ZB Talkback
August 4 2003
Letter read out in full by Leighton Smith
The Toddlers Testimony
by Gordon and Colleen Waugh
We read with much interest the transcripts of the interviews with the Creche
Children published in the Star-Times yesterday. They clearly show how those
children were coerced into making outrageous and ridiculous allegations of
abuse by Peter Ellis and others. This has been a common practice from the early
1990's and is still used today.
When we were operating COSA (Casualties Of Sexual Allegations Incorporated)
from 1993 to 2000, we dealt with scores of similar cases, and thousands of
cases of "Recovered Memory", all created by badly trained counsellors
using unscientific, unethical, and unsafe methods. We still get calls for help
today from people wrongly accused as a result of this destructive gobbledygook.
Many counsellors do not work from an evidential base or conduct external
investigations, but rely on their assumptions, beliefs and opinions, and a
presumption of guilt. If their call to "Believe the Children" is
valid, it demands they must believe everything that children might say, not
just the selected, convenient parts which supports
their own opinions and preconceptions. They force children to grow up wrongly
believing themselves to have been abused. That is a
shocking imposition.
On a "No Names" basis, in a recent case, CYF social workers believed two
young brothers had been sexually abused. They had no evidence, just a feeling.
A female psychotherapist interviewed the boys. One boy didn't
"disclose" any abuse, so she quickly bypassed him. The other boy was
more suggestible, and she believed, without evidence of any sort, that he must
have been abused. She had five interviews with him and wanted more. The boy
ultimately made incredible allegations against his father, and the father was
later charged. The interrogation method she used was virtually identical to
what the Creche children were exposed to, and remains a standard practice.
Three main causes
Our experience suggests there are three main causes of
this destructive problem. Firstly, no legislation exists to control the provision
or quality of counselling services to the public. Any person can hang out their
shingle and offer counselling services to the public - there are no
limitations. What little training counsellors might have is a mish-mash of superstition, assumption, unproven theory and
psycho-babble. They are not required to qualify by training or examination at
recognised training institutions, be registered or licenced,
or hold an annual practising certificate. The effects of untested and unproven
allegations of sexual abuse made by them and their clients are widespread, and
devastating to our society.
Secondly, Section 23AB of the Evidence Act was introduced, without good reason,
to remove the requirement for corroboration in sexual cases, and to remove the
time-honoured mandatory judicial warning of the dangers of convicting on the
basis of uncorroborated evidence. The introduction of Section 23G, allowing
so-called "experts" to give evidence, opened the door to belief and
fantasy masquerading as evidence. Other sections are also flawed.
Thirdly, ACC methods encourage false claims of abuse. In claims for physical
injuries, ACC demands the highest level of proof of injury, often referring
claimants to specialists. But in sexual abuse claims, no such proof is
demanded. Without external investigation, ACC relies heavily on the
uncorroborated, untested narrative of the claimant and a counsellors
opinion, beliefs and assumptions as to the psychological condition of the
claimant. Sexual abuse claimants are not required to provide proof of abuse or
of mental injury, or name an alleged perpetrator, or report such allegations to
the police. Tens of thousands of such ACC claims were never tested by the Courts.
Despite Phil Goff's ostrich stance, a Royal Commission of Inquiry is needed to
sort this mess out.