So now we went from sexual abuse to "maltreatment"?
This study in the Netherlands shows that adoptive parents are less likely to abuse children than step parents.
Also, I can only read the abstract and not the study itself. But that is NOT what th abstract says.
It says adoptive parents were less likely to committ "maltreatment" (however that might be defined) compared to what the researchers "expected".
Now we do not know what the researchers expected. We do not know if "maltreatment" was higher in the adoptive group than in biological parent group.
We do not know if they controlled for family wealth. We know very little.
And there is no good reason for this vagueness in the abstract other than to confuse.
This sounds like politically correct distortion of data if anything
It’s difficult to find studies about sexual abuse specifically in adoptive families. Adoptive families are much different from a live in partner or step parent. I assume abuse falls under maltreatment.
Good news my friend. I have now looked at th study. The authors say they didn't want to look at sexual abuse in the study. So they did not look at th association between adoption and sexual abuse.
They also did not look at family wealth. Or "SES" as they put it.
This pretty much invalidates the conclusions of the study since we know that adoption is difficult and expensive and adoptive parents on average are wealthier that non adoptive parents.
We also know that low family wealth predicts "maltreatment" of children.
It’s not good news, I’d love if there was more information available, but that is a problem with these kinds of studies.
I saw that there was a very low statistic of abuse for Asian families, which seems strange to me, knowing so many Asian people that were abused. That tells me that the reporting of abuse in Asian families is low, it goes under the radar. Which is expected, Asian families are very heavily taught to never reveal the problems within their households, often in a psychologically damaging way.
I would believe that a lot of sexual abuse by biological families goes unreported too, since that is something many people would be too embarrassed or traumatized to share. Abuse is horrible, and adding incest to it also can make it harder to report.
The group least likely to report, according to the studies I have seen, are boys who are victims of homosexual abuse.
They are also the ones who are the least likely to be abused by a biological parent, and the ones who suffer the worst most violent sexual abuse.
“Perpetrator’s relationship to the child. The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents).
Biological parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 71% of physically abused children and for 73% of emotionally abused children. The pattern was distinctly different for sexual abuse. More than two-fifths (42%) of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent (whether biological or nonbiological) or a parent’s partner, whereas just over one-third (36%) were sexually abused by a biological parent. In addition, severity of harm from physical abuse varied by the perpetrator’s relationship to the child. A physically abused child was more likely to sustain a serious injury when the abuser was not a parent.”
But that still does not take into account that the vast majority of children live with their biological parents.
If those numbers were adjusted for the respective groups representation in the population you'd see the real picture
So now we went from sexual abuse to "maltreatment"?
Also, I can only read the abstract and not the study itself. But that is NOT what th abstract says. It says adoptive parents were less likely to committ "maltreatment" (however that might be defined) compared to what the researchers "expected". Now we do not know what the researchers expected. We do not know if "maltreatment" was higher in the adoptive group than in biological parent group. We do not know if they controlled for family wealth. We know very little. And there is no good reason for this vagueness in the abstract other than to confuse. This sounds like politically correct distortion of data if anything
It’s difficult to find studies about sexual abuse specifically in adoptive families. Adoptive families are much different from a live in partner or step parent. I assume abuse falls under maltreatment.
Good news my friend. I have now looked at th study. The authors say they didn't want to look at sexual abuse in the study. So they did not look at th association between adoption and sexual abuse.
They also did not look at family wealth. Or "SES" as they put it.
This pretty much invalidates the conclusions of the study since we know that adoption is difficult and expensive and adoptive parents on average are wealthier that non adoptive parents. We also know that low family wealth predicts "maltreatment" of children.
It’s not good news, I’d love if there was more information available, but that is a problem with these kinds of studies.
I saw that there was a very low statistic of abuse for Asian families, which seems strange to me, knowing so many Asian people that were abused. That tells me that the reporting of abuse in Asian families is low, it goes under the radar. Which is expected, Asian families are very heavily taught to never reveal the problems within their households, often in a psychologically damaging way.
I would believe that a lot of sexual abuse by biological families goes unreported too, since that is something many people would be too embarrassed or traumatized to share. Abuse is horrible, and adding incest to it also can make it harder to report.
The group least likely to report, according to the studies I have seen, are boys who are victims of homosexual abuse. They are also the ones who are the least likely to be abused by a biological parent, and the ones who suffer the worst most violent sexual abuse.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00979068
So any way we try to twist this the pattern seems quite clear.
It is because of this obvious pattern that so few studies on this is published. When reality is not politically correct, reality gets cancelled
And why do you think it's hard to find studies like that?
Because no one thought of studying it?
Or because of political interests preventing such studies?
“Perpetrator’s relationship to the child. The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents). Biological parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 71% of physically abused children and for 73% of emotionally abused children. The pattern was distinctly different for sexual abuse. More than two-fifths (42%) of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent (whether biological or nonbiological) or a parent’s partner, whereas just over one-third (36%) were sexually abused by a biological parent. In addition, severity of harm from physical abuse varied by the perpetrator’s relationship to the child. A physically abused child was more likely to sustain a serious injury when the abuser was not a parent.”
http://cap.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/sedlaknis.pdf Page 19 of the pdf.
Alright, so sexual abuse is perpetrated less by a biological parent, but physical abuse is most likely perpetrated by a biological parent.
But that still does not take into account that the vast majority of children live with their biological parents. If those numbers were adjusted for the respective groups representation in the population you'd see the real picture