Should child abuse be allowed?

[6431hoho]

It seems to me that their standard is whether the action result in harm. But I can assure you all that if a child protection investigator finds that a parent has punished in such a way as to cause bruises, wound, fractures, or scars that child may be removed from parental custody.

 

Now that you all have a definition perhaps you can also have more clarity.

 

More light, less heat.

 

-point was that the child protection investigator won't do this.

 

**sorry, change "won't" to "shouldn't"

[Coral Rhedd]

It seems to me that their standard is whether the action result in harm. But I can assure you all that if a child protection investigator finds that a parent has punished in such a way as to cause bruises' date=' wound, fractures, or scars that child may be removed from parental custody.

 

Now that you all have a definition perhaps you can also have more clarity.

 

More light, less heat.

 

-point was that the child protection investigator won't do this.

 

**sorry, change "won't" to "shouldn't"[/quote']

 

Oh yes they should. If it is the law then they should enforce it. And most often they do. Several different things can happen when they do:

 

1. If the abuse is serious enough, they will file suit to remove the child permanently from the parents custody. Judges most often do just what CPS suggests.

 

2. If CPS believes that the parents can be taught to be better parents, they will send them to parenting classes, where the parents can (if they are willing) learn better ways do discipline their children.

 

3. CPS may or may not allow parents to visit their children while the the children are in CPS custody. If they allow visits, they may requires supervision. I myself have observed supervised visits.

 

4. The parents may be allowed only to visit their children at CPS offices where a psychologist, a CASA volunteer, an investigator, the police or any other reasonably interested professional can observe the visit through a one-way window.

 

5. Parent will be required to undergo a psychological examination and the results of that examination will be available to the judge, the social worker, and the CASA.

 

6. Parents may be required to seek financial assistence if part of the problem impacting the abuse has been such things as lack of shelter, food, medical care, or schooling.

 

7. The children may be subject to examination by doctors or psychologists, both to help the child and to provide evidence of the parent's treatment of the child.

 

8. Children should not be returned to their parents until the social worker, the judge, and the CASA all believe the child will be safe.

 

9. Most often, while the child is not in his/her parents custody, they will be placed in temporary foster care. Foster care should be monitored by the social worker and the CASA.

 

10. If parental rights are teminated, the child may be adopted. This termination and this adoption will be permanent. That parent will never get his child back.

[6431hoho]

I agree everything (p.s. there should be a line) but the parent wouldn't brutally kill the child if their intentions were to discpline them.

[Coral Rhedd]

I agree everything (p.s. there should be a line) but the parent wouldn't brutally kill the child if their intentions were to discpline them.

 

Many parents who are brutal to their children think they are only using discipline. Often this is because brutal discipline is how their parents were brought up and they think they must do the same. People who were abused as children ofen have control issues. They think if they can just control everything around them that they will be safe. As a consequence they overcontrol their children and think of all kinds of punishment to keep control.

 

Sometimes they overdo and they do kill their children. This happens more often when children are young. People do not realize how easy it is to permanently injure children. Shaking children is against the law because it causes trauma to the brain. Hitting children in the face is very dangerous for the same reasons. Minimal brain damage can be caused, the consequence of which can show up and impact the child's behavior and memory many, many years later. Little children can be killed by blows. A frequent occurrence of injury and death is injury to the internal organs. The child bleeds to death internally, slowly. The parents will know there is something seriously wrong but will hope the child will get better. They will delay taking the child to the hospital because the child has bruises and they know they will be held accountable. Many children have died because their parents have injured them and not taken them to the hospital.

 

There are also parents, stepparents, and boyfriends and girlfriends of parents who can be viciously mean. Whether we like to think about it or not, there are some truly bad people in the world. Some of these people administer torture and ritual abuse to children. These are very dangerous people.

 

Most parents who injure their children do so out of temper. Sometimes anger management classes can help these parents. Sometimes medication can help. But even if a child never suffers broken bones, internal injuries, or brain injuries, constant severe physical punishment is abuse because it is extremely destructive to the child mentally.

 

Here's what I think: Anger in, anger out. If a parent brutalizes the child, the child is angry, whether he realizes it at the time or not. Because it is very scary for a child to feel fury toward the parent, and because the parent can get even more dangerous if the child shows anger, the child may pretend not to care or try not to think about it. But stuffing anger away is always damaging. Children who suffer child abuse need someone to talk to so they can realize that what happened to them is not their fault and so their can learn to deal with the hurt and the anger before it poisons their lives.

[reverse]

 

i think child abuse is unnecessary in every case.

 

 

Serious question.

 

Would you consider a hard smack on a child’s (Toddler) hand child abuse?

Would you consider a cane (Teen) at school as child abuse?

[budullewraagh]

yes in both cases

[-Demosthenes-]

And especially when some of the rules are the rules of nature.

I think you might be refering to Classic Conditioning. To negatively re-inforce a behavior you don't need to abuse anyone, you need to make the behavior negative by:

In the absence of the behavior either apply something positive, or take something away that is negative.

