What makes an 11-year-old light a fire? We ask a child psychologist.

In the past week, fires have burned across NSW, devastating families and destroying homes.

And it only adds insult to deep, deep, injury that several of these fires may have been deliberately lit.

Some, by children.

Yesterday brought the news that an 11-year-old boy has been charged with lighting fires in Newcastle. In another incident, a 14-year-old boy has been charged with lighting fires in the Hunter Valley. A 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old were also charged with trying to light a grass fire in Sydney’s west.

Children deliberately lighting fires on hot and windy days. On days when firefighters are putting their lives on the line across the state. On days when many people fear they might lose their houses, their belonging, their pets; or are mourning the loss because they already have.

So what in the world prompts a child to take such incredibly risky and deliberate action?

Mamamia spoke to registered child and adolescent psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg to find out what he thinks might be the motivation behind committing such a crime.

What motivates a child to light a fire?

I wish there was a simple answer to the question, but motivations for firesetting can range in severity and desired outcome, from curiosity, boredom or attention seeking, to sexual enjoyment, revenge, feelings of power and control, or destruction.

Other motivations behind arson include to conceal evidence, to set vehicle fires, insurance fraud, political purposes or re-housing.The analysis of all current research identifies seven categories of firesetters:

1. Curiosity firesetter

Curiosity firesetters are typically young children (3-6 years) who engage in firesetting as experimentation. When asked why they started a fire, they tend to respond that they did so in desire to watch a flame. Hyperactivity or attention deficit disorder is the traditional early childhood diagnosis for most firesetting in children age 7 years and below. This type of firesetter often shows remorse after the fire7 and tends not to understand the consequences of their behaviour.

2. Accidental firesetter

Accidental firesetters are usually children under the age of 11 years, although this category may also include teenagers engaging in experimental firesetting or those exploring what fire can do. Young adult or adult carelessness may fall into this group. Accidental firesetting is not intended to cause havoc and, for the most part, is not the result of neglectful or abusive home environmental.

3. ‘Cry for help’ firesetter

The ‘cry for help’ firesetter often occurs within the diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, oppositional defiant disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. This group is defined as those – generally children or adolescents – who consciously or subconsciously wish to bring attention to an internal dysfunction (depression) or to interpersonal dysfunction (abuse at home, witnessing violence, parental drug, or alcohol abuse, neglect).

This group is not thought to want to cause harm or damage. Assessments show that most ‘cry for help’ firesetters have been physically, emotionally or sexually abused and use fire to release anger.

The delinquent type usually includes youths between the ages of 11 to 17 years. Typically, their firesetting is part of a larger constellation of aggression and other conduct disorders.

There may also be involvement in vandalism and other aggressive crimes, most commonly setting fire to abandoned or stolen vehicles. This type of firesetter has little empathy for others and a poorly developed conscience.

5. Severely disturbed firesetter

The severely disturbed firesetter includes youths and adults who are paranoid or psychotic, and for whom the fixation with fire may be a factor in the development of a mental disorder. These people will find positive sensory reinforcement from the sensations that the fire provides for them, thus they will repeatedly light fires to fulfil their desire to experience those sensations.

6. Cognitively impaired firesetter

This group includes those who are mentally impaired. They have learning disabilities brought on by some organic brain dysfunction, by foetal alcohol syndrome, or by drugs taken by their mother during pregnancy. These kinds of firesetters tend to avoid intentional harm but lack acceptable judgment of consequences.

7. Sociocultural firesetter

Those sociocultural types who set fires are typically in the midst of civil unrest and are enraged or enticed by the activity of others and set fires to call attention to the righteousness of their cause. This is an activity mainly carried out by adults as arson-for-profit activities (insurance fraud, re-housing).

When working with firesetters to alleviate the behaviour, we need to be aware of what type of firesetter they are. If a young person is setting fires alone or appears to be the ring leader in a group of people involved in fire-related offences (not vehicle fires), it needs to be established whether the motivation is anger, frustration, or revenge, rather than thrill seeking through boredom. Extreme punitive measures used with an angry firesetter will lead to more fires being set.

What are the likely legal consequences for children who are caught lighting fires?

In all Australian jurisdictions the statutory minimum age of criminal responsibility is now 10 years. Between the ages of 10 and 14 years, a further rebuttable presumption (known in common law as doli incapax) operates to deem a child between the ages of 10 and 14 incapable of committing a criminal act. Only if the prosecution can rebut this presumption, by showing that the accused child was able at the relevant time adequately to distinguish between right and wrong, can a contested trial result in conviction.

From 14 to either 17 or 18 years (depending on jurisdiction), young offenders may be held fully responsible for their criminal acts but are subject to a different range of criminal sanctions than adults committing the same offences (Warner 1997).

Even without criminal liability, children may still be subject to court-ordered welfare measures such as “care and control” orders, along with a range of other orders in relation to residence, contact, supervision and assessment. So since the alleged perpetrators in this instance were all over 10 they could be liable to prosecution, and depending on the damage, may be sentenced to a juvenile detention facility.

How will children deal with the aftermath, and the emotions of having caused such widespread destruction?

Each child will respond differently depending on their personality, temperament, level of education, mental state, IQ and family background. Some may be devastated and require intensive counselling while others may be less impacted – particularly those with low levels of empathy. As a psychologist, I’d be keen to see them assessed and if necessary see them receive treatment.

If would like more information about how you can help those affected by recent fires in NSW, please click here.