SOWK 779.18: Child Abuse & CultureAmory Hamilton-Henry (10048817)

Assignment 3:

Dr. Leslie TuttyDecember 7, 2012

Child abuse and culture: Gaps in current literature

Child abuse occurs in all ethnic, age and socioeconomic

groups and impacts families in both rural and urban communities

(Kenny & McEachern, 2000; Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi & Lozano,

2002). Some authors assert that child abuse has existed at all

times and in all societies (Campbell, 2005; Finkelhor, 1986;

Kent, Weisberg, Lamar & Marx, 1983). Shalalingigwa (2009) states

that historically children were the treated as the property of

their parents, depending on them for their very existence.

Miller-Perrin and Perrin (2013) added to this noting that until

“the child saving movement of the mid to late 1800s, the

mistreatment of children, did not receive serious attention as a

social problem” (p. xiv).

1

It appears that in general our societies have experienced a

shift in what is today perceived as the role of children and

their increasing importance to families and communities (Andrews,

2004). However the issue of child abuse is still significant,

with worldwide recognition and increasing concern, particularly

with respect to understanding effective means of preventing abuse

and treating the victims of abuse.

A critical issue that has emerged in the discussion of child

maltreatment is the impact of culture and ethnicity, on factors

such as definition (Fontes, 2005), disclosure (Fontes & Plummer,

2010; Ibanez, Borrego Jr., Pemberton & Terao, 2006), and the

ability of different entities to provide an appropriate response

in line with the needs of those impacted (Bridge, Greer-Massie &

Mills, 2008). The current literature, while reflecting

significant advancement over the years, retains contradictions

and inconsistencies in the occurrence of, and characteristics

related to abuse in specific ethnic groups (Fontes; Kenny &

McEachern, 2000). One possible contributor to this has been

identified as the different approaches to child development,

which are rooted in our individual cultures (Korbin, 1987, 2002;

2

Raman & Hodes, 2012; Reisig & Miller, 2009); where what is

acceptable in one culture or for one group of people may not be

acceptable for another.

However efforts to foster greater understanding of the role

culture plays in child abuse appears to have been hampered in

part by the dearth of information about the role of cultural

practices in either contributing to abuse or in supporting

recovery. Raman and Hodes (2012) note that there is neither

universal agreement on child-rearing standards nor the definition

of child abuse. In the absence of a unified approach, some

researchers suggest that the professional’s own cultural values

and world view can become the guiding force in making decisions

about child abuse (Pierce & Pierce, 1996; Pinderhughes, 1979;

Stevenson, Cheung & Leung, 1992). Korbin (1991) previously cited

the same concern, noting that the absence of a shared

understanding or cultural perspective, often results in an

endorsement of an ethnocentric perspective as superior and

preferred. In these instances, Pierce and Pierce (1996) found

that it becomes easy to ignore structural variables required to

ensure the best response for children and their families. With

3

regard to research, Faust, Runyon and Kenny (1995) found that

many studies only make mention of the victim’s ethnicity or race

as a demographic variable, but then fail to examine the

relationship to abuse. In another review of methodological issues

in child abuse research, Beitchman, Zucker, Hood, DaCosta and

Ackman (1991) found that research has largely focused on case

records and not individuals as they present for treatment, thus

eliminating some of the direct opportunities to learn from

victims following abuse.

The current paper focuses on an examination of work which

has been done in child abuse, with specific emphasis on those

which have addressed the issue of the role of culture. It seeks

answers to the core questions “what is the current state of

understanding about child abuse and culture and what are the gaps

(if any) in knowledge, policy and practice about this issue?” It

explores the ongoing definitional debate and its impact on work

in this area by itself as well as the interaction with culture

and issues with professional cultural sensitivities and the

management of child abuse issues. The paper makes some inferences

4

to practice within the Canadian context and explores areas for

future research.

Child Abuse Defined

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), child

abuse or maltreatment includes all forms of physical and/or

emotional ill treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent

treatment or commercial or other exploitation (Butchart & Phinney

Harvey, 1999). The organisation identified five main types of

abuse – physical abuse; sexual abuse; neglect and negligent

treatment; emotional abuse and exploitation. These acts result

in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival,

development or dignity in the context of a relationship of

responsibility, trust or power. Abuse of any kind during

childhood causes distress and disturbance at the time but can

produce longer term negative impact on the individual’s health

and functioning (Butchart & Phinney Harvey; WHO, 2010).

Maltreatment has been linked to stress stemming from the

disruption in early brain development, sometimes impairing the

development of the nervous and immune systems. In these cases, it

has been suggested that the individual can become more

5

susceptible to behavioural, physical and mental health problems

in their adult lives (Briere & Runtz, 1988; Chu & Dill, 1990;

Mullen, Martin, Anderson, Romans & Herbison, 1996). Newcomb,

Munoz and Vargas Carmona (2009) in discussing the impact of child

sexual abuse found that “chronic child sexual abuse can activate

hormone levels of the stress response and predispose adolescents

to an earlier onset of puberty” (p. 534). This has been linked to

increased sexual behaviours, early sexual intercourse and

coercive sexual experiences among adolescents (Miller, Benson &

Galbraith, 2001; Newcomb et al. 2009).

Green (1988), referring to victims of physical abuse, noted

that in some cases children had some difficulty experiencing and

modulating aggressive impulses. Similarly Au Coin (2005) noted

that the emotional consequences that children experience as a

result of victimization may lead to hostility, withdrawal and

aggression. Ney, Fung & Wickett, (1994) found that children who

experienced physical abuse at an early age were likely to present

with greater risk for cognitive impairment, depression and low

self-esteem. In a later study, Crouch, Milner and Thomsen (2001)

suggested that victims of physical abuse are at increased risk to

6

themselves become abusive as adults. This was supported by

Fitzgerald (2004) who found that individuals who have been

victimized have higher rates of delinquent behaviour and

increased odds of being arrested as juveniles, while Widom and

Maxfield (2001) inferred an increased likelihood that these

individuals could be arrested for violent crime involvement.

Apart from the physical trauma that some victims suffer, the

stigma associated with the abuse and the guilt that develops, can

have psychological impacts that interfere with the child’s normal

development (Bagley & Mallick, 2000; Dubowitz, Black, Harrington

& Verschoore, 1993; Finkelhor, 1986; Miller-Perrin & Miller,

2013). In addition to the health and social consequences

associated with child maltreatment, there is also an economic

impact, including costs of hospitalization, mental health

treatment, child welfare, and longer-term health costs (WHO,

2010).

The issue of child abuse continues to be a significant one

across all societies, with ongoing focus on understanding the

range of implications for victims and their families as well as

developing meaningful efforts to support their recovery. This

7

process is however being impacted in some spheres by the absence

of congruence on what is abuse in general and what constitutes

the varying forms of abuse. In the absence of agreement on these

fundamental issues, legislation and prosecution continue to be

impacted.

