

Well, obviously, the idea that abuse is normal, right and so on is rationally not the case. Lots of people believe it, though. And regardless of why they believe it, what we need to do to break the cycle is challenge that belief.

It seems that the evidence shows both a direct and indirect link between parents who were abused as children and abusing their own child.

Which has nothing to do with your earlier claim that people abuse because they're acting irrationally.

I'm not saying on its own though

But your question was, was parental absence an influence on prevalence of child abuse. You seem to be claiming it is, such that that single factor, on its own, is so important you want to make it the focus of a preventative strategy. And I'm saying that it's not; at most it's an indicator of other problems which will influence the prevalence of child abuse.

Considering a lot of the research says theres a direct link between family setup and Risk and Protective factors its important to establish to what extent the research is flawed. You say its a bit flawed. A bit flawed seems to indicate that the majority is not flawed.

I took you, point by point, through a systematic criticism of many of the problems in the research. When you've accepted the validity of those points, we'll be able to have a constructive conversation about the flaws in much of what you've presented.

I always worry when someone claims such assurity as I don't think there is

Well, that's a statement just dripping with irony.

How would you then explain how compared to setups where the biological parenst are both engaged and present other setups have a direct association with much higher prevelance of child abuse.

I gave you one answer in my post. Abuse is very highly likely to cause family breakdown. Another answer is that the things which drive abuse are also more likely to drive a lack of engaged and positive parenting.

I would have thought this goes without saying

Why? When you're busy pushing the "traditional families are best" barrow, and refusing to acknowledge that that's not always true, why would you think it goes without saying that when you're arguing for traditional families, you actually mean, "but only when both parents can actually do that in a safe and healthy way"? That has not been at all clear from your posts in this thread (which are, admittedly, not always coherent).

So given that I have made it clear its about encouraging parents, mothers and fathers to be actual mothers and fathers to their kids does this make any difference to the importance of enccouraging mums and dads to prevent child abuse.

Only if by "encouraging parents to actually be parents" we mean, addressing the attitudes which underlie abuse.

 

[stevevw]

Having a working single parent is nowhere near the issue that actually being abused is. Even so, the state doesn't force a single mum to work. What it does is reduce the welfare benefits available after the child is of school age.

OK what did you mean by the State putting boundaries on people.

Which I don't really see as a massive issue. The main thing is that abuse is prevented.

So what about the rights of those who don't abuse but use corporal punishment.

Well, obviously, the idea that abuse is normal, right and so on is rationally not the case. Lots of people believe it, though. And regardless of why they believe it, what we need to do to break the cycle is challenge that belief.

How do we do that. Does that mean abuse at all levels.

Which has nothing to do with your earlier claim that people abuse because they're acting irrationally.

Yes it does. They think is not rational or as rational as something who has not be traumatised or is experiencing a mental disorder.

But your question was, was parental absence an influence on prevalence of child abuse. You seem to be claiming it is, such that that single factor, on its own, is so important you want to make it the focus of a preventative strategy. And I'm saying that it's not; at most it's an indicator of other problems which will influence the prevalence of child abuse.

No I am only emphasinsing this aspect as its a major factor as found in the research. But I am not discounting other influences. But them some of those other influences also trace back to family structure. For example single mothers make up the poorest families in the US. But research shows the presence of a father is an important factor in minimising poverty for single mothers. Obviously because theres a second income and other benefits which add to the family that can save money.

I took you, point by point, through a systematic criticism of many of the problems in the research. When you've accepted the validity of those points, we'll be able to have a constructive conversation about the flaws in much of what you've presented.

What were those points. I remeber you creating logical fallacies in attacking the source and not the content. I linked research showing a direct link between family setup and higher risk of child abuse but you did not refut that direct link.

You claim correlation is not a valid way to determine cause or strong connection but you use correlations yourself to make your arguements. You provided about 3 links so far and one was from a political blog page. You have ignored the majority of my links and picked out ones you thought were unsupported. But ignored the rest. That is not a systematic criticism.

