Emotional harm to children

Jane prosecutions may improve outcomes for emotionally abused children if it helps them to gain strength, just as prosecutions for physical /sexual abuse can help the abused to realise it was NOT their fault.

But I agree it is a difficult area..I suppose it makes all forms of abuse equal and that may send out messages into society about reporting/ not tolerating etc etc.

I would imagine that mothers who damage their children emotionally, and even through physical neglect, could be in quite bad places themselves. I wonder if that would be taken into consideration.

And I hope it's not a case of men in high places hitting out against women, when they haven't a clue about what situations mothers can find themselves in without any help.

Penstemmon Is that always the case, though?
There was the case last year of a woman who gave evidence in a historic case of sexual abuse (at a music school I think) and the trauma of giving evidence in open court tipped her into suicide.

and perhaps those men are emotionally damaged too..off to board at prep school at seven then on to 'fag' for someone at a 'top' public school: don't cry you wimp! etc etc .. does not encourage empathy!

jane I agree that the aggressive adversarial approach is not helpful at all! but I do think for those where a perpetrator is jailed there is opportunity to heal.

I think it is always easier to argue against something - by quoting ridiculous examples, or citing impossible criteria, than it is to argue for the principle.
May I share a case which I heard of over 25 years ago as a serving secondary teacher. I may be hazy on some of the finer details, but the underlying story will live in my mind for the rest of my life.
It came out in a discussion during a training session on abuse/ disclosure/child protection with respect to teachers.
A little boy of about 7 or 8 came into school on a Monday and in the course of (certainly as we used to do ) writing about his weekend, he said how it had been a special Sunday as he was allowed to have lunch with the family. Alarm bells rang in the teacher's head and at a conveniently private moment she asked him to tell her more about this "special " weekend and why it was different. I would emphasise that the child showed NO signs of neglect or abuse of any sort. He was a quiet, well behaved little boy, clean and well-enough turned out, a bit of a loner, but not especially unusual in any way.
To cut a long story short, what emerged from discreet and tactful questioning was that this boy lived - slept, ate, spent all his time - in the attic. He would change out of his uniform as soon as he got home, put on old outgrown clothes and disappear upstairs. Tea was on a tray and he slept in an outgrown cot with the end cut off as his legs were too long for it.
Wait for it - he had a younger sister who loved a normal life "downstairs" with their parents who were educated, "respectable" employed people with no apparent social problems.
The outcome was that the child was taken into care, later fostered and I believe adopted . The parents were prosecuted of course, but TWO questions troubled those of us there
1) what emotional damage had this poor little boy suffered?
2) what emotional damage had been inflicted on the sister who presumably was brought up thinking it was normal for your brother to be treated worse than a family pet, unloved and neglected in the attic?
If this wasn't criminal, what is?
(I also have since wondered if J.K Rowling knew of this case and was influenced by it when she put Harry Potter in the cupboard under the stairs in the first book of the series?)

In cases of sexual abuse, I'd agree, but would any child really want to see their mother sent to jail for emotional abuse? The guilt would in most cases be unbearable.

(My post was in response to Penstemmon's)

Ana The child is probably already wracked with guilt about not being good enough.

I have known inadequate but loving parents whose approach to child rearing was certainly not mine but the kids felt loved(& were) and secure.

There was one set of parents I met who voluntarily gave their children up for adoption because of the mum's significant depression and her difficulty in bonding with her young children. Extremely sad but they loved the kids enough to want them to have a positive experience.

I am not meaning every day family squabbles and rows but the persistent daily abuse through power, fear, manipulation and blackmail.

I think it's probably already covered by existing laws, isn't it? I agree with everybody who's said it could be difficult to prove in isolation. I'm glad I don't have responsibility for spotting this kind of abuse or any other, any more. What a nightmare! The last child protection workshop I went on, the list of behaviours that could be taken to indicate abuse covered every possible range of behaviour. A bruise is a bruise.

