NSPCC calls for smacking ban
Ferganoid | 29.12.2001 11:37
The children's charity NSPCC last night claimed that the government's refusal to ban smacking will contribute to further suffering of children at the hands of abusive parents.
It released results of a survey of frontline child protection workers showing 88% had direct personal experience of cases of abuse or neglect involving unacceptable levels of physical punishment.
Two-thirds thought a law to protect children from being hit would strengthen the ability of social workers to intervene earlier to protect a child at risk of abuse. And 70% said the current law permitting "reasonable chastisement" sent the wrong message to potentially abusive parents.
Mary Marsh, the charity's director, appealed to ministers to think again about their negative response to a ruling by the European court of human rights that the law in England failed to give children adequate protection. "This survey of social work professionals shows there is a link between physical punishment and abusive behaviour. I am confident the majority of parents will unite with us to support changes to the law that are not an attack on them, but on the significant minority of abusers who use the current law to excuse severe beatings," she said.
The government reviewed the law on smacking after the European court ruled that the UK failed to protect a boy whose stepfather beat him with a cane.
The Scottish executive responded with plans to ban hitting children under three and outlaw hitting any child around the head with implements.
But the government decided last month against changing the law in England and Wales. After widespread consultation, Alan Milburn, the health secretary, rejected the advice of nearly all the organisations involved in child protection that smacking should be banned.
His decision to leave parents free to smack was supported by religious groups and the majority of individuals who responded to the consultation.
The NSPCC survey was designed to explore the views of 190 of its staff who were most closely involved in frontline child protection and family support. Their average experience in this type of work was 13 years.
It found 78% thought a law to protect children from being hit would help their work. And 91% wanted a ban on smacking babies and toddlers and on hitting any child with an implement.
More than half the frontline staff thought parents often tried to excuse abusive behaviour as "reasonable chastisement" and a further 29% said abusive parents did this occasionally.
When the child protection workers were asked about cases with which they had been involved, 46% said at least half of the abuse started with light smacks that became harder and harder hits. This escalation happened occasionally, according to a further quarter of respondents.
Two-thirds thought a law to protect children from being hit would strengthen the ability of social workers to intervene earlier to protect a child at risk of abuse. And 70% said the current law permitting "reasonable chastisement" sent the wrong message to potentially abusive parents.
Mary Marsh, the charity's director, appealed to ministers to think again about their negative response to a ruling by the European court of human rights that the law in England failed to give children adequate protection. "This survey of social work professionals shows there is a link between physical punishment and abusive behaviour. I am confident the majority of parents will unite with us to support changes to the law that are not an attack on them, but on the significant minority of abusers who use the current law to excuse severe beatings," she said.
The government reviewed the law on smacking after the European court ruled that the UK failed to protect a boy whose stepfather beat him with a cane.
The Scottish executive responded with plans to ban hitting children under three and outlaw hitting any child around the head with implements.
But the government decided last month against changing the law in England and Wales. After widespread consultation, Alan Milburn, the health secretary, rejected the advice of nearly all the organisations involved in child protection that smacking should be banned.
His decision to leave parents free to smack was supported by religious groups and the majority of individuals who responded to the consultation.
The NSPCC survey was designed to explore the views of 190 of its staff who were most closely involved in frontline child protection and family support. Their average experience in this type of work was 13 years.
It found 78% thought a law to protect children from being hit would help their work. And 91% wanted a ban on smacking babies and toddlers and on hitting any child with an implement.
More than half the frontline staff thought parents often tried to excuse abusive behaviour as "reasonable chastisement" and a further 29% said abusive parents did this occasionally.
When the child protection workers were asked about cases with which they had been involved, 46% said at least half of the abuse started with light smacks that became harder and harder hits. This escalation happened occasionally, according to a further quarter of respondents.
Ferganoid
Homepage:
www.stopabuse.org
Comments
Display the following 15 comments