To think a law against emotional cruetly to children is too vague and unenforcable

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26814427

Certainly many children do suffer an unreasonable level of emotional cruetly, but how would a "cinderella" law work in practice? Most cases of emotional abuse are not as clear cut as cinderella. Those who emotionally abuse children are rather more subtle and shrewd than cinderella's step mother.

Surely social workers have enough of a case load managing neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse cases. What standard of parenting is good enough? Most parents need support rather than criminalisation.A child whose mother has the occassional mood swing, but is loved 99% of time is probably better off with a loving but imperfect parent than going into the care system.

Does it mean that schools will call in social services when there is a difference of opinon of parenting style or child complains when the parent does something the kid doesn't like. (ie. A parent remarries? Punishing appauling behaviour?) Sometimes children make malicious accusations, so how would you sort out the real emotional abuse from tall stories. Emotional abuse is next to impossible to prove in court.

How do we protect children against toxic parents without making it impossible to discpline our children or for parents to have some say how they lead their lives? (Ie. commiting the "emotional abuse" of putting a young baby in full time nursery so that everyone can have a roof over their heads or controlled crying.)

Where there is only emotional abuse going on, i agree it would often be difficult to detect (though by no means impossible). I imagine this would be most useful where you have a cluster of issues going on, where emotional abuse may add to a convictable charge.

Of course fear of sanctions prevents many women from seeking appropriate help, and that is a serious problem. But I still don't think that is a good enough reason not to be able to have criminal sanctions where they are entirely appropriate.

People used to argue against criminalising marital rape on the grounds that it would be impossible to detect, that it was subjective, that the law couldn't be enforced, that innocent men would be victimised by women's malice.

educationalrightsalliance.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/ambitious-about-autism-its-time-to-law.html (link chosen because it mentions that this treatment is not limited to only those SN kids with this specific diagnosis)

4 in 10 children with ASD have been illegally excluded from school - is this social isolation by the adults entrusted with their care not a form of emotional abuse? Sadly children KNOW when they are not wanted, whether that be by school or family and whether or not they are able to articulate the feelings of worthlessness that engenders.

Does it cause significant harm? The school attendance fervour is well noted on this site for all other children, so you have to ask the question at least.

I'm neither a shrink, nor a legal eagle but am aware that different categories of children seem to be treated VERY differently by the system. Imho those poor girls in the Rochdale child sexual exploitation case were emotionally abused by the SWers and police with who they tried to raise the alarm.

I think having read the thread I'm starting to agree with the aims of the new law, but want to see it equally applied to ALL adults involved with kids, not just parents. (Diff type of abuse but failure to do this is how that peadophile female nursery worker in Plymouth managed to go undetected too long). I think there needs to be a new default model of parents and state working together rather than in antagonism to one another as a first principle.

girls in the Rochdale child sexual exploitation case were emotionally abused by the SWers and police - They were. Good example imo, boc.

Strongly agreeing with your last paragraph, too.

Sadly the default model was always supposed to be 'Working Together'. It doesn't seem to happen though.

I agree the children in Rochdale and all other similar scandals were badly let down by the adults supposed to be protecting them.

But don't let that deflect from where the blame really lies - with the predatory and abusive men who groomed them.

Oh I'm not for letting anyone off the hook believe me! (The rochdale monsters).

I don't know how we go about moving to that "working together" model I think so many children so desperately need but at the same time I'm just so sick to the back teeth of the constant daily fail style finger pointing and blame gaming of adults in relation to child welfare. It's just clear to me that the current status quo is not really fit for purpose.

I find myself wishing time after time that the "them" and "us" barricades that seem to fail so many children repeatedly, could be broken down somewhat. In my mind, ANY adult is society should be willing to stick their neck out and advocate on behalf of a vulnerable child if needed - if this was a reality perhaps the HT's child mentioned earlier in the thread would be afforded some protection too? A child at the end of their tether doesn't give a toss about job titles, or what form was filled in.

I've been pondering about this and one huge benefit that springs to mind is the additional protection it gives children against domestic abuse.

Currently we have a system where DA in child contact cases can often be minimised despite the guidance the courts have on he matter regarding not automatically assuming contact is in the best interests of the child we have a really really low rate of orders being refused.

Over the years I have had several clients who (quite rightly) have been very strongly advised to leave their partner because his violence is a risk to the kids. These same mothers have done so but ended up with unsupervised contact orders being issued to the ex who has often either used contact to further abuse and/or started abusing a new partner infront of his kids a few years down the line long after your SS case is closed.

And these are clients using very well respected legal support.

