A bit of a complicated article.

There was also a move away from institutions, from my understanding the idea of keeping children at home and providing support for parents and the hope that parents would eventually get it.

The other issues is that the goal posts get moved, what may have been acceptable behaviour a generation ago, is nolonger acceptable today.

A complex issue with no easy answers, but giving more powers to social workers etc is a rocky road to go down.

hi to all the forgotten australians out their , im still here and still fighting for justice for what we victims suffered in institutional care ,

my answer to the topic,

yes if it is known that their is abuse in a faimly home action has to be taken to protect the child from any form of abuse , , secondly if they are placed some where safe which one would hope , is hard to determine ,

just look at the forgotten australians , victims of abuse , a lot of us come from abusive faimlys taken away from their home to be placed in a safe invioment

but look what happend to a lot of us,

their were children raped and abused by the very staff who were to take care of them made ne slaves being misstreated by staff and others

so how sure can we be even when a child is taken away from a faimly and these types of things still continue in some cases of which are worse than what the abuse was from their own home life

not everybody who works in these departments are the goodie goodie some are purely sick people who take advantage of the young

i speak of this as being the truth

as i am a victim of institutional abuse as a child while under state care

i can only hope that the goverment we have now really takes a serious look at who they employ and to have them have a camera on them all the time that way we will know when a child is in care that nothing will happen to them while they are being looked after

maybe if the state of new south wales got of their ass and addmitted to the truth of the abuse that we victims suffered in their institutions through out this state , and its just not new south wales its other states as well

then the communities would know and be more aware of what really has taken place

from a real victim huffnpuff

As if you guys dont already realise it...we are far too concerned about the rights of those who abuse children. We hear the magistrates or judges express such deep concern for the rights oif the offenders.We produce an army of psychologists who produce from their bags of dirty tricks psychological profiles of offenders e.g poorly educated and didnt fully realise the enormity of the offence...a victim of abuse in childhood...is on drugs or alcohol and cant be accountable...its part of his culture and needs understanding ...ad nauseum.

The traumatised and abused is overlooked in all of this.The courts are guilty of contempt for the vulnerable.

I hate paedophlies getting caught and produced in a court of law for these very reasons.

socratease

Its a terrible state of affairs and realistically, its the design of how key stakeholders are funded. There is not much incentive for services to address child abuse than it is to keep it going and dragging it out.

socratease,

The editor's heading for this article is misleading and presumptuous and so I don't think we "are far too concerned about the rights of those who abuse children". We have seen some recent cases where sentences have been commensurate.

In a recent case in the County Court in Melbourne - outside which Care Leavers of Australia Network (CLAN) demonstrated for three days - the judge went out of his way to ensure that he had exactly the proper evidence to put the perpetrator away for a long time. He was worried that the perpetrator might appeal and get off on a technicality.

Child sexual abuse was wrong a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, ten years ago, and it's still wrong now. People who argue that times have changed are simply wrong.

What's changed is that advocates for children and the Forgotten Australians themselves are blowing the whistle and more and more being heard now whereas everything was once swept under the carpet because the perpetrators were all-powerful.

It is not. The article, though no doubt well intentioned, sugests the only information is collected by a survey of the population...as if a perpetrator would admit to abuse? and then goes on to say stats complied of SUSPECTED child abuse reported to statutory departments..etc

Article then further suggests incompetence by departments in only statutorily intervening in 58,563 out of the 309,517 reported.

It is suggested the majority of calls to the hotlines provided are malicious payback to the people thereby dobbed in as anonymity is allowed. It's easy...pick someone you don't like, provide the names and address, and hey bingo the family unit get grief. No calls should be accepted without identification. Hotlines should make it clear to callers their id will not be revealed to families investigated but if their claims are unsubstantiated, the caller will get grief as do time wasters to 000.

The hotlines in their present state are kangaroo courts as to the incidence of child abuse. Over 250,000 calls/reports did not require statutory intervention.

Suggest readers visit altnew.com.au for what does occur when bureaucrats make decisions, not families.

One reason child sexual abuse is not dealt with is because adults still insist on indulging a 'little' with the pornography (pervert) industry. The fruit of many feeding on this perversion is child abuse although denied by its supporters. Most of their EROS founded studies find no link between porn and child abuse (drrrr!) The problem is increasing and the denial is getting louder. The 'despised' school chaplains are discovering how huge the problem is but no one really wants to know. DCD are often more interested in charging a father for giving a kid a smack for rebellion than they are in getting involved in messy family situations. Child sexual abuse will continue more and more as the traditional family unit is broken down and pornography continues to pervert peoples minds into believing that life is simply about having sex whenever and with whomever one wishes. You would be very hard pressed to fined a child molester in prison (whether catholic priest or doctor) who wasn't into porn.

