Home

Children 'safer with biological parent'

Wed, 2008-08-13 13:17 - Kerry

Andrew Trounson | May 07, 2008

CHILDREN with a step-parent or no biological parent are significantly more at risk than those with a single parent or both biological parents.

An Australian study of more than 900 coronial inquiries into child deaths from violence or accident appears to bear out theories of the so-called Cinderella effect.

Psychologist and researcher at Melbourne's Deakin University Greg Tooley said that despite sensitivities over the issue, the findings should not be ignored and child-welfare agencies needed to take it into account when assessing at-risk cases.

"It would be very good, I think, if an awareness of this were to lead to better targeted interventions," Dr Tooley told The Australian.

It was possible that sensitivities over targeting children with step-parents might be getting in the way of agencies identifying it as a risk factor, he said.

"It is certainly difficult to talk about because it is such a hot issue," he said.

Dr Tooley's study found that children with a step-parent were at least 17 times more likely to die from intentional violence or accident. A limited version of the study found that the rate could be as high as 77 times.

It found the risk was higher if there were no biological parents, such children being at least 22 times more prone. Most at risk were children under five.

Overall, Dr Tooley found that children with a single biological mother were no more at risk than children with both biological parents.

But he did find that children of single mothers were three times more at risk of drowning.

Dr Tooley said the findings appeared to back up theories that parents were biologically driven to be extremely protective of their offspring, less so than step-parents.

The theory has widespread parlance in folklore and fairytales, such as that of Cinderella, who is banished to cleaning duties by her jealous step-mother and sisters.

Dr Tooley stressed that the findings were not about attacking step-parents, but simply identifying risk factors.

"We have to look at the flipside, which is all the good that step-parents do," he said.

But he added: "I'd be disturbed if we didn't use the information. The vast majority of step-parents are outstanding, but they aren't as equipped with the same protective drive as a biological parent."

He speculates that this probably becomes more of a factor in child welfare when families are under stress. "I feel these factors are happening at the real edge when families are under a lot of pressure," he said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657729-5013404,00.html

 

Comments

Wed, 2008-08-13 13:50 — Kerry

Studies done elsewhere around the globe

A brief piece written by Melanie Phillips found in the UK's "The Spectator" states:

 Very similar findings were reported in Britain some two decades ago. The evidence that shattered or reconstituted families pose vastly greater risks to children than traditional two-parent families has always been overwhelming. But in Britain, the government simply stopped collecting statistics that broke down families by type which enabled researchers to compare violence and other ill-effects in different types of household. This blurred the distinction between parents and  parent-substitutes, and enabled the lie to be told that children were in more danger from their parents than from strangers. The truth is that natural parents provide the greatest safety for children, and it is the reconstituted family which poses the greatest danger. The deliberate concealment of that truth has been used to justify the breakdown of family life whose catastrophic ill-effects are only now beginning to be acknowledged.

In the U.S., I know of one abuse study done at the University of Chicago by Dario Maestripieri, where the subjects studied were not humans, but monkeys.  [The full article related to his study can be found here:  "Monkey Business", http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/2225.]

 

Maestripieri found no evidence for abusive behaviour being genetically inherited, rather it appeared to be acquired through experience of being abused. Nine of the 16 monkeys who were reared by abusive mothers went on to be abusive themselves, including four adopted monkeys whose biological mother was not an abuser. In contrast, none of the monkeys raised by non-abusive mothers went on to abuse, including six adopted monkeys whose biological mother was an abuser.

Maestripieri said abused female monkeys might learn to be abusive themselves either based on their own direct experience of being abused, or through observation of their mother abusing their younger siblings, or because of neural changes caused by being abused. That not all abused monkeys went on to be abusive themselves also points to other protective or risk factors.

Why these sort of studies are not taken more seriously is beyond me.  If parents can be taught how not to abuse or neglect a child, why wouldn't that effort be made so more families can be saved, not sold?

Wed, 2008-08-13 14:18 — almost_human

i found statistics breaking

i found statistics breaking down families by type in the US, but no conclusions had been drawn from it.  the figures were not compared against birthrates or the entire population. 
the frustrating thing was, as always, some states had zero statistics, as their criteria for gathering information internally was different. 

if i can find it again i could try and look at it - because the idea of combining all of the non-traditional families into one category of "shattered" never occurred to me. 

tonight after work....