Responding to the most recent high profile child abuse case, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett (NZ Herald, December 21) says she will "... do anything in her power to protect children." We must take her at her word. I do not doubt her sincerity.
Why does child abuse and neglect occur? Because the child is 'wanted' at one level, but not at another. Sometimes they are wanted for the benefits that dependent children bring; priority for housing, extra income, and parental amnesty from being self-supporting. They are not wanted in the usual sense; loved more than can be expressed or explained. The way children should be loved by their parents and grandparents.
Sometimes the parent's own mental or physical health problems get in the way of unqualified care, but that is another issue. One that, from a government point of view, needs addressing through the Ministry of Health. But the issue identified here - children as meal-tickets - is a matter for the Minister who assures us she will do anything in her power to prevent the sort of abuse that makes grown-ups cry, if they allow the grim reality to break through their own defence mechanisms.
Meal-ticket children are hostages to their parent's or caregiver's life styles. Politicians on the left of the political spectrum will remonstrate that funding cannot be withdrawn from these parents because the child will suffer. As if the child isn't suffering anyway. Living in environments characterised by gang associations that bring a culture of threats and counter-threats; alcohol and drug abuse; sexual and incestuous abuse. These children exist in their hundreds, if not in their thousands.
Children have been a source of income in New Zealand for eighty years or more. Unlike the Old Age Pension, Maori were easily able to access the Family Benefit which, with their typically large families, accrued a tidy sum by the 1940s. Enough in some rural communities for the menfolk to knock off work and spend their days drinking and gambling. Which in turn set up the right conditions for domestic disharmony and childhood misery.
Child abuse was 'discovered' in the 1950s and 60s but certainly pre-existed that era. While by no stretch of the imagination wholly explaining the incidence of abuse, the more that 'poor' families are paid to look after their children, the more abuse has occurred or, at least, has been notified and substantiated. More money certainly isn't curing the problem. So perhaps it is time to ask if more money is exacerbating it?
The incidence of Maori child abuse is disproportionately high. Conversely, the statistics for Asian child abuse are very low. Yet Asians have the lowest median incomes in New Zealand. Even more telling, they have the lowest proportion of income from government transfers. They are not heavily benefit-dependent. They are busy earning a living and expecting as much from their children in the present and future. In a recent conversation with an ex-plunket nurse I was told how, even in poor neighbourhoods and cramped living conditions, extended Asian families doted on their offspring. The same nurse had eventually abandoned her career because working with families who cared for neither themselves nor their children became too demoralising to deal with.
Grandparents raising grandchildren will tell of bitter custody battles with their own offspring (frequently drug or alcohol addicted) intent on keeping children in their care merely to advance their chosen lifestyle - receiving a state income with no obligation to do anything for it.
Between a third and a half of people receiving the DPB became a parent in their teens when a benefit income guarantees more than an unskilled job. This group has been shown to have the longest duration of stay on welfare often adding more children, and more income, to their benefit. The incidence of abuse amongst non-working families is around four times higher than among working families.
While there is good and genuine cause for the state to temporarily assist parents experiencing a crisis or losing the support of a partner it should rarely bestow an open-ended income. That is a recipe for children to be exploited.
It is within the power of Paula Bennett to consider this ugly aspect of social security and work to change it. It will not be an easy problem to resolve but she should start by at least acknowledging it.
A good Social Investment Board
1 hour ago
7 comments:
I grew up in a rural community in the 50s the benefit was 10 shillings per week per child helpful but hardly enough to live on. It could also be capitalised up to 500 pound in order to buy a house.All the kids got belted if they did wrong and all the adults went to jail if they did..I never heard of any such abuse either locally or nationally. The large Maori community lived mainly near their maraes and worked on farms or as farm contractors were hard working, hard drinking, but generally law abiding.
As for Paula she looks a fine woman who would have been a great mother/grandmother but her initial comment that she would call for an enquiry from CYPS and if not satisfied have the Children's Commissioner review it showed me that she is not facing up to the fact that they are the problem not the solution. Commonsense would tell her what needs to be done. As you stated her action in making solos get a job once their youngest turns six will only cause them to make sure they always have one under six and I note from the silhouette in the Herald that this woman appears to be pregnant.