I have three special needs children with little or no help from Govt agencies regarding abuse by father, Children cannot disclose enough detail to get a conviction. Bruises, are not enough, disclosure of the perp still not enough. Family Court keeps returning children to their father for contact. The psychological damage to the children, and mother is shocking.

As a child, my mother routinely made the threat "you wait till your father gets home" if I strayed outside the bounds of what she considered acceptable behaviour. That could include anything from "backchatting" to strewing flour around the kitchen whilst experimenting with making pancakes or a thousand other childhood indiscretions. The threat would be followed up by my Dad when he got home with a "belting" or a good whack with a rolled-up newspaper, both of which often left bruises or welts. My Mum rarely hit me herself.

Who was the "abuser"? Was it Mum, or Dad, or both, or neither? Certinly from my own point of view the worst part was waiting the hours after the threat was made until Dad got home, while the actual "belting" was often less painful than the anticipated one. I suspect many children shared my experience.

I also have some experience with the effect of false allegations raised as part of a custody matter. I was prevented from seeing my children for 7 months because their mother claimed I shouted at her and obtained an interim DVO on that basis. With no further claim made, she then managed to get a magistrate to join the children to the interim DVO because, as he said "I can't take the chance that the allegations may be proven". Apparently he hadn't bothered to read the claim made in her statement - the fact that she had made a claim of any kind was sufficient for that bureaucrat to act in self-protection and prevent my kids from seeing their father.

The Family Court was sensible enough to read the claims and put them in their proper context. I now have 50% care of my children and they are as happy and as well-adjusted as any two kids I know. Their mother has had them off to "counselling" and all sorts of evaluations, all of which confirm my view.

The point is that the mere making of an allegation doesn't make the allegation true. That fact must be recognised by the Law.

Runner,

I think the child abuser uses porn as a result of their unhealthy interest in children, not the other way round.

I don't like pornography, but do not want to see it banned. As long as it is legal, the porn industry can be controlled. Remove these controls, and there may be more child porn on the black market.

My views on porn are, no matter how much of it you obtain, it can never be truly satisfying. Porn can be addictive, because it does not satisfy, there is the need to obtain more of it, and some people can't stop with just the porn. While porn can drive some people to commit sexual crime, it may prevent others from doing the same thing.

The author said the folowing, Quote

"The public, understandably, want to know why. What is Child Protection doing? The Howard government acted to intervene in the lives of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory but they failed to call white families who abused their children to account. Is this meant to infer that white people do not abuse children? Or is the abuse simply to be treated as acceptable? Do white people have rights over their children that Aboriginal people are not entitled to?"

This is a silly interpretation, as it could equally be said that the then Government gave a higher priority to the welfare of aboriginal children than children of other Australians. A cynic could say why are they spending so much on NT aboriginal kids and not on others or those in other states.

The truth would be that the report showed there was a real need to take action. The report was solely on the NT and the States have their own responsiblity.

I note that yesterday the now Minister confirmed that the intervention would keep going for at least another 12 months and that the aboriginal mothers strongly requested her to keep the restrictions on welfare payments. So much for all the accusations earlier that the intervention was purely political.

One can only hope that it will be the kids that benefit and some of the offenders are brought to book.

Whether aboriginal or not, child abuse is definately not acceptable.

The title says "Why is child abuse an accepted norm in Australia?"

The thing is that child abuse is NOT an acceptable norm in Australia.

We have laws about child abuse, people report suspected child abuse.

So how can child abuse be an accepted norm when there are laws designed to prevent it and to protect children from abuse.

We laws that regulate the road traffic and most or the majority of poeple abide by the road rules. simply because a small number of people may break the rules does not mean that breaking the laws is a NORM.

JamesH

Good on you. You're dead right. Child abuse in certainly not the 'accepted norm' in Australia.

I think the editorial licence with the title of this article was grossly misleading. Child abuse is always wrong. It was wrong in the past with the Forgotten Australians and with Indigenous Australians - and nothing has changed except that the community is a little better informed and more aware, and less forgiving of abusers..

