Mother jailed for neglect and assault on her children

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

You can never hope to reduce future harm if you don't/can't care about why it happened.

LexieOnRale wrote:

Are you serious? Since I made those comments about leaving her rot in prison, and a dose of volts from an electric chair, are you suggesting I don't care this is happening to children?

I think it's obvious that you're more fixated on the crime and punishment than prevention in future cases.

I'm repeating your claim that you don't care WHY it happened. I find it shocking that you would say that and you seem to find it equally shocking when I say it back to you. You said it later in the same post. You don't care what might have led to the harm to children which I think is a ridiculous approach. See your quote below where you explicitly say you don't care why it happened and propose harsher punishment. It's your own words.

LexieOnRale wrote:

I'm not interested in a grown woman's substance abuse, how she may have had a hard life, how she might be untreated for a mental illness, or how she doesn't know how to be a mom. Don't care. She's a grown woman. If she knew that what she was doing carried a minimum sentence she may not have done it. Who knows?

LexieOnRale wrote:

If social workers were more active in cases like this, the chances of children being taken from abusers and placed with the other parent (if safe) or another meme member of family, or in foster care were greater, and child abusers recieving a harsh custodial sentence - that being the norm - I'd be willing to bet that it might make people rethink how they treat their children.

Good to see that you think social workers should be more active. I think they should have good info to work with. Good info involves clever people asking why it happened and how can it be prevented. I know you dont care about why it happened, luckily for all of is, other people do care about that.

LexieOnRale wrote:

Because how it is now, social services don't get involved until someone else flags the issue (doctor, teacher etc) and even then it can be years, if ever, before anything is done. And as for parents being brought to court, criminal court, that's really rare.

How would social services get involved unless they're informed by a third party? Cameras on the walls of all houses with children? Be serious.

We can only hope to improve things if we understand what happened and why. Don't worry your head if you can't care about why it happened other people have it covered for you. You don't have to he grateful or even aware that it's happening, but it's very important that it does happen

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We can only hope to improve things if we understand what happened and why. Don't worry your head if you can't care about why it happened other people have it covered for you. You don't have to he grateful or even aware that it's happening, but it's very important that it does happen

Maybe it's unintentional, but your posts have a woeful tone of condescension about them. There's no amount of understanding what happened in one particular case could possibly prevent what happens in another case. Not if you had millions of cases could you predict abuse, because nobody is aware of it until someone flags it, and even then, it can take years to act on a report due to the amount of bureaucracy involved. No amount of behaviour prediction and profiling will change that.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maybe it's unintentional, but your posts have a woeful tone of condescension about them. There's no amount of understanding what happened in one particular case could possibly prevent what happens in another case. Not if you had millions of cases could you predict abuse, because nobody is aware of it until someone flags it, and even then, it can take years to act on a report due to the amount of bureaucracy involved. No amount of behaviour prediction and profiling will change that.

Well that's totally wrong.
Behaviour profiling can and does work. What about teachers? Sports coaches? People who work with kids, they are made aware of certain things to look out for, certain things that can flag potential abuse/ neglet in a child.
Likewise, when dealing with parents, there are certain behaviours that can be spotted by trained people. So yes, knowing why something happened is important, and most definitely useful.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it's obvious that you're more fixated on the crime and punishment than prevention in future cases.

I'm repeating your claim that you don't care WHY it happened. I find it shocking that you would say that and you seem to find it equally shocking when I say it back to you. You said it later in the same post. You don't care what might have led to the harm to children which I think is a ridiculous approach. See your quote below where you explicitly say you don't care why it happened and propose harsher punishment. It's your own words.





Good to see that you think social workers should be more active. I think they should have good info to work with. Good info involves clever people asking why it happened and how can it be prevented. I know you dont care about why it happened, luckily for all of is, other people do care about that.



How would social services get involved unless they're informed by a third party? Cameras on the walls of all houses with children? Be serious.

We can only hope to improve things if we understand what happened and why. Don't worry your head if you can't care about why it happened other people have it covered for you. You don't have to he grateful or even aware that it's happening, but it's very important that it does happen

Have you been a victim of child abuse?
During Councelling to get over something someone else did to you, something you had absolutely no control over, one of the steps is dealing with how it made you feel. You don't rationalise their behaviour, you don't make excuses, it doesn't matter what they did. It's the effects of their behaviour that's imprinted on someone else, some defenceless child. It doesn't matter WHY they did it. The end effect is the same whether someone did it because they were mentally ill and off their meds or because they're pure evil.

