What does 'home' mean for children whose parents have separated?

Associate Professor Kristin Natalier from Flinders University, Australia, currently visiting CRFR provides a summary of the research she presented at a recent Informal Seminar.

 

Home is a familiar yet complex idea. Its meaning extends beyond a physical dwelling to include a feeling of comfort, a sense of control over space, connections with family and other important people, and a site in which rituals and routines create feelings of belonging. A sense of home can be important in helping people build their identity, psychological wellbeing and trust in the constancy of people and things. It follows, then, that children will likely suffer when their needs for home are overlooked. Yet so far, very little is known about children’s experiences of home when their parents separate. 

 

Failing to focus on home is a lost opportunity to address an ongoing challenge in post-separation parenting laws and processes: how to prioritise children’s, not parents’, interests when determining care arrangements. Family law and international law emphasises a child centred approach but post-separation parenting arrangements are still largely determined with reference to parents’ needs, and linked to clock and calendar time. A focus on home shifts the emphasis towards children’s feelings and experiences. It can help us to ‘stand in children’s shoes’, to borrow a phrase from Carol Smart, and see post-separation parenting arrangements from the perspective of children. It draws attention to the matters children consider necessary to create a context that allows them to feel at home, and flourish. 

 

Our initial analysis of interviews with 22 children suggest that home matters. For example, Zac described what he liked about being at his father’s house: “Just being with my dad and just having fun with him, working on my car and just doing boy things”. His comment highlighted how children can feel at home when:

 

• there was an atmosphere of ease and comfort;
• their relationships with others signalled they belonged in that space;
• they spent time with parents and other meaningful people in ways that reflected shared interests and experiences; and
• they could do and have things that mattered to them.

 

When children felt at home, their experiences might seem unremarkable. However, they are a reminder of the importance of relationships and often mundane family practices in children’s post-separation lives. The times and dates children stay with a parent were not as important as what my colleague Bruce Smyth has called ‘being in the moment time’ – those unstructured and intimate experiences that build connection with others.

 

Some children described feeling not at home at a parent’s house. An equal shared care arrangement did not allow Benjamin to build two homes; rather, it removed him from his home (his mother’s house). He said of his father’s house, “I feel like I’m on an involuntary holiday, like I’ve been taken away from my home and I don’t want to be there”. Benjamin dreaded going to his father’s house, which he found oppressive and which brought him face to face with large and unwelcome changes in how his father lived his life. His mental health and relationship with his father eroded as a result.

 

Benjamin’s parents were responsive when he talked to them about his feelings, and changed the care arrangements so that Benjamin no longer had to stay at his father’s house. His family’s emphasis moved from nights spent at each parent’s home to Benjamin connecting with his father in different ways – away from the place where he did not feel at home. Importantly for Benjamin, they developed routines and a meaningful connection that were not rooted in a place, but in an activity: football. Benjamin’s father attended every practice session and game and in doing so, rebuilt a meaningful relationship.

 

The idea of home can sensitise parents to the importance of attending to children’s lived experience of time– how they feel on a Thursday night, not whose house are they sleeping at on a Thursday night. In emphasising children’s experiences, home might decouple relationships from parental residence, and instead highlight the alternative ways and places in which meaningful relationships can be built – a sense of home, away from home.

 

 

 

Professor Belinda Fehlberg (The University of Melbourne), Associate Professor Bruce Smyth (Australian National University), and I have received funding from the Australian Research Council to explore these ideas further. We have undertaken some initial analysis (here is a summary: https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/children-s-experiences-of-home-after-parental-separation#.Ww6GM2eWyUk) and are about to talk to a much larger group of children and their parents about what home means when parents separate. We are aiming to understand children’s experiences of home after separation as a means of promoting new ways of attending to children’s voices when their living arrangements are decided post-parental separation.

 

 

Associate Professor Kristin Natalier

College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (Sociology), Flinders University, Australia.

The affordances of digital technologies in children’s lives

This post is reposted with kind permission from its author Professor David McGillivray, Chair in Event and Digital Cultures, The University of the West of Scotland. The original post can be read on  David's blog.

[Last Thursday] I had the pleasure of attending a really interesting seminar titled, Children and Digital Technology, one of three events being hosted by the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (CRFR) Digital Families across the Lifecourse. How technology mediates relationships within families and impacts on experiences of childhood (and what that now means) was the focus of the day’s discussions. We had presentations from Dr Joanne Westwood on the state of play for digital technologies and their social implications; from Prof Christine Stephen of University of Stirling on Digital Childhood and early years and from Dr Natalia Kucirkova of the Open University on Digital Childhood: Myths and Realities. There was also a healthy turnout from local authorities, government and third sector organisations impacted by the digital ‘turn’, including respectme, Parenting across Scotland and the Wheatley Group amongst others.

Some thoughts I took away from the event about the impact of digital technology on the experiences of young people, at home and in educational settings:

1. We don’t know as much as we ‘think’ we know. In other words, there are lots of myths and moral panics out there, especially around the ‘risks’ associated with children and young people being online for ‘excessive’ amounts of time.
2. Codes of conduct, regulatory frameworks and rules exist within and across online communities but they’re not always explicit. However, these more implicit codes are understood and followed by confident users of these platforms (and misunderstood by digital visitors!)
3. Yet, there remain a lot of young people who are not as digitally literate as we might presume, meaning that there is an even greater need for issues pertaining to privacy, ownership, rights, the provenance of knowledge online etc that needs to become more effectively part of the educational arena.
4. Crucially, for point 3, there needs to be a focus on the ‘affordances’ of digital technologies with an emphasis on , pedagogy, practice and literacies as opposed to ‘technology’ as and in itself. To emphasise the functionality of particular technologies is to miss their associated cultural practices.
5. We need to know more about what people are doing when they inhabit digital spaces and not just how long they’re spending there. Quantifying use is important (see the recent children’s media use stats from Ofcom) but only tells us part of the story. As researchers (and practitioners) we need to know more about what people are doing in digital space, who is doing it (and who is absent) and how these practices might impact on our understandings of whether participating in digital cultures is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing.
6. Relatedly, we need to know more about whether participation and production in the ‘creation’ of digital artefacts is part of positive learning experiences, for children and young people and, if so, how are these more active digital making experiences being facilitated in the home, at school and beyond?

There were many other takeaways from the session and I’d recommend you try to get along to the follow up seminars in February and later in 2016. There’s so much to unpack in this digital space, as a parent, teacher or researcher. I’ll leave you with a provocation from Christine Stephen:

absence of a screen is now becoming a barrier to learning

-----

The Digital Families Across the Lifecourse project aims to bring together parenting organisations, practitioners and researchers to share what we have already learned about technology and family life, and to discuss the main issues facing families in Scotland today. The project is a collaboration between CRFR and Parenting Across Scotland and is funded by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute.

The project's second event will take place on 26 February 2016. Details will be available soon; please bookmark the project's page on the CRFR website or subscribe to receive notifications of events on our Facebook page.

All over now? Children's contact when there is domestic abuse

CRFR Research Fellow Fiona Morrison reflects on the findings of her recently published work examining children and mothers' perspectives of contact with fathers following parental separation in the context of domestic abuse.

People used to think domestic abuse was something that only affected adults. However a body of research[i] has shown that simply isn’t the case. Children overhear, witness, intervene and deal with the consequences of domestic abuse. A child may call the police following an assault. They may physically intervene to stop an attack. They may become homeless because of domestic abuse.  Through research, children have provided their own unique accounts of domestic abuse that have expanded our understanding of how domestic abuse affects children.

People often think that domestic abuse stops when couples separate. Unfortunately that’s not always the case either. Domestic abuse may continue following separation. Research[ii] has in fact found the presence of children to be a ‘risk factor’ for continued abuse following separation.

This raises difficult questions about post-separation contact between children and their fathers when there is domestic abuse. Post-separation relationships between children and parents are important. But what about the risks that contact may pose?

My PhD examined children and mothers’ perspectives of contact with fathers following parental separation in the context of domestic abuse. I interviewed children and their mothers about their experience of separation, making decisions about contact and children having or not having contact with their fathers. I have recently published some of the findings from my research. These confirm findings from other research – the ending of a relationship does not necessarily translate into the ending of abuse and contact often becomes a focus for the continued abuse of children and mothers.

My findings also elaborate on how parental relations continue to influence children’s contact with their fathers.  Far from being ‘all over now’, I found the relational consequences of domestic abuse to continue following separation through children’s contact. An absence of direct communication between parents created a vacuum that children often had to fill. This in turn rendered children exposed and vulnerable to continued abuse and parental conflict.  This was evident through fathers’ hostility towards mothers during contact, problems connected to parents’ re-partnering and conflict about legal proceedings and finances, all of which played out through children’s contact.

This raises further questions about how contact when there is domestic abuse should be considered. How can contact be safe? How can children be supported in this context? How do we ensure mothers are not undermined as a consequence of contact? How can fathers be supported in their relationships with their children while also accountable for their behaviour?

Contact is an important issue following separation and my research shows that in the context of domestic abuse we must be mindful of the risks that contact may pose as well as how parental relations affect the contact that children have.

You can read more about my research and other articles on Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding Children in a Special Issue of ChildAbuse Review.

If you have any concerns about domestic abuse or child contact you can get help from the following places:

ClanChildLaw provide free legal advice and representation to children across Scotland.

Childline provide confidential support to children.

ScottishWomen’s Aid provide information and support to women and children affected by domestic abuse across Scotland.

[i] Stanley N. 2011. Children Experiencing Domestic Violence: A Research Review. Research in Practice: Dartington.

[ii] Brownridge DA. 2006. Violence against women post-separation. Aggression and Violent Behavior 11(5): 514–530.

==============================================================

Do you want to develop your skills in research and consultation with children and young people? Take a look at our Continuing Professional Development courses, delivered by Dr Susan Elsley and Professor Kay Tisdall:

10-11th March 2016: Involving children and young people in research and consultation
28-29th April 2016: Using creative methods in research with children and young people

Mandatory reporting is no panacea

CRFR research associate, Sarah Nelson, follows up her comment in the Herald, with this longer piece on mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse.

Shocking child abuse scandals and cover-ups have encouraged campaigns throughout Britain for legislation which makes failure to report child abuse a criminal offence. Now a petition calling for “mandatory reporting” in Scotland has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament, by campaigner Scott Pattinson.

These campaigns – supported by many abuse survivors’ organisations - reflect understandable dismay that there’s no legal obligation to report child abuse concerns, allegations or witnessed events, to social services and/or police. Campaigners say that there must be, for staff in faith settings, schools, sports clubs, other institutions and childcare settings.

Who could possibly object to that? Yet many people with long experience of working against child abuse and sexual violence have serious worries about whether a crusade which is turning into a juggernaut, and which no-one, including politicians, likes to question, will actually be effective. They fear it will be seen as a panacea, encouraging complacency and ignoring more urgent changes needed before mandatory reporting could make any major difference – at least in sexual abuse, the main form of abuse in recent scandals, which I discuss here.

There may be a point on which almost everyone can agree. This is that the most senior layers of management in these settings should indeed be mandated to report: so that scandals where Church bishops, children’s home heads or school heads kept information about paedophiles to themselves over decades will end. Reporting to senior management should also be a professional responsibility written into contracts, so that staff cannot be penalised nor sacked for such reporting. But junior staff should not be threatened and intimidated with criminal sanction. Other reforms also need greater priority before mandatory reporting will be effective.

What are some of the problems, and what would actually do much more to increase the pitifully-low charging and conviction rates for child sexual abuse and exploitation?

· Unfortunately, reporting does not mean the report will be acted upon nor the children protected.

The UK campaign urges mandatory reporting “so that experienced and independent assessment is introduced immediately, to ensure perpetrators are stopped as soon as possible.” This is currently a pipe-dream.

Over many years, hundreds of reports were made by outraged staff to police and social services of girls raped and brutalised by child sexual exploitation (CSE) gangs, and children abused in care homes, yet they did nothing. This will continue until child protection agencies and criminal justice interpret these acts as abuse, instead of deciding they made lifestyle choices, or demeaning the young people as prostitutes, troublemakers, delinquents, or liars to be disbelieved.

Changes of attitude in these key agencies towards abuse victims, especially to stigmatised ones, need to be enforced through compulsory training which is backed with the sanction of disciplinary action.

Even if reports are acted upon, children and young people will continue being traumatised and discredited in court (and often returned to their abusers) so long as they’re used as the main source of evidence, and so long as there are no further curbs on defence conduct. Continued improvements in criminal justice and court processes are vital. Why not pilot in Scotland one of the “Children’s Houses”, which have been so successful in preparing cases sensitively for court in Scandinavia?

 · Most children still feel unable to tell adults if they are being sexually abused.

This is a huge problem everywhere, and in my own research alone, young people gave 14 different reasons why they did not tell. Imaginative means of anonymous reporting are needed, while the whole climate for “instant action” in mandatory reporting is likely to deter young people further from confiding in staff. They value time to develop trust, and more control over the speed of investigation. This is why three Scottish local authorities aim to pilot Scottish “Confidential Space” projects for sexually abused young people, a scheme originally initiated by Children 1st and other interested individuals and groups. These will gather evidence thoroughly at the young person’s pace, with emphasis on making them safe, so that reporting leads to some positive outcome.

In successful CSE investigations police have slowly and painstakingly built trust with very stigmatised, distrustful young people. How would such child- centred practice coexist with mandatory reporting, and how would such reporting improve young people’s sense of control and involvement?

· Most of the worrying behaviour seen or heard is not clearcut, but full of doubts and uncertainties.

This is one of the greatest problems. Mandatory reporting assumes that people will clearly recognise sexual abuse (and indeed other forms of child abuse). But most do not, as any role-playing exercise during child protection training reveals. What am I seeing/hearing? Did I imagine it? Am I exaggerating or mistaken? Are they just young people experimenting? What if I ruin his career?

More “worry ‘phonelines” or secure internet advice services, staffed by child protection specialists, and which allow adults with care of children to talk through a worrying scenario, would help greatly to overcome this problem.

· Most adults responsible for children think they’re not allowed to ask them if they’re being sexually abused.

“Backlash” arguments about the alleged coaching of children, after failed sex abuse cases like Orkney, have made school and youth staff fear to ask even open-ended (and absolutely permitted) questions of children, even when they strongly suspect sexual abuse. Yet they would not hesitate to ask children about bruises. Disclosures and reports remain tiny in most schools. Simply making quite clear to teachers that it is perfectly permissible to ask would make a big difference to the amount of child abuse reporting.

· Most adults find sexual abuse a difficult and upsetting subject which they prefer to avoid. Threats of prison increase fear and panic: support builds confidence and courage to address sexual abuse.

Regular confidence- building and reflective discussion for staff groups in organisations will do this - not the big stick.

· Reductions in substantiated cases of sexual abuse in some other countries do not necessarily mean that mandatory reporting is working.

With such a secretive, heavily under-reported crime, it is increases in reports, charges and convictions which would suggest that it is working. Research on the merits of MR in various countries remains inconclusive.

