Child Neglect: A Comprehensive of Canadian - Literature review Example

Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. It has a reputation as one of the most beautiful countries, with one of the most considerate people in the world, people who care about what is going on in the world. Canadians have fought to defend people in Europe, and contributed enormous amounts of money to help the poor in Africa and elsewhere. The country is a highly desired destination for many people around the world who see it as a beacon of hope, fairness, and opportunity. Few people, however, know that in such a rich country there is a hidden shame, one that almost places the country within the same leagues as many third world countries. This is the issue of child neglect, which is becoming more and more an open sore in the otherwise healthy looking body of Canada. In the article “Canada’s Shame – Child neglect in a rich nation,” Alexa McDonough and Ed Broadbent, two highly socially conscious politicians and leaders in Canada lay bare what is most definitely a blight on Canada. Even though Canada has enjoyed a reputation for many years as a place of caring for all, it seems that in recent years, there has been a shift, with the government taking more interest in touting financial success rather than the health and well being of its people. As McDonough and Broadbent report regarding former Prime Minister Paul Martin, "On almost every economic measure that matters, we have made enormous strides," he crowed. Paul Martin didn't mention that we now have 1.4 million children living in poverty, up by 50 per cent from 10 years ago, when he and his fellow Liberals voted to end this national disgrace” (McDonough & Broadbent 1999). On the United Nations’ Human Poverty Index, Canada is ranked ninth and comes behind such countries as Sweden, the Nertherlands, and Japan. Being 9th may be good for some countries but Canada takes pride in having values that include caring. This makes the picture that is emerging regarding the huge problem of child neglect one that is very disturbing. As far back as 1990, Canada’s House of Commons made a determination to wipe out child poverty by the year 2000. No doubt, this was a noble goal and one that was very clearly within the capability of this rich country to achieve. By 2000, however, the picture was dismal, with one out of seven Canadian children living in poverty. “Today, it's one Canadian child in five. Why do we have thousands more of our children who are undernourished, badly housed - kids who have trouble learning? What went wrong?” (McDonough & Broadbent 1999). It seems that Canada has mastered how to talk the talk without walking the walk. After all, Canada was one of the countries that showed great interest in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 1989. “The next year, Canada co-hosted the World Summit for Children and 71 countries agreed to a 10-year agenda for improving the well-being of children” (McDonough & Broadbent 1999). By hosting such a conference, Canada had positioned itself as a leader in the protection and care of children. This certainly did not hurt the image of the country. The 1990s, however, turned out to be a time of indirect attack on children. The Conservative government’s cuts on Unemployment Insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan were the first assaults on children because if parents do not have enough money in their pockets, it is difficult to see how they can fulfill their responsibilities to their children. In fact, “By 1992, support for children was on the chopping block. The Family Allowance, on the books since 1945, was eliminated. The Conservatives introduced a Child Tax Benefit but with benefits that would decline over time and be paid to fewer and fewer families” (McDonough & Broadbent 1999). But that was not all. When the Liberals took over power, they made cuts to federal support for health and education and whittled down social services and unemployment insurance, with the result that by 199, only one third of the unemployed could qualify for unemployment insurance. A hungry parent often translates into a hungry child. And a hungry parent is an angry parent who may not have the patience to provide nurturing and comfort to a sick or hungry child. With all the cuts over the years, it is not surprising that, “Today, Canada is the only country in the industrialized world with no universal program recognizing the value and the costs of raising children” (McDonough & Broadbent 1999). When compared with other members of the OECD Canada’s child benefits are one of the lowers. The economy has been doing well, making it possible for those at the upper rungs of the society to go shopping for high priced cars and toys. Meanwhile, “food banks feed more than 790,000 people every month” (McDonough & Broadbent 1999). While McDonough and Broadbent place the blame of neglect of Canada’s children on the government, there are those who feel that parents should be educated to their responsibilities toward their children. "Public education and prevention are the best ways to end the neglect and abuse of children," said Jeanette Lewis, Executive Director of Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies at the beginning of the annual Purple Ribbon Campaign to publicize the need to prevent child neglect and abuse” (Purple Ribbon…2000). The Purple Ribbon campaign centers on Ontario, which has seen skyrocketing cases of abuse of children. Researchers and campaigners believe that if parents were aware that corporal punishment, for example, could have long-lasting negative effects on children such as those relating to alcohol abuse and anxiety disorder, they might think twice before subjecting young people to any form of abuse or neglect (Purple Ribbon 2000). It is not Ontario alone, however, where the problem of child neglect and abuse seems to have become endemic. In 2002, across the board, there was a 10% increase in the incidence of child abuse and neglect. “In one of the biggest increases, the Ontario Children's Aid Societies said almost 16,000 children were removed from their families. Ontario has measured a 36 percent increase in neglect cases over the past four years (Canada records 10% increase in child abuse 2002). Other provinces that had the dubious honor of being counted among this ignominious group were Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick. While Canadian children suffer, there is no end to the finger pointing. Les Brost, a concerned Canadian, wonders why during the recent elections Canadians studiously avoided talking about the hard reality of Canadian life, namely First