Do you think that all parents who abuse their kids fit the same profile? You think the warning signs and behaviours are all the same? Nobody knows what's going on behind closed doors. To the outside world they may be the most loving parents. It's not just the raging alcoholics that abuse their children.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

Well that's totally wrong.
Behaviour profiling can and does work. What about teachers? Sports coaches? People who work with kids, they are made aware of certain things to look out for, certain things that can flag potential abuse/ neglet in a child.
Likewise, when dealing with parents, there are certain behaviours that can be spotted by trained people. So yes, knowing why something happened is important, and most definitely useful.

I don't see how you got from being made aware of certain things to look out for, to that actually being useful, unless someone actually does something about what they have observed.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see how you got from being made aware of certain things to look out for, to that actually being useful, unless someone actually does something about what they have observed.

Well that's the whole point of child protection. Educate people on what to look for, then what to do when abuse is suspected.
Obviously

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

Well that's the whole point of child protection. Educate people on what to look for, then what to do when abuse is suspected.
Obviously

Yes, educating people on what to look out for in children, and what to do when they suspect a child is being abused. El D's point seems to be more focused on profiling abusers after the fact which gives us nothing by way of predicting or preventing the future behaviour of someone who hasn't come to the attention of researchers.

There's not much point in educating people either if they're simply going to ignore their education for whatever reason. An investigation carried out after the fact is only able to determine why that particular person ignored their education and it gives us nothing by way of predicting or preventing someone else from ignoring their training in the future either.

allibastor

Typical Sh1te in Ireland, you can do lasting damage to kids which will now continue with them for all their lives and most likely onto a new generation.

But sure, hey, only give the mother 4 years in prison, which means in reality 2. And sure let the guys who hung around her and knew about it a suspended one!!!


Its is terrible, one more reason why people should be put locked away from normal society.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, educating people on what to look out for in children, and what to do when they suspect a child is being abused. El D's point seems to be more focused on profiling abusers after the fact which gives us nothing by way of predicting or preventing the future behaviour of someone who hasn't come to the attention of researchers.

There's not much point in educating people either if they're simply going to ignore their education for whatever reason. An investigation carried out after the fact is only able to determine why that particular person ignored their education and it gives us nothing by way of predicting or preventing someone else from ignoring their training in the future either.

What?
Teaching people what to look for in potential abusers, is also important.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

What?
Teaching people what to look for in potential abusers, is also important.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by 'potential abusers', because that implies that everyone falls into the category of a potential abuser. Anyone could be a potential abuser, and my point is that profiling simply does not work, because it is based upon preconceptions and correlations.

That's how abusers are able to avoid detection - because they don't fit preconceived ideas based upon correlations. Therefore, gathering data on abusers after the fact tells us nothing about the potential for someone else to commit abuse.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by 'potential abusers', because that implies that everyone falls into the category of a potential abuser. Anyone could be a potential abuser, and my point is that profiling simply does not work, because it is based upon preconceptions and correlations.

That's how abusers are able to avoid detection - because they don't fit preconceived ideas based upon correlations. Therefore, gathering data on abusers after the fact tells us nothing about the potential for someone else to commit abuse.

I'm going to guess that you dont have a lot of experience in child protection issues, I don't mean that to sound insulting.
Everyone are potential abusers, if that's the way you want to put it.

Gathering information on child abuse cases does indeed help us to understand why and how this abuse can happen, which in turn helps identify potential abusers.

El_Duderino 09

LexieOnRale wrote:

Have you been a victim of child abuse? During Councelling to get over something someone else did to you, something you had absolutely no control over, one of the steps is dealing with how it made you feel. You don't rationalise their behaviour, you don't make excuses, it doesn't matter what they did. It's the effects of their behaviour that's imprinted on someone else, some defenceless child. It doesn't matter WHY they did it. The end effect is the same whether someone did it because they were mentally ill and off their meds or because they're pure evil.

No. Thankfully I have never experienced any of that. I can see how it could make objectivity impossible for the individual. That's why we don't put a victim on the jury for a similar case.