We need to campaign for the changes suggested above; so that if mandatory reporting is fully implemented in future, it only takes place in a climate of informed awareness and confidence, lack of prejudice against children, and a legal and criminal justice system which gives them better hope of protection.

Keeping Mothers in Mind: Trauma informed approaches to supporting mothers who have experienced violence and their young children

Angelique Jenney, Director of Family Violence Services at the Child Development Institute in Toronto, Canada is visiting CRFR in August as part of our ongoing collaborative work on gender-based violence. Angelique has kindly agreed to give an informal seminar while she is here. In this blog Angelique introduces us to her work on the impact of domestic violence on mothers and young children and provides an insight to what she will be covering in her seminar.

Identifying and responding to the mental health needs of young children who are exposed to domestic violence/maternal trauma is one of the most pressing issues confronting child welfare, child mental health, and social service sectors today. It is a common misconception that infants and young children are not affected by these experiences and their environment because they lack the ability to communicate distress or understanding with language. Yet, young children are disproportionately exposed to violence against their mothers simply because of their dependence and proximity to their mothers in these early years.

The evidence tells us that children living with domestic violence are at increased risk of experiencing emotional, physical and sexual abuse, of developing emotional and behavioural problems, and of increased exposure to other adversities. In particular concerns about emotional regulation, exposure to developmentally damaging toxic stress and the experience of witnessing harm to their caregiver are particularly high for such young children. A more detailed examination of these risks can be read here in The impact of domestic violence on infants and young people (IMHP 2012).

The evidence also tells us that, the most protective factor is the availability of a safe and responsive caregiver. Women’s experiences of domestic violence, often combined with a personal trauma history such as childhood physical or sexual abuse, impact all facets of women’s lives including their ability to parent. Being able to respond to mothers who are parenting children in the midst of violence is a particularly important area, given how violence affects children’s emotional health and well-being, the mother-child relationship, and future attachment relationships for children. But how are professionals to assess this impact and to find ways to work empathically and cooperatively with both mother and child to intervene in the best way possible?

Based on these concerns, Child Development Institute (www.childdevelop.ca), a multi-service organization in Toronto providing early intervention services for children under the age of 12 and their families, has developed The Mothers in Mind (MIM) program: a 12-week intervention program designed to meet the service needs of women with a domestic violence/trauma history who are parenting children under the age of 4. Group work has been shown to decrease isolation and reduce secrecy and shame that often accompanies experiences of abuse; however, in order to make positive shifts in the mother-child relationship impacted by trauma, specific support and attention must be given to the relationship.

Mothers in Mind™ is an innovative, relationship-based therapeutic mother-child program designed specifically to meet the parenting needs of mothers who have experienced violence and trauma and have very young children. The focus of the program is to intervene early in the lives of young children and their mothers in order to strengthen parent-child relationships, enhance parenting skills and reduce parenting stress. More information and tips for parents and practitioners can be found on the Mothers in Mind™ website.

This seminar will illustrate the importance of understanding the effects of domestic violence exposure on young children (under 4 years), consider risk factors and outline signs and symptoms for assessment of impact and implications for interventions in practice. The unique parenting issues facing mothers who have experienced violence and trauma will also be addressed, highlighting the need for specific trauma-informed parenting support.

Angelique Jenney, PhD
Director of Family Violence Services, Child Development Institute
Assistant Professor (Status Only), Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto

Book now:
Angelique's seminar, Keeping Mothers in Mind will be held on Thursday 28 August 2014, 12.30pm-1.30pm at CRFR in Edinburgh. The seminar is free but places are limited so please email Brenda.saetta@ed.ac.uk or call 0131 651 1832 to book your place.

Internet sex offenders: a danger in the "real world"?

A recent TV debate - on whether offenders who view images of child sex abuse online are also likely to commit contact assaults against children – saw some heated exchanges, at a time when child sexual abuse cases (CSA) are in the news almost daily. In this blog, Dr Sarah Nelson, CRFR Research Associate at The University of Edinburgh provides comment.

 Professor Richard Wortley, a criminologist and psychologist from University College London, said research suggested that only a small minority went on to abuse children physically. But Jim Gamble, former chief executive of the Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre (CEOP), angrily pressed his conviction that a majority were dangerous to children in the “offline” world. He called for "consistent and persistent investigations".

The debate followed the arrest of 660 suspected paedophiles in the UK after a six-month police operation targeted people accessing child abuse images online. The National Crime Agency (NCA) said they included teachers, medical staff, former police, a social worker and scout leader. Only 39 of the 650 were registered sex offenders: the rest, worryingly, had remained under the radar.

Many offenders had accessed the so-called “dark net”. Its content doesn’t appear on normal search engines. They often use virtual currencies to avoid detection, showing effort and commitment: they do not stumble on such images by mistake.

As McGuire & Dowling (2013) confirm in their research review, current evidence exploring the links between possession of online abuse images and offline sex offending against children is mixed and conflicting. Some studies suggest that viewing indecent images of children is often a prelude to contact offences, and an important risk factor. CEOP’s thematic assessment, (A Picture of Abuse, 2012) for instance found possession of online abuse images and online grooming were risk factors for contact CSA. Other research, as the review demonstrates, refutes such a link, or finds small numbers of dual offenders. However, the second category appears to receive far more belief and publicity among practitioners.

