After the state terminated her parental rights, the mother in SLB appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals. The events leading up to the termination included instances in which one of the three children, S.L.B., was found roaming the streets at age two and a half. In another instance, a social worker found severe burns on S.L.B.'s legs and buttocks. The instance that finally led to termination proceedings came in the form of allegations that the children's natural father had sexually abused them. This included evidence that the children had told the mother of the abuse and that mother and father had engaged in sexual activity while one of the girls was in their bed. A juvenile court ruled that mother's limited mental capacity made her incapable of protecting the children and a trial court terminated her parental rights.
On appeal, the mother claimed that she had no knowledge of the sexual abuse, nor should she have had such knowledge and that the lower court erred in terminating her rights.
Holding: Affirmed. In terminating parental rights, a court must consider the best interests of the children as well as the statutory factors laid out by the legislature. Here, the court found overwhelming evidence that the mother lacked even the most basic of parenting skills. Her lack of commitment to the children was demonstrated by her allowing the sexual abuse of her daughters and continuing her relationship with the abuser.
The parental rights of the mother in Frazier were also terminated. The mother gave birth to Rose in April 1994. In 1995, the mother reported that the child's father had gotten angry and choked her. He had put a handgun to her throat and threatened to kill her if she left with their child. Another time, father held a gun to the mother while Rose was present. The mother reported that although the father did not hit her, they threw things at each other, wrestled and that on one occasion, she knocked out his front teeth. On another occasion, a social worker witnessed mother placing Rose between herself and the father after he had yelled angrily at the mother. After other instances of domestic violence, the mother was offered services at a battered women's shelter which she refused to accept. On appeal, the mother contended that the lower court had unjustifiably terminated her parental rights.
Holding: Affirmed. The court held that the mental and physical abuse that the father inflicted on the mother created a harmful environment for Rose. While his anger was not directed at Rose,
the court held, it was still detrimental to her. Compounded by the mother's refusal to protect Rose, (conversely, she used the child as a shield) the court agreed with the lower court that the child's best interests were served by terminating the mother's parental rights.
Dr. Nelson comments: Domestic violence is a traumatic event. Children who witness domestic violence, even if it is not directed at them, are at risk for severe psychological and emotional damage. Additionally, since past violence is the best predictor of future violence, the fact that one father had struck his ex-wife and older children suggests that these children are in great danger.
The parents in SLB and Frazier think and behave in ways characteristic of abusers. Both parents are callous toward the suffering of others (i.e., neglecting a child's needs, oblivious to the pain of burns or digestive distress). Both are in denial and fail to take responsibility for their actions (violence, burning their child, causing eating problems and malnutrition, for example). They minimize violence (by denying sexual abuse, discounting their child's statements of abuse, describing a hit as a "tap" and calling physical fighting "wrestling"). They each have a history of violence (including mother's fist-fighting with fellow high school students and knocking out father's teeth; father inflicting violence on his ex-wife and children).
One mother's reactions to her child's age-appropriate behaviors are inappropriate and extreme (ordering her baby to "go to sleep now," forbidding her five-month-old to cry, not allowing her baby to eat and slapping her infant for pulling hair). Both parents consider themselves blameless and not in need of help. They see themselves as victims and blame others for their violence and negligent behavior. The Frazier mother uses rigid control and domination to deal with her child (a "my way or the highway" approach) instead of attempting to understand and work with the child (rather, she ignores warnings of feeding the baby inappropriate foods at inappropriate times). She switches erratically between loving and rejecting behaviors. Both parents are verbally abusive.
STEPS TO AIDING AN ABUSIVE PARENT FACING TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS:
- Accept responsibility for the violence, abuse and neglect. Ask whose fist is doing the hitting. Recognize and admit to behavior.
- Recognize the suffering of others and acknowledge infliction of that suffering. Develop empathy by increasing the understanding of the suffering of those nearby. Empathy can lead to remorse for abusive actions.
- Recognize the inadequacy of anger, control and violence as parenting tools and develop a willingness to learn new skills.
Can individuals with such characteristics be treated so they can maintain their parental rights? The task would be long and arduous, but feasible if these individuals could come to terms with three critical issues.
First, taking responsibility for the violence, abuse and neglect. The bottom line is: whose fist is doing the hitting? Who is leaving guns lying around? Who isn't changing urine-soaked diapers? Once the parents recognize and admit to their behavior, change is possible.
Second, recognizing the suffering of others and acknowledging infliction of that suffering. We cannot force others to be empathic, but we can help them develop empathy by increasing their understanding of the suffering of those around them. Remorse can then develop as the person sees the connection between their actions and the suffering their behavior causes.
Third, recognizing the inadequacy of anger, control and violence as parenting tools and willingness to learn new skills. Anger management training, although useful, isn't nearly enough. The use of control and domination with or without physical force must be replaced with appropriate and effective parenting skills. Willingness is key.
