In a number of responses, when people have discussed whether children need to be removed from their biological families, they've talked about "severe abuse," specifying the word "severe" as necessary for removal to be justified.
So I'm wondering... what does that mean, exactly? What type of abuse is "severe"? What is the definition of it? Who decides what constitutes it?
Personally, I take a very "no tolerance" view of any kind of abuse at all, but I'm specifically looking for answers here from people who can clarify the opposing viewpoint for me.
If you are of the opinion that a gradation needs to be drawn in whether abuse warrants removal, what qualifies as "severe" abuse?
♪ Rachel ♫2009-01-27T02:07:11Z
Favorite Answer
A lot of parents especcially inexperienced, financially struggling and/or with no support system around them may abuse their child in a one off incident (for instance panicking when their baby cries and nothing stops it or neglecting it because they lack the knowledge or skills). In this case, as long as the abuse wasn't life threatening (which is the severe part) the parents, with the right support can get their lives back together and learn to parent with strategies and coping skills. Unfortunately unless the abuse is severe enough to be noticed, often the abuse will go unoticed and the parents will bury themselves deeper and deeper. That;s why I believe there should be support systems for all first parents.
Severe abuse is really abuse where the parents are deliberately abusing their child and have no remorse about it and/or the abuse is significantly endangering the child's life and well-being. I think in this case I believe it is okay to take the child away for its own sake and place them in a stable environment.
As someone else said though, a lot of foster or adoptive parents also abuse children. I was taken out of my biological family because my mother had a mental illness and the authorities thought she could harm me. She wanted me. I was placed in an adoptive home and then physically abused, ended up in hospital and had to be placed into foster care. So, you can never tell.
There's some excellent answers here already, so this is what isn't considered "severe" abuse, although they are all items that are considered abusive, and through education, working with the parents, there are things that even though they're abusive, there's still hope that the family can be successfully reunited. These, among other things include: Yelling too often, Leaving a child alone too young to run to the corner market Dirty clothes left on a child too long Too smal of car seats, causing rub marks Lack of medical checkups & vaccines Trying to feed a baby on such a strict schedule that the baby is hungry in between and constantly crying, or not feeding in the night, even if the baby is otherwise thriving.
In our foster parenting courses, there were things such as the use of marijuana in the home that were discussed. Even though I'm VERY against drug use, especially around children, sometimes the idiots that'd smoke it happen to be good parents otherwise, and the child isn't in imminent danger.
There is such a fine line that in some cases, a social worker might be more affected by a small thing that they remove the child, and that another case worker in the exact same situation might find that the child is fine in the home.
Severe abuse in our court was said to be anything that affects the child in a way that by staying in the home, temporarily or permanently, that further exposure can damage the child physically, mentally, neglecting, or emotionally. This line is still further split in the social worker's training manual because they have reunification rights for parents, training for parents, and the sad fact is, the system is so overloaded, that the lesser abusive cases sometimes get left behind, because they don't warrant immediate attention, and then the case gets worse before it gets better, and the child ends up in the system anyway. Many times, the difference of severe abuse and not, is nothing more than a social worker's opinion. God help and bless them all, because I don't think I could handle that job.
First I want to say, all abuse is harmful and hurtful to a child.
I do not use the word "severe" when I talk about removal of a child. Any abuse that is proven or suspected should justify a child being removed and placed into foster care, to protect the child.
BUT, when I say that TPR can happen quickly when there are cases of "severe" abuse, I pretty much mean examples where the child requires medical attention or where the offender is arrested. Examples include: broken bones (and there are specific breaks that are indicative of child abuse); rape, which is young children can leave lacerations, scarring, etc; burns; stabbing, shooting, being tied to the bed and whipped, etc. All of these if prosecuted correctly as felonies, would lead to substantial jail time.
I also think "severe" has a time element to it. Has the abuse been on-going for months, years, versus a one or two time event, when a parent lost control (I don't mean that is right).
I also think "severe" has an element to it of urgency. For example, if the child was not taken NOW, there is an immediate danger to their lives.
=====Real-life meaning======== When I was in care, the children who DID NOT go back to their bio-families came from cases of "severe" abuse. We were the kids that were taken under emergency conditions; where if not removed, there was a danger to life and where abuse had been on-going for awhile and escalated over time. (ie beatings to stabbing; rape to violent rape, etc)
I agree that intent has a lot to do with it. I realize that domestic violence is quite a different area, but this question reminds me of a study I read awhile back that was done on DV relationships.
One thing that the researchers discovered was that there are two different types of abusers, which they termed "pit bulls" and "cobra's" (which is actually kind of funny, because I worked at a battered women's shelter named COBRA at the time that this book came out...lol). Here's an excerpt from the inside cover of the book:
"Pit Bulls, men whose emotions quickly boil over, are driven by deep insecurity and an unhealthy dependence on the mates whom they abuse. Pit Bulls also tend to become stalkers, unable to let go of relationships that have ended.
"Cobras, on the other hand, are cool and methodical as they inflict pain and humiliation on their spouses or lovers; in one chilling discovery, the authors found that during violent arguments and physical beatings the heart rate of Cobras actually declines. Cobras have often been physically or sexually abused themselves, frequently in childhood, and tend to see violence as an unavoidable part of life.
"Knowing which type a batterer is can be crucial to gauging whether an abusive relationship is salvageable (Pit Bulls can sometimes be helped through therapy) or whether the situation is beyond repair."
I don't know if this really covers it well, but part of the discussion in the book is that Cobra's are much more deadly. They're the ones with the "intent", like Opedial was talking about. Pit Bulls are more like those parents who just get really frustrated and don't have good coping skills. Cobra's generally don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing - or don't care if anyone else thinks it's wrong - while Pit Bulls just feel as though they've been driven to do something they already know is bad. Cobra's don't care about the consequences, while Pit Bulls will try to cover it up because they truly do love their partner (maybe not in an entirely healthy way, but they do love them).
I think the same distinction can be drawn in parent/child relationships, too. The personality and intent of the abuser, along with their own life experiences and how they deal with those experiences, contribute quite a bit.
Regardless, a child who is being abused needs to be kept safe one way or another. The question is, is the child safer (mentally AND physically) in their own family while they receive services, or with another family? Unless you're psychic, it's going to be really hard to say for sure what the right answer to that is in every case.
ETA: Kitta, that is a GREAT question, and something that should be considered by those in charge of who takes children from whom.