The brutal death of 16-month-old adopted toddler Jeong In due to child abuse has once again tested the public’s faith in humanity. On January 2, the investigative TV program Unanswered Questions exposed the horrifying truth behind Jeong In’s death. This show subsequently provoked national outrage against the alleged killers, her adoptive parents. The immediate causes of Jeong In’s death were initially announced as hepatic hemorrhage and the rupture of the intestine, colon, and pancreas – damage similar to that received in a car accident. Since then, deeper analysis has revealed that the injuries were the result of several months of abuse.
In October 2020, eight months after being adopted, 16-month-old girl Jeong In was rushed to hospital by her mother, where she died of a suspected heart attack. After her death, however, it was discovered that her internal organs had ruptured, and computed tomography (CT) scans revealed that her abdominal cavity was filled with blood, and air had leaked from her damaged intestine. Further analysis of her body indicated that her internal organs had ruptured due to severe external shock and there were traces of at least ten past fractures, clear signs that she had been repeatedly assaulted over a long period of time. Taking this evidence into account, medical personnel ultimately determined that Jeong In had been a victim of severe child abuse.
Jeong In’s Story Goes Public
After Unanswered Questions broadcast Jeong In’s story, many of the public were enraged and felt guilty for Jeong In’s death. An online petition was filed on the Cheong Wa Dae website titled “Establish a precedent for the punishment of child abuse by charging adoptive parents and disclosing adoptive parents’ personal information,” which asked for the stronger punishment of Jeong In’s adoptive parents. The petition received significant attention, with 230,000 people signing on by December 20, 2020. In response to the petition, the government apologized for the initial response to and investigation of Jeong In’s case and guaranteed the reformation of its approach to the prevention and punishment of child abuse.
The “I’m Sorry, Jeong In” challenge on social media started by Gong Hye Jeong, a representative from the Korea Child Abuse Prevention Association, kept the spotlight on Jeong In, with people from all walks of life participating in the challenge and expressing their regret for allowing this tragedy to occur. In response to the controversy, Moon Jae In, the President of South Korea, ordered measures to prevent a recurrence, while Police Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong apologized for the system’s mishandling of such cases. Politicians from both the ruling and the opposition parties responded sympathetically, with both parties proposing bills for the immediate removal of abused children from their families.
The Death of an Isolated Girl
On May 25, 2020, a daycare center staff member filed the first report of child abuse after observing multiple bruises on Jeong In’s stomach and thighs. However, it was dismissed by the Child Protection Agency and the police when the adoptive parents explained that the bruises were caused by “bow leg correction massages.” A second report was filed to the Child Protection Agency a month later on June 29, 2020, when a citizen witnessed Jeong In left alone in a car. Again, the adoptive mother justified it as “American-style sleep education,” while the investigation on this was delayed for a month.
On September 23, 2020, a daycare center staff member noticed weight loss and evidence of abuse on Jeong In and took her to a pediatrician. After a brief examination, the doctor filed a report of child abuse. The police requested that Jeong In’s parents submit a more extensive medical examination of their daughter. However, the parents once again escaped punishment by acquiring a medical examination report from a doctor that they knew. This doctor diagnosed Jeong In’s injuries to be the result of stomatitis and, based on this examination, the police disregarded the report of child abuse, which was essentially the last chance to save Jeong In. The second doctor later claimed that he was unaware of any previous reports of child abuse.
The day before Jeong In’s death, on October 13, 2020, a daycare center staff member pleaded with her parents to take her to the hospital after witnessing the child’s inability to swallow or drink. Not only did her parents deliberately ignore this request, but Jeong In’s mother later admitted to abusing her the next morning for more than an hour simply because she did not eat her food. When Jeong In’s condition became critical, the mother nonchalantly took a taxi and had to be persuaded by the taxi driver to call an ambulance. Later that day, Jeong In was hospitalized for cardiac arrest, but she did not survive her severe injuries.
This situation was a complete surprise for those who knew the adoptive parents. In the past, they had expressed a strong desire and determination to adopt a child, even stating that they hoped for an adopted child more than they did a biological one. After the adoption, they appeared with Jeong In on the documentary show An Ordinary Family on the Educational Broadcasting System (EBS), which introduced adoptive and foster families. It seems as if the seemingly perfect image that the parents had created successfully concealed their true attitude toward Jeong In.
The Negligence of Related Institutions
Although the ultimate cause of Jeong In’s death was child abuse, those institutions supposedly established to prevent this type of tragedy certainly contributed to it. The police were the first to surrender their line of defense against child abuse, reacting indifferently to each of the reports of Jeong In’s abuse. The initial report was quickly dismissed even though the daycare center provided images illustrating the physical abuse. For the second report, police officials only started analyzing security cameras near the reported vehicle one month after the complaint was submitted. Lastly, despite the pediatric doctor’s firm belief that the child needed to be separated from her clearly abusive parents, the police still did not intervene after the third report.