The prognosis for change is not good in these cases, especially because of the parents' histories of mental illness and sexual abuse. In addition to the profound resistance to change by both parents, the mothers may be mentally incapable of recognizing, much less dealing with, maltreatment of the children. This precludes a positive outcome if the children were to remain with the parents. Removing the children from such hostile environments is the first step in assuring that they will have a more hopeful future, and it provides a context in which the cycle of abuse can be broken.
| Patricia A. Sokolich, Esq. Attorney |
Patricia Sokolich comments: Termination of parental rights (TPR) is a drastic measure. The state, through family court, may intervene against the wishes of a parent on behalf of a child. If the state meets its burden of proof and allows the court to award the custody of the child to the department of social services for permanent foster care placement, termination of parental rights may follow.
Whether the mother's neglect is a result of her being a victim of domestic violence or whether she is unwilling or physically or mentally incapable of taking care of the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs is an important issue. Clients who are victims should be advised that in order to protect their children, they must seek help. If they fail to safeguard their children, the state may step in and remove the children from the home. The children may then be adjudged "neglected." If the parent does not take the necessary steps to make the home safe for the children, the state can request a termination of parental rights.
A parent who is the victim and not a perpetrator of domestic violence will not be liable for neglect if she has taken such measures as a reasonable and prudent parent would have taken to protect the child from harm or from imminent danger of harm. For example, the parent's willingness to obtain and to enforce an order of protection is evidence of a willingness and ability to exercise a minimum degree of care toward the child. Finally, an abused parent's willingness to prosecute her abuser or to accept agency assistance such as shelter and domestic violence counseling are significant factors in determining whether the child would be in danger in the parent's custody.
Conversely, where the evidence shows that the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in imminent danger of becoming physically, mentally or emotionally impaired as a result of violence in the home, and failed to take steps to protect the child from the effects of the violence, the parent is liable for causing the child to be neglected. For example, in Frazier, evidence that the father would not curtail his violent behavior, even when one of the children was positioned between him and the target of his anger, (the mother) clearly indicated that the father was a danger to the children and his parental rights should be terminated. The court found that termination of the mother's parental rights was warranted by the mother's failure, despite an outpouring of services and attempts to help her, to take reasonable care of her child. She failed to bond with the child, to provide the child with emotional support, to feed the child age-appropriate food, and to keep the house safe for children. The evidence also showed that the mother was incapable of protecting her children from the physical abuse the father inflicted on the mother and often placed the elder child in harm's way. More than once, the mother placed the child between herself and the father while she cowered in the corner. The mother's action demonstrated that she was willing to use the child to shield herself from harm.
I advise my clients that their children may be removed from the home if they are not protected and shielded from the abuse. Recently, the New York Court of Appeals stated that any child who lives in a home and witnesses domestic violence is at risk of harm. While the court has stopped short of saying that domestic violence witnessed by the children is neglect per se, they have said that the presence of domestic violence in the home is one of the factors that a judge must consider in rendering custody decisions.
Dr. Miller comments: Treating victims of child abuse and/or neglect is often referred to as process of "reparenting". That is, reversing the effects of abandonment and betrayal experienced by victims at a time in their lives when they had little or no choice about the quality of their parenting.
Victims of abuse come to treatment with profound damage to their view of themselves, based on the inferences they draw from the way in which they were treated as children.
Children are dependent on their caretakers to provide reliable information as to who they are. Most often, this information is provided by what is done, not what is said. These children therefore learn in subtle ways that their basic needs are of little or no consistent concern to their caretakers. This attitude toward themselves is internalized and the child learns to ignore his or her needs as well. Thus an "outer-directed person" is often the result of early abuse, wherein the person looks to others for information about how he or she is, since the internal ability to know is damaged. Adults Molested as Children (AMACs) come into the adult world poorly equipped, seeking approval and affection denied them in childhood. Often, they seek these things in ways, which are inappropriate for adults. They often act out in sexual and/or criminal ways trying to satisfy their basic needs, and are often surrounded by others who exploit their limited abilities, thereby abusing them further.
Treatment consists of establishing a trusting relationship in which the patient is taught to better understand their needs. Implications for all surrogate caretakers are that the betrayal and abandonment should be stopped as soon as possible. Whatever action is taken should provide the child with a consistent message that their needs are attended to as decisions about them are made.
When a parent is unable or unwilling to protect a child from abuse, this in itself becomes a form of abuse. Abusers are often extremely limited people, behaving the only way in which they know. The cycle of abuse is then passed along, each generation a reflection of its childhood learning. Given the limited nature of the parents in these cases, it is unlikely that treatment would be useful soon enough to protect the children. From a treatment standpoint, the courts' decisions to remove the children as a final effort of protection is justified.
