The subjectivity of defining "child abuse"
 

Adrian Peterson apologizes:

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/a...g-child-091514

-------
How is "child abuse" culturally defined (which provides the foundation for the legal definition(s))? Who defines it? Who sets the standard?

There are cultural variations in all forms of human interaction including child rearing, child discipline, and what is considered child abuse.

When interacting with different cultures in the USA and around the world, you find that what some people consider discipline is considered abuse in some cultures. For example, some people may laugh and share stories of parents hitting them in the face, cursing at them, or beating them with shower rods, curtain rods, belts, switches and other items. This is the cultural standard and they share these stories with no sense that what they are saying is considered negative by some people.

There are close cases. This wasn't one. Leaving lacerations all over a four-year-old's legs is monstrous. Especially when you figure that this was a man who lost another son when a grown man beat the child to death.

There are plenty of cultures where it's OK (or mandatory) to do things like razor off a girl's clitoris. A democracy is perfectly entitled to say that that's beyond the pale, and so was this.

Exaaactly.

And what could a four-year-old possibly do wrong to make a parent think that this was OK? Pee their pants? Color outside the lines? This is simply unacceptable. If the NFL wants to see "the legal process play out" prior to making any judgments, they should do so while Peterson takes a paid leave of absence.

ETA: DrPhil, I know that your question isn't directly related to the Peterson case, and it speaks more to the "definition" of child abuse in general, but I still wanted to make my point regarding the case.

I'm interested to see where this conversation goes...

Based on whose standard?

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/char...-cbs-nfl-today

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story...devicecgbypass

http://www.businessinsider.com/19-st...ishment-2014-3

For me, the line is crossed when you leave a mark on a child. How anyone can call leaving welts and lacerations acceptable discipline, I simply do not understand.

Charles Barkley had some interesting comments. Apparently child beatings are a Southern problem. :eek:

I just looked at the photos. Wow! Just wow!

With a second allegation of abuse filed prior to this one, Peterson may be losing some of his supporters. I certainly hope so.

Does anybody see a problem with drawing the line at leaving marks? So the behavior is okay as long as marks aren't left? What about if a parent grabs a child's arm and it leaves a scratch?

This case also involved injuries to the child's scrotum. That IS abuse. I come from a family that whips. I was whipped numerous times growing up. I have mixed feelings about corporal punishment, but can't really argue with people who swat a few times over clothing. If a parent can't control themselves enough to make sure the child is not injured by the punishment, they should take a time out and cool down before administering discipline. Anger over the situation leads to these abuses in otherwise normal, loving parents.

As long as it is only a few times swat and it is over clothing?

There are families (and cultures) where it will always be more than a few times or that few times will be strong enough to leave a mark (at least a whelp). And removing the clothes, either completely or the pants, is standard.

There are also people who will report a parent for child abuse for "swatting a few times over clothing".

There is evidence that any violent discipline is detrimental to child development. Reasonable people will disagree about whether it is appropriate to swat a child. I think you will be hard pressed to find a majority that agree with spanking to the point of whelps and bruises.

No child protective services is going to issue a complaint or keep a case open over a few swats on the bottom over clothing.

Psychology is a science. Many, many studies have shown that discipline that leaves marks that last several days is harmful to children from a developmental and psychological perspective. People don't get to maintain their traditions at the expense of a child's long term psychological health.

Right, on what is this evidence based?

It is this disagreement between "reasonable people" that furthers the debate over corporal punishment.

If you are in a culture in which that is the standard, the majority within that culture will agree with spanking to the point of whelps and bruises.

Yes, some law enforcement and CPS will. If someone saw the interaction and felt it was too violent/aggressive and/or the child describes the incidents in a certain way.

^Probably the most balanced piece I've read on the issue during this current spate of coverage.

also...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a...-and-religion/

If that was the standard, most cases of child abuse would not exist.

The democracy gets to argue about that. But as I said above, there are close cases, and this is an easy case. This is going to be over any rational line. If the child needs medical attention, that is rightly called a crime. You can't inflict physical injury on helpless dependents, be they children, disabled people, or elderly people.

Doesn't anyone else think that it's relevant that Adrian lost a child to a "disciplinary" beating? Wouldn't a loving parent re-analyze the role of physical discipline for the dead child's brother?

