Paul A. Logli, J.D.

It is my privilege to address this, the Second World Congress on Families. I view this as a unique opportunity to discuss issues that are important to children not only in my country but all over the world.

The needs of a child are the same regardless of the location in which that child happens to grow up. Every child deserves the love of a mother and father and a protective environment chiefly headed up by his or her parents. That environment should also include the extended family. In addition, the institutions of a society must also be involved in the protection of a child. A child needs appropriate medical care, educational opportunities, and in extreme cases of abuse or neglect, the protection of the government through its criminal justice or child protection systems.

My remarks will necessarily reflect my own experience as an independently elected prosecutor in a large jurisdiction within the State of Illinois, United States of America. I do not hold myself out as an international expert in this field, but I do believe that many of our experiences in the United States as they relate to the protection of children can be considered by the people of other nations as they evaluate their own systems designed to protect children. As we address the central issue of how best to protect children from the ravages of physical, sexual and even emotional abuse, we must first look at the defmition of abuse and the depth of the problem at least in the United States.

Although it is difficult to find a universal definition of what constitutes abuse, I will briefly address the various types of abuse encountered.

1. Physical Abuse—Includes physical acts that cause or could cause serious physical injury or permanent disfigurement. It would not include the parental use of non-injurious corporal punishment. For example, at least one state, California, has indicated that Physical Child Abuse "does not include reasonable and age appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury."

2. Sexual Abuse—Commonly identified as involvement of the child in sexual activity to provide sexual gratification or fmancial benefit to the perpetrator, including contacts for sexual purposes, prostitution, pornography or other sexually exploitive activities.

3. Emotional Abuse—While this is not the subject of formal legislation, it is also harmful to a child. It is best described as acts including verbal or emotional abuse that could cause behavioral or mental disorders in the child.

4. Neglect—Includes failure to provide a child with proper clothing, food, shelter or medical care. It also includes lack of proper supervision or educational support and inattention to emotional or developmental needs.

The extent of the problem of child abuse or maltreatment is not clearly known. In the United States it cannot be determined with certainty because a substantial but unknown proportion of child maltreatment cases are never brought to the attention of state and local child protective services or law enforcement. The officially reported figures involving cases of child abuse undoubtedly undercount the actual number of victimized children. The following estimates were compiled by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse after surveying all 50 states and the District of Columbia. For the year 1995, there were over 3.1 million children reported to child protective services as alleged victims of maltreatment. The reports of child maltreatment have steadily risen over the 10 years prior to 1995 showing a 49% increase from the reports filed in 1986.

According to the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse approximately one million children were found to be victims of maltreatment for every year from1992 through 1995. Of the substantiated 1995 reports, the NCPCA reports that 54% of the cases involved neglect, 25% were the result of physical abuse, 11% sexual abuse, and 3% involved emotional maltreatment. Some of this abuse can cause permanent injury or death. It is estimated that in the ten years between 1985 and 1995 more than three children in the United States died each day as a result of various forms of maltreatment. Abuse was the most common cause of death at 48%, followed by neglect at 37% and a combination of abuse and neglect at 15%. 85% of the victims were under age 5 and nearly half of the victims never reached their first birthday.

Research has shown that the consequences of child maltreatment extend into adolescence and beyond. Survivors of child maltreatment experience many problems in the course of further development. Some of those long-term problems include medical complications, cognitive difficulties, poor school achievement, violent behavior, substance abuse and delinquency. So even if a child survives abuse or neglect with no physical injuries, the emotional and developmental injuries continue for years.

When researchers have looked at the demographic characteristics of child victims the results do not suggest that any particular group of children is the sole target of violent abuse. Girls as well as boys are reportedly maltreated and all age groups are represented in the abused population. There is a diversity of ethnic backgrounds also represented among the victims of physical abuse. Some evidence, however, suggest that some characteristics place certain individuals at more risk than others. For example, young children between the ages of 0 and 5 years of age, are at a particularly high risk for physical cruelty. That is probably because they are least able to defend themselves and least able to communicate the nature of the abuse to other protective adults. Victims of physical abuse are also disproportionately represented among economically disadvantaged groups. Children with special needs such as those with physical or mental disabilities also appear to be at higher risk for abuse.

A relatively large volume of literature and research is available that tries to address the characteristics of perpetrators of physical abuse of children. Clearly, there is no single profile of the abusing perpetrator. Research suggests that some segments of the population represent a higher risk for engaging in conduct abusive to children. The average age for perpetrators is about 32 years of age. High rates of abuse are also found in individuals who begin their families at a young age. The overwhelming majority of reported cases indicate that perpetrators are the parents of the victim. Single parenthood is more commonly associated with abuse. The contribution of step-parenting as a risk factor is less clear but there is evidence to indicate a heightened risk of abuse from a step-parent. Abuse is committed by males as well as by females. Among the factors that seem to distinguish abusive adults from non-abusive adults are factors such as depression, anger control problems, parenting difficulties, family stress, and physiological overreaction to difficult child behavior.

