Changing families, challenging futures
6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference
Melbourne 25-27 November 1998

Offending Mothers : Thoughts and Ideas

Lee FitzRoy

Lecturer, RMIT Social Work

This paper is an opportunity to open up some dialogue around a difficult issue. That is : mothers who chose to physically, emotionally or sexually assault their children¹ or neglect children’s needs². As this is a complex topic and we have a short time today, I really just want to identify some thoughts and ideas that have emerged from workers who work with women as mothers, in a variety of settings. These settings include women’s health, sexual assault, domestic violence, child protection and post prison release programs. Some of the points raised by workers may resonate with yourselves and I am hoping that this process will encourage further discussion and debate about the reality of mothers who are violent towards their children.

Before I begin, it is worth acknowledging that although I stated that women do chose to assault their children, I am very aware of and sensitive to the reality that women grow up and live within a very oppressive social, political and familial context. In this context, men are the majority of perpetrators of sexual, physical and emotional abuse on women (ABS 1996, Hall & Lloyd 1989, Herman 1992). In relation to the abuse of children³ even within the difficulties of obtaining accurate statistical accounts of child abuse, there is general agreement that women perpetrate approximately 50 per cent of physical abuse (Finkelhor 1986, Tomison 1996), 2-3 per cent of sexual abuse (Finkelhor 1986, Saradjian 1996) and an unspecified percentage of emotional abuse and neglect (Tomison & Tucci 1997).

In addition to this context of violence, we can also acknowledge women’s unpaid labour whereby they are the primary carers of children, their partners, disabled family members and aged parents. This context has a fundamental impact on women’s knowledge and opportunities to make active self affirming ‘choices’ about their employment, living or family situation. However, within this context, we need to acknowledge that some women may still make choices⁴ to abuse⁵ a child and that this abuse is an unacceptable crime. In this way, I would like to engage in a discussion which critiques a ‘mother blaming’⁶ ideology, whilst still acknowledging that women are active agents who make clear choices about how they will use or abuse their power.

I would like to locate this discussion within a short case example which presents some of the dilemmas and difficulties experienced by workers when working with what is sometimes called ‘difficult women’.

There are a number of issues that are evident in the example of Margaret which I will briefly discuss, drawing on the knowledge and experience of workers. The main points that I will present today emerged from a number of focus groups I facilitated with workers about offending mothers. Let us start with an important issue for many of us, that is, the issue of maternal ambivalence.

The majority of human service workers clearly acknowledge the reality and existence of maternal ambivalence in the lives of the women they work with. In other words, workers work with women who sometimes behave in ways which indicate clear ambivalence about their role as mothers, the responsibility they feel for the well-being of their children and the dependent nature of the relationship between themselves and their children. Maternal ambivalence has become the subject of increased scrutiny by feminists who have engaged in a critical analysis of the social construction of motherhood contrasted with women’s experience of mothering (Hollway & Featherstone (ed.) 1997, Featherstone 1997, 1998, Featherstone & Trimble 1997, Parker 1995, 1997, Welldon 1988). As Parker concluded

I would suggest that a thoughtful engagement with women’s often ambivalent relationships with their children, can assist us in developing a further understanding of women’s choices to perpetrate physical, emotional or sexual abuse on the bodies of their children (Featherstone 1996, Maynes & Best 1997). As Featherstone (1997) has noted, workers and human service organisation may also ignore women’s expressed ambivalence towards their children, reflecting the general societal perceptions for example, that "mothers know best" or "that all mothers love their children". This lack of acknowledgment can lead to situations where workers are attempting to case manage complex family situations where children are placed back into a situation where it has been generally acknowledged, however unsubstantiated, that the children are at risk of further abuse or neglect perpetrated by the mother. As Featherstone commented, when reflecting on the difficult role of child protection workers,

Clearly linked to the above discussion on maternal ambivalence, is the reality that women have primarily been constructed as ‘victims’ of male violence and historical and cultural patriarchy. This discussion does not seek to deny women’s experience of extreme violence and oppression perpetrated by men. However, we can acknowledge that parallel to this definition of women as powerless victims, we have the converse situation where women who do commit crimes, have historically been defined as either ‘mad’ or ‘bad’. Indeed women who are convicted of violent offences against their children have often been defined as monsters or evil unnatural mothers, because they are "offending against their natures". However, the dualist construction of women as either victims or villains has denied us the opportunity to explore the diverse and multiple identities women share. In other words, focusing solely on woman as victims, disallows us critical engagement with the complexities of women’s subjectivity as daughters, lovers, wives, mothers, and the intersection of other variables such as class, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and age. Consequently, we are not forced to critically confront the different levels of power different women embody or enjoy, depending upon their class, age or colour for example. I would suggest that incorporating an analysis of such issues would greatly enhance our understanding of women’s choices to abuse children or indeed other women or men.