Successful prosecutions (despite legal impediments) are more common and the shame files of convicted pedophiles are now more readily accessible.

Having said that, there is no room for complacency. Parents, carers and the community must be ever vigilant.

Yes, child abuse is a 'crime' but rarely are the criminals prosecuted.
The national figure is for every 100 'alleged' sexual abuses cases reported to the police, only 5 result in a successful conviction.

Sexual abuse is very difficult to prove for adults... for children it is almost impossible. For those who do get to court they are more harmed by the legal system.

It is extremely difficult for adults and children to ever get justice and validation for the abuse they have recieved.

You can thank the 'justice' system and behind the justice system: the general public, politicians inertia for this disgusting state of affairs.

Justice for kids, you wrote that <The national figure is for every 100 'alleged' sexual abuses cases reported to the police, only 5 result in a successful conviction.>

So what are you saying?

are you saying that the other 95 are guilty, but not proven.

Or are you saying that once a person is accused of sexually abusing children that they must be punished regardless of guilt or Innocence.

I have no problem with gaoling guilty people, but crucifying innocent people is not something I find acceptable.

There is strong evidence that emerged after the hysteria in the 1980's where children now adults have recounted their accusations. Innocent people were gaoled to satisfy the call for blood.

So would you destroy a persons life just because you believe that they must have done something? Regardless of the evidence.

Cost-savings probably have a lot to do with why government departments are reluctant to separate children from their parents.

My friend has just started work with a child support agency, as a carer who stays overnight with children needing support before being placed with a foster family.

Some of these children, however, are never able to be placed with foster parents, primarily for behavioural issues. Some of these children are home schooled.

Each child is housed singly in a separate rented house, with three trained carers rostered on to care one-on-one around the clock.

My friend told me today that the total bill to the government for each individual child's care under these circumstances is $10,000 per WEEK.

That is not a sustainable system!

Children bare the brunt of a violent society and without doubt the system [and its welfare workers] are consistently overwhelmed by it. One of the major problems is many of the welfare workers are poorly trained and come from a culture that accepts certain forms of violence. These people are in no position to properly evaluate risk. Some people do not know they are committing violent acts. Violence is normalised within a number of cultural settings, especially in rural areas where violence against animals easily translates into the same approach to children. I would argue that many people enjoy forms of violence at a distance and it is only when it touches their lives do they react with any criticism. We are ‘bystanders’ to global violence, especially against children. Some people are bystanders because they benefit from the symbolic power violence invokes as a potential [within daily relationships]. For example if one child is severely punished/abused by a parent then other children with the knowledge of this abuse are inclined to fear the potential of abuse, [not necessarily from parents]. This is symbolic power and it can be used by anyone wishing to hold power over a child or other potential victim.

Dr Chris James:"Some people do not know they are committing violent acts."

In that case, it's a fair chance that the act isn't violent. One of the biggest problems that has been created by the DV industry is the mis-naming of non-violent acts as violence, thereby diluting the message, whilst allowing the same DV industry to exaggerate the problem that exists, largely to support funding claims.

Dr Chris James:"For example if one child is severely punished/abused by a parent"

Are you suggesting that a severe punishment constitutes abuse? Where does the line exist between the two? I never physically punish my children, but they frequently receive other punishments for various transgressions. Am I being abusive if I raise my voice to them? What if I prevent them taking part in anticipated activities? Withhold dessert? Send them to bed early? Take a favoured toy away? Make them stay inside and perform a chore instead of going outside to play?

Each of these (except the raised voice) is something that they regard as "severe". Is it "abuse" in your terms? A little less waffle and a lot more clarity about what you are trying to say would go a long way.

As it stands, it seems that you're conflating punishment with abuse and trying to make a parent responsible for the reaction of their children to their upbringing, whilst ignoring the intent of the parent. This is directly analogous to blaming a medical practitioner because a patient feels apprehensive about a forthcoming procedure.

The fact is that we all experience good and bad things during our childhood, regardless of how good our parents are. The role of a parent, first and foremost is to ameliorate the impacts of bad experiences; good ones tend to be self-reinforcing. The role of the parent can not include shielding their children from all negative things, this is an impossibility.

Intent is the key. It is instructive that these claims of abuse most frequently surface in the context of custody claims.

Abuse is abuse there is and will never be any justification. Imagine someone two or three times your size belting you...with or without weapon/s in anger or yelling down at you...yes this is abuse.
regarding only parents involved in family court matters using abuse card - wrong.. newspapers overseas children sexually abused by fathers kept daughters as prisioners even raping them for years and having their father's children, none of the two current cases were involved in divorce or family court matters... a control freak will beat wife/kids/dog whatever... usually pillers of society involved in care of children to have effective cover of their bullying. The problem with the family Court is dual residency is mandatory.. as such some parents have dual residency to minimise financial settlement....these children are at risk with parent decides he/she cannot cope with children and deliberately attempts to hurt children so authorities will remove them from care... unfortunately DHS will not as there is a protective parent (either) the Government uses this to avoid responsibility of CHILD PROTECTION if a child's language development is ga ga ga then there is no legal disclosure, and the only effective way of conviction is by post mortum (dead child) wake up

JamesH rather than detail a reply to you...there is mountains of research and stats readily available on the Internet but here is a good starting point here for you:

video: govt. mulls shocking child abuse figures

www.abc.net.au/stories/2008/10/03/2381707.htm

Some of difficulties in the legal system is that the standard of evidence required is so high. Children who are the victims of sexual assualt are often under 5 years old. In the court system children are still required to give evidence to exacting adult standards.

I recall that there is one state in Australia that has never had a child sexual conviction for any child under 7 years old. Are you saying there is no abuse in this state?

So yes many 'victims' never recieve any thing close to justice, these are the real 'innocents who are crucified'. The general stat. for false allegation is 1 in 10.

There are many books and much information available to you on this subject I am not here to spoon feed you but more to support the call for Australians to wake up from their coma to the society we live in.

Caroline Taylor a child abuse survivor has written a book titled: "Court Licensed Abuse" (I think!) in this book she details the abuse of children by the legal system itself.

I have three autistic/intellectually disabled children, who cannot provide the evidence need to gain a conviction, regardless of photo's of bruises, nameing of the perp. doctors reports, etc....child must be able to say jo blow did this on tues 24th oct 2004 at residence 34 st. ville yes this was an unprovoked attack.

Most children are unable to state this.. however, there is statute of limitations on sexual abuse..one can only hope that some time in the future the child can give evidence.. if not nothing will be done.

I note that for physical/psychological/starvation/liberty infringements the statute remains.... leaving absolutely no hope for children.

Is this a society you want to bring your child up in, perhaps that is why Australia has such low or negitive population growth
Keep up the work perhaps some Minister who relys on votes will get the message if they want to keep their job

what a pile of unsubstantiated feminist propaganda
your claim that "women are the source of moral education"
demonstrates just how far off the planet you are

put the shoe on the other foot for 2 secs
"men are the source of moral education"
ridiculous, eh?
only as ridiculous as what you said

and the most authoritative sources of info
are not the 'self-reporting' sources you cite
but the Personal Safety Survey
conducted Nationally by the ABS

this, among other things,
makes it perfectly plain
that most child abuse
is carried out by mothers

which is also confirmed
by the performance report
from the Dept of Child Services

also of interest is that female children
living in single parent families
that have mothers as their head
are 10-15 times MORE likely to be sexually abused
than children living in a single parent family
with their father as the head

and if you care
what the children of divorce
think about equal custody themselves
try this

Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to the children of divorce
Fabricius listened to the children of divorce – I wish someone else would

It is illuminating that those who are pushing this barrow are women who have had their claims rejected by the Courts. If the cases they have presented here are any guide, the Courts quite properly rejected their testimony as hearsay presented by people whose motives were questionable. The really sad part of all that is this is that the constant stream of false allegations has left genuine complainants with a far more difficult task.

Claims of abuse have long formed part of the armoury of lawyers acting on behalf of women in custody matters and have consequently been debased. It's the old story of the boy who cried "wolf". As well, it was long held in the Family Law that a mother had a "right" to her children, while a father had merely an obligation. That is changing with the obvious consequence that some of those who are losing their "privilege" are not happy.

What is really sad is that the claims of some or all of the women posting here may well be true, but thanks to the long history of false allegations and nebulous evidence in the particular matters, those claims will not truly be tested, which can only be to the detriment of the children involved.

The New Family Law Act in Australia Mandates dual residency, if this is so beneficial to children why have abuse rates nearly doubled? After Orders are made. There are no figures on the children who are forced to live with an abusive parent who commit suiside. My own eldest son did this, as HE had no voice in the court this was ordered by the then chief justice - in an attempt to stop further litigation by the abusive parent. Throw away the mountains of paperwork, that no one will read, and give up back the old detective, the truth is out there. Obviously some of the previous comments have not kept abrest of the F L Act

Mom of three:"The New Family Law Act in Australia Mandates dual residency"

No, it doesn't.

Mom of three:"why have abuse rates nearly doubled?"

What is your evidence for this claim? The reports to DOCS may have increased, but this seems to be largely an artifact of both mandatory reporting rules and a culture of "arse-covering" that has evolved as a consequence of the growth of the DV industry. It is far better for a doctor, policeman, child-care worker, teacher, etc to report a suspicion that is later shown to be unfounded than to remain silent and have some blame for a case of abuse laid at their feet. The howls of outrage are loud and vituperative.

As someone else pointed out, the greatest risk factor for a child is to be estranged from a father and living with a mother and her de facto partner. The risk is even greater if the mother has no stable relationship, but a series of temporary ones. As this type of relationship has become more common, it would logically follow that abuse rates may have also risen.

I'm very sad to hear your son's story, but one swallow doesn't make a summer. If you are truly interested in stopping genuine abuse, I suggest you start by working to stop the false allegations that confuse the issue.

There is an old legal maxim that it is better that a thousand guilty people go free than a single innocent person be convicted. A high prevalence of false allegations make it more likely that this maxim will be applied.

Child neglect is the elephant in the room, yet it is not being mentioned. It is reasonable to ask why this is so when it is so often the existence of child neglect that provides the conditions for child abuse to occur.

Child abuse is an abomination, however it should not be permitted to become the tail that that wags the child neglect dog, which has happened in the past through the intervention of interest groups with secondary gain in mind. It is easy for children at risk to fall through the gaps where competing goals and priorities cause skews in the allocation of resources, frustrating efforts to coordinate and monitor available services.

Mom of 3 said
“a control freak will beat wife/kids/dog whatever..”
no sexual bias there
no assumption that ‘perpetrators’ are men

my ex-wife killed my daughters pets one at a time
every time she came on access
until she decided
she didn’t want to come on access anymore
(2 rabbits and a cat ‘disappeared’)

she beat our son leaving him bruised and bleeding
she used to suffocate him if he dared to cry
and on one occasion I came home to find her torturing him

his voice was weak and thin from begging for mercy
and his face was absolutely covered in dried tears
she never denied the abuse
but the court still gave her custody
even though both children ‘mysteriously’
said they wanted to live with me

the elephant in the room of child abuse
is the failure to recognize women as child abusers
every study that has ever been done
has recognized that most child abusers are women
yet in 40 years of “Public Awareness Campaigns”
about child abuse
there has never been a single case
where the perpetrator was portrayed as female

the perpetrator has always been portrayed as male
even though men represent
a minority of child abusers
no sexual bias there

the most powerful cultural acceptance of child abuse
in this culture
it is the acceptance of child abuse by mothers

No sexual bias, people abuse children most are adults, when children do it they call it bullying, the result is the same.

To anyone who has a child die of either murder or suiside you have my most sincere condolences, as I too have a child who could not stay within the system he was Ordered and he felt that he had no other alternative...that is the reason for suiside...the person feels traped. As for murder I assume the authorities finally worked out they were wrong, the perp in jail, and you appropriately compensated for failure of duty of care.

Use your grief and anger to STOP CHILD ABUSE not to hit out at another gender.

I disagree with your contention JamesH that because there are laws against child abuse therefore child abuse is not a norm. Sorry to disillusion you JamesH but sadly my experience teaches me that despite the laws being in place they are not enforced.
An example is when an underage girl has a child, our very own centrelink will provide her with enough money for her to choose to live with her adult statuary rapist. If the parent of this " child/mother" asks for information about the living arrangements of her daughter she is informed that this information is "confidential"

In other words despite there being clear laws in regards to statutory rape these laws are completely ignored and the rapists are not charged with a crime but protected by centrelink to repeat this crime whenever they desire. oi

Oi,

I will reiterate that child abuse is not an accepted NORM.

firstly this blog is an example that it is not acceptable.

Secondly the example you give, is I surmise where a teenager is involved with an older person.

So if the example you give is an accepted norm. WHY? then do people get upset about it, because if it was an accepted norm, nobody would get upset.

Sure there are people who do not get upset over such issues, and there are others who do get upset.

"Sure there are people who don't get upset"

That's the point JamesH.

Centrelink doesn't get upset. They provide these child/mothers with large amounts of money, enough for them to choose their own living arrangements, often with their statutory rapist/fathers of their children. Centrelink then keeps these living arrangements confidential from distraught parent/s.
The police don't get upset. Charges arn't laid.
Children's services don't get upset. They don't bother unless they have concerns about the infant
The hospital's where these child/mothers give birth don't get upset.
They don't report that children are being born as a result of a crime being committed against the child/mother by an adult father.

Rob513264

Until very recently it has been unthinkable to even suggest that any woman, let alone a mother, could neglect or abuse a child or permit it to happen.

Astoundingly, this myth largely prevails still, despite community knowledge that (for instance) women also abuse drugs, which is connected with child neglect and abuse and that women are just as likely to have been neglected and abused as a child and could similarly be enmeshed in a victim/persecutor life cycle.

The feminist mantra that only men are violent and their focus on child sexual abuse in lieu of the broad, inclusive subject of child neglect, have done a very great disservice to the 200,000 children affected by neglect and abuse each year (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2004) and especially to the mothers who need help but cannot come forward lest they be seen as monsters and traitors to their 'side' of the gender divide.

Mothers need to be encouraged to indulge in help seeking behaviours and to seek information and support outside of their immediate circle of friendship, but this is hardly likely to occur where they fear they will be labeled and and sent to Coventry by other women because they did something that few women would even acknowledge exists and then only in hushed whispers behind closed doors.

It is simple fact that women (and men) are not born knowing how to care for children and how to deal with the problems that arise from managing a household and raising children. It is from this ignorance and time and resource pressures that many problems can arise. It is the worst of possible scenarios that mothers who have found that things have gotten off the rails feel they cannot come forward for fear of extreme criticism from other women.

Lobby groups have consistently hijacked the debate to focus exclusively on issues and 'findings' that suit their own secondary gain. The very use of the term 'abuse' shifts attention away from the elephant in the room that is child neglect."

Cornflower said:
"Until very recently
it has been unthinkable
to even suggest that any woman,
let alone a mother,
could neglect or abuse a child
or permit it to happen."

I am very glad
that someone acknowledges this
- in the patriarchal society
it was not just the achievements of women
that were ignored
but also their crimes.

she also said:

"...mothers who need help
but cannot come forward
lest they be seen as monsters
and traitors to their 'side'
of the gender divide."

I think that far from a legitimate fear
of being persecuted,
mothers who come forward,
would be treated as you treat them
- as people in need of help.

it is fathers
who abuse their children
who are treated
as people in need of punishment.

Women dont admit child abuse
because they dont have to
- there is absolutely no societal pressure
on women to come clean.

If you can cite me a single example
of mothers abusing children
who were treated as 'monsters'
by other women, as you contend,
please bring it.

In every case
I have ever heard about
other women give sympathy and support
and even make excuses for other women,
"she was post-partum" ,
"she was pre-menstrual",
"she was 'hormonal'" etc.

It is men who are treated as monsters
if they abuse children
and it is not that I want women
treated in the same way as men
but that I want men
treated in the same way as women

CHILD ABUSE AND THE USE OF CHARACTER REFERENCES IN COURTS.

Two recent court cases (reported in a regional newspaper) taking place in two different cities in the same Australian State, support the view that child abuse is indeed accepted as a norm in Australia. In both cases the defendants were professionals who owed their victims "a duty of care". Both pleaded guilty and in both cases character references supporting them were submitted to the Court.

CASE 1. A psychologist indecently assaulted an apparently articulate female aged 17. He was treating her for low self esteem and an eating disorder. His character references came from parents of other young patients with Asperger Syndrome or Autism. Since inability to communicate effectively is a symptom of these conditions, how could these parents be sure their children were safe with this man?

The penalty was a suspended jail term and a fine, but at least the psychologist was de-registered by the relevant Board.

CASE 2. A priest committed indecent acts on a child, procured a child for the purposes of child pornography etc. Four character witnesses described him as "respected" and "devoted to the Catholic Church". Sentencing was scheduled for 4 November. Indications are that it will be appropriate.

However, the use in Court of character references or witnesses in such cases (where the defendant is known to be guilty) is at best irrelevant, and at worst it seems to condone the abuse of vulnerable young people by those in positions of power and respect.

one of my favourite examples
comes from the Simpsons cartoon

I like this one particularly
because it is only a cartoon
so we can be sure
that no-one has actually been hurt

this circumvents any problem
around assessing
‘how much’ damage is actually done
in an attack

it means that we are dealing
with concept only

Homer frequently
strangles Bart
so severely that his eyes bulge
and his neck retains
the imprint of Homer’s fingers
long after he has let go

I read an article by a psychologist
who claimed to be a feminist
who said that
‘Homer was a good father figure’ etc

I would just like any ‘feminist’
to transpose that behavior
onto the character of Marge

remember no-one
is actually getting hurt
it is concept only

if Homer frequently strangled Marge
such that her eyes bulged
and her neck retained
the impression of Homer’s fingers
long after he had let go
I don't think a lot of feminist psychologists
would be calling him ‘a good husband figure’

even if we move the transposition
onto the character of Lisa
the situation changes completely

if Homer did to Lisa
what he does to Bart
there would be feminist outrage

the brutalization of boys
is not only accepted in this culture
it is often seen as good parenting
even by feminists (modern women)
who then complain
about why so many men
grow up to be so brutal
go figure…

GOOD MORNING, AUSTRALIA! - in the words of Robin William.

I wondered where Antiseptic and KidsinDistress had gone.You moved to recent debate, discontinuing Sunita's " CHILD ABUSE IN FAMILY COURT". Still discussing male/female abusers, or WHO is abusing children and what is: ABUSE?

Too many of you jump in,supposing this is a sexual act in all cases. There is abuse of the children's rights, and I would imagine there are more of us women then men harming children.We might have a higher proportion of access to children. How many men are single parent families compared to females? If 25% are male households, say, then the amount of abused children would be greater in the matriachal ones - being 75%. Then, look at how many kids are in a male based household compared to a female one.

You are losing sight of the issues. And its scarey. The Commission for Special I/Enquiry into: Child Protection Services NSW ( THE COURTS, & legal system, Ombudsman, the Health Services, DOCS, the Children's Care teams -foster/and hostel) etc etc is due out next month.

ASK YOURSELVES - WHY?

This is the 20th since 2000.

The DOCS hotline is occupied 24/7 with these suspicions, & getting busier, now the schools are being encouraged to check for mental health issues. Apparently 1:5 pupils have mental health issues (Stephen Lunn, The Australian 8/9/08). There is the word "neglect" is being used in the same sense as "abuse". tTis is a more amorphous notion open to many interpretations. NOw, women if not sexually abusing kids, will be neglecting them.

WHATEVER - Antipasto, on 24/09/08: "Do you really think that there is a vast legal conspiracy determined to hand children to their abuser?"

Lama: Yup - and it's not parents/carers.

I'm back to Sunita's site - anyone want to join me. I notice HuffnPuff's dreadful life went without any comment from you. WHO DO YOU THINK DOCS CAME FROM? Check Aborigines Act 1969 NSW - the Aboriginals Protection Board-Aborigines Welfare Board - The Community Welfare Board - The Department of Community Services.

Lama (Happy 9/11 - in Commonwealth terms)

Lama : You are quite right. We should have responded to Huffnpuff. I could not find the words to express my empathy and outrage at the maltreatment. I am so sorry.

There does seem to be some sort of conspiracy to endorse or condone child abuse. I'd hate to think that it is intentional, but the effect is the same.

I am trying to have my case for contact with my grandchildren reopened. Attempts by my new solicitor to renegotiate informally have failed. The first senior barrister in the nearest Capital city who was approached was reluctant to be briefed by my present solicitor. The main reason given is that I have complained about the previous legal team to the Legal Services Commissioner. I had multiple grounds for this complaint. I believe that it is being taken seriously.

However another barrister has agreed to briefed, to meet with me, and give an opinion on the likelihood of an improved result at another hearing.

JUSTICE FOR KIDS. I keep thinking of your wise words of 31 August on Sunita's Forum. You said that I was about to enter "a kind of hell". Thank goodness you warned me. The Family Court seems to have no control over those who work within it.


CHILDADVOCATE - On 31 August also on Sunita's Forum, you described the Family Court process as simply " a cartel of lawyers, public servants and experts"... This is so true, but I now have an exceptional lawyer who is acting in my interests and that of my grandchildren. A senior barrister has agreed to be briefed with a view to reopening the case. The financial cost is great, but there is hope.

This hope is the result of pure chance. The new solicitor has a high profile and speaks out publicly in the general public interest. This led my contacting that person.

But, please see my previous posting of today (9 November).