INTRODUCTION
In recent years the problem of child abuse has gained widespread attention in the United States and Europe. I have been concerned with the problem professionally, both in teaching and research, for about three years now. During that time I have been disturbed by the observation that the literature available to Americans on this difficult problem has been concerned
primarily with the English-speaking world. Generally speaking, little written
material of substance exists about child abuse elsewhere which is available to American scholars.
I have a long personal history of contact with and interest in Germany and speak the language adequately. Applying this interest and skill, I travel- led from June 30, 1980 to August 7, 1980 in the Federal Republic of Germany and visited with a wide variety of persons involved professionally with child abuse. The purpose of this visitation was to enhance my personal knowledge and understanding of the problem in order to improve my own teaching and research, as well as to provide a basis for communicating about the problem in Germany to English-speaking audiences. This study trip was supported in part by grants from the Deutschen Akademischen Austauschdienst (German Academic Exchange Service) and the Faculty Research Committee of Central Washington University.
Specifically I sought information about the following issues:
1. The extent of reported and estimated unreported child abuse in the Federal Republic and West Berlin.
2. Problems of defining child abuse as experienced by the legal system, social welfare agencies, scholars and other professionals.
3. The manner in which German law regards the family and the treatment of children, e.g., laws protecting the interests and rights of children, encouraging the reporting of child abuse, governing court-ordered protection for children and deprivation of parental custody and rights, etc.
4. Factors contributing to child abuse, e. g., the socio-economic "characteristics of abusers; psychological, situational, interpersonal and cultural factors affecting the incidence of child abuse; personal characteristics of abused children; child abuse among foreign workers, etc. 5. The consequences of child abuse for the child, e. g., abused child becoming an abusive parent, crime and delinquency, mental illness and deviance, instability, etc.
6. Problems of public and private agencies in responding to suspected abuse, i. e., the problems of schools, police, physicians, hospitals, social welfare agencies, etc.
7. The public's view of child abuse, i. e., the view of politicians, churches, mass media, communities, neighbors, families, etc.
8. Treatment programs available for abusers and abused children, .e. g., individual therapy, family therapy, self-help programs, intrusive /programs, crisis intervention, central registries, reporting "hot lines," day care, foster care, criminal confinement and punishment, etc., and the problems these programs encounter.
9. Sexual abuse and exploitation, e. g., incest and indecent liberties, childhood prostitution and pornography, etc., as a special case of abuse.
10. Emotional abuse, as a special case of abuse.
11. Training programs in Germany for professionals and para-professionals.
12. Public awareness programs and legislative lobbying efforts.
13. Problems of public and private funding.
14. The range and variety of public and private organizations concerned with child welfare.
15. Bibliography of published and unpublished German-language materials on child abuse and acquisition of copies of key materials.
During the trip I met with the following persons (listed in order of meeting):
---------------------
Names of persons interviewed deleted
_____________________
The discussion to follow derives from conversations with these people, observation of facilities, and written materials given me by them or purchased locally. In this discussion I will only describe and make occasional comparisons with the U. S. I will not knowingly criticize either the general state of affairs or persons interviewed for several reasons: (1) the extent of my contacts was far too limited in scope and duration to make any definitive statements, (2) it would be presumptuous of me, a foreigner possessing; a limited background both in the subject matter as well as German society, to make harsh pronouncements after only six weeks of rather superficial observation, (3) it would be insulting to the hospitality and kindness shown Mme by my hosts to seem to attack them, (4) while my knowledge of German was adequate for all interviews, I would not want to risk insult based on linguistic misunderstanding. It is also for this reason that I will not usually persons directly, except as they have made public statements in print, and (5) since some attitudes were expressed to me which were antagonistic to others, I do not wish to foment or further local conflicts unintentionally.
Since the purpose of this report is to describe my observations, I will not attempt to make it not a treatise on child abuse per se. I will assume that the reader has at least a rudimentary knowledge of the fundamental problems of child abuse, and, if interested, will pursue the literature on his or her own. I hope in this presentation that I have not misrepresented anyone's position. It goes without saying that any errors of commission, ommission or misinterpretation are mine alone.
THE STATE OF CHILD ABUSE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TODAY In describing the state of child abuse in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) I will follow the outline of issues mentioned earlier in this report.
1. The extent of reported and estimated unreported child abuse cases in the Federal Republic and West Berlin.
Determining the extent of child abuse has always proved to be a most difficult problem. Problems of definition, discovery, reporting, the legal system, and statistical categorization have made it a most elusive phenomenon to record. In Germany this is no less a problem than in the United States. one of the persons with whom I spoke had any clear idea of the incidence of child abuse. Most could refer only to their own experiences. Individually, each of those who had nay contact with abuse cases saw only a relatively small number, from only one or two to a high of 30. All, however, hastily called attention to the "Dunkelziffer" (literally, the "dark figures"), that is, the unreported cases. Their casual estimates of the Dunkelziffer ranged from 10 to 40 times the actual number reported.
In the literature with which I have become somewhat familiar, several authors attempt to deal with the problem of inadequate statistics. Ammon (1979), for instance, cites the variation between Becker's estimate of 6,000 cases per year and Rollman's estimate of 400,000. Based on his own analysis of police statistics, Ammon concludes with his own estimate of 20,000 cases of physical abuse and 1,500 deaths yearly.
Wolff (1975), drawing on the estimated number of cases in the U. S. from studies in the states of New York and Colorado, develops his own estimate which ranges from 18,000 to 1,628,000 cases per year in the FRG. With such widely and wildly differing estimates, it is quite difficult to gain a perspective on the extent of the problem. Suffice it to say that there is agreement in the belief that it is serious.
Actual data which I was able to gather (see Appendix) appears considerably different, however. I was able to obtain statistics from two sources, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA; the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation) {and the Statistisches Bundesamt (the Federal Office of Statistics). Although drawn on different, and unexplained, statistical bases, each of these sets of data tells a different story than the estimates found in the literature.