Well, that's a statement just dripping with irony.

I have not said anything that claims 100% one way or the other. I have continuously said its a multipronged approach and that family setup is a major risk and protective factor but not the only factor. Whereas you have said its only about beliefs and attitudes and have maybe reluctantly acknowledged that parenst and fathers may have something to do with it but very little.

I gave you one answer in my post. Abuse is very highly likely to cause family breakdown. Another answer is that the things which drive abuse are also more likely to drive a lack of engaged and positive parenting.

This is a good example of how your claim that you systematically argue against the evdience is faulty. You give answers but they are unqualified. You never give any independent evidence. Its easy for anyone to make such accertions but to your mind somehow those accertions are concete facts based purely on your say so,

Like saying abuse is the major cause or the only cause without any support. But when we check the facts we find that abuse is only one of the factors and not a dominant one.

You have been doing this throughout the thread and is evidenced by the tiny amount of links to independent evidence compared to my dozens including from independent sources saying the same things which is basically good science as when something is verified by independent sources it gives much more weight that it is in fact true.

Why? When you're busy pushing the "traditional families are best" barrow, and refusing to acknowledge that that's not always true,

No I did not acknowledge thats not true. That is your interpretation and misrepresentation of what I said and this is the tactic to make false accertions to undermine the facts. I said that generalising all TF with the minority that abuse does not represent the added safety of TF. You were trying to tar all TF with the minority. Another tactic used to undermine the facts.

why would you think it goes without saying that when you're arguing for traditional families, you actually mean, "but only when both parents can actually do that in a safe and healthy way"? That has not been at all clear from your posts in this thread (which are, admittedly, not always coherent).

If you read the links every single one qualifies the parents involvement by stating either engaged, involved, active or loving parents. Do you really think those authors are suggesting that any type of parents can create healthy development and protection for kids. I have also continuously said parents and fathers need to take responsibility, be actively engaged in their childs life.

heres is just a few of the dozens of qualifications I made that its about proper parenting and not just any parenting.

Get more fathers to take responsibility and we reduce childhood trauma and abuse.

That is one things we can do to improve child behaviour encourage more dads to take responsibility.

I agree and thats why its called optimal because our of all situations including traditional families that fail it is the loving committed one that is optimal.

a loving fathers presence is more likely to produce a emotionally stable and secure kid

the aim of the strategies were to change parental behaviour to promote their childrens healthy development. What promotes childrens healthy development, loving and involved parents including mothers and fathers.

So between my links qualifying what I said and my own direct and clear qualification if you cannot see that qualification then I think you must not be looking for it in the first place and have already assumed it is a certain way from your own views but not mine. This is important to show that you seem to ignore half if not most of what I am saying.

Only if by "encouraging parents to actually be parents" we mean, addressing the attitudes which underlie abuse.

So we can agree that encouraging parents to be actual parents, engaged in their childs life is positive ways that promote development and good behaviour this will go a long way to restoring some stability in a childs life and avoid child abuse.

By the way Merry Christmas.

 

[Paidiske]

OK what did you mean by the State putting boundaries on people.

I meant laws against abuse.

So what about the rights of those who don't abuse but use corporal punishment.

If that's what it takes to redeuce abuse, I think it's better that they be required to find new parenting techniques, than that we tolerate continued abuse. (Ie: I don't believe we have a "right" to corporal punishment).

How do we do that.

Well, I've had more to do with work on this area with other kinds of abuse, from what little I can find in the literature, the approaches can be similar; from government information right through to working with local communities. (So, for example, with domestic violence, I've been part of a group putting together Bible study material specifically designed to challenge the attitudes which underpin domestic violence, as part of creating resources for churches to help in the work of changing social attitudes. I can see - just in this thread! - how similar material on non-abusive parenting could be very helpful).