As a longstanding researcher into child sexual abuse and its effects throughout life, I have concerns in case two temptations may be reducing perceived risk that viewers of child abuse images are also contact abusers. First, many internet offenders have been discovered to be respectable, middle class professional men with no previous criminal records, such as deputy heads of schools, IT consultants, health service managers, clergy and so on. For many practitioners and researchers they have been disconcertingly “people like us”, without the typical risk factors for sex offenders which have featured on risk assessments. That creates a temptation to feel, whatever the genuine wish to be impartial: “surely they’re less likely to be dangerous”. An alternative possibility, however, is that they may have been more skilled and resourceful at concealing their behaviour.

Secondly, the number of men (these particular offenders are overwhelmingly men) found to be in possession of indecent images of children has spiralled enormously in recent years, and grows year upon year. The criminal justice system- even the police resources required to examine their computers – has been overwhelmed. However, making numbers manageable by minimising the dangerousness of many is not necessarily a safe way to deal with a genuine social problem.

One group of people, not solely males, may indeed be viewing abuse images of children without abusing in the “real world”. These are those sexually abused young people and adults who have retained their empathy to others, but who through confused post-traumatic reaction are drawn to replay repeatedly acts perpetrated against themselves, without gaining resolution of that trauma. Often they will feel extremely guilty, their self-esteem further shattered: just as some of the abused men in my own research (Nelson 2009) felt huge self-disgust at re-enacting their abuse through anonymous sex with men in public places. It’s important that skilled help is available to them and that they feel able to ask for it, for they help sustain the international trade in child abuse images, and their trauma remains unresolved. But their own pain is not a reason to downplay wider risks to children from internet offenders as a whole.

The claim that most who gain sexual gratification and excitement from repeatedly viewing violent and perverse sexual assaults, or even torture, on young children are not likely to want to abuse children offline is at root a hope, not a scientific finding. It is fostered by the claims of the offenders themselves. Evidence from studies which suggest this low risk is inadequate, for two reasons. First of all, it relies heavily on official follow-up of known recorded sexual offences. But most sexual offences are carried out in secret, and will not be known, or if experienced will not be reported.

Secondly, evidence that internet offenders have resisted committing contact abuse with children could only be convincing if their previous, present or future victim targets were a) identified by the authorities; and then b) able to speak up and tell the truth about whether they had been offended against or not. But most abused children and young people are not identified, find it extremely difficult and shameful to tell, and are often disbelieved when they do.

Accumulated knowledge of sex offenders suggests that they often offend compulsively, and indeed individual collections of vast quantities of abuse images suggest compulsive behaviour. Thus we must ask how realistic it is that they would so drastically change their behaviour after being caught that, for instance in the Seto & Eke study (2005) “in an average of 2.5 years only 3.9% of child pornography offenders reoffended for that offense, and those (internet) offenders with no prior criminal record ...had a contact sexual offense only 1.3% of the time...(and) only one of the offenders with only child pornography offenses committed a later contact sexual offense in the follow-up period.”

The widely-heard theory of gradual, even accidental interest in abuse images is also questionable. It is surely insulting to men as a whole to suggest that while watching adult pornography, or after accidentally clicking on child abuse websites, they suddenly discover a deepseated urge - unrealised all their lives - repeatedly to watch shocking images of children, babies and toddlers being sexually assaulted, and to collect great numbers of these images. Without, subsequently, any wish to try this on actual children. The alternative hypothesis is that those who access abuse images of children on the internet are typically already sexually attracted to children, already seeking sexual gratification from watching sexual abuse, and have actively sought out these images. That must, therefore, represent a genuine risk to children.

Survivors of sexual abuse have for decades tried to tell both support groups and researchers of being abused by, for instance, teachers and doctors, clergy, sports coaches, foster parents, residential care managers or TV celebrities. Their testimony is also evidence. It needs to be asked if the disturbing new statistics may simply reflect more closely the numbers of abusers who have always existed, but who previously had far less opportunity or technology to view abuse images. Spiralling numbers of offenders may simply be reducing the very large disparity between numbers identified in the criminal justice system until recently, and the high prevalence of child sexual abuse revealed retrospectively by adult survivors.

If so, policymakers need to address the scale of protection and preventive education, especially of young people, which they need to prioritise. Meanwhile, campaigners like Jim Gamble have called- as CEOP did in their 2012 study A Picture of Abuse-- for proactive investigation of “possession offending”; and for more specialist, well-staffed and equipped, police investigative units, who can manage their caseloads in a timely comprehensive way. At the forefront of all the investigations, they urge, “should be the notion that any case may result in the identification of a victim of contact sexual abuse”.

Contact: Sarah.Nelson@ed.ac.uk

REFERENCES

CEOP 2012. A Picture of Abuse: A thematic assessment of the risk of contact child sexual abuse posed by those who possess indecent images of children. Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

McGuire M. Dowling S. 2013. Cyber crime: A review of the evidence. Research Report 75, Chapter 3: ‘Cyber-enabled crimes - sexual offending against children’. London: Home Office.