The Definitional Debate Regarding Child Abuse

While there is some consensus that child abuse is associated

with a range of problems for those who are victimized, for many

years, the social service field has struggled with the complexity

involved in defining maltreatment or abuse (Andrews, 2004;

Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013; Mullen et al., 1996). In Canada,

the definition of child abuse differs substantially from one

jurisdiction to the other, with wide-ranging variations in which

acts are construed as abuse and even the age covered under

existing legislation (Andrews, 2004; Au Coin, 2005; Trocmé et

al., 2005). Trocmé et al. found that in Canada, not only is there

variation in whom is covered by existing legislation, but based

on the current range of definitions, there are also variations in

the “forms of maltreatment covered, procedures for investigation

or the grounds for removal” (p. 12).

8

With the exception of the federally mandated criteria

outlined in the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (2003), in

the United States, child abuse and neglect laws vary from state

to state (Andrews, 2004). These differences include the degree to

which they include exemptions (e.g., cultural or religious

practices, corporal punishment) and whether they encompass

specific or broad definitional categories (National Clearinghouse

on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2003).

Azar (1991) suggested that multiple definitions of child

abuse are acceptable, even desirable, because each definition of

child abuse fulfills a different purpose (e.g., legal,

scientific, clinical). Mullen et al. (1996) supported this

stating that restrictive definitions of child abuse can be

harmful in that they limit the range of areas that can be

considered abusive. When this is applied to a multi-cultural

framework, the absence of restrictions could be helpful to

authorities in that it allows for a wider scope of what may be

construed as abusive.

Andrews (2004) argued against the broad-based approach to

defining abuse where this occurs, definitions can be “broad to

9

the point of ambiguity”, resulting in the need for “individual

interpretations of what constitutes child abuse” (p. 3). This

also raises significant issues, particularly within a multi-

cultural context. For example, a behavior which is unique to one

cultural group may not be understood in its entirety by an

external party. Where this occurs, the absence of shared meaning

could result in the practice being construed as abusive by

external authorities.

Other researchers have called for a consensual definition

of child abuse, noting its importance to the needs of children

and their families and the work being done by researchers and

professionals engaged in child welfare services (Cicchetti &

Toth, 1995; Gelles & Cornell, 1990). Andrews (2004), for example,

noted that the absence of consensus on the definition of child

abuse not only contributes to problems with resource allocation,

but also hinders the quality of the response to those affected

because of a limited understanding of the scope and nature of the

issue. Similarly, in a review of child welfare services in

Canada, Trocmé et al. (2005) noted that the absence of

definitional standards has been repeatedly identified as a “major

10

obstacle to the development of child maltreatment research and

practice” (p. 15). Sinha (2010) shared this view, citing the

incongruence across territorial and provincial definitions of

abuse as possible factors contributing to low levels of reporting

of violence against children.

With regard to neglect, both the United States and Canada

continue to struggle with the operationalization of the

definition of this core component of abuse. A fundamental factor

involves the inevitability of placing a subjective description on

what is regarded as ‘adequate’ parenting or caregiver behavior

(Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2012). Similarly, Straus and

Kantor (2005) questioned whether neglect required intent on the

part of the caregiver or whether confounding causes such as

poverty and lack of knowledge should be considered as mitigating

factors. These authors also questioned whether caregivers who do

not shield children from potentially harmful events, such as

domestic violence, should be considered neglectful (DiLillo,

Perry & Fortier 2006).

DiLillo et al. (2006) have suggested that notwithstanding

the difficulties in formulating a unified definition of child

11

physical abuse, several ideas have converged in the literature to

provide some conceptual consistency. As a result of the direct,

explicit, and invasive nature of physical abuse, this form of

maltreatment has been conceptualized as an act (or acts) of

commission in which a caregiver intentionally inflicts physical

pain or injury upon a child (Hansen, Sedlar & Warner-Rodgers,

1999). In keeping with this, the United States’ National

Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS) defined child

maltreatment using two standards; the Harm Standard and the

Endangerment Standard (Trocmé et al., 2005; Sedlak & Broadhurst,

1996). Under the Harm Standard, children must have experienced

some harm or injury from maltreatment, while with the

Endangerment Standard; children in any category of maltreatment

are counted as long as they are regarded as being placed in

danger by the abuse or neglect (Sedlak et al., 2010). The Canada

Incident Study does not require the occurrence of harm in its

maltreatment assessments and relies more on the endangerment

standard to substantiate abuse. In this regard, abuse only

requires that the worker thinks the child is at-risk of abuse or

neglect.

12

It seems that such a significant conclusion should in fact

rely on much more than an individual’s perception, particularly

with regard to the likely impact of the assessment and the likely

impact of cultural misunderstanding influencing the decision.

This sometimes occurs in a system that, according to Cooper et

al. (2010), is affected by the absence of workers who are

“respectful of diversity, receptive to specific cultural

knowledge and difference and able to translate that knowledge

into concrete, culturally competent strategies for practice”

(347). While some propose that these differences are a matter of

reporting bias and differential treatment of clients by

individual workers, research in this area is scant and

inconclusive (Hines, Lemon, Wyatt & Merdinger, 2004).

Culture and Child Abuse

The definitional debate is further complicated with the

introduction of cultural differences in our societies (Gopaul-

McNicol, 1999; Trocmé et al., 2005). Mederos and Woldeguiorguis,

(2003) defined culture through a cultural traits perspective,

suggesting that culture relates to race, ethnicity, the customs

and principles that are common for certain groups. This includes

13

“kin and non-kin network or association patterns; gender roles;

traditions and rituals that define life transitions such as

birth, marriage and death; religion and spirituality; language

and subsistence activities” (p. 130). They further noted that

culture also represents core value orientations such as

“assigning greater worth to individuality or collective

interdependence and a belief in fate versus individual will” (p.

130). In other words, culture may be regarded as a “set of

beliefs, attitudes, values and standards of behaviour that are

passed from one generation to the next” (Raman & Hodes, 2012, p.

31). It includes “language, world views, dress, food, styles of

communication, notions of wellness, healing techniques, child

rearing patterns and self-identity” (Abney & Gunn, 1993, pp. 19-

20).

Another view of culture is that it represents the common

identities that emerge from the shared life context or

experiences of individuals from a given group, in some instances

based on history. These shared experiences influence the

collective identity of a group and also affect individual

identity. Some of these experiences include:

14

Gender; age; sexual orientation; disability; widespread

exposure to public or intimate violence; experiences of

physical, sexual, or severe psychological abuse or neglect;

deprivation, such as hunger or childhood abandonment;

religious affiliation and spirituality; privileged status;

disadvantaged status; political and other forms of

institutional oppression and immigration. (Mederos &

Woldeguiorguis, 2003, p. 131)

Culture then, is a weighted concept that should not be viewed as

being uniformly distributed or having a uniform impact on all

members. Maitra (2005) also cautioned that culture is subject to

change and should be regarded as a fluid, shifting interpretation

and a choice that an individual makes based on a combination of

past and present experiences.

