|
|
The Christchurch Civic
Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
(McLoughlin,
1996:60, quoting a parent). New Zealand's Christchurch Civic Creche situation
of alleged sexual, satanic and ritual abuse of pre-school children by a male
and several female staff members in the early 1990s has so far been largely
analysed in terms of moral panic and hysteria. It is the purpose of this
paper to investigate whether the sociological theory of moral panic
systematically and adequately explains all the major developments in this
situation of alleged child abuse by childcare professionals. In particular,
does Cohen's theorising about moral crusaders and entrepreneurs adequately
explain the part that a network of parents played in the Creche developments
(1990)? Moral panic theory, although not explicitly
identified, definitely plays a part in the first publication by Barnett and
Hill which deals with the Christchurch Creche situation (1993). In a later
publication which also deals with the Creche developments, they focus upon
Cohen's theory of moral panic and specifically the role of the media (Hill
and Barnett, 1994: 236-243). Hysteria is the more frequently used theory by journalists,
legal professionals and others to explain the involvement of some of the key
parties and in particular the part played by a few parents. On the basis that
a strong case can be sustained that moral panic theory incorporates hysteria
into its explanations, we examine the Creche situation in terms of moral
panic theory. A chronological overview of major developments in
this instance of alleged child abuse is presented at this point as the
situation has been developing over a period exceeding ten years with the most
recent development being an appeal to the Governor General in late 1997 for
the pardon of the male childcare provider, Peter Ellis, who was convicted of
16 charges of abuse and sentenced to 10 years prison in 1993. This analysis
looks at developments up to the time of the trial. This cut-off is not
intended to imply that moral panic may not have influenced the trial and
subsequent developments. Rather, it is to adopt the position that
developments prior to the trial were extremely significant and deserve
extensive analysis in their own right.
September 1986 Peter Ellis works at
the Creche to meet a two-week community service order for benefit fraud and
then continues on working at Creche and becoming qualified as a childcare
worker. 20 November 1991 A female parent (S1), a
counsellor specialising in sexual abuse, makes the first allegation of sexual
abuse of her son by Ellis to Gaye Davidson, Creche supervisor, by phone. Ellis put on temporary
leave. 25 November 1991 Mother S1 contacts
Detective Colin Eade of the Christchurch police. Son F of Mother S1 has
videotaped interview by the Social Welfare Department - interviews involving
at least 127 other children continue until November 1992. 28 November 1991 Meeting of the Creche
Management Committee with Psychologist Sidey and Detective Eade present. Meeting of all parents
planned and organisation of it delegated to Mother S2. 2 December 1991 Parents' meeting Mother S1 is emotional at
the time of her entry and receives the support of some other parents
including Mother C. Others mothers gather round S1. John Gray, City Manager,
and Detective Eade speak. Psychologist Sidey from
the Social Welfare Department specifies the symptoms of sexual abuse and
tells parents not to directly question children about sexual abuse. Early December 1991 A support
group of mothers formed centering on S1, S2 and C. 20 December 1991 Detective Eade writes
to the Management Committee stating that he found no evidence of abuse. 30 January 1992 Mother S2 has her
child R, who had only been in the Creche while her mother picked up her son,
interviewed by Social Welfare. R's evidence results in a diagnosis of
indecent touching by Ellis. 23 March 1992 Article in The
Press, Christchurch's only daily newspaper, about parent terror over abuse at
the Creche. 30 March 1992 Ellis arrested
and charged with the indecent assault of Child R. 31 March 1992 A meeting
organised by the Police and Social Welfare Department for Creche parents was
held at Knox Hall. Police, Sue Sidey and
Karen Zelas, a psychiatrist, address the meeting. Parents were told that all
children who attended the Creche while Ellis was employed should be
interviewed. Parents were offered
counselling for themselves, their children and other relatives. Accident Compensation
Corporation claim forms made available. April 1992 First charge laid
against Ellis 3 September 1992 The Creche is abruptly
closed on the advice of the Police and all 13 staff are made redundant. Late September 1992 Four
women staff members arrested: Gaye
Davidson, Jan Buckingham, Debbie Gillespie and Marie Keys. November 1992 Depositions
hearings held for Ellis and four other staff. All the defendants are
sent to trial. May 1993 Davidson, Buckingham, Gillespie and Keys are discharged
without coming to trial. 5 June 1993 After a six
week trial Ellis is found guilty on 16 counts involving seven children. 15 June 1993 Ellis sentenced
to 10 year prison term. 1994 Court of Appeal
decision Ellis discharged on three
charges involving Child S who claimed that she had lied about all her
allegations. The Court leaves his
sentence unchanged. December 1997 A petition seeking pardon
for Ellis is sent to the Crown.