To you personally maybe it doesn't matter WHY it happened. It might be enough for a victim to get along with their lives. Society DOES need to know why these things happen if it has any intention intervene in future cases and prevent harm.

LexieOnRale wrote:

Do you think that all parents who abuse their kids fit the same profile? You think the warning signs and behaviours are all the same? Nobody knows what's going on behind closed doors. To the outside world they may be the most loving parents. It's not just the raging alcoholics that abuse their children.

If only it were that simple that all cases fit a single profile. But it isn't
It takes painstaking work, pushing the boulder up the hill an inch at a time. Thanks to those people who ask WHY, we now have guidelines to spot potential harm and policies to deal with potential harm once spotted.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't see how you got from being made aware of certain things to look out for, to that actually being useful, unless someone actually does something about what they have observed.

Of course the individual needs to act on the guidelines. My mother was a primary school teacher and she dealt with cases of suspected abuse. It involved weeks of documentation and potentially putting her career on the line to get it done. I'm not sure why you keep repeating the line that someone needs to act because I think we're all in agreement on that.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Yes, educating people on what to look out for in children, and what to do when they suspect a child is being abused. El D's point seems to be more focused on profiling abusers after the fact which gives us nothing by way of predicting or preventing the future behaviour of someone who hasn't come to the attention of researchers.

Profiling by definition means looking at past cases and identifying common traits retrospectively, then applying that knowledge prospectively to prevent harm. You need the knowledge from previous cases to apply it to prevent future cases from happening or at least to minimise harm by intervening as early as posdible

Just to say it before you, of curse someone needs to act on the information.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm going to guess that you dont have a lot of experience in child protection issues, I don't mean that to sound insulting.
Everyone are potential abusers, if that's the way you want to put it.

Gathering information on child abuse cases does indeed help us to understand why and how this abuse can happen, which in turn helps identify potential abusers.

I wouldn't take your assumption as an insult at all, because it demonstrates my point perfectly - based upon your preconceptions, you assume I don't have a lot of experience in child protection issues.

I simply think it's wrong to say that everyone are potential child abusers, because then you'll start seeing signs that aren't there, assuming the worst of innocent people, and missing the signs that someone is an actual abuser, which can only be determined on an individual basis, without your judgement being informed by preconceptions and whether or not an individual fits a profile that is based on other people's past behaviour.

That's how society has gotten to a point where we have mass hysteria based upon stereotypes, yet we miss the stuff that happens under our own noses.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't take your assumption as an insult at all, because it demonstrates my point perfectly - based upon your preconceptions, you assume I don't have a lot of experience in child protection issues.

I simply think it's wrong to say that everyone are potential child abusers, because then you'll start seeing signs that aren't there, assuming the worst of innocent people, and missing the signs that someone is an actual abuser, which can only be determined on an individual basis, without your judgement being informed by preconceptions and whether or not an individual fits a profile that is based on other people's past behaviour.

That's how society has gotten to a point where we have mass hysteria based upon stereotypes, yet we miss the stuff that happens under our own noses.

I assume you don't have experience based on what you are posting, because if you did you would understand that it is possible to flag certain behaviours.
I'm not sure why you think education for people working with children & their parents would result in mass hysteria!
Education would clearly result in the opposite.

I'm certainly not going around society looking at everyone as potential abusers, but I would hope that given education & past experiences I would be able to flag any questionable behaviour, that would warrant further investigation.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't examine cases like this to ascertain all factors?

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I assume you don't have experience based on what you are posting, because if you did you would understand that it is possible to flag certain behaviours.

If you call 'flagging certain behaviours' making assumptions about people based upon preconceptions, then yes, it's absolutely possible to do that. Whether it's actually reliable or not is the question. I say that it isn't, you disagree. The success rate in profiling is about the same as that in astrology.

The methodology of profiling itself is flawed, because as El Durino points out - it is based on retrospective analysis of past experiences. It doesn't allow for anything which hasn't been experienced before that point.

I'm not sure why you think education for people working with children & their parents would result in mass hysteria!
Education would clearly result in the opposite.

Except it hasn't resulted in the opposite, and this has been demonstrated time and time again by the very fact that misconceptions based upon stereotypes still exist among people working in social care, among law enforcement, and among the general public.

