Family Violence

Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect

This fact sheet is an excerpt from Emerging Practices in the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, (2003) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect. The findings and conclusions presented in this fact sheet do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Children's Bureau's Office on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Introduction

Prevention of child abuse and neglect has taken on many forms since the 1960s when C. Henry Kempe identified the Battered Child Syndrome. Policy makers, legislators, professionals, and concerned citizens have struggled to find effective ways to prevent violence against children. The term "prevention" has several meanings. Prevention can be used to represent activities that promote an action or behavior. The term is also used to represent activities that stop an action or behavior. A dictionary defines prevention as "stopping or keeping from doing or happening; hindering."
Why Does Prevention Matter?

Prevention of socially undesirable and hazardous behaviors cannot only save lives, but also precious resources. While impossible to entirely eradicate certain kinds of behavior that can have tragic human consequences, including the maltreatment of children, human service professionals have been buoyed by improvements over time across numerous major indices that measure the health and well-being of individuals and families. Public education campaigns that increase awareness by delivering steady messages can alter behavior, saving lives and critical resources in the process. The following illustrate a few of the significant recent trends in health-related measures of well-being:

*

Alcohol-related traffic deaths have dropped substantially from the early 1980s to 2001, attributable, in part, to national campaigns to elevate public awareness and change behavior such as the "Designated Driver" campaign. Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related accidents declined 13 percent from 20,159 fatalities reported in 1991 (49 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year) to 17,448 reported in 2001 (41 percent of total fatalities); total fatalities per year are down approximately 30 percent since 1982 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002). Though fatalities increased slightly from 2000 to 2001, the 20-year trend represents a tremendous savings in prevented injury and avoided loss of life.
*

There has been a dramatic reduction in the AIDS incidence among adult, adolescent and mother-to-child, or perinatal, HIV transmission rates. Between 1992 and 1997, perinatally acquired AIDS cases declined 66 percent in the United States. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently estimated a net savings of $38 million in preventing 656 new HIV infections, based on medical care costs alone. Though these figures are encouraging, new adult cases have begun to move upward again among specific subpopulations, a reminder that trends are influenced by factors that can change in the short term (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999a).
*

Continuing a downward trend in adolescent pregnancy that began in the early 1990s, the CDC reported that the national pregnancy rate for adolescents ages 15-19 declined by 7.8 percent from 1995-1997. There was also an overall decline of 7.5 percent in the abortion rate for adolescents ages 15-19 (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000). In addition, all States have applied at some point for the Maternal and Child Health Bureau abstinence education block grant funds and most are using the monies in innovative ways to promote abstinence from sexual activity as the healthiest choice for youth (Devaney et al., 2002).
*

Though concerns remain about the relatively steady rate among 18-24 year olds, the CDC reported substantial decreases from 1993 to 2000 in smoking prevalence for all other age groups. The estimated direct and indirect costs associated with smoking exceed $68 billion annually (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).

With sustained advocacy from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the problem of alcohol-related traffic fatalities has become a case study in the critical elements that are necessary to bring about meaningful social change. In addition to sensitizing the public to the hazards of driving under the influence, which has been accomplished by giving a personal face to the human tragedy of alcohol-related traffic accidents, advocacy groups have utilized an array of effective tactics. These include lobbying for lower legal blood-alcohol limits, more severe penalties for offenders, innovative strategies for prevention, stricter standards on advertising of alcohol, and higher excise taxes that are designed to reduce demand for alcohol.

Studies conducted by the Michigan Children's Trust Fund and the Colorado Children's Trust Fund illustrate the potential value of child maltreatment programs that can reduce incidence. In 1992, the Michigan Children's Trust Fund estimated that the cost of responding to child maltreatment in Michigan was $823 million annually, including the estimated costs associated with low-weight births, child fatalities and preventable infant mortality, medical treatment, child protective services, foster care, juvenile and adult criminality, and psychological problems. In contrast, the cost of providing prevention services to all first-time parents in Michigan was estimated at $43 million annually. The study concludes that while the incidence of abuse cannot be reduced to zero, investments in prevention can be cost effective if they result in even modest reductions in abuse events (Caldwell, 1992).

A similar study commissioned by the Colorado Children's Trust Fund estimated that responding to child maltreatment costs Colorado $402 million annually, whereas home visitation services for high-risk families would cost Colorado just $24 million annually (Gould & O'Brien, 1995).

A Hard Look At How We Treat Children

by Andrew Vachss

Years ago, I was in the middle of a hotly contested trial, representing an infant who had been so tortured that the testifying pediatric expert said the baby actually appeared "suicidal" even at such a young age. One of the opposing attorneys argued for the return of the child, saying his client was the "natural mother" and had certain rights. There was nothing "natural" about the "mothering" this baby boy had received. He would have been better off in a P.O.W. camp. And I began to reflect on how even biology has failed some children, how our human species no longer practiced the lessons of our predecessors. I wondered, even then, if it was too late for us. I do not believe it is—but I do believe we are running out of time.