Does that mean abuse at all levels.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Yes it does. They think is not rational or as rational as something who has not be traumatised or is experiencing a mental disorder.

But people don't abuse because they're being irrational.

What were those points.

I laid them out in post #688.

You claim correlation is not a valid way to determine cause or strong connection

Correct!

but you use correlations yourself to make your arguements.

Where did I claim that a correlation demonstrated a causative relationship?

You have ignored the majority of my links and picked out ones you thought were unsupported. But ignored the rest. That is not a systematic criticism.

You ply the thread with all sorts of irrelevant links. No, I'm not going to go through every one of them in a systematic fashion. I am, however, willing to pick out enough to show you the problems with the arguments you're making and the sources you're using.

This is a good example of how your claim that you systematically argue against the evdience is faulty. You give answers but they are unqualified. You never give any independent evidence.

I provided evidence for some of what you're replying to here (it was that point about reverse causality). Some of the points are backed up by your own sources. All I've seen you do is dismiss it when I've pointed that out.

Like saying abuse is the major cause or the only cause without any support.

I didn't say that. What I said was that in families where both abuse and family breakdown are present, there's no reason to believe that the family breakdown led to the abuse, rather than the other way around.

You have been doing this throughout the thread and is evidenced by the tiny amount of links to independent evidence compared to my dozens including from independent sources saying the same things which is basically good science as when something is verified by independent sources it gives much more weight that it is in fact true.

Except many of your links don't even say what you claim they are saying, and are often not even addressing the question for which you cite them. Dozens of irrelevant links don't get you anywhere except undermining your credibility.

You were trying to tar all TF with the minority.

Not at all. I was pointing out that whether or not a family is "traditional" is besides the point, while abuse occurs in all types of households.

If you read the links every single one qualifies the parents involvement by stating either engaged, involved, active or loving parents.

Then, guess what? It's not about household structure. It's not about whether the parents are married or living under the same roof. It's not about being "traditional." It's about whether the parents are able to parent in a non-abusive way. Which is what I've been arguing the whole way through.

Do you really think those authors are suggesting that any type of parents can create healthy development and protection for kids.

When you make it about household structure rather than parenting style, it does seem that that is what you are suggesting. That parents living in the household structure you're advocating is more important than how they actually parent.

Get more fathers to take responsibility and we reduce childhood trauma and abuse.

That is one things we can do to improve child behaviour encourage more dads to take responsibility.

By "take responsibility" I thought you just meant, live with the child's mother in a "traditional" household. Is that not what you meant?

So we can agree that encouraging parents to be actual parents, engaged in their childs life is positive ways that promote development and good behaviour this will go a long way to restoring some stability in a childs life and avoid child abuse.

Umm, no. That's not what I said, and I'd still disagree with the idea that non-"traditional" households lack stability which leads to abuse. I'm still rejecting some of your basic premises.

If we agree at all, it is only that addressing the attitudes which underlie abuse, from whomever is caring for a child, is necessary.

 

[stevevw]

I meant laws against abuse.

And is that a good or bad thing.

If that's what it takes to redeuce abuse, I think it's better that they be required to find new parenting techniques, than that we tolerate continued abuse.

What if controlled corporal punishment is actually good for some kids in certain situations. Are we not denying perhaps an important tool for diciplining children and perhaps helping kids to be more upright adults.

(Ie: I don't believe we have a "right" to corporal punishment).

But you acknowledged that corporal punishment is ok in certain situations.

Well, I've had more to do with work on this area with other kinds of abuse, from what little I can find in the literature, the approaches can be similar; from government information right through to working with local communities. (So, for example, with domestic violence, I've been part of a group putting together Bible study material specifically designed to challenge the attitudes which underpin domestic violence, as part of creating resources for churches to help in the work of changing social attitudes. I can see - just in this thread! - how similar material on non-abusive parenting could be very helpful).