However, the police officers’ reluctance to launch a fully-fledged investigation may be indicative of a serious systemic issue. If the officers had decided to separate the child from her parents, the parents may have filed complaints in return, citing the excessive use of authority, which could have threatened the jobs of the police officers involved. According to the daily newspaper Dong-a Ilbo, an anonymous officer confirmed this general concern among most police and added that “it is realistically difficult for police officers to separate a child from their parents without any guaranteed authority.” The limitations of this system may explain the police officers’ dismissal of the judgement of a medical professional.
While the police were at fault for their lack of immediate action after evidence of the abuse emerged, it could be argued that it was the adoption agency, Holt Children’s Services (Holt), that may have initially put Jeong In in danger. Several steps in Holt’s adoption process have been shown to have been hastily carried out. For instance, Holt allowed the adoptive parents to adopt Jeong In on the first day they met her.
In addition, Holt’s records reveal the disturbing fact that they were aware of the abuse as early as May 2020, when the adoptive parents failed to explain certain bruises on Jeong In. However, instead of taking the necessary action, Holt ignored the signs of child abuse and continued to grant the parents’ requests, such as delaying the date of a mandatory home visit. Had they recognized the severity of the situation, they may have been able to save Jeong In, who died two days prior to the rescheduled home visit.
While Holt has a history of haphazard inspections, as proven by an investigation by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2014, it is important to realize that adoption in South Korea is controlled by private institutions. As Professor Kim Mee Jean (Department of Home Economics Education) pointed out, “Korea has not yet been able to join the Hague Abduction Convention due to the lack of government involvement in the adoption process.” Professor Kim believes that, in order for safe adoptions to occur, the government should conduct both a document-based and psychological examination of the adoptive parents to determine whether they are qualified and monitor international adoptions as well.
The Child Protection Institution, which was managed by nonprofit organizations such as Good Neighbors was the third party responsible for allowing Jeong In’s situation to slip through the cracks. Even though the evidence for child abuse seemed clear, the institution did not recognize Jeong In as an abused child, even though representatives accompanied the police on field investigations for each of the child abuse reports. Their child abuse risk evaluation, conducted with the purpose of protecting the child, also proved to be substandard. For example, the evaluation includes two items that children as young as Jeong In are unable to verbally answer. In these cases, the institution simply assumes the child does not have any opinions – which is what they did with Jeong In – rather than finding an alternative way for those children to express their feelings.
The problems at the Child Protection Institution do not end there. Each worker is responsible for an average of 41 children; as a comparison, in Europe, a caseworker is only responsible for 12 children. In order to resolve these issues, from October 2020, the child abuse investigation office was transferred from the Child Protection Institution to the local government. The government anticipated that public officials would more quickly request cooperation when investigating child abuse cases and more effectively resolve child abuse problems. However, with no visible improvement, the impact of this change so far appears trivial.
Current Child Abuse Laws
In all child abuse cases, relevant laws can be of help — but they can also be an obstacle to the protection of victims, as was the case for Jeong In. For example, the Children’s Welfare Law was created to guarantee that children had a healthy birth and a happy childhood. However, due to ambiguous clauses in this law, even child experts are often confused when judging child abuse cases. In 2013, public fury over the Chilgok child abuse case, in which a girl was beaten to death by her stepmother, led to the enactment of the Child Abuse Punishment Act, which was intended to protect children from the loopholes in the Children’s Welfare Law. Nonetheless, vague clauses were also a problem with the Child Abuse Punishment Act.
For example, there is a clause that prioritizes the testimony of the abused child when investigating child abuse cases. However, it does not take into consideration the situations in which the child is too young to explain what happened. This clause has been specifically criticized as a reason for the failure to protect abused children such as Jeong In. Moreover, the laws regarding child abuse are merely limited to punishment and separation while the laws of other countries include follow-up management, including the medical treatment of abused children.
The charges and the degree of punishment perpetrators face in child abuse cases are also controversial. With only 12 percent of abuse cases leading to imprisonment, murder convictions are even more uncommon. Documents from the Supreme Court show that, from 2001 to 2006, only five accused child abusers were convicted of murder of the 31 child abuse cases in which the child died. The current law makes it so that, for the prosecution to succeed in charging someone with murder, it has to prove intentionality.
Unlike the Ulsan child abuse case, in which the accused was convicted of murder, the perpetrator of the Chilgok child abuse case, which also resulted in the death of a young child, was not charged with murder because the prosecution believed that there was no intent behind the death. For those child abuse cases in which murder charges were laid, relatively clear proof of intent, such as gripping the child’s throat or drugging the child, was submitted. However, many child abuse cases occur within a family, thus it is difficult to prove intent.
One of these blind spots that put children in danger of abuse is the fact that the current law lacks a legal basis for the immediate separation of a child from their potential abuser. The law should guarantee the unconditional separation of an abused child when the suspicion of child abuse is uncovered.
In response to Jeong In’s case, numerous bills for the prevention of child abuse were introduced to the National Assembly. This included increasing the responsibility of the local government or investigation agencies to investigate child abuse cases immediately after a report is received. In addition, the immediate separation of a child from their alleged abuser was mandated when child abuse was reported for the second time.