Nelson, S. 2009. Care and Support Needs of Male Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse. CRFR, University of Edinburgh.

Seto, M., and Eke, A.(2005) ‘The future offending of child pornography offenders ’Journal of Sexual Abuse , 17, pp 2 01-210

Savile: A Panic For Our Times?

CRFR publishes this guest post from Mark Smith, Viv Cree and Gary Clapton on the first seminar in the 'Moral Panics' series:

Last summer when three colleagues in Social Work, each with interests in different child abuse ‘scares’ got together the collaboration resulted in three journal articles.  Each of the ‘scares’ we wrote about shared a common feature. The subject matters had become the subject of moral evaluation. Once a subject is so moralized, responses to it can lose any sense of proportion. Given the right (or wrong) set of individuals and circumstances a panic can ensue.

The notion of moral panic seemed to offer a useful analytic lens through which to consider our interests. The term is not a new one; it came to prominence in 1972 with the publication of Stan Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In the book, Cohen analysed reactions to outbreaks of fighting among mods and rockers on Brighton Beach during the 1960s. A number of prominent academics subsequently applied the concept of moral panic to other social scares and anxieties.

There were indications of interest in our work from other academics at Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK, so we made a bid to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to hold a seminar series entitled ‘Revisiting moral panics: a critical examination of 21^st century social issues and anxieties’. The bid was led by Professor Viviene Cree at the University of Edinburgh and involved six Higher Education Institutes, nine academic disciplines and sixteen academic staff drawn from the four countries of the UK.  We received support from the ESRC for three seminars: ‘Moral panics and the family’, ‘Moral panics with children and youth’ and ‘Moral panics and the state’.

The first seminar was held in Edinburgh on Friday 23 November and attended by 70 people. Stan Cohen was too ill to attend the seminar but sent his best wishes. In his absence we attracted the next wave of moral panic scholars, Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda who together wrote the book, Moral Panics: The social construction of deviance and Chas Critcher, who was one of a group of sociologists to use the concept in relation to law and order and subsequently the media. The field of international experts was completed by Angela McRobbie, Professor of Communications at Goldsmiths University.

Little did we know when we applied to hold the seminar series that the first of them would coincide with the UK being engulfed in a moral panic over the Jimmy Savile affair.  The Savile affair highlights a number of features of moral panics. It would seem to have some obvious basis in behavior that should not have been considered acceptable at any point in time. So, it’s not that there is nothing behind this or any other panic; there invariably is. It is just that the initial and legitimate kernel of concern gets blown out of proportion. In the Savile case, are there really suspects and fellow perpetrators in every town and hamlet? How much of what is written is exaggerated?  In such a febrile climate people can make claims for all sorts of reasons. They are not all true.  We are thus faced with questions as to whose claim is justified?  Who must be heard?  Who are we not listening to? The resultant heat of the moral panic distorts debate, making it hard to offer alternative points of view. The resolve of the police to get to the bottom of all that went on is unlikely to shed any real light on what did and, moreover, will create its own injustices as innocent people become caught up in their investigations.

In times of panic, denial is just as likely a consequence as over-statement and disbelief. The dust of moral panic often has to settle before facts can begin to get in the way. However, another of the effects of a moral panic is that it leads us to take some things too seriously and others not seriously enough.  Does the preoccupation with Savile’s wrong-doings prevent us engaging with the prospect of increasing child and family impoverishment as a result of so-called reforms to welfare?   Discuss.

If you want to engage in the debate join us at our subsequent seminars in Bath in May 2013 and Cardiff in November 2013.

Mark Smith, Viv Cree and Gary Clapton

Darkness into Light –Disclosing Child Sexual Abuse

Recent visiting scholar to CRFR, Dr. Ramona Alaggia, Associate Professor from University of Toronto and Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children’s Mental Health contributes this second guest blog on the issue of disclosure in child sexual abuse cases.

"The recent exposure of several high profile cases involving historic sexual abuse continues to bring to light the prevalence of sexual violence against children, a longstanding phenomenon which has been minimized, obscured and even covered up . This is evidenced by recent revelations in the UK of Jimmy Saville’s sexual offending against children (BBC, October 2012); the criminal conviction of football coach Jerry Sandusky in the US, and sanctions levied at Penn State University for head coach Joseph Paterno’s role in concealing these sexual crimes ; and in Canada the conviction of Graham James, a minor hockey league coach, in sexually abusing young players for decades. These and other emerging cases represent long term institutional abuse but a concerning number of children are also abused within families, and in their communities by trusted people in family-like roles (Finkelhor, Hammer & Sedlak, 2008). The sad fact is that most victims of child sexual abuse – scientific studies consistently cite up to 80% - do not disclose until they are adults if ever (McElvaney, Greene & Hogan, 2012; Schaeffer, Leventhal & Asnes, 2011).

