Observations from an insider in the Family Court of Australia.

DOCS: Department of Community Services (NSW)

NSW: New South Wales

The Kinsey Report of the 1940’s - presented, in a sanitised form, to the Australian community in the 1950’s - gave the Australian public its first media backed, albeit titillating, introduction to human sexual awareness and behaviour. Its contents had the clergy making comments of disapproval from their pulpits and journalists reaching for their ‘biros’. The well founded allegation that Kinsey and some of his associates were suspected pederasts, was conveniently overlooked by the Australian media at the time.

Kinsey, a Professor of Biology and authority on the taxonomy of gall wasps and edible wild plants in South Eastern America, without any other related qualifications, had his pornographic laboratory experiments in human sexual behaviour given private and government financial backing. However, when the Rockefellar and the National Research Foundations learned of Kinsey’s laboratory experiments on children they withdrew further funding, after which Kinsey had to rely on the American National Institute of Mental Health to publish his second book - Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female.

In the mid-eighties, without the publicity given to Kinsey, the Australian community became the recipient of an imported experimental agenda of child protection formulated and espoused by another unqualified American. The founder of these experimental and unscientifically based procedures was Kee Mcfarlane, who rose into prominence in the 70’s to became one of the leading figures in the American child sexual abuse detection hierarchy. "Her qualifications - a Fine Arts degree. Her expertise - writing grand proposals." Like Kinsey, McFarlane’s lack of credentials was also ignored by the American vote chasing legislators as she launched her definitive ‘grand proposal’ with political backing and approval of a concerned public sensitised with her visions of immanent child sexual abuse.

McFarlane’s agenda involved conditioning the public to a perceived epidemic of child sexual abuse at all levels of society, through provocative television advertisements and media appearances. One Australian television advertisement showed a silent and trusting child being led away by a father figure, accompanied by a cryptic message to guard against child sexual abuse. Little wonder, that the natural desire to combat this spectre of child abuse quickly became a vote winner for ambitious politicians. This media driven message was an irresistible formula to a NSW premier who, assisted by such provocative advertising, had no hesitation in hitching onto this sure-fire way to electoral popularity.

Unfortunately, what the American and Australian communities thought to be a natural reaffirmation of child protection and awareness, in fact, turned out to be a manifesto of groundless suspicion, ad hoc accusations, arbitrary judgments, premature condemnation and trial by media. From that time on, the premise of innocent until proven guilty disappeared from any dialogue between the manifesto’s operatives and the accused.

"The notorious Margaret Kelly Michaels case and the McMartin Pre-school Trial fiasco in America are stark testimony to McFarlane’s flawed investigation techniques, which are not only unscientifically based, but are now enshrined in the American System of Child Protection."

Australia’s own Mr Bubbles case and the debacle involving a religious sect should have alerted our community as to the crass ineptness of this style of investigation during which the waters of credibility were irrevocably ‘muddied’ through inept and misleading interviewing techniques. The McMartin Pre-school Trials were portrayed graphically in the movie Indictment, directed by Oliver Stone.

In my opinion, DOCS operatives and similar agencies are not qualified or experienced to conduct assessment of children on such a grand scale as suggested in their own statistics of confirmed child sexual abuse. This is evidenced in the thousands of instances where their alleged claims have been found to be uncorroborated, unproven and therefore probably false. In my opinion, the result of this built in lack of expertise, displayed by these government instrumentalities, is that children and adults have been made unwilling victims in a suspect experiment in child sexual abuse assessment and detection.

In 1991 a leading Victorian Clinical Psychologist and part time lecturer at a prominent University was concerned as to the lack of qualified people in the field of Child Sexual Abuse Assessment. He was well aware as to the absence of proper facilities and inadequate level of training available to aspiring ‘interviewers’, who were actively questioning children in this highly sensitive area of suspected sexual abuse. The doctor explained, "the younger the child the less one should be inclined to question that child - if at all." He added, in words to the effect:

It seems to me, that unqualified or inadequately trained personnel tasked with interviewing young children to prove sexual abuse are entering an area that is outside their area of expertise and potentially damaging to the subject child’s well being. These inept operatives, by imposing sexual inferences on young undeveloped minds concerning matters far beyond the child’s comprehension or cognition, are unwittingly placing themselves in the same league as the Kinsey experimenters. The manipulation of young minds through suggestion and leading questions directed at the child’s crotch, on the presumption that the child’s responses are proof of sexual abuse, may well compare with Kinsey’s practice of physically stimulating children’s genitalia on the presumption that the child’s reflexes are proof of the child’s latent sexuality.

It is my opinion that, in the past fifteen years, the insidious invasion of a child’s suggestibility by inept child sexual abuse interviewers, has been instrumental in more children becoming victims of manufactured ‘sexual abuse’ than actual instances of this abuse. Research carried out into children’s suggestibility and memory concluded that:

In the mid -1980s the trend towards arousing awareness in young undeveloped minds was introduced into pre-school and primary schools on the premise of protecting children from possible sexual abuse by adults and older children. Some pre-schoolers in Victoria are actually shown anatomically correct dolls, where male and female genitalia became the focus of attention in their little minds, while penis and vagina became a household word.

As protective as this first seemed to concerned parents, it was the niche that enabled radical minorities to infiltrate the school system where possible sexual abuse awareness is now introduced as some significant part of the school curriculum. This program, in my opinion, eventually led to promiscuity by the young on an unprecedented scale, where High School students prematurely pre-conditioned through these programs are ‘ready’ for sexual experimentation by the time they graduate from Primary. The wrong messages were obviously given through unnecessary and intrusive sex instruction in these children’s formative years. The remedy for this, in my opinion, would be to take sex instruction out of the Primary School classrooms. This form of protective instruction is the parents or guardians domain, not that of some well meaning police officer or overzealous welfare worker cruising school yards.

The tenets of sexual awareness of basic child protection have been around for centuries, it is known as common-sense garden variety parenting, not the present model of bureaucratic intrusion on behalf of a minority, who have traded their parental instincts for a psychologically driven confusion of cliches and half–truths. The result of all this is that many parents have been over sensitised into a paranoia of ‘pending’ child sexual abuse instead of nurturing their common sense awareness of child protection.

Some parents are now forever on the ‘lookout’ for signs of sexual abuse in every day life. The message given to them is to be on the alert and recognise, not only the misleading list of alleged sexual abuse indicators disseminated by child welfare workers, but ‘disclosures’ of sexual abuse that a child may be trying to communicate to you.

The simple message ‘to beware of the boogeyman’ managed to strike fear in my heart as a child, whereas the spectre of ‘good and bad touching’ was never a consideration. There is no substitute for vigilant arms length supervision tempered with the common sense of knowing where your child is at all times during those important developing years. It is no surprise or cause for concern, that parents and close relative do the most touching of these little ones during their young formative years. Why stink-up essential loving relations of a young child to his/her parents and relatives with unnecessary sensitising garbage of good and bad touching? Since ‘good and bad touching’ was introduced into the community, there have been thousands more false abuse allegations made than the proven instances of child sexual abuse.

My personal opinion is that parents who adopt the present child protection programs are running another agenda and it sure has nothing to do with looking after their own kids. It’s all to do with ‘others’ looking after their children while those particular parents go about pursuing their own self interests. Parents who make sacrifices to devote ‘full time’ care to their young charges during the child’s first seven years are becoming a rare commodity, I feel sure that those same parents would tell the ‘good touch / bad touch’ peddlers what they could do with their stinky agendas. In my opinion, it is better for children to graduate naively ignorant of their sexual potential rather than ‘street-wise’ immature novices ready for sexual experimentation.

Kinsey would be delighted with the present program as by the time the children leave Primary School they are not only street wise, but are encouraged to graduate to the streets if parental control, once called family discipline, is considered too harsh by these same interfering bureaucrats.

Parental control was literally hijacked by our vote chasing politicians who introduced the American version of Children’s Rights Legislation, that was eventually to give rise to an unprecedented number of street kids. This, in my opinion, has provided unfettered access to our young by pederasts and drug pushers.

I recall listening to one social worker, operating in Sydney’s King’s Cross, who featured in an award winning expose on ‘TV’ where she was bemoaning the fact that male teenage children were being prostituted in a building known to police as a pederast haunt. While the exploitation of these children had been ‘known’ to her and the police for some weeks, she inexplicably waited for her moment of glory to comment to the award-chasing journalist. There was no talk of ‘rescuing’ the victims, only allegations that police had been using the knowledge as to the identity of the pederasts as part of a crime control strategy - all this presumably at the children’s expense.

The alarming increase in street kid numbers in the eighties made Australia ripe for child protection on a grand scale - the politicians and bureaucrats who were responsible for this mess now arrogantly came to the fore with another grand plan - a Child Protection Authority with teeth. This revamped instrumentality introduced the best and worst of child protection programs. The worst of which, in my opinion, has to be the Child Sexual Abuse Protection Units.

A witch-hunt mentality emerged in earnest during the mid eighties as Australia literally became a ‘Little America’ overnight - a nation of accusers and litigants - adding to the coffers of the legal profession, while depleting the self esteem of thousands of innocent children and adults. Too ready access to Legal Aid and the lure of victim’s compensation, further smoothed the way for this litigious onslaught, aimed mainly against males, as the spectre of child sexual abuse appeared ad nauseam in the media. The dissemination of child protection misinformation by misguided child protection zealots resulted in chaos and confusion, as parents started notifying thousands of alleged cases of child sexual abuse in all States.