I don't know what "democracy" means in this context. As ASTalumna06 stated on page 1, I started this thread as a discussion of the larger topic of cultural variations.

It is only called a crime if the child needs medical attention?

Is there subjectivity in "needs medical attention"?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I didn't say only. I said that medical attention = crime. That doesn't mean that no medical attention =/= crime.

What democracy means in this context is that voters of a state get to choose the people who establish the law and supervise the agencies enforcing it. IMHO, discipline that leaves a mark on the child or that merits medical attention in the opinion of a qualified pediatrician is abuse. Discipline that does not leave a mark or merit medical attention has to be evaluated in context by competent professionals. That's a tall order for our social services agencies, but that's what they need to try to do.

No, I reserve that for fun topics.

But, it does mean that "need medical attention" is subjective. There are people who "need medical attention" who do not receive it; and there are people who do not "need medical attention" who receive it.

If only it was that simple.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...m_nothing.html

"I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing."

Late last night Adrian Peterson was advised to clean out his locker and ordered not to attend any Vikings events or to come near the practice field, Winter Park. The Vikings lost one of their biggest corporate sponsors the Raddison Hotels yesterday and AP has lost two of his biggest endorsers, Nike and Special Olympics although he won't be hurt too badly as the Grand Jury met after the season started so he'll still get his 15 million dollar salary for this year. This is good because in addition to losing the endorsements retailers can't sell a Peterson jersey to anyone here in the Twin Cites. Nobody want to be seen in one, much less have one secretly. It is the same issue as the Ray Rice jersey "purge" in Baltimore with the exception of retailers haven't pulled the jerseys off the shelves just yet. Call it Midwest optimism or Minnesota nice.

There is now scuttlebutt that he may be released from the Vikings because of this. Maybe AP should remember what happened to his 2 year old son last year but the hands of another man.

NPR's Here and Now:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/09/1...-black-culture

NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/15/348765...cal-discipline

I read these editorials last night and found them interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/op...buse.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/op...ild-abuse.html
I found this one particularly interesting, since I didn't know what the context for corporal punishment in the African American community was before reading it. Having looked at the comments, some people are getting the idea that the author thinks this is mainly an African American issue, but I didn't get that idea at all because I know this is widespread among a variety of cultures.


Dr. Phil, this is from the second article you posted:
I think this is important. Many people use corporal punishment, but increasing its frequency is not effective and can have some very negative consequences on the psychological well-being of children. This is what I would expect. Overall I think that positive reinforcement is a better way to train someone than to punish them. I haven't read up on all the studies, but that's what I've observed in my life.

And if using corporal punishment as frequently as it is used is not effective and can have very negative potential consequences, then I would hope that this situation being brought to light can foster some enlightened conversations and could encourage people to make some changes on a personal and cultural level so that parents are no longer encouraged to punish their children in potentially counterproductive ways. As we become more knowledgeable, we evolve over time and shape our culture. I don't think it's necessary to hold on to things that aren't as effective as they were once thought to be, especially if they have the potential to be pretty harmful.

I agree. This is really about cultural variations in parenting, historical and contemporary parenting, and why having children should not be the default. Societies need to stop encouraging people to have children and pretending the majority of people just somehow figure it out or somehow make it work.

I just have to jump in here - a whelp is a puppy - I think the word you're looking for is "welt" (a raised mark) - sorry to be the word police :)!

This 1000x!

It's a real grey area where that line is and community standards can often dictate where that line is and create a problematic blurry line for the parents. Of course the safest thing to do for parents is not to use corporal punishment, but in many states, that is still their right.

For example, in Oklahoma, here is a uniform jury instruction given in all child abuse jury trials:

So it is a question of fact for the jury as to whether ordinary force was used and you are going to find that jurors come from a wide variety of backgrounds, many of which are not going to think there was more than ordinary force (because they got it worse from their parents).

I am actually surprised this child is not in state custody because we clearly have a case where if criminal child abuse did occur, the mother is probably a mandated reporter and she failed to protect her child on at least one other occasion.

It's crazy that if you were to "spank" or "swat" an adult, it's considered assault or battery, and if you do the same to a dog, it's considered animal cruelty. But go ahead, hit your kid, that's fine (and yes, "swat" and "spank" = hitting).

