Child Protection Organisation (CPO), CMR North, has sounded the alarm regarding a disturbing trend in the public exposure of child abuse victims.
The organisation highlights that not every platform is a safe space for children to unpack their trauma, as increasing instances of digital and media disclosures jeopardise the emotional wellbeing of vulnerable individuals.
CMR North's General Manager, Dr Ronel Aylward, expressed profound concern about the growing number of individuals and entities utilising media platforms to advocate for child protection cases.
While intentions may claim to be rooted in awareness and advocacy, the organisation said that the impact on the child can be profoundly damaging.
"We understand the growing public interest in child protection. But not every forum is a safe one for a child’s trauma to be unpacked,” Aylward explained.
“We urge all institutions that claim to act on behalf of children to consider the long-term psychological consequences of public exposure. The child’s best interest must remain paramount, not the adult’s reputation or agenda.”
The organisation also cites extensive research revealing that even when a child’s name is withheld, exposure to their trauma can lead to re-traumatisation, withdrawal, shame, anxiety, and disrupted emotional development.
“Research confirms that even when a child’s name is withheld, repeated exposure to their trauma story can retraumatise them, leading to withdrawal, shame, anxiety, and disrupted emotional development. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network has found that children involved in publicised abuse cases face a higher risk of PTSD, social isolation, and long-term mental health challenges. UNICEF further warns that such exposure can derail a child’s recovery. especially when they are still navigating the legal and emotional complexities of their abuse. Children deserve privacy, dignity, and safety, not a public stage.”
The CPO also emphasises the legal framework provided by the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 that mandates adults to report reasonable suspicions of child danger. This legal imperative empowers designated Child Protection Organisations to act swiftly, even before all details are known, ensuring that children's safety remains the foremost priority throughout legal proceedings.
When asked about distinguishing between aiding and harming through social media, the CPO stated, “The difference lies in intent versus impact. While many people believe they are raising awareness, the unintended impact is often harm, especially when children’s stories are shared without full context or consent. True advocacy protects the vulnerable; it does not expose them. If a post identifies a child, implies their story, or invites public speculation, it risks harming the very child it claims to support. Ethical advocacy amplifies the issue, not the individual. When in doubt, ask: Is this in the child’s best interest, or is it serving an adult’s need to be seen, heard, or vindicated?”
anita.nkonki@inl.co.za
Saturday Star