Inappropriate touching classes in schools in some parts of Victoria gave parents a crash course in child sexual abuse recognition, affecting one district so badly that a circuit Magistrate felt it necessary to comment on the inordinate number of fanciful accusations of child sexual abuse coming before him. These misinformed, and sometimes, mischievous operatives are invariably supported by the Victorian CIB, who add to the accusing parent’s paranoia when embellishing alleged ‘disclosures’ to the point of stupidity.

Among the aims of the DOCS Child Sexual Abuse detection agenda, when interviewing children of tender years (two to six years of age) is to obtain and act upon what are termed ‘disclosures’ from the alleged victim. DOCS officers are urged to look for displays of sexual behaviour claimed to be Sexual Abuse Indicators’. As it turns out most, if not all, of these alleged indicators could be attributed to any child placed under stress through anything but sexual abuse.

In my experience of studying alleged child sexual abuse cases, there has never been a corroborated instance where the assessment officer had actually described behaviour consistent with that of a sexually abused child throughout the investigating period. Instead in these cases it was the anecdotal evidence of the notifying parent that was inexplicably accepted without question and parroted as fact by the same officers, who then had the arrogance to assess the child as a ‘confirmed’ victim of sexual abuse.

Quoting from The Bulletin 6 December 1994, in which a Victorian based child sexual abuse expert was questioned about the Department’s role concerning false accusations of sexual abuse against school teachers replied:

"In Victoria, highly qualified professionals, including paediatricians and psychotherapists, examine a wide range of circumstances including a child’s home and school environment, before deciding if a reported case is valid. You never take one person’s word. You need to have an open mind and get the full psycho-social picture." The expert then went on to say that, "Notwithstanding the present controversy, it is important to remember that only a small portion of genuine abuse cases probably ever surface."

In the light of my investigation, the previous statement could only be viewed with extreme cynicism.

In the Family Court experience the smattering of knowledge, with respect to child sexual abuse indicators as explained by social workers to concerned parents, can be used mischievously in the vitriolic atmosphere of bitter access and custody disputes. The consequent flow of accusations alleging child sexual abuse became the means by which some parents were able to deprive former partners (usually males) dignified access to children of the relationship.

It is with some concern that, after many years in a Family Court environment dedicated to family and children’s interests, I have formed opinions shaped by observation and research. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that possibly thousands of Australian children and adults have, over the years, been made unwitting pawns in bureaucracy’s determined search for child sexual abuse offenders - real and imagined. I started ‘turning over stones’ to find answers to questions that the media was too timid or out of touch to recognise. The aim of my investigation was to try and restore some semblance of balance into the myth of rampant child sexual abuse trumpeted over the news media during the 1980s and early 90s.

When the media parrots headline grabbing stories and statistics as to the extent of alleged child sexual abuse in Australia, the public must cringe at the inference that ours is a nation of child abusers and deviants. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in the meantime, is being stifled by fanciful and misleading DOCS statistics.

Annual CPA statistics, compiled from DOCS records, claim thousands of alleged confirmed cases of child sexual abuse in NSW alone in the last ten years - approximately thirty five thousand. However, during those years not one investigative journalist has had the courage to ask a most basic and important question. "Why is it that, of the thousands of alleged cases classified by DOCS as Actual - Confirmed Child Sexual Abuse, less than 3% of these result in convictions?"

I was soon to realise that the child protection operatives refused to admit that the possibility of false allegations even exist while they repeatedly classify thousands of children annually as victims of Actual - Confirmed Child Sexual Abuse in the absence of proper clinical evidence. This practice becomes abusive when children are subjected to unnecessary interrogation sessions and sexual abuse rehabilitation therapy as a consequence of erroneous assessments that classify them as actual victims of sexual abuse when, in fact, they are not. In my opinion, this abuse is encouraged when suspect evidence, presented as factual while rarely accepted as truthful, goes virtually unchallenged through our court system. Under these circumstances this fanciful material is given unwarranted credibility when the judiciary fails to censure the authors of this nonsense.

The reluctance of courts to enforce harsher disciplinary action against inept welfare workers is unconscionable, especially in the absence of appropriate comment setting out the serious effects their lack of professionalism can have on the children themselves.

When proven instances of horrific child sexual abuse are brought to the public’s attention I invariably become overwhelmed with indecision and concern as to the pursuit of my own goal, that being to bring into perspective the blatant misinformation surrounding alleged child sexual abuse in this country.

In my opinion, child abuse protection and detection agencies never publicly accept responsibility for mistakes that cause so much distress to thousands of innocent people. Notwithstanding my own limited investigation, the apparent scale of their errors, and the ineptness and dishonesty that accompanies them, is overwhelming. This worrying trend, revealed in the techniques employed by these operatives, goes well beyond acceptable lapses of efficiency.

Such lapses could, perhaps, be considered an ‘acceptable’ attrition rate if there was a ratio of five false cases of alleged child sexual abuse to every hundred proven cases. However, when the reverse is more likely, and where 95% or more of cases given this classification are probably false, then this state of affairs cries out for investigation and correction. When the question arises as to why there seems to be a reluctance to discuss matters involving false accusations, the reply from most professionals representing DOCS is that:

"It would not be in children’s best interests for courts to pursue such matters, as to do so would discourage ‘genuine notifiers’ and cause possible further disruption to the subject children."

In my opinion, a more significant reason for the reluctance of DOCS to admit to making false allegations is found implanted in an agenda of secrecy strengthened by specious legislation that gives these operatives virtual immunity from public scrutiny and accountability. This state of affairs becomes clearer with the knowledge that, while mischievous parents may make the allegations, it is these protected agencies that invariably give substance to them. I am confident that my concerns are well founded and demonstrate the reason that the CPA bureaucrats, to cover up the low level of expertise, insist that such protective legislation is necessary.

During 1996 I was made aware of a case in Victoria where a young man was accused of sexually abusing his three-year old cousin in the backyard of her paternal grandparent’s home. It was alleged by the child’s mother that her daughter was, on more than one occasion over a three week period, taken down behind the grandparent’s garage, where, after allegedly sticking his finger in her backside, smeared faeces over her head and face, then forced his fingers into her mouth.

Approximately three months after the accusation was made, the young man was confronted by 5 members of the Victorian CIB (in the presence of his own parents) and accused of the rape of a three year old before being taken to police headquarters for questioning. He was released, unconditionally, an hour later.

The shocked and disgusted man angered by his treatment, nevertheless saw a need to oppose an Intervention Order application filed against him by the child’s mother, when she learned of his unconditional release. While he had no wish to communicate with the child, he saw it as an opportunity to completely vindicate his innocence to relatives made aware of the accusations against him. This decision would have taken an enormous amount of courage, whereas a guilty person would be loath to take such a step, especially after police had seemingly lost interest in him. This unnecessary exposure to judicial scrutiny involved a real element of risk had the Magistrate given a modicum of credence to the mother’s accusations, especially when the CIB were visibly present during the Intervention proceedings!

When questioned in the witness box, the subject child’s mother admitted that the paternal grandparents were at the house at all times during the child’s stay, after which the man’s solicitor, during cross examination, asked the obvious question:

After giving the mother plenty of opportunity to answer this basic question, the patient Magistrate dismissed her application and voiced his disapproval as to the number of similar fanciful cases coming before him in that jurisdiction.

What also appalled me was the fact that the subject child, as a result of this non-event, had been subjected to months of unnecessary Sexual Abuse Rehabilitation therapy by CASA (Children Against Sexual Abuse) organisation. This is the sort of institutionalised child abuse that never hits the headlines, when ‘therapists’ process children as abuse victims on unfounded assumptions.

In this matter, the Magistrate’s disinterest as to the effect of the unnecessary therapy to which the child was subjected, proves the lack of judicial sensitivity as to the children’s real needs when such investigations sour. One asks who ‘de-programs’ a child treated for three months as a victim of an abuse that never happened? This unanswered question is the reason our bureaucrats hide their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that children caught up in this deception can be seriously effected.

When pathetically low conviction rates for alleged child sexual abuse are questioned, the defenders of this investigation process attack the judicial system as the main reason for such poor outcomes. The Victorian explanation and, no doubt the same excuse echoed by all States, is that:

The child protectors are trying desperately to get rid of the criminal court’s safety net, that requires a standard of proof ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’, and replacing it with legislation, where children are concerned, that would accept their ‘disclosures’ without question. It is obvious where children of tender years are involved such legislation would be unthinkable, without the benefit of video taped records of interviews. It should be mandatory for all Child protection investigators to tape all interviews of children where sexual abuse is suspected. Video taped records give both sides of the litigation process, as well as the presiding judge, the opportunity to assess the methods adopted to obtain any alleged disclosures.

While it is accepted that no court in the land would convict a person purely on written records of interviews with alleged victims, the child sexual abuse investigators still prefer to submit written records in the absence of convincing clinical evidence. The innuendo of culpability contained in the written records is obviously more destructive to a defendant’s case, while avoiding the expert rebuttal to which their video and audio taped records of interview were subjected in the past. In short the child protection operatives have no interest in proving that sexual abuse is even a reality, knowing that a smear-campaign in written form, while virtually immune to rebuttal, places the accused in an untenable position.

In many American states, the child sexual abuse industry have judges, prosecutors, lawyers and doctors whose living depends on the same source of funds - The American Department of Health. While Australia is not far behind, our one saving grace is the Separation of Powers between the judiciary and the bureaucracy. There was a failed attempt to corrode those powers at state level, in a NSW referendum on the 25^th Mar1996. However, in spite of this safety net, thousands of innocent people have had their lives turned into muck by under qualified and overzealous operatives hiding behind legislated immunity. I have given a few examples of this in other papers, where one ‘infamous’ case (CCH 1988M&M.) is now used as a precedence in Family Law.