Yes I think making people aware of their attitudes and beliefs towards abuse and DV and abuse is important. You could say beliefs can be underpinned by norms in how people should act towards each other in sorting things out. But also in what they think of each other. Like with slaves they thought they were subhuman.

But I think thats only part of it because people act violent or abuse regardless of culture, race, gender, religion or lack there of.

But people don't abuse because they're being irrational.

Yes they do, they do all sorts of things like steal cars, high risk behaviour, steal from their own family, hurt the ones they love. Hurting the ones you love is irrational because they should be the ones you are nicest too generally. When people abuse they are usually remorseful afterwards unless they are a psychopath. They know they did wrong.

I laid them out in post #688.

Ok so basically I have dealt with those objections by linking evdience of the direct link, that is no other variable linking fathers absence and risk and actual child abuse. Also links factoring out the variables, and different situations like race, gender, religion, culture, socioeconomic status.

I also showed that most risk and abuse cases happen in single parent families where there was no father at all or minimal presence, or with cohabitating parents, non biological parents (fathers) or extended families. In other words the majority of risk and abuse happens with or without a biological father.

Lastly I have also said that this is not the only factor but an important factor that needs to be included in any solution to combating child abuse. So even if its not the only cause its one of the major contributing factors. There is no single direct cause so all risk and protective factors have to be included.

Correct!

So what about direct link.

Where did I claim that a correlation demonstrated a causative relationship?

Ah one was that corporal punishment causes negative outcomes. Another is belief and attitudes towards abuse and actual abuse.

You ply the thread with all sorts of irrelevant links. No, I'm not going to go through every one of them in a systematic fashion. I am, however, willing to pick out enough to show you the problems with the arguments you're making and the sources you're using.

How do you know they are irrelevant if you ignore the majority. You have not even address the majority and yet you are willing to dismiss them all out of hand as though you can lump them all as the same.

Tell me why would so many links state that family setup is an important factor to consider when dealing with the risks of child abuse.

I provided evidence for some of what you're replying to here (it was that point about reverse causality). Some of the points are backed up by your own sources. All I've seen you do is dismiss it when I've pointed that out.

I addressed reverse causalty as above and it was factored out in some of the links.

I didn't say that. What I said was that in families where both abuse and family breakdown are present, there's no reason to believe that the family breakdown led to the abuse, rather than the other way around.

The majority of abuse happens in already broken families even if it may have happened prior. Its happening now in the present family. The majority of abuse from absent fathers happens when the father was never present, in cohabitation, non biological parent/s, or blended families.

Except many of your links don't even say what you claim they are saying, and are often not even addressing the question for which you cite them. Dozens of irrelevant links don't get you anywhere except undermining your credibility.

They all say exactly what I am saying which is absent biological parents, even absent parents regadless, especially fathers is a direct and proven risk factor in the perpetration of child abuse. It doesn't matter if there are other factors because this is a factor regardless of other factors and a major one at that.

Not at all. I was pointing out that whether or not a family is "traditional" is besides the point, while abuse occurs in all types of households.

I seems you were fixating on the very few fathers from TF who abuse to make the arguement that TF setups are no different to other setups. Your using the minority to dicount the majority.

 

[Paidiske]

And is that a good or bad thing.

How is that even a question? Of course it's a good thing.

What if controlled corporal punishment is actually good for some kids in certain situations.

It's not necessary. If outlawing corporal punishment is what it takes to deal with abuse, that's still a win.

Are we not denying perhaps an important tool for diciplining children and perhaps helping kids to be more upright adults.

Doubt it.

But you acknowledged that corporal punishment is ok in certain situations.

There's a vast gulf between "not profoundly damaging," and "necessary."

But I think thats only part of it because people act violent or abuse regardless of culture, race, gender, religion or lack there of.

It's true that attitudes which normalise abuse are common across cultures. That doesn't mean they don't exist and can't be challenged, though.

Yes they do, they do all sorts of things like steal cars, high risk behaviour, steal from their own family, hurt the ones they love.