Nations people. Such concern is not misplaced because when mainstream Canadian children are “sneezing” then it may very well be that First Nations children are “dying.” This is because First Nations people rank very low in every element of human well being even though they live in the midst of plenty that is Canadian wealth. Though the government of Canada has spent countless millions of dollars supposedly trying to help the Aboriginal people, Brost believes that there is a lot of waste because the politicians simply throw money at problems without really getting to the root of it. But Brost does not only blame the government. He sees the media as sharing some of the blame because they are unable to tell the truth where Aboriginal Canadians are concerned. As he writes, Our desire to be seen as tolerant often blinds us to unpleasant realities. What are these realities? Too many aboriginal communities battle endemic alcoholism, drug abuse, violent crime, domestic violence and child neglect. Billions of public dollars have disappeared into the financial black hole that is Canada's First Nations industry -- an agglomeration of past and present federal, provincial and First Nations politicians, bureaucrats and consultants. Canada's media ignore incompetence and political corruption in First Nations governance that would otherwise reap national banner headlines were it to occur in High River or Halifax. (Brost 2006) When Aborginal parents dull their pain of daily existence with alcohol, one can be sure that their children will suffer. Rather than keeping Aboriginal people at arms length and refusing to ask the hard questions that will bring about responsibility and leadership, the kind that will ensure a good future for Aboriginal children, Canadians should feel free to engage Aboriginals. In an era when Canada continues to attract immigrants it is rather strange that the government and indeed Canadians continue to neglect their Aboriginal cousins, people upon whose land the wealth of Canada has been built. As Brost notes, “We try to attract immigrants to fill gaps in our workforce, while generations of aboriginal young people are being lost in a fog of hopelessness and misery. Aboriginal youth must be engaged in the rewarding challenge of building a new Canada” (Brost 2006). In an attempt to understand the problem of child neglect better some Canadian institutions have taken the lead in providing research that can guide policy and action on the problem. Health Canada is one such agency. Though child abuse is broad, one of the issues that has been of greatest concern to Health Canada is that of neglect. This is because while it may not involve actively hurting a child by physical means, such neglect often has the same effect of harming the child, even leading to death. There are indications that in some cases such neglect is happening at a very sensitive time in the child’s development such as the period between birth and age two. “During this period, certain areas of the brain show heightened sensitivity to stimulation. Severe or chronic neglect also does long term damage to brain development with the result being lifelong changes to the individual's ability to regulate thought, emotions, and behaviour” (A case of child neglect 2006). It was also important for the researchers to come to an understanding of what constituted neglect. This was particularly important in view of the many different interpretations of neglect across provinces and disciplines. It is revealing to realize that child abuse and neglect are nothing new. In the United States, prior to the 20th century, parents who could not afford to take care of their children were encouraged, or in some cases, forced to be separated from the children so that the children could get what care they needed from another source. Parents that were unable to provide for their children were considered to possibly infuse the children with their laziness, hence the efforts to separate the children from the parents. In Canada, those who seemed the most concerned about issues of poverty were high class and middle class families who worried about what effect the children from impoverished families might have on their own children through contact within the school system or elsewhere. Such individuals were therefore at the forefront of pushing for legislation that would intervene and rearrange families where the parents could not provide for the children. As far back as 1891, with the establishment of the Children’s Aid Society in Toronto, Canada, the welfare of children continued to occupy the thinking of a certain segment of the Canadian population, namely well-to-do women who felt a certain sense of responsibility towards the children of others. The government also showed interest in the welfare of children by passing legislation two years later for protecting indigent children. Under this legislation, children that were found to be begging or found wandering and lacking in proper guardianship were to be apprehended and brought into the care of the government. Children who found themselves in bad company such as association with thieves or prostitutes became likely candidates for apprehension. In fact, “Child neglect was the original concept behind Canadian child welfare legislation” (A Case of Neglect 2006). Though it is hardly a matter of comfort, the United States, Canada’s southern neighbour has equally been struggling with the issue of child neglect. The problem has been vexing for authorities to some extent because both countries are supposed to be democratic societies where people are free to run their own lives. There is also a bit of confusion in some cases as to what might fall under the umbrella or abuse or neglect. In terms of breakdown of the problem in one part of Canada, “Statistics collected in Quebec in 1991 found the following proportions among 12,256 retained cases: 77% were neglect, 10% were physical abuse, and 13% were sexual abuse. The United States has reported similar statistics, although with a higher proportion of neglect cases among all cases of child maltreatment. Among the cases of physical abuse and neglect cases reported to the New York State Central Registry of Child Abuse in 1988, 93% were for child neglect (Palacio-Quintin et al., 1993, p. 154)” (A Case of Neglect 2006). Abuse, while appearing to be less serious, is actually one of the most widespread problems in both the United States and Canada where children’s welfare is concerned. That researchers have, for many years, found it difficult to come up with a single definition for child neglect may seem like a trivial matter but how child neglect is