The Star
Saturday, October 22, 1988.
Child sex abuse: the backlash
by Cate Brett
They call themselves Parents Against
Injustice.
The claim to represent parents or individuals falsely accused of sexually
assaulting a child.
They have asked the Government for a ministerial Inquiry into
It began with a break-in and the theft of a filing cabinet containing
confidential case notes on dozens of sexually abused
Next came an arson attack and the poisoning of a
sexual abuse therapist's family pet.
A series of public notices were placed in
The notices advised parents who believed themselves unjustly accused of
sexually abusing children to make contact through a private box number.
Dozens of people responded. Now the advertisement will run in
PAIN is calling for a ministerial inquiry into the handling of what some
scathingly describe as
Now for the backlash.
Already the horrifying sexual abuse statistics vaunted during this year's
Telethon have come under fierce attack and those who presented them as verifiable
facts'' harshly criticised for deliberately misleading the public, causing
widespread "fear and loathing."
No one is doubting the seriousness of the problem, nor
the extent to which it has remained largely hidden until recent years. What
people have begun questioning is the epidemic-like
proportions of psychologist Miriam Saphira's declaration that one in every four
children will be sexually abused.
Now there has been a new development: A development which mirrors others in
In
At the centre of the crisis which ripped families apart without explanation -
and, in hindsight, without justification-was a cluster of health professionals
using detection methods which have since been fundamentally challenged.
Parents caught up in the
At the end of her inquiry, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss
concluded one of the most worrying features of the
Nobody is suggesting a Cleveland-type scandal is about to erupt in
Professionals in the field speak of the numerous checks and balances which
operate within the network of organisations dealing with child abuse.
But for the
Marriages have been broken, businesses sold, Jobs and homes lost and, worst of
all, fathers separated from children for up to a year on the basis of
accusations they say are false.
Worst of all, they claim, is to have been found guilty without trial and often
without a single charge being laid against them.
"We have been robbed of our children and of our rights to prove our
innocence.
"Every door and every ear is closed against us."
PAIN is referring to the statutory powers of social workers and police to
remove a child from its home and place it in state custody if there are fears
for its safety.
In cases of suspected sexual abuse, those fears may require months of
investigation to substantiate. Months during which the
alleged offender often has no access to his child or to the charges which are
being shaped against him.
Most frequently the standard of evidence mustered is insufficient to be
presented in a criminal court, where the accused must lie found "guilty
beyond reasonable doubt."
Instead, the findings of therapists, psychologists, doctors and social workers
go before the Family Court, where it is decided whether or not there are
sufficient grounds to uphold the alleged abuse.
If the court is satisfied by the evidence, but the accused refuses to admit
guilt, he may be condemned to indefinite separation from his family with no
prospect whatsoever of recourse to a criminal hearing.
Paradoxically, for those who admit guilt, there is the opportunity for
treatment and eventual rehabilitation with their family. For those who protest
their innocence, there is nothing."
For the mothers who are forced to choose between believing their f children or
their spouses, there is the prospect of children in foster care or a broken
marriage.
Which takes us to the heart of the matter Can a child or a therapist be wrong?
Is it possible that in the flurry of moral outrage and horror that has greeted
the child sexual abuse problem, innocent people have
been falsely accused?
Are we simply confronting a group of angry and deeply disturbed sexual abusers
who will not admit their guilt, or are these men genuine victims of a pendulum
which has swung too far, too fast?
A cluster of highly qualified professionals in this city are beginning to give
a tentative "yes" to these questions.
Tentative, because they believe most people accused of sexually abusing
children are guilty. Tentative, because they fear that by raising questions
about the methods of obtaining evidence and the quality of justice meted out to
alleged offenders they may set back the clock on the work being done to protect
children from sexual abuse.
Tentative, above all, because they have no proof – only questions.
§
Questions from psychologists alarmed by transcripts of
interviews with children disclosing sexual abuse, where the use of leading
questions and suggestion prompts visions of Moro bars being produced when a
child finally says “yes, it happened.” Or “yes, daddy did it.”
§
Questions concerning complex clinical issues over the
reliability and validity of the use of anatomically explicit dolls as a
technique for diagnosing abuse.
§
Questions about the standards of objectivity and
professionalism in a field fraught with controversy and dogged by a lack of
hard research.
Questions
that are not popular but questions they feel must be addressed, and addressed
quickly, if we are to avoid a