Family Court Survey, Part 2: A Numbers Game — The Believers vs Non-Believers and the Spineless
- Details
- Category: Australian Antipaedophile Party
- Created: Thursday, 22 November 2018 19:04
- Written by Dee McLachlan - Gumshoe News
As I write Part 2 this evening (November 21, 2018), there are now 64 responses.
This Part 2 concerns a “numbers game“. How many people did the child tell? How many people believed? How many cases involve the child being believed and yet help was not forthcoming? And how many were preventing the child being helped?
I regret not asking another number: “How many politicians did you try write to? And how many responded to help?”
But first, where do the responders live? They replied from all across Australia — from major cities and rural areas: NSW (22), QLD (16), VIC (11), SA (6), WA (7) and TAS (3). Of the 62 people who disclosed their State, there is no one from NT.
The Sexual Abuse
The Survey was all about sexual abuse. So, before we talk numbers, what did the children have to endure?
I was reluctant to ask this question, but I did (near the end of the survey).
I asked: “What abuse do you believe occurred — or was disclosed in some way?” [multiple choice]
7 replied that their children did not want to say. Understandable. I wonder how many children never disclose because they hold internal deep shame — or are threatened to hold “their secret”.
- 33 touching, fiddling
- 12 ‘milking the cow’ etc
- 10 photography, camera flashes
- 16 penetration
- 9 bleeding rectum
- 25 injuries, scars
- 23 rashes, swelling, medical issues
- 7 descriptions of sex toys
- 7 rituals
- 6 Urolagnia (pee on), fetishes
- 29 other (I wonder what they were? I’m sorry I did not ask)
And now for one of the most revealing answers from the Survey.
Countless Disclosures – The Numbers Game
I asked the question: “How many people has your child disclosed to so far?”
I expected most people would say between 1 and 4. I had heard children are sometimes extremely reticent to speak out. But the answers were a surprise.
About half of the people said that their child disclosed to between 3 and 7 people. The other half said their child disclosed to 8 or MORE people. Some examples:
“Dozens,”
“disclosed witnessing the oral sex to more than 10 people…,”
“Approx 20 re: sexual abuse. 30 plus re: physical abuse”,
“fourteen people”,
“To many to count.”
One written response was about a child that was still pre-verbal, but was smelling of semen. A doctor thought the smell, redness in the vagina and bottom region, including a creamy discharge, was consistent with baby thrush. But the tested sample came back Negative for thrush. God help us!
There was another alarming response. A child had disclosed abuse to a number of people in the family, and a doctor — but because the child would not go into formal interview room ALONE with JIRT staff, the case was CLOSED.
I hope outside readers are getting the picture. I’d say this is worse than the Church cover-ups exposed in the Royal Commission.
Believing or Not believing
The next part of the Survey asked four simple questions:
1 – Who DID believe your child? Did someone (even one person) from the categories below believe your child?
Lots of people believed the child’s disclosures. Family mostly believed (48), and so did doctors (26) and the parent’s psychologists/psychiatrist (36). Others (16).
So far, only one ICL (independent child lawyer) believed the child, and one judge did. What the hell is going on here?
Is someone, or some organisation training certain people NOT to believe children?
We know the court-appointed “expert”, Rikard Bell, stated that 90% of these disclosures and claims were “UNFOUNDED”. (Lies?) He said this in an ABC interview, along with other views.
Where did this culture of disbelieving the child and the protective parent arise? Much of it was prescribed to parental alienation (now discredited), but it seems the same view has morphed into new terminology.
2 – Who did NOT believe your child? Did someone (even one person) from the categories below not believe your child?
There is a broad spectrum of disbelief. The most disbelieving people are:
- 43 – The Judge
- 41 – ICL – Independent child lawyer
- 35 – Court reporters, supervision services
- 34 – Court appointed experts
- 31 – Police
- 31 – Child protective Services
Court appointed psychiatrists (19), social workers (19), and even family get a mention (10).
The judges are the most disbelieving. Extraordinary. Maybe the prime minister should give them a talking to.
Prime Minister Morrison said in his National Apology to victims of Institutional abuse:
“…we can promise a country where we commit to hear and believe our children, to work together to keep children safe, to trust them and, most of all, to respect their innocence.”
That must truly sound like a sick joke on those children in the Family Court system.
So why did the Judge not believe? Maybe it was because he prevented people from speaking or testifying in the first place. Judges have discretion to declare anything “inadmissible” in court.
Next we go to the third question.
3 – Who DID BELIEVE your child — but was/were PREVENTED from speaking or testifying in any way?
In 37 of the cases (of the 54 who responded to this question), family members were prevented from testifying — or speaking out for the child. About two thirds. In 21 cases the responder’s psychologist or psychiatrist was prevented from putting in their opinion. (Maybe it would conflict with the Dr-Bell-type-experts appointed by the court.)
Doctors or nurse (17) were prevented from helping the child. So to were social workers (10), police (7) and Child Protective Service officers (7) — and 14 ‘others’.
I’ll quote the Attorney-General’s site, regarding a fair trial or fair hearing:
“The right to a fair trial and a fair hearing applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, and in cases before both courts and tribunals…
“…the procedures… should respect the principle of ‘equality of arms’, which requires that all parties to a proceeding must have a reasonable opportunity of presenting their case under conditions that do not disadvantage them as against other parties to the proceedings.”
It appears the judges are circumventing that principle.
But now to the forth question.
4 – Who DID BELIEVE your child — but did NOTHING TO ASSIST?
Well the police win the gold (22).
Child Protection Services officers (CPS) get the Silver. (18). The Bronze goes jointly to “A doctor, nurse, medical personnel” (11) and “Social workers , supervised visit personnel” (10).
Other categories got a few ticks, including family (9)
Also 9 responders said “the judge/the court.” That is, 9 Judges believed the child — but did nothing. Granted, this conflicts with the first question, where only one Judge believed. I regret I did not formulate the survey with an eye to possible confusion.
It is too early for me to make deductions (read: accusations) about the meaning of this “who believed/who did not act” stuff.
Could it be that the police were instructed not to assist, as it was a Family Court matter? Mary Maxwell assures me there is no such law saying police have to hold back out of deference to the court. “There could never be such a law!”
As for CPS officers, is it that they were worried about losing their job? If so who indicated to them that helping a helpless child would get them sacked?
The Survey didn’t categorize whether these people were: nervous, falsely-instructed, or just plain spineless.
And how many politicians ignored the letters requesting help, and just turned their back?
Let’s face it, whatever the reason, BY THEIR INACTION, they acted against the child.
The Royal Commission informed us that many of those abused at institutions were abused on outings, or maybe Sunday school. They were able to go back to the safety of home. But many of the children associated with these cases have been sent to LIVE with their abuser. Go figure!
The beginning of the article reminds us what abuse they might have been sent back to.
I think it is fair to observe that by not listening to the child, or by not believing the child, various officials have put countless children in harm’s way — maybe affecting them for life.
How can we stand for such atrocities in fair Australia?
[Another two responses just in.]
Source : https://gumshoenews.com/2018/11/22/family-court-survey-part-2-a-numbers-game-the-believers-vs-non-believers-and-the-spineless/