Tables 1 - 10 show police statistics on aspects of three separate offenses under the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch; StGB). Table 1 is concerned with the killing of a child (Kindestötung; this may also be translated as "infanticide"), an offense punishable under Section 217 of the StGB which refers specifically to a mother killing her illegitimate child during or immediately after birth (even though males are inexplicably included in the statistic). Interestingly, and contrary to both my contacts and the literature, this form of abuse seems to have declined from the early 1970's to the end of the decade, from a high of 62 cases in 1972 to 26 in 1979.
While one might question the validity of child abuse statistics, it is well known that murder statistics are among the most reliable, since it is unlikely that a death will go unreported. While such deaths may be classified differently over time (other statistics to follow will indicate that that is not the case), a more likely explanation for these specific surprising figures is probably to be found in increased birth control measures, abortion, and the declining stigma of illegitimate children. There may be other explanations, however, which I am not in a position to examine at this moment. In any case, it would be premature to assume that these data indicate that social attitudes toward children have become more favorable.
Table 2 is concerned with physical abuse of dependent persons (Misshandlung von Schutzbefohlenen; Section 223b StGB, which until 1978 was concerned only with abuse of children but since then includes other dependent persons). Once again we find a general decline in the number of reported cases of abuse from 1973 to 1979.
One possible explanation of this unexpected finding may be found in relation to the data in Table 3. Table 3, also concerned with abuse of dependent persons, presents data on offenders. Here we see that the trend, though erratic, is relatively flat over the years. Thus,. we find a relatively constant number of offenders producing a declining number of offenses, a fact which suggests that multiple victims were more common in the past than now. This possibly may be attributed to the declining size of families (about which I have no specific data at hand), but seemingly does not reflect any fewer problems in families per se.
Table 4 shows figures on the incidence of neglect (Vernachlässigung; Section 170d StGB), a law which also includes the Anglo-Saxon concept of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In this case a clear curvilinear relationship exists for the decade of the 1970's, the peak of which having been reached in the mid-1970's, dropped to a level in 1979 which was even less than 1972. While I have no explanation for this observation without more research, it is interesting to note that the percentage of suspects actually punished has been dropping steadily, which suggests that the answer to the statistics is perhaps to be found in the internal processes of the legal system.
Tables 5, 6, and 7 indicate the age distribution of those suspected of killing a child (Section 217), abuse (Section 223b) and neglect (Section 170d). In the ca se of the killing of a child we find most suspects are between 18 and 25, although earlier in the decade many were older, most usually between the ages of 30 and 40. Older suspects have almost totally disappeared by now. Since it is known that birth control and abortion tend to be used proportionately more by older persons, this statistic would tend to lend credence to our earlier suggestion that the declining death rate of illegitimate children killed by their mothers is related to birth control and abortion. With respect to abuse (Table 7), the years of greatest abuse are from 21 to 50 with 30-40 year-olds experiencing the greatest problem. While there is no clear trend in this data, it does seem that there is less concentration of trouble among the 30-40 year-olds, as was the case in the early 1970's, and a tendency for the problem to be spread out among other age groups.
Data in Tables 8, 9, and 10, which are drawn on another unexplained base, show deaths, abuse and neglect partialled by size of community. While there appears to be no clear trend over time, it does seem to be the general case that the death rate of illegitimate children killed by their mothers is substantially higher for small communities as well as very large cities, whereas abuse in middle-sized cities is somewhat less. Yet the differences based on size of community are not very great in any case. Neglect, on the other hand, is notably more prevalent. Paradoxically, there seems to be a slight decline in neglect in small towns over time, while neglect in larger communities seems to be increasing.
Table 11 shows an even more puzzling picture. Here data on convictions for offenses against children are presented. Once again, we see a general decline of cases of child abuse over the last decade. Still, it is not clear how to account for this from the available data. The statistics are quite erratically recorded. Not only do they make little note of the relationship between the victim and offender but they also reflect frequent changes in the law by introducing, dropping and combining categories (particularly after 1975), in such a way that it is quite impossible to understand the variations. Unfortunately, I received these figures only at the end of my project and hence was not able to ask anyone in authority to explain this aspect of the system to me. My suspicion is that the decline reflects more legal-systemic matters than an actual substantial change of the rate of offenses. This seems particularly obvious when one notes that the police were keeping statistics Îon those suspected of Kindestötung (killing of a child), as early as 1971 while the statistics on conviction only included the category starting in 1975.
In a more detailed, if limited, analysis, Doermann (1975), reports that one-fourth (24.5%) of all the deaths of children between the years of 1968 and 1974 were of newborn infants, more than a third of such deaths being of children under six months of age (35.7%). Boys and girls were almost evenly divided among the victims. However, women accounted for a much larger percentage of the offenders (49.2%) than men (34.9%). In almost half of the cases reported (47%) the child was killed by its own mother and in one-fifth of the cases (19.6%) by its own father. Thus, in two-thirds of all cases reported (66.6%) the child fell victim to its own parents. Indeed, when all relations are considered, in four out of five cases (79.7%) children died at the hands of close relatives.
I might add parenthetically that the statistics I have been able to gather are sometimes quite contradictory even though they purport to come from the same source. Ammon (1979), for example, cites statistics which claim to come from the Bundeskriminalamt, the same source which provided me my statistics directly. Yet the figures are dramatically different in many regards. I have analyzed here only those provided me by the original source. It is clear that much work is left to be done to clarify the official records on child abuse.
2. Problems of defining child abuse.
As the statistics in item no. 1 indicate, the definition of child abuse even within the legal system, is not at all clear. In this regard the situation in the FRG is no different than elsewhere. The statistics, being compilations from the records of many agencies in many areas and jurisdictions necessarily reflect local practices, procedures and values.
