 |
 |
|
|||||||||
RSS
 |
Home > Acts of Omission: An Overview of Child Neglect > Acts of Omission: An Overview of Child Neglect: Selected Issues
Acts of Omission : An Overview of Child Neglect
Bulletin for Professionals
We value your opinion!Please comment on this publication by taking our brief survey. Your answers are anonymous and will help us better meet your future information needs. Give Us Feedback on This Publication
Selected IssuesPoverty and Child Neglect Dubowitz (1999) cites numerous studies that identify many of the stressors associated with poverty. These include unemployment (citing American Humane Association, 1988), single parenthood (citing Nelson, et al., 1994), housing instability or frequent moves (citing Gaudin, Polansky, Kilpatrick & Shiltron, 1993), depleted or high risk communities (citing Zuravin, 1989), household crowding (citing Zuravin, 1986), limited access to health care, and exposure to environmental hazards such as lead paint or dangerous neighborhoods. Pelton (1994) states that "[f]or people living in poverty, the probability of child abuse and neglect is largely dependent on the extent of one's ability to cope with poverty and its stressors" (p. 153). Pelton offers an additional perspective on the link between poverty and neglect. He states that impoverished families often live, though not by choice, in neighborhoods with high crime rates and in homes that present environmental hazards such as exposed wiring, lead paint, or insecure windows. "[I]n the presence of these conditions, impoverished parents have little leeway for lapses in responsibility, whereas in middle-class families, there is some leeway for irresponsibility, a luxury that poverty does not afford" (p. 155). Approximately one-third of the States provide room in their definitions of neglect for consideration of a family's financial means (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). These caveats usually address the family's access and response to available services that may help to alleviate the neglectful conditions. For example, if a family living in poverty was not providing adequate food for their children, it may only be considered neglect if the parents were made aware of food assistance programs but did not use them. Substance Abuse and Child Neglect A number of researchers have explored the relationship between parental substance abuse and child neglect. They have found that substance abusing parents may divert money that is needed for basic necessities to buy drugs and alcohol (Munkel, 1996). Parental substance abuse may interfere with the ability to maintain employment, further limiting the family's resources (Magura & Laudet, 1996). The substance abusing behaviors may expose the children to criminal behaviors and dangerous people (Munkel, 1996). Substance abusing parents may be emotionally or physically unavailable and not able to properly supervise their children, risking accidental injuries (Wallace, 1996). Children living with substance abusing parents are more likely to become intoxicated themselves, either deliberately, by passive inhalation, or by accidental ingestion (Munkel, 1996; Wallace, 1996). Heavy parental drug use can interfere with a parent's ability to provide the consistent nurturing and caregiving that promotes children's development and self-esteem (Zuckerman, 1994). According to Magura and Laudet, "Substance abuse has deleterious effects on virtually every aspect of one's life and gravely interferes with the ability to parent adequately" (p. 198). Drug-affected Newborns. The issue of drug-affected newborns has long been a concern in the United States. The most recent statistics indicate that in 1999, 5.5 percent of pregnant women used some illicit drug during pregnancy, translating into approximately 221,000 babies that had the potential to be born drug exposed (National Institute of Drug Abuse, 1999). Although some studies have found few enduring effects from prenatal drug exposure, others have found that it may result in physical and neurological deficits, growth retardation, cardiovascular abnormalities, and long-term developmental abnormalities (Sagatun-Edwards & Saylor, 2000), including learning and behavior problems (Zuckerman, 1994) and language delays (Harrington, Dubowitz, Black & Binder, 1995). While no State mandates drug testing of all new mothers, many hospitals test babies when maternal drug use is suspected (Sagatun-Edwards & Saylor, 2000). What to do about the problem is complicated by legal and ethical considerations including concerns about a woman's rights regarding her own body and concerns about laws applying to children and not fetuses (Dubowitz & Black, 1996). However, Wallace (1996) cites the Michigan Court of Appeals as stating that "… a newborn suffering narcotics withdrawal symptoms as a consequence of prenatal maternal drug addiction may properly be considered a neglected child within the jurisdiction of the … court" (p. 92). Sagatun-Edwards and Saylor found that States often are responding to the problem either by authorizing juvenile court intervention to protect the child or by criminalizing the behavior and demanding punishment and drug treatment for the mother. In fact, at least five States now include drug-affected newborns in their State statutes under the definition of neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) and the NIS-3 includes drug-affected newborns in its research definition of neglect (Sedlack & Broadhurst, 1996). Another implication for the child welfare field is that drug-exposed newborns are often left in the hospital by their parents; these babies often are referred to as "boarder babies." The most recent statistics come from a study conducted by the Child Welfare League of America in 1992. This study found that as many as 85 percent of boarder babies had been exposed to drugs in utero (Magura & Laudet, 1996). Boarder babies often are referred to CPS agencies as abandoned children and placed into foster care. Domestic Violence and Child Neglect The term "failure to protect" often is used in these cases, although it is not found in the child maltreatment statutes directly, but rather in legal and child welfare literature (Magen, 1999). The term often is used in reference to an abused mother's inability to protect her child from exposure to violence in the home. Many researchers and practitioners, however, believe the responsibility should be on the abuser, not on the victim of domestic abuse (Magen, 1999; Shepard & Raschick, 1999). In fact, Magen states that leaving the abusive situation is not always the safest option for an abused mother and her children, because the abuser may lash out at this time. Shepard & Raschick conclude that "[t]oo often there are no easy answers for how to best ensure the safety of children when their mothers are victims of domestic violence" (p. 154).
We value your opinion!Please comment on this publication by taking our brief survey. Your answers are anonymous and will help us better meet your future information needs. Give Us Feedback on This Publication This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Email
Print (PDF 350 KB)
Share
