Are wealthy parents ever prosecuted for child abuse?

[Lemonsugarhigh]

Have seen about a lot of neglectful parents in court recently who have abused their kids. Almost all the cases covered in the press are about very poor families, generally living in pretty dire conditions. But abuse goes on in wealthy homes too, why does this seem to go under the radar? Is it just that SS overlook suffering kids if their parents have cash? Or is it that the parents are better at hiding abuse? Or does the press have a preference for covering the neglect and poverty combination?

I think the answer is likely yes to all of those questions, unfortunately. I think it is easier to overlook concerning behaviour when it is done by someone we relate to, who is 'like us' (and middle class/wealthy people are more likely to be the people in positions of power to make those decisions about whether to pursue disclosure/charges/conviction). And we have biases towards thinking people who are 'upstanding citizens' wouldn't do horrible things.

I know 2 people who were convicted/pled guilty to CSA. One of them was the 'better off' uncle to the child who was abused. He was able to get away with it under the guise of trying to help the child and the child's mother financially and after the abuse was disclosed and he was charged/convicted, there was a lot of victim blaming around the child making up the abuse because the family was unhappy he wouldn't give them more money for a school trip. 🙄So it was imbalance of power due to wealth that made the abuse possible, but also convinced people to second guess the child's account. He has mostly returned to his normal life after prison because a lot of people bought into the idea that he was trying to be a 'good person' and a 'financial help' to the child.

The other person I know, very wealthy, money also part of the narrative around why the child 'made up' the abuse. The abuser had no shortage of money for a good solicitor and to hire private psychologists, etc. They pled guilty to some of the charges so the more serious ones were dropped and they were given only a (very large) fine - this is not in the UK, I don't think this would be an option here. But because they could pay the fine, they didn't have to serve any prison time. Same sort of thing, because they were white and wealthy and came from a 'good' Christian family, this behaviour was sort of excused as an anomaly. I truly believe this would not have been the case had their social class and ethnicity and family background not been what it was.

Does it go on to the same extent? It’s possible that the sort of parents who’d abuse children are also those unlikely to hold down a professional career, so the offending rates could be quite different.

They do get prosecuted but they are far, far less likely to come under scrutiny than working class parents. The classism in social work and the justice system in the UK should never be underestimated

AFAIK children in poverty are more likely to suffer from abuse. the effects of poverty compound, well, everything, and put children at a greater risk. That’s not to say people in poverty always abuse their children but they are just at higher risk

But I worked in the private school sector - youd be amazed at how many abusive rich parents are out there. Rich people can buy lots of drugs afterall

Having money can to some extent mask problems
In a,wealthier family if the parents are to drunk or stoned to cook they can order in food etc
They can hire cleaners ,nannies etc
.

I’m sure it does go on, but when I look down our street if bankers, lawyers and hedge-fund workers I see uniformly caring attentive parents. I’d not be surprised if there was a significant difference in the offending data.

They’re better at hiding it and are often more intelligent. Kids are well fed, clothed and often do nice activities. Some are shipped off to boarding school which is the higher class equivalent of a children’s home. Their abuse tends to be more covert than overt. It’s as simple as that.

Interesting thread, op. Two cases spring to mind:

1. That couple who went on the run with their newborn baby. The mother was from a very wealthy background. It was implied that she'd had other children taken away and she's currently in custody awaiting trial.

1. Kate and Gerry McCann were never prosecuted for child neglect. I suppose though that it was probably believed that losing their child was punishment enough.

You do seem to hear more about those from poorer backgrounds, often trapped in a cycle of deprivation and substance abuse, though. Could be media bias. Could be that wealthier people have the means to better sweep things under the carpet.

It definitely happens. My DH and BIL were abandoned by their parents. FIL moved out when they were about 11/12 years old and had no contact with his children. Then MIL moved in with her BF when they were about 14/15 years old. She left them on their own with no food or money in the house. She has considerable mental health issues. DH had to sell some items to buy him and BIL food.

They were both at private school (on scholarships) and there was just no one to talk to about what was going on. They were too ashamed to admit to their peers that there was a problem - they had been 'trained' to keep up appearances or risk being bullied. It had also built towards this point so it wasn't like the abandonment was sudden - it just gradually got to that point with MIL spending more and more time away from home.

Wealthy people are educated enough to put in a good front to neighbours friends and authorities. Please don’t get into the ‘not on my street’ attitude. It does happen. All the time.

Yes it’s Contextual Safeguarding - the obvious trappings of abuse (dirty clothes, unwashed etc) must never be regarded as the only markers of abuse.

Agree it's more neglect in richer circles. Parents just check out of parenting and leave the hard/boring stuff to hired help/boarding schools etc.