Workers that I have spoken with, identify their own difficulties with this seemingly mutually exclusive definition of women - as either victim / or villain. In this process, workers commented that they found themselves responding to women, solely in relation to their victim experiences of violence or oppression perpetrated by men, and failing to respond to women’s disclosures of, or workers concerns as to the possibility that women may be actively abusing their children or failing to protect them. In addition, workers also commented on the limitations within current theorisations of women – as either victims or offenders, which fail to incorporate more complex analyses of women’s differing levels of power, their experiences and choices. I would suggest that there are a number of feminist theorists who are developing more complex readings of women’s lives and their choices to act, which would be useful for us to engage with (see for example Featherstone).

These thoughts lead workers and myself to a few ideas that are worth briefly identifying.

This term refers to the reality that children are vulnerable within hierarchies of age, gender, race and geo/political identity. Within this context, children have a right to be nurtured and protected by their adult care-givers. Therefore, although we can acknowledge that women may experience oppression or violence in their own lives, there is a need to acknowledge the rights of children. As Wise commented

Many workers acknowledged that there is a broad assumption within the field, that when we (as workers) meet the needs of women, we automatically meet the needs of their children. The assumption that children’s needs and rights converge with those of their mothers, is a general difficulty within the provision of services for women and their children. It has been suggested by a number of workers in the field, that often children’s needs are ignored within the process of meeting the needs of their mothers. However workers were also mindful of not returning to the conservative ideology of the recent past, where women’s identity and needs were completely indivisible from those of their children. A few workers raised the possibility that mothers may chose to abuse their children as a strategy which enabled the meeting of previously unmet needs (Maynes & Best 1997, Parker 1995, 1997, Welldon 1998). This is a complex point that I am unable to fully discuss in the context of this paper, however I would suggest that it would benefit from further research.

Interlinked to the above, are the issues related to the difficulties in defining and therefore responding to women as active agents, who make choices to enact violence against others. In exploring the difficult notion of ‘choice’ for women, workers felt stuck within their analysis of women’s experience of oppression within the general social, political and familial context, and wondered how to reconcile this analysis with an understanding of women’s choice to enact violence against others. This paradox created a sense of powerlessness in workers and was linked to a broader discussion about the current welfare context⁹.

The other forms of violence that workers raised included racial violence against other women, domestic violence and sexual assault within lesbian relationships, physical and sexual violence perpetrated by young women against workers, other young women or men, sibling violence, elder abuse or the abuse of disabled friends or members of the family, and adult women perpetrating physical, sexual or verbal abuse against other women or men. Clearly, these other forms of violence perpetrated by women would also benefit from further research.

Clearly, any acknowledgment that women can be and are, active agents within their own social world, has meant that we need to acknowledge that women also learn to view some members of our community as ‘other’. Or in other words, as less important or less valuable than those members who are, by definition, members of the dominant order. Such distinctions would be familiar to you and include for example, issues of ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, gender, age, ability and geographical location. Given the historical and social context of such systems of hierarchical ordering, it is reasonable to assume therefore, that women also learn (as do men) to perpetrate forms of explicit or implicit oppression or abuse upon those who are defined as ‘inferior’.

As a result of the analysis offered above, clearly we can acknowledge that violence does not emerge from and is not solely located within the masculine. Many authors have deconstructed the social construction of a dominant hegemonic aggressive masculinity (see for example Connell 1989, 1995, Pease 1997, in press) and the co-location of this definition with a constructed passive femininity. In this way, we can acknowledge that women, as constructed subjects within a social order built on hierarchies of difference, too have the capacity for and ability to enact violence. In this way, we can also acknowledge that violence is an intrinsic component of social relationships and is legitimatised within the formal and informal structures and systems within society.