For Cohen, moral panic generates action groups
(1990:119). Action groups campaign and appeal about the moral panic issue.
They pass resolutions, organise and sign petitions and mount deputations. One
action group of the Cohen type clearly developed in the Creche situation. A
support group for Ellis and the other four staff who were charged developed
under the leadership of Winston Wealleans and Roger Keys, partners of accused
staff members. It is far less clear whether any other of the parent groupings
who became involved on an organised basis constitute the type of action group
Cohen conceptualises. For a lengthy period of time a few parents operated as
an intensely networked group who supported each other and tenaciously
persisted with claims of abuse against Creche staff members. The key issue is
whether this parent grouping was generated by the moral panic as Cohen claims
action groups are or whether a networking of a few parents was crucially and
centrally involved in creating the moral panic. Since there seems to be a
case that some parents were agents that were in part responsible for the
moral panic, Cohen's theory of action groups being the products of moral
panic would thus not seem to adequately explain the part some parents played
in actually creating the Creche situation. Guilliatt's examination of repressed memory and
ritual abuse in Australia leads him to conclude that "a witch-hunt is
not a meaningless or random event. It reflects the latent fears of the
society that spawned it. It is nurtured by those who wield political power
and intellectual influence" (1996:261). The key participants according
to Guilliatt are judges, lawyers, scholars and clergy. Guilliatt is thus
following Cohen and tending to down-play the significance of the part played
by some parents in the Creche situation. Moral panic theory has been considerably extended
and elaborated by Goode and Ben-Yehuda. "Much of moral panics
literature," as Goode and Ben-Yehuda point out, "is devoted to
tracing out the underlying motives of the various actors on the moral panics
stage" (1994:32). With this approach as the central focus of moral panic
theory, it is very pertinent to analyse whether the part played by parents in
the Creche situation is adequately explained by moral panic theory. Of the three versions of moral panic theory, the
grassroots, elite-engineered and interest group (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994:
127-141), the interest group theory provides the most understanding and
strongest explanation of the part that some parents played the Creche
situation. In this theory interest groups are treated as playing an independent
role in generating and sustaining moral panics; "we are saying that they
are, themselves, active movers and shakers" (Goode and Ben-Yehuda,
1994:139). It is not easy to decide how many interest groups
developed among the Creche parents. The parents certainly were divided into
those who strongly alleged that abuse had occurred and those who were either
sceptical or very convinced that abuse had not occurred. Also there was
considerable parental involvement in the interest group which developed as a
support and lobbying group for the accused staff members. This is the group
referred to above under the leadership of Wealleans and Keys. At this point
it is the interest group made up of some of those parents making allegations
of abuse that is of concern. The number of parents involved was small, at
least six and possibly no more than ten. Although few in number, they
certainly can be most appropriately seen as shakers and movers. Everything was kicked off by one parent who became
a core member of this interest group. Mother SI, so identified in another
publication (McLoughlin, 1996:60), complained to the Creche supervisor by
phone on 20 November 1991 about Peter Ellis. She claimed that her son F while
in the bath stated "I don't like Peter's black penis". The
immediate and quick outcome of this initial complaint was the placement of
Ellis on temporary leave. Mother S1 did not leave it at that. Five days later
she contacted Colin Eade, a Christchurch police detective with training in
the investigating of allegations of child sexual abuse. On the same day
Mother SI had her son interviewed by a psychologist from the Social Welfare
Department who was trained in interviewing suspected victims of sexual abuse.
