Distinguishing Between Poor/Dysfunctional Parenting and Child Emotional Maltreatment - Introduction

Introduction

After four decades of research on child maltreatment the definition of child emotional maltreatment remains ambiguous, but the issue remains prominent. In the 2003 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, investigations for alleged emotional maltreatment (as the primary or secondary form of maltreatment) occurred at a rate of 12/1000 children, exceeded only by physical abuse (15/1000) and neglect (19/1000) investigations (Trocmé et al., 2005). Of the substantiated cases of emotional maltreatment, the majority (73%) involved emotional abuse and 24% involved emotional neglect by a caregiver; child exposure to non-intimate partner violence was confirmed in 6%.

Child abuse reporting laws have been in place throughout the US and Canada since the 1960s. However, these laws tend to be relatively general and do not provide specific operationalized definitions to determine the threshold between non-abusive but problematic parenting and an incident of maltreatment that could endanger a child. As a result, investigations for child maltreatment in general, and emotional maltreatment in particular, lack clear guidelines and are subject to considerable discretion and interpretation (Heyman & Slep, 2006).

To improve understanding of child emotional maltreatment (CEM) and inform policies and interventions, the Public Health Agency of Canada's Family Violence Prevention Unit hosted a policy think tank to explore the public health perspective on early childhood emotional maltreatment. The objectives of the day were to 1) Enhance understanding of the issue of emotional maltreatment in early childhood from a public health perspective; 2) Identify research and policy gaps, challenges and opportunities, and public health policy priorities to inform future work in the area; and 3) Provide an opportunity for networking with key players in the field [The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), 2009].

The policy think tank used the following definition of CEM (based on the work of Brassard & Donovan, 2006; Garbarino, Eckenrode, & Bolger, 1997; Hart & Brassard, 1987): Child emotional maltreatment involves behaviour of caregivers (verbal or nonverbal, active or passive, and intended or not) that has the potential to damage the social, cognitive, emotional and/or physical development of a child, and includes:

Spurning: hostile rejecting and degrading;

Terrorizing: threatening or perpetrating violence against the child;

Isolating: placing unreasonable limitations or restrictions on a child's social interactions;

Exploiting/Corrupting: encouraging the child to develop inappropriate behaviour;

Denying Emotional Responsiveness: ignoring the child's attempts and needs to interact; and

Exposure to Family Violence: an indirect form of emotional maltreatment in which a child is aware of violence between caregivers, either through seeing or hearing the violence or its effects.

As noted in the policy think tank summary report, an overarching theme emerged from the panel of experts concerning difficulty defining or classifying child emotional maltreatment (PHAC, 2009). Whereas all participants agreed that emotional maltreatment in early childhood is not getting the attention it deserves as a public health issue, the issue of clarifying what is and is not (or should and should not be) included under the emotional maltreatment label arose time and again.

There was also consensus that such a definition is critical because it determines how the issue is perceived and addressed. On the one hand, labeling a parental act as "maltreatment" garners more attention and resources; on the other hand, including too many acts under the label "maltreatment" leads to confusion and inconsistent action, especially when the concerns may be better described as poor or dysfunctional parenting. For example, labeling an act as maltreatment automatically implies a child welfare response, although the child and family might be better served through public health interventions. Among other related issues, there was strong consensus from the panel that the field needs to distinguish between emotional maltreatment and poor/ dysfunctional parenting.

In this paper we seek to make a distinction between poor parenting methods and emotionally abusive and neglectful methods based on the scientific and professional literature. We summarize the extant literature on healthy parenting methods or styles, and contrast this with the known literature on poor parenting methods and their impact on child development. Similarly, we summarize the common definitions of child emotional maltreatment, parental risk factors, and child outcomes, with an emphasis on identifying the contextual and relational aspects of such behaviour that are the substrates of emotional harm to the child.

The last section of the paper posits two strategies for examining distinctions between poor/dysfunctional versus emotionally maltreating parenting. One strategy is based on a continuum of parenting behaviours from negative to positive, which serves as a conceptual framework for understanding the variability in parenting style and actions (based on Wolfe, 1991; 1999). The other strategy is based on empirically derived criteria for poor parenting and for emotional abuse, culminating in a categorical, operationalized distinction between the two parental acts that can be readily applied by trained investigators (based on the work of Heyman & Slep, 2006; Slep & Heyman, 2006).