Allegations of Sexual
Abuse in NZ |
||
|
||
|
||
In the same edition, Donna Ellen
replied to the Sutherland/Christie letter. The following is a critique of
Donna Ellen's response. |
||
Critique
by Richard Christie |
||
In opening, a clarification is
required. |
|
|
This manual is a community
response |
Critique Richard Christie: This sounds impressive but warrants examination. In
absence of further information this statement has the potential to be misleading.
From which groups within the community were consultations made? and from whom
were submissions sought? START is the only local NZ community based group
mentioned within the document (Excluding Police/CYF). The term
"Community Organisations" is used on the title page but no
specifics are ever given. This is grossly inadequate |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: to child abuse and was designed
for use within the Health, Social Service and Education sectors for those who
routinely work with young people. More specifically, its use is indicated
where there are sexual abuse concerns. |
|
|
It provides a sound and widely
endorsed (CYFS and NZ Police) process for having a sexual abuse concern
formally investigated. |
Critique Richard Christie: Christie and Sutherland clearly
state in their letter that it is not the CYF and Police material that they
take major issue with |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: The authors of this correspondence
appear to have misinterpreted the purpose of the manual. |
|
|
Firstly, they seem to assume its
use in all situations involving young people, when it is designed to be used
specifically where there is a sexual abuse concern |
Critique Richard Christie: This claim is baseless. There is
nothing in Christie and Sutherland's letter to support such fancy; rather,
the opening paragraph in the Christie/Sutherland letter clearly indicates the
manual is designed to be used "in the event" that sexual abuse
allegations are made |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: Secondly, Ms Sutherland and Mr
Christie describe the contents as having "no caution about the need to
reserve judgement as to the veracity of any allegations made by
children". |
|
|
Again, the purpose of the document
is not to provide a process for an investigation into any allegations,
rather, the steps to be taken to enable an investigation. |
Critique Richard Christie: These claims merit closer
examination Firstly, that "the purpose of
the document is not to provide a process for an investigation into any
allegations": Section Two of the manual: 'Signs Signals - Victims of Sexual Abuse'
appears to do exactly that. Here are some of its sub-headings and associated
content: Step One:
Consider the Possibility "Always consider the possibility of abuse and
neglect when a child or young person is injured, appears distressed or
depressed without obvious reason, has persistent or new behavioural problems
or displays unusual or fearful responses to caregivers. A
high index of suspicion is essential"
..."Obtain as much detail and specific
information as possible" Steps two and three are
investigative procedures. This means the Manual is outlining an investigative
process (albeit only initial stages) and furthermore is effectively creating
conditions for unsound testimony. Secondly it contradicts Ellen's
assertion "it is imperative that
untrained people do not investigate sexual abuse allegations" by
encouraging these practises in its readers who are largely untrained in these
specialist areas (i.e. workers in health, social service and education
sectors. |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: We believe |
|
|
Saliel and Olympia Aplin are
deathly examples of an inappropriate response to a sexual abuse concern. |
Critique Richard Christie: It saddens the writer that the
Aplin sisters are again publicly paraded (it is suspected) as ammunition for
an emotive response of support for child protection workers. No one endorses
the failures of the system toward those children. Protection of children
against sexual interference encompasses a wide range of issues and I strongly
suspect the specific issues discussed in these letters have very little
indeed to do with the Aplin case. |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: The working party that developed
the manual stands by its effort to increase community understanding of this
difficult and complex issue. Such complexity is an inadequate excuse for
doing nothing |
Another red herring as
Christie/Sutherland have certainly not mooted the path of doing nothing about
the issue. Use of this tactic in argument serves to trivialise and avoid
rational discussion |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: Your correspondents dismiss the
concept of listening to children |
Another baseless and insulting
inference |
|
Letter by Donna Ellen: This working party would say we
must listen to children when they talk of distress or abuse in their life and
that we must ensure that suitably trained specialists properly investigate
such children's concerns |
In summary Ellen has completely failed to address the
concerns raised by Christie and Sutherland. There is no reference to the
promotion of material such as The Courage to Heal; no acknowledgement that
use of clusters of behaviours to identify sexual abuse victims is
problematic; there is no response to the concerns over care being required
before believing all children say. Unfortunately, intransigence in
identifying and dealing with ill founded dogma ultimately serves to undermine
public confidence in the agencies entrusted with the protection of our
children. The Donna Ellen response to our concerns typifies such
intransigence. In the end it is the children who
suffer |