A message from the Joint Parenting Association

[Brent]

A message from the Joint Parenting Association (//www.jointparenting.org.au)

Let us unravel the gender feminist 'safety of children' argument.

The evidence that sole custody is dangerous for children is clear and
convincing upon examination.

Even a cursory look at the data documents that children are victimized
by sole custody decisions. However, the HORISP Committee would prefer
to base its conclusions on debunked feminist ideology rather than
mainstream science.

The following disturbing findings were included in the Joint Parenting
Association's submission to the federal inquiry. The Committee's
disregard of the substantial published research is simply staggering.

Perhaps the most striking information suggesting that sole custody
arrangements victimize children are several reports which indicate an
increased risk for all forms of child abuse for sole maternal custody
(Ditson & Shay 1984, Webb 1991). Ditson & Shay (1984) for example,
presented data which indicates that 63% of all confirmed child abuse in
one American city during one year took place in the homes of single
parents and that the mother was the perpetrator of the abuse in 77% of
those cases.

The nationally representative survey by Gelles (1988) of 6000 American
households revealed that single mothers are more likely to use violence
towards their children than are parents in dual-caretaker households.
These disturbing statistics support the often-ignored Straus, Gelles, &
Steimnetz (1980) finding that:

"Mothers are at least as likely as fathers to use even more serious
forms of violence such as kicks, bites, punches and beatings. This is
important because family violence is probably the only situation where
women are as or more violent (physically)than men...While fathers who
beat up their children do so on average of once a year, mothers who beat
up their children do it more than once every other month."

Moreover, the researchers in their comparison between mothers and
fathers who were living together in the intact family revealed that
mothers were more likely to use forms of violence which placed their
children at risk of physical injury than were fathers. The study
documented a 62% greater rate of child assault by mothers than fathers.
Sons were beaten more frequently than daughters. Also, sons were the
only ones who were threatened or assaulted with guns or knives. In
discussing the incidence of child mistreatment, Straus and colleagues
observed that the literature on child abuse suggests that abuse may be
more common in families where only one parent lives with the child. Had
they studied single-parent homes, the authors considered that they might
also have uncovered a higher rate of extreme violence towards children.


Sack, Mason, & Higgins (1985) found that the prevalence of physically
abusive punishment to be twice as high in single parent families as in
two parent households. The sex of the single parent was not related to
the abusive behaviour. Other data from various United States
departments of human services suggest that, in most cases of child abuse
and neglect, the mother is perpetrator (Webb 1991, Wright 1992) and this
is consistent with research reports by various advocacy groups for
non-custodial parents and their children (Anderson 1990; Burmeister
1991a). A study of all state child protective services agencies by the
Children's Rights Coalition (a child advocacy and research organization
in Austin Texas), found that biological mothers physically abuse their
children at twice the rate of biological fathers. The majority of the
rest of the time, children were abused because of the single–mothers'
poor choices in the subsequent men in their lives. Incidences of abuse
were almost non–existent in single–father–headed households (Anderson
1990).

These data could result from the increased stress associated with single
parent responsibilities, since the Ditson & Shay (1984) research also
indicated that, in married families, the abuse was evenly split between
male and female perpetrators (i.e., the mother and the father). Also
these data–based conclusions may result from the fact that following
divorce more children live with mothers than with fathers. Further, no
information is currently available on such increased risk among sole
paternal residence children. Finally, some studies indicate directly
conflicting results (Rosenthall 1988). However given the potential risk
of child abuse, which may be associated with sole maternal custody,
these reports must be investigated

National data collected by the Australian Institute Of Health And
Welfare (AIHW) show much the same pattern. Child abuse and neglect
statistics collated by Angus & Hall (1996) of the AIHW show an
over–representation of single–parent households. For the three states
(Vic, Qld, & WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) for which data were
provided, more cases involved children from female single–parent
households (39%) than families with two natural parents (30%) or other
two parent households such as step parent households (21%). The
over–representation becomes even more apparent when the abuse statistics
are compared with Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995) data on the
relative frequency of different family types in Australia.

Both Angus & Hall (1996) and Broadbent & Bentley (1997) acknowledge the
over–representation, but fail to comment on its large size. Angus &
Hall (1996) say:

"In all, 34% of substantiated cases of physical abuse occurred in
families with two natural parents and 32% in female single–parent
families. More substantiated emotional and sexual abuse and neglect
cases involved children from female single–parent families than from
other types of family––38% of substantiated cases of emotional abuse,
34% of sexual abuse and 47% of neglect cases. In comparison, 31% of
substantiated cases of emotional abuse, 30% of substantiated cases of
sexual abuse and 26% of neglect involved children from families with two
natural parents."