From the moment DOCS operatives launch into unilateral investigations, alleged perpetrators are deemed guilty and, effectively, deprived of natural justice. Only after the unilateral evidence is collected do the police step in and interrogate the ambushed suspect. It is my opinion, since its introduction in the early to mid eighties, this child sexual abuse detection strategy has become open to abuse by unqualified and overzealous investigators within DOCS, the Child Sexual Assault Units and other related agencies viz welfare workers in Women’s Refuges and schools.

This has resulted in exploitation of vulnerable children in a repressive agenda of witch-hunts and fishing expeditions giving rise to fanciful and contrived evidence that, over the years, has suffered massive rejection by our Criminal Courts - both Federal and State.

Such rejection did not deter the child protection zealots from focusing their attention on the Family Court where accusing parents make such claims in the midst of bitter custody or access disputes. The Family court requires a lesser standard of proof to prove culpability and has, too often, accommodated these government funded ‘psycho-cheats’ (interrogators who manipulate children’s suggestibility) resulting in parents either losing access to their children or being subjected to undignified access regimes.

The present system of child psychoanalysis in force by Child Sexual Abuse detection agencies needs to be replaced by objective and clinically correct procedures that can only be the domain of qualified professionals with many years of clinical experience with children of all ages. To that end I leave the reader with the following facts with respect to sexual abuse allegations coming before the Family Court:

(a) It is a common observation that the allegations involve children of 2-5 years of age. With their restricted communication skills they make ideal ‘victims’ for suggestive investigating techniques.

(b) The alleged extremes of the child’s behaviour, invariably claimed by the accusing parent are rarely, if ever, manifest in the presence of the investigating officers during the assessment process. Neither does behaviour attributed to probable sexual abuse manifest itself to other observing professionals - viz, Family Court counsellors or pre-school teachers.

(c) While expected behavioural patterns fail to surface during the investigation itself, these child sexual abuse assessors invariably convey the impression, though the innuendo of their written records, that the alleged sexual abuse is a reality.

(d) It has always intrigued me that a normally heterosexual male, soon after separation and with no prior track record of paedophilia, is suddenly alleged to have adopted the role of a child molester. This sudden onset flies in the face of common sense.

(e) Child sexual abuse allegations are always claimed after the parties have separated and, invariably, in the midst of bitter custody or access disputes. The alleged abuse was never being cited as the reason for the initial break-up of the relationship.

(f) When investigations sour in the absence of corroborative evidence, DOCS will always try to claim that the subject child, nevertheless, is now in fear of the alleged perpetrator, while further contact with the accused should be denied.

These scenarios are, in part or wholly, present in over 98% of cases coming before the Family Court, and while they may not be absolute proof of innocence, this repetitive ‘coincidence’ should go some way to putting the avalanche of allegations into proper perspective.

The low conviction rates for this crime, compared to the huge number of alleged child molesters according to DOCS, speaks for itself. In my opinion, incorrect assessment at the notification stage, has effectively thrown a generation of children onto the scrap-heap - in the mistaken belief that they are victims of the worst abuse of all - that of child sexual abuse - when in fact no such abuse had ever occurred.

[End Part 1]

*****************************************************

The long-term effects for children mistakenly processed as sexual abuse victims are yet to be seriously investigated, while as adults these children could genuinely believe that they are victims of an abuse that never happened. The following is a statement made by a leading NSW clinical child psychologist after investigating a case, at the Family Court’s request, during which she found child sexual abuse allegations against the access father to be false.

"When the primary caretaker, and others in the environment, make claims of abuse which the young child subjectively knows did not happen, it can create genuine confusion for the child’s reality testing. Such confusion can place undesirable pressure on the child’s developing ego and sense of worth. As time goes by the child may grow to believe that abuse has actually occurred, since the child will have little memory of his/her Pre-school years. This belief could cause major issues for the child’s development of self and could impact on the relationship of the falsely accused parent if the child ‘genuinely’ believes that he/she has been abused. The later realisation that he/she had been ‘treated’ for such abuse could reinforce the belief that abuse had occurred. Perceiving one self as a child who has been sexually abused has the propensity to cause later distress, particularly to one’s image and self- esteem."

"We are of the view, as a matter of general principle, when assessing, whether or not, there is a risk to a child if access were to occur, or the welfare of a child could be endangered in the event of access, the ordinary standard of proof must be applied.

In my dissent, I said that I thought that this expressed the test too broadly and I said at 76-927:

"In the present case, the trial judge was not satisfied that the husband had not sexually abused the child. We take to mean that His Honour was not satisfied according to the civil onus. On this footing, His Honour was unable to exclude the possibility that the husband had so abused the child. His Honour obviously concluded that there existed an unacceptable risk that the child would be exposed to sexual abuse if the husband were awarded custody or access."

In my opinion, as a result of my own limited investigations the alleged ‘sophisticated techniques’ employed by DOCS and other agencies in the field of alleged child sexual abuse are unscientifically based, manipulative and, in the main, destructive to the very children they purport to be protecting. It seems that these operatives are poorly trained, and generally lack the skills to interpret alleged children’s ‘disclosures’, especially from those of tender years.

The concerns expressed by this trial judge gave a valuable insight into this case and, in my opinion, was the basis of His Honour’s determination to further his cause of ‘lingering doubts’ instead of insisting that taped evidence be mandatory and dismissing the case outright through lack of substantive evidence.

For example, in this same matter the trial judge had no problem in rejecting the mother’s transcript of her audio taped interview with the subject child as evidence of child sexual abuse. Similarly, the transcript of the audio taped interview by a police Constable, claiming horrendous allegations of child sexual abuse, was only afforded patronising recognition by the trial judge due to the unprofessional and ‘strong arm’ tactics employed by the Constable and the prompting by the child’s mother at the time.

The written records of this alleged expert, revealed explicit adult-influenced responses claimed to be those of the 3 year old girl. These responses, in my opinion, were far too descriptive and brutal as to make her report appear improbable, dishonest and manipulative.

What heightened my suspicions and scepticism in this process, was that the Full Court records show that the expert’s interview with the subject child was conducted immediately after she was briefed by the aforementioned police constable. The passing on of such ‘knowledge’ by the constable would have destroyed any impartiality that she was professionally bound to exercise throughout her own pending interview with the child.

The trial judge, in the meantime, explained that the primary role of this expert was that of a Sexual Abuse Counsellor - not that of a bona fide Psychoanalyst. In my opinion, the latter role would have required more credentials and experience than was displayed by this expert, who subjected the child to many weeks of self serving interrogation sessions.

Preliminary Comment: In my opinion, the findings that allegedly contributed to both trial judge’s lingering doubts, were in stark contrast to other facts available to them at that time. It is one thing for a trial judge to lament the absence of taped evidence in support of the allegations, or the lack of expert rebuttal evidence from the defence. It is another and more serious impediment to natural justice, when vital evidence is overlooked that could put the fathers’ innocence well beyond ‘lingering doubts’.

When perusing the Full Court findings in both these matters for the first time, it would be easy to accept the evidence presented on face value however, after arranging all the relevant material in chronological order, any unequivocal acceptance of facts, on my part, was firmly put to one side.

After years of listening to evidence from the courtroom Bar Table with the expected judicial intervention with questions to clarify possible misunderstandings as to the evidence being presented, I found myself in a role for which I am eminently unqualified in the professional sense. Nevertheless when perusing these cases I found myself looking for answers to questions that kept coming into my head. I found relevant snippets of unanswered information, scattered among the alleged facts, somehow came together to become the basis of my consequent scepticism as to what happened during those hearings. The result is that, in my opinion, all the evidence available in these matters, for whatever reason, was not given proper judicial scrutiny. For instance, the lack of Court protocol exercised by the prosecuting side was conveniently ignored or overlooked by all judges in both these matters (1988 M&M and 1988 B&B). This fact alone opened a Pandora’s box of possibilities such that, in my opinion, clear evidence exists in both cases that compromised the credibility of the accusing mothers, whose truthfulness, or lack of it, was never subjected to serious judicial consideration by either trial judge.

******************************************

Note: Bracketed aside Comments are the writer’s own personal observations and opinions.

In the marriage of ‘M and M’.

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. Judgment delivered 8^thAugust1988.

Full text of judgment as follows:

Family Law - Access - Allegations of child sexual abuse - suspension of access - Manner in which courts at first instance should hear and determine custody and access disputes when allegations of child sexual abuse - Standard of proof to be applied when allegations of child sexual abuse - Consequential result from application of such standard of proof.

This was an appeal by the husband against orders which awarded guardianship and custody of the child of the marriage to the wife and which discharged an earlier access order granted to the husband.

The parties were married in June1982 and finally separated on 26Nov1986 when the wife left the matrimonial home. There was one child of the marriage, a daughter A, born in December 1982.

28Nov1986 the wife applied to the Family Court for guardianship and custody of A together with various other orders, including an order for a period of supervised access while the child was in the father’s care.

05Dec1986 (the hearing date of the wife’s interim application) the husband applied for guardianship, custody and access and for supervised access between the wife and ‘A’. The husband on this occasion was granted (non - supervised) interim access.

15Jan1987 during the hearing of the wife’s interim custody application and injunctions and the husband’s cross applications, the Family Court granted interim custody to the wife and the husband’s existing access orders, made on 05 Dec 1986, remained in place.