In fact, a bill that called for the strengthening of the punishment for child abuse was introduced in June 2020 after the reporting of the Changnyeong and Cheonan child abuse cases. Nevertheless, the bill remained stuck in committee for more than seven months. More than 40 bills regarding child abuse had been pending in the 21st National Assembly, but the National Assembly started to examine those bills together in a rush after the public outcry about Jeong In. In Korea, when severe child abuse cases that generate social controversy occur, the government and politicians suddenly start to take action, leading to the passing of weak bills that cannot solve the fundamental problems.
In Korea, child abuse policies typically focus on actions that are taken after the fact. However, in child abuse cases, precautionary approaches should be pursued. Professor Lim Jung Ha (Department of Home Economics Education) emphasized the necessity of a precautionary approach because “it is undeniable that the actions of the related institutions aggravated Jeong In’s situation; instead, professionals and appropriate funding for the prevention of child abuse are needed rather than merely strengthening the power of these institutions.”
Proposals for Legal and Institutional Change
Korean society is waiting for major changes that will create a safer environment for children. The laws against child abuse, the institutions that investigate child abuse, and regulations that monitor these institutions all require revolutionary changes in order to generate a meaningful difference. Because construction of management system to protect children from abuse is needed rather than rushed proposals for new laws, the revised law should guarantee a systematic child protection system. Moreover, with institutional strategies, the professionalism of the system should be assured by law for further child protection as well.
The way relevant institutions are regulated in the United States (U.S.) may serve as a model for South Korea. For instance, the U.S. makes it mandatory for all police stations to include counselors from public institutions and police officers specialized in child protection. In New York City, retired police officers are hired as child abuse investigators and child protection agents are expected to meet higher standards to qualify for the job. As a consequence, institutions gain more officials with the expertise required to identify abnormal situations and to react accordingly.
However, Professor Kim Mee Jean believes that “child abuse incidents such as the Jeong In case can never be solved if people assume that the problem lies only with the three aforementioned institutions.” Professor Kim suggested that South Korea, like other countries, should move towards preventing child abuse before it happens. Criticizing how the institutions responded in the Jeong In case limits the discussion to this specific incident; instead, it is more important to discuss future directions that can effectively prevent more child abuse incidents.
Professor Lim gave Sweden as a model example, which has legally prohibited physical punishment for disciplinary purposes since the 1970s. Not only did they impose strict sanctions in which someone convicted of child abuse may be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, they also educate all children and parents to change the perception of child abuse. As a result of this practical approach, the proportion of parents who physically punish their children dropped from 90 to 10 percent within 50 years.
According to Professor Lim, another practice of Sweden’s that Korea can mirror is providing public education regarding the definition of child abuse so that people “properly recognize the dignity and rights of children as human beings.” She suggests that many of the older generation have an antiquated perception when it comes to the rights of children. This, in turn, leads some parents to treat their children poorly in the name of family. Therefore, she proposes that each member of the society should be educated “in order for children to know and protect their own rights and for adults to understand and respect children.” Agreeing with this, Professor Kim Minjung (Department of Child Development and Guidance, Hannam University) added that sustained education is particularly crucial for those obligated to report child abuse.
The U.S. is a prime example of a country that has increased child abuse awareness at schools. Professor Kim Minjung relayed her personal experience as a volunteer mom in California to provide insight into how children could be educated about child abuse starting at a young age. She explained that homeroom teachers in public schools in Los Angeles provide regular child abuse prevention classes for children from kindergarten. As a volunteer on Fridays, she recalled that “teachers taught children to say, ‘No, that is not nice’ and call 911 if their parents or anyone hits them at home or outside.” They would also practice role-playing to teach children how to defend themselves in abusive situations. Preventative education for young children thus helps them to seek help when they suffer abuse.
To prevent child abuse, compulsory education regarding the severity and effects of child abuse is also required for parents. Professor Kim Mee Jean explained that “although there were attempts to provide parents with child abuse prevention education in Korea, due to opposition from parents who were outraged at being treated as potential child abusers, this proposal went nowhere.” Along with a new law that prohibits corporal punishment by parents, educating parents to prevent child abuse is also essential.
The unparalleled case of child abuse leading to the death of 16-month-old Jeong In has drawn significant attention from all sectors of society to the mistreatment of children. The public was particularly enraged by the lack of efficient cooperation between the police, adoption agency, and Child Protection Institution, which eventually led to critical evidence being overlooked. The following judicial process will also shed light on South Korea’s legal limitations in regard to preventing and punishing child abuse.
The case of Jeong In has exposed the limits of the law and the loopholes in law-related institutions. In addition to a revision of the law that protects children from abuse, a stronger child protection system with better-educated officials and a change in the social perception of child abuse are necessary. South Korea needs to learn from the effective systems employed in other countries and apply them to successfully prevent future child abuse cases and move forward as a community. It is anticipated that these changes will help to avoid a second Jeong In case from occurring.