Cultural Perspectives and Child Abuse

Other researchers have pointed to the variability in

parenting practices within cultural groups as well as between

cultural groups as being indicative of the unfixed nature of the

issue being discussed (Korbin, 2002; Roer-Strier, 2001,

Stevenson-Hinde, 1998). Fontes (2002) noted that child rearing

15

practices are informed by ones ethnic culture. In fact, the North

American perspective is that our individual approach to child

rearing should be construed as being informed by socially

constructed beliefs that are deeply rooted in specific cultural

contexts (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013; Reisig & Miller, 2009).

Pinderhughes (1991) added to the discourse noting that

cultural perceptions are informed by a number of mediators, such

as the individual’s ethnicity, race and socioeconomic status. In

a 1995 study examining community members’ tolerance of ‘abuse’,

Andrews (2004) noted that ethnic minorities tended to regard

certain behaviours as more serious that people from the dominant

society. Giovannoni and Becerra (1979) had also found that

different interpretations of maltreatment emerged based on the

individual’s socio-economic status within the society. This

challenges the tendency to ascribe certain beliefs and practices

to one group of people. Instead, as Korbin (2002) posits,

culture is neither monolithic nor static but instead should be

regarded as dynamic.

Another issue is that child maltreatment may be viewed

differently based on whether the viewer is external or internal

16

to a culture (Andrews, 2004; Korbin 1981, 1987; Raman & Hodes,

2012). Understanding the context in which child maltreatment

occurs is important to any effort to achieve cross-cultural

designation of a behavior as abuse. Korbin (1987) suggested that

this process of attaining agreement must be “defined” by a

particular community or cultural group, since what is perceived

by one cultural group as abusive may be viewed as a form of

discipline by another. Taylor (1997) reinforced this, noting

that our societies must become cognizant of the viewpoints of

members of the cultural group in question, termed the “emic”

perspective, as well as an outsider, or the “etic” perspective.

An understanding of both “emic” and “etic” perspectives is a

necessity in sorting out the impact of the cultural and social

context in which behavior, including child abuse and neglect,

takes on meaning.

Korbin (1987) argued that virtually all cultures, regardless

of how they approach child care, have norms for acceptable child-

rearing and have rules (written or unwritten) to address

individuals who deviate from those standards. Lewig, Arney and

Salveron (2010) suggested that the goals of parenting are

17

consistent across cultures and include keeping children safe from

harm, helping them progress through developmental stages and

guiding their moral orientation. Beckett (1996) had previously

described this as a valence issue in the sense that no known

group or individual will identify themselves as being ‘pro-child

abuse’. In other words, “each culture, in isolation, is

reasonably capable of relying on its social norms and values to

decide which parental behaviours are harmful to children and

which ones are not” (Taylor, 1997, p. 342). The difficulty with

culture and child abuse emanates from the convergence of

cultures. As different cultures come into contact with each

other, conflicting child-rearing practices and beliefs fuels the

potential for disputes concerning the “correct” definition of

child abuse and neglect (Korbin, 2002; Fontes, 2005; Reisig &

Miller, 2009; Roehlkepartain, Scales, Roehlkepartain, & Rude,

2002).

In an examination of some of the differences that emerge

based on the individual’s interpretation of child rearing

practices, Futterman (2003) suggested that some child rearing

practices informed by religion and culture, were forms of abuse.

18

He pointed to questionable practices associated with non-western

traditions of female genital mutilation as a form of religious

practice, coining and foot binding as abusive. deMause (1987)

hinted that the Japanese practice that sanctioned infanticide at

the birth of child, as long as the infant had not taken a breath

was abusive. For the average individual these acts may

constitute abuse. These views may be informed by North American

values and culture. However, while these acts may be regarded by

the dominant North American society as harmful to children, the

same negative perception may not necessarily carry to practices

of making children wait for arbitrarily defined periods of time

for food when they are hungry, forcing children to sit in

classrooms all day long, sleep in separate bedrooms from their

parents or ignoring infants when they cry (Korbin, 1981, Reisig &

Miller, 2009). Yet these behaviours may also be regarded as being

at odds with the “proper” approach to child-rearing for persons

of different cultural backgrounds.

The Canadian Context

Canada has been described as a mosaic, with increasing

diversity in the ethnic and racial composition of its population

19

(Mahtani, 2007; Malenfant, Lebel & Martel, 2010). This increased

migration has sometimes been linked to push factors in the

countries of origin such as wars, famine, oppression and human

rights abuse (Danso, 1997) and pull factors in the host country

such as increased demand for skilled labour or small population

size (Boyd & Schellenberg, 2007; Grant, 2005). Whilst not

inferring a connection between increased immigration and rates of

child abuse, Futterman (2003) notes that immigrants contribute to

the introduction of new cultural beliefs, standards and attitudes

that are passed from one generation to the next. These values

sometimes conflict with traditional values of mainstream society

(Reisig & Miller, 2009).

In addressing the issue of abuse, Canada is also faced with

a theoretical challenge based on its commitment to

multiculturalism since 1971. The Multiculturalism Act was

introduced as a framework for national discourse on the

construction of Canadian society. At the most basic level, the

term multicultural can be used as an adjective to refer to the

“multiplicity of the world’s cultures and the co-existence of

these cultures within particular nations” (Mahtani, 2007, p. 67).

20

Multicultural as a historical adjective then, is “as banal as it

is indisputable”, (Stam, 1997, p. 188) because virtually all

countries and regions are multicultural in some way. However what

makes Canada different beyond its status as a multicultural

country is that “the multicultural project has been enshrined in

its constitution and through law, reflecting a salient part of

the social and political context of Canada” (Mahtani, p. 69).

Canada is therefore faced with the challenge of respecting

cultural differences while fostering shared citizenship,

“conferring rights while demanding responsibilities, and

encouraging integration but not insisting on assimilation” (Kunz

& Sykes, 2007, p. 3).

In spite of the critical importance of immigration to the

Canadian society and the stated commitment to the tenets of

multiculturalism (Adams, 2008), little has been done to forge

greater understanding of the interconnections between ethnicity,

culture and child abuse. At the local level, there is often a

lack of accurate, up-to-date statistics on child abuse within

ethnic and racial groups, or where it does exist, it can be

difficult to obtain. For example, the Canadian Incident Study on

21

Child Abuse still does not collect information on immigrant

status, leaving researchers to use language or ethnicity as

possible proxies

The literature also lacks consistency in terminology used to

describe particular ethnic groups. Operating within this context,

Canada’s complex mosaic of interactions between different groups

of diverse ethnic and social backgrounds provides an extensive

ecological laboratory for the study of contextual effects on

diversity in child development (Roer-Strier, 2001). However, the

absence of a cultural understanding of child abuse – both as it

relates to causes and possible mediators are significant issues

for programming and policy.