Although we all believe our human species to be the highest point on the evolutionary scale, there is one critical area in which we have failed to evolve, one area in which we do not represent an improvement upon our predecessors. And this is a failure so fundamental, so critical, that our long-term survival is at stake. Ultimately, it poses a greater threat than war, poverty, hunger, crime, racism and tribalism—even of the genocidal variety—combined.

That fundamental failure is this: We are not protecting and preserving our own. Our notion of the human "family" as the safeguard of our species has not evolved. Instead, it has gone in the opposite direction—it has devolved.

It has devolved to the extent that we tolerate unprotective, even violently abusive parents. It has devolved to the extent that we tolerate predators within a child's circle of trust—in schools, in clubs, within religious organizations. It has devolved to extent that abusers, even when they have been identified, are permitted further opportunities to prey. It has devolved to the extent that we insist on the "rehabilitative potential" of those who viciously injure and/or sexually assault their own children. And it has devolved to the extent that we permit convicted predators of children to be released and walk among us.

One distinguishing characteristic of highly evolved species is a long period of postnatal helplessness, when offspring are not able to fend for themselves. Another characteristic is pack behavior, a collectiveness which requires that all activity be geared to the ultimate survival of the group.

Among other mammals, nonprotective parents are considered defective by other pack members. Not only will they decrease the pack's numbers through direct attacks on their own young, but they also cannot be relied upon to guard the offspring of others while pack members forage, hunt or gather. And so they are expelled. Likewise, predators within a species are not tolerated. They are banished, avoided or killed. These are not moral judgements; they are biologically driven and, among all species but our own, compelling.

Human animals, by contrast, have tolerated—even tacitly condoned—the nonprotector and the predator, leading to an escalation of the rape, murder and torture of our children. Rather than making their survival, and the survival of our species, an unquestioned priority, we watch indifferently while the evolution of cruelty continues. Much of it comes from the individual family itself; all of it from the human family as a whole.

Instead of blaming the "destruction of the family" for every social ill and evil, we need to face the fact that this is a self-inflicted wound. The "family" is self-destructing—destroying itself from within by its failure to nurture and value its offspring. What are "family values" anyway? Unless and until the ultimate "family value" is protection of our children, such a term deserves no respect.

We cannot continue to tolerate those who prey upon our children—the future of our species. Evolution is a race, a relay race, with the baton passed from generation to generation. The competition is between those who value children as the seedlings of our species and those who value them as vassals and victims.

We are not winning this race. And we cannot, unless and until we change our priorities and our conduct. All the pious rhetoric on the planet will not save one child. And while we endlessly debate the "right" of pedophiles to post kiddie porn on the Internet, our species moves farther away from its biological roots.

We must take the abuse of a child as an offense against (and threat to) our survival. And we must replicate the conduct of our animal ancestors and respond as they did—or fail to do so and vanish as some of them did. Forever.

Our Search For Love

Unconditional love is a popular talk-show topic, but it is little understood. All infants are biologically entitled to unconditional love and protection. It is their birthright, and it is their parents' birth obligation. There is no such thing as a "good baby" or a "bad baby," which is why love and protectiveness must be unconditional for them all.

Those not given such love as children seek it throughout their adult lives—some in ways very dangerous to themselves and to others. But unconditional love can never be received by adults. It can only be given. All love between adults is conditional. It requires behavior; it must be earned and maintained.

I once represented a child who had been horribly tortured by her "mother." On the witness stand, the abuser explained why she had burned the child by holding her little hand against a hot stove grid: "She wouldn't leave me alone!" The child's crime was to follow her mother around the house, attempting to wring from her the love she so desperately needed. Slaps and kicks did not stop the child's search for love, so the "mother" decided more extreme measures were needed to "teach her a lesson." Too many of our children are being taught that same lesson, in a variety of hideous ways. And yet our tolerance continues.

Here's what I tell so many formerly abused children who are now adults: Look how desperately you wanted to bond with "parents" who would not love you. That is not a defect; indeed, it can be a strength. It proves that the ability to love has not been eradicated in you. But you must choose carefully. Test, establish criteria, search—and resolve to be alone if you cannot find what you deserve. Bonding, in and of itself, is of no value unless the current flows in both directions.

When our biological families no longer function, the only option is to create a family of choice—a family defined by shared purpose and mutual respect, not ties of blood. When, as an adult, you can adopt a child-protective pack mentality, you can bond with others and have the family you need.

But that means to contribute, not to demand. You are no longer an infant, no longer entitled to demand. You are no longer an infant, no longer entitled to the "unconditional love" of which you were robbed as a child. Yes, you were cheated. But if you devote your life to the celebration of that theft, you are doomed.

Why It Takes A Whole Village To Rape A Child

A classic illustration of devolution is our laws against incest. What is the difference between sex with a child of another and a child of one's own? We all know—and the data prove—the truth. When a male (note: I do not say a "man") has sex with a neighbor's child, prison is a likely possibility. But should such a creature have sex with his own child, we euphemistically deem it "family dysfunction" and call in the therapists.

