Massachusetts Bloggers!!

The Massachusetts bill to define hitting & hot-saucing children as abuse is at a crucial point!! The Department of Social Services (DSS) is considering TODAY whether to support it or not. If they decide to support it, it will have a decent chance of success!! Please write to the Commissioner of DSS, Harry Spence, at harry.spence@state.ma.us

Here is a sample letter:

Dear Commissioner Spence,

I am writing to urge DSS to support HB 1787, An Act Concerning Corporal Punishment of Children, submitted by the Massachusetts Committee to End Corporal Punishment of Children. This bill will help reduce the incidence of corporal punishment of children. It will also help change society's attitudes toward corporal punishment. As you know, corporal punishment is a very serious problem in Massachusetts, and is an exacerbating factor in problems such as drug addiction, depression, and violent crimes.

Thank you for your consideration,

(Your name, add your address if you're from Massachusetts!)

Positive Parenting Resolution - Brookline, Mass.

A Resolution to Encourage Parents and Caregivers of Children to Refrain from the Use of Corporal Punishment
Author: Ron Goldman
Brookline, Massachusetts - May 2005


ARTICLE 25

WHEREAS the nation’s pediatric professionals and children’s advocates oppose the use of corporal punishment of children;

WHEREAS research shows that corporal punishment teaches children that hitting is an acceptable way of dealing with problems and that violence works;

WHEREAS there are effective alternatives to corporal punishment of children;

WHEREAS national surveys show that corporal punishment is common and 35% of infants are hit before they are one year old;

WHEREAS adopting national policies against corporal punishment has been an effective public education measure in various countries;

WHEREAS accumulated research supports the conclusion that corporal punishment is an ineffective discipline strategy with children of all ages and, furthermore, that it is sometimes dangerous;

WHEREAS studies show that corporal punishment often produces in its victims anger, resentment, low self-esteem, anxiety, helplessness, and humiliation;

WHEREAS research demonstrates that the more children are hit, the greater the likelihood that they will engage in aggression and anti-social behavior as children imitate what they see adults doing;

WHEREAS in a study of 8000 families, children who experience frequent corporal punishment are more likely to physically attack siblings, develop less adequately-developed consciences, experience adult depression, and physically attack a spouse as an adult;

WHEREAS, according to human rights documents, children, like adults, have the right not to be physically assaulted;

WHEREAS the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently stated that persisting legal and social acceptance of corporal punishment is incompatible with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child;

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that Town Meeting encourages parents and caregivers of children to refrain from the use of corporal punishment and to use alternative nonviolent methods of child discipline and management with an ultimate goal of mutual respect between parent and child.

Town Meeting requests that appropriate Town groups explore how they can further raise awareness of this issue, and organizations that deal with children's welfare shall be informed of this resolution.


EXPLANATION

This voluntary resolution is in no way intended to undermine parental authority or familial autonomy. Its goal is to promote and advocate mutual respectful relationships between children and their parents and encourage thoughtful determination of discipline methods. It seeks to bring attention to this issue and is meant to be a gentle, reasonable, and respectful suggestion. It could result in more support and discussion of options for disciplining children.

Corporal punishment is the intentional infliction of physical pain for the purpose of punishment. Examples of corporal punishment include assault and battery that do not cause bodily injury, slapping, spanking, hitting with objects, shaking and pinching. Such incidents are not reported to any agency. Child abuse is already subject to State law and is not the focus of this resolution. Discipline is training to act in accordance with rules of conduct.

This resolution is supported by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Massachusetts Citizens for Children, and the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

A large-scale meta-analysis of 88 studies (Gershoff, 2002) published by the American Psychological Association, found strong associations between corporal punishment and ten negative outcomes, including eroded trust between parent and child, more aggression toward siblings, bullying, spousal abuse as adults, and other anti-social behavior.

American Academy of Pediatrics Recommendations

Parents should be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the following consequences of spanking lessen its desirability as a strategy to eliminate undesired behavior.

