Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young People in Care – Preliminary findings

1. Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young Peoplein Care – Preliminary findings By Stewart Redshaw PhD Candidate, University of Queensland & Research & Program Development - Mercy Family Services Contact: sredshaw@gil.com.au ACWA08 Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre

2. Outline of Presentation • Overview of PhD research project • How this framework emerged • The defence mechanisms framework – 4 components • Toxic care environments • The defence mechanisms • It’s all about ‘survival’ • Consequences of defensive behaviours • Implications for practice

3. Overview of Research Project • PhD research project with the University of Queensland (School of Social Work and Applied Human Sciences) looking at the needs of children and young people in care • Constructivist research methodology involving a constant comparative thematic analysis and keyword analysis of 580 documents relating to out-of-home care in Australia

4. Overview of Research Project • The 580 documents selected for the study reflected the views of fivekey stakeholder groups: • Children and young people in care and, former wards • Parents of children in care • Carers, agency staff and practitioners • Statutory workers and representatives of statutory authorities • Advocates, academics and peak-bodies

5. Overview of Research Project • The five types of documents included were: • Primary documents - letters and submissions to inquiries, edited transcripts of interviews and public hearings, and personal accounts • Secondary documents - reports resulting from commissions of inquiries and departmental reviews, audits and investigations • Empirical documents - published findings from empirical research • Legislative and policy documents - legislation, regulation and quality frameworks • Industry and practitioner documents - reports by academics, peak bodies and advocacy groups, and writings by out-of-home care practitioners Extending across several decades of care – from the 1930s to early 2000s

6. Overview of Research Project • Outcomes of the research project: • Taxonomy of needs (3 domains, 21 dimensions, & 150 attributes) • A series of ‘salient observations’ about the experiences of care, including: • The overwhelming emotions of care • Emotional putdowns • Vicarious trauma – the witnessing of violence & abuse in care settings • Personal characteristics of children & young people who survive & thrive in care and beyond • Characteristics of quality carers • Symptom intolerance • Disenfranchised grief – the never-ending story • Defence mechanisms of children and young people in care

7. How the framework emerged… • During the coding process, children and young people in care described a range of behaviours: Fighting, damaging property, abusing drugs and alcohol, running away, self-harming, suicide attempts, hiding (psychologically and or physically), developing tough ‘fronts’ and doing all they could to be seen as the ‘good kid’, engaging in extreme compliance, even if ultimately it was to their detriment • I became interested in what they had to say about WHY they did what they did

8. How the framework emerged… • I found that they gave a number of reasons why they did these things, including: • Being upset about being removed from their home, or about being rejected by their parents • Being overly good or overly ‘naughty’ (& breaking their placement down so they could go home) • Being influenced by peers, looking for fun & excitement • Wanting freedom & independence, engaging in a fight against adult rules & expectations

9. How the framework emerged… continued ….. • Feeling lonely & lost in care • Expressing a cry for help • Experiencing grief & loss, and • Feeling angry and frustrated about being in care, and with the constant unsettledness and disruption to their placements, and connections with family, friends and schools There were many reasons why …

10. How the framework emerged… • However, interspersed throughout their stories was a sprinkling of examples that directly linked some of their behaviours and the ‘toxic’ care environment in which they lived (including family-based, residential, and institutional care settings). • I also found that in many instances they linked their behaviours with the need to ‘survive’. • So during the 18 months of the analysis, the codes & memos describing these behaviours slowly morphed into the current ‘very exploratory’framework The four key elements of this framework are illustrated in the following diagram

11. The Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young People in Care • Toxic care • environments 2. Defence Mechanisms 3. It’s all about ‘Survival’ 4. Some consequences of defensive behaviours

12. The Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young People in Care But first ... Three important caveats:

13. The Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young People in Care ONE: The literature uses numerous terms to describe how people adapt to adverse situations (e.g., coping skills or coping mechanisms, resilience, adaptive behaviours, survival mechanisms, survival roles and defence mechanisms). I have chosen ‘Defence Mechanisms’ primarily because I want to convey the idea that these behaviours are a ‘defence’ against a toxic care environment.

14. The Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young People in Care TWO: The emphasis in this framework is largely on observable behavioural defenses, rather than the classical ‘intra-psychic’ ego mechanisms of defence in classic Freudian & Neo-Freudian terms, and THREE: The examples in the data cover both the institutional era (pre 1980s) & modern era (1980s to 2000s) & occurred in family-based, group-based, & institutional care settings. Remember, we are talking about behaviours described in care settings, not their families.

15. The Defence Mechanisms of Children and Young People in Care Four aspects to this framework: • Toxic care environments • The defence mechanisms • It’s all about ‘survival’ • Some consequences of defence

16. 1: Toxic Care Environments Characteristics: • Unreasonable, unjust, cruel & excessive punishments • Constant threats to placement security • Physical abuse • Emotional abuse & mental cruelty • Sexual abuse • Alcohol abuse and violence in the home • Racial taunts • Exploitation • Stresses & humiliations of institutional life • Fear of being abused or neglected • Unhappy placements – not accepted or nurtured by carers and carer’s children

17. 2: The Defences of Children and Young People in Care • Attacking & acting-out defence • Tough-front defence • Compliant good-child defence • Silent-withdrawal defence • Running away defence • Self-harm & suicide defence

18. The first defence: Attacking & acting-out defence • In the face of toxic care environments some children and young people either directly attacked their carers & other adult authority figures -usually by hitting, kicking and throwing things at them & engaging in serious verbal threats & attacks ANDOR • They indirectly acted-outtheir anxiety, frustration and sense of powerlessness through repeated acts of property damage, lying, stealing, and continued serious non-compliant behaviour

19. Attacking & acting-out defence • These behaviours occurred as a defence against physical and sexual abuse, and continuous inappropriate, unfair & extreme punishment by carers • They used phrases like: ‘going nuts & swearing’, and ‘ I behaved as bad as I could’ to describe their behaviour – as a cry for help, or, for breaking the placement down.

20. Attacking & acting-out defence Example: • “My uncontrollable behaviour … was the only means of drawing attention to the abuse, both sexual and psychological that I was subjected to” (Canden 2004, p.4) • “During these years I was physically beaten, sexually assaulted, verbally abused and emotionally tormented and neglected. I lived in fear and learnt that aggression and violence were necessary survival skills” (Gurthrie 2002, p. 2)

21. Attacking & acting-out defence Example: • “Once I was grabbed by a worker & then thrown to the ground and pressed on top of the breasts … I hit him & ended up in secure welfare” CREATE 2002, p. 27 • But most times, children and young people in care did not attack or act out their distress, but relied on defences that hid their pain and humiliation

22. The second defence:The tough-front • In the face of toxic care environments some children and young people put on a ‘tough-front’, hiding the anxiety, pain, and humiliation they felt • This defence was usually in the face of rejection from carers, physical & emotional abuse, mental cruelty from carers & carer’s own children, and peer conflict/abuse/bullying involving other children and young people in their care settings

23. Tough-front defence • The strategies they described using in this defence included: • Not reacting • Not crying, not letting them see how much it hurt • Not reacting to punishments & abuse • Pretending it didn’t matter • Pretending they don’t care, and • Clowning around to hide the hurt

24. Tough-front defence Example: • “After awhile, my behaviour started to drive him crazy – I made a point of not crying anymore. I never gave him the satisfaction of seeing how much he hurt me” (Forbes 2004, p. 9)

25. Tough-front defence Example: • “You’d get teased and taunted as well. A couple of girls showed me what to do: don’t let them see you cry. Just pretend you don’t care. If you show you’re tough, there isn’t much they can do. I used that quite a bit … As soon as the defences went up that was it, I didn’t care” (Minuti 1996, p. 137)