I'm certainly not going around society looking at everyone as potential abusers, but I would hope that given education & past experiences I would be able to flag any questionable behaviour, that would warrant further investigation.

Exactly my point - you're flagging behaviours as questionable, based upon your preconceptions which have been informed by being told what to look out for, so often you will miss the signs that are staring you in the face so to speak.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't examine cases like this to ascertain all factors?

I'm saying that it's pointless trying to ascertain why the mother in this case did what she did, because you're unlikely ever to ascertain their motivation. Perpetrators don't make for very reliable sources of information that could help identify the motivations of other perpetrators.

Vandango

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Wouldn't even be able to read that

Same here, some links you just know will be too disturbing to click on.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

The methodology of profiling itself is flawed, because as El Durino points out - it is based on retrospective analysis of past experiences. It doesn't allow for anything which hasn't been experienced before that point.

Are you making a point about all profiling being useless or do you think it's specific to child abuse?

Do you think it's useless because they can't make a 100% reliable profile? Or do you think it's completely useless?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you making a point about all profiling being useless or do you think it's specific to child abuse?

Do you think it's useless because they can't make a 100% reliable profile? Or do you think it's completely useless?

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that it's pointless trying to ascertain why the mother in this case did what she did, because you're unlikely ever to ascertain their motivation. Perpetrators don't make for very reliable sources of information that could help identify the motivations of other perpetrators.

You are dead right.
Feck them all, throw away the keys & sit & wait until abuse and neglect occurs then repeat.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

You'd be surprised how many abusers have red flags. It probably won't stop that abuse happening but it might help target what families need support or intervention. It's hard to quantify, if I have potential to abuse my children but I'm supported by the system and don't abuse them how do we know it's worked? But it's worth trying.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

You are dead right.
Feck them all, throw away the keys & sit & wait until abuse and neglect occurs then repeat.

You don't actually believe that though, not that it's even close to any interpretation of what I said.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that it's pointless trying to ascertain why the mother in this case did what she did, because you're unlikely ever to ascertain their motivation. Perpetrators don't make for very reliable sources of information that could help identify the motivations of other perpetrators.

Somehow I doubt there was any 'motivation' as you and I understand it at play at all.

I would suspect that this woman was raised similarly to how she raised her own kids, that this neglect and lack of love and care was a theme throughout her own childhood. This, in other words, was what passed for 'normal' in her life.

The very, very, vast majority of people who are abused go on to become wonderful adults, and loving and caring parents. I would imagine they have some greater insight, some inner reserve of empathy and intelligence that motivates them to never repeat the mistakes of their own parents. You can see it on this thread.

Some don't break the cycle though. I think finding out what the differences are between the two outcomes is important in preventing, identifying, and treating both the victims and abusers. Maybe they just don't have the inner resources to overcome the damage to the same extent as most. Maybe some people are just 'badder' or more selfish and don't want to make the effort to change the pattern. Maybe some are in the throes of an engulfing addiction that makes them powerless to act positively.

It's a human reaction to want people who've hurt kids to suffer commensurate with the pain they've caused. It's much more valuable in the long run to find out why though. We as a society owe it to future kids to find out.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many abusers have red flags. It probably won't stop that abuse happening but it might help target what families need support or intervention. It's hard to quantify, if I have potential to abuse my children but I'm supported by the system and don't abuse them how do we know it's worked? But it's worth trying.

I understand the whole idea of profiling and why it's done to identify families that need support, but plenty of families that don't appear to be in need of support don't get red flagged because they don't fit the profile. That's where the whole idea of nobody knowing what goes on behind closed doors, or someone didn't fit 'the profile' comes in. Because it simply doesn't work.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

I think you have a very confused idea of what we're talking about. I bet if I told you some of the risk factors like: drug addicted patents and having strange men in the house (examples from this case), child changing behaviour abruptly such as becoming withdrawn or lashing out, getting mysterious bruises in particular parts of the body or showing inappropriate sexualised behaviour or knowledge you would say 'sure those are obvious' or 'those are meaningless'. In either case you would show your misunderstanding of what we're talking about. Those risk factors or 'red flags' are basic elements in a risk profile.

eviltwin wrote:

You'd be surprised how many abusers have red flags. It probably won't stop that abuse happening but it might help target what families need support or intervention. It's hard to quantify, if I have potential to abuse my children but I'm supported by the system and don't abuse them how do we know it's worked? But it's worth trying.