In the literature, as in many aspects of the problem, there is a tendency to follow the American lead in trying to define child abuse. Wolff (1975), for example, urges adoption of a definition of child abuse based on Gil's definition, specifically that "Child abuse is a non-accidental physical or psychological injury or neglect by a parent or guardian which harms, injures, limits development or even causes death." Expanding this theme even further in a publication prepared for the Federal Ministry for Youth, Family and Health (Bundesministerium für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit), the author (Wolff) calls child abuse "a non-accidental, conscious or unconscious, physical or psychological harming of a child or youth under the age of 18, which happens in the family or in an institution and which leads to injuries, developmental retardation or even to death, and which harms or infringes upon the child's rights and well-being." As if that were not broad enough, the author goes on to define child abuse even more encompassingly by saying that "Child abuse is not only the isolated violent injuring of a child. Child abuse encompassed even more the entirety of the fundamental conditions of life, the acts and omissions which lead to the curtailment of the child's rights to life, education and genuine development. The deficit between their rights and the actual conditions of their lives is the totality of child abuse." (Bundesministerium für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit, 1980).
Most literature seem to reflect this attitude, although few attempt an actual definition, seemingly relying on the assumption that the readers know what child abuse is. It is in this manner that such noted authors as Biermann (1969), Ammon (1979) and Zenz (1979), for example, proceed.
My interviews and reading of the law presented a similar picture. It was my perception that there was a tendency to regard anything "bad" which happened to children as abuse regardless of what it was or who caused it. That is to say, of a child were to be attacked in a park by a stranger, it seems most could have called that child abuse, whereas in the U. S. it is unlikely that such an act would have been so regarded.
This sense is reflected in the statistics presented earlier which incorporated all offenses against children as opposed only to those specifically resulting from parents or overseers. As evidence of the desire to define child abuse in very broad terms, the German Child Protection Federation (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund) is currently lobbying parliament for laws
placing a greater burden of responsibility on automobile drivers who hit a child, as well as for increased numbers of playgrounds in inner city areas. Similarly, one finds much more concern for maltreatment of children in schools than in the American child abuse literature (cf. Biermann (1969), Zenz (1979), Wünsche (1975), Wolff (1975a), and Bast (1975)).
Paradoxically, however, while American statutory law seldom singles children out as the object of special protection or refers specifically to parental or family relations, German law frequently does. (It might be argued that the Anglo-Saxon common law and American case law do include principles protecting children. Nevertheless, the presence of such principles in statutory and fundamental law (Grundgesetz; constitutional law), suggests conscious political consideration of the position of children in a society, something which the common law and stare decisis do not).
The fundamental law of the Federal Republic contains the following guarantees:
-------------------
Quotes from law deleted for space
-------------------
3. The manner in which German law regards the family and the treatment of children.
The definition of the parent-child relationship upon which the legal " interpretation of abuse rests has its legal basis in the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, or BGB). The entire Fourth Book of the BGB deals with the family. Following are several key sections concerned with the parent-child relationship.
-------------------
' Quotes from law deleted for space
-------------------
In general, it seems that legislative bodies take great pains to incorporate the interests of children and parents into statutory law, more so than in America in my opinion. In this regard, I might observe that , children seem to be regarded more as an issue of community interest than as merely the personal interest of individual parents. But before one becomes too idealistic about the protection German law offers children, it is well to note that in 1922 the Weimar Constitution said "Every child has the right to be raised to physical, spiritual and social competence." (Brachmann, 1978) The sentiment expressed in fundamental law is not always realized in practice. Indeed, the specification of parental rights, which has a long history in German law (cf. Zenz, 1979), establishes clearly that parents have a great deal of power over children which is not easily challenged. It seems that a great deal is tolerated by the courts before restrictions of parental authority are initiated, and it is in this regard that much conflict seems to exist about the law. Demands are being raised for changes in the law to 8 restrict court discretion in such matters (cf. Wolff, 1975). As a matter of 9 fact, between the publication of Wolff's work in 1975 and the Bundesministerium für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit's handbook on child abuse (1979), the wording in the Civil Code reflecting the parents' position vis-a-vis the child changed from the German "elterliche Gewalt," literally "parental force," to "elterliche Sorge," or "parental care." While I have translated the issue here as simply "parental responsibility" or "parental rights," it is clear that these terms do not reflect the change Germans are undergoing in the way they think about parents and children. I might also add that additional changes have been made to the laws effective January 1980, however, I have been unable to obtain a copy of these new laws.
Most of those with whom I spoke, and those reflected in the literature, seemed to feel that the law encourages abuse by giving parents too much power over their children, although most also felt that the law was too punitive towards parents, a fact which they believe has tended to keep parents from seeking help.
But even though the German law has quite willingly stepped in to help define parent-child relations and to punish child abuse, the question of legal reporting requirements (Meldepflicht), is another matter entirely. Apart from the usual requirement that citizens report crimes, there is no special requirement that professional or lay citizens report suspected abuse as is now universally the case in the U. S. Indeed, I found little open sympathy for such a law either among physicians or laymen.
In the case of the physicians, the question of medical confidentiality (Schweigepflicht) was an important issue. While many asserted that such a law would be undesirable because it would keep cases from being treated, in R that parents would no longer seek help if they could not trust their doctor, others, while acknowledging that possibility, assertd that they believed it to be only an excuse. While these persons also did not like the idea of a mandatory reporting law, they also believed that physicians could presently report child abuse without violating confidentiality (cf. Trube-Becker, 1967, W 1972). Through referrals from family physicians to hospital physicians (unlike the U. S., in Germany the positions are separated), and through in-house collegial and administrative consultation in hospitals, many believed that the present system could be made to work. Education of physicians is the key, in the view of those opposed to such a law.
Still, even though these points were well taken, it seemed to me that there may have been more to some of the opposition. It was not until some weeks into my interview schedule that what seemed to be the "rest of the story" began to emerge in conversation. For some, mandatory reporting laws smack of the denunciation which prevailed in the Nazi era. To a person, a each one which whom I spoke seemed genuinely eager to make democracy work, and whether Americans like it or not, reporting laws are not democratic. And neither are central registries of know abusers which sound very much d like the dossiers which used to be kept on citizens. Yet, apparently such e registries are being developed in some areas, most notably Hamburg.
