Introduction
This article reports on part of a research project which investigates the current practice and policy towards child protection in China. The project is funded by the Australian Research Council as a Linkage grant between the University of New South Wales and Save the Children in China. Practitioners and children were interviewed in four sites in China. Here we report on our preliminary findings based on fieldwork in one site: a rural area in the north.
Child protection, and child welfare more generally, has become an increasingly important issue for social policy in China. In Chinese culture, there is a strong presumption that children are the responsibility of their parents, and, failing that, of the wider family and community (Shang, Reference Shang2008). Under communism, Chinese society was divided into rural and urban systems for social protection. In urban areas, the danwei or work unit and in rural areas the xiang or gongshe (township or commune) were responsible. In each case, family issues were addressed by these local institutions, which represented minimum intervention by central state agencies.
However, because of the massive economic and social changes in China over recent decades, these institutions are no longer able to provide support to vulnerable children and families. This is at a time when the need for such support is growing exponentially, as more and more children become involved in social changes such as mass migration to cities, family breakdown, AIDS, trafficking etc. Furthermore, the Chinese state has not developed alternative systems of support.
There is very little research on child abuse in China. According to Qiao and Chan (Reference Qiao and Chan2005) there is little public recognition of child abuse in China and no national statistics on its prevalence. Nevertheless, they cite several studies which show a high prevalence of beating and other forms of family violence (Hao, Reference Hao1999; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Kim, Park, Zhang, Lu and Li2000; Liu and Zhang, Reference Liu, Zhang, Rong and Song2002).
Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Dunne and Han2004) surveyed 2,300 teenagers in four provinces in China about their experiences of sexual abuse. They found that 7 per cent had suffered some form of contact abuse. This was a lower prevalence than in western societies, but the consequences of involvement in sexual abuse was similar for victims who suffered a range of adverse outcomes.
In China there is no agency with formal responsibility for child protection, but a number of agencies have responsibilities which could potentially include the protection of vulnerable children, and could therefore potentially become part of a formal child protection system.
The All-China Women's Federation (ACWF) whose basic function is to represent women, protects women's rights and interests, and promotes gender equality (Shang Reference Shang2006). The Chinese Communist Youth League (CCYL) mainly works for the young people, focusing mainly on training youth facilitators and solving issues related to the young peasants’ rights to employment and survival. However, CCYL Xilin Committee members said the Committee has no right to enforce the law or to intervene, and child abuse is not one of its key tasks. At the national level, the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA) has a Department of Social Welfare and Social Affairs which has responsibility for the welfare of older people, people with disability and children. However, the primary responsibility is for children who have no legal guardians, including abandoned children, orphans and street children. Justice Departments are mainly concerned with youth offending. Because juvenile delinquency is often related to abuse suffered in childhood, effectively intervening and reducing child abuse are critical elements of child protection and juvenile delinquency prevention. The major duties of the Public Security Departments include preventing and detecting illegal and criminal activities, preventing and curbing terrorism and maintaining public security. Article 21 of the People's Police Law (1995) specifies that ‘People's police officers shall immediately come to the rescue when a citizen's safety of the person or property is encroached upon or is in other dangerous situations; they shall, upon request, help citizens in settling their disputes; they shall handle without delay cases reported by citizens.’
The combination of increasing need, few resources and cultural reluctance to intervene has created a particularly challenging situation for vulnerable children in China. This research is part of a process to better understand the way the system works currently and to provide evidence for a robust response to child abuse.
Methodology
The research site was LX County in the north of China. LX County has a population of 1,393,000 according to the fifth demographic census (People's Government of LX County 2009), over 90 per cent of whom are agriculturally employed. LX is a relatively poor county, largely relying on agriculture.