This has nothing to do with the physical abuse of children.

Hurting the ones you love is irrational because they should be the ones you are nicest too generally.

You might think so, but plenty of people hold beliefs which allow them to rationalise abuse.

When people abuse they are usually remorseful afterwards unless they are a psychopath. They know they did wrong.

With the physical abuse of children? Not so much. They tell themselves it's necessary discipline. That it's important to form the character of the child. That God told us to "spare the rod" and so on. They really believe they're doing something right and necessary.

Ok so basically I have dealt with those objections by linking evdience of the direct link, that is no other variable linking fathers absence and risk and actual child abuse.

No, you haven't, not at all. You have not even addressed the question of other variables.

In other words the majority of risk and abuse happens with or without a biological father.

Well, yes, those two options would seem to account for most of the possibilities. What are you even trying to say here?

So what about direct link.

It's not causative.

Ah one was that corporal punishment causes negative outcomes. Another is belief and attitudes towards abuse and actual abuse.

Except that causative relationships in both of those cases are well established. And the mechanism demonstrated. Unlike your claim, where you posit that the absence of someone causes an action to occur, despite a lack of any causative relationship or mechanism being demonstrated.

How do you know they are irrelevant if you ignore the majority.

A quick skim of the abstract is usually enough to get an idea of what it's about.

Tell me why would so many links state that family setup is an important factor to consider when dealing with the risks of child abuse.

Go back and re-read that criticism of much of the literature. It will tell you why. (We've been over this a few times now...)

I addressed reverse causalty as above and it was factored out in some of the links.

You didn't address it. You just dismissed it. Not once have I seen you even acknowledge that abuse is often the cause of family breakdown.

The majority of abuse happens in already broken families even if it may have happened prior. Its happening now in the present family. The majority of abuse from absent fathers happens when the father was never present, in cohabitation, non biological parent/s, or blended families.

This doesn't address my point, at all.

They all say exactly what I am saying

No, they really, really don't. Some of them aren't even addressing the same question.

I seems you were fixating on the very few fathers from TF who abuse to make the arguement that TF setups are no different to other setups. Your using the minority to dicount the majority.

No. My point is that abuse happens in all household structures, therefore household structure is neither the cause nor the solution to the abuse, but we have to look at what is actually driving abuse in all households where it happens. And that is the beliefs and attitudes held by the abuser which (in their minds) justify their actions.

I'm not particularly taking issue with "traditional" families in this thread. For those that are healthy and non-abusive, great. But as a survivor of abuse in a so-called "traditional" family, I'm getting very fed up with the insistence that they're the answer, when they're very clearly not.

 

[stevevw]

Then, guess what? It's not about household structure. It's not about whether the parents are married or living under the same roof. It's not about being "traditional." It's about whether the parents are able to parent in a non-abusive way. Which is what I've been arguing the whole way through.

And what I have kept saying is that this is an unreal approach as its limited. In fact its chasing the dogs tail to some extent. Because single parenthood for example has higher risks of child abuse itself. So getting each individual single parent to be a better parent doesn't stop the creation of more single parents who pose a higher risk.

If we are trying to prevent child abuse we have to look at the risk and protective factors, Its support work 101. Identify the risk groups and try to reduce that happening in the first place. Otherwsie we are just creating more chances for child abuse happening.

When you make it about household structure rather than parenting style, it does seem that that is what you are suggesting. That parents living in the household structure you're advocating is more important than how they actually parent.

But I am not making it just about household structure but also quality parenting. We just went through that when I qualified its also about how parents actually parent ie responsibility, engaged and supporting a childs healthy development and behaviour. But how parents actually parent is to do with household structure. The simple fact that theirs higher risk factors in certain households bears this out.

By "take responsibility" I thought you just meant, live with the child's mother in a "traditional" household. Is that not what you meant?