27Jan1987 the wife applied for suspension or discharge of the existing access orders alleging that she believed that ‘A’ had been sexually abused by the husband.

11March 1987 the husband’s unsupervised access order was changed to that of supervised access.

The husband’s appeal was on several grounds relating to both errors of law and errors of fact by the trial judge. The Full Court considered various issues including:

(a) The manner in which a court at first instance should hear and determine custody and access disputes where allegations of child sexual abuse have been made.

Held: "It is not appropriate for Family Court judges to conduct cases, in which allegations of child sexual abuse have been made, as criminal trials, which seek to establish the guilt or innocence of one of the parties in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse, with the consequential result that, if the allegations be proved, access will be suspended, whereas if the allegation be not proved, access will be ordered. The issue for the court is not whether a parent sexually abused a child but whether in all the circumstances access should or should not take place, following an evaluation of the various factors referred to in Section 64(1) - now Sec 68F(2) - including any finding in relation to child sexual abuse, while the overriding principle being paramountcy of the welfare of the child. The proper venue for the determination of the guilt or innocence of a parent of a child to an allegation of child sexual abuse is the State Criminal Courts and not the Family Court.

As per the two non-dissenting Judges: If a trial Judge considers, on the balance of probabilities, that the welfare of the child may be endangered or there is a risk that the child may be physically, sexually or emotionally harmed if access were to occur, then a trial Judge may suspend access.

As per the dissenting Judge: Some attempt must be made to quantify the risk that sexual abuse might occur during access before taking the grave step of refusing a parent access to a child. If this is not done there is a real danger that the mere raising of an allegation of sexual abuse will be sufficient to preclude the obtaining of an access order, or the discharge of an existing order. The mere possibility that the granting of an access order will expose a child to sexual abuse is not sufficient to warrant the discharge of an access order and must be qualified. There must be a real and substantial risk of such abuse occurring as a matter of practical reality.

As per the non-dissenting Judges: Section 64 [now Sect 68F(2)] invests the court with a protective jurisdiction where children are concerned, enabling it to make orders for the protection of children at risk, either by suspending access or changing custody. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that there existed a risk to A if the husband were granted access. The finding was open to his Honour on the evidence and was based upon the application of the correct standard of proof.

As per the two non-dissenting Judges: Appeal dismissed.

The dissenting Judge in this case submitted the following argument.

" I respectfully differ from their Honours in their statement that,

**********************

[Comments: A reasonable person would agree that, " the mere possibility that the granting of an access order will expose a child to sexual abuse, is not sufficient to warrant discharge of an access order and must be qualified."

In my opinion, the same may apply to the views of the two non-dissenting judges: " that if a trial judge is of the belief that there is any possibility that the child might be exposed to abuse while in the father’s care, then that access should be denied. " I would add however, that lingering doubts is far too inadequate a reason to deny access, in the meantime, any unacceptable risk must be quantified.

Family Court legislation states, "It is not appropriate for Family Court judges to conduct cases as criminal courts where failure to prove guilt will ensure access and where guilt is proven access will be suspended." In my opinion, in both these cases, an impediment to natural justice occurred when vital evidence was overlooked that would have placed the innocence of both fathers well beyond lingering doubts. ]

Where practicable, I arranged the events and facts in chronological order.

• There was a one-day separation of the parties in 1983, however the wife returned home on the same day from a Refuge Centre, with the two children. ‘A’ now 5 years of age, was born on 06 Dec 1982, and P, the wife’s child from a previous relationship, was born on 01 Jul 1976.
• The parties continued to live together until June 1986, when the wife left the matrimonial home, leaving the child of the marriage with the father, prior to her flying with ‘P’ to Australia five days later.
• Due to the father’s working commitments, ‘A’ was left with the father’s sister on a full time basis - the sister was given frequent help by the paternal grandmother where possible.
• The child’s natural mother, because of the distance involved, did not seek to exercise access to the child - while the father conceded that he would not have allowed the mother to take the child on access to Australia for fear that the daughter would not be returned.
• In August 1986 and, after a phone call during which reconciliation between the parties was discussed, the father flew to Australia and the husband and wife recommenced cohabitation.
• There was a final separation on 26Nov1986, when the wife moved to an Adelaide Women’s Shelter with both children. While there was acrimony between the parties, there was no record of physical violence or abuse prior to the separation.

The trial judge indicated that: "There was a dispute as to the quantum of access which the husband in fact exercised pursuant to the terms of the said orders (Consent Orders on 05Dec1986). His Honour found that between 15Dec1986 and 10Jan1987 the husband, for whatever reason, did not exercise access on at least two occasions."

[Comments: Covering the period between the 15Dec1986 and the 10^thJan1987, the father was entitled to four access occasions as per the orders of the 05^thDec1986. It was unhelpful to see that all judge’s concerned did not define the dates of these two ‘missed’ access occasions, while omitting to mention that the wife denied the father’s access to the child on at least one other occasion. This occasion being Saturday the 24^thJan1987 that coincided with the child’s controversial five day stay at a hospital clinic.

However, the only record of the father being subjected to a supervised access regime was as a result of court orders made on the 11^th Mar 1987. To verify this important fact, I contacted an observer in South Australia close to this case, who assured me that the father had never been subjected to supervised access prior to Mar 11^th 1987, nor were court orders made to that effect prior to that date. There was also no statement to the effect that the father was either denied access or failed to attend access between the 27^thJan1987 and the 11^thMarch1987.

There were, however, statements made by the trial judge that hinted of two supervised access occasions shortly before and leading up to the court appearance on the 11^th Mar1987, however this scenario appears to have been a self serving exercise in judicial license.

The following is a complete list of available unsupervised access days to which the father was entitled between 06^thDec1986 and 11^thMar1987 (as per Orders of the 05^thDec1986). The father’s access was restricted to each Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., unless indicated otherwise:

06 Dec1986 …(10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.)

13 Dec1986, 20 Dec1986

25 Dec1986 (4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.)

27 Dec1986, 03 Jan 1987, 10Jan1987, 17Jan1987

.31 Jan1987, 07 Feb1987, 14 Feb1987, 21 Feb1987, 28 Feb1987, 07 Mar1987.

The dates, 07Feb1987 to 07Mar1987 inclusive, have special significance in the summing up of this case.]

26Nov1986. Final separation - wife moves to an Adelaide Women’s Refuge.

28Nov1986. As a result of certain undisclosed conversations with two women at the Refuge Shelter, the wife files an interim custody application for the child of the marriage, in which she sought orders that the husband be placed under a supervised access regime. Her supporting affidavit did not give a reason for wanting the husband’s access to be supervised. The return date for this application was the 05^th Dec1986. In the meantime, at some undisclosed date, the wife contacts a Sexual Assault Referral Centre (S.A.R.C), and an appointment is made for the younger child ‘A’ to attend the Centre on the 11^thDec1986.

[Comments: The fact that the trial judge never defined the date the wife arranged the child’s referral to the SARC at first seemed unimportant. However, His Honour’s conviction as to when the wife first suspected child sexual abuse was, however, clearly stated on page 67929 of the Full Court Report under the subheading The Wife. "It was the wife’s evidence that she first became aware of the possibility of sexual abuse at 9.15 p.m. on 14^thJan1987 following certain statements made by the child. His Honour was convinced however, that the wife first considered the possibility of the child being sexually abused by the husband early in December 1986, that is six or seven days after the separation and before the husband had exercised any access to the child.".

What persisted in my mind was that the trial judge was so ‘convinced’, yet not precise or explanative, as to when the wife initially suspected sexual abuse. Logic now dictates that, for the trial judge to be so adamant on this point, the only criteria of her alleged ‘suspicion’ that existed in the time frame of ‘six to seven days after separation’ could be the date on which the wife initially contacted the Sexual Assault Referral Centre. Logic demands that for the wife to make this referral at that time to such a place - the spectre of possible child sexual abuse would have been uppermost in her mind.

In my opinion, this contact date must have occurred shortly before, or at the time she filed her custody application on the 27^th Nov 1986 that is, within the trial judge’s enigmatically stated time span. This would also explain why the wife asked that the father be subjected to ‘supervised’ access in her application of the 27^th.

05^thDec1986. Parties attended court for ‘directions’ orders, during which the custody application is given a hearing date scheduled for the 15^thJan1987. By consent of both parties, the husband was granted non-supervised access to the subject child in accordance with dates and times mentioned previously.

[Comments: There is little doubt that the referral date for the child’s SARC appointment was prior to the 05^th December court appearance and, therefore, is of significance to the father’s case for the following reasons:

1. The child’s mother and her solicitor were possibly in contempt of court on the 05^th Dec1986 by omitting to inform the presiding judge of the child’s pending appointment with the Sexual Assault Referral Centre due some five days later. Had the mother informed the court of the child’s pre-arranged referral for sexual abuse assessment, this information would have had a definite bearing on the future access arrangements between the child and the father.
2. That the mother agreed to a non-supervised access regime under these circumstances is a measure of her duplicity and hypocrisy, where the child’s immediate welfare was apparently of little concern to her, had she genuinely believed the child to be in danger of sexual abuse.
3. Had the trial judge been aware of the referral to the SARC, a supervised access regime would have been put in place to ‘protect’ the child and the father from the very chain of events that followed in this orchestrated farce.
4. There is clear evidence that, during two later court-appearances, the wife and her solicitor again failed to mention ongoing ‘sexual abuse’ investigations involving the child while the father was exercising non-supervised access.
5. The fact that these non-disclosures did not appear as issues in the trial judge’s findings indicates that evidence, in favour of the father, was inexplicably ‘overlooked’ throughout the hearings before all judges. On the other hand, the wife’s lack of credibility was reduced to the innocuous paragraph on page 76929 in the Full Court Report as to the trial judge’s certainty when, "the wife first considered the possibility of the child being sexually abused by the husband."