Making emotional cruelty against children a criminal offence means your not just reliant on over worked social workers with no open case who tend not to want to get involved with disputed contact cases,because if your actively accusing of a criminal offence then there is an obligation to investigate.

Most cases of emotional abuse are not as clear cut as cinderella. Those who emotionally abuse children are rather more subtle and shrewd than cinderella's step mother.

In Britain today Cinderella's step mother could not be taken to court. She has not beaten Cinderella, she merely has her doing housework, wearing rags and not sleeping in a bed.

If this law comes in then the stepmother and the father could be prosecuted.

I think emotional abuse is either used entirely alone or as part of wider abuse. If it is part of a pattern of abuse this gives the social more powers to intervene.

There are a lot o things other than jail such as parenting classes.

Given that there are laws against physical abuse but the state does not step in every time a child is punished physically (not saying this is right or wrong, just using for comparison) I don't think the purpose of this law is to check up on the private lives of families in general.

In Britain today, I very much hope and expect Cinderalla would have been rescued from that abusive household. She was treated badly and very differently from the other children in the house - always a red flag. She was not given proper clothes, she was made to do all the domestic chores (presumably schooling badly affected) and she didn't have a bed!

The court would have no problem making a care order in these circumstances. Which I still think is better than hoping your prince will come and save you.

Needsasock - I've been wondering exactly the same thing. There often seems to be a very different attitude to the risk of witnessing DV in the two different areas.

"In Britain today Cinderella's step mother could not be taken to court. She has not beaten Cinderella, she merely has her doing housework, wearing rags and not sleeping in a bed. "

I think that a child being forced to do manual labour, wearing insufficent clothing and not having a bed would be a child protection issue. Certainly cinderella's parents were guilty of neglect and I am sure that there would be enough evidence to make a care order.

I think sw involvement and potential prosecution/removal of child may be the way forward to protect children experiencing bad EA from this point on .

But I simply can't see how cases brought retrospectively could achieve anything other than a massive waste of time. Bil told me he has spent over £2K on therapy because of mil's behaviour towards him when he was young. Dh says that with hindsight he could see that his mother was a very jealous and bitter person. But was she abusive? Would the authorities at that time have intervened? Would another child even have been bothered? Dh's other brother has no problem whatsoever with his parents and thinks they are marvellous.

I think for retrospective issues an order of family therapy might be a better route.

I am a little worried by the burden of proof, simply because I was one of those mothers suspected (briefly) of Munchausen by proxy when doctors failed to diagnose my dd's (very genuine) physical condition.

Now as long as this was any criminal prosecution was limited to physical abuse/neglect it would have been pretty easy for me to show that there were no signs of this; it's unlikely that that would ever have gone to court.

But would not my persisting in asserting that my dd needed more medical investigation be classified as emotional abuse? The only slight problem being that I was right...

The effects of a criminal case against her parents on dd hardly bear thinking about.

Nor does the thought that I might have been intimidated into stopping to push for answers. In which case dd would almost certainly have ended up permanently incapacitated, not to mention the emotional damage of being told that her pain was the result of emotional abuse by her mother. Now, because I did have the confidence to keep pushing for answers, she knows that this is not the case, that she has a condition which she has to learn to live with, but that she will need help in various ways.

Tricky one, very tricky one.

Yes, Cory.

And alongside the medical issue cases, what about parents who pushed their dcs to be chess prodigies, or sports champions? We hear about the children who later in life say they hated their pushy parents but I dare say many appreciate their efforts and indeed sacrifices.

It's going to be fascinating. Is it emotional abuse I made my children do their music practice (3 won music scholarships)? Not in my view. Is it abuse if you let them play computer games all day? Is it abuse if they do 4 hours of tuition every evening or you send them to very rigorous religious or selective schools etc etc

and I hope we can use it against those religious homes where the one daughter does everything domestic and the boys go bugger all because they have a penis. Root out sexism in British home by using the new law.

I think on balance I oppose the change. There are too many risks with it although I accept it will help in those relaly bda abuse cases where one child is never beaten but is treated much worse than the rest. Mind you second children in most families often feel hard done by and first children achieve and do better (loads of studies show that pattent). You might get all those 2nd children in the land making up a whinge - my parents prefer child 1, oh woe is me.

This will leave too much discretion to the social workers. There is already plenty of evidence of abuses of power, and there would be far more evidence if family proceedings were not kept secret. We really are living in a Big Brother society.

I understand that emotional abuse is sometimes less immediately identifiable as a punch in the face, but I do think some of you are missing the point a bit.

Have a look at this link - we include a link to the NSPCC site. Emotional abuse is NOT making a child play the piano, not unless you threaten to beat them up if they don't.