Spanking children <18 months of age increases the chance of physical injury, and the child is unlikely to understand the connection between the behavior and the punishment. Although spanking may result in a reaction of shock by the child and cessation of the undesired behavior, repeated spanking may cause agitated, aggressive behavior in the child that may lead to physical altercation between parent and child.
Spanking models aggressive behavior as a solution to conflict and has been associated with increased aggression in preschool and school children.
Spanking and threats of spanking lead to altered parent-child relationships, making discipline substantially more difficult when physical punishment is no longer an option, such as with adolescents.
Spanking is no more effective as a long-term strategy than other approaches, and reliance on spanking as a discipline approach makes other discipline strategies less effective to use. Time-out and positive reinforcement of other behaviors are more difficult to implement and take longer to become effective when spanking has previously been a primary method of discipline.
A pattern of spanking may be sustained or increased. Because spanking may provide the parent some relief from anger, the likelihood that the parent will spank the child in the future is increased.
Consequences of Corporal Punishment
Children whose parents use corporal punishment to control antisocial behavior show more antisocial behavior themselves over a long period of time, regardless of race and socioeconomic status, and regardless of whether the mother provides cognitive stimulation and emotional support (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Kazdin, 1987; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).
A consistent pattern of physical abuse exists that generally starts as corporal punishment, and then gets out of control (Kadushin & Martin, 1981; Straus & Yodanis, 1994).
Adults who were hit as children are more likely to be depressed or violent themselves (Berkowitz, 1993; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992).
The more a child is hit, the more likely it is that the child, when an adult, will hit his or her children, spouse, or friends (Julian & McKenry, 1993; Straus, 1991; Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992; Widom, 1989; Wolfe, 1987).
Corporal punishment increases the probability of children assaulting the parent in retaliation, especially as they grow older (Brezina, 1998).
Corporal punishment sends a message to the child that violence is a viable option for solving problems (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).
Corporal punishment is degrading, contributes to feelings of helplessness and humiliation, robs a child of self-worth and self-respect, and can lead to withdrawal or aggression (Sternberg et al., 1993; Straus, 1994).
Corporal punishment erodes trust between a parent and a child, and increases the risk of child abuse; as a discipline measure, it simply does not decrease children's aggressive or delinquent behaviors (Straus, 1994).
Children who get spanked regularly are more likely over time to cheat or lie, be disobedient at school, bully others, and show less remorse for wrongdoing (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).
Corporal punishment adversely affects children's cognitive development. Children who are spanked perform poorly on school tasks compared to other children (Straus & Mathur, 1995; Straus & Paschall, 1998).
The anti-social behaviors associated with corporal punishment may not be exhibited in most cases. However, the increase in the prevalence of such behaviors is significant.
Alternatives to Corporal Punishment

Set firm, consistent, age-appropriate, and acceptable limits. For example, although a 5-year-old child may be able to resist the urge to touch things, it is not reasonable to expect that a 2-year-old will be able to handle such limits. Therefore, parents may need to childproof their homes to protect breakable items, and to keep children away from dangerous objects.
Teach children conflict resolution and mediation skills, including listening actively, speaking clearly, showing trust and being trustworthy, accepting differences, setting group goals, negotiating, and mediating conflicts. Reason and talk with children in age-appropriate ways. Verbal parent-child interactions enhance children's cognitive ability.
Model patience, kindness, empathy, and cooperation. Parents and teachers should be aware of the powerful influence their actions have on a child's or group's behavior.
Provide daily opportunities for children to practice rational problem solving, and to study alternatives and the effect of each alternative.
Encourage and praise children. A nonverbal response such as a smile or a nod, or a verbal response such as "good" or "right" not only provides incentives for accomplishment, but also builds primary grade children's confidence.
Allow children to participate in setting rules-and identifying consequences for breaking them. This empowers children to learn how to manage their own behavior. Provide consistency, structure, continuity, and predictability in children's lives.
Encourage children's autonomy-allow them to think for themselves, and to monitor their own behavior, letting their conscience guide them.

Hitting People is Wrong, and Children are People Too

EPOCH is a new national organization which aims to end physical punishment of children by parents and other carers. Now that hitting has been almost eliminated in schools and child care institutions, it is time to end it in the home as well.

EPOCH hopes to achieve its aim through public education, research and legal reforms.

First and foremost EPOCH wants to see changes in attitudes to children; to see children recognized as people - and recognition that it is as wrong to hurt a child as it is to hurt another adult. Far from having a right or even a duty to hit children, parents have a right to information about non-violent ways of bringing up their children, and a duty to discipline them with their heads and hearts rather than with their hands or implements.

EPOCH will work with and for parents and other organization to promote non-violent, positive methods of bringing up children.

The law protects the rest of us from violence at the hands of anyone else. Why shouldn't it protect children too?

EPOCH believes that ending physical punishment will have many positive effects:
* children can only achieve their full potential when they are recognized as individual people with rights of their own;

* the current acceptance of physical punishment helps to cause more serious child abuse;

* even `light' physical punishment can unintentionally cause significant injuries to small children;

* children who are hit by their parents learn that violent solutions are acceptable and are more likely in turn to hit their own children. Violence breeds violence.


What do you mean by "physical punishment"?

We mean any action which is meant to cause pain to a child, such as hitting, slapping, smacking, with a hand or with a slipper, strap, stick or other implement. We also include violent shaking and any kind of forcible imprisonment, such as being locked in a room or cupboard or tied in a cot.

What's so wrong with hitting children?