06Dec1986. Husband exercises non- supervised access -10 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

11Dec1986. Mother takes ‘A’ to the S.A.R.C., where a Ms.B interviewed the child and noted that, "the situation did not warrant referral as the child made no disclosures." However, a Dr ‘M’ performed a genital inspection of the little girl, while no abnormalities were reported. The doctor also counselled the mother on possible sexual abuse indicators.

[Comment: During the mother’s conversations with the two women at the Refuge, I am sure that she was there made more than familiar with possible sexual abuse indicators prior to this appointment with Dr M. Otherwise why would she have made the referral to the child sexual assault clinic in the first place?

On the 11^th Dec1986, after previously failing to inform the court of this referral, the mother then tells the SARC medical officer of her concerns and agrees to have her child undergo a genital examination. All this on the basis of a three-hour daytime access on the 06^thDec1986, after claiming that the child had allegedly ‘disclosed’ sexual abuse to her!

The fact that the child apparently made no disclosures of sexual abuse prior to the mother initially making the appointment with the SARC, seems a tad too convenient for the mother to now claim a disclosure, based on a three hour access occasion. In my opinion, due to the lack of proper clinical evidence, the doctor’s action can only be viewed as self-serving and performed solely to isolate the father as a possible child molester through implied innuendo. While the trial judge placed no importance on this interview, the doctor’s action of conducting a genital inspection on the child was, in my opinion, sickening and abhorrent.

The mother, after witnessing her child’s pointless interview with Ms B and the unnecessary genital examination by Dr M, should have put an end to the matter there and then. However, she continued in her obvious determination to discredit the father with the assistance of the S.A.R.C.]

***********************************

13Dec1986. Father exercises access?

19Dec1986. Wife alleged in her affidavit sworn on 31Aug1987 that ‘A’ was upset and crying for her father.

20 Dec1986. Father exercises access?

25Dec1986. Father exercises access?

27 Dec1986. Father exercises access?

On page 76,929 of the Full Court judgment under the sub-heading The wife, second paragraph, the following statement is made:

"His Honour observed that events, which took place on 19^th and 27 Dec 1986, were not referred to in the wife’s affidavit, which she swore on 23 Jan 1987 in support of her application to discharge the existing order for access. "

*******************************

[Comments: As to the two days the father allegedly failed to exercise access, I was unable to find out which days they were, however one can be sure that access was exercised on at least two of the four days within that time frame.

One can only assume that the events of Dec19^th and 27^th, not detailed in the Full Court Report, referred to the child allegedly disclosing sexual abuse by the father. However, evidence showed that the mother in her affidavit of the 23^rdJan1987, had indicated that she did not suspect the father of child sexual abuse before the 14^thJan1987. Therefore, she could not admit in that same affidavit to alleged ‘disclosures’ by the child, involving the father on the 19^th and 27^thDec 1986. This fact is further proof of the mother’s deception and His Honour’s reluctance to highlight the mother’s lack of credibility.]

03 Jan1987. The father exercises access.

10Jan1987. Referring to the Full Court judgment on page 76,929, under the subheading The wife - paragraph three:

"Access occurred on 10 January 1987 and his Honour sets out the conversation which the wife alleges took place between herself and the child shortly thereafter. Following the conversation, which the wife had with the child on this occasion, she telephoned the Sexual Assault Referral Centre on 11^thJan1987 and took the child to the Emergency Department of the F Medical Centre. The child was seen by Dr. C who carried out a physical examination which, although disclosing a somewhat enlarged vaginal entrance, was otherwise inconclusive."

13Jan1987. The mother again takes the child to the S.A.R.C., where the child is allegedly interviewed by Ms ‘B’ for the second time, and from where the child is referred to the South Australian Department of Community and Welfare.

14Jan1987. In a diary produced to the court months later, the mother alleges that at 9.15 p.m. on this date, the child disclosed further abuse and that was the first time she suspected sexual abuse by the father.

[Comments: There was no details of this particular interview by Ms B, nor was there on record that ‘Ms B’ was called to give evidence in support of the wife’s case. There was no mention as to why Ms ‘B’ referred the child to the Department in this instance.

The mother must have had a further memory lapse when referring to 14Jan1987 as the first time she suspected child sexual abuse by the father. I say this, in view of Constable A’s statement claiming that she, "had a conversation with the mother on 10Jan1987, the mother alleging the child had disclosed sexual abuse by the father".

There was also no mention in the Full Court report of the welfare workers from the Refuge being called to give evidence to corroborate the mother’s or their own alleged observations!]

To avoid any confusion arising from the disjointed presentation of facts in the Full Court report, it is vital that events, covering the period between 15thJAN1987 and 11Mar1987, be put into proper sequence and perspective.

15Jan1987. Parties attend court, where orders are made giving the mother interim-custody of ‘A’ and granting the father’s unsupervised access regime to continue as before. Orders were also made for reportable Counselling under the then Sec 62A (1) of the Act.

[Comments: This court appearance on the 15^th Jan 1987 has serious significance for all parties concerned in this matter for the following reasons:

(a) The mother again failed to inform the court of prior and recent investigations into the child’s alleged sexual abuse.

(b) The solicitor for the wife has serious questions to answer. One finds it odd that he/she would not have been aware of the sexual abuse allegations. All matters could and should have been resolved earlier - had the presiding judge at the time been informed during these earlier court appearances.

(c) The wife’s alleged conversations with the child did not appear in her diary, but got into evidence by way of notes in a file produced by Constable ‘A’ and tendered in evidence by the husband’s counsel. The trial judge set out statements allegedly made by the child to the wife at this time (15^th and 16^thJan1987). There is no evidence as to when Constable ‘A’ recorded the wife’s statement, however one can be reasonably assured that it was made after the wife filed her application to terminate the father’s access on the 27^th January 1987.

(d) The court and the child’s father were still oblivious of the efforts of the mother and the two experts to involve him in child sexual abuse, prior to the mother filing her documentation on the 27^th Jan.

(e) Earlier involvement by the court would have obviated the ordeal by DOCS to which this young child was subjected in the weeks and months that followed!

That the trial judge did not comment on the wife’s failure to inform the court of the ongoing child sexual abuse investigation is reprehensible and only supports my belief, that her duplicity was conveniently ignored as an issue by all judge’s concerned.]

16Jan1987. The mother again notes conversations with the child ‘A’. These ‘notes’ were not in the mother’s diary, but appeared on Constable ‘A’s’ file. 17Jan1987. Father exercises unsupervised access, after which the mother alleges that ‘A’ made a drawing, allegedly of the father’s penis, which appeared to be erect. This drawing was annexed to the mother’s affidavit sworn on the 3I Aug 1987. 20Jan1987. According to Miss ‘F’s ‘ report, the mother took the child to a Medical Centre on that day. What transpired there is not revealed.

21Jan1987. At 2.00 a.m. the mother ‘takes’ A to the Accident and Emergency Clinic, claiming that the child was ‘distressed’.

********************************

[Comments:

It is admitted, in an extract from Ms F’s report (page 76,930 of Full Court judgment), that the child was admitted to one clinic on the 20 Jan 1987 and then transferred to the Accident and Emergency Clinic on the 21Jan 1987. However there is no doubt, that the child was finally discharged from the ‘A and E’ clinic on the 26^th Jan 1987.

During this hospitalisation, ‘A’ was subjected to a genital examination by Dr. T, whose report stated: "the vaginal introitus was open and therefore appeared widened and the vulva was slightly reddened. There was no discharge. ‘A’ had no objections to the examination. I found no other abnormalities." (The trial judged ruled the doctor’s alleged findings as inconclusive.)

It is apparent, with the advantage of hindsight, that there was no single incident, relating to the child’s alleged sexual abuse, that could be considered as corroborated evidence that sexual abuse had ever occurred. To that end the trial judge has performed an amazing judicial slight of hand that apparently confused the Full Court judges, causing them to possibly have their own ‘lingering doubts’ as to the father’s innocence.

It is also noted that the trial judge referred as fact, that the wife’s diary recorded such behavior from the child around that time. I have known diaries to be ‘created’ literally overnight - I would need more proof that the mother’s diary on this alleged evidence was ‘genuine’ and capable of corroboration. I say this in the knowledge that this diary would have been available when she swore her affidavit on the 23^rd Jan 1987 (in support of her application on the 29^th Jan 1987). Yet the diary’s contents only appeared at the final hearing some eight months later, suggesting that the diary was ‘created’ well after the 23^rdJan1987. Not to include such evidence in her affidavit on the 23^rdJan1987 would be an extraordinary omission, especially in view of the intensity of her attack on the father’s integrity shortly after separation.

While the hearing did not proceed on the 10^thFeb1987, for whatever reason, the new hearing date was set for 11^thMar1987, the Full Court Report failed to explain why there was no order made to change the father’s existing access regime on the 10^thFeb1987. It again appears that the court was not informed that there was a real danger that non-supervised access by the father could expose the child to possible sexual abuse? Not only did the father have access to his daughter on the 07^th Feb 1987, but there is strong evidence to suggest that the existence of Constable A’s report was withheld from the court during the 10^thFeb1987 court appearance.

