The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Child abuse in the Family Court > Comments

Child abuse in the Family Court : Comments

By Sunita Shaunak, published 29/7/2008

The prevailing view of 'highly qualified experts' used by the Family Court is that many protective parents lie about their child's abuse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 32
  11. 33
  12. 34
  13. All
ChildAdvocate and partTimeParent thanks for the summary of the PA vs PAS issue. I'd not been thinking in terms of a mental illness rather in terms of behaviour. I have seen a comment on another thread suggesting that since PAS is discredited PA is the result of the behaviour of the aleniated parent so your explainations are appreciated.

Pericles the National Child Protection Clearinghouse is a good place to start if you want to understand the scale and makeup of child abuse and neglect issues. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/

The summary article at http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html is a good start.
They make the point that there is no clear proof of numbers. Not all abuse is reported and not all reported abuse is substantiated.

"The most recent national figures from the Australian Institute of Health Welfare indicate that in Australia, during 2006-07, there were 309,517 reports of suspected cases of child abuse and neglect made to state authorities. "

"in 2006-07, 58,563 reported cases were substantiated. "Substantiated" means that a case of suspected abuse was reported and investigated, and child protection authorities verified (on the balance of probabilities) that the allegation was true and the child was in need of protection." An inability to substantiate does not prove a false allegation if I understand this correctly.

"There were 28,441 children in out-of-home care on 30 June 2007." - If I understand it correctly thats a cumulative total not the number placed in out of home care that year which indicates that only a small proportion of substantiated abuse and neglect cases lead to out-of-home care.

One question which is relevant here is how effectively the kids who don't go to out-of-home care are protected from further abuse?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 2:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
think theme of this boils to 'PAS, which caused them to manufacture completely false allegations of sexual and other abuse against the other parent.

This was despite the parent’s - and children's - concerns, regarding the alleged abuse by the other parent being supported by six other well respected professionals.'

pas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome ...not best but agree with some parts like established condition at law but psychiatric bodies still refuse to acknowledge(from allowing vested interests improperly influencing them...and we are still waiting for them to clearly categorize autism...so chronic emotionally traumatized child is not wrongly grouped and mismanaged...)

firstly, any professional 'expert' whom makes report after usual 2-hour interviewing mother, father, child...without having court extracted 'facts' from witnesses examination...is setting themselves for professional misconduct...only report they can produce 'unable to make professional assessment/finding in conflict situation'...conflict situation contravenes basic presumptions in a medical assessment...

so those 6 professional should be lined up before their respective boards if thats what they have done...include carolyn quadrio...

but this piece is full of unsupported opinions, outrageous claims, and selective use of information whose true weight is hard to assess...so difficult to reason...rather say its a rant...

Sam
editor...noticed 'gang bang postings'...on unsubstantiated opinions and claims other posts congratulating/supporting...think the hope is readers 'just' accept it a fact by sheer support for it...common feminist tactic noticed in past...usual effect is it empties the forum of reasonable people leaving just the fringes...
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 3:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mog,

'you are buying into the paradigm that violence and abuse occur because of the provoking behaviour'

No, I don't buy into any paradigm. I have a more balanced view of domestic disputes. I could say you buy into the paradigm that the only abusers are people who wish to control.

I see a wide range of factors in abusive behaviour. People with anger management issues, stressed people in an unhappy relationship, as a response to emotional blackmail or other controlling behavior, depression, substance abuse, the list goes on. Some of these situations which contribute greatly to the chances of violent behaviour are lessened by the separation and resolution of the relationship. It's not about blaming the victim as you think it is, it's about having a more rounded and realistic view of relationship dynamics.

'Such a belief justifies abuse.'
No it doesn't. That's just the typical feminist tactic to hold on to the simplistic notion that the only violent relationship dynamic is male=violent controlling abuser, women=powerless victim. Sure it happens, but it's not the only dynamic that would appear at the Family Court.

It's the same as the justification for the one-sided DV adverts. To discuss women have ANY responsiblity in violent domestic disputes always brings on this old myth. To give women some responsibility for their actions does not lessen men's responsibility for their actions.

'abusers can use litigation abuse - eg repeated false allegations of breaches of contact orders to bring mothers to court.'
I'll bet there is just as many false allegations of abuse as there are false allegations of breaches of contact. How can you deny one but not the other?

Yvonne,

'Because, unfortunately for the children, property and money is closely linked to them. Adults will fight ferociously for 'their' money/house/property. Children are also the 'best' weapon to get back at the other by a wronged spouse.'

Exactly. That's why I cant understand mogs position that abuse allegations shouldn't be so thoroughly scruitinised.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 3:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If anyone is interested in an indepth analysis of how allegations (sexual abuse), denials and evidence are treated in the Family Court, Australia. Wendy Lee Foote has written a thesis based on a number of cases, her thesis is titled: Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Family Court.

It can be found through a general search or at the Kids In Distress site: www.kidsindistress.org.au (look in the alphabetical file listing). Wendy describes the approach taken by court experts and the findings they make and recommendations they give to the Judge.

As a personal aside: the current sceptical and punitive approach the Family Court takes to abuse is a choice amongst any number of responses it could make. For instance 'allegations' not 'fear' or 'reporting what child said'.

If an approach was taken that the protective parent 'fears abuse' then wouldn't the appropriate response be to allay those fears through a genuine child protection investigation?

A parent 'alleges' abuse therefore he/she is abusive, take children away - how can this possibly be good for children? Not so long ago the Government thought it was a jolly good idea to take aboriginal australian children away from their mother and family.

Members of the church abused power and molested children in their care. Foster children in institutional care are speaking out about their treatment and seeking compensation.

A great source of distress to the now adult survivors of abuse is the 'cover-up' by adults who should have known better.

As children they were silenced, but as angry adults now, no-one would dare say they are mentally ill or coached or having 'false memories'.

With all this history, politicians continue to brazenly allow a dysfunctional court to remove children to abusers.

The Government really should know better by now.
Posted by Justice for kids, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 4:01:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert : “in 2006-07, 58,563 reported cases were substantiated. "Substantiated" means that a case of suspected abuse was reported and investigated, and child protection authorities verified (on the balance of probabilities) that the allegation was true and the child was in need of protection."
`Substantiated’ merely means that a child protection worker has made inquiries into the alleged abuse and has formed an (professional) opinion that s/he has reasonable belief that the abuse has occurred. This is a very low level standard of evidential proof as it is untested by due process of law i.e. the submission of factual evidence and a challenge and rebuttal before an independent third party.

It is not therefore to the legal standard of ‘Balance of Probabilities’ which is applied in Civil Court Proceedings such as Family Courts. On a `Balance of Probabilities’ means only that it is `more likely than not’ (i.e. only required to be 51% proven) that the offence has occurred. This is a considerable way from the evidential standard of proof of Criminal Court Proceedings which is of course beyond reasonable doubt.

It is very difficult to establish the levels of false positives and true negatives in child abuse reports and inquiries but can reasonably be assumed to have been made for mistaken, mischievous, malicious, and monetary reasons if they cannot even reach the base standard of substantiated.

There are many thousands of parents and carers who claim they have been falsely accused of child abuse but have been denied the opportunity to prove their innocence as the system does not allow them fairness and justice, and on the other hand there are many thousands of children who suffer abuse and it is unreported or inquiries fail to uncover evidence of the abuse and the perpetrator.

The system has an unacceptably high rate of fallibility which is presently causing anguish and devastation to children and families. This is for a wide variety of reasons but mainly individual and systemic failures as has been shown in many Public Inquiries into child protection failures. No lessons are ever learned.
Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 31 July 2008 7:42:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some parents find it difficult to accept that their children may not want to see them after they have left the family home, even if it is not their fault or wish that they have done so. When a parent leaves a family the children can experience a range of emotions from feelings of rejection and abandonment and absolute grief and sorrow. These feelings may cause them to resent that parent and to be angry with them and therefore refuse to see them again.

It can also come as a surprise to some parents that they are not at the centre of their children’s lives. Often their friends at school or in the neighbourhood have a greater immediate importance in their world, especially where a parent has taken little interest in the children in the past and shared their interests.

So when it comes to contact arrangements, the absent parent may not assume much importance to a child who has other activities to involve themselves in such as playing Footy or dancing classes. These can be the most important things in a child’s world and if they are denied those activities because they have to attend contact visits, then they will even further resent the absent parent and create immense difficulties for the resident parent in forcing their attendace at contact.

Naturally the parents in these circumstances are hurt and angry that they are not needed or seen as important by their children and cannot accept that this has occurred and wildly accuse the resident parent of `brainwashing’ the children or `alienating’ the children from the absent parent when nothing is further from the truth. The children are merely exercising their right to determine the important things in their lives and this should be given primary importance by Courts and due weighting in decision-making. Very rarely is it mentioned by Family Reporters who are supposedly reporting on the children’s wishes and feelings.
Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 31 July 2008 7:49:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 32
  11. 33
  12. 34
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy