Warning: The following contains explicit descriptions of
physical and sexual abuse by women against children.
Introduction
Combat amongst adults pales to insignificance when
compared to violence against children by adults, particularly where the
adults are the child's parents. By this I do not
mean to criticize the normal discipline, including controlled, limited
spankings, or other physical discipline and restraints that a parent
must impose on their children as part of their upbringing.
Time and time again tales of men being arrested for
domestic violence against women come to my attention where the
biological father was attempting to protect his children from abuse by
their mother. Though data are sparse, it seems apparent that women who
abuse their partners are also very likely to abuse their children as
well or, as in two cases below, the woman begins with child abuse and
then becomes violent towards her partner.
Anyone still inclined to blame family violence on the
patriarchy and male aggression should look at the statistics on violence
against children. A
1998
report from the Department of Health and Human Services, Child
Maltreatment in the United States, finds that women aged twenty to
forty-nine are almost twice as likely as
males to be "...perpetrators of child maltreatment"
or about two-thirds were female. For cases of neglect and medical
neglect, the estimate is that three-quarters
of the perpetrators are female.
We know that child abuse takes place overwhelmingly in
the homes of single parents, who are almost exclusively mothers. A
British study found children in single-parent homes up to 33 times more
likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present.
Neonatacide, or the murder of children aged one year or
less is almost exclusively a female crime. No reliable statistics exist
but estimates range up to 5,000 infants a year killed in the United
States.
Skeptical?
Get a copy of Patricia Pearson's book
When She Was Bad, How and Why Women Get Away With Murder. Or
read the stories below. Or take
Fred Reed's outlook on child abuse as the cops see it from the
streets.
Another chilling view of child abuse is given in
Margaret Talbot's
Femme Fatales where British researchers videotaped women (and a
few men) smothering, poisoning, and, in one case, deliberately breaking
the arm of their children.
Recognizing that it is virtually impossible to
distinguish at autopsy between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and
accidental or deliberate asphyxiation with a soft object such as a
pillow, the American Academy of Pediatrics now calls for an
investigation by a child abuse expert in all such deaths. The updated
guidelines were published in the February, 2001, issue of the journal
Pediatrics. These guidelines are based in part on the work of the
British researchers referenced above, as well as
The
Death of Innocents about a New York woman who killed five
children of hers claiming SIDS before she was caught.
Obviously, if we are to fix the problem of child abuse
it would be more profitable to begin with women. Not, however, in the
sense of simply placing the blame, but in determining what factors can
be improved or changed that minimize the risk of women abusing children.
For example,
Fagan has pointed out that "...the greatest
danger many American children face is not from drugs, gangs or lead
poisoning. It is from Mom and her live-in boyfriend." Our
approaches to these problems are addressed in
family
evolution.
Take for example the story reported by
Linda Chavez in February, 2001, as summarized here:
"Clarence, 7, and Ernest, 8, are now being treated in
New York's Presbyterian Hospital, the victims of multiple facial
stabbings and beatings by their mother, Linda A. Harley, 38, who now
sits in jail awaiting trial on 41 counts of abuse. Harley is no stranger
to the criminal justice system. She has been arrested at least 29 times
for drug possession, prostitution and for stabbing the boys' father,
Ernest Wright, 18 times. Her children, including three older children,
have spent most of their lives apart from their mother because of her
history of violence and abuse."
According to a 1994 Department of Justice report,
mothers are responsible in 55% of cases in which children are killed by
their parents. The National Center on Child Abuse Prevention attributes
50% of the child abuse fatalities that occurred between 1986 and 1993 to
the natural mother, 23% to the natural father, and 27% percent to
boyfriends and others.
The role of fathers in raising children is indisputable.
For example,
Stephen Baskerville has pointed out that:
Recent figures from the Department of Health and Human
Services confirm that violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage
pregnancy, emotional and behavioral disorders, teen suicide, poor school
performance and truancy all correlate more strongly to fatherless homes
than to any other single factor, surpassing both poverty and race. The
overwhelming majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high
school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists
all come from fatherless homes.
We must give credence to fathers who are trying to
protect their children from abusive mothers. All too commonly, women who
abuse their husbands and lovers abuse their children in turn. The
following story is fairly typical of what comes to our attention (edited
for grammar and spelling):
"I heard my wife beating my five year-old daughter
upstairs for falling asleep while watching television at 8:00 P.M. on a
school night. When I went up to investigate she was beating the child on
her bare bottom as hard as she could.
I pushed my wife away and grabbed my daughter. That
sent my wife into a rage and she began beating me and throwing things.
She then went downstairs and came back up with a
butcher knife and stick. She began beating me with the stick and waiving
the knife saying: 'I'll kill you if you ever
interfere again.'
I took my daughter into my bedroom and called 911.