Better to ask "what's right about it?" Everybody agrees it is morally wrong to settle arguments between adult people with blows. But children are people too. Why should they of all people lack equal protection from all forms of violence - particularly when they are among the most vulnerable physically?
Physical punishments are not only morally wrong, they don't work either. A whack on the bottom may stop children for that moment. But it won't stop them doing the same thing later on because being hit does not teach them anything useful. It doesn't teach them how you want them to behave, and it doesn't teach them to try to please you. Research evidence shows that children who have been slapped or hit are usually so overwhelmed with anger and hurt feelings that they cannot remember what they were punished for.

But surely you need to use physical force to keep children safe?

There is all the difference in the world between using your strength to snatch a child away from a hot stove or prevent them running into a busy road, and intentionally causing pain as punishment.

Surely a tap on the legs doesn't count?

Yet it does. Lots of parents `tap' babies, but many, many more smack four year year-olds. That's because hitting doesn't work except to relieve parents' feelings. If you let yourself smack your toddler for fiddling with the TV, what can you do when the toddler fiddles again except smack again - harder? And what can you do with the five year-old who refuses to stay in their room to `cool off' except lock the door...?

But is the ordinary kind of smacking that goes on in loving homes worth all this fuss?

Yes it is - because violence really does breed violence and violence is a major problem in today's society. We are not saying that hitting at home is the only cause of that violence, but we are saying that ending hitting at home would help to reduce it. Children model a lot of their behaviour on their parents. Parents who use physical punishment are directly teaching their children that physical force is an acceptable way to get what you want. If we want less violent adults we have to bring them up believing that physical force is not acceptable.

But aren't ordinary physical punishment and child abuse two quite different things?

When serious cases of child abuse are investigated, they are frequently shown to have started with occasional smacks given in the name of discipline which gradually escalated into tragedies. Current acceptance of physical punishment causes a dangerous confusion. Most of those responsible for seriously injuring children are found to have been physically punished in their childhood.
And even light blows can accidently cause serious injury to small children - eg `clips round the ear' have burst ear drums and permanently damaged hearing, and smacks catching a child off balance have led to falls and head injuries.

But chidlren need discipline; what should replace physical punishment?

EPOCH certainly doesn't argue against discipline, or against consistent limits for children. The best responses to bad behaviour are always directly linked to it: parents' disapproval, irritation or anger, the removal of the toy or playmate the child is hurting, or the ending of the game or meal which is being ruined for everyone else. Rewards work better than punishments for children, just as they do for adults. There are already many parents who don't hit their children in any circumstances, but certainly believe in discipline and limits. You don't spoil a child by not hitting them.

How can you expect parents under stress, suffering from family poverty, unemployment and lack of proper child care support not to hit their children?

EPOCH agrees that our society needs to do much more for those who bear the burden of child-rearing and it will support those campaigning for reforms. But there are no clear links between such social factors and the frequency or severity of hitting children. The fact is that while there continues to be confusion over what is acceptable, hitting children is likely to itself increase stress and violence within any family.
In any case, why should children and only children wait for equal protection from violence until we've sorted out these other major social ills?

If you stop parents hitting their children they'll resort to even worse forms of punishment - and what about emotional abuse anyway?

Obviously other kinds of punishment can be harmful too. We concentrate on physical punishment because its harmful effects have been clearly demonstrated, because it is very frequently used, is clearly defined and because children are the only people in our society who are not protected from it. Changing attitudes to physical punishment, and hence to children will discourage other harmful forms of punishment.

Won't every parent sometimes lose his or her temper and hit their child?

While hitting children remains as acceptable as it is today, the answer is probably `yes'. But do all adults sometimes lose their temper and hit their partner? No - because hitting other adults (or even pets) is beyond the pale. If hitting children was equally unacceptable, most parents would never do it and the few who sometimes did would regret it and try not to. That is all it would take to shift social attitudes towards a new respect for children as people.

Banning physical punishment - it does work

Over five million European children are already protected from all physcial punishment in their home as well as in institutions. Five European countries - Sweden (in 1979), Finland (in 1983), Denmark (in 1985), Norway (in 1987) and Austria (in 1989) have adopted laws which prohibit parents hitting their children. The purpose in each case has been educational; to change attitudes, not to punish parents. There are no criminal penalties attached to the bans. The reforms have not led to a rush of children taking their parents to court over physical punishment, and numbers of children taken into care in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries are low and reducing.


`Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment'
-- Swedish Parenthood and Guardianship Code

In Sweden, school corporal punishment was outlawed in the fifties; in 1966 the legal provision confirming parents' right to use physcial punishment was dropped, and in 1979 a new law was passed with little opposition, stating: `A child may not be subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment'.
Opinion polls have shown a dramatic change in the attitudes of Swedish parents: between 1965 and 1981 the proportion believing that `physical punishment is sometimes necessary' reduced from 53 per cent to 26 per cent, and those believing that children should be raised without physcial punishment increased from 35 per cent to 70 per cent.