This was a qualitative project which involved in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders in each site. Focus groups were conducted with (1) staff of government departments, including Bureau of Civil Affairs (BCA), Women's Federation (WF), Bureau of Education (BOE), HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office and Communist Youth League (CYL); (2) staff of LX County Hospital, including the president, office clerks and doctors of surgical, internal medicine, paediatric internal medicine and emergency departments; (3) 12 teachers at the Elementary School of KQ Village; and (4) villagers and residents. In addition, face-to-face interviews were conducted with three police officers and two officers of LX Charity Association. The research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of New South Wales (UNSW). This paper also uses data collected in interviews conducted by staff of Save the Children UK of children in L Village, including elementary and middle school students. Save the Children UK is committed to a Child Safety Policy which was followed through its survey (Save the Children UK, 2003).
A total of 146 people were interviewed, including 15 children by Save the Children. The interviewees were recruited through a local NGO: LX Charity Foundation. The research team who conducted the investigation included two staff members of Save the Children, who had long-term working experiences with children, six postgraduate students in the field of child welfare and social policy from Beijing Normal University and a researcher from Australia. A consent form was signed by interviewees before interviews and focus group discussions. The interviews were either recorded, or written by interviewers; data and observational notes were coded according to a handbook provided by Save the Children (Ennew and Plateau, Reference Ennew and Plateau2004).
Basic elements of the system of child protection
The main approach of the research was to focus on the basic elements of a system of child protection in order to find out the extent to which the Chinese system provides effective protection to maltreated children.
A ‘child protection’ system in the narrow sense refers to specific legal and institutional arrangements which are put in place to address child abuse. These include such measures as mechanisms for investigating and addressing child abuse, court orders, legal proceedings, social services and out of home care (Save the Children UK, 2003).
In the wider sense ‘child protection’ also includes the broader social protection measures for social relief and welfare services provided for vulnerable or disadvantaged children and their families. This paper is concerned with the child protection system in its narrow sense, referring mainly to measures taken to protect maltreated children.
In order to provide effective protection for maltreated children, the child protection system needs a relatively well-defined set of procedures. Typically, these include a system of reporting suspected abuse, investigating allegations of abuse, assessing and substantiating those reports and providing a range of interventions to protect children from further abuse and to help them recover from the consequences of their maltreatment (Bromfield and Higgins, Reference Bromfield and Higgins2005). It should be noted, however, that each system differs in the structures and procedures involved in protecting children, and also in the precise definition of ‘abuse’, ‘maltreatment’ ‘risk’ and ‘harm’.
Every system includes the provision of temporary protection measures for children, in particular alternative (out of home) care as well as preventive and family support services. The latter are becoming an increasing focus for child protection systems in many developed countries (Department for Education and Skills, UK, 2003; New South Wales Government, 2009).
Although child protection systems differ in each jurisdiction, there are some basic elements which are fundamental to every mature system. According to Bromfield and Higgins (Reference Bromfield and Higgins2005) these elements are:
1. A statutory agency responsible for child protection. Although many agencies, particularly the police, education and health, as well as relevant NGOs, are involved in protecting children, there is normally one organisation with primary responsibility for child protection.
2. A reporting system. In many countries, personnel engaged in work associated with children, including teachers, doctors and social workers, are obliged to report to the relevant agencies when they suspect child abuse. This obligation has arisen because, historically, these practitioners have been reluctant to report suspicions of abuse to the CPS, and mandatory reporting laws have been promulgated in many jurisdictions in order to obligate these professions to report suspicions. In some jurisdictions, all citizens are mandated to report, and in others professionals are also required to report issues of concern about children other than child abuse.
3. A procedure for processing child protection cases. After receipt of a report of abuse there is generally a specified process of investigation, assessment, substantiation and intervention. In many jurisdictions, the police are now routinely involved in investigations of serious cases, in particular sexual or serious physical abuse.
4 A system of out-of-home care and legal provision for the state to remove children from the care of their parents. The system must include provision of alternative out-of-home care for children whose home situation is too risky.
Definitions
The term ‘maltreatment’ is defined as: ‘Any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child’ (Leeb et al., Reference Leeb, Paulozzi, Melanson, Simon and Arias2008: 11). Maltreatment includes abandonment and neglect, violence and abuse and exploitation. This section discusses the legal definition of maltreatment, including ‘abuse’, ‘neglect/abandonment’ and ‘harm’ in China.