But Soutra you said yourself that the parents were prosecuted.
How could extending the law have prevented this or changed the outcome?
Surely what is needed is better monitoring, support and early intervention?

Ana - children also often feel guilt and responsibility when their parents are prosecuted for sexually abusing them.

Rosequartz, moves to open up the Family courts have been underway for some time. Some Judgements have already been made public. The difficulty in having family courts open to the public and press, is the one families right to privacy. I accept the concern that parents and other family members express about their inability to discuss what's happened to them. Balanced against that is the right of the children concerned to stability and privacy. I don't want to sound defeatist, but there are no simple answers to complex problems.
I have some faith in the judicial processes, and do believe that this proposal is well meant.

Programme on Channel 4 at 9pm might be relevant - 15000 kids and counting.
Numbers of children taken into care have doubled in the last five years.

Thanks for mentioning this programme jane, I didn't know it was on. I found it terribly depressing. Need a cup of tea now and a bit of reflection.

Yes. Felt that the SWs had done a very difficult job well, and made the right decisions, but still heart-rending for the parents. They may have been inadequate, but they still loved their children.

What I find depressing is the fact that no preventive work is done any longer. Children are removed, then assessments carried out. What are you assessing in a parent without a child? Sometimes the risks are too high to leave a child with a parent, but often they are not. And contact workers sitting there making notes? Makes my blood boil. Social workers should supervise contact like we used to; it's part of your assessment. I'm a dinosaur, time for me to hang up my hat I think.

I agree with Iam64, I too have been a SW, and emotional abuse is present in all forms of abuse.

Practitioners are not stupid, and the children act defines both emotional and neglect as a 'persistent' .so it is not about catching parents having a bad day

I have had to deal with some very harrowing cases of emotional abuse- an 8 years old being responsible for getting their baby sibling up fed and dressed and the bag packed for the childminder, a 12 year told to go and nick his dinner from the co op as mum had spent her money on drink....children to afraid to speak in case they say the wrong thing...and much worse, I had to change profession in the end before I committed murder myself......

And let's not forget that this sort of abuse goes on every day in the homes of those not on SW's radar. Such children would have no idea of how to go about getting help, even if they believed the treatment they were receiving wasn't their fault.

I think on balance the right decisions were made in that programme, but the emotional toll on everyone was high. Harrowing to watch a baby's life taking such turns, but it did look like the parents couldn't or wouldn't make the necessary changes, and babies can't sit around waiting to see whether or not they'll be responsible parents a couple of years down the line. Those babies are in foster care getting attached to temporary parents and it's not fair to move them away from more carers when they are getting settled and secure. They need their permanent parents as soon as is reasonable and possible, whether that's birth or adoptive parents.

I think the cases were chosen carefully when, avoiding any where the decisions might be more difficult.

Yes, I think that, too, but it was the first programme and I'm hoping they will show how they deal with more complex and contentious issues during the series.

nightowl what did you mean about contact workers? That they aren't qualified SWs?

I hope so when but I believe they are moving on in the next programme to look at the next stages of the adoption process, so I assumed they would be moving away from the focus on birth families. I hope I'm wrong.

Yes jane, contact workers are not required to be qualified. Qualified or not, I hate to see workers sitting through contact sessions making notes. How many of us could function at all naturally with our children if someone was sitting observing and making notes? It's inhuman. The skill lies in participating without interfering, and assessing without having to write everything down.

The channel4 program was very interesting.

They certainly showed just what difficulties some of these parents, present to those trying to protect their children.

I felt it showed a very accurate picture of how some of these troubled parents behave, particular the guy who had to be removed from the case conference he had no insight whatsoever into how his own behaviour influenced the situation, it was all everyone else's fault.

I cannot help feeling a bit sorry for people like that as you can see them on a pattern of self destruction digging themselves into a complete mess.

I wouldn't trust the likes of him near any woman or child though.