children sexual abuse by unrelated caregivers

children sexual abuse by unrelated caregivers Margolin and Craft (1989) analyzed a sample of 2,372 substantiated cases of children
sexually abused by caregivers, 832 of which were committed by unrelated caregivers.
In a later study, Margolin (1991) analyzed those 325 cases of abuse that were not
committed by partners of the parent or child care providers working in a licensed day
care center. These cases represented 34% of all substantiated abuse committed by
nonparental caregivers and 18% of all substantiated abuse.
Abuse by nonparental caregivers was divided into seven separate categories
depending on the type of caregiving relationship (Margolin, 1991). These are discussed
briefly below.
Regular caregivers (31%): These children were sexually abused by nonrelated
caregivers, selected by the parents, who routinely cared for the child for pay, often in
the child’s home. This was the only caregiving arrangement in which female caregivers
had substantial representation among the offenders, accounting for 36% of the abuse.
Female caregiver offenders tended to abuse male children more often (55%), whereas
male offenders abused female children more often (69%). A second distinctive
characteristic of this abuse was the youth of the caregiver, with a mean age of 17 years.
Ad hoc caregivers (8%): These caregivers were used to help out in single,
pressing situations. While this person was occasionally engaged because the parent
was in a crisis situation, the caregiver was used more often for more mundane
reasons. Often the children were not watched in their home. In this category, 88% of
the offenders were male and 60% of the victims were female.
Sleep-over (6%): Sexual abuse in this category occurred during a sleep-over at a friend’s house. All but one of the offenders were male, most of whom were father
figures or hired caregivers. In no instance was a mother figure present.
Friends and relatives of regular caregivers (16%): This category included
children abused by friends or relatives of the regular caregiver. Because of their relation to the caregiver, they were often in contact with the victim, even helping out
with caregiving tasks. Most were husbands, sons, or boyfriends of the caregiver. In
almost a quarter of these cases, the caregivers were aware of a previous history of
child abuse, although they did not tell the parents.
Family friend (9%): In abuse by family friends, parents were often instrumental
in arranging visits because the adult friend was seen as a positive role model for the child. Caregivers were usually not paid for their caregiving, but instead were assumed
to be motivated by their affection for the child. Children often agreed to the contact because they received gifts or engaged in enjoyable activities.
Live-in caregiver (8%): These offenders, who were most often the parents’
friend, were living at the victim’s house. Parents in many of these houses were either aware of the offender’s prior criminal record or knew that he had previously made a
sexual advance towards the child.
Child’s adult friend (6%)4: These offenders had befriended the child without the parent’s assistance, often by offering some type of reward or pleasurable activity to the child.

In this study, abuse by female caretakers was typically confined to a single
caregiving arrangement—that of regular caregiving (Margolin, 1991), whereas abuse by males occurred in a variety of situations. It is of significance that in a field where
female caregivers predominate, males were responsible for 84% of the abuse. There was a small percentage (17%) of cases, however, in which female caregivers were
indirectly responsible for the abuse by allowing their relatives and friends who were known to be at risk to sexually offend to be in contact with the child. Parents were
also partially responsible in some cases for ignoring their child’s disclosure of sexual
abuse (in 3% of the cases), or by knowingly allowing a caregiver with a history of
child molestation to care for the child (in 11% of the cases). This final finding at first
glance speaks of gross negligence on the part of the parents. Margolin, however, suggests another alternative:
While it is possible that parents’ failure to protect their children stemmed from complacency or indifference, a second possibility is that parents had no one else with
whom to leave their children. This implies that efforts to combat sexual abuse by nonrelated caregivers must not only consider the importance of alerting parents to the
contingencies of this abuse … but also, that more resources need to be devoted to making
safe and affordable child care alternatives available to them. (p. 220)
Finally, a related study of reported abuse found that children were at an
exceptionally high risk with adolescent nonfamilial male caretakers (Margolin & Craft, 1990). Male nonrelated babysitters abused children three times more often than
male siblings and five times more often than female babysitters. Further, adolescents
accounted for 44% of all cases of child sexual abuse among nonparental caregivers.
More importantly, male nonrelated adolescents accounted for 14% of all cases of
child sexual abuse by caregivers (including abuse by parents). As has been found in
other types of abuse, the younger abusers also committed the more severe abuse. If one considers the number of male babysitters used
versus female babysitters and the amount of time a babysitter takes care of children
versus the time a parental figure watches the children, one can understand the significant threat that male adolescent caregivers pose to children.