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/the-law/cases-on-emotional-abuse/

And how on earth is a new CRIMINAL law going to give social workers 'more power' ? IInvestigating and prosecuting crimes are nothing to do with social workers. And you do realise that children are removed only by order of the court? That is an issue of law.

Cory the govenment bodies already intimate parents.

LEAs can behave in quite nasty and corrupt ways in special needs eduation tribunals. For example I know someone who was threatened with care proceedings when she took her LEA to tribunal because she wanted her son to have a place an expensive ASD boarding school rather than the local (and cheaper!) MLD school.

Before any law is made, I feel that everyone has to agree on a definite definition of emotional abuse. The problem ofcourse is that someone with a bit of imagination can think up ways of abusing people that we can't.

I gather that in practice many family courts simply act on the say-so of the social workers. They don't spend many hours looking into the rights and wrongs of the situation. Nor do they need to, as the family courts are effectively unaccountable, as proceedings are held in secret and family members are not allowed to talk about them (even to their local MP). This situation gives social workers enormous power, which some of them abuse (as is unfortunately human nature).
A family who brings their child up a bit differently from the norm is likely to be at risk here.

Better that families be slightly at risk from injustice (though let's do everything we can to get it right for every child and family)
than children remain at significant risk of emotional abuse because it's not even legally recognised as a type of abuse in it's own right (as to some extent has been the case or is what some people are arguing for here, usually on the grounds that it would be too difficult to define. I don't think so, despite the challenges)

I can't see this law making a blind bit of difference TBH. I tend to agree with a lot of the childrens' charities that it is great that emotional harm is being spotlighted to this extent - it sends a strong message. But in reality, powers to remove a child (and therefore get parents to engage with support to prevent that from happening) has always been there.

Unfortunately, unless this legislation is going to be accompanied by a whole load of funding to employ an awful lot more social workers, not a lot will change.

These days it is very hard to remove a child. The burden of evidence is very high, despite what the popular press tends to imply. If there are no physical injuries and no witnesses to emotional abuse, how far is it realistically going to go?

With limited resources, many children are left languishing in less than ideal conditions because SWs have to prioritise cases. That's not a reflection on SWs, that a reflection on the underfunding of public services.

JugglingFromHereToThere Tue 01-Apr-14 11:46:34
"Better that families be slightly at risk from injustice (though let's do everything we can to get it right for every child and family)
than children remain at significant risk of emotional abuse because it's not even legally recognised as a type of abuse in it's own right (as to some extent has been the case or is what some people are arguing for here, usually on the grounds that it would be too difficult to define."

I totally agree with the theory of this.

But from my (admittedly limited) perspective of misdiagnosed children I would have to point out that for a sick child to see their parent punished as a criminal for trying to get them help is also emotional abuse. It is also damaging.

It's not a case of slight injustice against genuine trauma; it's weighing the risk of one significant trauma against the risk of another significant trauma.

My perspective may be slightly skewed by the fact that both my dc have inherited a condition where average time of diagnosis from the first seeking of medical advice according to surveys by the relevant charity is over 10 years. That is a long time for all involved professionals to assume that emotional abuse is going on. And in fact suspicions of emotional abuse (Munchausen) have been very common for these children.

I am somebody who has had to listen to her child sob out that "if I wasn't here you wouldn't have to go through this". And have lived in terror of her acting the consequences out. What would a criminal case have done to her?

People always tend to assume that it is children against their families. But children are part of those families, they are affected by what happens to those families.

A miscarriage of justice isn't something that just affects the parents: I'd say it affects the child far more.

Children in care do badly, really really badly. Let's not forget that as we enthusiastically legislate for yet more control over families.

To make myself even clearer: I would gladly have gone to prison for life if that could have cured dd.

But if I had gone to prison, who would have pushed for further tests, leading to eventual diagnosis? Who would have listened to her when all the professionals told her she couldn't possibly be in pain and that she was imagining it all?

And if I had been fined, who would have paid for her wheelchair?

I think the emotional abuse would need to be very severe for it to outweigh the trauma to the child of being removed from its family or seeing its parent imprisoned.
A parent who shouts and/or swears at its child in the supermarket or when trying to get it to school on time is not necessarily being emotionally abusive - that child may very well be loved and supported by their family.
The lenient family may consider the strict family to be emotionally abusive, and vice versa.
This will give SWs more ammunition to enforce the status quo, or more likely what they have been taught should be the status quo in bringing up children. It will pile yet more pressure onto often hard-pressed families, and more pressure will stress out parents and make them less able to provide good parenting.