Of course not, take responsibility is not just to be there in person. It means doing what you should be doing, the right thing for your childs well being. It can also mean taking responsibility for your child even if its not a TF like a seperated dad taking more responsibility. That will make a world of difference to the child.

Umm, no. That's not what I said, and I'd still disagree with the idea that non-"traditional" households lack stability which leads to abuse. I'm still rejecting some of your basic premises.

Then how do you explain the reams of evidence that states non TF have a much higher risk of child abuse which means also actual child abuse while at the same time showing kids in TF setups have much better outcomes for development and behaviour.

You say its a correlation but I have shown its a direct link. But even if it was a strong correlation isn't that enough to warrant its inclusion in any solutions to preventing child abuse. Correlations are often used as the basis for implementing support and change.

Theres a correlation between the loss of culture for Indigenous peoples and their poor outcomes. So support is now culturally informed. Theres a correlation between alcohol consumption and DV and abuse for indigenous peoples so support tried to minimize alcohol abuse.

If we agree at all, it is only that addressing the attitudes which underlie abuse, from whomever is caring for a child, is necessary.

Yes I agree on that but its a pity you can't also agree and include the risk and preventative factors for child abuse as well to target that support. Like I said its a multipronged approach and any approach that takes a one dimensional view is doomed to fail.

 

[Paidiske]

And what I have kept saying is that this is an unreal approach as its limited.

It's focussed on the actual cause of the problem.

I can't for the life of me understand why people want to make it about other things, unless they don't actually care about the abuse and just want to use abuse as an excuse to push their agenda about the other things.

So getting each individual single parent to be a better parent doesn't stop the creation of more single parents who pose a higher risk.

But they're not a risk because they're single parents. That's the fallacy. So trying to address their singleness isn't necessarily going to prevent a single incident of abuse.

We just went through that when I qualified its also about how parents actually parent ie responsibility, engaged and supporting a childs healthy development and behaviour.

In which case, it's not about household structure. Because responsible, engaged, supportive, non-abusive parenting can happen in any household structure.

But how parents actually parent is to do with household structure.

There's good and bad (and abusive) parenting in every household structure, so no, this doesn't hold.

Then how do you explain the reams of evidence that states non TF have a much higher risk of child abuse which means also actual child abuse while at the same time showing kids in TF setups have much better outcomes for development and behaviour.

Well, first you'd have to separate out the different aspects of what you mean by "traditional" and look at each individually. Given that most of the studies aren't even consistent in that regard, your claim is going to run aground pretty quickly, though. But if you could separate each aspect out neatly, you'd need to then look at factors which influence each of those aspects, and which also influence abuse. And then you'll start to see what the actual causes are which are driving that correlation.

You say its a correlation but I have shown its a direct link.

Again, you have not shown a causative relationship.

But even if it was a strong correlation isn't that enough to warrant its inclusion in any solutions to preventing child abuse.

No. Because it's not addressing the actual cause of the problem.

Yes I agree on that but its a pity you can't also agree and include the risk and preventative factors for child abuse as well to target that support.

I don't believe household structure is preventative. At best it's a population-level statistical indicator of some other possible factors in play. Which is pretty meaningless in individual cases.

 

[Larniavc]

And is that a good or bad thing.

This seems a very odd question. When can abuse being against the law be a bad thing?

 

[stevevw]

This seems a very odd question. When can abuse being against the law be a bad thing?

I guess when it outlaws things that are not abuse.

 

[Robban]

Sweden, since 1979 it is forbidden in law,

both physicaly and psycologicaly.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sweden, since 1979 it is forbidden in law,

both physicaly and psycologicaly.

Do you know how they define it legally?

 

[Robban]

Do you know how they define it legally?

Any mistreatment either physically or verbal
in this matter a child is considered up to 18 yars of age.

It is stated that all people have the right to live free from mistreatment.

Further more it is recomederad to phone police in emergency 112.


There are also authorities just so a child may turn to for help.