Payment for six children - by no means unusual for Maori - equalled a women's minimum wage. Reference: Past Judgement:Social Policy in New Zealand; A Badge of Poverty or a Symbol of Citizenship, Otago University Press, Nov 2005, Margaret McClure, p144.
A 1967 survey found established cases of child abuse tended to be ex-nuptial births and to occur in larger families and in homes from which one or both birth parents were absent. The reported rate of abuse for Maori children was six times that for Pakeha. The survey was based on the 255 established cases of abuse (but not neglect) that year.
Alan Duff says that quite horrific abuse occurred even in his grandmother's time but that is anecdotal.
Hmm.
255 in 1967 (which, in an era where teachers let alone parents were allowed to beat children with lengths of wood or leather, just screams "underreporting"). What is the current recorded rate? Without corresponding data it is meaningless conjecture. As for the distribution of 1967 cases towards unwed/sole parent families, that could just be a product of variable enforcement according to the mores of the time.
And yet with a bit of pop psychology you imply that the DPB causes child abuse. You back up your theory with anecdotes from a nurse talking about Asian families, but regard as worthless Alan Duff's anecdotal evidence.
You make assertions about current abuse rates, assume the same yardstick applies between now and then, claim various disparities between ethnicities and socioeconomic factors, and imply the old scare tactic that abuse rates have increased dramatically since the good old days, all with the number 255.
I can't say you've made any great philosophical leap with this post.
Merry Christmas.
As long as the abuse continues with Maori families, who gives a toss?
Dirk
"255 in 1967 (which, in an era where teachers let alone parents were allowed to beat children with lengths of wood or leather, just screams "underreporting"). What is the current recorded rate?
Around 125,000 notifications per annum.
"As for the distribution of 1967 cases towards unwed/sole parent families, that could just be a product of variable enforcement according to the mores of the time."
Agree. Ex-nuptial births required official notification until the mid sixties and post birth visits.
"And yet with a bit of pop psychology you imply that the DPB causes child abuse. You back up your theory with anecdotes from a nurse talking about Asian families, but regard as worthless Alan Duff's anecdotal evidence."
What indicates I think Alan Duff's anecdotal evidence is "worthless"?
The last time MSD investigated the correlation between notifications to CYF and beneficiaries they showed a fourfold likelihood that the child would be in a DPB home.
Work and Income train their case managers in identifying domestic abuse (which often accompanies child abuse) because of the known overlap between CYF and Work and Income clients.
But if you want more evidence about the correlation between welfare and child abuse try this Early Start report;
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/evaluation/early-start/
"You make assertions about current abuse rates, assume the same yardstick applies between now and then, claim various disparities between ethnicities and socioeconomic factors, and imply the old scare tactic that abuse rates have increased dramatically since the good old days, all with the number 255."
That wasn't my intention at all. I used this statistical information only to show Baxter than abuse did occur 40 odd years ago. I am not at all sure it has got a lot worse. But I am sure that a certain amount of over-reporting now occurs.
"Around 125,000 notifications per annum."
How many relating were "established cases"?
And "not relating to neglect"?
And the big one: how many would still have been established cases, not related to neglect, when judged by officials in 1967? How many more cases in 1967 would have been "established" if viewed through today's eyes and surveillance tools?
It's all very well demonstrating that abuse occurred in the 1960s, but your original post seemed to suggest that the problem is significantly worse now, and is in some way causally connected to the increase in government transfers. Either that, or it makes absolutely no comments at all and is just text filling a void.
I read this article in the Herald and totally agreed with you. We continue to support women (and men) with the DPB and other allowances who have NO intention of being good parents.
As a woman who spent seven years desperately trying to have a baby, I am appalled by the stories and court cases we hear about. I have the misfortune of living next door to a state house where the daughter of the renter has two children, by different men, and from conversations overheard it would seem that she will continue to do so as long as there are govt funds available. Meanwhile, my husband and I had to pay for our IVF treatment (we did not meet govt criteria), while also supporting our neighbours through our taxes.
Our miracle baby (not IVF after all the $$$ spent) is nearly a year old, and I cannot imagine ever harming her. Funnily enough, I can imagine harming those who do such terrible things to the precious children they should love and care for.
Someone needs to see sense - these cases are going to continue until we find a way to stop them. And for what it's worth - in our dealings with CYFS while trying to become foster parents - we have never come across such a disorganised ineffective bunch of bureaucrats!
Post a Comment