Premium
Child protection services and parental reactions to children’s behaviour
Author(s) -
Thorpe David,
Jackson Maureen
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
child and family social work
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.912
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1365-2206
pISSN - 1356-7500
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2206.1997.00046.x
Subject(s) - child protection , legislation , corporal punishment , psychology , spanking , population , child abuse , physical abuse , intervention (counseling) , mandate , punishment (psychology) , criminology , agency (philosophy) , developmental psychology , social psychology , poison control , suicide prevention , political science , medicine , law , psychiatry , environmental health , sociology , social science
A commonly used expression in child protection is the term ‘physical abuse’. This paper consists of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a 100% sample of ‘physical abuse’ child protection cases drawn from research in an Australian state child welfare agency, which shows that about 90% of these concerned incidents in which parents used physical punishment to control children. Resulting physical harms to children (where they occurred) were generally of a very minor nature. The paper examines these results in the light of research findings in the UK and Australia on patterns of physical punishment used by parents to control children. Such findings suggest that those child rearing practices that make frequent and systematic use of physical punishment are located largely amongst lower social class parents, who believe that such practices are an essential and normal component of effective parenting behaviour. One interpretation of child protection services in respect of these cases is that they are concerned primarily with the normalization of child rearing practices. The paper concludes with a discussion of the limited impact of the Swedish anti‐spanking law of 1979, which appears to have only reduced the use of physical punishment by those parents who may not necessarily have believed in such measures in the first place. However, legislation of this nature has the potential to criminalize a substantial sector of the population, but at least state intervention under the aegis of a specific criminal law provides a clearer mandate than does intervention under much looser, broader and subjectively interpreted child protection legislation.