Professional Cultural Sensitivity and Child Maltreatment

Giovannoni and Becerra’s (1979) research using vignettes

with child abuse professionals, indicated that some

“professionals may have an internal script of what constitutes

child maltreatment that is governed by their own experiences and

not strictly by official policy” (Andrews, 2004, p. 39). In

support of this notion, Agathonos-Georgopoulou (1992) proposed

that culture “not only shapes the ideas and behavior of parents

22

and children but also of professionals” (p. 81). Hence Roer-

Strier (2001) pointed out that professionals involved in the

child welfare system are not exempt from the impact of their

personal development and cultural values as factors which shape

their response to families. In these instances, it is more

likely that the professional’s cultural values and world view

will become the core component influencing the decisions about

child abuse (Pierce & Pierce, 1996; Pinderhughes, 1979;

Stevenson, Cheung & Leung, 1992).

In a system that serves people from different cultural

backgrounds and value systems, the absence of a culturally

appropriate and universal standard to guide professionals in

recognizing and preventing abuse continues to impinge on the

system’s ability to respond. Instead, what currently exists is a

system that according to Horejsi, Craig and Pablo (1992)

“increases the potential for misunderstanding and

misinterpretation by both the worker and the parent” (p. 330).

In illustrating the tension that can arise, Pierce and Pierce

(1996) found that in some instances, “minority children and their

families are seen by white, middle-class workers whose standards

23

of behavior; often perceived as being the norm, have little or

nothing to do with designing ways to ensure effective therapeutic

outcomes for minority children” (p. 714). In these instances,

practitioners make decisions about the individual’s functioning

without an awareness of the impact that their approach in tandem

with their lack of cultural understanding, has on the final

decision (Sue & Sue, 1999).

This cultural insensitivity has also been cited by

researchers as one among sturctual factors such as poverty and

racism, which has featured in the placement, for example, of

Native American children with non-Native American families (Boyd-

Franklin, 1989; Cross, 1986). Horejsi et al. (1992) found that

Native-American children were more likely to be subject to

placement, assessment based on a family pathology model and had

lower emphasis placed on re-unification. Pierce and Pierce (1996)

also submitted that in spite of the growing size of the Asian

populations in North America, the child welfare system appeared

to “follow the old stereotypes that Asian families are model

citizens” (p. 717); often ignoring unique needs of this

population.

24

This bias has also been noted as a concern by Cazenave and

Straus (1979), who found that child welfare systems often ignore

the context in which families are operating in coming to a

decision about the best care for children. For example, whilst

it has been found that the presence of an extended family and

other types of support, especially child care, can contribute to

reduced risk of abusive violence in black homes, children with

these kinds of available support were still subject to high

levels of removal from their homes (Cazenave & Straus; Fontes,

2002; Pinderhughes, 1991). Pinderhughes noted that child welfare

systems continue to be entrenched in a traditional service

delivery model which assessed “client’s functioning on a

homogenous middle-class, White standard” (p. 717).

Research has pointed to the importance of a cultural context

in influencing the individual’s identity, self-esteem and sense

of connection to the community (Pinderhughes, 1991; Williams,

1987). Pinderhughes found that children who are separated from

their families are at higher risk to experience “cultural

disconnection that can jeopardize not only their identity, but

also their sense of biological-familial continuity” (p. 600).

25

Stevenson et al., (1992) suggested that whilst the child

welfare system may have become more tolerant of certain practices

among ethnic minorities, “overt discrimination has simply been

replaced by more covert discrimination” (p. 292). If this is in

fact the case, it becomes challenging to decipher whether

maltreatment results from the over identification of certain

categories of children (ethnic minorities, Aboriginals) as groups

prone to social problems, whether it is the cultural change and

its stress-producing consequences that lead to child maltreatment

(immigrant populations) or whether it is the cultural

misunderstanding and contrasting cultural interpretations of

proper behaviors which result in misdiagnosis of maltreatment

(Hill, 2006; McRoy, 2005; Roer-Strier, 2001). expound

At present, we are faced with interactions between families

and the child welfare system that can be negatively impacted by

the absence of shared meaning about proper approaches to child

rearing. One of the challenges facing social service

practitioners is firstly establishing a continuum for themselves

of levels of abuse and then identifying where along the continuum

appropriate discipline becomes child abuse (Fontes, 2002, Gopaul-

26

McNicol, 1999; Graziano, 1994). This responsibility conferred on

the social worker requires the individual to establish a scope of

abuse; informed in part by the values of his or her own society

and his or her own perception of the cultural group in question

(Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Sabatino, 1991). The issue is further

compounded by the notion that where there is perceived or actual

imbalance in power between groups, then different perceptions of

culture gain another level of complexity (Gough & Lynch, 2002).

In the event that a family is identified as abusing a child

and the child welfare system intervenes, Horejsi et al. (1992)

noted that, for any parent, this intervention may be regarded as

an intrusion that is “unfair and unjustified” (p. 330). When this

intervention is with a parent from a different cultural

background, this interaction can become even more complicated;

bringing the conflicting cultural values and beliefs of the

parent and the child welfare worker into direct contact. What

has happened is that “a powerful government agency has in effect

pointed its finger at the parent and accused him or her of being

bad or irresponsible” (p. 331). The absence of cultural

sensitivity and awareness in this scenario can result in

27

significant conflict between the parties involved and, sometimes

with the worker being in the position of authority, the parent

loses the right to be treated fairly and loses the child, in

spite of the presence or absence of abuse.

This tension can also inform negative perceptions of the

child welfare system, with parents refusing to engage with

workers even in situations where it would be beneficial to their

family. Personal experiences with racism and discrimination can

give rise to fear and distrust of persons from the dominant

culture and of course, affect if and how families interact with

child welfare agencies (Fontes, 2002; Horejsi et al., 1992;

Pierce & Pierce, 1996; Pinderhughes, 1989). For example, based on

a discussion with community members in a Texas community who were

having problems with the child welfare system, Rycraft and

Dettlaff (2009) found that the negative power-dynamic which

existed between the system and the community impacted the

family’s ability to trust the child protective system (CPS).

They noted that the community members had significant distrust in

the system:

28

I think CPS needs to be a friend, because right now CPS is

seen as the enemy. A lot of people are scared of them. They

don’t send anybody out unless it’s to do a removal or an

investigation; that’s like the IRS, the only contact you

have with them is bad. (p. 474)

The inability of the family to trust the child welfare

system can result in families being unwilling to engage with the

system, even if they need to disclose maltreatment (Brinkerhoff &

Lupri, 1988; Zhai & Gao, 2009). In research focused on South

Asian families, Zhai and Gao found that the perception that the

child welfare system would take away the child deterred many

families from reporting abuse. They also found that among those

families who had become involved with the child welfare system,

they often experienced “prolonged delay in the reunification of

children with their families or in permanent out-of-home

placement” (p. 219).

Aside from the structural deficiencies that can negatively

impact on child welfare’s capacity to effectively engage with

parents, particularly minorities or those from different cultural

backgrounds, the system also has other limitations.

