Archive for the ‘Child Abuse’ Category
The Politics of Child Abuse
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.
-Albert Einstein
If one were to summarise all abuse case outcomes, it would be factual to establish that child abuse is only recognised as criminal when it has not been perpetrated by the state or its actors.
In both the child protection and the family court system, cases where the government is responsible for the abuse go unchallenged by the public and independent organisations. This is because both laws surrounding children restrict publication. The argument for restriction is that it “protects” the names of the children involved. In ABCs Law Report titled “Restrictions on media coverage of child protection and family court matters“, journalists raised cases where the child abuse was not being addressed. The story with the cases and a variety of commentary provided an evidential backdrop on the reasons why suppressing deaths and abuse of children is not being protective. It highlighted how the government had misused children’s rights as a means to a political end.
The inquiry into family law was purely based on politics as most of the submissions were from men’s groups. All of these groups requested laws aligned entirely with their own interests. When groups against child abuse began to appear regularly in the Australian media spotlight, men’s groups responded with political blackmail:
I know that separated groups, fathers’ groups in particular, shared parenting groups can conjure up over a million votes and that’s something that I think the Government will take into account. – Michael Green
No doubt, that men’s groups have influenced the general population to believe that men are far more disadvantaged than children and women, that their rights must be taken into consideration above all others. This is reflected in the survey findings on community attitudes on violence against women. Some members of society even believe that it is ok to rape. It should not be a reason for politicians to see it as an opportunity to lower the rape law bar so that they can appease the growing population of rapists. There needs to be a point where popularity is not the drive for our leaders.
Posted via web from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous
Professor Challenges courts behavior on child abuse
Professor Freda Briggs, challenged the courts on their reactions to child abuse with recent decisions resulting in sending children to abusers.
Professor labels courts ignorant and naïve
Posted Apr 12 2010, 07:43 PM by Lawyers Weekly
Child protection expert, Professor Freda Briggs, has slammed Australian courts for their ignorance and naivety in child sexual abuse cases, calling for statutory training of all family court judges and magistrates.
As a member of the National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) expert advisory panel, Briggs said Australian courts are now becoming renowned worldwide as turning a blind eye to paedophiles and child sexual abuse within the family.
She adds that, according to police experts, Australia’s reputation for handing out soft sentences has resulted in paedophiles purposely travelling to Australia from other countries where they would face a 25 year sentence for a similar offence.
Expressing concern about Australia’s approach to the issue of child protection, Briggs said there is an alarming lack of understanding and knowledge among family court judges and magistrates regarding child sexual abuse and its ramifications.
Briggs is concerned about the number of children who are being ordered by family court judges into residency or contact with parents who are acknowledged to be child sex offenders, placing the children atrisk of abuse.
According to Briggs, judges and magistrates need to be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the most recent research findings regarding child sexual offenders, their modus operandi and the effects of abuse on children.
Providing examples of how this lack of knowledge amongst the family courts of Australia has led to a number of offenders being given less than appropriate orders, Briggs quoted Californian Judge Peggy Fulton Hora, who recently expressed amazement that Australia does not impose mandatory training for newly appointed judges.
“The need for mandatory education has never been more obvious than in recent weeks. First, a family court judge in Tasmania thought it was appropriate to make little children responsible for their own protection from a convicted child sex offender who was acknowledged to be a risk.
“Seemingly the judge thought that daylight protects children from sexual abuse…Clearly this man needs to be educated about the grooming methods used by child sex offenders,” Briggs said in a statement.
Giving other examples highlighting the need for training and education, Briggs emphasised that judges need to “learn about domestic violence and its effects on children’s brain development” and that “only around 1.8 per cent of reported child sex offenders are convicted in this country”.
Endorsing and supporting Briggs’ concerns and calls for training, the NCCPS has asked for the AttorneyGeneral to address this issue immediately.
- Churches lobby against child victim time limits
Related Articles
Child Abuse: Does Australia Really Take it Seriously?
The submissions for the shared parenting bill had many from mens groups that even doubled up in some cases, but also from child advocacy groups, womens groups that were rightfully concerned about the proposed changes.
The Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate 