Position on the Definition of Physical Abuse Essay

Introduction

The definition of physical abuse in the text has been presented as the act of causing physical harm to a child. To illustrate the definition, the author has given the example of a child who sustains physical injury resulting from the decision to intervene in a case of domestic violence between adults. The illustration given implies that physical abuse can be unintended or deliberate, and includes causing physical injury through actions such as slapping, kicking, and choking, among others. Thus, the idea of physical harm is articulated.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

However, one cannot agree with this definition due to a few failures in articulating, in the strict sense, what physical abuse means. Whereas the author succeeds in describing to the audience the meaning of physical abuse, there is lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes physical abuse. By modest considerations, the author succeeds in describing one aspect of physical abuse which cannot be relied upon especially when instigating legal proceedings against a child abuser.

The position of disagreement with the author's definition is based on the inadequacy of the explanation provided regarding the circumstances under which the physical harm takes place. For example, one of the tests that the definition is likely to fail is the consistency test. As numerously highlighted in the text, for any maltreatment to be considered as neglect, there must be sufficient evidence to prove that it has repeatedly been done on the child. Consistent perpetuation is critical because a one-off occurrence does not necessarily amount to neglect. This is because abuse cannot be a one off-event as the definition appears to suggest. In other words, a child who has been hurt as a result of intervening in an altercation between two adults may not be considered to have been abused since it is a one-off event. Equally, such an encounter can be interpreted as an accident as no evidence exists to the effect that it had been happening previously. Therefore, the author's description of physical abuse as harm sustained in the presence of adults is right but inadequate. Such description can easily fail the physical abuse test, especially during litigation to determine whether child abuse occurred in a given situation. Moreover, the author has also not been explicit in illustrating the role of severity in establishing whether the behavior of an adult towards the child constitutes a physical abuse. For example, a minor injury may not necessarily turn out to be a case of physical abuse. Such clarity has not been captured in the author's definition.

Summary of Case 5.1

The case is about a child abuse and neglect incident that took place in Tampa, Florida in 2001. The incident involved a couple, Connie Warrington and David Lapointe and their seven-year-old child, Mandy. The abuse entailed physical neglect, whereby the child was subjected to inhumane living conditions in the house of residence; education neglect in which the child was denied the opportunity to attend school; and physical harm on the child. Investigations revealed that the abuse was motivated by the fact that Mandy was not a biological child of Lapointe as two other children never experience this maltreatment. Appearing before a court of law in 2002, Warrington pleaded guilty for failing to report a case of child abuse and neglect and was given an undisclosed sentence while Lapointe was sentenced for six years and four months. A critical aspect of the determination made by the court was that the maltreatment of Mandy had repeatedly been done hence qualified for the description of child abuse and neglect.

A Summary of Cases 5.2: Cases on Physical Neglect

Case 1

The case involves Amber Johnson and her two-year old son. It highlights two incidences of child neglect. First, Johnson left her son playing in the parking lot unsupervised while asleep. This created the potential for the child experiencing harm. The other aspect of the case is concerned with lack of proper storage mechanism for drugs. The police and the neighbor who reported the incident found that Johnson had spilled pills on the floor which created the possibility of being picked and abused by her son while she was asleep. The issue that stands out of the case is that no harm was inflicted on the child yet Johnson was adjudged of physical neglect. Thus, there need not be evidence of harm for a parent or caregiver to be declared as guilty of physical neglect.

Case 2

The case is about a babysitter who left three children in a car under extreme temperatures. Employees of the grocery to which the babysitter left for shopping reveal to the audience the extremity of the temperatures in their gesture of providing water to the children. A reasonable babysitter should have realized that the temperatures were extreme and made alternative plans for the children. Although the incident was not a repeated act, which is the principal test for neglect, it exposed the children to harm hence can be considered as an act of neglect. A defining aspect of the case is that the babysitter exposed the children to extreme conditions which compromised their safety as minors.

Case 3

The case features two toddlers who were seen walking on the street unsupervised by their caregivers/parents. There are two scenarios which depict neglect: dirty diapers and clothes, and the toddlers walking barefoot without the company of adults. The lack of decent clothing poses health risks hence amounts to physical neglect. Walking barefoot exposes the toddlers to physical harm whereas walking without an adult accompaniment may result in bodily injury or psychological harm if they went astray. Thus, the latter exposure can be termed as physical neglect and psychological neglect at the same time. The case brings out the issue of age limit where caregivers or parents are required to supervise children up to the age of 12 after which they are considered mature enough to move about by themselves safely.

Case 4

The case involves 26-year-old lady, Sandra Davis, who left her four children in the house at night without the presence of an adult. Worse still, Davis left a burning candle which was being used as a source of lighting due to lack of heat and electricity. The candle caused a fire, resulting in the death of the four children. The case explores the idea of lack of supervision as the measure of child neglect. In context, it should have occurred to Sandra that the burning candle was a potential cause of harm to the children. Besides leaving a burning candle, Sandra left the children unsupervised. Thus, lack of supervision and exposure to a potential source of fire come out as the main reasons that made authorities to prefer charges against Sandra. Although in some circumstances the failure to provide adequate heat and electricity may not qualify as neglect, the fact that Sandra left the children unsupervised in a dangerous environment was adequate to judge her under neglect.