What is more significant, is that the father exercised access to the child on the Feb14, 21, and 28 - a fact that was never denied or commented upon by the trial judge or the Full Court judges. There is some suggestion that the ‘experts’ Constable ‘A’ and Ms ‘F’ might have convinced the mother to deny the father access to the child on the 28^th Feb and the 05^th Mar 1987.

At the bottom of the right hand column (page 76929) of the Full Court Report, the trial judge made vague reference to two occasions on which the father’s access was supposedly supervised:

This statement by the trial judge was puzzling, as the reader could well assume that supervised access was ordered at the deferred hearing on the 10Feb1987, or that protection for the child was in place immediately following Constable A’s findings of alleged sexual abuse on the 02^nd Feb 1987. However no such orders were made.

Such an oversight by the judges concerned to clarify the inference of there being supervised access position at this critical time was disappointing, while the significance of such an oversight should have seen this luckless father unconditionally exonerated of any impropriety towards his child.

In my opinion, their failure to stop the father’s access immediately confirms the unthinkable. These people were callously using this child in a conspiracy to gather evidence of child sexual abuse against the father, as this alleged evidence clearly did not exist when the mother filed her application to suspend the father’s access entitlements. This child, in my opinion, had been used as a guinea pig in an inept and crude attempt to ‘create’ evidence unfavorable to the father. It is also painfully obvious that these people never considered the child in any physical or moral danger while in the father’s care, otherwise his access would have been unilaterally terminated weeks before 11^th Mar1987.

It was during the father’s supervised access regime (ordered on 11Mar1987) that Ms ‘F’ made further unsubstantiated claims that the father continued to sexually abuse the child in an outrageous manner! It is unconscionable, that similar finding on Ms ‘F’s’ ‘creativity’ never emerged from the findings of the trial judge or that of the Full Court judges.

Another significant omission was the absence of comments by the trial judge as to the contents of the Family Report ordered on the 15^thJan1987 for the 10^th Feb1987 hearing when on the latter date, the hearing was postponed to 11^thMar 1987. Technically this order left the counsellor approximately one month to prepare the report, whereas the extended hearing date would give the counsellors more time to prepare such a report.

The Family report should have commented on the father’s and mother’s relationship to the subject child and any concerns that the mother may have expressed, if any, to the counsellor as to the father’s future role in ‘A’s’ life. One does not know whether the wife, during her sessions with the counsellor, raised the issue that the child was being currently investigated as a possible victim of sexual abuse - the accused being the father. The omission by the trial judge to raise this issue is typical of His Honour’s selective handling of this case.

To add to what I term deliberate confusion, there is no record in the judgment indicating what day/days the father attended counselling section in compliance with the directions of the Family Report. It is this lack of vital knowledge and the absence of any emphasis being placed on crucial evidence that gives this case a distinct aroma of its own, making it difficult for me to be objective and sympathetic towards the role played by all the accusers in this matter.

This attempt by the Full Court judiciary to present this material as factual was misleading and was apparently inserted in the Full Court Report to establish a scenario of possible sexual abuse with respect to the child. Its inclusion was obviously meant to place the husband and possibly her own brother in a suspicious light, suggesting that the child may have been sexually abused prior to the parties’ separation.

When the parties separated the wife removed the children’s two single bed mattresses from the matrimonial home. The father was caught ‘short’ on the first two access occasions when he and ‘R’ occupied the double bed, while J slept in his own bed on a new mattress the father had just purchased.

That ‘J ‘ preferred to sleep in his own bed and in his own bedroom was perfectly reasonable, while the father and little girl occupied the same double bed on no more than two access occasions was equally appropriate. Whereas on the third access occasion, being the last overnight access, the father had purchased another single bed mattress for his daughter. There was no attempt by the trial judge to deduce whether the subject child slept in her own bed on that last overnight access occasion.

The biased presentation by the two Full Court judges with respect to the children’s temporary sleeping arrangements was mischievous and unwarranted. For others to say it was unwise for the father to sleep with the little girl is sheer humbug, and reflects their own hang-ups and inability to come to terms with their own morals and codes of conduct. It takes a sick mind to infer that a four year old girl could be a sex object to the father, who had no previous track record of paedophilia, and placed unwarranted suspicion on what could only be described as normal and sensitive parental behaviour.

I am sure that, under the circumstances, R would have preferred sleeping with her dad in a double bed than on the sofa, to think otherwise would brand the father a paedophile - of which there was no evidence prior or since. The two Full Court judges achieved what they set out to do by establishing that there was opportunity for the father to sexually molest his own child.

For the two Full Court judges to note as fact that it was not until the wife read Dr. M’s report that she held suspicions of the husband as a possible child molester, is sheer nonsense. The wife was in touch with at least one welfare worker at a school meeting shortly after the children returned from their first court ordered access occasion on 02May1986. It was during this meeting that the wife voiced her concern about the sleeping arrangements for the children.

The trial judge could not be serious to suggest that the mother, while voicing her concerns to the welfare worker, was not harbouring a scenario of possible inappropriate conduct by the father. The learned trial judge would have been well aware of the role played by South Australian welfare officers at the time, when investigating possible child sexual abuse was always high on their agenda.

There are no ‘lingering doubts’ in my mind as to the wife’s intention when she informed the welfare worker that ‘J ‘ might have been jealous of ‘R’ with respect to the sleeping arrangements. The boy’s possible jealousy would have been furthest from the mind of the welfare worker, while I am equally certain that the mother would had been given the usual information on how to interpret possible sexual abuse indicators. As none of the social workers were called to give evidence on the wife’s behalf, this likely scenario was never tested or made an issue by the court. However, there is no doubt that this mother was on the qui vive for signs of sexual abuse much earlier than the trial judge, or the Full Court judges, wanted the reader to believe.

The very act of taking the child to a sexual assault centre, instead of seeking medical advice for an alleged vaginal condition ‘noticed’ three weeks earlier, is proof of the mother’s state of mind even at that early stage. It is obvious, in my opinion, that the wife was not seriously concerned about the child’s welfare at that critical time, being more preoccupied in gathering evidence to prove sexual abuse by the husband. In my opinion, she not only suspected sexual abuse prior to her visit to Dr M, but she deliberately planted the idea of possible sexual abuse in the minds of others. ]

After the orders of 02^nd May 1986, the father exercised access to both children on three occasions in May 1986, plus one daytime occasion on 08Jun1986, that being the last access visit allowed to the father. When the father arrived to collect the children for week-end access on the 13^thJune1986, he found a note, addressed to him from the Department of Community Welfare and pinned to the maternal grandmother’s front door, advising him that access would not take place that week-end.

Eighteen months was to elapse before the wife’s application to suspend access was determined in December 1987. There was no access arranged for the father in the meantime - not even supervised access.

Judicial statements in this matter were sometimes vague, ambiguous and misleading, viz, I quote:

• "The wife again consulted both Mrs. H and Mrs. M and, on their advice, access for the weekend commencing 13^th Jun1986 was refused. At this time R was referred to the Sexual Assault Referral Centre at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and was seen by Dr. M."
• "At this time R had not made any complaint of sexual abuse by the husband or anyone else and the wife gave evidence, which the learned trial judge accepted, that it was not until R had been examined at the Sexual Assault Referral Centre that she had suspicion that the husband had sexually interfered with the child although that possibility had been raised by the two ladies from the Department of Community Welfare."

Yet the wife, without producing any corroborated evidence of the child’s alleged condition, made the allegation to the welfare women that, when R returned from weekend access on 30^th May1986 she " noticed that the child was unduly red in the area from her vagina to her anus." In spite of this alleged observation, the wife inexplicably waited approximately 2 weeks before she confided to the two welfare women her concerns prior to father’s next access occasion set down for the 13^th Jun.

During the wife’s previous meeting with one of these welfare workers, she made the unsolicited statement that the father was sleeping with the girl during previous access occasions. How could anyone entertain the argument that the wife was not trying to make others suspicious of inappropriate behaviour by the father, while claiming that she was not suspicious herself?

One must ask, that after placing ideas into the minds of the welfare workers, why would the mother agree to take her child for sexual assault assessment if she did not want others to believe that sexual abuse was a possibility? After all, as stated by the trial judge, the two welfare workers on that occasion had made it quite clear to the mother that they suspected sexual abuse. So for the mother not to have suspected the father is sheer nonsense. The question must also be asked, why did she agree to have the father’s access stopped on the 13^th Jun1986, if she had not wanted others to think he was a risk to the child?

It becomes obvious that, by simply relating the uncorroborated ‘red bottom’ incident, the mother was able to unilaterally stop the father’s access and set up an appointment with the sexual assault team. How convenient then was it that Dr.M came up with something pointing to sexual abuse that gave ‘justification’ to the mother’s concerns and the decision by the Department to unilaterally stop the father’s access.

The trial judge was also vague on the time delay between the ‘red bottom ‘ incident and when ‘R’ was presented to Dr. M. for examination. I can assure the reader that this delay was three weeks!

Dr. ‘M’s’ report of the 19^thJune1986, was released on the same day as the R’s examination, when she released the following statement: "R is a bright 4 year old who listened and took in adult conversation. She showed normal development for her age. On genital inspection, the vaginal entrance was seen to be stretched with the hymen markedly narrowed, especially laterally and posteriorly. The internal vaginal walls were visible, which is not normal at this age. These findings are consistent with gradual stretching of the entrance by an object such as a finger or a penis.

