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?

@HongKongGarden your premise is that professional people are less likely to abuse children than nonprofessional people, and I don't believe that is true and regard it as class bias. My point is that powerful people often get away with it because they are powerful. I'm not sure why that is controversial, it's how predators operate. I gave the example of Devlin, as I suspect that very few people had heard of him, and it demonstrates how it can take generations for powerful people to be exposed. I appreciate that I cannot support this view with statistical data. But I don't accept that working people are more likely to become child abusers than middle class people. I may have misunderstood your point though.

Actually in all those cases all of them were very low income. Perhaps not solely relying on benefits as in each situation one parent (not that you can call them that!) was working but they were no doubt barely above minimum wage.

But that's the point I was trying to make.

Emotional abuse slips the radar, especially for wealthier families.

If a family is living in poverty, abuse can be very obvious due to state of housing, no food or adequate clothing for the children.
Often parents have "open addiction" meaning nobody will cover for the addict and try and hide the facts. This can also be true for poor mental health for one or both parents.

There is a general feeling of neglect and SS can step in without ever having to adress the emotional abuse.

Neglect has far reaching effects but is harder to spot than physical abuses and hasn't yet had a moment in public consciousness the way coercive control has.

I would hypothesise that neglect, when occuring in wealthy families, is far far harder to spot. A child can have material comfort but still be emotionally and physically neglected and a teacher or social worker would struggle to spot it as easily as a neglected child living in poverty.

Wealth also cushions traumatised adults with addictions and emotional problems from getting involved in crime out of desperation. Adults involved in crime are more likely to expose children to other unsafe adults.

There are much bigger advantages associated being well off and attending private school. Very few care experienced young people attend Oxbridge, despite all the help on offer
.

Actually in all those cases all of them were very low income. Perhaps not solely relying on benefits as in each situation one parent (not that you can call them that!) was working but they were no doubt barely above minimum wage.

@Pigeonqueen
I guess it depends on what is classed as poverty. When I think of children living in poverty I think no food in the cupboard/no central heating/school uniforms. A lot like my own crappy childhood. BUT because I'm aware that could be seen as really insensitive to so many people I will add that I went to school with children who's parents were just as poor as mine but they were still brought up in a loving home with no neglect.
The sad thing about Arthur/Star/Logan is that if money were the issue all of those children had a massive family support that would have all happily stepped in and helped.
That's why I don't think money can be used as a factor.. I truly believe some people are just wicked through and through.

Look.at peaches geldof,had she have been a young single mother in a council.flat on benefits her children would have been taken off her very quickly ,someone with a heroin addiction often puts their addiction before anything else social.services would be alerted to the fact her kids might not have been fed properly ,might be dirty and neglected
But she was rich she could afford her addiction ,her kids were looked after and fed properly
Sadly she still.over doses whilst her very young child was solely.in her care

I think I remember this way back in the nineties I think , the dead child about 18 moths old .

Domestic violence is surprisingly common in wealthy circles, probably identical to overall rates in the population (1 in 4). It's often an open secret of sorts but almost impossible to intervene due to the extremely privileged lifestyles. Eg. A victim of DA in poverty only experiences terrible moments, which makes it easier to make the decision to escape the situation. A victim in a wealthy relationship finds it harder to leave because it swings from abuse to very enjoyable experiences like luxury holidays and expensive gifts (sometimes also during the apology phase). Outsiders will also find it difficult to stage an intervention or bring up the topic when there are more concrete indicators of the good times in a wealthy context (social media postings, family Christmas cards, social event etc). There is a lot of pressure to keep up appearances, especially if an entire family is involved.

Regarding child abuse, that is definitely also true. I know a very well-respected old-money family that's is deeply toxic with rumours of CSA and malignant narcissism across generations. There are lots of siblings, lots of cousins, acrimonious divorces etc. The poor kids caught in the middle have everything you could ask for materially but I wouldn't wish the situation on anyone in a million years. Not surprisingly, the older ones have dropped out of school, mixed up in drugs and lots of complex issues going on. But from the outside, people still only see "that family" with their enviable surname.

I think people have an image of those who abuse children as being evil, wicked, not loving their children etc. And there are definitely parents like this - I think this type has less to do with poverty and yes may be more hidden / downplayed / ignored in more privileged / wealthy families (maybe even making it worse in some contexts because it can be concealed?).

However I think there is a larger proportion of abusers, who could be better described as incapable or deficient or simply unable to cope with the life they are living than they are intentionally wicked, if that makes sense. And this group can also be either poor or wealthy, but I think this scenario is more likely to be linked to, or worsened in impoverished situations. Both because poverty is hard, a massive thing in and of itself to cope with which may reduce parenting capacity in those with lower resilience. And because having lower personal resources or problems with trauma, mental health or addiction is more likely to lead to poverty (with the exception of eg the landed gentry / celebrities etc but overall these are a small minority of the population).

It is easier to break generational trauma (which is a major source of child abuse) the more resources you have eg money for therapy, time / space from the pressures of daily life to reflect and decompress, adequate sleep, good diet, exercise etc that is going to make it easier to behave as your best self. These things are harder to accomplish if you are facing poverty. Poverty is a disadvantage. It's going to make everything harder, including being a good parent, from whatever your baseline is. Obviously some parents are going to be excellent no matter how poor they are, and some parents are going to be dreadful no matter how wealthy they are, but for parents for whom it does make a difference, being poor will almost always be a negative factor. It's similar to how poverty might make it harder to perform well at work and becomes a "trap" for various reasons.

And being traumatised by abuse as a child is going to affect your life chances negatively. Obviously, many people with this type of background will become successful / wealthy but on average those who are abused in childhood will suffer negative health and social consequences throughout adulthood that may, again on average, have a detrimental effect on earning capacity. And unfortunately being traumatised by abuse is a risk factor for perpetuating abuse on one's own children.

Obviously, generational trauma also frequently occurs in wealthy families but as aforementioned the adults emerging from these families may have more resources available to them to overcome that trauma and break the cycle.

Poverty itself is the villain. Society has a responsibility to prevent children from growing up in poverty, and to help all, but especially disadvantaged, parents facing trauma, MH problems and addiction to overcome these difficulties so that they can be the best versions of themselves for their children. But at the moment society is failing in that goal and I believe there are real consequences for children (eg increased abuse) that result from this.

I also find it very believable that lower income/class parents are subject to discrimination/ increased scrutiny compared to wealthier parents. That can be true at the same time as poverty being an important factor linked to child abuse.

Yes, I think that the really wealthy and famous can still cover it up - money, private doctors, schools living in different countries, “eccentricity” and enviable surnames as the poster above mentions. Anecdotally, there seems to be less reverence for the mere middle classes these days. That’s good in my book…

I can imagine that:
a) poverty adds so much stress with the potential for neglect, more triggers of abuse eg drugs and alcohol. So much easier to get to breaking point.
b) the circumstances that tend to contribute to people becoming wealthy professionals are the same ones that tend to also mean you have better support networks. Nannies and cleaners so your house doesn't get grim & your kids are fed. Access to treatment for your addictions. Employers who support you with your mental health and help you access support. Stable extended families with money/resources to help.

I work in child protection as a nurse. There are definitely cases of neglect that are picked up in more well off families, however they are often harder to spot as the children aren't necessarily outwardly noticeable as being neglected - their basic needs tend to be met but where there are safeguarding concerns this tends to be more emotionally related, domestic abuse/coercive control in parental relationship and also substance misuse/metal health but there is also a cultural element to this within more wealthy families. Unfortunately, many children who do suffer neglect or abuse do come from lower income families or families who cannot access services for other reasons be it cultural or isolation (many other reasons - these are just some examples)- this is because there is more likely to be poverty, less access to services, mental health issues that aren't managed well, poorer education, substance use and cyclical neglect and abuse going on for generations in families. This is not to say that just because you are poor you abuse your children, absolutely not, but statistically there are many more child abuse issues in areas of higher deprivation.

but statistically there are many more child abuse issues in areas of higher deprivation

This would mean that certain addresses/postcodes put SS/child protection on high alert? My friend (who is a very experienced SS) lives in a deprived area herself as do quite a few of her colleagues - she doesn't see 'deprived areas' as much as she notes 'wealthy' areas?

I suppose it may be different in different areas of the country but I know from the area I work in that there are specific areas with high concentrations of children on child protection plans. That doesn't mean that children's services patrol the streets there! It's just your know certain schools and areas where there are issues. These are often linked to drugs and gangs too and often have a higher police presence which may in turn increase the amount of referrals.

I too live in a higher deprivation area in the town that I live in which is a fairly affluent area and there is a much higher level of (acknowledged) safeguarding issues in the school within the area compared to those outside of the area.

V v v rare in my experience for criminal proceedings to be brought against parents for neglect. In fact I have known parents be arrested, but never charged.

Physical/ sexual abuse would go to court on the strength of the evidence therefore not based on parental class/ wealth

BUT

Children from low income families are more on the radar and surveillance is much higher whether from housing association/ benefits/ health visitor etc so if abuse is occurring or suspected it's more likely to be reported to children's services/ police. And that's before those children being more likely to have parents with addiction/ mental health problems etc which increases the chance of the child experiencing abuse.

Poverty itself is the villain. Society has a responsibility to prevent children from growing up in poverty, and to help all, but especially disadvantaged, parents facing trauma, MH problems and addiction to overcome these difficulties so that they can be the best versions of themselves for their children. But at the moment society is failing in that goal and I believe there are real consequences for children (eg increased abuse) that result from this.

Absolutely this, if we recognised poverty as the threat to child protection that it is we’d have many fewer threads bemoaning parents on benefits. Research shows that living in poverty has multiple impacts on parenting capacity, decreases resilience and contributes significantly to mental health problems.

We need decent, long term trauma informed therapy, not the standard 12 sessions of CBT, we need proper, easy access support for parents that isn’t accessed through social work, and we need a decent income for parents with decent childcare provision. Those alone would massively reduce poor care for children by parents who are barely coping.

It’s not that wealthy parents don’t neglect or abuse their children - people are people, and some people don’t care for their children. In my experience though the proportion of people who will fully harm their kids is vanishingly small regardless of background, and they have many ways of hiding what’s going on.

The vast majority who end up in the CP system have multiple traumas in their background, leading to substance misuse, poor education and employment prospects and very high stress levels, and no model of what good parenting looks like because they too had a poor experience of being parented. If you have money many of these issues can be overcome, if you don’t the deficits are there for all to see.

If we could resource families properly, we’d see a reduction in situational abuse and neglect, and have more time to actually address that will fully harmful minority.