29

Professionals continue to operate within a context of differing

interpretations of the law which, according to Andrews (2004),

can lead to different families being designated as abusive in

different parts of the country or even within the same

jurisdiction.

It seems that such a significant conclusion should in fact

rely on much more than an individual’s perception, particularly

with regard to the likely impact of the assessment and the likely

impact of cultural misunderstanding influencing the decision.

This sometimes occurs in a system that, according to Cooper et

al. (2010), is affected by the absence of workers who are

“respectful of diversity, receptive to specific cultural

knowledge and difference and able to translate that knowledge

into concrete, culturally competent strategies for practice”

(347). While some propose that these differences are a matter of

reporting bias and differential treatment of clients by

individual workers, research in this area is scant and

inconclusive (Hines, Lemon, Wyatt & Merdinger, 2004).

Child abuse, culture and its relevance to the Canadian society

30

Already this paper has concluded that there is no global

standard for defining child maltreatment. This has impacted

service delivery and research. Secondly, we note there are wide

variations in child-rearing practices between different ethnic

groups, as well as within these groups. In addition to this we

also note that professionals, like parents, can have pre-

conceived notions of ‘correct parenting’ which sometimes

influence how they approach their jobs. Roer-Streir (2001)

suggested that these notions are informed by the professional’s

personal development and cultural values. While the influence of

culture on child rearing and child development is acknowledged,

“the nexus between children at risk of abuse and neglect and

dealing appropriately with culturally diverse populations is more

challenging” (Raman & Hodes, 2012, p. 30).

As Welbourne (2002) found,

The concepts of ‘‘race’’ and ethnicity play a significant

role in social work policy, practice and provision. Methods

of assessment and provision are governed by policies and

procedures which can be value laden and reflect the power

31

relationships between professionals and service users. (p.

346)

Pinderhughes (1991) suggested that cultural considerations

should be integral features of service delivery in the child

welfare system. This is regarded as a fundamental factor in

enabling the “effective, adaptive functioning of children and

families, particularly …populations of colour” (p. 601). Fontes

(2002) also supported this notion, pointing out that “preventive

efforts are most likely to be effective if they are tailored to

the needs of the group they are meant to address” (p. 31). The

absence of research to inform the approach to service delivery

however can have significant impacts on the choice of serves

offered, the levels of family engagement and the overall ability

to mitigate further abuse.

Differences in cultures and beliefs among social groups are

important factors for researchers to consider, because knowledge

about such difference might inform treatment and prevention

approaches in the field of child maltreatment (Miller-Perrin &

Perrin, 2013). Researchers have also suggested that economic

hardship can compound parental stress and negative affect, which

32

are in turn significant risk factors for parent-to-child violence

(Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2000; Mammen, Kolko, & Pilkonis,

2002). This is particularly relevant for immigrant families, who

in the transition, sometimes encounter economic hardships in the

initial stages of their settlement.

Other researchers have cited cultural child rearing norms

that sanction the use of physical punishment as discipline

(Fontes, 2002; Gopaul-McNicol, 1999; Graziano, 1994), as factors

that predispose some individuals to negative interactions with

the child welfare authorities. In addition, because of the

significant environmental changes, separation from family and

friends, lack of social support, and barriers to communication,

many new immigrants may experience trauma and posttraumatic

stress, which in turn leads them to rely on traditional methods

of discipline to protect their children from undesirable

influences of the new country (Kwok & Tam, 2005; Maiter, Allagia

& Trocmé, 2004).

For example, foreign born immigrant adults who either

immigrate with young children or have children in their new

country of residence, sometimes experience “conflicts and

33

misunderstandings in values and behavioural norms” which have

been identified as a risk for child maltreatment (Fontes, 2002;

Rhee, 1996). This, then, becomes a risk for negative

interactions between the parents and the child welfare system.

In this case, the intrusion, which is often regarded as foreign

and unacceptable to these families, is likely to be resisted

based on the perception that the state is interfering in a

private matter (Chang, Rhee & Weaver, 2006; Fontes; Horejsi et

al., 1992; Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013).

In a study focused on South Asian families involved in the

child welfare system in Toronto, Maiter et al. (2004) noted that

parents found the mainstream values to be pervasive, often

leaving them with a sense of powerlessness in preventing unwanted

influences from the host culture. Zhai and Gao (2009) concluded

that persons with minority status often expressed higher levels

of stress with their ‘new’ position in the host country. The

response from some immigrant parents to anger and powerlessness

caused by their minority status and the racial discrimination

they encountered, was expressed through negative interactions

with their family members (Lewig et al., 2010).

34

Is there scope for child welfare to positively engage with

some of the practices of immigrants or minority groups in

supporting culturally sensitive and competent services to these

families? Zhai and Gao (2009) suggest that, at the very least,

child welfare practitioners should be respectful of the client’s

culture. In the absence of this, they risk fostering mistrust

and resentment from the client, which in turn can negatively

impact the child. Lewig et al. (2010) suggested that a lack of

knowledge about the client’s cultural background can, “affect not

only the ability of mainstream services to engage effectively

with these families but also impacts on the appropriateness of

service interventions for families and the expected outcomes of

such interventions e.g. expectations of behaviour change” (p.

331).

In an attempt to foster the required supportive

relationship, researchers have recommended that professionals

engaged in child welfare administration should be knowledgeable

about the diverse communities with whom they work, with

opportunities for continued training focused on culturally

appropriate ways of working with clients from these communities,

35

inclusive of the appropriate use of interpreters and cultural

consultants as well as ways of engaging with community and

religious leaders (Korbin, 1987; Lewig et al., 2010).

Professionals should be cognizant that work with immigrant

families or families of a different cultural background, may

require additional time commitment to foster the relationship,

but also to offer the kind of support that these families need.

In this regard, they “may find themselves with as large a

caseload as other therapists while putting in more time per case”

(Fontes, 2003, p. 50).

For some cultures that champion the values of familial

integrity and internal problem-solving, rather than external

help, child welfare systems could also engage this value in

addressing issues once identified. For example, family members

may be supported with the internal problem-solving process, with

intervention child welfare which respects their cultural

practices and the value of maintaining one’s reputation, but that

still foster increased knowledge of the law and required social

conventions about parenting.

36

In the area of child welfare, the dilemma is two-fold;

“children have rights that the state needs to protect, while

parents have the right to determine how to raise their children,

and define what is best for them” (Križ & Skivenes 2010, p. 5).

In towing this line, the literature raises a number of issues

that are relevant to the administration of child welfare systems,

particularly in a multi-cultural society such as Canada. The

first suggests that there is need for an examination of the

assumptions that the welfare system may have about different

cultural practices and their child rearing practices. In the

absence of this we risk supporting stereotypes and

generalizations and misinformation about selected groups (Abney,

1996; Maiter et al., 2004). Maitra (1996) also noted this

concern, stating that “racist practice, if based on Western views

of normal’ family function or child rearing can and does result

in serious errors in the assessment of risk to children and makes

therapeutic interventions useless, if not abusive in themselves”

(p. 288). The second notion is also critical. Maiter (2003)

advances that the care of the child is paramount; hence “children

should never be left in a harmful situation because of a worker’s

37

attempt to respect the culture”. She notes that it is not

unforeseen that some individuals will claim ‘a cultural shield’

as a disguise for abuse.