Incest laws were enacted to prevent the birth of biogenetic defectives. But why do such laws apply to children? Children do not have the biological capacity to reproduce. Laws prohibiting sex or marriage between closely related adults protect the species. But incest prohibition as to children has no such value.

Simply put, we as a nation consider children to be the property of their parents. And we provide a special immunity to sex offenders who grow their own victims. Which is more destructive to our species: the random sexual assault of a child or the sexual assault of a child by the very individual whom all laws command to protect that child? What is the moral, social or ethical justification from distinguishing sexual assault by blood relationship of the victim to the perpetrator? We can come to but one conclusion: The laws against incest exist not to protect children but to protect predators.

Yes, our human race remains the only one that tolerates nonprotective parents and same-species predators. The incest laws make that point, written in the blood of innocents. This is the question about incest laws for every legislator in the land: Explain it or change it. And unless we, as a society, start asking that question, we will continue our "evolution" until we have lost our humanity.

Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime

Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals. "Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives," wrote humanitarian Dr. Albert Schweitzer. "Murderers ... very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids," according to Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Studies have now convinced sociologists, lawmakers, and the courts that acts of cruelty toward animals deserve our attention. They can be the first sign of a violent pathology that includes human victims.

A Long Road of Violence

Animal abuse is not just the result of a minor personality flaw in the abuser, but a symptom of a deep mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty against animals don’t stop there; many of them move on to their fellow humans.

The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appear in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders. (1)

Studies have shown that violent and aggressive criminals are more likely to have abused animals as children than criminals considered non-aggressive. (2) A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy. (3) To researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the lives of serial rapists and killers. (4)

Says Robert Ressler, founder of the FBI’s behavioral sciences unit, "These are the kids who never learned it’s wrong to poke out a puppy’s eyes." (5)

Notorious Killers

History is replete with notorious examples: Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to attack and mutilate them.(6) Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-year-old boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs’ rectums and strung up cats.(7) Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on fire.(8) Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.(9) Carroll Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.(10) In 1987, three Missouri high school students were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats he’d lost count. (11) Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates that they had decapitated a cat.(12) Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs’ heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.(13)

More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Ore., and Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Miss., tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees.(14) Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12 classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their friends.(15)

"There is a common theme to all of the shootings of recent years," says Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz, director of the Child Study Center at New York University. "You have a child who has symptoms of aggression toward his peers, an interest in fire, cruelty to animals, social isolation, and many warning signs that the school has ignored."(16)

Sadly, many of these criminals’ childhood violence went unexamined—until it was directed toward humans. As anthropologist Margaret Mead noted, "One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it."(17)

Animal Cruelty and Family Violence

Because domestic abuse is directed toward the powerless, animal abuse and child abuse often go hand in hand. Parents who neglect an animal’s need for proper care or abuse animals may also abuse or neglect their own children. Some abusive adults who know better than to abuse a child in public have no such qualms about abusing an animal publicly.

In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the home had been abused.(18) Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been identified by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.(19) In one study of battered women, 57 percent of those with pets said their partners had harmed or killed the animals. One in four said that she stayed with the batterer because she feared leaving the pet behind.(20)

While animal abuse is an important sign of child abuse, the parent isn’t always the one harming the animal. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home; like their parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the only individual in the family more vulnerable than themselves: an animal. One expert says, "Children in violent homes are characterized by ... frequently participating in pecking-order battering," in which they may maim or kill an animal. Indeed, domestic violence is the most common background for childhood cruelty to animals.(21)

Stopping the Cycle of Abuse

There is "a consensus of belief among psychologists ... that cruelty to animals is one of the best examples of the continuity of psychological disturbances from childhood to adulthood. In short, a case for the prognostic value of childhood animal cruelty has been well documented," according to the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.(22)

Schools, parents, communities, and courts who shrug off animal abuse as a "minor" crime are ignoring a time bomb. Instead, communities should be aggressively penalizing animal abusers, examining families for other signs of violence, and requiring intensive counseling for perpetrators. Communities must recognize that abuse to ANY living individual is unacceptable and endangers everyone.

In 1993, California became the first state to pass a law requiring animal control officers to report child abuse. Voluntary abuse-reporting measures are also on the books in Ohio, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. Similar legislation has been introduced in Florida. "Pet abuse is a warning sign of abuse to the two-legged members of the family," says the bill’s sponsor, Representative Steve Effman. "We can’t afford to ignore the connection any longer."(23)

Additionally, children should be taught to care for and respect animals in their own right. After extensive study of the links between animal abuse and human abuse, two experts concluded, "The evolution of a more gentle and benign relationship in human society might, thus, be enhanced by our promotion of a more positive and nurturing ethic between children and animals."(24)

What You Can Do:

• Urge your local school and judicial systems to take cruelty to animals seriously. Laws must send a strong message that violence against any feeling creature—human or other-than-human—is unacceptable.

• Be aware of signs of neglect or abuse in children and animals. Take children seriously if they report animals’ being neglected or mistreated. Some children won’t talk about their own suffering but will talk about an animal’s.

• Don’t ignore even minor acts of cruelty to animals by children. Talk to the child and the child’s parents. If necessary, call a social worker.