5 Steps that institutions can take to protect children

We have been seeing in the media, more and more stories about the abuse of children involved with various institutions.  A recent story tells how the Jehova's Witnesses covered up abuse. In Australia, there has been a Royal Commission looking into institutional abuse. It seems each  chapter of their work reveals more breadth and depth of abuse.

In the United Kingdom, there has been the Rotherham story where 1400 children have been exploited. Authorities failed to act.

The reality is that children typically do not disclose abuse and when they do, they are telling the truth the vast majority of the time - we need to listen. So what can institutions do to better manage - here are 5 thoughts:

The long term impacts of child abuse in institutions is well documented. One only need to look at the impact of the Residential Schools in Canada. One recent story shows how one community is still tackling the impact of the St. Michael's school in Alert Bay, B.C. 

Institutions owe a duty to those in their care.

Rape Culture, Child Protection and 50 Shades of Grey

The connection may not seem so obvious. But, let's take a moment to consider.

• We have seen a significant increase in concern about the impact of domestic violence. High profile cases in sports and the entertainment fields have heightened awareness of the problem. Several post secondary institutions have found themselves in the spotlight for failing to address the issue. A quick look at The Huffington Post illustrates the point.
• In Canada, we have watched as the question of consent in sexual relationships has derailed the career of broadcaster Jion Ghomeshi. While he still awaits trial, he has several accusers. Presently on trial in Europe is former head the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn for what he apparently  acknowledged to be a proclivity for rougher sex than might average man. At the heart of his story are again issues of consent.
• Sexual abuse is a high profile concern. The Roman Catholic church is burdened with working its way through years upon years of such abuse to children. In Australia at the moment, a Royal Commission is hearing about a variety of institutional sexual abuse stories. The BBC reports on the recent conviction of former rock star Gary Glitter for abuse of teenagers some years back.
• Domestic violence, including sexual assault is a significant issue in child protection matters.

At the heart of this is the question of what chidden are exposed to and what is consent. Does a woman consent to be beaten by a partner? Does a child consent to sex with an adult? Does a drunken woman consent to sex when she is too impaired to really consent? These are complex questions requiring careful consideration but those in a powerless or subordinate position are really not able to consent.

Thus, how the media plays out the issue of consent matters to society at large. 50 Shades of Grey sets up a standard for consent that suggests it might not be so voluntary and yet still acceptable. Fox News and The Atlantic have both offered thoughtful pieces on how the books and the movie are really depicting non consensual sex which must then be characterized as some level of abuse. I'm pretty sure that view will not be welcomed by the millions of followers. It's also worth noting that the BDSM community is  not welcoming this movie as exemplary of what they perceive to be voluntary, consensual activity in this sexual arena.

But if we want to create safer families and communities for children, should we not be connecting the dots between the various forces the impact how that safety is defined and created? When we make a media sensation out of non-consensual sex, and do so in a way that says this is ok, then we are enabling sexual and gender based violence. That's a problem.

Sexual Abuse and Consent: UK Judge gets it wrong

The BBC has reported:

Stuart Kerner, 44, from Kent, received an 18-month suspended sentence for two counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust.

While the sentence seems quite low for the offence, what is most concerning is the context of the sentence. This is a case where a teacher was in a position of trust in a school. He entered into a relationship with a 16 year old student at the time that his wife miscarried with their second child. More can be found on the story on the BBC.

Stuart Kerner

The most disconcerting part of the story is, however, a view that the judge felt the child had become obsessed with Kerner and thus, groomed Kerner. In other words, the court is putting responsibility for the sexual abuse on the victim. Such a view states that the obligations of a person in authority can be modified based upon the child's behaviours. Let's expand the thought - if a child is highly oppositional, rude and perhaps even violent, then violence by a teacher in return might be permissible. But that is not allowed because we expect the adult to be able to manage their emotions, stay in control and respond in a measured and safe manner.

In this case, the failure of the adult, Kerner, to control himself is being excused because of his personal circumstances and the obsessive behaviours of the child. This is a very dangerous line of reasoning that, if applied in a variety of other criminal matters, diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator and increases the responsibility of the victim.

This decision also missed the mark when the child is considered. This was her first sexual experience. She was 15 when the relationship appears to get underway. Her notion of relationship, sex, boundaries and even love will be highly underdeveloped. Her executive functioning is that of a 15 - 16 year old which means that she is more likely to be influenced by emotion and impulsivity than rational, long term thinking. Kerner, on the other hand, at 44 years of age, should be expected to have the maturity to work his way though both his emotions and the responsibilities of his position.

The judge has also failed to understand that Kerner was part of a system responsible for protecting children. Schools are meant to be safe places. Teachers are meant to be guardians of that safety. Kerner did not offer that. He compromised it for this student but also for all students by making a behavioural statement about what is acceptable.

I have no doubt that Kerner has paid quite a price for his behaviour. He is not able to work with children meaning that his career is in shambles. He has been subject to a great deal of public media. But these are all the result of choices that he made as an adult. There are the unspoken victims as well - his family, children as well the school, colleagues and the other children who had been aware of the relationship which would have created confusion for them.

