State Sen.-kids living with parent and parent's partner "20 times" more likely to be sexually abused

Says a study shows that children who live with a biological parent and the parent's boyfriend or girlfriend "have a 20 times greater chance of being sexually abused."

GOP Wisconsin state senator says study shows kids living with parent and parent's partner "20 times" more likely to be sexually abused

The tasks of Wisconsin’s Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board include raising public awareness about the mistreatment of children.

Under a bill introduced in February 2012 by state Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, the board would be required to "emphasize non-marital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."

That’s a reference to homes where a child lives with a biological parent and the parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend.

The "non-marital parenthood" focus of the bill attracted national news coverage from CNN and the Huffington Post. It also drew criticism from advocates of single parents such as liberal talk show host Alan Colmes.

During his national Fox News radio program on March 2, 2012, Colmes asked Grothman to explain the bill.

"We do have a child abuse and neglect board and their goal is to educate people on how to reduce abuse," Grothman replied.

"Now the studies show that, if you are living with your two biological parents compared to with a biological parent and a boyfriend or girlfriend -- if you were with that boyfriend or girlfriend, you have a 20 times greater chance of being sexually abused."

Grothman went on to say that "people certainly know there are single moms who are good parents and there are single moms who aren’t. But when the statistics show you’re 20 times greater -- in one type of family structure than another -- to cause a child to be a victim of sexual abuse, it’s something that ought to be out there."

We decided to take a look at Grothman’s numbers.

Grothman’s evidence

Although he said "studies," Grothman made it clear to Colmes that the statistic he cited is from a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study on child abuse and neglect published in January 2010. Mandated by Congress, the study "serves as the nation’s needs assessment on child abuse and neglect" and is the fourth in a series that dates back to the 1970s.

The newest study surveyed child protective service agencies in a representative sample of 122 counties about abuse and neglect cases they investigated during a one-year period -- the second half of 2005 and the first half of 2006. The study also obtained information about children who were identified by professionals as having been abused or neglected but whose cases were not officially investigated.

A major difference was found among perpetrators of different types of abuse. More than 70 percent of children who were physically or emotionally abused were abused by a biological parent, but only 36 percent of children who were sexually abused were sexually abused by a biological parent.

As for Grothman’s claim, Grothman aide Lance Burri cited a chart in the study on the rate of sexual abuse in different types of households.

The chart shows that children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused at a rate of 0.5 per 1,000 children, while the rate for children living with a single parent with a partner in the home was 9.9 per 1,000 children.

That means the sexual abuse rate for children living with a single parent who has a partner in the home was 19.8 times higher than the rate for children living with biological parents who are married.

So, by saying the rate is 20 times higher, Grothman is correct, a point we confirmed with the study's lead author, Andrea Sedlak. She noted that the study did not determine who the perpetrator was in the cases where children who were sexually abused were living with a parent and the parent's partner.

We would also note that the sexual abuse rate wasn’t higher in all types of single-parent homes. The same chart Grothman cited shows the rate among children living with a single parent who had no cohabiting partner (2.4 per 1,000 children) was lower than that of children living with other married parents, such as a biological parent and a stepparent (4.3 per 1,000 children).

Other viewpoints

We asked Ken Taylor, executive director of the nonprofit Wisconsin Council on Children & Families, about Grothman’s claim. His group is one of three that lobbied against Grothman’s bill.

Taylor said that while Grothman accurately quotes the study, a child living with a single parent and the parent's boyfriend or girlfriend is only one of many risk factors associated with abuse and neglect generally. Others include poverty, an adult’s substance abuse or mental illness, and whether the adult was abused as a child, he said.

The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which also opposed Grothman’s bill, testified at a hearing on the bill that promoting marriage over single parenthood could put children at greater risk if there is domestic violence in a home with married parents. Conversely, promoting the reduction of substance abuse among adults, for example, would have only a positive impact on child abuse and neglect, the coalition said.