During the examination, I asked ‘R’ if anything had hurt her fanny and she told me, a big stick did and a needle. The stick went right inside, in her bed at night. When I tried to find out who put the big stick there, ‘R’ put her hands over her ears saying that she wouldn’t tell me more. She asked me not to tell mummy about it either." Dr. ‘M ‘came to the conclusion that ‘R’ had been sexually interfered with and ended her report by referring the child for therapy in the following terms:

Dr. M said in her report that: "R is a bright 4 year old who listened and took in adult conversation." If this statement is true, then the mother’s resulting lack of corroborating evidence to support possible sexual abuse puts her credibility and that of Dr. M in jeopardy.

While alleged sexual interference could be the only cause for the child’s alleged ‘abnormal’ condition at the time of Dr M’s examination, one has to try and pinpoint as to when this horrific event or events occurred. One must also agree, that the child must have undergone a painful and traumatic experience to account for the alleged condition.

Ironically, it was fortunate for the father’s case that the mother spoke pointedly of an alleged incident immediately following the last overnight access occasion, when she allegedly observed severe reddening around the child’s bottom. There is no doubt it was during that access occasion that the mother wanted the social workers to believe, albeit some two weeks later, that some inappropriate behaviour had occurred to the child while on access with the father. Referring to the Full Court report, page 76,919, sub –heading, The Wife, starting at the second paragraph:

" A few weeks after the pre-school assessment the wife interviewed a Mrs. ‘M’ of the Community Welfare Department, and following the access occasion, which occurred immediately after the wife’s conversation with Mrs. ‘ M’, the wife noticed that R was unduly red in the area from her vagina to her anus .

It is extremely rare, especially in cases alleging child sexual abuse, that a particular access occasion can be narrowed down to an alleged sexual abuse. It is because of the usual difficulty in assessing ‘the time of an alleged offence’ that the question of ‘opportunity to commit the alleged offence’ is considered as reason enough to begin an investigation.

What undermines the credibility of the mother’s allegations is R’s behaviour immediately after that last overnight visit on the 30^th Jun1986. The child’s demeanour was surprisingly unspectacular and received no special comment from the mother other than her own self-serving statement alleging that the child ‘refused to discuss anything’. Considering the pain the child would have surely and recently endured to sustain the abnormalities alleged by Dr ‘M’, the girl would have had plenty to say to her mother immediately after returning from that access occasion.

Conversely, if the child was in a state of traumatised shock, the child’s expected withdrawn and traumatised demeanour, following such abuse, would have equally drawn appropriate comment from the mother. In the absence of such comments and expected child trauma, the mother’s allegations can only be seen as facile and mischievous.

According to Dr. M, the child was articulate in describing why her vagina entrance was in the alleged widened condition: "During the examination I asked R if anything had hurt her fanny and she told me a big stick and a big needle. The stick went right inside her in her bed at night." However, on the morning after the alleged incident, there was not one disclosure to her mother or complaint about her father or signs of distress or painful discomfort or mention of a big stick.

This same four-year old girl allegedly had no problem relating to the mother when allegedly describing how her father had touched a woman friend’s breast while she (the child) "became embarrassed and had to leave the room." That this child could not, or would not, relate such a painful experience as recent and brutal vaginal penetration to her mother or, at least display discomfort of some kind, is beyond the realms of logic.

What condemns the mother’s version of events, is the irrefutable fact that she was living with her own mother at the time, yet there was not one shred of corroborating evidence from such a significant person as her mother at that critical time! The maternal grandmother would be the logical witness to verify that ‘R’ had the redness alleged by the mother and could also have corroborated any dramatic change in the child’s behaviour and well being at that critical time. Surely the mother would have acquainted the grandmother with all disclosures made by ‘R’ and any other signs of abuse. The trial judge’s failure to make comments, relating to the possible value of the maternal grandmother’s evidence, as well as the mother’s own lack of credibility, is cause for concern, regardless as to whether the father’s counsel was, or was not, adequate on these issues.

Long delays between denial of access to the accused and bringing the matter to a final hearing can bring only one result - the complete alienation of the children from a significant parent and the grief that accompanies such separation.

The Family Court’s role in this matter is of concern and reflects poor case management procedures. One wonders at the motives of a Registrar who allows such delays, especially in alleged child sexual abuse matters, that enables child welfare zealots to wreak their well rehearsed destruction when cementing fear and mistrust of an accused father into a child’s thinking.

Referring to the alleged physical evidence of abuse, the inordinate delay between the discovery of the child’s alleged condition and when the husband’s counsel was made aware of the Dr M’s report was unconscionable. Dr. M ‘s report had been prepared months prior to the father being aware of the report.

More than one year later, in Jul 1987 Dr. ‘V’, acting on the father’s behalf, medically examined ‘R’ and found her genitals perfectly normal for a child of her age. The wife’s counsel confidently threw in their own hoary chestnut and argued that because the father had been removed from the scene, the healing process took over in the intervening period.

During the hearing, the trial judge asked Dr. ‘V’ in words to the effect, "If the child’s vagina was distended, as described by Dr. ‘M’, would that indicate sexual interference? This blatantly self-serving question could only solicit one response - " Yes your Honour."

The similarity of this case to 1988 M&M is bizarre in that the mother was not brought to account for her lack of credibility, while not one shred of evidence pertaining to the alleged sexual abuse itself was capable of corroboration as to the truth of such evidence. In both cases the mothers had months to subpoena witnesses to support their allegations and those of the sexual assault units.

There is no record that the maternal grandmother, with whom the mother and children stayed after the separation, had sworn an affidavit or was cross-examined to corroborate any of the natural mother’s observations and allegations such as the red bottom incident and child’s disclosures. This is a very serious oversight by the wife’s counsel and should have earned weighted comment from the trial judge. That such judicial oversight led to ‘lingering doubts’ in the trial judge’s mind is very hard to accept under the circumstances.

Referring to page 76,919, heading Evidence re child sexual abuse, sub heading

In the preceding paragraph the underlined summation of events is misleading and incorrect. It was the wife’s evidence that she allegedly noticed the ‘reddening’ two weeks before her conversation with the two welfare workers, not following the access occasion after the wife’s conversation with Mrs. H and Mrs. M,.

R ‘s alleged masturbating and its implied frequency was highly ludicrous, as there was no record of such behaviour from any source other than the mother. There was no report from the kindergarten that the child had carried similar behaviour into her kindergarten environment.

There was a two-month denial of access to the father shortly after separation, triggered by an acrimonious incident over custody and access initiated by the father, who failed to return the daughter to the mother after an access occasion. The mother and maternal grandmother reclaimed the child later from her school.

The alleged physical findings of abuse and disclosures involving R were never corroborated. Usually such inspections of children of tender years are done in the mother’s presence. The fact that R allegedly asked Dr. M ‘not to tell mummy’ suggests that the mother was not present in the room during the examination and when R gave the alleged disclosure - therefore there was no corroboration of any of the child’s alleged disclosures to Dr. M.

I feel sure that had the trial judge’s summary of ‘Evidence re Child Sexual Abuse’ been presented in less dogmatic terms, the whole thrust of his summation would have been less biased against the father’s interests.

The fact that the trial judge omitted to use the word alleged, prior to every applicable enunciation of uncorroborated evidence, was misleading. For instance, the following section of the summary should have read: "the wife allegedly noticed that R was unduly red from her vagina to her anus. According to the mother R allegedly refused to discuss the matter with the wife when the latter allegedly sought to question her….etc." I can well understand that this may involve the use of ‘allegedly’ on numerous occasions - but wouldn’t that just prove my point. I am certain that the learned judge would not have ended up with ‘lingering doubts’ had he embarked on such a course, especially when the mother’s credibility proved to be so fragile.

The period between the first and last access occasion was approximately one month, the first access occasion being the 02^nd May1986, with further access occasions on 16^th May (weekend), 30^th May (weekend) 08 Jun (a one day/daytime access.). Out of those 4 access occasions one wonders on which occasion or occasions did the learned judge suggest that the alleged abuse could have occurred to cause ‘lingering doubts’ as to whether abuse may or may not have occurred?

It should also be noted that it was eight days prior to the ‘daytime’ access occasion that the mother allegedly noticed the child’s ‘reddened’ condition. Apparently she had no problem sending the children to that daytime access, yet one week after that same daylight access occasion she relates the child’s alleged ‘red bottom’ condition for the benefit of the two welfare women!

For what other reason would the mother relate such a story, other than to convey to the welfare zealots the fact that the father, in some sinister way, was responsible for the child’s alleged condition?

In my opinion, the wife is a liar and schemer of the highest order. She obviously did not think the children were ever in danger, while she wanted others to believe differently. In this she got substantial support from the trial judge, who seemed willing to turn a ‘ blind eye’ to evidence against the mother’s interests.

It is my opinion, that the mother fabricated the ‘red bottom’ incident as an excuse to report her alleged suspicions, implicating the father, to the Referral Centre. It is apparent that if the mother was genuinely concerned about the child’s physical welfare, she would have sought medical advice immediately, instead of agreeing to wait three weeks before having the child examined by a sexual assault operative. For this reason, a three week delay prior to Dr ‘M’s’ examination was just a bit too naive a scenario, even for this mother.

That none of these issues were raised by any of the judges involved in this matter, gives this case the same tainted scenario revealed in 1988 M&M, where ‘turning a blind eye’ to vital evidence that would favour the fathers’ cases.

In the meantime, during the protracted delay until the final hearing, the child was subjected to an intense program of sexual abuse therapy. It was during this time, according to the accusers, that any affection the child had for the father had ‘turned around’ and the child was now fearful of the father. So much so that the child is allegedly of the opinion, that she had been actually sexually abused by him.

