Emma Davis and John Read: Family structure not key to stopping child abuse

COMMENT

The view of New Zealand as a paradise for children has suffered a succession of blows in the past six weeks, beginning with a Unicef publication recording our high rate of child maltreatment deaths.

It is perhaps to our credit that we find this as hard to live with as the fact that we are not supreme in world rugby. As with the rugby we seize upon explanations that travel so quickly they become accepted as fact between one edition of the morning paper and the next.

Favourite explanations put forward to explain child abuse are: single parenthood; women who "choose" to live with violent men; the "abuse industry"; welfare benefits; and the child protection system.

When we focus debate on notions of good and bad family structures, as a Herald editorial did on Monday, and Carolyn Moynihan did in this section last Thursday, we miss the keys to preventing child abuse and promoting positive outcomes for children.

Steve Maharey's comments on the diversity of families have evoked letters to the editor and even an editorial steeped in the delusion that dual-parent families are, by definition, more supportive than other family structures.

The key issues for children are not whether the most important adults in their lives are married, heterosexual or single. They are about having at least one parent who is crazy about them and able to keep them safe.

They are about being surrounded by adults who respect and care for them and each other. They are about living in families and communities free from violence and abuse.

Research shows that poverty, social isolation and family conflict are better predictors of poor outcomes for children than family structure.

Some single parent families are better placed to provide a nurturing environment than some dual-parent families. However, no single or dual parent family can do it all alone.

No one should be condemned to a life of violence. For some women, the choice to leave a man to whom they have been committed (married or not) is a choice to live without humiliation and fear.

To some, it seems harder to get out than stay. Few children would be better off living in the dual-parent family immersed in violence and abuse than the peaceful single parent family.

Child Youth and Family's policy on response to children witnessing violence against their mothers is unclear. This is despite research estimating that in 30 to 60 per cent of families in which there is violence against the mother, there is also violence against the children by the same perpetrator.

It is essential that links be forged between the investigation and support processes triggered by violence against women and violence against children.

Responding to allegations of abuse raises conflicts that most of us would rather avoid. Contrary to prevailing mythology about professionals busily planting false ideas about abuse, many health and mental health professionals are scared to even ask.

Within the wider community, many of us would probably rather hang on to our innocent view of the world, in which all but a few families are safe places where adults don't abuse children.

Some of those behind the Peter Ellis petition claim that the extent and consequences of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, are exaggerated.

They offer images of over-zealous professionals operating in a clandestine abuse industry.

For example, Barry Colman, publisher of the National Business Review, was asked about the possibility that the Ellis campaign might make it harder for children to tell adults about abuse.

According to Michele Hewitson in the Herald, Colman sincerely hopes children are put off: "I hope we can stop this nonsense. These children were traumatised by their counsellors and their parents. They're the ones who have a lot to answer for."

Such public statements support a climate that hinders our ability to deal effectively with the complexities of child abuse.

Similarly, Lynley Hood, in A City Possessed, derides precisely what just might save lives: "To encourage the child protection movement to close ranks, the Geddis-led National Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Child Abuse recommended that all abuse allegations be investigated by specialised personnel, trained and working together."

There is no place for conspiracy theories in a rational response to allegations of child abuse.

The latest child death review is clear in its recommendation to look again at multi-disciplinary trained teams, not to close ranks, as Hood puts it, but to improve practice.

We have to get the right balance between hearing the abuse around us while not creating a climate of resentment and mistrust that can be destructive to a community that loves and protects its children. This is a difficult tightrope to walk.

Those who use the Ellis case to denigrate child protection workers do not help. Nor do those who promote the misguided notions that issuing marriage certificates, or lowering benefits, would reduce child abuse.

Peaceful lives need a social context of interdependence. Loving relationships, diverse nurturing families, caring friends, economic security, healthy gender roles and engagement in vibrant communities are prerequisites for violence-free lives.

However hard it is to report violence next door, it can be even harder to ask for help. When things go wrong, it needs to be easy to get help.

The challenge for us all is to contribute to a society that is a fertile ground for human development where violence becomes rare.

* Dr Emma Davis is programme leader (children and families) for the Institute of Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology. Dr John Read is in the psychology department at the University of Auckland.