Child abuse and neglect in Brussels during the COVID-19-lockdown. (December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Verheyden, Camille; Van Dooren, Erik; Van Holen, Frank; Stroobants, Tim; Vanderfaeillie, Johan
• Is Part Of: Child abuse & neglect. Volume 134(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-12
• Subjects: Child abuse -- Child neglect -- Lockdown -- Covid-19 -- Maltreatment; CAN child abuse and neglect -- CCCAN Confidential Centers of child abuse and neglect; Child abuse -- Periodicals; 362.76
• DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105903
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0145-2134

Abstract

Abstract: Background: It is likely that the circumstances during the COVID-19-lockdown in Belgium increased the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect (CAN) due to exacerbated risk factors and new COVID-19-related stressors. However, traditional reporters had less contact with children which could lead to undetected cases of CAN. Objective: Gain insight into the number and profile of CAN reports filed to the Brussels Confidential Center of Child Abuse and Neglect (CCCAN) during the COVID-19-lockdown. Participants and setting: A dataset comprising 536 CAN reports from periods before ( N = 442) and during the lockdown ( N = 94). Methods: Characteristics about the report, reporter, victim and his/her family, perpetrator(s) and the trajectory with the CCCAN were registered. The number and characteristics of reports during the lockdown were compared to those of reports before the lockdown. Results: The number of advisory questions ( p = .506, d = .377) and allegations ( p = .095, d = 1.206) remained unchanged. During the lockdown, the risk assessment of advisory questions was higher ( p = .011, d = .280), they evolved more into social exigency investigations ( p < .001, φ = .246) and were referred more often to judicial authorities ( p = .010, φ = .163). Allegations were filed more often by the helpline, police and judicial authorities ( p < .001, φ = .590) during the lockdown and involved more Dutch-speaking ( p = .016, φ = .166) victims. Conclusions: The number of CAN reports remained the same during the lockdown but their profile changed. Highlights: The number of CAN reports remained unchanged during the lockdown. Advisory questions regarded more serious situations during the lockdown. CAN reports were more often filed by non-traditional reporters during the lockdown. There were more modal Flemish families involved in CAN allegations during the lockdown.