Then at an evening meeting of Creche parents on 2 December, Mother SI became
the focus of attention at one point in the meeting. Upon entering she burst
into tears. She was comforted by Mother C and several others. Out of this
emerged a support group of Mothers C, S2 and others for Mother SI. This was the
beginning of the parental interest group which was to play a very crucial
part in the Creche developments. This group became closely networked and a strong
and influential interest group. Mother S1 remained central. She became
"a virtual telephone-exchange of information, real and imagined, about
the Civic and what supposedly went on there" (McLoughlin, 1996:62). Her
Son F had several videotaped interviews with professionals from the Social
Welfare Department and not once did he present any evidence that indicated
that he had been sexually abused. Disregarding this, Mother SI, who was now
fully in crusading mode, switched her son to another Creche where she soon
made allegations of sexual abuse against a male staff member. Again evidence
of this alleged abuse was not found upon investigation. As recently as July
1995 in a nationally televised documentary, Mother SI was still claiming that
she had no doubts about the veracity of her son's black penis statement
(Assignment, TV 1, 27 July 1995). The intensity and the persistence of the
networking among parents in this interest group is captured well by
McLoughlin. SI discussed allegations with parent J, mother of
L. Charges followed regarding L. Then J told the police she was concerned
another child, SB, had been abused, which caused SB to be interviewed. S1,
S2, J and CX had frequent discussions. C spoke to parent G, leading to G's
son A being interviewed....S1 spoke to AJ who passed on concerns to AD,
mother of children B and C who went on to become complainants. And on it
went. Although the interest group version of moral panic
theory goes some way to explaining the part played by some parents, a
stronger explanation is provided by Best's claims-making theory which is
considered next in connection with the part played by the children (1990). If moral panic theory can be considered to have
limited adequacy in explaining the part played by parents in the Creche
situation, it can be judged as even more inadequate in explaining the part
played by the children who centrally figured in the developments. It is hard
to conceive of these children as moral crusaders, nor did they constitute a
moral panic action group or interest group. Perhaps their part in the
developments needs to be constantly analysed in conjunction with their
parents' involvement. Even when this is done, it would seem that moral panic
theory is found wanting and that Best's theory about claims-making sheds more
light on the situation (1990). Many Creche children were involved with at least
127 undergoing Social Welfare Department videotaped interviews, most only
once. However, some were interviewed several times and at least one six
times. At the trial of Ellis evidence of seven children was presented
resulting in the accused being found guilty on 16 counts. During the
depositions, evidence from 21 children resulted in 48 counts against Ellis.
The evidence of Child S, the oldest of the children, was used to make three
charges. In 1994 during the Court of Appeal process, Child S said she lied
and she retracted all her evidence. It should be noted that the parents of
Child S did not have any regular, on-going contact with any other Creche
parents and they were not participants in any interest group. Child N, the
son of Mother S2 was interviewed five times. He was six years old at the time
of the interviewing and his evidence led to four counts against Ellis. The
complaints consisted of Ellis defecating on him, sticking a stick in his anus
and sodomising him. However, N's claims during interviewing also involved
satanic and ritual abuse. He reported the sacrifice of Andrew, a young child,
and the circle incident in which Creche staff and others danced around naked
Creche children who were kicked in the genitals. These two children are classic examples of primary
claims-makers in Best's theory (1990:87). Children, as primary claims-makers
in situations of alleged sexual, satanic, and ritual abuse, play a very
significant part in how things develop. The primary reason for this is that
severe action may be taken against the accused abusers only on the basis of
what the child claimants say. The claims of the children become paramount if
not sacrosanct as each situation of abuse progresses. Legal action can be
successful on the basis of claims, as in the case of Ellis, without any
physical evidence, confessions or corroborating evidence for the claims.
Hence, Best draws to our attention the importance of children as primary
claims-makers in situations of alleged child sexual abuse that result in
drastic actions occurring for the accused. In the Creche situation a strong case can be made
that some parents were not only the believers and disseminators of children's
claims, but that they were primary-claims makers themselves. Mother SI is a
case in point. Although she attributed the black penis statement to her son,
after professional interviewing, the son did not provide any evidence about
being sexually abused. In the case of Child N, parental coaching became so
obvious that the professional interviewer from the Social Welfare Department
even declined to interview the child on one occasion. His mother was
certainly a primary claims-maker. In fact, she was linked into an
international network of claims-making about sexual, satanic and ritual
abuse. This is obvious as the claims that emanated from her through her son
are carbon copies of claims made in similar cases of alleged abuse in
America. It is worth noting that this mother is similar to
professionals such as psychologists who are involved in primary
claims-making. The claims of these professionals have a global component.