People with money can use money to cover their problems; so they may have an addiction but it doesn’t impact their finances to care for their DC, they can afford nannies, cleaners, private school that almost never refer to social services, and rehab. So only the emotional impact of that addiction is felt which isn’t seen very easily. Then when it is seen they can pay for therapy.
Also if children’s services do get involved they know what to say to make them go away and they get legal advice which can intimidate councils.
Domestic abuse is reported less often if you don’t have neighbours who can hear what’s going on.
They also have better access to support to stop problems compounding; they can access therapy for mental health problems, they aren’t stressing about money and housing conditions .
Big thing too is that they look less vulnerable to abusive men which is the biggest danger to children

If Kate and Gerry McCan had worked in Asda or been underclass people leaving their kid in a caravan in Butlins, there’s no way they’d have not had their other children removed.

Wealthier people are less likely to deprive their child of material things like food, clothing or a safe place to sleep. They are less likely to make poor/risky decisions due to lack of money. They are less likely to commit crimes (less need) or associate with criminals (people stick with their own class usually).

That's not to say that neglect doesn't happen, it's just significantly less prevalent in those with more access to funds.

I'm pretty certain you're right.

I think its because to get to the level of abuse of neglect that Social Services is going to take an interest is very high.

And it's much easier to get to that level if you are poor.

So very unlikely even if parents are off their head on drugs- the kids won't be fed and have nice clothes to wear of rich. Or they could have nannies or housekeepers or pay someone to do the caring.

So difficult to get to the level of abuse required that Social Services would take an interest. Emotional abuse if not violent- again I would assume Social Services wouldn't be interested.

But if the kids weren't being fed, or if violence or sexual abuse was involved I would hope the thresholds would be the same.

I'm guessing it may be something to do with the difference between abuse and neglect.

Wealthy families probably don't neglect their kids as much because it's easier for them to adequately feed and clothe their kids and pay for childcare. For families living in poverty this can be much more of a struggle.

When it comes to abuse, yes, you're right, money doesn't / shouldn't have any bearing on this. But it does seem to. I'm not sure of the reasons. I guess issues such as alcoholism and drug abuse go hand in hand with extreme poverty and unemployment, leading to higher levels of abuse in these families. Another factor could be that the involvement of agencies such as health visitor, doctor, social services etc due to issues like these may lead to abuse being picked up on, whereas it might fly under the radar in wealthier families.

Depends what you mean by prosecuted.

Men from well off backgrounds are convicted for child sexual abuse, often historic, all the time.

There will be rich families who have children known to Social Services.

However some elements of being rich do protect children from some aspects of abuse from terrible parents. They are less likely to be dirty or in worn out clothing as there is money for shopping and housework is done by a cleaner/housekeeper. Rich drug addicted parents are unlikely to run out of money for food. They can also outsource their parenting to a nanny or a boarding school.

This, largely, I think. The evidence of abuse/neglect will be far less obvious without the markers of dirty clothes, insufficient school lunches. If wealthy parents have addictions, they won’t need to shoplift or prostitute themselves to feed it etc.

A good friend of mine was abused, physically and emotionally, by her well-off professional parents. She remembers a GP looking at a bruise in concern and saying nothing, and a teacher at her expensive, academically-rigorous private school and another medical professional, when she was slightly older, both saying ‘Do you want me to report this?’ and concluding, with her own agreement, that ending up in foster care was only going to imperil her planned escape route (Oxford), so better to stay where she was and work hard to get out. She went to Oxford, chose a college that would allow you to stay in the vac, and never went home again.

@KvotheTheBloodless

In terms of abuse, neglect spans all classes fairly equally. It is even easier to check out of parenting with money so I would say neglect is a safeguarding issue that can quite easily be swept under the carpet if you have the funds. Plenty of young people in private schools suffer tremendously with their mental health but it’s always, always blamed on external factors (mainly academic stress). Whilst this is a factor for many, for some it’s simply due to having no support network at home which leads to loneliness. The latter doesn’t get questioned.

Having worked in adult MH services I often feel quite sorry for those who came from neglectful middle class families as they invalidate their struggles and it often takes years of therapy to uncover that actually their childhood was abusive.

I am a working class lady myself who was physically abused by my father. There was never any doubt in my mind that what I experienced as a child was abuse. Therefore there was no confusion. I hope that makes sense. It can be terribly confusing for those children once they reach adulthood, in a way, it can sometimes be worse for them.

A lot of people who abuse their kids also have issues that means they can't hold down a proper job so yeah they're more likely to be poor. Another thing is relating to neglect rich people can hire child minders or send then to boarding school. That's not to say there are no rich child abusers. Theres definitely lots of wealthy pedos.

@HernesEgg what does "stay in the vac" mean? Is it Oxbridge-speak for in halls?

Prosecutions for child abuse/neglect are comparatively rare, unless there is a death.
I'm am adoptive parent of one now grown up child. His birth mother has lost 4 sons to adoption or the care system. She has never been prosecuted for any offences relationship to any of the children. She has been prosecuted and jailed several times for petty crime such as shoplifting.
Dad is not much better, no prosecutions relating to any of his 3 children but has been jailed for DV against a partner and burglary.

Oh! During the holidays! Sorry @HernesEgg