The Legislature didn’t act on Grothman’s bill before adjourning its session in March 2012. That means the bill would have to be re-introduced to be considered and Grothman hasn’t made a decision about doing that, his aide said. But the bill’s statement -- that "non-marital parenthood" is a "contributing factor to child abuse and neglect" -- is supported by the study.

The overall rate of abuse and neglect was lowest in homes with married biological parents -- 6.8 per 1,000 children. It was highest for children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household -- 57.2 per 1,000 children. That’s more than eight times higher than the rate in households with married biological parents.

Our rating

Grothman said a federal study shows that children who live with a biological parent and the parent's boyfriend or girlfriend "have a 20 times greater chance of being sexually abused."

Grothman accurately quotes the study, which found that the rate of sexual abuse among children who live with a biological parent and the parent's partner is 20 times higher than the rate for children who live with their married biological parents.

We rate his statement True.

GOP Wisconsin state senator says study shows kids living with parent and parent's partner "20 times" more likely to be sexually abused

I read about this.

Apparently it had to do with scent. When a male spends a lot of time with a female, but is not sexual, the male eventually becomes injured to the odor. That is why gathers tend to not abuse their daughters.

But when a stranger male comes into the picture, it becomes a different story. The unfamiliar scent from the young female is arousing, because the stranger male did not spend a lot of time to become injured to the scent.

As I said, I hate phone keyboards.

Gathers should be fathers.
Injured should be injured.

Thank you.

My experience in law enforcement and the judicial system tells me that this survey is right on the money.

Notice the weasel words from the first guy opposing it: < whine - well it's not the ONLY factor - whine >.

Not only is the live-in boyfriend a reliable marker for child abuse generally and sexual abuse in particular, it's a marker for the worst sort of abuse -- not the "he said, she said" variety, but the "dead children with burns and wounds in places you don't want to talk about" variety.

The cause? I think it's a combination of the alley-cat syndrome in the men -- male cats instinctively slay the children of other competing males -- untempered by any moral or religious training, plus the woman who does not protest because she's afraid the boyfriend will leave her and she has no legal status.

I find it totally believable. From personal observations, nearly every time I hear of a child being abused and killed by someone, 99% of the time it is by the mother's shack-up boyfriend.

As a side note, the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are shack-up boyfriends. Very few are husbands, except for in the Hispanic and Muslim communities.

Wisconsin Sen. Grothman explains statement: kids living with parent and parent’s partner “20 times” more likely to be sexually abused ping

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsn interest ping list.

I love the way the opponents of this Bill and the author of this article went out of their way to try to disprove Sen. Glenn Grothman’s assertions. Don’t they know by now that if Grothman said it, it is true?

(Grothman was my Senator until the new re-districting took effect. ~sniff, sniff~ He is honest as the day is long. I’m really going to miss him.)

“When a male spends a lot of time with a female, but is not sexual, the male eventually becomes injured to the odor. That is why gathers tend to not abuse their daughters.”

Oh, please. Psuedoscientific claptrap.

Good men and women don’t live with opposite sex partners — especially if there are children in the house.

Because good men and women put what’s best for their children first.

Good men and women don’t harm children. Nor do they put them in situations where they may be harmed.

There is a shortage of good men and women in America at the moment.

I agree with you that good people don’t abuse other people, period.

But there are underlying biological that can influence a person to do things they may not have done otherwise.

“But there are underlying biological that can influence a person to do things they may not have done otherwise.”

If you buy the “Men are just behaving like just like male lions; they can’t help it” argument in cases of hurting children, then what do you say about rape? Is the “underlying biology” of undeniably higher testosterone levels in men “influencing a person to do things that may not have done otherwise?”

All men who have never committed rape should be insulted by that argument.

Children have a genius for getting in the way of the whole shacking up thing. So maybe men and women who shack up and subsequently hurt their children are just crumb-bums. That’s not biology — that’s lousy character. Bad moral fiber. Bad choices. Free will.

I’m not buying the argument that the difference between good and evil is biology.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.