I think you're right on this point. You're at odds with One Eyed Jack here as they don't believe risk profiles or red flags can be used with any degree of accuracy.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I understand the whole idea of profiling and why it's done to identify families that need support, but plenty of families that don't appear to be in need of support don't get red flagged because they don't fit the profile. That's where the whole idea of nobody knowing what goes on behind closed doors, or someone didn't fit 'the profile' comes in. Because it simply doesn't work.

You're back on the fence here by saying some families will not for the profile. I thought here was no usable profile according to you. That's why I asked you whether you think profiling is completely useless or just not 100% accurate.

Of course profiles are useful, to varying degrees and in all walks of life. Do you really think they have no accuracy in this case?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you have a very confused idea of what we're talking about. I bet if I told you some of the risk factors like: drug addicted patents and having strange men in the house (examples from this case), child changing behaviour abruptly such as becoming withdrawn or lashing out, getting mysterious bruises in particular parts of the body or showing inappropriate sexualised behaviour or knowledge you would say 'sure those are obvious' or 'those are meaningless'. In either case you would show your misunderstanding of what we're talking about. Those risk factors or 'red flags' are basic elements in a risk profile.

No, I would say you were trying to put words in my mouth regarding things I never said. What I said was that I personally think profiling specifically relating to child abuse cases is unreliable, and I personally don't believe it is possible to come up with a model that would enable us to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

I think you're right on this point. You're at odds with One Eyed Jack here as they don't believe risk profiles or red flags can be used with any degree of accuracy.

Again, that's not actually what I said ay all. I said they cannot be used to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims, or potential abusers.

You're back on the fence here by saying some families will not for the profile. I thought here was no usable profile according to you. That's why I asked you whether you think profiling is completely useless or just not 100% accurate.

Of course profiles are useful, to varying degrees and in all walks of life. Do you really think they have no accuracy in this case?

Profiling IMO, is completely useless in predicting potential victims or abusers, is what I said. I said the above because I recognise that not everyone is going to agree with me that profiling serves no purpose in prediction, because it's based upon retrospective analysis and identifying common behaviours, attitudes and circumstances. It's basically stereotyping by another name. Anything which falls outside that stereotype is never flagged, because it's never identified in order to be flagged in the first place. In this particular case, you're applying flags retrospectively to fit the model, so therefore the model must be justified.

Does it not make you wonder at all how anyone involved in the case or anyone who had any interaction with the family involved missed all the identifiers that you're now able to apply retrospectively?

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

No, I would say you were trying to put words in my mouth regarding things I never said. What I said was that I personally think profiling specifically relating to child abuse cases is unreliable, and I personally don't believe it is possible to come up with a model that would enable us to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

Ok instead of putting words in your mouth I'll ask you directly whay you think about those factors I mentioned -the 2 from this specific case and the other more general ones. What say you? Are they in fact risk factors?

One eyed Jack wrote:

Again, that's not actually what I said ay all. I said they cannot be used to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims, or potential abusers.

Of course they can. They are used every day to protect children. There's no way you don't understand that. We don't wait until we see a child being abused. We act on risk factors.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Profiling IMO, is completely useless in predicting potential victims or abusers, is what I said. I said the above because I recognise that not everyone is going to agree with me that profiling serves no purpose in prediction, because it's based upon retrospective analysis and identifying common behaviours, attitudes and circumstances. It's basically stereotyping by another name. Anything which falls outside that stereotype is never flagged, because it's never identified in order to be flagged in the first place. In this particular case, you're applying flags retrospectively to fit the model, so therefore the model must be justified.

Yes it's stereotyping/profiling/heuristics based on fact. It's a fact that children of drug addicts are more likely to experience abuse than children of non drug addicts- all other factors being equal. Therefore drug addicted parents represent an elevated risk for children. That's prospective. How are you not getting this? It's really simple. All the other factors I mentioned in the last post also represent elevated risk of abuse.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Does it not make you wonder at all how anyone involved in the case or anyone who had any interaction with the family involved missed all the identifiers that you're now able to apply retrospectively?