4. Factors contributing to child abuse.
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no comprehensive study of child abuse in Germany which deals with the socio-economic characteristics of abusers. Earlier American studies, such as those of Gil and Gelles, are frequently cited, with the assumption accepted that the problem is primarily k a function of a lower socio-economic milieu. Yet, at the same time I heard l constantly that child abuse is to be found everywhere. Indeed, nearly every m person interviewed had stories to tell of abuse among doctors, teachers, n social workers, businessmen, attorneys and public officials. In this regard the situation is not substantially different than in the U. S. Those who appear in the statistics are more subject to scrutiny by public agencies and lack the protections enjoyed by the middle classes. Anecdotally, however, the phenomenon seems to be virtually universal.
As in the U. S., the history of the study of child abuse has been t led by the medical profession, especially pediatricians, pathologists, and u psychiatrists. The causal view of child abuse developed by them reflect primarily a psychodynamic orientation. Much discussion and many pages have been devoted to analysis of child abusers in terms of personality types and personality characteristics (cf. Biermann, 1969; Ammon, 1979; Trube-Becker, 1964), as well as the situational and interpersonal dynamics of abuse. The analyses generally concentrate on weak ego development in which the child becomes a scapegoat for problems elsewhere in the person's life.
Still, there is a substantial amount of concern expressed about historical-cultural factors. While most of the spokesmen for the cultural view are sociologists, social workers, and educators, even those emphasizing psycho-dynamics reflect on the historical-cultural treatment of children.
Such authors as Zenz (1979), Rutschky (1977), Bast (1975), and Petri and Lauterbach (1975), argue that the history of child-rearing in the West and Germany particularly suggests a certain dislike of children (Kinderfeindlichkeit), which has come to be incorporated into common customs and legal structures as well, quite independently from any particular personal state of mind. Few find an historical basis for this, although Ende (1980), Dombrowsky (1979), and Honig (1980), root the problem of German child-rearing in the material conditions of modern industrial society.
In spite of this, I found in conversation considerable opposition to the idea of an inherent German Kinderfeindlichkeit. Indeed, many with whom I spoke expressed the opinion that the Germans were in fact very affectionate toward children (Kinderlieb). While none would deny the history of mistreatment of children, they all seemed to perceive a change taking place over time, if ever so gradually.
I was also concerned to know if there were anything different about the German family that caused it to have problems not found elsewhere. Specifically, I was concerned to know how widespread were the beliefs and practices espoused by Schreber, the 19th Century German pedagogue who advocated very authoritarian child-rearing practices (cf. Schatzman, 1978). Without exception I heard it said that such practices, if they were ever very widespread, had died out in the post-war changes that had taken place. Still, on at least one occasion where several people participated in the discussion, an argument developed which suggested to me that the participants may not entirely have believed that the past was completely gone.
A socially critical stance is much more pronounced in the general German academic milieu than in the U. S., and it has much more influence there than here, too. Many of the students who participated in the period of great social criticism of the 1960's and 1970's have since become teachers in the universities they once criticized or have come to form the research and policy-making core of major research institutes. While one might expect to see "society" blamed for child abuse by those critical of the society, I was surprised to hear frequently those most critical of the society express the opinion that Germans were, at heart, very Kinderlieb. They seemed to that real changes have taken place in recent years which have lessened the power and importance of traditional authoritarian middle-class values supported by the role of the strong father and the dominance of the State. In this regard I sensed a feeling that the causes of child abuse rooted in the social structure were now being revealed, and consequently the personal problems of individuals living in such a milieu could for the first time begin to be dealt with.
Yet at the same time others were quite pessimistic about the present, noting that the presumed decline of the family, neglect was increasing due to more and more working mothers and the resort to day-care centers (Pechstein, 1971). Many also decried what they perceived to be a tendency for modern young adults to profess interest in children as long as they (the children) suited their (the young adults') mood and interests. But fundamentally, so I was told, they are more interested in enhancing their material interests -- stereos, cars, surfboards, etc. And not only are children suffering more directly, so is the society as a whole. Few young doctors, for example, regard medicine as a calling (the German word for occupation, Beruf, suggests a calling or lifetime commitment to gainful activity). Instead, they tend to treat medicine as a mere job (Sie jobben nur!), that is, transitory activity involving no personal commitment which has value only to earn money to maintain a lifestyle. Even as some spoke to me about the present state of affairs they would sink into a perceptible depression. The attitudes of many of the persons I interviewed, as well as others with whom I spoke who were not concerned professionally with child abuse, suggested a certain schizophrenia in modern Germany, an alternating enthusiasm and pessimism about the present and future and the quality of life.
Little attention seems to be given to the characteristics of abused children in the literature I have encountered briefly, although in conversations, particularly with pediatricians, attention was called to the apparent fact that already at birth some children have rudimentary personalities which are particularly irritating, demanding, etc., which under conditions of lack of support at home may produce abuse.
I was very interested to know about child abuse among the foreign workers in Germany (Gastarbeiter; literally, guest workers). Curiously, not one word on the problem did I find in ;any of the literature I obtained nor did I see any suggestion that authors cited were writing about it.
Yet, when I asked my contacts about it, without exception each expressed the deepest concern. Since the 1950's Germany has experienced a period of intense and rapid economic growth, and has found it necessary to bring in È foreign labor to supplement its own labor force. At the outset Italians, Spanish, Greeks and Yugoslavs were imported; later Turkish workers were, too. It is now estimated that four million foreigners reside in Germany. The number of illegal immigrants is unknown but is also estimated to be great.
Few with whom I spoke found any particular problem with the Italians, Greeks, Spanish, or Yugoslavs (although I remembered with irony the many contemptuous sentiments I heard about Italians, for instance, when I lived in Germany in the early 1960's), all of whom they found European in outlook and cultural history. The problem -- and the sighs -- began with the mention of the Turks.
