Killing Our Own

A new BBC documentary has investigated why the US, one of the most prosperous nations on earth, has the worst child abuse record in the industrialised world. America's child maltreatment death rate is triple Canada's and 11 times that of Italy. Over the past decade, more than 20,000 American children have been killed their own family members – that is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What differentiates us from other countries? The single best predictor of child abuse is poverty. Children raised in families with annual incomes of less than $15,000 are 22 times more likely to be abused. Since the economic downturn, there has been a 30% increase in child maltreatment. The recession is, quite literally, a slap in the face of American children.
~ from America's Child Abuse Epidemic by Seema Jilani ~

While I certainly wouldn't argue that poverty is a factor in child abuse in this country, I do not believe it is as much of a factor as this article indicates. As a former child abuse investigator for state agencies in both Arkansas and Missouri, I can tell you firsthand that there is a lot of suspected child abuse in well-to-do families. The primary reason WHY the problem appears to be more prevalent amongst the poor is that poor people are far more likely to be reported to authorities.

Let's be frank. It is not uncommon in the least for professionals and the vast majority of the general public to believe that others -- of less than ideal financial means -- naturally exhibit all the undesirable human traits. In general, it is "common knowledge" that poor people are lazy and irresponsible. They have a propensity towards thievery and substance abuse. And, of course, they are neglectful parents who beat their children.

Consequently, if you already have this mental picture in your mind AND you discover a child from a poor family with injuries consistent with abuse, you are far more apt not to speak to family members and instead immediately file a report. In your mind, you believe you are performing a public service.

On the other hand, since Americans tend to believe that the well-to-do naturally exhibit the most desirable traits of humanity, you might not be so ready to call in that report immediately. Often, the first thing you would do is try to talk to the family to see if there wasn't some innocent explanation for injuries consistent with abuse. As long as the family provides a halfway plausible explanation, it is not uncommon for the system to grant them the benefit of the doubt.

During my tenure, I worked numerous cases in which a pillar of the community was alleged to have abused their own children and I was often astounded at the lengths the community would go to rally support behind them. It almost never mattered how much evidence we had. So many people would defend these perps to their last dying breath.

In one case, a deacon at the local Baptist church was charged with molesting his three step-daughters. We had affidavits from the three girls plus corroborating information from friends and relatives. We performed rape kits. We had this guy dead to rights and yet several prominent community leaders fought us tooth-and-nail to have this deadbeat exonerated!

In several other cases I was working on at the time, we had very flimsy evidence, at best. However, the alleged perps were from poor families and no community leader sprang to their defense. Because they were poor, most people in the community assumed they must be guilty.

This same bias played out in the local family court as well. If we charged a poor person with abuse, they usually represented themselves. I would present the case against them based on my investigation and the judge almost always went with my recommendations. However, if the defendant was well-to-do, he generally was represented by an attorney. I would present the case against him based on my investigation and the judge almost NEVER went with my recommendations.

I quickly came to understand that the state could present a case with numerous holes in it, but if the alleged perp was poor, he usually was found guilty. It was not that way at all when dealing with alleged perps who were middle class and above. We had to go into court with an ironclad case and yet they typically got off completely or faced a reduced judgment.