Yes of course. I saw it happen with my own mother in her school. She had suspicions based on the risks she observed. But you can't make a claim unless it can me substanciated or else it's an unsubstantiated claim of abuse against a parent. That can cost you your job, your career, can cost an innocent parent their child and their reputation and could be detrimental to the child. That's one reason why people hesitate. My mother was right in that instance but she couldn't act until she could substanciate a claim that the child was at serious risk.

If you were a teacher, would you keep an honest eye out for risk factors like a responsible adult? (No need to have a sh1t fit at every bruise) I suspect you would because the opinion you're putting forward is stupid (zero predictive power of profiles) but I don't think you're stupid. Tell me you would at least follow the guidelines if you were in loco parentis.

The profiles are imperfect at predicting abuse, not useless.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok instead of putting words in your mouth I'll ask you directly whay you think about those factors I mentioned -the 2 from this specific case and the other more general ones. What say you? Are they in fact risk factors?

They are risk factors, in which case either abuse is taking place, or it isn't. What I'm trying to get across is that the profiles are useless in terms of identifying potential victims, or potential perpetrators, because there is no way that it can actually be predicted whether someone will become a victim, and there's no way of knowing whether someone will become an abuser. That's what I mean when I talk about profiling being useless in terms of identifying other people's future potential as either a victim, or a perpetrator. Any statistics we can gather is based upon known data, from which we can formulate probabilities, and as you say identify known potential risk factors. That's not prediction, it's correlation.

Of course they can. They are used every day to protect children. There's no way you don't understand that. We don't wait until we see a child being abused. We act on risk factors.

Sure, I do understand that, but the point I'm trying to make is that in those cases, the risks have already been identified. The point I'm making is that often, we miss signs because we don't know what we haven't any knowledge of. How can we?

The case in this instance is a good example of what I'm trying to say. I'm working off the assumption that the social workers involved were on top of their game, following guidelines and best practices and so on, they had identified the family as being at risk, but - were it not for an unscheduled visit, purely by chance, they would never have discovered the extent of the abuse and it could have gone on for much longer. They couldn't possibly have predicted the extent of the abuse, because it was being kept hidden from them! However it was being hidden from them, was outside the scope of whatever model they were working off. It went undetected. They were doing their jobs, but the abuse was still able to be kept hidden from them, and it was only after the children were taken into care that the extent of the abuse came to light!

Yes it's stereotyping/profiling/heuristics based on fact. It's a fact that children of drug addicts are more likely to experience abuse than children of non drug addicts- all other factors being equal. Therefore drug addicted parents represent an elevated risk for children. That's prospective. How are you not getting this? It's really simple. All the other factors I mentioned in the last post also represent elevated risk of abuse.

I get how it works, I do. It's based upon assessment of known risk factors which have been determined by correlations drawn from previous cases. That's why it's always changing and never ending, and trying to draw profiles from it, while I can understand why people say it's worth trying and it's useful and it's educating people and all the rest of it, it still can not predict with any degree of accuracy those people who have not already been identified as being at risk of abuse/abusing, and it certainly has no accuracy in predicting potential victims/abusers. If it had, detection rates would be a lot higher than they are, and intervention would happen much sooner. The fact is that by using profiling/stereotyping, you're going to miss out on signs that don't already fit what is usually a very specific profile.

Yes of course. I saw it happen with my own mother in her school. She had suspicions based on the risks she observed. But you can't make a claim unless it can me substanciated or else it's an unsubstantiated claim of abuse against a parent. That can cost you your job, your career, can cost an innocent parent their child and their reputation and could be detrimental to the child. That's one reason why people hesitate. My mother was right in that instance but she couldn't act until she could substanciate a claim that the child was at serious risk.

I get why people are hesitant, but what I'm saying is that because of stereotyping - cases all too often go undetected, or aren't taken seriously enough, and all too often go unreported, because the persons involved don't fit the stereotypical profile. They're able to hide it purposely, so that it goes undetected! There's no model, no amount of education, no amount of training, can account for that level of deception. That's who you're dependent upon to inform your research. A person so skilled at deception and manipulation that they can deceive professionals with experience, and control children to the point where they may never reveal their abuse.

If you were a teacher, would you keep an honest eye out for risk factors like a responsible adult? (No need to have a sh1t fit at every bruise) I suspect you would because the opinion you're putting forward is stupid (zero predictive power of profiles) but I don't think you're stupid. Tell me you would at least follow the guidelines if you were in loco parentis.