In the case of perpetrators of sexual abuse, research and experience has shown that the sexual perpetrator can be homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried, educated or uneducated, male or female, although the offender is primarily a male. Unfortunately, there is no brand or mark that sets apart a victimizer of children from anybody else in our society.

The successful effort to prevent child abuse, is not comprised of one or two components. Society must address the problem simultaneously in a number of ways. Some of the steps require action by government. Other steps require fundamental changes in how society and individuals in a society build families or provide an environment to support and nurture children. A successful program to prevent the maltreatment of children must include elements performed at both the government level and the level of individual responsibility.

The governmental response lies in major part in its responsibilities to respond to reported cases of sexual and physical abuse of children. The last decade or so has seen much greater emphasis being placed on the coordination of the official response to a reported case of child abuse. Child welfare agencies that are primarily responsible for the welfare and protection of children have a particular role in an investigation, namely to remove a child from a harmful situation and place the child in a more secure setting. The police on the other hand, are primarily responsible for collecting sufficient evidence so that a perpetrator of child abuse can be identified, convicted and punished. Sometimes, these two separate roles come into conflict.

In a typical case, for example, involving the report of the sexual abuse of a child, the child welfare agency will look into the allegations and determine if the allegations are founded and have probably occurred. If their review indicates that abuse has occurred, then their first response will be to remove the child from the dangerous environment and place the child in a secure and safe foster environment. If that happens separately from the police investigation, then obviously the alleged perpetrators are placed on notice of the investigation and thus would have a chance to destroy evidence of the crime, flee the jurisdiction, or be more likely to present false evidence when finally contacted by the police. In a situation such as the one I have described, the child may be placed in a protective environment but the investigation may have been damaged by the fact that the child welfare agency responded before the police had a chance to become involved in the investigation.

In the last decade a movement in the United States has formulated the establishment of child advocacy centers within many of the jurisdictions throughout the nation. Child advocacy centers are empowered by law to coordinate the official response to reported cases of sexual or serious physical abuse of children. That coordination has both the child welfare component and the police investigation component working closely with each other to carry on their functions in a simultaneous fashion so that both the steps taken on behalf of the welfare of the child and the conduct of a criminal investigation are done in a coordinated, contemporaneous and comprehensive fashion.

Advocacy centers also provide facilities that provide police, child welfare authorities and prosecutors the opportunity to observe the formal interview of a child in a non-threatening and non-obtrusive manner. This is accomplished by special rooms that to the eyes of a child appear to be a child’s playroom. Closer examination, however, reveals that a two-way mirror separates that room from an adjoining room in which individuals can observe an interview of a child by a trained investigator. The interview of the child is done in an atmosphere that gives the child time to respond to non-leading and non-aggressive questioning by the interviewer. The interview itself may be taped by means of audio or video recorders. The interview may also be assisted by allowing the child who may have limited verbal skills to illustrate the conduct that made up the abuse by using anatomically correct dolls. This type of interview reduces the number of times a child has to relay stories of the abuse that child has experienced. That, in and of itself, reduces the trauma to the child of having to relive a most unfortunate experience. It also permits representatives of the participating agencies to observe the interview. Those individuals can then quickly meet regarding what has been presented and review not only the interview, but also any other evidence of the alleged crime. At that time with the coordination and support of the advocacy center, steps can be taken simultaneously to remove the child from the harmful situation while the police apprehend and interview the offender and gather other evidence of the alleged criminal activity. In some states, children’s advocacy centers are mandated by law and are supported by special tax levies or grants from state, federal and private entities.

Shortly after the initial response, the child and non-offending members of that child’s family are given the opportunity to engage in therapeutic intervention. The goal of the intervention is to reduce the trauma to the child and to begin helping the child to recover from the injuries both physical and emotional. Family members have to be an important component to assist the child in his or her recovery. In order to assist in the recovery of the child and to gather even more evidence against the perpetrator, many advocacy centers also work with local medical providers to have the child examined in order to determine the nature and extent of the abuse. Results of these examinations can assist many times in the successful prosecution of the offender. Advocacy centers provide physical examination rooms separate and apart from clinics, hospitals and doctors offices. These facilities are child-friendly and also help to reduce the trauma to the victim of abuse.

Children’s advocacy centers speak volumes to a community insofar as they represent a humane, coordinated and effective response to incidents of abuse. They help to reduce the trauma to the child and lay the groundwork for successful prosecution of perpetrators. They also bespeak the values of the community and acknowledge that cases involving abuse of children are special cases and require specially trained personnel, skilled interviewers, qualified physicians who specialize in a particular type of physical examination, and police and prosecutors who are specially trained and sensitive to the needs of a child and the unique characteristics of cases involving child abuse.

As government professionals engage in their duties, a community must be more fully educated to identify situations wherein a child is being abused. Children are damaged physically many times as a result of an intentional act but can also be damaged by adults who unintentionally respond inappropriately to certain stimuli and may cause physical harm to a child. Inappropriate corporal punishment to an infant or shaking an infant may not be intended to cause abuse to a child, but nonetheless can seriously and permanently damage a child. A successful prevention program must help to educate adults in the proper nurturing and care of children, especially infants and toddlers. As children get older, they become more able to afford some protection to themselves. As a child approaches adolescence, that child must be trained to recognize abuse when it is being directed at them. Children must also be given the opportunity to report the possibility of abuse to other adult members of the family, school personnel or social workers, Educational programs that discuss "good touch" and "bad touch" will prepare children to avoid abduction or molestation. In other words, the response by government, schools and social agencies must involve not only a prompt response to reports of sexual and physical abuse of children and a humane and efficient investigative response to those incidents, but also a system of education of both adults and children all directed to the recognition of abuse and its prevention.

The final and perhaps most important component in preventing abuse is society’s support for family. Research and experience has taught many of us that abuse is more likely to occur in a stressful family environment. Stress may be caused by the presence of only one parent in the family or the fact that a family lives in poverty and does not have adequate access to medical care or other necessities. A family that is isolated and not part of an extended family is also an environment that may be more conducive to the abuse of children.

The solution to family stress does not lie solely or even primarily with government institutions. It lies within the decisions of individuals bringing children into the world. In the case of a teenaged mother who, for whatever reason does not have the support of the child’s father, the road to social and fiscal stability is wrought with many obstacles. The lack of a supporting father can create undue financial hardship that deprives a child of appropriate medical and educational opportunities. A single mother who has to deal with the absence of the child’s father may bring virtual strangers into the house who have no familial loyalty to the child and thus may be more likely to be abusive toward the child. Finally, mothers and fathers each bring unique talents and influences to bear on the upbringing of a child. It is a very exceptional person who can perform both functions equally and competently.

In short, research and experience has shown that children who are brought up in a single parent environment, are more likely to be brought up in poverty and with the lack of appropriate family support. They also are more likely to be abused and to become involved in juvenile or criminal courts. Traditional families, that is a man and a woman, committed to each other in marriage and open to children are more likely to provide a proper environment for children. In spite of modern trends, it is still important that a child receive nurture and support from both of his or her parents. A family subject to less stress economically and otherwise, is more prone to afford protection to children from many forms of abuse. There is obviously no guarantee that a child in any environment will not be abused but the probabilities of abuse decline with the increase in family stability.

In the United States as in other parts of the world, there exist to a greater degree today than ever before a widening economic gap between segments of the population. That gap is producing two different societies; one of economic means and one that may be stranded forever in poverty. Societies and governments must narrow the gap so that all people are afforded appropriate opportunities of education, employment and family stability. The gap can be narrowed by government policies that encourage traditional families and discourage non-traditional family environments. Changes in tax and welfare policies in the United States have already begun to accomplish this goal. Further steps are necessary, however, to reduce the tax burden on married families and reduce the welfare subsidy for irresponsible family behavior. Individual adults, however, are still primarily responsible for the decisions they make especially when those decisions involve bringing children into the world. It has become clear that an effective way of preventing the abuse of children is to bring them into the world as a result of stable adult relationships that are grounded on commitment, respect and love. Those characteristics are more likely to produce a protective environment that respects the needs of children and protects those children from abuse within the family itself or from those persons who may constitute a threat outside of the family.

Speaking as a prosecutor from a large jurisdiction, I will concede as representative of state and local agencies that our response to the abuse of children is necessarily reactive. The nature of our response can help to reduce the trauma of abuse for a child and can identify perpetrators of abuse and even successfully prosecute and punish them. That will provide a specific deterrent to the perpetrating individual and a general deterrent to those who might be tempted to abuse a child. That system, however, is necessarily limited as a long-term preventative approach to the problem. As prosecutors and law enforcement officials, we must also serve as leaders in our community to undertake the educational and even moral effort to preserve and promote the basic family unit as the most protective environment for children. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the response to the problem of child abuse is not primarily a legislative or judicial response. It must necessarily be a response of individuals and private institutions such as social programs, foundations, churches, neighborhood associations and others who advocate for families and support the decisions of individuals to form traditional families as the primary and more successful environment for the growth and protection of children.