Why is child abuse an accepted norm in Australia?

Children as property

The family represents the foundations of human society. The relationship between parents, children, and the state is arguably the most enduring and even though it has changed its form over time this core dynamic remains the bedrock of society. However, the family is deeply embedded in the values and norms of the society and these are not always conducive to children’s interests if there is a dispute.

Until quite recently, the operations of the family have taken place in private. Family conflict was resolved by the family head - the male breadwinner. Children were the legal property of their fathers until it was realised it was women who passed on the moral values. The state was then forced to consider giving aid to the poor but respectable mother(s) in order to keep their children from going astray and thus undermining the very fabric of society.

This gave birth to the modern welfare state, and in particular to the child welfare system. What followed in the judicial custody disputes was an unwritten law that gave preference to the mother’s established role. After a divorce, it became almost universally accepted that mothers were the best carers of children. However, as we all know, and as the authorities soon discovered, there are good and bad mothers just as there are good and bad fathers.

Around the mid 1970s there was a major shift in thinking, and custody laws sharply reversed the mother’s full time custodianship and introduced dual custody. Child abuse figures rose and there were many more cases of neglect; offences were often carried out by non-biological parents.

There were also other social factors precipitating abuse. Social and moral mores were relaxed. There was an increase in leisure time, whereby the media and various forms of entertainments all contributed to changing values, as did the use of alcohol and drugs.

As the problems increased so did the need for social workers and behavioural scientists. Demand outweighed supply and educational requirements for these professionals were also relaxed. Scientific testing was introduced and so too was the notion of “risk assessment”, which sees children remaining in the care of abusive parents.

Policy before prevention

The tendency to keep children in the care of abusive parents suggests we have not moved from the old adage that children are the property of their parents and the owners of property have every right to do with that property what they wish.

The chances are if you, as a citizen, doctor, nurse, teacher, child-care worker, or parent are reporting a case of child abuse you will come up against a policy of “risk assessment”.

“Risk assessment” effectively determines the level of “risk” to the child on the basis of whether there is an active, protective person able to minimise or placate the “risk”. Having a protective person who might minimise or placate the “risk” is seen as more applicable to the preservation of family life, than removing the “risk”. It is referred to as “minimal intervention”.

In this way, “risk assessment” frequently sees one parent weighted against the other in terms of who poses the “risk” and who will placate or minimise the “risk” and offer “protection”.

The problem with this is the protective person is not always there to protect the child. What then? Furthermore, the danger to the child is likely to be exacerbated because the system has set up a duality whereby the more the protective parent protects, the more the abuser is likely to abuse. Over time, the intensity of this conflict causes each party to become obsessed with their role. This obsessive-compulsive behaviour can play out with tragic circumstances.

This policy of “risk assessment” and “minimal intervention” can be put down to two aspects of bureaucratic operations: a methodology that preferences expediency on the one hand and a lack of understanding of the issues of child abuse on the other; the latter being due to poor education and little or no experience. It can also be put down to the acceptance of certain levels of violence within our community and our culture.