After the police arrived they took my wife's statement first and
arrested me on the spot. After being released and reading the police
report, I found out my wife (as the police put it), had a blood dot
under her nose and claimed that I had pulled a knife on her.
They examined the child's bottom over an hour after the
beating and claimed only to see a faint redness. The police further
stated, after arresting me, that I had no right to interfere with the
child's punishment.
I could not afford an attorney this time and
represented myself ( Ed .
In such cases it is rare that the police are only
called to a house once). My wife refused to testify, but also
refused to tell the truth, believing she would be in trouble. The State
then called the three responding officers to the stand to read off her
statement. One officer saw a tiny dot of blood and two didn't.
[Note:
Such
evidence based prosecution is now prohibited by the Crawford v
Washington decision of the US Supreme Court.]
In is my opinion the Judge convicted me based mainly on
the fact that there had previously been twelve 911 calls placed from my
house. The end result was that I was given a six months suspended
sentence, placed on six months probation, and ordered to attend domestic
violence classes again."
As might be imagined, such stories seldom have a happy
ending, and the couple are now divorced with the child living with her
abusive mother. The chances of this little girl developing normally
range from zero to none. Drugs, alcohol, teenage pregnancy, school
dropout, and other problems are a virtual certainty, whether she remains
in the home of her mother, or child protective agencies eventually place
her in a foster home. That prognosis would likely be quite different if
she lived with her father but in today's climate that is almost
certainly not going to happen. Thus, she will likely become another
child of what Amneus calls
"The
Garbage Generation."
We receive far too many stories of this sort, and three
with documented evidence are given below, to suggest these are isolated
incidents and that the fathers are simply trying to cover up their own
misdeeds.
Bob and Jane in Portland, Oregon
Top
Note that extensive
documentation has been provided for the facts stated below. Names have
been changed but the locale is Portland, Oregon, in the United States of
America.
The story begins as an office romance. Jane wants some
excitement in her life. Bob is handy, she flirts, he is single, she is
attractive but married. After about a year of working together, while
things heat up, he gives her what she wants. She wants more of it but
ends up pregnant. This isn't her first child as she has two older
daughters from her husband, whom she still messes with.
Bob wasn't the only excitement Jane craved, and the boy
has cocaine in his system when he is born in June, 1993, according to
hospital and social worker records. Bob doesn't even find out he is the
father until a month later.
Jane also has problems with alcohol abuse.
Jane's husband isn't exactly thrilled about all this but
she deludes him for a time with the notion that the boy is his. However,
the little boy doesn't look like her husband nor exhibit features common
to the two older daughters. A separation follows that revelation.
Having been told by two doctors that he could never
father a child, Bob wants to become involved with his boy. They move in
together at her suggestion. Result is Jane has a two-month premature
baby girl in August, 1994. Jane isn't big on prenatal care, obviously,
and the baby suffers from anemia and respiratory distress, but lives.
Jane isn't showing any signs of settling down and, as
you might imagine, the affair becomes a rocky one as Bob isn't the only
man she enjoys. After tolerating her behavior for a year, he moves out.
Mom has some living expenses and figures Dad should
contribute a little more. So while Bob and the kids are at church one
Sunday during the summer of 1995 she boosts the oldest girl through the
window of his house to unlock the door. Bob makes a police report but
nothing is done as it is a "domestic" and the
"victim" in such circumstances can't be a man.
Jane isn't the type to tolerate bother and noise, and
cocaine does tend to make one irritable. In September, 1995, children
services are notified that she has given the oldest daughter a bloody
nose. The report states: "Both of mother's former
partners report Mom has substance abuse problems and the oldest girl
reports that Mom hits her and her siblings." Girl also points out
small, healed scars on her arms and tells the social worker that her
mother inflicted them. Mom also is given to shaking the baby girl when
angry.
Bob then has custody of his two kids but in June, 1996,
Jane stops by and picks them up from a day care center despite being on
file not to be allowed to take them. Mom claims she will be back in 10
minutes. Doesn't happen. Note that is very unlikely
a father on such a list would have been given the kids in the first
place. Day care worker thinks Jane is on drugs at the time when she
reports to children's services but gave Jane the kids anyway.
One doesn't imagine that things are all sweetness and
light with maternal love dominating Jane's home, but the next reported
incident isn't until May, 1997. The report states that Jane hit the then
3-year old girl in the face with the screen door, splitting her lip and
knocking out half of a front tooth. As a result, police give the kids to
Bob to take care of while a custody evaluation is conducted through the
summer.
In October, 1997, Bob is awarded custody of his son and
shared custody of his daughter in a court settlement conference before
Judge LaMar.
Jane doesn't take kindly to this decision and their 4
year-old son tells a therapist his Mom said she was going to kill his
Daddy. A couple of weeks later she gives it a go and hits him with a car
in front of the three kids and two witnesses willing to sign affidavits
they saw her run down. Bob was then looking at complete knee replacement
surgery and was out of work for about four months.