The Turks in Germany are Moslem and come primarily from the rather feudal and primitive area of Anatolia. As such they religiously, culturally, racially and chronologically "out of tune" with modern Germany. Their history in Germany parallels in many regards the history of many immigrant groups in North America. First a small number of men arrive to do menial and industrial labor. They settle in poor but established neighborhoods, bringing their families later. As their numbers increase and cultural characteristics become more pronounced the locals begin to leave the neighborhood ("as soon as the first mutton is roasted in a tenement courtyard," in the words of one person interviewed). Ghetto-ization of the neighborhood, slum-like living conditions, changing character of small, neighborhood businesses, and a neighborhood culture and schools dominated by immigrant children, all follow in turn. They comes a high birth rate, internal ethnic political struggle and conflict, etc., etc., and the process is complete.
As regards child abuse among foreign workers, I heard different stories. One person who deals primarily with infant deaths, claimed one-third of the cases involved foreign children, primarily Turkish. Others recounted stories of how Turks, following their strict Moslem customs, beat their children severely in the course of normal child-rearing. Others pointed to the conflicts emerging within the Turkish community surrounding the tendency for Turkish children to grow up German and the efforts of Turkish adults, sometimes, to "discourage" this by brute force. Still others told how Turkish children, being taught not to show pain, would not tell of illness or injury to the point where it became severe enough that parental neglect was suspected. Still others told of women and their infant children being locked in their by their husbands during the day, thus being unable to seek medical attention or otherwise enjoy contact with the outside world.
The picture painted for me was bleak, and all the more so when described with such total frustration and lack of any idea about what to do. In general, much blame was laid at the feet of the German people and government for failing to take the matter seriously. The Germans, it was said, persist in thinking of the Turks as Gastarbeiter, and, as everyone knows, guests come and guest go away. But the Turks aren't leaving. Moreover, their children are growing up German whether anyone -- German or Turkish -- likes it or not. It is clear that the real problem will emerge in about two generations when a substantial ethnic group, by that time completely Germanized, demands full civil rights which they do not, and cannot have.
The Turks are not leaving and they cannot be sent away for political and industrial-economic reasons. In the meantime, the Germans, fearing loss of control over their culture because of the great number of Turks in some areas (most notably the Ruhr industrial area and Berlin), are proposing school busing programs to ensure cultural balance (they should examine the American experience!), limited voting rights and other programs. And Turkish child abuse is defended on the grounds of "cultural relativity," a standard which would not be tolerated with any integrated cultural group in Germany. It seems clear that the problem is destined to get much worse before it gets better.
5. The consequences of child abuse for the child.
There seems to be no systematic evidence describing the consequences of child abuse for the child in the German literature I have surveyed. Generally speaking, American sources and Freud are frequently cited in defense of the proposition that child abuse produces, in turn, more abusers. Through case study analysis the effects of various forms of trauma in early childhood are described, such as psychosomatic illnesses, Kaspar Hauser syndrome, criminality, abnormal mental states, etc. (cf. Biermann, 1980; Ammon, 1979; Müller-Küppers, 1978; Gareis, 1978). It is also frequently argued that many in prison and prostitution were abused as children.
6. Problems of public and private agencies in responding to suspected abuse.
The time and my itinerary were such that I was not able to talk directly with any persons in public agencies about specific problems they experience in responding to child abuse. From those with whom I spoke who had contact with these agencies, I learned that major problem areas for these agencies are hostile parents themselves, neighbors who either report child abuse maliciously or refuse help in an investigation, high status and politically influential parents who are suspected of abuse, workloads (in the case social workers) so heavy that little attention can be given to individual cases, and the inter and intra-agency political strife.
I was told by physicians that physicians and hospitals are usually cooperative. But it also became clear that that is not always the case. There is considerable apprehension surrounding reporting abuse -- fear of criticism for having violated professional confidentiality, fear of testifying in court, fear of newspaper publicity, pressure from the prosecuting attorney's office, etc.
7. The public's view of child abuse.
As I perceived it, my contacts viewed with cynicism the public's of child abuse. That is, the persons with whom I spoke generally felt that the public's attitude about abuse ranged from indifference to superficial concern. Governmental agencies, for example, while nominally supportive, seldom were willing to provide the kind of financial support my contacts believed necessary.
# The mass media, on the other hand, gives child abuse considerable attention, albeit in a sensationalistic, exploitative way. One publishing house, the Axel-Springer-Verlag, publisher of the Bild Zeitung, a tabloid with the largest circulation of any newspaper in Germany, was singled out often for particularly vehement condemnation for the way child abuse cases ( are exploited to sell newspapers. Particularly irritating to most with whom ) I spoke was a bumper sticker, distributed widely by the Springer Verlag and carried by millions of cars and trucks, which read "Ein Herz für Kinder" (literally, "A heart for children," the implication being that one should be , more concerned with children). Not that the sentiment was wrong, buy my contacts felt that it was quite superficial and tended to leave the impression that as long as people carried the sticker on their cars there was no problem, and certainly not in the home of the bearer.
Other bumper stickers carrying messages supportive of children such as "Kinder haben keine Bremsen!" (Children have no brakes!), which was part of a traffic safety campaign sponsored by various police agencies, and "Baby an Bord" (Baby on Board), a sticker informing other drivers that an infant was in the car and presumably asking others to drive with particular care, even though equally superficial, seemed not to arouse as much antagonism as the "Ein Herz für Kinder" sticker. It is my impression that the antagonism I sensed was toward the producer and the seemingly opportunistic character of the public awareness campaign.
Although serious newspapers and magazines periodically run articles and series on child abuse (cf. Reinhardt, 1980; von Marcard, 1980), the attitude of the press as a whole tends to be rather sensationalistic (cf.. Leitner, 1980), and it is difficult to find good material for general readership. As far as I could tell, there are no books available on the subject for the general public other than those put out by the federal government, although there are many books available on the more general topic of child-rearing for the public (cf. Spahn, 1976), as well as some very good periodicals such as Eltern (Parents).
Churches are closely concerned with the problems of the family and are taking an active role in public education about and treatment of child abuse. A partial list of church activities will appear later in this report. I had no time to contact church officials during this trip.
8. The kinds of treatment programs available for abusers and abused
children and the problems these programs encounter.