When the Behavior is used you need only apply something negative, or take something away that is possitive. To apply something negative does not mean abuse, it does not even require anything physical.

[galaxygirl]

I don't think that child abuse or any other form of physical dicipline should be allowed. By hitting a child, you're teaching it that it's acceptable to physically harm others. That child will probably then treat others like that in school, get in trouble, and get beaten again. Abusing a child can be harmful to them both physically and emotionally. Later on in life they may suffer from eating disorders, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder. If they never learned that abuse is wrong, they would most likely do it to their children. I was constantly abused and neglected as a child, and it had many not so good effects on me. Nobody deserves to be abused, even if the parent believes it's dicipline because both children and adults make mistakes. Even if you're just hitting a child on the hand, it still teaches them that violence is ok and that if you want someone to do what you want, all you have to do is hit them.

[Coral Rhedd]

I think you might be refering to Classic Conditioning. To negatively re-inforce a behavior you don't need to abuse anyone' date=' you need to make the behavior negative by:

In the absence of the behavior either apply something positive, or take something away that is negative.

When the Behavior is used you need only apply something negative, or take something away that is possitive. To apply something negative does not mean abuse, it does not even require anything physical.[/quote']

 

Makes more sense than anything said in the entire thread. Too bad parents don't apply this principle. Since every child is different, you have to find the negative and positive buttons of each.

 

I used this method to train dogs for years and, when I became a mother, I saw no reason not to use the same method with my child. In fact, I never used physical punishment. It was completely unnecessary. I never yelled either, because it was unnecessary.

 

However, when I described this method to a friend who was having parenting problems how you can apply this method to all intelligent creatures, she was quite shocked. She thought I should not compare children to animals.

[Newtonian]

Child abuse.

A good reason it should not be allowed!

[6431hoho]

Would you consider a hard smack on a child’s (Toddler) hand child abuse?

Would you consider a cane (Teen) at school as child abuse?

 

...*sigh*

hard smack on child's hand is not a child abuse when it's required

cane at school is not a child abuse when it's used for the right reasons.

 

yea yea...it's still the same thing. But it's conducted with purpose (good one)

[6431hoho]

This topic seems to cycle over and over.

 

Sometimes, hitting is required when nothing else works. Sometimes it's not required (so you don't hit)

[Coral Rhedd]

This topic seems to cycle over and over.

 

Sometimes' date=' hitting is required when nothing else works. Sometimes it's not required (so you don't hit)[/quote']

 

Usually, people who "have" to resort to hitting:

 

1. Believe that it is natural and acceptable.

2. Haven't tried everything else first, therefore . . .

3. Begin to use it as a first choice.

4. Have not acquired patience.

 

That last -- patience -- is such an important part of parenting, that I would suggest people who cannot either acquire it or at least fake it pretty well simply shouldn't have children.

 

There are far too many people in the world for my taste anyway.

[Guest swim chick]

If you are going to criticize people in this manner ever again, you will elaborate or you will refrain from posting, or you will[/u'] risk suspension of your account. Your choice of words is obviously inflammatory and begs an inflammatory post in response. If you have a problem with a person's response or opinion, give them a reason they can refute.

RIGHT ON!

[Coral Rhedd]

RIGHT ON!

 

Check out this one:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10146&page=3&pp=20

[6431hoho]

People who resort to hitting:

 

1. believe that nothing else worked

2. they need to discpline their child

 

"Haven't tried everything else"

-talking doesn't always work.

 

"Begin to use it as first choice"

-please share with us the resoure you got this from

 

"Have not acquired patience"

-patience has its limits and it's laziness just to let them think "I've given up"

[budullewraagh]

not necessarily.

 

and what is the need for discipline? what requires discipline?

[Coral Rhedd]

People who resort to hitting:

 

1. believe that nothing else worked

2. they need to discpline their child

 

"Haven't tried everything else"

-talking doesn't always work.

 

"Begin to use it as first choice"

-please share with us the resoure you got this from

 

"Have not acquired patience"

-patience has its limits and it's laziness just to let them think "I've given up"

 

Source: Being a Mom, being a teacher, being an advocate for victims of child abuse is where I got it from.

 

Why would you give up? Patient people don't give up. They keep trying.

 

Actually, I am not too high on just talking to alter behavior. Kids can use it to manipulate you and jerk your strings. Just find out what really matters to the child and restrict it until they behave. An important part of the equation is to reward good behavior. I don't mean with praise all the time either. If a child does something you really like make certain that something good follows the behavior. Let's say he has been nagging you to play a game with him but you have been busy. So he cleans up his toys from the living room without you telling him. This should be followed by you saying something like: "Oh good. You picked up your toys. (Normal tone of voice. Don't get all gushy.) I have a few minutes to play that game with you now."

[Coral Rhedd]

not necessarily.

 

and what is the need for discipline? what requires discipline?

 

Actually discipline is important. Discipline doesn't have to equate with harshness or punishment. Think about it. How did you learn to discipline yourself? Chances are that your parents disciplined you first by expecting certain behaviors from you.