Conclusion

We are operating within increasingly multi-cultural

societies with the propensity for growing tension within cultural

groups as well as between them. The relationship and influence of

these diverse cultures to understanding and identifying child

abuse and neglect is challenging and complex. In spite of efforts

already taken to achieve a coordinated body of research that

regards ethnicity and culture as important factors, the existing

systems remain inadequate. More work needs to be done in the

areas of “collecting information about the ethnic, cultural and

linguistic background of children in contact with welfare

services” (Welbourne, 2002, p. 346). Bell, Wells and Merritt

(2009) noted that a significant pool of research, focused on the

development of empirically based practices in the social sciences

has ignored issues of culture, race and ethnicity. Instead, this

area of social work continues without an overarching theoretical

framework (Fontes, 2005; Kenny & McEachern, 2000; Newberger,

38

Moore-Newberger & Hampton, 1983). This has implications for the

efforts of child welfare practitioners, researchers and policy

makers as they struggle to meet the needs of an increasingly

diverse population. Further, as Newberger et al. noted, an

inadequate theory base stands to impinge more on the success of

programs than even the absence of sufficient resources to address

the growing problem.

This review suggest that the literature pertaining to the

needs of minority, racial and ethnic groups reflect gaps in

knowledge, particularly as it relates to appropriate ways of

balancing respect for culture and the safety of children. The

relationships between individuals accused of child maltreatment

and the agencies involved in child welfare administration can be

challenging. For Pinderhughes (1991), it can also “bring into

focus conflicts about values, power in decision-making and the

basic rights of individuals” (p. 600). The power imbalance that

sometimes characterizes these interactions affects not only who

makes the decision but how they are made. We also note that in

the absence of a cultural perspective, professionals are likely

to resort to their own values or worldview in informing their

39

decisions about abuse (Raman & Hodes, 2012; Myers & Humphrey,

2003). Hence they have to be careful to examine whose values are

shaping their decision about child maltreatment, particularly

where there cultures or values are in conflict.

At the same time, professionals are also contending with the

need to discharge their duty to the child. Health professionals

working with children from culturally and linguistically diverse

groups often have the dilemma of deciding between culture and

maltreatment. This can create a system in which some

professionals may be hesitant to react to perceived cases of

child abuse, out of fear of making inaccurate assessments and

ineffective interventions. Raman and Hodes (2012) cautioned that

in a system without universal guidelines about child

maltreatment, relying on the client’s cultural norms as a guide

may contribute to a lower standard of care for children.

In response to issues with diversity in service provision,

there have been recommendations for improved cultural

sensitivity. For example, it may be helpful to focus on the

impact of ethnically-diverse treatment teams using culturally-

appropriate therapy with families impacted by child abuse. Fontes

40

(2003) suggested that even where the continuous participation of

professionals from the clients’ ethnic group is not possible,

occasional consultations with an expert from within the group can

be helpful. While this may be a suitable recommendation, like

many others in this area, there is a scarcity of empirically

sound research to support conclusions about the efficacy of these

and related approaches.

Gaps have also been identified in some areas of the research

methodology in child abuse with regard to supporting enhanced

knowledge about culture. For studies such as Canada’s Incidence

Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, it may be useful to include the

ethnicity of those involved. Where respondents are immigrants,

the study should capture information on their country of origin

and possibly their level of acculturation. Researchers in other

areas should also be careful to ensure the accuracy of

information on the ethnic groups engaged (Fontes, 1997), and not

resort to lumping whole categories of people based on solely on

geographic origin. In tandem with this, we may be able to focus

future research on understanding and specific risks or strengths

41

which are associated with individual cultural and ethnic groups

as it relates to maltreatment.

The process of adequately studying the nature and

significance of ethnic and cultural differences in child

maltreatment may be categorized as still in its infancy (Fontes,

2002, 2005; Garbarino & Ebata, 1983). There remains the need for

continued attention to this critical area. In the absence of an

improved understanding of these issues, the country risks

operating from a rigid ethnocentric position, where the dominant

culture's beliefs and practices are assumed to be superior. On

the other hand, a reliance on ever so tenderly navigating the

cultural and child welfare issue may lead us to disintegrate into

a hyper-relativist view of cultural child abuse, where the

welfare of children is sacrificed in the name of multicultural

sensitivity.

42

References

Abney, V. D. (1996). Cultural competency in the field of child

maltreatment. In L. B. John

Briere, J. A. Bulkley, C. Jenny, & T. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC

handbook on child maltreatment (pp. 409-419). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Abney, V. D., & Gunn, K. (1993). A rationale for cultural

competency. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC)

Advisor, 6, 19-22.

Adams, M. (2008). Unlikely utopia: The surprising triumph of Canadian

multiculturalism. Toronto, ON: Penguin Group.

Agathonos-Georgopoulou, H. (1992). Cross-cultural perspectives in

child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Review, 1, 80-88.

Andrews, G. (2004). A grounded theory of child abuse. (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Saskatchewan,

Saskatoon.

Au Coin, K. (2005). Children and youth as victims of violent

crime. Juristat, 25(1), .

Azar, S. T. (1991). Models of child abuse: A metatheoretical

analysis. Criminal Justice and 43

Behaviour, 18, 30-46.

Bagley, C., & Mallick, K. (2000). Prediction of sexual,

emotional, and physical maltreatment and mental health

outcomes in a longitudinal cohort of 290 adolescent women.

Child Maltreatment, 5(3), 218-226.

Beckett, K. (1996). Culture and the politics of signification:

The case of child sexual abuse.

Social Problems, 43(1), 57-76.

Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., daCosta, G. A., &

Ackman, D. (1991). A review of the short-term effects of

child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(4), 537-556.

Bell, C. C., Wells, S. J., & Merritt, L. M. (2009). Integrating

cultural competency and empirically-based practices in child

welfare services: A model based on community psychiatry

field principles of health. Children and Youth Services Review, 31,

1206-1213.

Boyd, M., & Schellenberg, G. (2007). Re-accreditation and

occupations of immigrant doctors and engineers. Canadian Social

Trends, 84, 2-10.

44

Boyd-Franklin, N. (1989). Black families in therapy: A multisystems approach.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bridge, T. J., Greer Massie, E., & Mills, C. S. (2008).

Prioritizing cultural competence in the

implementation of an evidence-based practice model. Children

and Youth Services Review, 30(10), 1111-1118.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1988). Multivariate correlates of

childhood psychological and physical maltreatment among

university women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 331-341.

Brinkerhoff, M. B. & Lupri, E. (1988). Interpersonal violence.

Canadian Journal of Sociology,

13, 407-434.

