Reply to Heather Webster

Reply to Heather Webster

Hello Heather, Hi. I hope you are fine. Well, I have read your response to the questions, and I believe you did an excellent job of clearly answering the three questions. You have lucidly described the meaning of CPM and especially in light of the case in question. However, I was trying to ponder on the Machnick’s family actions vis-à-vis the ruling they received from the judges and wondered whether they were unable to describe the psychological maltreatment as child abuse. Of course, child abuse is illegal.

However, child abuse is not limited to physical abuse alone but also psychological ones. I believe the maltreatment that Grady is experiencing is physically dilapidating, especially sleeping in the cold, pouring him water, carrying dog feces, and even going without lunch. These actions have severe physical and traumatic implications on the boy that amounts to abuse. Given the magnitude of these actions, I beg to disagree with your view that CPM is hard to identify. These psychological actions of maltreatment are blatantly clear, and no one in the right mind should doubt whether they amount to child abuse. As Miller-Perrin, Perrin, and Renzetti identify, psychological maltreatment was not recognized as a distinct form of child maltreatment until quite recently (203). In my view, perhaps the cultural milieu within which those who fail to see it as an abuse grew was characterized by most of these forms of discipline on children so that it seemed much reasonable. However, since the side effects of CPM are severe and often lead to physical deterioration, CPM should be viewed as a destructive and pervasive form of abuse.  I, however, did not understand what you mean in the last question when you say that CPM is both acts of commission and omission. Perhaps, you need to clarify this point.

Works Cited

Miller-Perrin, Cindy L, Robin D. Perrin, and Claire M. Renzetti. Violence and maltreatment in

Intimate Relationships. 2018.