There is a remarkable similarity in the claims that develops internationally
in the absence of virtually any physical evidence. Conference presentations,
workshops and publications provide the basis for professionals becoming
primary claims-makers in situations of alleged sexual, satanic and ritual
abuse. Be the claims-makers children, parents,
professionals, or others, the really important fact is that "as
claimants gain experience, their presentations become more sophisticated,
even cynical. Claims-makers learn ways to mobilize and maintain public
support; they learn how to get press coverage by constructing claims that are
newsworthy; and they learn how to identify key policymakers and recognize the
levers that can move policy" (Best, 1990:42). In the remainder of this paper we move on to
consider other parties that played major parts in the Creche developments and
to examine how adequately moral panic theory explains their involvement. The
media played an immense part in the alleged child abuse developments in the
Creche situation and, as pointed out above, using moral panic theory Hill and
Barnett have systematically analysed the media's part (1994:236-243).
Documenting media involvement is a major strength of Cohen's version of moral
panic theory (1990:161-166). The police became involved in the Creche situation
shortly after the first allegation of child abuse was made against Ellis.
Their involvement grew and soon became a large scale investigation. Their
part in developments was central. The police decided who was to be charged,
what charges were to be laid and what counts to back up with evidence at the
depositions. Moral panic theory predicts that the police participation
involves broadening the scope of law enforcement, increasing its intensity
and in the process taking overly zealous action (Cohen, 1990:86-87; Goode and
Ben-Yehuda, 1994:27). There is strong evidence that moral panic theory
explains the police activity in the Creche situation very well. Very early in
their investigation the police were systematically looking for evidence of
satanic and ritual abuse. They quickly broadened out the scope of the enquiry
beyond sexual abuse. Further, the police decision to obtain warrants to
search the homes of five female Creche staff members from an elderly Justice
of the Peace rather than from a registrar or judge at the district court is
an excellent example of an overly zealous action. A number of professional experts played very
significant parts in the Creche situation. Besides the Social Welfare
Department staff who carried out the many videotaped interviews with Creche
children, there were social workers, counsellors, and at least one
psychologist and one psychiatrist who are attributed with major involvement.
The psychologist was employed to do a report of the Creche situation for the
Creche owners, the Christchurch City Council. This report was very critical
of the Creche and some staff and Ellis, the alleged perpetrator of most of
the abuse, in particular (Brett, 1993:58-59). The psychiatrist was consulted
extensively and made numerous public statements about the symptoms of abuse
and the appropriate measures for parents to take concerning suspected abuse
of their children. Cohen's version of moral panic theory only briefly
mentions these professionals as socially accredited experts and Goode and
Ben-Yehuda do not have a category of actors which covers such participants
(1994:24-29). If we turn again to claims-making theory, we find that Best treats
these professionals as insider claims-makers in a competitive social problems
marketplace. They are specialists who have the expertise about what should be
done and are expected to handle the problem. The professionals, according to
Best, belong to pressure groups which are trying to get others to respond to
claims when a social problem is not yet well established. It can involve
protecting or extending professional areas of jurisdiction as well as a
competition for scarce resources (Best, 1990: 13-14, 78). This interesting
interpretation of the part played by professionals takes the analysis well
out of the field of moral panic and involves reformulation of the
developments along quite different lines. The area of child abuse in Best's
theory becomes a base for further claims-making as have other areas in which
children have been threatened and along the way each area of threat has
"benefited from the support of a growing number of professionals and
laypeople already concerned with child protection" (1990:180, emphasis
added). The Accident Compensation Corporation was another
party that came into the Creche situation. In the early 1990s the Commission
had the policy of paying lump sums of $ 10,000 on the basis of claims of
sexual abuse. At a large meeting of Creche parents on 31 March 1992, Accident
Compensation Corporation claim forms were distributed. ACC involvement was
also initiated in other ways. A City Council social worker presented one set
of parents with ACC claim forms during a home visit and informed them that
they should submit quickly because lump sum payments were soon to be
discontinued. The same parents were further advised to claim now and make up
their mind later about whether they had a basis for claiming. ACC paid more
than $500,000 to Creche claimants. Some parents claimed for each incident of
alleged abuse against a child. One child was the basis of five claims and
another four. ACC paid on the basis of some allegations even when charges
were not laid (McLoughlin, 1996:62). Goode and Ben-Yehuda's version of moral panic
theory in part accounts for ACC involvement by analysing the motives of the
actors in terms of moral and material interests (1994:124). Motives may
centre on deeply and genuinely felt values and action taken on moral grounds.
