tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060003097513753942.post8244854038424031258..comments2024-02-24T16:30:33.798-08:00Comments on GPS: For Love and For Justice / Part 134 / Zabeth and Paul BayneRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07353695791008715393noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060003097513753942.post-80038469909655715682010-03-12T22:59:28.146-08:002010-03-12T22:59:28.146-08:00Where the term "abuse" is used by child ...Where the term "abuse" is used by child protection social workers, it would seem they have a vested interest in lowering the threshold or at least making it's definition as ambiguous as possible.<br /><br />In Canada, corporal punishment is allowed, because of a Supreme Court Decision that denied children's rights activists from making it a crime. For something like spanking to be considered abuse, the courts published a very clear view on the dividing line between what could be considered acceptable contact and what is not, and what could be labelled abuse and thus meeting grounds for charges under the section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code. <br /><br />The Canadian Children's Rights Council was upset the Supreme Court of Canada "didn't support children's rights", but when I read through the 75-page decision, what I read is clarification what constitutes abuse and what is acceptable. Child Protection social workers by and large abide by this ruling, and reference to this decision in child protection cases if often relevant.<br /><br />Had the children's rights group suceeded in criminalizing corporal punishment, thereby lowering the threshold for what constitutes "abuse", this would have meant a large and immediate increase in business for child protection infrastructure in Canada.<br /><br />An article by Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff called "Corporal Punishment, Physical Abuse, and the Burden of Proof: Reply to<br />Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002)" is interesting reading that does a good job of qualifying "abuse."<br /><br />A table in the article lists what would be "normative" for something like spanking, perhaps 2-3 spanks or hits, one episode per week on a child up to three years of age. In the "abuse" column, 20-30 hits, or four spanking or face hitting episodes per day, or applied to a three month old child, using excessive force such as all the strenth of the caregiver, and whether or not an object was used. The difference between the two, "Normal" and "Abuse" is large. Once defined, a judge or jury should easily be able to determine which category is appropriate.<br /><br />If a child protection investigator is NOT asking these types of investigative questions, then something is amiss.<br /><br />In the case of the Baynes, the Ministry identified a single event. Then, rather than also try to determine if the event was isolated or part of a larger pattern that would warrant the label of "abuse", Dr. Colbourne and other child protection support staff focused instead on a specific profile called 'shaken baby' and built a circumstantial case designed to bullet proof their diagnosis.<br /><br /><br /> with the frequency of the alleged offensive behaviour, amount of force applied, age of the child involved, location of the hitting, whether or not an object is involved, it is possible to build a fairly clear picture that any reasonable person could clearly see and label an act abusive or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com