Family Groups - Women - 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.
|Killed By Mothers
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
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 ?
"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)
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.