Family Groups - Women - mothers who kill

Mothers who kill

NSPCC researcher, Dr. Susan Creighton (1979, UK), found that '…. mothers and mother substitutes are suspected abusers in 44% of cases and fathers and father substitutes in 46.5% of cases'.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC, Britain), found that, “ .... 65% of child abuse is committed by women whereas only 8% of child abuse is committed by biological fathers.

Figures compiled by the US Dept of Justice However, "Deaths in Families", (1999), re-affirms that over the decades mothers account for most child homicides and that boys are more likely to be victims than girls.

Further official US data that underscores the discrepancy between the sexes and is comparable to the British figures for homicide of children aged under 1 year old (see Graph 1 & 2, above) is contained in the National Institutes of Health and in CDC data. The latter’s press release of Oct 21, 1998, “Researchers Identify Risk Factors For Infants Most Likely to be Homicide Victims”, should dispel any lingering doubts and misconceptions.

In the study, appearing in the October 22 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, the authors also found that the likelihood of being killed was greatest for infants whose mothers were less than 15 years old, had less than 12 years of school, or did not have pre-natal care. One half of the infants killed were dead by the fourth month of life.2

The fact that the numbers of fatherless children continues to climb, only fuels the likelihood of homicide, particularly when never-married-mothers are outstripping the numbers of divorced mothers. Can such an attrition rate be justified in the name of relaxing our moral values and embracing the allegedly new living arrangements and alternative lifestyles? Is lasciviousness a fair exchange for children ?

Is the de-stigmatising of illegitimacy worth the price, or even comparable with, the previous regime of adoption or abortion ? On both sides of the argument each is said to appear to be equally harsh on children. These are questions that television, that opiate of the people, never wants to seriously ask.

In Britain one only has to recall a few of the infamous cases of child deaths to see that most are linked (though the public was rarely told at the time) to ‘fatherless families’ in the form of never married single mothers, or divorcees, or to their new-found boyfriends. This has been the pattern since the distant days of Marie Cowell (1974) and Rikky Neave (1995), to name but a few of the thirty, to the Climbie enquiry of the present day (2002-03).

“Broken Homes & Battered Children” by Robert Whelan, is one of many studies in the U.K. and elsewhere that shows children in the care of two biological married parents are safer. Children in the care of single mothers are 33 times more likely to be seriously injured and 73 times more likely to be killed.3 These are the findings new, nor are they just ‘re-discovered’.

We never see television adverts depicting women as child murderers or abusers. Overwhelmingly, NSPCC television adverts (the pre-eminent British child protection charity)4 routinely depict men as child abusers. We never see more honest adverts depicting women as the principal perpetrators of child murder and abuse. For the unpleasant fact is that mothers pose the greatest threat to children in terms of abuse and deaths.

One is, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the primary reason for depicting men as the main culprits is to guarantee a flow of funds - enough donations to more than handsomely cover the cost of television advertising.

" While the NSPCC’s efforts to maximize fund raising is to be applauded, is this approach appropriate for the Advertising Standards Authority criteria of “decent, honest and truthful” ? Or is the series of adverts, in fact, unprincipled, deceitful and untruthful ? Are children's agonies caught between the grist wheels of the selfish needs of an industry and the state's need for inertia ?

Is the graceless rush to secure increased revenue wholly ethical ? Indeed, is this method of securing assured funding from the public entirely compatible with the expectations of the Charity Commissioners ?

Assets

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matthew 7:3, KJV)

The Men's Tribune
CDC report : ‘Newborns Face Highest Murder Risk’ , Most infant victims born outside of hospitals, study finds (Oct 1998). http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031202a.htm

“Broken Homes & Battered Children” by Robert Whelan, IEA http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1535.cfm

NSPCC - National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Founded in 1884. It is the UK's leading charity specialising in child protection and the prevention of cruelty to children.
http://www.familyops.us