 

[Robban]

Any mistreatment either physically or verbal
in this matter a child is considered up to 18 yars of age.

It is stated that all people have the right to live free from mistreatment.

Further more it is recomederad to phone police in emergency 112.


There are also authorities just so a child may turn to for help.

Add on to above.

Depending on the type of offence,


a fine or from six months to two years in prison

 

[Carl Emerson]

@Robban

Do you know how they define 'mistreatment' ???

 

[IceJad]

Hitting children is child abuse - plain and simple - and, as the OP shows, it has ramifications for future mental health and anti social behaviour.

OB

Not very nuance. Physical punishment like any form of punishments are a tool. When and how to use it is key to teaching. If you find out that your kid instigated a fight with another kid that caused permanent damage, you must do more than stern talking to or grounding.

You also have to observe your kid's reaction to knowing he damaged another person. Is he glad even after your scolding? Does he start to develop an unhealthy believe that nothing he does can be wrong? Is he balancing the cost of his actions to the punishment he is receiving? All these might be grounds for physical punishment (not abuse - there is a difference). To break the self righteous mentality that is forming in his mind. To remind him that all actions have real physical cost.

 

[Robban]

@Robban

Do you know how they define 'mistreatment' ???

What do you regard as mistreatment concerning your own person?

 

[Carl Emerson]

What do you regard as mistreatment concerning your own person?

In my day children knew that certain behaviours were met with physical punishment.

From the age of 10, punishment included a strap on the hand, and from 13 a cane on the buttocks There were strict protocols around the administration of these measures to regulate against the possibility of abuse.

Children were much more respectful of authority back then, as lawlessness was taken much more seriously.

The rules and consequences were clearly understood.

I would feel comfortable to see a return to such a system, such punishments were seen as necessary and expected. and the society benefitted as a result.

These days teachers are openly abused by pupils without serious consequence.

We have empowered the unruly from a young age and society is suffering.

 

[Robban]

In my day children knew that certain behaviours were met with physical punishment.

From the age of 10, punishment included a strap on the hand, and from 13 a cane on the buttocks There were strict protocols around the administration of these measures to regulate against the possibility of abuse.

Children were much more respectful of authority back then, as lawlessness was taken much more seriously.

The rules and consequences were clearly understood.

I would feel comfortable to see a return to such a system, such punishments were seen as necessary and expected. and the society benefitted as a result.

These days teachers are openly abused by pupils without serious consequence.

We have empowered the unruly from a young age and society is suffering.

Looks like this is a hard nut to crack,

We are commanded to honour our father and mother,
it does not say to love them.
Why?
Because it was through them with God's help we came into this world.
I must have been very fortunate being born into my family,
in all eight children.
War, seperation, losing everything at times extreme hardship,
yet never once any threat from father or mother ever.

To this day today I thankful for their patience amd care.

 

[stevevw]

It's focussed on the actual cause of the problem.

Yes and determining whether parents can parent in non abusive ways is determining the Risk and Protective factors and then targeting those groups with support and implementing preventative supports and programs based on the protective factors as well as healthy parenting practices.

I can't for the life of me understand why people want to make it about other things, unless they don't actually care about the abuse and just want to use abuse as an excuse to push their agenda about the other things.

Its not making it about other things but rather making it about what actually creates Risks or Protective environments that are conducive of child abuse and then addressing this based on that evidence. It seems this is a well acknowledged approach to prevention of child abuse by child protection agencies and child health organisations.

But they're not a risk because they're single parents. That's the fallacy. So trying to address their singleness isn't necessarily going to prevent a single incident of abuse.

Yes it will. Its even used as a measure and approach in present child abuse intervention supports. Its not a fallacy but a fact based on the evidence for Risk factors for child abuse and the stronger the association, or magnitude of the risk, between a risk factor and outcome, the more likely the relationship is thought to be causal. And its not just single parent setups but also cohabitation, non-biological partner such as boyfriend and blended families.