 

Take brushing your teeth. I bet you weren't wild about it in the beginning. So you were told that you had to do it and you got praised when you did do it. And aren't you glad you did? Getting cavities filled is literally a pain.

[Newtonian]

child abuse should not be allowed in any way. children should obey their parents when they are in the "right". children should disobey when their parents are in the "wrong". this distinction is difficult to make sometimes, as children usually do not have superior judgment. children do not owe everything to their parents.

Sorry bud ,

Children should disobey when their parents are in the 'wrong'.

Children usually do not have superior judgement!

Children do not owe anything to their parents!

These can only be the words of a child,or one who has never brought up children

 

Children are just that childrenthe most precious of jewels,which all parents try to the best of their ability,to protect,educate,and instill moral and ethical guidance.The end result being a confident well adjusted individual able to enjoy life to hopefully its natural conclusion.

How can a child possibly know its parent is in the wrong.I have 4 children in their late teens, they may disagree with some of my decisions.But never disobey.My intention and duty is to protect them(I place no onus of understanding this on them).As they mature into adults they may look back and understand "you were wrong there dad".Because as adults they can thus make that distinction(we are not infallible).

Children do not usually have superior judgement!.

They dont have superior judgement fullstop.As any parent of teenage children can testify.

Children do not owe anything to their parents!

I owe my parents eternal gratitude,not because it is required or asked of me.But because i was brought up with love and guidance.I am the person ive become because of them not inspite of them.Without getting all soppy i will just say etc etc.And i show this frrely at every opportunity,which is everyday.

Parents dont ask for dues to be paid in full from their children,maybe later in life you will understand that it isnt a debt.

[budullewraagh]

"Actually discipline is important. Discipline doesn't have to equate with harshness or punishment. Think about it. How did you learn to discipline yourself? Chances are that your parents disciplined you first by expecting certain behaviors from you."

 

no, i agree that certain measures must be taken to get kids to do certain things or to not do certain things. im just asking for clarification as to what these certain things are.

 

"These can only be the words of a child,or one who has never brought up children"

not necessarily.

 

children should disobey when their parents are in the "wrong". parents can be "wrong," and children can indeed pick up on their parents' mistakes. they should question their parents from time to time; it challenges their parents to substantiate their stances and if they cannot do so, then it is obvious that the parent is in the wrong. otherwise, the child gains a deeper understanding of why they are being treated in such a manner.

 

children should not be made slaves for their parents. children should not be servants. children should be their own individual selves, guided by their parents. as they grow older, they learn more and more on their own through experience. they should ask questions, and do from early on in childhood. why then can they not question their parents? the least a parent could do is listen and respond.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think that the biggest problem would be that parents are lazy in a way. They don't do things consistently so the have to resort to physical punishment so they can get any discipline at all.

Probably even bigger than finding positives and negatives is consistency.

[Coral Rhedd]

I think that the biggest problem would be that parents are lazy in a way. They don't do things consistently so the have to resort to physical punishment so they can get any discipline at all.

Probably even bigger than finding positives and negatives is consistency.

 

Bingo again! You are right. Some people are too lazy to be parents. It really helps to pay attention to what is going on with the kid. Sometimes it means teaching the same lesson over and over. Sometimes it means taking the time to listen. Mixed messages just confuse little kids and the bigger ones delight in them because then they can laugh to themselves that you are old hypocrite!

 

Maintaining respect while keeping them thinking that you are fair, decent, and honest is a real trick. When they grow up and move away, you can relax your vigilance a little, allow yourself to be human, and massage your feet of clay.

[Newtonian]

 

children should disobey when their parents are in the "wrong". parents can be "wrong' date='" and children can indeed pick up on their parents' mistakes. they should question their parents from time to time; it challenges their parents to substantiate their stances and if they cannot do so, then it is obvious that the parent is in the wrong. otherwise, the child gains a deeper understanding of why they are being treated in such a manner.

 

children should not be made slaves for their parents. children should not be servants. children should be their own individual selves, guided by their parents. as they grow older, they learn more and more on their own through experience. they should ask questions, and do from early on in childhood. why then can they not question their parents? the least a parent could do is listen and respond.[/quote']

See i agree with most of this post.Mainly because its everyday life in the Newtonian household.Every child asks questions and goes on and on (sometimes i find myself in competition with my two yr old daughter"can i have choc choc...no..yes..no.yes.no.yes"! she never gives me any ).

And of course clever 9yr olds come home from school and ask "dad how many days does it take for the earth to go round the sun".So yes they know we can be wrong.But this is wholly different to this statement

 

children should disobey when their parents are in the "wrong".

 

"put that gun down James or you are in big trouble"

"no you smacked my butt for breaking the window,when i told you it was tommy tucker..and you are wrong"

BANG!!!!!!

[budullewraagh]

shall we be a little reasonable here? first, james probably learned violence from his parents. second, james' father/mother wouldnt try to disarm him, but would probably reason with him.

 

but that is so outlandish. are you saying that disobedience always involves patricide? it only does in very extreme cases