Bob is granted a restraining order against Jane in
November, 1997, by Judge Merri Souther-Wyatt. Like most such women, Jane
doesn't think a restraining order, or any other law, applies to her. But
when she violates it she is sent to jail. That doesn't do much for
harmony and quality time for the kids with their parents. As a result,
custody of the children is disputed by Jane.
On December 12, 1997, the court appointed a guardian ad
litem, or GAL, for the children and ordered that the son remain with his
father until a custody hearing can be held. The three daughters all go
with their mother.
Moving with remarkable speed in such proceedings, on
December 15-18, 1997, Judge Merri Souther-Wyatt held a custody hearing.
During the hearing she:
• Vacated the court order appointing counsel for the
children.
• Vacated Jane's restraining order.
• Ignored expert testimony about abuse of children
by Jane.
• Ignored evidence of Jane's drug and alcohol abuse.
• Ignored evidence of Jane's motor vehicle assault
on Bob, telling him from the bench that: "You
probably provoked her to hit you with the car."
• Terminated Bob's rights to review and consult with
doctors and the counselors treating the children, and he is refused
access to any of the children's therapists, school, medical, or children
protective services records.
• Bob is granted visitation so long as he is:
"clean, sober, not agitated, and doesn't question
children about their mother and her family." Note that Bob does not
have a problem with drugs or alcohol and has evidence that he does not
use either.
• Ordered that son be returned to his mother,
together with the three girls who were already in her custody.
• Bob is further barred from making any reports of
abuse and having the children examined or photographed for evidence of
abuse.
As most divorced fathers will recognize, she hasn't yet
played her denial of visitation rights card. That game begins a couple
of months later in February, 1998. Phone message left for Bob saying she
will be out of town this weekend with the kids so don't bother to stop
by for them.
In early March, 1998, the children talked with people at
a day care center. Bob's son demonstrated with stuffed animals what his
mother did to him. Documents indicate Jane performed fellatio on her
four year-old son until he was erect and then mounted him. His daughter
was examined and found to have sores on her buttocks as the result of
sleeping in her own urine.
When Jane finds out she has been reported again, this
time for sexual abuse, she calls Bob and tells him if he doesn't forget
about the molestation he'll never see his kids again. She also tells him
the boy: "Can't do for me what a man can do."
Bob wisely records such calls, including this one.
Bob then filed a report with the child protective
services despite the court order not to by Judge Merri Souther-Wyatt. As
a result, he is asked to take a lie detector test. The person
administering test states Bob: "Could be guilty
because O. J. Simpson and Jeffrey Dahmer were." Bob walks out
without taking test.
Bob is then required to appear before Judge Merri
Souther-Wyatt on March 9, 1998. She prohibits him from playing back any
of the recorded phone messages and finds in favor of Jane. When told of
Jane's sexual molestation of their son, she storms off the bench.
After speaking with Judge Souther-Wyatt, detectives are
sent to Bob's house, allegedly to speak with the children, but instead
they issue him a citation for a criminal misdemeanor alleging two counts
of making false reports about his children being molested by Jane. In
the meantime, Bob has gone to the governor's advocacy office, who tell
him: "If you feel that there has been abuse,
immediately take them to a third-party mandatory reporter."
On March 31, 1998, Bob appeared again before Judge Merri
Souther-Wyatt. During that proceeding she dismissed the citation
and terminated all his parental rights except
for child support obligations. Visitors in the courtroom were aghast at
her actions and demeanor, and she had two of them forcibly removed when
they murmured sotto voce
"What about the children?" One of the state social workers present
attempted to intimidate Bob in such a threatening manner that three
other men forcibly restrained the state employee, and a state trooper
came to calm Bob down.
Since then Bob has not seen his children for nearly
three years and the only contact has been through cards and telephone
calls. The first week of September 1998, the youngest girl had to spend
a week in the hospital for reasons Bob can't discover due to Judge Merri
Souther-Wyatt's order. He only knows of it only through billing by his
health insurance.
"Bob" has had strong support from his church and
community and on January 6, 2000, filed a civil suit for violation of
his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq.
in the United States District Court, District of Oregon, case no. CV
00-0035 and asked for relief of $15,000,000 under the Civil Rights Act
of 1871. His complaint was dismissed by Federal Judge Ancer L. Haggerty
on September 20, 2000.
However, the Federal court has given Bob the right to
amend his complaint and sue Judge Merri Souther-Wyatt and the Children
Services Division personnel in their individual capacities. He was also
told that he could not act for the children and needs to find an
attorney to represent them.
The case is now on appeal with the United States 9
th Circuit Court of Appeals, docket no. 00-35991 as of November
24, 2000. |
