Child Abuse In Canada

Since the late 19th Century, Canada has taken an active role in the protection of children from abuse and exploitation. This protection has evolved in many different forms: from Ontario’s Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of Children Act of 1893, to the modern day British Columbian Child, Family and Community Service Act of 1996. These laws all share the same genesis of concern, but address the issues very differently. The biggest divergence can be viewed through the implementation of policy. Modern child protection services implement a wide range of professionals to monitor, assess and intervene in order to ensure a child is protected from abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm (Child, 1996, p.2).

The question of which factors are

responsible for child abuse is one that has no definitive answer. Many scholars and researchers have looked to particular circumstances such as an individual’s socioeconomic status (Trickett, Aber, Carlson & Cicchetti, 1991), cultural connections (Spearly & Lauderdale, 1983), concerns of a community’s structure (Garbarino & Kostelny, 1992), or power imbalance (Kitzinger, 1997). While all of these positions are significantly varied, a common thread weaves through the findings: not one singular event, social condition or environmental factor can solely be used as definitive precursor or mitigating factor for child abuse.

One of the most prevailing areas of research surrounding child protection is the rate of child abuse and neglect correlated to a family’s or an individual’s socioeconomic status (SES).

If poverty rates and socioeconomic status were a significant factor for the prevalence of child abuse, there should theoretically be a strong correlation between countries with low poverty rates and corresponding rates of child abuse. However this connection is not observable, especially when you compare developed nations with varying levels of poverty against each other. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Innocenti report (2003) Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations, asserts that the United States of America (USA), Mexico and Portugal “have exceptionally high levels of child deaths from maltreatment”( p.2). And while UNICEF acknowledges that poverty levels play a factor in contributing to deaths, they are also quick to point out that “[a] small group of countries – Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Norway – appear to have an exceptionally low incidence of child maltreatment deaths” (UNICEF, 2003, p.1). The significant aspect to these findings is that Spain, Ireland, and Greece all have higher rates of poverty than the USA and Portugal (CIA, 2010). The bleak picture becomes even clearer when you compare the number children’s deaths by maltreatment that occurred between 1997 to 2002. During this period, Italy had 117 cases while the USA had 8900 (UNICEF, 2003). Even when the

numbers are adjusted for the difference in population, a child is eleven times more likely to die of maltreatment in the USA compared to Italy. This is despite the fact that the USA has nearly half as many people living below the poverty line as compared to Italy (CIA, 2010).

These statistics correlate strongly with Canada’s own rate of reported child abuse related to poverty levels. While the statistics are hotly debated, many researchers, including but not limited to the Fraser Institute, argue that Canada’s poverty level has fallen from 41.2% of households in 1951, to only 5.6% living below the poverty line in 2006 (Sarlo, 2006). Yet, the reported rates of child abuse have been significantly increasing. The Canadian Incidence Study observed an increase of over 100,000 more cases of abuse and neglect in 2003 compared to 1998 (Fallon et al., 2010). To further this point, when Nico Trocmé, the director of the McGill Centre for Research on Children and Families in Montreal, was asked recently by Sarah Boesveld of the National Post, if the rate of incidents has increased or decreased, he responded by saying “[i]f anything I’d guess it has increased” (Boesveld & Humphreys, 2015). This statement bears significant importance as Trocmé did not simply say the rate of reports or incidents investigated have increased, he stated that the actual rate of child abuse is increasing. This distinction is important due to the fact that many scholars such as Fergusson, Horwood, & Woodward (2000), denote that child abuse and neglect is not necessarily increasing, but instead, the situation is becoming easier for people to report and as such there is simply more visibility on the issue.

Papers such as Trickett et al.’s (1991) Relationship of Socioeconomic Status to the Etiology and Developmental Sequelae of Physical Child Abuse, strived to see if there was in fact any etiology between the two. Trickett et al.’s (1991) quantitative research showed, as with several other papers (Pclton, 1978, Gilbert et al. 2009, and Garbarino & Kostelny, 1992), that while SES had a correlating effect to the rate and prevalence to child abuse and neglect, it was not a sole contributing factor. In many cases, researchers found that low socioeconomic groups showed significant fewer instances of child abuse and neglect compared to higher socioeconomic groups (Trickett et al., 1991). This distinction, that SES plays a role, but is not the only factor, lends itself to yet another strong indication that the rates of abuse and neglect are not related SES but in fact are part of a far more complex answer that encompasses community breakdown, vulnerable individuals and a lack of adequate protection from the state.
One significant area of research into child abuse and neglect, has been the role in which the extended community plays in the propensity and likelihood of an incident occurring.

Spearly & Lauderdale (1983) conclude that not only does the community play a pivotal role in stopping ongoing abuse, it also is a determinate factor as to the propensity that child abuse will occur. “Child maltreatment rates are found to be intercorrelated with other indicators of the breakdown of community social control and organization” (Coulton, Korbin, Su & Chow, 1995, p. 1262). The breakdown of community structures can occur in several different forms. SES is not a strong predictor for a community's social cohesion (Coulton et al., 1995). This distinction bears importance on policy making decisions and further an understanding that financial position is not the same as a strong community. The belief that a financially impoverished community will lead to abuse of its children, has been used repeatedly in Canadian history to justify unlawful removal of children under the guise of child protection. Incidents such as the 19th and 20th century residential school acts together with Canada’s wayward women laws, show that irreparable harm can be caused if SES is a determining factor for whether or not a child is safe. Instead, agencies and policies need to reflect the rich and diverse nature of

communities.

While factors such as SES, community structure and social stability play a role in the prevalence of child abuse, it does not change the axiological situation in the relationship: one individual wields enormous power over the other. Children are a vulnerable population as they are reliant and dependent on parental figures. This fundamental power imbalance, for the vast majority of individuals is seen as nothing more than a responsibility; however, others may view it as means of control and from this, abuse and neglect may possibly emerge (Dumbrill, 2006). As a result child protection agents and agencies need to exist to support vulnerable individuals from neglect and abuse. This role unfortunately, will always be needed as the scales will forever be tilted against the child, regardless of any circumstance. What child protection is able to do however is assume the role as a defender of the child's rights and livelihood. This is a role that will always be needed for some children (Coulton, Korbin, Su & Chow, 1995).

When addressing the question of whether or not child protection services be needed if poverty was eliminated, I looked to see if there were risk factors that could lead to child abuse and neglect. Through readings in our textbook and several research papers, one can conclude that abuse occurs in all economic groups, all ethnic groups and across all genders. I am very certain that child abuse can occur as a result of a power imbalance. This power imbalance and its potential for abuse has been seen countless times in situations like: the Catholic sexual abuse scandal (Plante, 1999) , the Scouts of America sexual abuse scandal (Boyle, 1994) or Canada’s history of subjugating First Nations people to abuse within residential schools. All of these incidents could have been prevented if appropriate checks and balances, along with a strong child protection service was implemented. Unfortunately, they were not and individuals were able to abuse their position of power and in turn, vulnerable children suffered. While the rate of child abuse and neglect would almost certainly decrease if poverty was eliminated, it would not end it. For this reason, I unequivocally believe there will always need to be some form of child protection regardless of a country’s poverty level.