Children raised in single-parent homes have a: 77 per cent greater risk of being physically abused;
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/05/high-costs-fatherlessness/

The risk of abuse and neglect in a sole parent family is about seven to ten times greater in a sole parent family than in an intact two-parent family.
https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/pm53.pdf

Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 times more likely to be maltreated in one way or another. They were 10 times more likely to experience abuse and 8 times more likely to experience neglect. [34]
The High Costs of Fatherlessness - Quadrant Online

We conclude that studying the interrelatedness of risk factors contributes to knowledge on the etiology of child maltreatment and the improvement of both risk assessment procedures and interventions for child maltreatment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213420302775

Common risk factors for child abuse and neglect
Single or unmarried parents

One model that has been used to demonstrate how factors at multiple levels intersect to increase the likelihood of child abuse and neglect is Bronfenbrenner's (1979) "developmental-ecological" model (Horton, 2003; Irenyi, Bromfield, Beyer, & Higgins, 2006). The developmental-ecological model has four levels: cultural beliefs and values (macrosystem) neighbourhood and community settings (exosystem); family environment (microsystem); and the individual's own characteristics and developmental stage.

Risk and protective factors for child abuse and neglect

An overview of the risk and protective factors for child abuse and neglect in families

aifs.gov.au

Family/parental factors single or unmarried parents.

Risk and protective factors for child abuse and neglect

An overview of the risk and protective factors for child abuse and neglect in families

aifs.gov.au

In which case, it's not about household structure. Because responsible, engaged, supportive, non-abusive parenting can happen in any household structure.

Yes thats true but it is about family structure as well. Risk factors for child abuse are based on the individual parents ability, the environmental factors like family structure and the societal factors like attitudes, norms and family support. Family structure is beyond parenting ability because its more environmental than subject to parenting ability.

Well, first you'd have to separate out the different aspects of what you mean by "traditional" and look at each individually. Given that most of the studies aren't even consistent in that regard, your claim is going to run aground pretty quickly, though.

No that is one of the strengths of the studies is that it seperates each family structure and consistently shows certain family structure have much higher risk. That consistency is what makes it good science. I just posted 1/2 a dozen independent sources showing the same findings.

But if you could separate each aspect out neatly, you'd need to then look at factors which influence each of those aspects, and which also influence abuse. And then you'll start to see what the actual causes are which are driving that correlation.

The more factors that point to risk of child abuse the stronger the link for it being an important causal factor. Some of the articles I linked have factored out variables and controlled outcomes with random testing and still came to the same findings that certain family environments causes a much higher risk for chiild abuse. Strong enough to used as the basis for government programs preventing child abuse.

Again, you have not shown a causative relationship.

There is no clear way to show a definite causal connection with any single factor including parents attitudes and beliefs. The best that can be done is to assess the Risk and Protective factors. The more risk factors the greater the causal link. Certain family setups like single parenting have multiple independent lines of risk which strengthens the causal link.

For example single parents are more likely to be poor and poverty is associated with hightened risk of abuse. Single parenthood is associated with higher rates of psychological stress which is also associated with higher risks. Single parents who have experienced childhood abuse have a hieghtened risk of child abuse and there are several other indepenent evidence of hightened risk and single parents. Adding these together gives more strength to this being a cause of child abuse.

As mentioned this has already been done with some of the papers I linked which also done random controlled studies and factored out culture, race, religion and economics status. Altogether this builds the evdience that certain family structures can have a higher risk of causing child abuse.

I don't believe household structure is preventative. At best it's a population-level statistical indicator of some other possible factors in play. Which is pretty meaningless in individual cases.

Well your out of step with the majority of findings. Including family structure risks and protective factors is already included in programs and interventions to prevent child abuse. So why would Government agencies, Justice and Family Wellbeing advocates and support organisations include these measures if they were irrelevant to preventing child abuse.