Given the limited nature of critical research on women’s violence towards their children which locates women’s violence within an analysis of the diverse and contradictory nature of women’s lives and their relationships with their children, my conclusions are tentative at best. I would suggest that we need further research with women about their relationships with their children and their behaviour along with further discussions with workers about their experiences working with women and their families.

In addition, there is the need to incorporate information on domestic violence and child abuse in a more critical manner that addresses the impact of cultures of violence on women’s choices to enact violence against their children. This clearly leads me to the need to incorporate a more complex analysis of the impact of childhood experiences, class & culture on women’s access to power and choices to enact violence.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996, 'Women's safety survey', Canberra, Cat. # 41280.

Connell, R. 1987, Gender and Power, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Connell, R. 1995, Masculinities, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, N.S.W.

Coward, R. 1997, ‘The heave and hell of mothering: Mothering and ambivalence in the mass media’, in W. Hollway & B. Featherstone, (eds) Mothering and Ambivalence, Routledge, London, pp. 111-118.

Egan, R. & Hoatson, L. ‘Desperate to survive’, forthcoming.

Featherstone, B. 1996, ‘Victims or Villains? Women who physically abuse their children’, in B. Fawcett, B. Featherstone, J. Hearn & C. Toft, (eds) Violence and Gender Relations, Sage, London, pp. 178-189.

Featherstone, B. 1997, ''I wouldn't do your job!' : women, social work and child abuse', in W. Hollway & B. Featherstone, (eds) Mothering and Ambivalence, Routledge, London, pp. 167-192.

Featherstone, B. & Trimble, L. 1997, ‘Domestic violence and child welfare’, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 2, pp. 147-159.

Featherstone, B. 1998, 'Taking mothering seriously – the implications for child protection', Unpublished paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Social Work in Health and Mental Health, Melbourne, January.

Finkelhor, D. 1986, A Source Book on Child Sexual Abuse, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Goodin, R. 1985, Protecting the vulnerable: a reanalysis of our social responsibilities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hall, L. & Lloyd, S. 1989, Surviving Child Sexual Assault, The Falmer Press, London.

Herman, J. 1992, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence, New York: Basic Books.

Hollway, W. & Featherstone, B. (eds) 1997, Mothering and ambivalence, Routledge, London.

James, M. 1994, ‘Child abuse and neglect: incidence and prevention’, Issues in Child Abuse Prevention, January, National Child Protection Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

MacDonald, H. 1998, ‘What’s in a name?: Definitions and domestic violence’, Discussion paper no. 1, Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Melbourne.

Maynes, P. & Best, J. 1997, 'In the company of woman: experiences of working with the lost mother' in W. Hollway & B. Featherstone, (eds) Mothering and Ambivalence, Routledge, London, pp. 119-135.

Parker, R. 1995, Torn in Two: The Experience of Maternal Ambivalence, Virago, London.

Parker, R. 1997, 'The production and purposes of maternal ambivalence' Mothering and Ambivalence, in W. Hollway & B. Featherstone, (eds) Routledge, London, pp. 17-36.

Pease, B. 1997, Men and Sexual Politics: Towards a Profeminist Practice, Dulwich Centre Publications, Adelaide.

Pease B. Recreating Men: Postmodern masculinity Politics, Sage, London, in press.

People Together Project. 1998, Community submissions to me ‘Social Justice Report Care: Women acting together’, People Together Project, Carlton, Melbourne.

Saradjian, J. 1996, Women who sexually abuse children: From research to clinical practice, Wiley Press, London.

Smart, C. 1994, 'Law, Feminism and Sexuality: From Essence to Ethics', Canadian Journal of Law and Society, vol 9, no. 1, pp 15-38.

Tomison, A. 1996, ‘Intergenerational transmission of maltreatment’, Issues in Child Abuse Prevention, no. 6, National Child Protection Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Tomison, A. & Tucci, J. 1997, ‘Emotional abuse: the hidden form of maltreatment’, Issues in Child Abuse Prevention, no. 8, National Child Protection Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Victorian Council of Social Services. 1998, ‘Strengthening communities’, Sector Issues paper, VCOSS, Melbourne, June.

Welldon, E. 1988, Mother, Madonna, Whore: The idealisation and denigration of motherhood, Free Association Books, London.

Wise, S. 1995, 'Feminist ethics in practice', Ethical Issues in Social Work, R. Hugman & D. Smith, (eds.) Routledge, London, pp. 104-119.