According to ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several issues in the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China’ adopted by the Supreme People's Court on 24 December 2001 (Supreme People's Court 2001), ‘[Domestic violence refers to] behaviour whereby a person causes certain physical or mental harm to his family member(s) by beating, binding, forced restriction of personal freedom or by other means. Ongoing or frequent domestic violence constitutes maltreatment.’ This judicial interpretation clearly defines the forms of manifestation of domestic violence.
In addition, ‘certain harms’ mentioned in this definition generally refer to harms which are ‘slight’ or ‘moderate’. For the consequences of harm, a series of appraisal standards have been developed in China on the basis of theories and techniques of medicine and medical jurisprudence by combining practices of legal medical experts.
Article 260, Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (1997) defines the constitution and punishment of the crime of abuse. The ‘crime of abuse’ refers to severe abuse such as beating, scolding, binding, freezing, starving, restriction of freedom, humiliation, refusing to give medical care or forcing overwork. The law also states that where abuse causes a slight or light harm, private prosecution is the appropriate course of action. However, children are too young to prosecute personally and therefore few cases of this sort can be successfully brought to court, according to a judge of the Supreme People's Court interviewed for the research.
The concept ‘neglect’ has not yet be clearly interpreted or defined legally in China. Pursuant to Article 261, Criminal Law of China, a person who has the duty of support but either fails in their duty or acts maliciously towards the dependant person can be prosecuted for the crime of abandonment; for example, parents refusing to bring up their children. According to the definition of abandonment, some extreme forms of ‘neglect’ may be included in the range of crimes of abandonment.
Article 234, Criminal Law of China defines clearly the crime of wilful and malicious harm/injury as any behaviour that damages the health of another person intentionally and illegally. There are three different levels of severity of injury results caused to the body of other persons, i.e. minor injury, major injury and death. If no injury is caused, a crime of wilful and malicious injury cannot be judged to have been committed. When defining ‘abuse’, the above-described three thresholds of injury should be considered. However, psychological or emotional abuse is hard to define in these terms.
In order to examine the operations of the current child protection system in China, it is also important to understand the prevailing cultural attitudes and beliefs about child abuse. The first challenge lies in giving a clear definition of child abuse. According to Qiao and Chan (Reference Qiao and Chan2005), in order to be considered ‘abuse’ in China, people generally assume that a criminal act must have been committed, and the abusive actions must therefore be serious, malicious in intent, frequent and have a long duration.
‘Abuse’ (nuedai, which refers to treating others cruelly or brutally) has several different meanings in the Chinese language: (1) In a broad sense, it means ‘improper treatment’, which is very close to ‘maltreatment’ in English. However, the term ‘improper treatment’ is rarely used in China and has no corresponding concept in law. (2) Legally, the concept nuedai has a narrower definition, referring only to improper treatment occurring between family members, roughly equivalent to ‘child abuse’ in English. Some people translate both ‘maltreatment’ and ‘abuse’ into nuedai in Chinese, leading to certain confusion. Therefore, in this research, we use the two concepts ‘maltreatment’ and ‘abuse’ to express the two meanings of nuedai. The former has a broader meaning, including, neglect (and abandonment), violence, abuse and exploitation; the latter narrower meaning is more concordant with the definitions of child abuse and neglect in developed systems. In China begging, trafficking, street children, prostitution and child labour are prevalent problems which fall under the broader definition. However, the focus of this research was abuse within families.
In order to address these definitional complexities, we made some technical adjustments to the concept ‘maltreatment’. We asked the interviewees whether they had ever observed improper disciplining of children, for example beating and scolding; we then asked them how they viewed the discipline and whether or not they considered it ‘abuse’. Finally, when interviewing professional groups, such as police officers, doctors and teachers, we directly asked them what behaviour was ‘child abuse’, whereas for members of the public we translated the word ‘abuse’ into some behaviours people usually saw, and asked whether these behaviours existed and were thought of as abuse. Sometimes we also used such words as ‘harm’ and ‘corporal punishment’, which are formal but more widely used.
Findings
There were a wide range of different understandings of ‘child abuse’. Nevertheless, it was found that the vast majority of participants identified abuse as actions causing obvious physical harm or psychological consequences.
Beating and scolding in ordinary family life were considered to be a means of child discipline rather than abuse, because it is widely accepted that ‘beating is a kind of caring, a kind of education’. Little attention was given to ‘neglect’ – most of the interviewees held that as long as parents provide children with food, clothes and schooling, there exists no problem of abuse. Interviews with teachers and policemen revealed that most cases of ‘neglect’ or poor parenting are a result of parents leaving children in order to go to work.
For teachers, corporal punishment and beating and scolding of students were perceived as being in the best interests of students. As long as no serious physical harm is caused, parents would support these behaviours. Moreover, interviewees felt that teachers demonstrated no extreme actions toward students. Interviewees felt that punishments such as making students stand for long periods, wringing ears, detentions and a moderate amount of homework copying could not be counted as corporal punishment.
Among 146 interviewees, only a few respondents held that the use of severe insulting words when scolding children cause psychological harm to children and could be considered as abuse. Harm to the physical and mental health of children, failure to meet their demands for healthy physical and mental development could also be considered as a form of child abuse.
Interviews with children showed that they did not like being beaten or scolded. One girl clearly said that parents beating their child constituted abuse. Another girl defined abuse as beating, scolding and starving. Nevertheless, when it came to abuse at school, children of L Village held that it was punishable when a student did not listen to teachers or ‘got naughty’. Meanwhile, children said that ‘we go to school for study, not for being beaten’; and ‘persuasive education is more acceptable to me’.
The majority of the interviewees held that there was very little child abuse in LX County and they denied that it was a social problem. However, all concurred that corporal punishment of children frequently occurs. Most participants agreed that corporal punishment of children was acceptable as long as it was for the good of children. From the perspective of parenthood, they held that beating and scolding were traditional means of education which were often applied.
Interviews with the teachers revealed that, when making home visits, they often discovered parents scolding or beating their children. There were even reports of some parents who told teachers to ‘beat their children without mercy’ whenever they become disobedient at school. In their eyes, beating and scolding are normal means of education. Furthermore, parents believed that it was no one's business if they beat their own child.
Similarly, teachers reported many instances of corporal punishment of pupils. For example, a teacher at one of the village's elementary schools often beat his students by means of kicking, beating the back with a stick, hitting the head with a book, and forcing students to stand for one or two classes. The students being beaten would not tell their parents for fear of being beaten or scolded again by their parents. Unless a child is severely beaten, parents would only go and have a talk with the school head teacher. There was a report of one student who was beaten until he was deaf. When his parents demanded something should be done, the teacher simply made an apology to get it over with. However, the villager who reported this incident also said that ‘our rural children are extremely naughty; they will not listen to you without being beaten’. That teacher was later promoted to ‘schoolmaster’. At another school, children indicated that their teacher made them stand upside down as punishment.
Other interviewees reported the abandonment of 30 to 40 babies in the County Hospital every year and one case of rape of a young girl.
In summary, these interviews with various stakeholders indicated that physical punishment was ubiquitous and indeed valued by virtually all adults and even most children. Sexual and emotional abuse as well as neglect were hardly acknowledged.
One of the key objectives of the research was to gather the views of children. Most children participating in the research regarded parental beating and scolding as normal behaviour, and they believed that they ought to be beaten and scolded when they did wrong. Some children said they had learned from their teachers that parental beating and scolding of children was child abuse. Most of the children interviewed said that if they discovered child abuse they would, at most, ask the child why he/she was beaten; they would neither think the parents were wrong nor provide other assistance to the child.
Interviewees said that at school some teachers punished students by making them stand for long periods, copy homework many times or by hitting the palm of their hand with a small stick. Children seemed to accept this and said they would neither say nor do anything when teachers behave in this way, and would definitely not tell their parents.
Child protection system
Based on the interview findings, the Public Security Department is the only agency that has the right to intervene. When parents abuse their children, even if their behaviour does not constitute a crime of abuse pursuant to the Criminal Law, the Public Security Department can still punish them according to the provisions in Articles 44 and 45 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments (2005). Thus, Public Security Departments are potentially the most important agencies in the formal child protection system. The interviews with police officers reveal that the Public Security Department has a relatively comprehensive working procedure and mode of settlement for reports of serious child abuse cases. Nevertheless, they generally would not intervene in unreported cases. Influenced by traditional Chinese beliefs that ‘Domestic disputes always defy logic’ and ‘Beating one's own children is not others’ business’, plus the fact that there are no relevant provisions of law and matching rules of procedure for addressing child abuse (specifically beating and scolding), the officers said that the Public Security Department can, in most cases, act only ‘on a case-by-case basis’ and solve child abuse affairs by means of persuasive education.
However, the main function of the Public Security Department is criminal investigation and prosecution and therefore it cannot carry out any preventive intervention. Unless a child has been grievously hurt, the Public Security Department will make no intervention.
Reporting
The interviews with teachers, doctors and police officers confirmed that none of these professionals would report cases of child abuse under the current system, and, even if there was a mandatory reporting system in place, they would also be extremely reluctant to report any but the most serious cases.
According to the relevant laws, child abuse cases can be reported to a number of agencies including the villagers’ committee, urban residents’ committee, work unit(s) of the parents or any other ‘relevant organisations’. The provisions concerning ‘relevant organisations’ were defined according to the organisational functions prior to the reform and opening up of China. However, neither the village committee, the work unit (danwei), the Communist Party NGOs nor any of the ministries have overall responsibility for child protection.
Given the context, it would seem that professionals and the public have little idea which agency they should report to and which can play a decisive role. Thus, people usually telephone 110 (emergency) to report to the Public Security Department when they come across a serious child abuse case occurring at home or in public. However, our research found that in this county this was an extremely rare event, with only one case having been reported in recent years and even in this case no criminal prosecution eventuated.
With regard to abuse in schools, the Bureau of Education does have power to investigate and suspend or dismiss a teacher. However, the Bureau officials said that in this county only two cases had been recently reported and these cases were settled in private by the teacher compensating with several tens of thousands of Yuan to the parents of the injured children or an apology by the teacher.
Police only have the power to protect the child for a limited time (24 hours). Nevertheless, the police officers said that if the child requires protection, they can make efforts to temporarily settle the child with his/her relatives.
Although it is theoretically possible for a child to be removed and placed out of the family, police officers and teachers said that in practice this is not a possible course of action for children. All interviewees held that the family is the best growing environment for a child and parental affection is of most importance to the child. Therefore, even if a child is abused, parental guardianship cannot be revoked unless the life of the child is endangered. In addition, there is no system of residential out-of-home care or fostering.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that child maltreatment exists in LX County, although the true prevalence is unknown. Interviewees reported that most parents used corporal punishment and believed that it was an acceptable means of education and was good for children's future development. At school, corporal punishment by teachers of children was reported to have occurred regularly. There are very few cases where children are forced to beg or engage in child labour, and very few reported cases of sexual abuse of children.
Like Qiao and Chan (Reference Qiao and Chan2005), our research confirms that the issue of child abuse has not yet been given adequate attention in China. The great majority of interviewees believe that child abuse seldom if ever occurs and they did not see it as an important social problem. This was because of the widespread acceptance of physical chastisement, and the strong belief that, as a result of the one child policy and Chinese cultural values, all Chinese children are treasured by their parents and are therefore unlikely to be abused.
The current system cannot provide effective protection to children. There is no case reporting system in the county in respect of child abuse. When child abuse occurs, professionals such as teachers and doctors generally would not report the case and, other than in extreme cases, the police would not take action themselves. Even in the most serious cases, no special measures were taken to protect the victims.
Our findings indicate that although there is a legal underpinning for a child protection system, there are significant barriers to developing and implementing such a system. Not only would there have to be considerable organisational and administrative reform, there would also have to be a fundamental cultural change by professionals and the public at large.