This case matters because the courts have made a statement about responsibility that needs to be challenged. 

Abuse in the Catholic Church is more than sexual

Recently demoted Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke. He has blamed the sexual abuse crisis of the Catholic Church to be related to the feminization of the Church in the 1960's.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke

He is quoted as saying,

There was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.”

This is a clear attempt at revisionist thinking suggesting that the sexual abuse of children by priests and other clergy only dates back to the 1960's. How wrong that is. One need look no further than the profound pattern of sexual abuse that occurred to Aboriginal children in the Residential Schools of Canada. Those abuses have now been documented to have gone on as far back as the early 20th century. Edmund Metatawabin, in his profoundly moving book, documents his personal story of abuse. It is a tough read but perhaps Cardinal Burke might want to read it. He will see how extensive the abuse was. His is one of a series of books that tell these painful stories. They also tell of the price that Aboriginal children, their families, their communities and subsequent generations have paid.

Image: Indigo.ca

Pope Francis was obviously right to demote this man.

But there is a large error in the story about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church - it ignores that epidemic of physical abuse that also occurred. Many, like Metatawabin, experienced both. There are millions who experienced the physical abuse only. No one victim is better or worse than the other. Abuse in the Catholic Church was a daily occurrence in schools, churches and orphanages run by priests, nuns and brothers.

Brother Hull sent them outside without jackets. It was a cold day for Vancouver. There was even snow. They were made to hold their hands up so that the blood would run down and the hands would be cold. Then they were strapped (Personal memoir of the author).

The stories are everywhere. The Church has become fixated on one form of the abuse. But strapping, hitting, whipping, name calling, put downs, shaming were all tools employed every day by clergy. The Church is not talking much about that.

I was sent out to that hallway by Brother Bates to await my strapping. It would be the third time this week. I had again been caught day dreaming (Personal memoir of the author).

A problem with highlighting the sexual abuse is that those who suffered the other forms of abuse feel as though they cannot talk because their abuse is less than those who were sexually abused. For those physically abused, they too carry the legacy.

I tried to tell my mom about always getting hit. She wouldn't listen. She said that if I got into trouble that it must be my fault because the brothers were close to God (Personal memoir of the author)

The strength of the abuse was in the constant fear but also in the inability to tell anyone who would care. The full extent of abuse in the Catholic Church needs to be spoken about - all the survivors, regardless of what form of abuse they suffered, deserve both a voice and an audience.

 

Drug addiction and pregnancy

A New Jersey court determined that a mother had not abused her child when she sought help for her painkiller addiction. She was placed on methadone. Her baby showed signs of withdrawal after birth causing child protection to intervene.  The fact that she sought treatment was seen favourably. Thus she was determined to have not been grossly negligent.

The case is worrying.  By implication had she not sought treatment then she would be negilgent placing her in the position of abusing her baby. This not only shames mothers with addiction but drives them away from help for fear of the implications.

Many women who are addicts do not get pregnant by choice. They are not seeking pregnancy. Most addicted women are victims of abuse. Many pregnancies occur within patterns of inter personal violence. I wonder what happens when we see the mother and the baby as victims together both in need of support. This case did not seem to seek to criminalize the mother as cases elsewhere have done. This is good  

Now we need to bring a harm reduction and support lens to these cases

Child protection as racist and poverty driven

It is perhaps somewhat odd that two Canadian newspapers would chose to write articles on the child protection system in the same week.  Looking at several inquiries, The National Post calls for reform of the system They start by noting that there will be an inquiry starting in Ontario in early 2015 on the death of Katelyn Sampson. She was murdered in 2008. The Toronto Star noted:

When Irving told the Children’s Aid Society on March 30, 2008, that she did not think she could provide for Katelynn and wanted her out of her home, the agency “passed the buck” to the Native Child and Family Services — Irving is part First Nations — and nothing was done, McMahon stated. (When a Native Services caseworker contacted Irving 16 days later, she lied and indicated the Toronto School Board was providing support and that she wanted the file closed, which it was.)

This inquiry will add to the long list of inquiries into the failures of child protection in Canada. In my research, we have identified about 80 inquires of various natures with at least two more on the horizon.
These will add to the legacies of Matthew Vaudreuil, Phoenix Sinclair, Christian Lee, Babby Annie, Jordan Heikamp, Kim Anne Poppen, Jeffrey Baldwin and so on. The stories are children of poverty but also of the First Nations of Canada. In other words, these are stories of the marginalized in our country.

The Toronto Star is also running a series of stories into the child protection system. They see the racism looking at how Black children are severely over represented.

Last week, the Globe and Mail told the story of Eddie Snowshoe who died through the solitary confinement system that Canada runs. But hist story starts much earlier in the institutional abuse of Canada's First Nations peoples through the residential school system. There, children were systemically abused and neglected. Today, we pay for that with the long standing impact of such broad, racist based social policies. They were designed to take the Indian out of the Indian. Now, we see the impact of fragmented Aboriginal communities and families in  the child protection systems.