In 1985 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe proposed, in a recommendation on family violence, that member states should `review their legislation on the power to punish children in order to limit or indeed prohibit corporal punishment, even if violation of such a prohibition does not necessarily entail a criminal penalty'. (Recommendation R(85)4)
The point of changing the law is to make sure everyone - including children - know that physical punishment is no longer acceptable. EPOCH believes such legal changes are necessary, but not enough; public education is also needed, and EPOCH hopes to help with this too.

The law and physical punishment in the UK

Parents have long-established common law rights to hit their children - provided the punishment is `moderate and reasonable' there used to be similar rights to beat wives, servants, and apprentices). Extreme forms of physical punishment can lead to prosecution, but the courts have been notoriously slow to protect children from even excessive punishment.
Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which makes cruelty including assault, ill-treatment and neglect of children an offence, has a specific exemption allowing physical punishment. Section 1(7) states: `Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of any parent, teacher or other person having lawful control or charge of a child or young person to administer punishment to him'.
An early aim for EPOCH is to get this statutory endorsement repealed. But this would still leave parents with their common law rights to hit theri children; new legislation will be needed to remove these, along the lines of the Scandinavian reforms.


In 1987, a Council of Europe meeting including UK representatives on `Violence in the Family' recommended: `Corporal punishment of children by their parents should be strongly discouraged. In some countries it is illegal, and efforts should be made to see whether it cannot be banned in other countries'.


Corporal punishment in the penal system and in the armed forces has long been abolished, and in August 1987 the UK became the last European country to end school corporal punishment (but pupils in independent schools whose fees are being paid by their parents still remain unprotected). Abolition in all child care institutions has also been promised.


In 1981, the Government-appointed Children's Committee recommeded in a discussion document: `The United Kingdom should embark upon a progressive programme, governed by a specific time-scale, to eliminate the use of coporal punishment on children and young people'.


How often are children hit?
John and Elizabeth Newson's research at Nottingham University's Child Development Research Unit has found that 62 per cent of the random sample of 700 parents interviewed hit their one year-old child; even more hit their four year-old child - and seven per cent of these four year-olds are hit at least once a day.
By the age of seven, at least eight per cent are being hit once a day and a further 33 per cent not less than once a week, 22 per cent of seven your-olds receive corporal punishment with an implement, and 53 per cent have been threatened with an implement: thus three quarters of seven year-olds are either hit or threatened with implements (91 per cent of boys and 62 per cent of girls).
By the age of 11, 18 per cent (22 per cent of boys) are being hit once or more a week and 15 per cent of boys are being punished with an implement.


`The majority of British parents we have interviewed seem to believe that physical punishment is an inevitable and probably necessary aspect of ordinary child upbringing'
-- John and Elizabeth Newson
The Newsons' figures - based as they are on face-to-face interviews - must surely be underestimates. From their most recent interviews they indicate that `there is no reason to suppose that the extent of parental punishment has decreased across the board'. (A 1985 study found almost two-thirds of one-year-old babies being smacked).

EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children)
77 Holloway Road, London N7 8JZ
171 700 0627

A Multi-pronged Approach to Ending Physical Punishment of Children in the United States

"Individuals have a moral responsibility and a role in ending physical punishment of children.

We must resolve not to hit our own children and to be knowledgeable about positive alternatives to physical punishment.
We should use terms that reflect the real nature of physical punishment like "hitting" rather than euphemisms like "swats" or "pops".
In our professional roles, we should tell parents and caretakers not to hit children and provide alternatives.
We should support legal and educational reforms that lead to ending physical punishment of children.
Educational Institutions and Professional Organizations have a role in ending physical punishment of Children

Teacher Education, Social Work, Criminal Justice, Counseling, Nursing, medical education and all human services programs should integrate knowledge about the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives into the curricula.
All professional organizations should have a position statement opposing the physical punishment of children and work for and support public policy and legal reform which leads to the elimination of physical punishment of children.
States and Communities have role in ending physical punishment of children.

Physical punishment in schools should be banned.
Programs on the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives should be part of required training for teachers, staff and students in public schools.
Programs on the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives should be available and accessible to all parents.
All professionals with mandated reporting responsibility for child abuse should have appropriate training in the negative effects of physical punishment of children and the benefits of positive alternatives.
State laws should be reformed to make it a misdemeanor to strike a child.
The federal government can help end physical punishment of children.

The Senate should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Surgeon General should establish a national blue ribbon task force on physical punishment of children and begin an educational campaign to end its use in all settings including homes.
Congress should require the prohibition of physical punishment in all laws regarding schools; foster care, institutional care and child care as a condition of federal funding.
All federally funded parent education programs should provide training on the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives.
Child abuse prevention grants should require that state programs focus activities on eliminating parental physical punishment of children and supporting positive alternatives."

Adopted by the EPOCH-USA Advisory Board, June 2005.