The Other Side of Child Neglect Charges: What Happens when There Are No Standard Criteria for Charging a Non-Offending Mother with Neglect?

Autor/inn/en	Neustein, Amy; Lesher, Michael
Titel	The Other Side of Child Neglect Charges: What Happens when There Are No Standard Criteria for Charging a Non-Offending Mother with Neglect?
Quelle	In: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 15 (2006) 4, S.111-115 (5 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1053-8712
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Sexual Abuse; Child Neglect; Child Abuse; Mothers; Alcohol Abuse; Criteria; Caseworkers; Law Enforcement; Mental Disorders; Cooperation; Substance Abuse; Decision Making; Beliefs; Public Agencies + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Sexueller Missbrauch; Kindesvernachlässigung; Abuse of children; Abuse; Child; Children; Kindesmissbrauch; Missbrauch; Kind; Kinder; Mother; Mutter; Gesetzesvollzug; Mental illness; Geisteskrankheit; Co-operation; Kooperation; Drug use; Drug consomption; Drogenkonsum; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Belief; Glaube; Öffentliche Einrichtung
Abstract	Coohey's (2006) valuable research demonstrates that Child Protective Service (CPS) investigators use generally consistent criteria in determining when to charge a non-offending mother for failing to protect a child from sexual abuse. She concludes that the most reliable predictor that a formal charge of child neglect will be filed against a mother is her failure to consistently protect the child. Where a mother's protective behavior is less than consistent, the extent of her cooperation with CPS personnel can weigh in as an important factor. Other criteria include the firmness of her belief that abuse is occurring, which is closely linked to the clarity of the mother's information regarding the abuse. Evidence of mental health problems, such as drug or alcohol abuse or treatment for a psychological disorder, or indications of battering at the hands of the child's abuser, are also factors. Coohey (2006) warns that "states that do not have clear decision-making criteria will have investigators who are more likely to rely on their personal beliefs and biases more often than states that have clear definitions for, for example, protectiveness." All this throws into sharp relief the shoot-from-the-hip standards employed by CPS agencies when mothers are charged with child neglect, not for failure to protect, but for making reports of abuse deemed "unfounded" by caseworkers. Although an extensive literature concludes that deliberately false reports of child sexual abuse are rare, researchers Everson and Boat (1989) have found that a certain proportion of CPS workers are more skeptical of children's claims of sexual abuse than is warranted by the actual rates of false reporting. The authors reported in their book "From Madness to Mutiny" (2005) that the problem is greater than mere skepticism by CPS personnel. In case after case, they found that CPS agencies actively prosecute mothers who report their suspicion that their children are being sexually abused. What is more, in contrast to Coohey's (2006) findings, mothers throughout the country who report abuse are not protected from a neglect charge by demonstrating the consistency of their belief in the abuse, nor by their display of consistently protective behavior in trying to stop the abuse. In this article, the authors present two case histories of neglect which appear in "From Madness to Mutiny," both of which illustrate the danger of CPS's use of personal beliefs and biases rather than a set of clearly defined parameters for charging a mother with neglect. (Contains 8 notes.) (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10