It is obvious that child welfare must do a better job of the day to day management of complex cases. There are practice errors that get made and need to be corrected. That is the subject of my research. But society must also be willing to face the fact that there are several issues child protection cannot solve:

• Poverty - which is too often linked to neglect - not intentional neglect but neglect from lack of resources. These are often families where parents struggle with marginal housing and limited income, most often from low wage employment. They try to do their best with what they have but that often falls short of what is needed. Society can address these issues through economic programs.
• Aboriginal child welfare - the gross over representation of First Nations children in child protection care occurs because of the Residential Schools and the legacy they created. Child Welfare cannot fix that. 
• Underfunded mental health programs that leave families vulnerable.

The list can go on but the point here is that child welfare is being asked to "fix" problems that arise from social policies that are well beyond their control. This is a conversation we must have rather than just pointing fingers at a child protection system that cannot fix it!

Failure to criminalize a drinking pregnant mother

In a vital case in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal has ruled in the case of CP that a mother cannot be held criminally liable for causing FASD in her child. There are certainly many who might wish to see this happen. Indeed, it is happening in several American states. The UK decision is important as it recognizes that several key issues. In reading the decision, I am reminded of main points of debate:

• Is a foetus a child? - In Canada, this has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the argument is accepted, then there is a wide range of behaviours that would fall under the rubric of causing harm to a child in utero - think of smoking, an unhealthy diet, obesity, taking of certain prescription medicines and so on. 
• Should a mother be criminally responsible for behaviour she could reasonably know would harm the child? This raises more than alcohol and brings back the discussion on a wide range of behaviours. But, while it stays that a mother who is drinking heavily should be expected to know that she will harm her child, it would not be hard to extend this argument against women whose various medical conditions make a pregnancy high risk. Should that mother also be held criminally responsible because she chose to take a risk that had a high probable outcome of harm?
• If the foetus is not a child within the meaning of law, then harm done in the pregnancy cannot be a criminal act. On this point, the UK Court of Appeal notes:

1. The reality is that the harm has been done to the child whilst it is in utero. The fact that if the child is born alive it will suffer the consequences of the insult to it whilst in the womb does not mean that after birth it has sustained damage by reason of the administration of the noxious substance. One only has to cast one's mind back to the Thalidomide tragedy. The injury was done to the affected children by the administration of the drug whilst they were still in the womb. Those children who were born affected were born with missing or ill-developed limbs. Whilst they suffered the consequences on a lifetime basis after birth, they did not sustain any additional damage after birth by virtue of administration of the drug.


2. Reference to the expert evidence of Dr Kathryn Ward, an experienced consultant paediatrician, whose very detailed report was before the First Tier Tribunal, (and which was not disputed), shows that the harm which is done by ingestion of excessive alcohol in pregnancy is done whilst the child is in the womb. The child would then, when born, show damage demonstrated by growth deficiency, physical anomalies and dysfunction of the central nervous system. Very often, as in this case, the full extent of retardation and damage will not become evident until the child reaches milestones in its development, at which point matters can be assessed. The fact that such deficits cannot be identified until that stage does not constitute fresh damage. It merely means that the damage was already done but has only then become apparent.


3. It seems to me that this is fatal to the appellant's contention. The time at which harm, acknowledged in this case to amount to grievous bodily harm, occurred was whilst CP was in the womb. At that stage the child did not have legal personality so as to constitute "any other person" within the meaning of s23. The basis upon which the actus reus is extended in a manslaughter case cannot apply here since nothing equivalent to death occurred to CP after her birth.

Those who argue the right to life will find this decision very disappointing. They would suggest that the foetus is a life from the moment of conception. However, to sustain this legally requires that we are, as a society, prepared to hold mothers to a very high standard of behaviour in pregnancy that must go well beyond alcohol to all behaviours that have a high probability of causing harm.

But there is another side to this. If we accept that argument then we must also hold that society has a very high obligation to protect the foetus that would include offering intensive medical help to all at risk women and pregnancies. Thus, an alcoholic or drug addicted women would be entitled to the care of the state in order to protect the foetus. 

This then takes us down the road of forcing treatment on mothers who's e behaviours may place a foetus at risk. Those who may jump on that bandwagon will most likely think of women with alcohol and drug problems. They may find the moral ground of forcing treatment on these women as a group easy due to the nature of their disease (addiction) and a belief that it is a moral versus medical issue. But what then are we to do with the poorly managed diabetic, the heavy smoker, the mother who has been advised against pregnancy due to medical risks - are we to force treatment on them?

What then are we to do with one of the higher risks for children - families who live in poverty where access to a healthy diet and good pregnancy care are very challenging? Is society willing to now say that they should have forced supports? There are many more children born to women with various forms of higher risk pregnancies arising from medical and social conditions other than alcohol.

As for drug use in pregnancy, we can fall very short in understanding the long term implications. A study by Dr. H. Hurt in Philadelphia found that the "crack baby" epidemic of 25 years ago has not materialized in the way it was predicted. Many of these children are doing well. Poverty may have been a bigger issue.

All of this is not to say that we should fail to help mothers be the best they can at being pregnant. We should - but that is not accomplished through criminalizing or jailing mothers - that is the ultimate in mother shaming. It is be education, community supports, health care and harm reduction.