Does anyone know WHY people hurt children??? Genuinely interested

[JustFanciedAChange]

Have namechanged because I think this type of thread could be percieved as self serving, but I really am genuinely interested, and I have no understanding of this at all. Does anyone have an insight about why people harm children? is it because they can't cope? Is it because they are mad? Do they vindictively want to hurt a child? Are some people just plain evil?
I'm not trying to sound naive but it just absolutely flummoxes (?) me. How on earth does this happen? How could three people be involved in the same abuse?...
Waffling, I'm sorry.

yes that's true nightshade, all these things are only variables and don't predict, but if we know they are a factor, we can educate people not to do a) b) or c) because they are associated with x y and z. Like with cot death, if you put your baby on their front and smoke and overheat them, that doesn't mean the baby will die; but they are factors which increase the likelihood of a cot death, so it's better to avoid it to decrease the odds. Knowledge is power and all that.

It has a lot to do with early life experiences, attachment, bonding particularly to a maternal figure and also exposure to trauma and feelings of terror early in life. We wonder how people can do such terrible things to other people, but often it is down to complete re-wiring of the brain that do not allow for emotional connections to be made or empathy to be experienced in a 'normal' way. An excellent book for anyone who interested is this one

I would thoroughly recommend it...

I too have worked with a number of children who have harmed by the adults caring for them, one of whom died in intensive care from massive head injuries having been thrown against a wall. It is harrowing and no matter how much psychological stuff you understand or how much you can look at it objectively, quite frankly it totally beggars belief...

It's important to remember that abuse on this level is rare. Abuse on this level that is not stopped before death or serious injury occurs is also rare. The vast majority of people will harm neither their own children nor any random children they see (though more people harm their own children or children in their household than harm random children), and a balance has to be struck between preventing serious abuse and overpolicing every parent to the extent that they become passive and helpless and the odd nutter in SS is enabled to abuse his/her power.
Bear in mind that no human society has ever succeeded in stamping out occasional cases of horrible cruelty and murder - of children or adults, whether excessively punitive measures or excessivley supportive/interfereing/controlling ones have been used.
Shit. Just. Happens. Sometimes.

another terrible news break today

I agree with you Solidgoldbrass. It's true. But increasingly we are seeing parents who can't cope, foster parents who can't smoke when, quite often the smoking, working class foster carers are the bastions of society.

Why, then, does fostering a child and the hoops you have to jump though, not apply to all parents. I would hate to see this happen. I would fail for one because I smoke, but my DH has always said, you should need to take an exam before you are allowed to be a parent, just like you would before you were allowed to drive'.

So how would you design an exam for potential parents to pass that would be free of cultural bias and dumbfuck judgements (bearing in mind that there has been a certain tendency within social work for evangelical bucketheads to work their own crap-peddling agenda or be too befuddled by superstition to make sensible decisions)? And what of the people who failed it? Forced sterilistion? Forced abortion if a woman was already pregnant? Exactly what kind of society do you think that would create?

I don't think we are seeing increasing numbers of parents who can't cope. I just think we're re-defining cruelty and neglect as "not coping" when it used to be called being strict or disciplinarian.

There have always been parents who abused their children and most of the time, they have been allowed to do so, because children were considered the property of their parents. The only difference is that now, we're properly horrified by behaviour which only a couple of generations ago would have been considered just about acceptable. I'm reading a book at the moment about a family who grew up in the thirties and the cruelty of the mother is absolutely staggering; but she was not considered particularly abusive by the local community, she was just considered a nasty cow. Nowadays, her children would be on the at risk register and she would be a pariah if people knew.

The idea of a test is nonsense. There is no definition of a good parent at all. It would be entirely biased by the prejudices of who set the exam- the poorest or most unlikely person can make the best aprents- 1 of the best I know had her first at 13 (and her 4th at 30), and I know of two fab disabled aprents (learning disability) who are wonderful with a bit of support from a charity.

I imagine the break up of family units doesn't help- I dont mean divorce rrather people living close to family etc. Its got to make it ahrder to cope with, or pick up on things like puerpueral (sp) psychosis or other factors which could lead to breakdown and / or abuse. When I lived near Mum I couldnt ahve brathed without somebody knowning; if I wanted to do whatever anyone culd imagine (dont want to myself) here nobody would have a clue.

I just don't don't know, I think about this a lot as I really don't know why anyone could be cruel to a child i get the abused as kids angle but also agree that that is not true for all people who have been abused - I think there is a whole host of thinks lacking from these people mentally. Maybe they are born without the ability to process right and wrong or there understand right and wrong but don't have the gene that makes them care about the wrongs. I think on one level social classes can affect it but then completely contradict myself and say abuse can happen in any home to anyone.

I can see why you are looking for an answer but I fear we will never know what drives these people.

I just wish the state could protect every child and am deeply saddened by Baby P story. If abusive could be picked up on sooner then it could be stopped - however that's not realistic so,

I personally think that once an abuser, pedophile etc is caught then there should be no rehabilitaion option it isn't worth the risk and i truely believe these people are born that way and I don't think they can help it but I don't think they are worth the risk of being rehabilited. They have made their choice.

My child had her 2 n half yr assesment recently and I remember thinking that it was a yr and half since I had seen a Health Visitor, anything could of been wrong with my child and no one would notice untill she got to school age! ( she goes to nursery 3 days a week and there is nothing wrong with her ) But some kids don't see other sdults till school - i think visits should be made mandatory for kids under school age.

God sorry to go on

If visits were mandatory it wold just cut the budget from other areas and those who wanted would just be more devious to slip through the net. Pointless.

Social class is not a factor, abuse happens at all levels. It amy differe in terms of type (I would imagine those who cannot cope at all are likely to be on a lower income structure due to inability to hold down a job) but MC and UC parents abuse too.

Yep see your point - There just seems too many reasons for kids being abused that it's sad cos there is probably nothing that anyone can ever do to stop it, off the top my head it seems education is the only thing that could help. I'm only 26 and I sound like my Nanna but people today don't seem to be scared by anything ie; the law and it's seems this general lack of fear leads to all the gang culture and abusive parents - Just another thought, I don't really know what to think.

My take is a bit different I thnk.

One thing I noted about all the aprents (well most) referred to me in my last job (kids charity) for likelihood to abuse wasn't a lack of love in any way. It was a lack of self control inability to deal with stress, pls all the usuals- increased likelihood to be using alcohol / drugs etc.

I suspect that the best way to prevent abuse would be widescale access to stress management classes, respite etc. But that doesn't exist. Instead we have asystem that goes from non-input to threatening punitive when involvement begins at suually far too late a stage.

Get those aprents who are likely to not cope becuase of vulnerability support early on.

you won't stop the babyP cases like that sdadly, there are a few evil bastards about, but most abuse is most lower level and I do beleive avoidable.

It bears thinking about what might actually make a difference and how it could be achieved. Child protection social work is one of those jobs it's hard to recruit people for as the public perception of the job is so negative (whether from the 'ooh it's too harrowing for little me' viewpoint or the 'all social workers are meddling snobs without a clue about real people' s lives'one). WOuld it be useful to campaign for more parents, for instance, to think about applying for jobs in this sector? Or for social work training to emphasise more practical/commonsense skills (such as having worked for a 'difficult' charity like one for crackheads or anything which involved dealing with potentially hostile members of the public without the use of force).
How effective is the NSPCC WRT actual child protection, anyone know (given that the RSPCA is a charity, not a govt body but I think they can go in and remove and abused animal - can the NSPCC do anything similar?)

Be wary of instigating a network of busybodies amateur 'helpers' though as well-meaning amateurs can screw up due to their own prejudices just as much as the professionals can.

How can anyone do such things? I think it's almost impossible for any of us to imagine but some factors seem to be;

• abused as children themselves
• poverty, drugs, social breakdown, pychosis
• inexplicable evil

A proven indicator of possible child abuse is animal cruelty. There was an interesting radio debate recently in which the RSPCA were considering automatic referral to social services if animals were being abused in houses where children lived.

Getting away from the OP a bit, but an obvious source of improvement would be a big increase in social workers and better pay plus cross referencing of files to independent outsiders (good job for mums with school age children I would have thought...examining files and making home visits). I've got a friend who goes and visits homes as part of the Sure Start scheme. More of this would help. I'm considering volunteering.

I used to work as a lawyer dealing with some child abuse, and I would say that it is not that rare and baby P is sadly not that unusual (although extreme). I haven't been able to deal with the details but it's good that it's getting publicity. Unfortunately it will doubtless happen again .

If anyone is interested there is a justice for Baby P campaign link

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33396902275&ref=mf

I know how highlighted this has become and agree that their are so many other child at risk all over the world

Talia: possible problems with an 'independent network' might include: how to fund it? How to train the members/make sure that, however wellmeaning they are, they can retain a degree of detachment and not engage in kneejerk-type behaviour due to their own prejudices? Also, the more different agencies involved in any case, the greater potential for things to go wrong/communication failures to occur.

What does your friend do WRT SureStart? Is she a health visitor?

I do agree that more funding for social work and perhaps a recruitment drive/awareness campaign that you don't have to be a sandal-wearing childfree Guardian reader to become one might well help.

talia are you sure she's not homestart? they do home visits. that's the charity I was a manager for.

re ss recruitment- the reason myself and several others I now with relevant experience didn't apply for the sw degree was simply the commitment required: its even more intensive than a pgce here (I suspect others are not) and 4 years of that, completely impossible with children. Also there are far fewer places than applicants.

oh and the animal thig has been bandied around forat least a decade: plenty of evidence to suggest the link but still no action

Indeed it is almost always action that is the key here. Nobody will ever commit to anything.

Peachy: I did wonder about applying myself but took one look at the study requirements (in terms of time) and nearly passed out.
I wonder if there would be room for some sort of lower-level qualification where relevant experience/life experience counted for more ie you could be trained enough to be useful in a one year or part-time course or something.

try and find scorpio- she's doing a sw degree and only in one day a week.

There are related jobs you could do, homestart manager was very related, and most sw depts have family workers etc, some even offer training n day release

I might well look into this some more. THanks.

well im most certainly not a sandal wearing childfree guardian reader.

i hope

HRHSM: Well I wouldn't know, would I? (hides own sandals and copy of Gruaniad) - but unfortunately that is a widespread public perception of social workers which is not accurate, that was my point.

what, not even in summer?

I presume you'd know about the child free bit! Well i' hope so.