Sound research tells us that there are many reasons for children not being able to disclose. Fear of their family falling apart. Fear of being blamed and not believed. Fear of the perpetrator. Not knowing how to tell or who to tell (McElvaney, Greene & Hogan, 2012). Certain family dynamics inhibit disclosure. A rigid patriarchal family structure; the presence of domestic violence; and dysfunctional communication have all been noted as creating difficult conditions under which to tell (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005). Environmental factors also contribute to lack of disclosure. The linking of aggression and violence in media, and advertising that sexualizes children cause confusion for children about healthy sexual behaviour. Not seeing children as persons in their own right with human rights. Minimizing that boys can also be victims of sexual violence (Alaggia & Millington, 2008). On the other hand facilitators of disclosure include open, clear communication in families, children being asked about sexual abuse, prevention and early sexual education programs to increase children’s abilities to know how to tell and who to tell (McElvaney, Greene & Hogan, 2012; Scheffer, Leventhal & Asnes, 2011). Though it’s difficult to determine who children tell it is becoming clearer that they more often disclose to peers, an adult they feel close to, and more increasingly school personnel.

Yet current prevention programs focus almost solely on the child. Adults and professionals who are in close contact with children need to equally be the target of awareness and response programs. Adults should be the target of universal sexual abuse prevention and detection programs with training on how they could respond appropriately and sensitively to disclosures –keeping in mind disclosure of sexual abuse is complex, non-linear, tenuous, sometimes non-verbal and often indirect depending on the child’s developmental stage and proximity to the perpetrator (Alaggia, 2004; Alaggia, 2010). Finally contextual considerations should be addressed to promote positive, healthy sexual messages and images."

References:
Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., & Sedlak, A. (2008). Sexually assaulted children: National estimates and characteristics. Office of Justice Programs, U.S Department of Justice; Washington, USA.

McElvaney R., Greene S., & Hogan D. (2012): Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, (6):1155-75.

Schaeffer, P., Leventhal, J., & Asnes, A.J. (2011).Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse: Learning from direct inquiry. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35:343–352.

McElvaney R., Greene S., & Hogan D. (2012): Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, (6):1155-75.

Alaggia, R. & Kirshenbaum, S. (2005). Speaking the unspeakable: Exploring the impact of family dynamics on child sexual abuse disclosures. Families in Society, 86(2), 227-234.

Alaggia, R. & Millington, G. (2008). Male Child Sexual Abuse: A Phenomenology of Betrayal. Clinical Journal of Social Work, 36(3), 265-275.

McElvaney R., Greene S., & Hogan D. (2012): Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, (6):1155-75.

Schaeffer, P., Leventhal, J., & Asnes, A.J. (2011).Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse: Learning from direct inquiry. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35:343–352.

Alaggia, R. (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualization of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect: An International Journal, 28(11), 1213-1227.

Alaggia, R. (2010). An Ecological Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse Disclosure: Considerations for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, (19)1, 32-39.

Listening – or really hearing victims of abuse?

Sarah Nelson, CRFR Research Associate, writes on the implications of the Jimmy Savile abuse revelations:

Amid shock and dismay at the unfolding revelations of the Savile sexual abuse scandal, many people ask how we can better protect children in future. Perhaps the most frequent demand from professionals, politicians, media and the public has been that we “listen more to the victims”.

That is understandable, and indeed true, especially in relation to stigmatised young people who are often still disbelieved when they report: as the Rochdale sexual exploitation case among others has graphically revealed. But it skirts the awkward problem that the majority of Savile’s victims did not report him, and most children do not report sexual abuse. Too often, we would be listening for a merely silent victim.

In my own research with sexually abused young people and adults, both at CRFR and during 2011-12 with Open Secret in Falkirk, survivors described how intense shame, self-blame, hopelessness, distrust or fear of reprisal kept most of them silent until well into adulthood. One small group of young people came up with fourteen different reasons why they did not tell.

In particular, very few children tell the agencies they are urged to tell, such as teachers, police or social workers. They are more likely to turn to a school friend or their mother. The child protection system urgently needs to take these uncomfortable facts on board and to reflect the way real children think, act and behave, in order to ensure that current distressing revelations leave a more positive legacy for our children. Otherwise, it will continue to unearth very few cases of child sexual abuse.

In my own research studies, these are some suggestions for change which survivors themselves, both male and female, have made:

• Children very often try to tell in oblique, childlike or roundabout ways. Always ask sensitively if for instance they keep being tearful or very withdrawn, or persistently act out distress through bad behaviour.
• An independent counsellor in a school or youth setting, posters placed anonymously on school lockers or inside toilets, and other discreet or anonymous publicity is very helpful in reducing the shame and stigma teenagers feel, at the prospect of becoming known to their peers as a victim.
• In my own research, male survivors in particular were often excluded from school for acting-out in bad behaviour. This placed them in much greater danger on the streets, and safe alternatives to school exclusions need to continue to be sought.
• Peers and mothers need greater support when they are the recipients of information about current abuse.
• There is now “third-party reporting” available for hate crime such as homophobic crime, and race crime. People can report to certain voluntary agencies if they fear or distrust to report directly to police or social work and that could be extended to the reporting of childhood sexual abuse.
• Both adults and young people who have been abused felt strongly that social stigma has assertively to be combated with publicity campaigns, since many families and communities still prefer victims to avoid shaming them by speaking out. Likewise they wish schools to tackle the perceived stigma of being a victim: just as many schools now encourage pupils not to stigmatise, for example, young people who self-harm, or young gay people. That might reduce many boys’ fear of being branded a “poof” if they reveal abuse.

Between 2006-2011 Sarah was joint lead professional adviser to the Scottish Government's National Strategy, SurvivorScotland.

For further discussion of the experiences of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, please read:

Nelson, S. (2009) Care and support needs of male survivors of childhood sexual abuse, CRFR Research Briefing, no.44, Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships.

Nelson, S. (ed) (2008) See us hear us: schools workign with sexually abused young people, Dundee: Dundee Young Women's Centre.

Nelson, S. (2002) Child sexual abuse: fracturing family life, CRFR Research briefing, no.5, Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships.

Learning from children affected by parental alcohol problems

An estimated 65,000 children in Scotland are living with parental or carer alcohol misuse. New doctoral research from Louise Hill has explored the experiences and support needs of this hidden group of children.

The research found that while children and young people had extensive knowledge about alcohol and the impact it can have on family life and health, talking about their experiences was incredibly difficult. There was particular concern about sharing any knowledge outside of the family and careful decisions made when seeking help or support - be it formal or informal.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the children and young people experienced a roller-coaster of emotions: anxious, frightened, upset, angry, sad, with many speaking of being worried about the safety of their parents. But, many children spoke about their love for their family and loyalty to their parents, and all chldren shared their parents' optimism that they would be able to stop drinking in the future.

There are important policy and research implications to be drawn from this reserach, particularly providing confidential safe spaces for children and young people to share their worries and concerns, and in ensuring that all children affected have a right to access upport services regardless of their parents' engagement in treatment services.

A summary of Louise's PhD findings were published in a recent CRFR briefing: Listening to and learning from children and young people affected by parental alcohol problems.

Louise has also made a short video podcast talking about her research. View it on the IRISS website by clicking here.

UK children need more volunteer male befrienders

Many boys say they would prefer a male befriender, yet less than a quarter of UK volunteer child befrienders are men, according to the findings of new research by Dr Sue Milne from CRFR.

The 'Me and My Befriender' study, funded by ESRC, gathered details of the experiences of 26 children, aged 6-15 years, attending nine different projects in Scotland and England. They interviewed children at various stages, both before and after meeting thier befriender, to understand how children viewed the befriending relationship.

Many of the children referred to befriending services face difficulties at home or in school. Some have learning or behavioural problems; others have been affected by the death or imprisonment of a parent, or by parental substance/ alcohol abuse.

“Befrienders offer relationships to children without being goal orientated. They make a very valuable contribution to the lives of children living in difficult circumstances,” says Dr Milne. “They provide friendship and support as well as the chance for the children to try new activities and enjoy themselves out of the house.”

To discover whether the gender of their ‘befriender’ matters to children themselves, researchers talked in depth with boys and girls aged 6-15 about their hopes for, and experience of, befriending.

Boys with a strong sense of a conventional male identity expressed a clear preference for a male befriender - someone with whom they could spend some ‘guy time’ and share interests and activities. Speaking of their concerns with a female befriender, some boys said:The shortage means many boys in need of a strong male presence in their lives are missing out on the adult male companionship they would like.

• “If I said I wanted to do a bit of woodwork or something, they’d say oh why would you want to do that, go and do something else or they just wouldn’t join in as much as a man would.”
• “I think with having my befriender we can do more of the go-karting, crashing into things, running around stuff… we can go cycling, and… he can help me and if he crashes I can help him.”
• “It would make a difference, like, if a man takes you out somewhere, it would be… like going to play basketball or going to a football tournament.”
• “No offence to any of the girls that I hang around with but I just … prefer to be with guys.”

Researchers suggest that girls, particularly those from lone mother families, could also benefit from a male befriender. At present, however, the shortage of volunteer male befrienders coupled with concerns voiced by some regarding the appropriateness of such a relationship means girls are rarely matched with men.

This lack of opportunity for girls to have a male befriender is unfortunate, says Dr Milne. “There’s no reason why male befrienders shouldn’t be matched with girls,” argues Dr Milne. “Certainly the only girl in our study who was matched with a male befriender said she had gained a great deal, particularly in confidence, from the experience.”

All children, Dr Milne suggests, would benefit from having greater contact with non-familial adults of different genders and generations. Given the predominantly female care provided to young children both at home and at primary school, children of both sexes could benefit from more contact with men. “How many opportunities are there today, particularly for young children from lone mother families, to experience men in their lives?” she asks.

“Clearly children should have this opportunity,” Dr Milne continues, “and a male befriender can certainly fulfil this very important role. More than 75 per cent of children referred to befriending services come from lone mother households. If more male befrienders came forward it would provide welcome options not just for boys but also for girls.”

Download the CRFR reserach briefing no.60, 'Me and my befriender: exploring adult/child befriending relationships'.

Visit the project website at: http://www.crfr.ac.uk/befriending/index.html 

You can contact Sue by email at: smilne4@staffmail.ed.ac.uk.