Butchart, A., & Phinney Harvey, A. (1999). Preventing child

maltreatment: A guide to taking

action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization and International Society for Prevention of

Child Abuse and Neglect.

Campbell, E. T. (2005). Child abuse recognition, reporting and

prevention: A culturally

45

congruent approach. The Journal of Multicultural Nursing & Health,

11(2), 35-40.

Cazenave, N., & Straus, R. (1979). Race, class network

embeddedness and family violence: A

search for potent support systems. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 28, 1-99.

Chang, J., Rhee, S., & Weaver, D. (2006). Characteristics of

child abuse in immigrant Korean families and correlates of

placement decisions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 881-891.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). Acts of omission: An overview

of child neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/acts/acts.pdf

Chu, J. A., & Dill, D. L. (1990). Dissociative symptoms in

relation to childhood physical and sexual abuse. American

Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 887-892.

Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S. L. (1995). A developmental

psychopathology perspective on child abuse and neglect.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 541-

565.

46

Cooper Altman, J., Barrett, G., Brown, J., Clark-Idusogie, L.,

McClendon, Y., Ruiz, T., … & Thomas, L. (2010). Translating

knowledge for child welfare practice cross-nationally.

Journal of Public Child Welfare, 4, 347-364.

Cross, T. (1986). Drawing on cultural tradition in Indian child

welfare practice. Social Casework, 67, 283-289.

Crouch, J. L., Milner, J. S., & Thomsen, C. (2001). Childhood

physical abuse, early social support and risk for

maltreatment: Current social support as a mediator of risk

for child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1), 93-107.

Danso, R. K. (1997). Access to housing and its impact on the

adaptation process: The case of

African immigrants in Calgary. Calgary, AB: University of

Calgary.

deMause, L. (1987). The history of childhood in Japan. The Journal

of Psychohistory, 15, 147-151.

DiLillo, D. K., Perry, A. R., & Fortier, M. (2006). Child

physical abuse and neglect. In R. T.

47

Ammerman (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and

psychopathology: Volume 3, Child psychopathology (pp. 367-387).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Dubowitz, H., Black, M., Harrington, D., & Verschoore, A. (1993).

A follow-up study of behavior problems associated with child

sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 743-754.

Faust, J., Runyon, M., & Kenny, M. (1995). Family variables

associated with the onset and impact of intrafamilial child

sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, 443-456.

Finkelhor, D. (1986). A sourcebook on child sexual abuse. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Fitzgerald, R. (2004). An examination of sex differences in

delinquency. Crime and Justice

Research Paper Series, Catalogue no. 85-561- MIE-No 001. Ottawa, ON:

Statistics Canada.

Fontes, L. (1993). Considering culture and oppression. Journal of

Feminist Family Therapy,

5(1), 25-54.

Fontes, L. (Ed.) (1995). Sexual abuse in nine North American cultures:

Treatment and prevention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

48

Fontes, L. (1997). Evaluating the cultural sensitivity of child

abuse research: Sampling issues.

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Advisor, 10, 8-10.

Fontes, L. (2002). Child discipline and physical abuse in

immigrant Latino families: Reducing violence and

misunderstandings. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 31-40.

Fontes, L. (2005). Child abuse and culture: Working with diverse families. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fontes, L., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures

of child sexual abuse. Journal of

Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 491-518.

Futterman, M. (2003). Seeking a standard: Reconciling child

abuse and condoned child rearing

practices among different cultures. University of Miami Inter-

American Law Review, 34(3), 491-514.

Garbarino, J., & Ebata, A. (1983). The significance of ethnic and

cultural differences in child maltreatment. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 45(4), 773-783.

Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1990). Intimate violence in families.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

49

Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1999). Ethnocultural perspectives on

childrearing practices in the

Caribbean. International Social Work, 42(1), 79-86.

Gough, D., & Lynch, M. A. (2002). Culture and child protection.

Child Abuse Review, 11, 341-

344.

Grant, P. R. (2005). The devaluation of immigrants’ foreign credentials: The

psychological

impact of this barrier to integration into Canadian society. Final report to

the Prairie Centre of Excellence on Immigration and

Integration. Retrieved from http//www.pcerii.metropolis.net.

Graziano, A. M. (1994). Why we should study substantive violence

against children. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 9, 412-419.

Graziano, A. M. & Namaste, K. A. (1990). Parental use of physical

force in child discipline: A

survey of 679 college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

5, 449-463.

50

Green, A. H. (1988). Child maltreatment and its victims: A

comparison of physical and sexual abuse. Psychiatric Clinics of

North America, 11, 591-610.

Hill, R. B. (2006). Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare:

An update. CSSP-Casey Alliance for Racial Equity. Retrieved

from http://www.cssp.org/reform/child-welfare/other-

resources/synthesis-of-research-on-disproportionality-

robert-hill.pdf

Hines, A. M., Lemon, K., Wyatt, P., & Merdinger, J. (2004).

Factors related to the

disproportionate involvement of children of color in the

child welfare system: A review and emerging themes. Children

and Youth Services Review, 26, 507-527.

Horejsi, C., Craig, B., & Pablo, J. (1992). Reactions by Native

American parents to child

protection agencies: Cultural and community factors. Child

Welfare, 71(4), 329-342.

Ibanez, E. S., Borrego Jr., J., Pemberton, J. R., & Terao, S.

(2006). Cultural factors in decision-

51

making about child physical abuse: Identifying reporter

characteristics influencing

reporting tendencies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1365-1379.

Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F. N., Steele, B. F, Droegemueller, W.,

& Silver, H. K. (1962). The

battered-child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association,

181, 105-112.

Kenny, M. C., & McEachern, A. G. (2000). Racial, ethnic, and

cultural factors of childhood

sexual abuse: A selected review of the literature. Clinical

Psychology Review, 20(7), 905-922.

Kent, J., Weisberg, H., Lamar, B., & Marx, T. (1983).

Understanding the etiology of child abuse:

A preliminary typology of cases. Children and Youth Services Review,

5, 7-29.

Korbin, J. (1981). Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives.

Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Korbin, J. (1987). Child abuse and neglect: The cultural context.

In R. E. Helfer & R. S. Kempe

52

(Eds.) The battered child (4th ed.) (pp. 23-41). Chicago, IL: The

University of Chicago Press.

Korbin, J. (1991). Cross-cultural perspectives and research

directions for the 21st century.

Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(suppl. 1), 67-77.

Korbin, J. (2002). Culture and child maltreatment: Cultural

competence and beyond. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6-7), 637-644.

Križ, K., & Skivenes, M. (2010): ‘We have very different

positions on some issues’: How child

welfare workers in Norway and England bridge cultural

differences when communicating with ethnic minority

families. European Journal of Social Work, 13(1), 3-18.

Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano,

R. (Eds.). (2002). World

report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization.

Kunz, J. L., & Sykes, S. (2007). From mosaic to harmony: Multicultural

Canada in the 21st century. Ottawa, ON: Policy Research Initiative.