The data strangely missing from the above statement is the relative
incidence in the community of single–parent households compared with two
natural parent families. When this factor is taken into account, the
difference in child abuse rates becomes more starkly apparent. Since
81% of Australian children 0–14 years live with both their natural
parents (Australian Bureau Of Statistics 1995) and 30% of child sexual
abuse occurs in this type of family, while 13% of children live in
female single parent households (Australian Bureau Of Statistics 1995)
and 34% of child sexual abuse occurs in this type of household––it
follows that the relative risk of child sexual abuse in a female single
parent household is over seven times the risk in a two natural parent
family (34/13 x 81/30). The relative risk of any kind of abuse in a
single parent household is eight times that of a two natural parent
family.

Importantly, for children there are no reported instances of abuse in
joint custody families

The situation is becoming more serious. The Australian Bureau of
Statistics reports that between 1982 and1992, the number of families
headed by a lone parent grew by more than 180,000, reaching an estimated
619,000––an increase of 42% in just ten years (Australian Bureau Of
Statistics 1995). The data provided by Angus & Hall (1996) and the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995) shows the dramatic relative
risk of child abuse and neglect in single–parent families, and even more
in step–families. The proportion of two natural parent families in the
community has decreased since 1992 (Australian Bureau of Statistics
(1995), with a corresponding increase in the proportion of single
parent and blended families but the relative risk of child abuse in the
non–traditional family types remains much higher than for two natural
parent families.

Child abuse is intimately related to later delinquency and violent
crime, and here too divorce is implicated (Fagan 1997). Higher levels
of divorce mean higher levels of child abuse. Remarriage does not
reduce this level of child abuse and may even add to it. Serious abuse
is a much higher among stepchildren compared with children of intact
families. Adults who were sexually abused as children are more likely
to have been raised in stepfamilies (Fergusson, Lynskey, & Horwood 1996)
The rate of sexual abuse of girls by stepfathers ranges from six to
seven times as likely (Russell 1984), and may be as much as 40 times
more when compared with such abuse by biological fathers in intact
families (Wilson & Daly 1987).

Australian Human Rights Commissioner Brian Burdekan 1989) has reported
that sexual abuse of girls is very much higher in households where the
adult male is not the natural father. National statistics indicate that
the relative risk of child sex abuse in a family where only one of the
parent figures is a natural parent, is much higher than in a
single–parent family and enormously higher––around 17 times––than in a
two natural parent family. In a step–family, the abuser may be an older
step–sibling––not necessarily the step parent.

Family structure predicts huge differences in rates of fatal child
abuse. Professors Margo Wilson and Martin Daly (1987) of the Department
of Psychology at McMasters University, Canada, report that children two
years and younger are seventy to a hundred times more likely to be
killed at the hands of stepparents than at the hands of biological
parents. Younger children are more vulnerable because they are so much
weaker physically. British data is milder but the research is not as
rigorous as the Canadian research. There the fatal abuse of children of
all ages occurs three times more frequently in stepfamilies than in
intact married families. Neglect of children, which frequently is more
psychologically damaging than physical abuse (Emery 1989),109 also is
higher––twice as high––among separated and divorced parents.

Stepparents always have had a difficult time establishing close bonds
with new stepchildren as even traditional fairy tales recount. Sole
custody is the judicial preferment of step–parents. Difficulties
between children and step–parents are not confined to Grimm's fairy
tales. The fairytale theme is confirmed in the research literature: The
rate of bonding between stepparents and stepchildren is rather low. By
one study only 53 percent of stepfathers and 25 percent of stepmothers
may have parental feelings toward their stepchildren, and still fewer to
love them.

A Melbourne study (Hodges 1982). indicated considerable difficulties
were experienced by adolescents on the re–marriage of the custodial
(usually the mother). The majority appeared uncomfortable. There is a
vast biological literature regarding parental solicitude which shows
that it is discrimutive. Parents favour their own children. Biparental
care is universal in our species and is a fundamental attribute (Dally &
Wilson 1980).

With these recorded results, it is somewhat surprising that the factor
of sole maternal custody is not considered in much of the literature on
child abuse. Numerous factors are considered as correlates of child
abuse including age and sex of the child, race, family income, number of
siblings and social status. While a number of Australian studies have
considered the effects of the family structure on child victimization,
most merely refer to structure as part of the family demographic
information, noting the over–representation in their sample (e.g.
Goodard & Hiller 1992). However, results are not reported which would
indicate whether mothers were more prone to child abuse than fathers, or
if sole maternal custody—as compared to joint custody, sole paternal
custody, or intact family status—contributed to an increased risk for
child abuse. These are simple questions. Yet these fundamental
questions are not being addressed.

In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent &
Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of
perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The
action was taken just one year after the data was first published in
1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the
wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had
furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. . Interested
parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of
Information request at a cost of $200.

Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data
in 1996. In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that "the information
base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented." Quite
obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can
negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources.
If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such
slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours.

Yuri Joakimidis

National Director

Joint Parenting Association

//www.jointparenting.org.au