The profiles are imperfect at predicting abuse, not useless.

I'm afraid El_Duderino you give me far too much credit

I'm not known for following guidelines and best practices and bureaucracy. It's just not the way I do things. I understand of course that guidelines, education, best practice and procedures are all necessary parts of the job, I understand why people base their judgement on stereotypes, but statistics can only give you information after the fact, based upon recorded evidence. They just don't work at the level of individual assessment IMO. I just think that by putting individuals in boxes based upon stereotypes, you're going to miss out on the individual signs.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

They are risk factors, in which case either abuse is taking place, or it isn't. What I'm trying to get across is that the profiles are useless in terms of identifying potential victims, or potential perpetrators, because there is no way that it can actually be predicted whether someone will become a victim, and there's no way of knowing whether someone will become an abuser. That's what I mean when I talk about profiling being useless in terms of identifying other people's future potential as either a victim, or a perpetrator. Any statistics we can gather is based upon known data, from which we can formulate probabilities, and as you say identify known potential risk factors. That's not prediction, it's correlation.

You're going to have to put the goalposts down at some point. You'll break your back picking them up and moving them every other post.

You're mistaking lack of perfection with lack of utility.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Sure, I do understand that, but the point I'm trying to make is that in those cases, the risks have already been identified. The point I'm making is that often, we miss signs because we don't know what we haven't any knowledge of. How can we?

Again not perfect but not useless.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I get how it works, I do. It's based upon assessment of known risk factors which have been determined by correlations drawn from previous cases. That's why it's always changing and never ending, and trying to draw profiles from it, while I can understand why people say it's worth trying and it's useful and it's educating people and all the rest of it, it still can not predict with any degree of accuracy those people who have not already been identified as being at risk of abuse/abusing, and it certainly has no accuracy in predicting potential victims/abusers. If it had, detection rates would be a lot higher than they are, and intervention would happen much sooner. The fact is that by using profiling/stereotyping, you're going to miss out on signs that don't already fit what is usually a very specific profile.

Lack of perfection does not = lack of utility.

It's not a very specific profile. I don't work on the field but I know that it's not very soecific at all. It's as individual as family dynamics, with some overarching common traits.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I get why people are hesitant, but what I'm saying is that because of stereotyping - cases all too often go undetected, or aren't taken seriously enough, and all too often go unreported, because the persons involved don't fit the stereotypical profile. They're able to hide it purposely, so that it goes undetected! There's no model, no amount of education, no amount of training, can account for that level of deception. That's who you're dependent upon to inform your research. A person so skilled at deception and manipulation that they can deceive professionals with experience, and control children to the point where they may never reveal their abuse.

I'm about to make up numbers for illustrative purposes. Imagine that 1% of parents are abusive. If you accused 100 parents at random, you would correctly identify 1 abusive patent on average. Imagine if you weight the sample in favour of drug addicted parents, then in favour of parents who are out of the house a lot of the time, then in favour of people who have a history of abuse themselves. Now imagine that you pick 100 parents who fit that very basic profile and 7% of them are abusive parents. The profile has predicted abusive parents at 7 times the rate of chance. That's massive predictive power BUT, there's no way you can go around accusing people with a 7% success rate because of basic rights of parents. And 93/100 parents would sue the backside off you. In that case the model has predictive power.

Now if you see indicative behaviours in the child's behaviour with bruises etc. Now you can start to put a case together.

There's a strange duality here where you seem to think the research and evidence gathering side is futile AND bemoan the fact that social services dont act more efficiently, even though they act on the research and evidence gathered.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I'm afraid El_Duderino you give me far too much credit

A real maverick (I'm picturing Dirty Harry slamming the desk saying 'I don't play be the rules but by god I get results').

I've said about all I have to say on the issue. No point repeating ourselves. Good chat cheers.

KERSPLAT!

Are you two still at it!?

El duderino,
I think jack or whatever the name is, just likes to argue with anyone they can.
No one who thinks normally could think that studying past abuse cases could in no way assist in future child protection.
Obviously anyone with a sane understanding brain realises than any little help is advantageous in child protection.
I wouldn't bother trying to educate jack anymore.