53

Kwok, S., & Tam, D. M. (2005). Child abuse in Chinese families in

Canada: Implications for child protection practice.

International Social Work, 48(3), 341-348.

Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2000). Behavioural

observations of parenting in battered women. Journal of Family

Psychology, 14, 80-94.

Lewig, K., Arney, F., & Salveron, M. (2010). Challenges to

parenting in a new culture:

Implications for child and family welfare. Evaluation and

Program Planning, 33, 324-332.

Mahtani, M. (2007). Interrogating the hyphen-nation: Canadian

“mixed race” women and multicultural policy. In S. Hier & B.

Singh Bolaria (Eds.), Identity and belonging: Rethinking race and

ethnicity in Canadian society (pp. 124-156). Toronto, ON: Canadian

Scholar’s Press.

Malenfant, É. C., Lebel, A., & Martel, L. (2010). Projections of the

diversity of the Canadian population 2006 to 2031. Ottawa, ON: Ministry

of Industry. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-

551-x/91-551-x2010001-eng.pdf.

54

Maiter, S. (2003). The context of culture: Social work practice

with South-Asian Canadians. In A. Al-Krenawi & J. Graham

(Eds.), Cross-cultural social work practice with diverse ethno-racial

communities in Canada (pp. 365-387). Toronto, Canada: Oxford

University

Press.

Maiter, S., Allagia, R., & Trocmé, N. (2004). Perceptions of

child maltreatment by parents from the Indian subcontinent:

Changing myths about culturally based abusive parenting

practices. Child Maltreatment, 9(3), 309-324.

Maitra, B. (1996). Child abuse: A universal diagnostic category?

The implications of culture in definition and assessment.

International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 42(4), 287-304.

Maitra, B. (2005). Culture and child protection. Current Paediatrics,

15, 253-259.

Mammen, O. K., Kolko, D. J., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2002). Negative

affect and parental aggression

in child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 407-424.

McRoy, R. G. (2005). Over-representation of children and youth of

color in foster care. In G. P. Mallon & P. McCartt Hess

55

(Eds.), Child welfare for the 21st century: A handbook of practices, policies,

and programs (pp. 623-634). New York, NY: Columbia University

Press.

Mederos, F. & Woldeguiorguis, I. (2003). Beyond cultural

competence: What child protection

managers need to know and do. Child Welfare, 82(2), 125-142.

Miller-Perrin, C. L. & Perrin, R. D. (2013). Child maltreatment: An

introduction. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, B. C., Benson, B., & Galbraith, K. A. (2001). Family

relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk: A research

synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 1-38.

Mullen, P. E., Martin, J. L., Anderson, J. C., Romans, S. E., &

Herbison, G. P. (1996). The long-term impact of the

physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children: A

community study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(1), 7-21.

Myers, S. L. & Humphrey, H. H. (2003). Why are children of color

overrepresented in reports to

child protective services? American Professional Society on the Abuse

of Children Advisor, 15(2), 10-11.

56

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2003). 2003

child abuse and neglect

state statute series statutes-at-a-glance: Definitions of child abuse and neglect.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

Newberger, E. H., Moore-Newberger, C., & Hampton, R. L. (1983).

Child abuse: The current theory base and future research

needs. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 22(3), 262-

268.

Newcomb, M. D., Munoz, D. T., & Vargas Carmona, J. (2009). Child

sexual abuse consequences in community samples of Latino and

European American adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(8), 533-

544.

Ney, P. G., Fung, T., & Wickett, A. R. (1994). The worst

combinations of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect,

18(9), 705-714.

Pierce, R. L. & Pierce, L. H. (1996). Moving towards cultural

competence in the child welfare system. Children and Youth

Services Review, 18(8), 713-731.

57

Pinderhughes, E. (1989). Understanding race, ethnicity and power: The key to

efficacy in clinical practice. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Pinderhughes, E. (1991). The delivery of child welfare services

to African American clients. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

61(4), 599-605.

Raman, S., & Hodes, D. (2012). Cultural issues in child

maltreatment. Journal of Paediatrics

and Child Health, 48, 30-37.

Reisig, J. A., & Miller, M. A. (2009). How the social

construction of ‘child abuse’ affects immigrant parents:

Policy changes that protect children and families.

International Journal of Social Inquiry, 2(1), 17-37.

Rhee, S. (1996). Effective social work practice with Asian

immigrant families. Journal of

Multicultural Social Work, 4(1), 49-61.

Roehlkepartain, E., Scales, P., Roehlkepartain, J., & Rude, S.

(2002). Building strong families:

An in-depth report on a preliminary survey on what parents need to succeed.

Chicago, IL: YMCA of the USA and Search Institute.

58

Roer-Strier, D. (2001). Reducing risk for children in changing

cultural contexts: Recommendations for intervention and

training. Child Abuse & Neglect 25, 231-248.

Rycraft, J. R., & Dettlaff, A. J. (2009). Hurdling the artificial

fence between child welfare and the community: Engaging

community partners to address disproportionality. Journal of

Community Practice, 17(4), 464-482.

Sabatino, D.A. (1991). A fine line: When discipline becomes child abuse.

Bradenton, FL: McGraw-Hill.

Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Executive summary of the

third national incidence

study of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson,

K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of

Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress, Executive Summary.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Administration for Children and Families.

59

Sinha, M. (2010). Family violence in Canada: A statistical

profile. Juristat Catalogue, 85(002-X), Canadian Centre for Justice

Statistics. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Stam, R. (1997). Multiculturalism and the neoconservatives. In A.

McClintock, A. Mufti & E.

Shohat (Eds.), Dangerous liaisons: Gender, nation and postcolonial

perspectives (pp. 188-203). Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.

Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1998). Parenting in different cultures: Time

to focus. Developmental

Psychology, 34(4), 698-700.

Stevenson, K. M., Cheung, K. M., & Leung, P. (2010). A new

approach to training child protective services workers for

ethnically sensitive practice. Child Welfare, 71 (4), 291-305.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counselling the culturally different: Theory and

practice. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

60

Taylor, T. (1997). Cultural defense and its irrelevancy in child

protection law. Boston College

Third World Law Journal, 17, 331-345.

Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C.,

Black, T., … Cloutier, R. (2005). Canadian incidence study of

reported child abuse and neglect – 2003: Major findings. Ottawa. ON:

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Welbourne, P. (2002). Culture, children’s rights and child

protection. Child Abuse Review, 11,

345-358.

Widom, C., & Maxfield, M. (2001). An update on the “cycle of violence”.

Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice.

Williams, B. (1987). Looking for Linda: Identity in black and

white. Child Welfare, 46, 207-216.

World Health Organization. (2010). Child maltreatment. Fact Sheet,

150. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs150/en/

index.html.

61

Zhai, F., & Gao, Q. (2009). Child maltreatment among Asian

Americans: Characteristics and

explanatory framework. Child Maltreatment, 14(2), 207-224.

62