The appearance by Australian of the Year Rosie Batty on ABC's Q&A last night was welcomed as part of the renewed discussion of how to address family violence.
This discussion has included calls to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted, for victims to access essential assistance including women’s refuges, and for greater availability of preventative and rehabilitation counseling services.
But what is striking to me, as a long-term researcher of the debate about child protection policy, are the differences between that debate and the debate about family violence.
In Australia, child abuse is not usually treated as a crime in the way that domestic violence is. Calling in the police for child abuse goes against the radical credo of child protection authorities, who treat such abuse as the product of poverty and not something parents should be punished for.
The other big difference is that when children are abused, in most cases, the response is predicated on the principle of ‘family preservation’.
This means children are kept with parents while a range of ‘family support’ services are provided to help parents who maltreat children.
The removal of children into state care is considered a last resort, on the basis that maintaining children’s relationship with parents is crucial to child wellbeing. The problem with this is that child abuse is likely to continue.
Hence most of the more than 43,000 Australian children in foster care suffer often severe psychological, emotional and developmental problems caused by prolonged exposure to parental abuse and neglect.
Imagine if we applied the same approach to what used to be called wife beating, and called it ‘The Stand By Your Man’ principle? Imagine, quite rightly, the outrage at the mere suggestion of providing help for violent men, while battered and bruised women were forced to remain in harm’s way living with their abusers.
No one would ever dare suggest this. But why doesn’t family preservation generate the same outrage when children are on the receiving end of parental abuse?
The double standards are glaring. Abuse is abuse, no matter the relationship between perpetrator and victim
We should no longer tolerate children being treated as second class citizens, nor allow child abuse to be overlooked by either the social services or criminal justice systems.
Children, just like adults, need the full protection of the law and to be able to escape from abusive family situations.
Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Children are the victims of violence too
Children are the victims of violence too
This discussion has included calls to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted, for victims to access essential assistance including women’s refuges, and for greater availability of preventative and rehabilitation counseling services.
But what is striking to me, as a long-term researcher of the debate about child protection policy, are the differences between that debate and the debate about family violence.
In Australia, child abuse is not usually treated as a crime in the way that domestic violence is. Calling in the police for child abuse goes against the radical credo of child protection authorities, who treat such abuse as the product of poverty and not something parents should be punished for.
The other big difference is that when children are abused, in most cases, the response is predicated on the principle of ‘family preservation’.
This means children are kept with parents while a range of ‘family support’ services are provided to help parents who maltreat children.
The removal of children into state care is considered a last resort, on the basis that maintaining children’s relationship with parents is crucial to child wellbeing. The problem with this is that child abuse is likely to continue.
Hence most of the more than 43,000 Australian children in foster care suffer often severe psychological, emotional and developmental problems caused by prolonged exposure to parental abuse and neglect.
Imagine if we applied the same approach to what used to be called wife beating, and called it ‘The Stand By Your Man’ principle? Imagine, quite rightly, the outrage at the mere suggestion of providing help for violent men, while battered and bruised women were forced to remain in harm’s way living with their abusers.
No one would ever dare suggest this. But why doesn’t family preservation generate the same outrage when children are on the receiving end of parental abuse?
The double standards are glaring. Abuse is abuse, no matter the relationship between perpetrator and victim
We should no longer tolerate children being treated as second class citizens, nor allow child abuse to be overlooked by either the social services or criminal justice systems.
Children, just like adults, need the full protection of the law and to be able to escape from abusive family situations.
Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: