The NZ Herald reports on increased number of admissions to Starship for physical abuse.
Dr Kelly said it was hard to say why the number presenting at the Starship hospital with injuries consistent with abuse was increasing. "What is clear is that despite all the societal angst and all the expressed interest in intervention and prevention, the incidence is certainly not going down," he said.....So why are so many babies exposed to non-biologically related males?
Dr Kelly said the perpetrator of the abuse was "very variable".
"Like most centres, our anecdotal experience is that male offenders are more common than female offenders, and non-biologically related males - 'stepfathers' - are disproportionately represented," he said.
Can it be because so many births are to unmarried or non-partnered females?
And might that be because we pay them an income on par with the minimum wage to have babies?
And might it also follow that instead of a benefit reducing a single mother's vulnerability to violence, it actually increases it?
Kelly goes on to blame family violence (which is actually an outcome - not a cause), social inequality and alcohol.
I prefer Walter William's belief that the welfare state is responsible for the destruction of society's social bonds.
After all ,
Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83 % are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a very high “capture” rate.