26. The third defence:Compliant good-child defence • In the face of toxic care environments some children and young people were excessively compliant and did all they could to be seen as the ‘good child’ • This was usually in the face of continued threats to their placement security, to avoid unjust, cruel and excessive punishments, and to avoid being singled out for abuse • Sometimes, siblings were pitted against one another, where one was seen as the ‘good child’ and the other as the ‘bad child’ (the scapegoat)

27. Compliant good-child defence • Words used by children and young people to describe this defence included: Behaved, conformed, complied, did what they were told, sought to appease their carers • The types of things they did were: putting on a pleasant happy face, working hard around the house at their chores, studying hard, performing at athletics, buying gifts, and (in the extreme), complying with sexual advances

28. Compliant good-child defence Example: • “How I survived was by doing what I was told” (Lindsay, 1996, p.108). • “I was not beaten as my sister was because my entire purpose in life was to be ‘a good girl’ and thus avoid the punishments inflicted on her. This meant the most minute self-surveillance over my every thought and action, an exchange of self for survival” (Penglase 2004, p.63)

29. Compliant good-child defence Example: • “… to me it was important to be accepted into a family … It was always the greatest fear that if I didn’t fit in, that I would be taken away … I’d think, I’ve lost one family. I don’t want to lose another, so I’d always do whatever they’d say. Even things that were quite hurtful …” (McLeod, 1989, p.15)

30. The fourth defence:Silence-withdrawal • In the face of toxic care environments some children and young people sought to ‘hide’, they were silent in the face of abuse, (to themselves or to others) they withdrew, and became invisible to protect themselves from harm • This silent-withdrawing was physical (as in staying out of their carers way) or psychological (as in dissociating themselves from the abuse or toxic environment)

31. Silent-withdrawal defence • The terms used to describe this defence were very graphic, including: Being quiet, making yourself a small target, refusing to speak, day dreaming, pretend it was a game, almost mute, shut down & withdraw into my own world, freeze, stopped talking, shut my eyes, my throat closed up, shut my mouth …

32. Silent-withdrawal defence Example: • “Surviving in those places, you develop a survival mechanism. You be quiet, you do not say anything. You make yourself a small target” (Langham 2004, p. 2) • “When I was eight, I learned that if I was going to survive I needed to hide my true feelings. In fact I had to hide my true self. I had to protect the real me by shutting down and withdrawing into my own world” (Forbes 2004, p. 17)

33. The fifth defence:Running away • In the face of toxic care environments some children and young people simply ran away • As a defence they ran away from continued institutional abuse & neglect, from physical & emotional abuse/violence, mental cruelty, exploitation, and unhappy placements where they did not feel accepted or nurtured

34. Running away defence Example: • “Sometimes I really felt like going bezerk at these people. I couldn’t because there were girls there much bigger and stronger than me. The Matron and the other staff were all bullies as well. I used to run away all the time …” (Thompson, 1996, p.69).

35. Running away defence Example: • “The foster father then started to physical [sic] use violence on us both, emotionally abusing authority over us constantly until it got bad enough that we both ran away at different times” (Ewens, 2004, p.3)

36. The sixth defence: Self-harm & suicide defence • Finally, in the face of toxic care environments some children and young people harmed themselves and or attempted suicide/ or succeeded in committing suicide • They described situations where they saw others, or they themselves drank poison, cut & burnt themselves, abused/overdosed on drugs, hanged themselves and jumped out a window

37. Self-harm & suicide defence Example: • “These mental cruelties – besides physical cruelties, she was for ever beating me … drove me to the point that when I was a ten-year old child I drank a bottle of stuff in the cupboard that had ‘poison’ on it, because I wanted to die” (Anonymous, 1997, p.79).

38. Self-harm & suicide defence Example: • “Two of the girls and this member of the staff kept picking on her. The girls would beat her up and torment her. The staff member would be just standing there, watching. This little girl was locked in her room for some reason. We had those curly bars on the windows. I don’t know how she did it but she got through the window and jumped. Committed suicide” (Minuti, 1996, p.138).