conceptualized, according to the report, “A Case of Neglect,” has a potentially profound effect on how society tackles the issue. This means that getting the definition right could actually pave the way to finding solutions that are both effective and perhaps efficient. Part of the effort to ensure that proper labels are given include the separation between abuse and neglect. While popular sympathy often lies with children who are caught in a web of abuse or neglect, parents have often found to their chagrin that one definition or the other could be the beginning of a nightmare involving government officials and social workers, one that might even include incarceration. The fact of the matter is that a social worker’s judgment regarding a child and whether the child has been abused, neglected, or otherwise can be just the beginning point of a system that links parents with police, pediatricians, legislators, child protection workers, and in some cases the prison warden! Definitional specificity, therefore, is not only in the interest of children but can also be of benefit to parents who could very well lose the right to their own children if the wrong labels happen to be applied to what is happening in a child’s life. One definition of child neglect is as follows: “A condition in which a caretaker responsible for the child, either deliberately or by extraordinary inattentiveness, permits the child to experience avoidable present suffering and/or fails to provide one or more of the ingredients generally deemed essential for developing a person's physical, intellectual, and emotional capacities (Gaudin, 1993a, pp. 3_4)” (Child Neglect 2007 ). This definition, it seems, is so wide that it may very well invite the opinion of experts to assess whether, for example, a child has suffered emotional trauma that requires that the parent or caregiver be made to take responsibility for it. In the case of abuse that leaves physical scars it is quite easy for professionals to make assessments. In fact, even laymen and women can easily see cases of abuse when it is physical and leaves tell-tale signs. It is not so easy, however, when the scars that are left are of an emotional nature. By the same token, a child may be suffering inwardly but leave no outwardly visible signs that the abuse is taking its toll. Some parents, however, believe that it is good training for children not to be indulged and given everything that they want. Some parents also believe that spanking a child is in the child’s own best interest as such training could be beneficial in later life. Such parents, however, may be skirting the boundaries of the law and need to know that they could be hauled in to answer for their supposed neglect as government officers begin to take the issue of neglect more and more seriously. Researchers have realized that in some cases a child might present no visible signs of abuse or trauma but may still be in danger in the foreseeable future. With this in mind, in 1988, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) included the word “endangered” “s a category for children who demonstrated no present evidence of injury but for whom future risk of injury is a reasonable risk. One difficulty in considering potential harm is predicting the likelihood that harm will actually occur and whether that potential harm is significant (O. Barnett et al., 1997, p. 110)” (Child Neglect” 2007). Some of the abuse and neglect that Canadian children suffer may in the end contribute to the increasing incidence of mental problems among Canadian children. Such a reality does not bode well for the future of the country. As Waddell et al. (2007) report, “Mental health problems are the leading health problems that Canadian children currently face after infancy. At any given time, 14% of children aged 4 to 17 years (over 800 000 in Canada) experience mental disorders that cause significant distress and impairment at home, at school, and in the community. Fewer than 25% of these children receive specialized treatment services” (Waddell 2007). Obviously, the time to ensure that children are protected is at the very early stages. But the issue of child safety and neglect cannot be viewed in isolation since most children are part of families, the self-same families that sometimes becoming a site of terror, abuse or neglect for the child. Social workers need to maintain good relations in their communities, not to usurp the rights of parents but to make parents aware that they cannot get away with any cases of abuse or neglect. But the government needs to train social workers who have more than just bureaucratic authority on their side. Wise social workers, if such can be trained or developed, will be individuals who can make better discernments regarding what may be happening in a family and to make judgments that truly accord with the best interest of the child whether this means removal of a child or allowing parents to continue to care and nurture their children. Also, government cuts to social welfare programs need to be reconsidered in the light of Canada’s current economic boom. It does not pay to own the whole world when the people who represent the future of the country are damaged because their parents, unable to share in the largesse, take out their anger on their children. Interventions aimed at reducing the child neglect epidemic in Canada need to begin with education but they should certainly not stop there. The government needs to ensure that no families fall within the cracks as it may be the children who may have the longest fall and perhaps with the greatest damage – to themselves and to the future of the nation. Bibliography “A Brief History of Child Maltreatment Research.” The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/nfntsnegldefmod_e.html (Jan 30, 2007). ”A case of neglect.” Sudbury Star (Apr 29, 2004):A8. Brost, Les. “Our aboriginal issues overdue.” Calgary Herald (Jan 23, 2006):A10. “Canada records 10% rise in child neglect.” Juvenile Justice Digest, Vol. 30 Issue 1 (Jan 17, 20002):1. “Child Neglect: Current Definitions and Models: A review of child neglect research, 1993_1998.” http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/nfntsnegldefmod_e.html　(January 30, 2007) McDonough and Broadbent, Ed “Canada’s Shame – Child Neglect in a rich nation.” Toronto Star (Nov 24, 1999):1. “Purple Ribbon Campaign to publicize the need for awareness of child neglect and abuse.” Canada NewsWire (Oct 3, 2000):1 Waddell, Charlotte et al. “Public Health Strategy to Improve the Mental Health of Canadian Children.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 50 Issue 4 (Mar 2005);226-233. Read More