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.