While a variety of possible treatment programs exist for abusive parents, as a rule once the matter has come to the attention of the Juvenile Office (Jugendamt), it will be handled punitively, which means probation or imprisonment depending on the circumstances. From what I was told (I did not have the opportunity to speak with public officials), little will be provided the parents in the way of treatment, although if imprisoned, psychiatric therapy may be ordered, particularly if a sexual offense is involved. It is for this reason that considerable effort has been exerted in recent years to create alternative, independent child abuse prevention and treatment programs, two of which I visited.
The first is not concerned solely nor even primarily with abused children, although it has great implications for child abuse prevention and early diagnosis as well as training for professionals and para-professionals. I am referring to the Children's Centers (Kinderzentren) created by Prof. Dr. Hellbrügge in Munich and later Prof. Dr. Pechstein in Mainz.
The Children's Centers, 300 of which are planned, have developed out of the newly emerging medical speciality of "social pediatrics" (Schlack,1979). Rather than regarding a child as simply a small version of an adult human organism, social pediatrics seek to understand the child as a developing [ being within a social milieu. Toward this end an extensive body of research data has been gathered and generated on the development of a child in terms of which a child's development may be assessed and appropriate treatment prescribed when needed. The centers are supported by funding from public and private sources, and the services are free (cf. Pechstein, 1975, 1979),
It is not usual that the centers see clearly abused children, although a they will evaluate cases sent them periodically by the juvenile court. Most of the children they see are in one way or another developmentally retarded or handicapped, high-risk children. But while they seldom see overt cases of abuse, they frequently see incipient cases of neglect or abuse which are manifested through the apparent emotional indifference (Lieblosigkeit) or hostility of the mother toward the child. This, of course, has long been recognized as symptomatic of problems in the relationship which may result in serious abuse or neglect.
The centers are staffed by medical, psychological, special educational, and social work personnel who, working as an interdisciplinary team, evaluate the physical, social, and psychological situation of the child and arrange appropriate counseling and other treatment.
The program is, of course, voluntary, and as is the case with all voluntary programs, its success depends in great measure on the cooperation of the parents. When parents are motivated to cooperate, its success is demonstrable. When they are not, it is less successful.
It is the position of those who have organized the centers that the first three years of a child's life are the most critical, and it needs a stable, constant relationship with a single person -- preferably the natural mother -- during this time (Pechstein, 1973, 1974). For this reason, the organizers have been particularly opposed to the trend to create child care centers (Kinderkrippen und Tagesmütter) (Pechstein, 1971, 1974). This position has placed them squarely in conflict with others working to combat child abuse who believe that child care is necessary.
The second program of major importance is that of the German Child Protection Federation (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund; DKSB). Organized child { protection in Germany enjoys a long history, having begun in 1695. In 1898 the closest ancestor of the DKSB, the "Verein zum Schutze der Kinder gegen } Ausnutzung und Mißhandlung" (Association for the Protection of Children from ~ Exploitation and Abuse), was founded. It was abolished in 1933 by the Nazis (in the unified state there would be no more child abuse!), and reorganized in 1953 as the Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (Brachmann, 1978).
The organization, a registered non-profit association, is private and exists through the financial support of membership dues, donations, and a small amount of public funds (monies from certain types of court fines -- Bußgelder -- are made available for public welfare projects). The federation is an organization consisting (in 1978) of 203 local groups, 11 state (Länder) associations, and 25,000 members. At that time it operated three shelters for abused children and 30 crisis lines. The local and state organizations, for the most part, function with local, unpaid volunteer labor and are involved in at least 14 projects ranging from family counseling to care of children of foreign workers.
In addition to maintaining a communications network at the national level and coordinating legislative and community action on behalf of children, the DKSB has supported development of treatment programs which are alternatives to the criminal courts. Individual local groups are organized with the intent of encouraging the public to come to them with reports of child abuse rather than going directly to the juvenile court authorities. The DKSB has supported creation of several demonstration projects to develop this concept, initially in Berlin and most recently in Gütersloh and in Munich. I had the opportunity to visit this latter project.
In 1972 the Munich branch of the DKSB made the decision to change its program to the area of family counseling. With the help of the German Youth Institute (Deutsches Jugendinstitut), a plan was prepared which was submitted in 1977 to the City of Munich for financial support. In 1978 financial aid was granted for space and a project director. Herr Wolf Sartorius was the first director and remains so today.
The project was intended to deal with those child abuses case which never come to light (die Dunkelziffer) and was not intended to replace state action in those cases reported to the authorities. It began with the assumption that increased public reporting to authorities would only serve (1) to increase the isolation of already isolated families, (2) to encourage families to hide even more their neglect and abuse from neighbors and relatives, and (3) cause even more harm to the children involved through the additional economic and social problems caused by criminal punishment for parents and institutionalization for children.
Breaking with the widespread psycho-dynamic model of child abuse that said that child abuse was the product of individual pathology and which seemed to call for confinement and removal of the child from the home, the counseling center basically followed the principle that child abuse was the product of social change as it affected the daily lives of individuals. What parents needed, it followed, was help in coping rather than criminalization. Much of the theory was based on the research done on the everyday lives of "little people" by the German Youth Institute (cf. Honig, 1979; Wahl et al., 1980).
The Center was intentionally located in the inner city in an old building and near public transportation to facilitate contact with its target population which is, by and large, working class. It has a small paid staff by now but relies primarily on a cadre of volunteer therapists and family aides who are recruited through newspaper advertisements. The primary requirements; for the lay therapists are than they have had some personal experience with child abuse in their own pasts and, if possible, have had some training related to counseling. Applicants are further screened to insure their ability to work with people. The group has intentionally maintained its distance from the authorities, although by now they are reportedly on friendly terms. That was not always the case.
Through public advertisements persons are encouraged to call the center for advice or help or to report themselves or others as having a problem with child-rearing. Confidentiality is assured. The program is oriented around a number of activities: (1) telephone counseling, (2) home visitations and counseling, (3) parenting aid, (4) in-center counseling, and (5) training for both in-house staff and outside interest groups.
In 1979 the center handled some 7,500 telephone contacts, 1,000 intensive telephone counseling sessions, and 1,250 lay therapist actions. The center also dealt with 66 families intensively and its staff was expanded to four professionals and some 25 lay therapists. They are currently seeing clients at the rate of several hundred per year, and the rate is increasing as their reputation spreads.
There are a number of problems such organizations in Germany must face which Americans may find hard to understand. In the U. S. grass-roots self-help organizations are not at all uncommon. That is not true of Germany, however. Germans, I was told, are not only very respectful of trained professionals and authority, they are also very dependent on them. In this regard, the belief seems to be that if something is not done by professionals, it ought not, cannot and will not be done; it simply is not the place of É laymen to be undertaking that which, by definition, only "Fachleute" (trained specialists) do. This applies to all activities from, for example, auto repair to medicine. The idea of unschooled parents sitting down and helping each other as in the case of the American "Parents Anonymous" is a totally alien concept, and as such, I was further told, it would not work in Germany -- at least not at the outset.
On the other hand, if lay volunteers were given a certain status which served to separate them from their clients and elevate them somewhat, then one might suspect they would be taken more seriously. Whereas Americans would regard this service as simply voluntary, Germans would have to make a distinction between voluntary in the sense of freely given services (Freiwillig) and voluntary in the sense of a qualified person holding an unpaid, honorary position (Ehrenamtlich). It is in this latter manner that the workers in the child protection center are conceived.
Also a problem for Germans is the relationship between such an organization and the state. While this is a problem in America, too, it is particularly difficult for Germans, since the thought of an organization investigating deviant behavior without being a function of the state is almost inconceivable. At the outset of any contact most people are very suspicious of the Center's staff. All the staff can do is assure people that they have no ties with the law and then demonstrate their trustworthiness.
As mentioned, word about the program is getting around and contacts are increasing. People, including the juvenile office, are beginning to take favorable notice. This Fall they intend to try to start a group of anonymous parents and being to advertise their own "hot line" more widely.
While the group has drawn much from the American experience with volunteers and self-help programs, they have not created an American program. They have developed a program truly in response to German needs and one from which Americans have something to learn. The idea of a program totally separate from state authorities is one which has not been developed very far in this country. In the U. S., most such groups operate very closely with and are often dominated by state agencies. This German model deserves more study by us.
There are other activities related to child abuse in Germany, too. Many church groups have family counselling activities and sponsore crisis lines (Sorgentelefon). A partial list of such groups will appear later in this í report. I also found mention of the Federal Association for New Child-rearing Methods (Bundesverband Neue Erziehung; 1980), which sponsors parental self-help groups, however I was not able to learn more of such programs.
In the case of treatment for children, the children's centers, mentioned earlier, can provide short-term, in-patient treatment for severely abused children, as do hospitals and clinics. Foster homes are used by the courts as well as institution-like children's homes. The latter, stemming from the orphanages and children's homes of the past, are increasingly coming under fire for their poor conditions. They frequently are likened to prisons for children who have not done anything. Public service groups, such as Rotary and Kiwanis, are campaigning to create facilities for neglected children as alternatives to such institutions. It is also my understanding that the projects in Berlin and Gütersloh have created "Kinderwohngruppen" (group living arrangements for children), but I was unble to learn any details of their operation.
9. Sexual abuse and exploitation.
When one asks or reads about child abuse in Germany, the topic is concerned almost exclusively with physical and psychological abuse and neglect. Sexual abuse seldom appears spontaneously either in conversation or the general literature (an exception is Trube-Becker, 1980), at least in my experience. Indeed, I found the general responses to my questions about sexual abuse to be puzzling. Sexual abuse seems to conjure up almost exclusively images of sexual aggression by strangers. Few, it seemed, were prepared to think about sexual abuse within the family. Indeed, when I raised the issue, persons who enthusiastically supported treatment programs for parents as alternatives to punishment, became visibly agitated and even rigid at the mention of sexual abuse by parents. "Usual" sexual abusers (that is, strangers), I was told, were sick and needed help. Parents, however, should be punished! And with that the discussion was ended. This kind of response, might add, occurred in at least four instances in almost identical fashion. It is a sentiment which I also have later noticed in print (cf. Lempp, 1978).
Curiously, even though a great deal was known about American programs
for physical abuse and neglect, hardly anything at all was known of sexual abuse programs in the U. S. by anyone I interviewed. I explained one of the more successful programs with a promise to send more information.
Surprising also was the complete lack of knowledge of the child pornography industry, especially in view of the "important" role West Germany plays as a supplier of child pornography to the U. S. None of my contacts were aware of such in the least.
Except for the psychiatric clinics and prisons, apparently no program deals with sexual abuse at all and nothing appears on it in the general literature, except in the general context of psychoanalytic theory, as far as I have been able to tell.
An area of concern to those who were aware of it was the movement to decriminalize pedophilia (cf. Brongersma, 1980; Schwarzer, 1980a, b). The goal of the movement, according to Schwarzer (1980a), is abolition of Section 176 of the criminal code (sexual misuse of children), as well as the laws against incest, sexuality with dependents, procuring of minors under 16 years of age, unrestricted distributions of pornographic literature, and homosexual relations for minors under 18 years of age. The person who told me of this expressed a great deal of concern about the prospects.
10. Emotional abuse.
There is a great deal of concern about emotional abuse in Germany. As mentioned already, the importance of the child's mental and spiritual well-being is even built into the fundamental law. Not surprisingly, however, Germans seem not to have been able to deal with the idea any better than the Americans. That is, it is not incorporated into criminal law and, in general, no one has been able even to define it adequately.
Yet the concern is everywhere, and that concern goes far beyond the idea of harsh or belittling words which seems to limit the definition in theU. S. Schools and television receive a great deal of attention as prime sources of mental harm (cf. Bettelheim, 1980; Esser, 1978; Kübler, 1980; Nitsch, 1979, 1980). Schools and parents are singled out for criticism for , the incredible pressure they put on children to succeed. School performance (Schulleistung) is widely valued above all as the key to personal success, and the fear of bad grades is so great that children may "flip out" (ausflippen), and even commit suicide as a result. Delinquency, drug addiction, and mental and social states are all attributed to the pressure generated by the school system and parents seeking their own fulfillment in their children's success. Indeed, the pressure is so great that in one area a special crisis line is established during examination time just to provide counseling for desperate students.
Unfortunately, the Germans frequently copy some of the American experiments -- some of the worst ones, I might add -- even as the Americans are beginning to back off from them. Open classrooms and consolidated schools are two which have been introduced in recent years and with the same dismal effects as in the U. S. The DKSB is beginning to speak out against these plants and their harmful effects on children.
Television is increasing in Germany, and while far less is available than in the U. S. (though generally of higher quality), the use of the "tube" (die Röhre) as a babysitter or surrogate parent is becoming all too prevalent. Government agencies and social welfare agencies, among them the DKSB, are advertising massively for parents to regulate their children's viewing both in quantity and quality.
There is one area (which is emerging as a great concern in the U. S.), however, where I did not notice emotional abuse -- the area of children's sports. In the U. S. "little league" baseball, football, swimming, etc., are frequently accompanied by a great deal of emotional abuse by parents in the form of driving their children to success on the playing field, much as German parents are alleged to do in school.
I had occasion to attend a competitive swim meet between several youth teams. The atmosphere was dramatically different from what I have I witnessed in America. Competition and success was played down to the point that score was not kept and indeed even little attention was paid to the swimmers' times or accuracy of timing. Few parents were in attendance (which one might argue suggests lack of parental support. Is this emotional abuse in its own right?), and those who were there were quiet, seemingly willing to let the even belong to the children. If the reader is not familiar with the phenomenon in the U. S., it is something to behold. Similarly, I attended a youth soccer (Fußball) tournament. Once again a drive for competition and success was not apparent and there were few parents in attendance. It seemed to me, and I could be wrong, that the fun of playing and the camaraderie were more important than winning. But then I also went to an exhibition game between F.C.Bayern München and TSV 1860 (highly touted professional soccer teams in Munich), and the mood of the crowd was about as different from the little league games I saw as one could imagine. Thus, I am not prepared to say that competition is not a value in Germany. It just seems not to be the sort of thing with which parents brow-beat their children.
11. Training programs in Germany for professionals and para-professionals.
[ The primary training program specifically for child abuse workers \ appears to be centered in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Wolff. As part of his pioneering work, he has developed a curriculum for child abuse education (cf. Wolff, 1975a), and has developed a training manual for the federal government which, in my opinion, surpasses those available in America in many regards, particularly in the area of identification (cf. Bundesministerium für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit, 1979).
Other institutions, of course, have course work oriented around child abuse. They are primarily schools of social work, education, medicine and psychiatric institutes, and related areas.
The DKSB also engages in training for professionals and para-professionals on a wide scale, as previously mentioned.
12. Public awareness programs and legislative lobbying efforts.
The DKSB is probably the primary public awareness and lobbying group on behalf of children, although other groups, such as Aktion Jugendschutz (Child Protection Action Group), are active. Many church groups are also active, some of which will be mentioned later.
In the governmental area, the Federal Ministry for Youth, Family and m Health publishes a great many brochures, books and pamphlets on the subject as well as sponsoring public awareness programs. Governments of the Länder, cities and communities also promote such activities, as mentioned.
13. Problems of public and private funding.
Competition with other interests for limited public funds as well as governmental and public indifference always makes funding of such projects difficult. Each complained about a perennial lack of funds. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak to public officials about this problem.
14. The range and variety of public and private organizations concerned with child welfare.
The range of public and private organizations concerned with child welfare and problems of the family is enormous. Not only does the DKSB have a chapter in nearly every community, many church organizations do as well. Moreover, under recent legislation, a goal has been established to create a parenting counseling office for every 50,000 persons. Juvenile officials are and will be responsible for this increased service. Infant, pre-school, and school-age daycare now exist with a total number of places for 1,570,407 children (Bundesministerium, 1980).
Following is a list of the locations of DKSB chapters and offices which suggests the breadth of their activities:
---------------------
List deleted for space
---------------------
Following also is a list of family counseling centers in Bavaria alone. I do not have access to such lists from other areas, but the magnitude of this array seems to be indicative of the extent of counseling opportunities.
---------------------
List deleted for space
---------------------
CONCLUSION
After having returned home I have been asked repeatedly by colleagues and friends, "Is child abuse as bad in Germany as here?" In truth I have not known how to answer the question. Because of problems of definition and data, I do not know how "bad" it is in the U. S., not to mention how "bad" it is in Germany. What is important, however, is that an increasing number of Germans perceive the problem to be serious. Moreover, they are acting on their perceptions and are beginning to develop a body of data and very innovative programs to deal with the problem.
It is always difficult to say what has been learned from such a project. Data come and data go, so the value has not been in the statistics or descriptions of activities I have gathered. Rather the value lies, I believe, in the comparative perspective it has given me. Through a comparison with others I have come to see that, in spite of our self-doubts, we in the U. S. are not doing all that badly as regards child abuse. On the other hand, it is equally clear that we should not become smug in thinking that our solutions are the only or the best ones. This project has further demonstrated to me that we have a great deal to learn from others, and it has also been sobering and frightening to see how others look at us, sometimes uncritically, for leadership.
Already I have witnessed the consequences of the exchange here in little Ellensburg. On several occasions my observations of the DKSB, the Children's Centers, and the Munich Counseling Center have entered into next year's program planning of the local Child Advocacy Council. Several of my German contacts have already sent me more material and I am preparing several shipments of information myself. Moreover, the project has also been mentioned in Behavior Today (September 15, 1980), a national professional newsletter in the social sciences. As with a newborn baby, the value of the project will be a function of how it is nurtured and developed. I have no doubt that many of the contacts made will continue over the years and the knowledge acquired will continue to develop.
As a final note, I wish to thank my sponsors for their confidence in supporting me and to
thank my hosts, especially Prof. Dr. Kurt Nitsch, without whose initial help the other contacts
would have been difficult if not impossible. I was touched by the warmth and hospitality with
which they received me and am most grateful.
Return to Publications