In contrast, material interests may prevail with the actor standing to gain
something of value such as power, wealth or ownership of resources. A clear
case can be made that the ACC applications by parents could be associated
with motives where material interests predominated. It is, however, more
difficult for the theory to account for the up-front, if not zealous manner,
in which ACC claims-making was presented to the parents. The theory does not
really explain why organisers of the large parents' meeting and then
professionals such as social workers were so instrumentally and insistently
involved in the ACC claims-making process. In conclusion, moral panic theory is found wanting
when it comes to an explanation of two of the central parties in the this
situation of alleged child abuse: (1) the parents and their children as
complainants and (2) the alleged abusers, staff of the Creche and the mother
of one staff member. Inadequate explanation of the nature of involvement of
the children and parents is most serious. After all, it was parents and
children who initiated the situation by making claims of abuse and it was
children and parents who persistently and consistently pursued claims-making
with the police, professionals in the child protection area and with the
media, often in a very public manner but never in a completely open way as
the law requires name suppression of both children as complainants and their
parents. Best's claims-making theory goes a considerable way to explaining
the part that children and parents played in this situation of alleged child
abuse (1990). First and foremost, these participants need to be seem as
claims-makers and the process of claims-making needs to be most closely
scrutinised by anyone who has to deal in any way with allegations of child
abuse. Turning to the other party, neither moral panic
theory or claims-making theory as currently formulated has much capacity to
explain the part that the alleged perpetrators of abuse played in the Creche
situation. This party included several female staff, four of who were charged
along with the male staff member, Ellis. The allegations even broadened out
to include the mother of Ellis. Moral panic theory speaks of the creation of
folk devils who are the personification of evil (Cohen, 1990:41-43). There
is, however, little evidence that any of the alleged perpetrators came close
to being seen as folk devils. Even Ellis cannot be adequately explained in
this way. For Ellis to be seen as a folk devil would entail all representatives
of the category of male early childhood worker being demonised as folk
devils. Such is not the case in New Zealand society. Both moral panic theory and claims-making theory
are social constructionist in orientation and this theoretical orientation
neglects or downplays the significance of the activity or lack of activity of
real embodied persons. This is not to suggest that either theory could not be
expanded to incorporate the alleged perpetrators as playing an integral part
in developments, nor is it to suggest that this party needs to been seen as
playing anywhere close to a central stage part in the process of
claims-making about abuse. However, for a strong, comprehensive explanation,
the alleged perpetrators do need to be taken into account in a really
adequate theory. At this stage, both moral panic theory and claims-making
theory require further extension. Finally, an assessment of moral panic theory does
need to consider Cohen's claim that he pays "less attention to the
actors than to the audience" (1990:27). From our analysis of the Creche
situation in Christchurch in the early 1990s, it becomes clear that actors as
well as audience do significantly play a part in developments over alleged
child abuse. Goode and Ben-Yehuda certainly redress this issue by dealing
explicitly with actors in situations of moral panic, but there formulation
does not fully account for all the actors who had a strong influence in the
Creche developments. So, Cohen's theory can be viewed as one-sided and the
elaboration of it by Goode and Ben-Yehuda as needing to be pushed even
further.
Barnett, Jenny and Hill, Michael,
1993. "When the devil came to Christchurch", Australian
Religion Studies REVIEW, 6(2):25-30. Best, Joel, 1990. Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern about Child-Victims,
Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Brett, Cate, "Beyond
the Civic Creche Case", North and South, September 1993, 54-70, Cohen, Stanley, 1990. Folk Devils & Moral Panics: The
Creation of the Mods and Rockers, Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Assignment, "Ellis
through the looking glass", TV 1, 27 July 1995. Goode, Erich and Ben-Yehuda, Nachman,
1994. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, Oxford,
Blackwell. Guilliatt, Richard, 1996. Talk of the
devil: Repressed Memory & Ritual Abuse Witch-Hunt, Melbourne, Text
Publishing. Hill, Michael and Barnett, Jenny,
1994. "Religion and deviance", in Paul F Green, ed., Studies
in New Zealand Social Problems, Palmerston North, Dunmore, 231-249. McLoughlin, David, "Second
thoughts on the Christchurch Civic Creche case: Has justice failed Peter
Ellis?" North & South,
August 1996, 54-69. Topp, Chris, "Parents
in terror of abuse discovery", The Press, 23 March 1992, 1. |