39. 3. It’s All About ‘Survival’ • In their stories of how they sought to defend themselves against toxic environments, the idea of ‘Survival’ was prominent • Many children and young people, and former wards spoke in general about having ‘survived’ the care experience, or described themselves as ‘survivors’ • However …

40. 3. It’s All About ‘Survival’ Many also directly linked their defensive behaviours with the idea of ‘survival’ • Withdrawing was a “ … survival technique to cope with the constant trauma I endured” (Forbes 2004, p.8) • “Being good was the only way to survive” (Penglase 2004, p.5) • “[ I ] learnt that aggression & violence were necessary survival skills” (Gurthrie, 2004, p.2) • “You carry … a survival mechanism, that you are forced to learn while in institutional care” (Langham, 2004, p.2)

41. 3. It’s all about ‘survival’ continued … • In summary, they spoke of having to … • be aggressive & violent to survive • be tough to survive • be good to survive • distance themselves from their ‘bad’ sibling to survive • retreat into their own world to survive To these children, young people, and former wards, their defensive behaviours in the face of toxic care environments were about survival

42. 4. Some Consequences of Defensive Behaviours • Though very preliminary, some of the immediate & long-term consequences of these defences that these children and young people mentioned were: • Attacking & acting-out – criminalisation, continuous placement disruption & its associated problems • Compliant ‘good child’ – loss of self, shame, guilt – where a sibling was targeted as the ‘bad child’

43. 4. Some Consequences of Defensive Behaviours • Silent-withdrawal – feeling lonely and inconspicuous in care & later in life, loss of self, mental illness • Running away – exposing themselves to abuse, exploitation, and criminalisation • Self-harm & suicide – physical, emotional & psychological harm, and in the extreme - loss of life

44. Implications for Practice • Be aware that someof the challenging, complex, and overly compliant behaviours of children & young people may be because of toxic placements • Ask ‘why’ -investigate. Many times they were ‘never’ asked why they were acting-out, running away, or indeed, harming themselves

45. Implications for Practice • Believe & act. In many instances where they were asked, they were not believed, nor was any action taken • Reduce ‘Toxicity’. Ensure that the care environments (family & group-based care) are free from abuse of any kind, that discipline is fair and reasonable, not unjust, cruel or excessive, that peer abuse is managed & (if possible) eliminated, and placement security is never threatened

46. Selected References Anonymous. (1997g). We lost our mothers' love. In Link-Up (NSW) Aboriginal Corporation & T. Wilson (Eds.), In the best interest of the child (pp. 75-83). NSW: Department of History, The Australian National University. Canden, C. (2004). Submission 405. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into children in institutional care. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/submissions/sublist.htm CREATE Foundation. (2002, March). Violence in residential care: A consultation with children and young people about their experience of violence in residential care. Retrieved February 6, 2006, from http://svc250.bne115v.server-web.com/create_world/ctw_html/pubs.html#violencereport Ewens, A. (2004). Submission 386. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into children in institutional care. Retrieved November 4, 2004, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/submissions/sublist.htm Forbes, D. (2004). Submission 94. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into children in institutional care. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/submissions/sublist.htm Gurthrie, D. (2004). Submission 260. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into children in institutional care. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/submissions/sublist.htm Langham, T. (2004). Submission 205. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into children in institutional care. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/submissions/sublist.htm McLeod, P. (1989a). Pauline McLeod. In C. Edwards & P. Read (Eds.), The lost children: Thirteen Australians taken from their Aboriginal families tell of the struggle to find their natural parents (pp. 14-23, 104-110, 170-173). Sydney: Doubleday. Minuti, J. (1996). I feel lucky to have survived. In J. Owen (Ed.), Every childhood lasts a lifetime : Personal stories from the frontline of family breakdown (pp. 131-141). Brisbane: Australian Association of Young People in Care. Penglase, J. (2004a). Submission 63. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into children in institutional care. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/submissions/sublist.htm Thompson, D. (1996). The privilege of knowing what life is really about. In J. Owen (Ed.), Every childhood lasts a lifetime : Personal stories from the frontline of family breakdown (pp. 63-75). Brisbane: Australian Association of Young People in Care.