:rolleyes:

The only reason kids behave after being spanked/swatted/hit is because they don't want to get hit again. It's fear, not respect.

As for the argument - "he reached for the stove" or "he ran into the street" - watch your kid, keep him/her away from the stove by creating a place for him/her to safely play out of harms way, pay attention when you're outside so he/she doesn't into the street.

That's another cultural difference. Many cultures do not care about respect (in the "we're both humans, let's talk it out and then walk it out" sense of the word) between parent and child. For example, in Black American culture and other African diaspora cultures, the tendency (WARNING: GENERALIZATION THAT DOESN'T APPLY 100%) is to be stern and invoke fear. It doesn't matter that the child is afraid and only behaving for the time being and to avoid further punishment. The phrase "you better/you're going to respect me" is used in the same manner as not looking adults in the eye unless told to do so. It isn't a parent-child-equal-footing-respect to which mainstream cultures tend to adhere.

That's your culture. Your background gives you very specific values and beliefs about child rearing. Those values and beliefs are not universally shared. Some people think that if you don't use corporal punishment, you are a poor parent and different cultures have widely different ideas about the proper way to raise a child.

Because Dr. Spock published his book and you agree with him doesn't make your culture and background more relevant or correct than others.

I try to have an open mind when working child abuse cases. I'm not sure any of us want to live in a country where the government comes into everyone's home and threatens potential criminal action for anyone who doesn't follow the government's plan for child rearing.

We shouldn't be in the business of punishing parents unless it is readily apparent that the parent's intent in hitting the child was to be cruel, to torture, etc.

How do you think that informs future interactions, when that child is an adult?

Not making a judgement, just thinking out loud. This might be off-topic but a couple of years ago I had a coworker who was upset with me because he felt I didn't "respect [him] enough." It seems that, even though he wasn't of the African diaspora, that he had the same thinking that younger people just automatically have to respect their elders whether or not they actually earned it.

For me and my sister by blood, we're thankful.

Not just the spankings, but the discipline in general we received growing up.

Growing up the mantra from my parents and grandparents was 'If I don't teach you, the law will.'

And we all know that 'the law' is much more severe with AfAm than whites.

I agree.

For some Black people: Choosing aggression, arguments, and violence as a first resort; inability to have even small interactions without it turning into an argument and potentially leading to violence; and an inability to control anger.

For some Black people: Being quiet, reserved, and almost subservient from fear of punishment or any reminders of her/his upbringing.

For some Black people: Becoming opposed to any type of disagreements, anger, tension, raised voices, loud talk, etc. because it reminds the person of her/his upbringing.

So if a parent beats a child hard enough to cause broken bones, concussions, death, etc., there shouldn't be any punishment as long as the intent was good?

It certainly was not the culture in which I was raised, which is perhaps why I am so against hitting a child - I remember those punishments vividly.

Again I ask, why is it against the law for me to hit you or an animal, yet okay to hit a defenseless child 1/4 or even half my size as long as my intent wasn't to be "cruel". How is hitting a 3-year old not cruel?

It is not against the law to hit an animal. Animal cruelty does not include people who use a rolled up magazine to discipline or train a puppy. There are all types of animal training, breeding, and raising (for food, etc.) techniques that would not be considered animal cruelty.

Sarah McLachlan isn't singing about a puppy who took a dump on the couch and was smacked on the rear in punishment.

How in the hell did you go there from anything I said above?

Peterson's case involves no broken bones, concussions, death, etc.

On the other hand, maybe a shock collar or bark collar on a kid would work wonders. Electric fences for kids? I have a feeling that wouldn't fly.

I was spanked 3 or 4 times in my lifetime but my brother was spanked a lot more than I was. Why? When I saw him get spanked, the sibling rivalry thing kicked in and I was determined that the parental units would love me more so I behaved myself.

Every child is different and I agree the lines are subjective but to me, if a permanent mark is left, it was most definitely abuse. Then again, some of the worst abuse is mental and there is no physical evidence at all.

I'm kind of curious- for those who did experience more corporal punishment- Do you think that was the only way for your parents to get you to act right? Do you think lesser punishments would have worked?

For me, growing up and in my own parenting, spanking was the absolute last resort after everything else had been tried and did not work OR when what the child was about to do would harm them far worse than a swat on a diapered butt.