In spite of the fact that that child was exposed to many hours with various alleged ‘experts’ trained to recognise a child’s need to communicate, it was the mother who claimed success where others failed. It was the mother who said, after the child’s third ‘therapy’ session, R disclosed to her that the father was the abuser. This uncorroborated statement by the mother must now be viewed against her own lack of credibility.

In my opinion, since the experts failed to get this vital information from ‘R’, the mother’s claims and that of Dr. M become more than suspect. That the trial judge could only come up with ‘lingering doubts’ leaves me in despair of a system that can degenerate into such indecision at the expense of vulnerable children and innocent adults.

Common sense dictates that Dr. M, in finding this allegedly horrific proof of sexual abuse should have immediately acted and secured a second opinion to verify the child’s physical condition. One wonders what transpired before Dr M allegedly asked, "who put the big stick there? ". The absence of any audio or video evidence, always places the written records of interviews beyond effective rebuttal - especially from a person of traditional professional standing.

While the trial judge never upheld the findings of Dr. M, his own judicial posturing around the report was a disappointment that made his ‘lingering doubts’ outcome even more unpalatable.

The dissenting Judge in 1988M&M and 1988B&B was the Family Court Chief Justice, whose article at the beginning of this report, appeared in the June 1989 edition of Family Lawyer. The article, while indicating views expressed by the Honourable Chief Justice, nevertheless reflected the dichotomy of opinion within the judiciary that surrounded this controversial High Court decision at the time, and no doubt, up to the present day.

While my own criticisms of the decisions in M &M and B &B went to the evidence itself, I share some of the concerns expressed by the Chief Justice in his article. After perusing the two ‘landmark’ cases in detail, the words of the Chief Justice have a disturbing ring to them, when referring to the concept of lingering doubts as applied to these two matters:

I wonder what factors were present in B&B, which might have justified a refusal of access?

********************************************

Family Court facilities are orientated towards dispute resolution, whereas less than 5% of all matters go to final litigation before a judge. Probably 70 % or more of litigated matters refer to custody and access arrangements. Of these, less than 10% involve custody or access matters involve allegations of child sexual abuse against the other parent - usually the natural father.

It is also an undeniable fact, that in all Family Court matters, the allegation of child sexual abuse was never the cause for the parties break up initially, whereas abuse allegations are invariably raised in the midst of bitter custody or access disputes. This fact in itself invites scathing criticism and points strongly to the reality that most sexual abuse allegations coming before the Family Court are mischievous, and used as a means to gain unfair advantage in bitterly contested custody and access disputes.

It is evident, in my opinion, that recent separated parents (mostly mothers) are being alerted to the spectre of probable sexual abuse through mischievous suggestions from overzealous social workers. Children of tender years are most vulnerable to wrong assessment by the system when they are suddenly deprived of day to day contact with a significant parent. These children can display expected behavioural patterns - bed wetting, fretting, depression, naughtiness etc. that can be cited and embellished by inept and overzealous welfare workers as manifestations of probable sexual abuse.

The dramatic ‘drying up’ of taped records of interviews, coincided with a 1987 failed Appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court by the South Australian Community Welfare Department. It was due to this Department’s unsolicited intervention, involving false claims of child sexual abuse against the non-custodial father, that resulted in the Department paying the bulk of the costs of a 15 day access hearing at the Family Court in Adelaide. Thirteen days of this case was occupied disproving these false sexual abuse claims. The overturning of the Department’s appeal was made easier through the successful rebuttal of the Welfare Department’s video taped records of interview submitted as evidence.

In more recent times the Family Court Chief Justice called, in vain, to have video- taped interviews by Sexual Assault Units re-instated, as well as the involvement of a more professional level of expertise at the initial stages of all sexual abuse investigations. My own report into a Family Court matter, discussed in detail in Muddied Waters, is a classical example of bureaucratic interference and mischief.

The Family Court judiciary never fail to quote the precedence of 1988 M&M at the beginning of all sexual abuse cases coming before them. This citing of M&M can cause the accused to ‘throw the towel in’ and walk away from his children, especially when he is short of funds. Should the accused choose to defend the accusations, he/she is faced with additional restrictions.

• The trial judge explains that the court is not obliged to prove guilt or innocence of the accused or that sexual abuse is even a reality.

• If, in the trial judge’s opinion, the child may be at risk if access were granted then such access would be denied.

• If the trial judge is of the opinion that the custodial parent is convinced that the child had been and would still be in danger of abuse if access were granted, then access could be denied.

• If the trial judge is of the opinion that the child is convinced that the accused had actually abused him/her, then the trial judge can deny the father access to the child.

• If in the opinion that the trial judge that access would not be in the best interests of the child, for reasons other than sexual abuse, then access can be denied.

It is easy to see that the very mention of M&M during such proceedings, can, and does, have the effect of shortening the proceedings - resulting in consent orders being made against the accused parent’s interest. This is usually agreed to by an accused who, having no access to Legal Aid can’t afford to fight a battle that is so obviously ‘loaded’ against him and therefore one he cannot win.

While the court will insist that winning or losing is not the aim of any hearing - the overriding factor being "the paramountcy of the welfare of the child ". The irony here is, that winning, as far as the accused is concerned, can only mean that he/she has not been found guilty of the terrible allegation of the sexual abuse of a child.

In my opinion, to deny a falsely accused parents access to their children imposes an insidious form of punishment on the children themselves. Such draconian outcomes are impossible to accept by these parents, while supervised access regimes can only compound the situation and make further access a possible burden for the child who would sense the discord between the estranged parents. The Family Court aware of this dilemma took the final step and recommended that long term supervised-access be discouraged.

Over the years, I have never witnessed a trial judge admitting to the innocence of the accused, even when the mischief of the accuser has been proved. In such instances, the trial judge invariably ‘neglects’ to point a judicial finger at the mischief-maker and the false claims of the Sexual Assault workers.

The fact is that when findings are made in favour of the accused, the parent can still have access denied them, while the mischief makers slide quietly away in the knowledge that they achieved what they set out to do - without penalty. In such cases, the alleged ‘experts’, invariably from the accusing side, will assert that, because the child now ‘thinks’ that the father has acted inappropriately - regardless of whether the allegation is true or not, access to him would not be in the child’s best interests. The Family Court quickly seizes this ‘easy way out’ and denies the falsely accused access to the child.

Family Court judiciary can now look to other reasons, not relevant to sexual abuse, to deny access to the father. A wrongly accused father, angered by accusations of the sexual abuse of his child, makes an easy target for an AVO (apprehended violence order). One also wonders how many serious acts of violence in the past by angered fathers were as a result of false accusations of child sexual abuse? Such violence may be avoided if social workers, however zealous, were replaced with qualified professionals, with many years of clinical experience with children. A bilateral approach to such investigations should also be a basic pre-requisite.

the Family Court’s choice to by-pass the need to determine guilt or innocence of the accused or to determine that sexual abuse is, or is not, a reality, while denying innocent parents dignified access to their children, is clearly not in the children’s interests. This draconian legislation could only be designed to deny falsely accused parents grounds for litigation.

My opinion is that proven mischief by the custodial parent should not be rewarded, while a sensitive and graduated change of custody arrangements should be seriously considered when the accusing parent remains recalcitrant.

It is difficult to appreciate the pain and suffering that has been visited on innocent Australians in the name of Child Protection, since the decision of the High Court in 1988 M&M. This landmark decision was an open invitation to mischievous and paranoid parents, supported by over-zealous child protection workers, to bring their fanciful evidence before the courts where it usually receives unwarranted recognition and support. This injustice to the Australian public can be summed up in the following statement from a San Diego report into the investigation of Child Sexual Abuse, Assault and Molestation issues:

Excerpts from a Victorian based Crime Prevention Committee Report show statistics, supported by the usual rhetoric, suggest that such figures are not only valid but represent just the ‘tip of the iceberg’ where child sexual abuse in that State is concerned.

These statistics carefully list the most likely source of such abuse, that being a parent, a relative or acquaintance and friend. When these three groups are taken collectively, they represent over 80% of all cases of alleged child sexual abuse in Victoria. They would also claim that such statistics would apply across Australia.

What should come as no surprise, however, is the omission of one important term from this daunting set of figures, that being the word alleged sexual abuse. For the purposes of this exercise one has to assume that these ‘break-down’ statistics also reflect the confirmed cases of child sexual abuse in that State over that period. If this is the case then the conviction rates in Victoria are dramatically lower than the rates in New South Wales over the same period. A real concern with these Victorian figures, as in NSW, is the relatively few numbers of notified cases that warranted investigation by police.

A close study of the Committee’s statistics, indicates that 96% (2480) of these 1991/1992 notifications were apparently used to extrapolate their list of "Those who are most likely to offend." The inference I make is that all those notified children were categorised as actual victims of abuse for the purposes of making the list relevant.

One can be sure that the 2480 children assessed as ‘confirmed’ victims of sexual abuse would have been subjected to genital inspections and intrusive interrogations. In spite of this assessment, only 102 of these 2480 cases were apparently considered for further CIB action, from which 34 offenders were charged, of whom 8 alleged perpetrators were finally convicted.

It would be interesting to know the number of occasions when the child protection experts used video or audio taped records of interviews with alleged sexually abused children, and how often these tapes are submitted as evidence to assist the Magistrates in the prosecution of these cases? My guess is that figure would be about the same as the conviction rate. I have previously given my reasons for the lack of taped evidence, especially in Family Court matters.

In America many adults have been convicted of sexual crimes against children on the basis of children’s testimony, fortunately in Australia this tendency has been curbed to some extent although there are zealots out there who want to see children’s testimony treated as absolute. What is rife in Australia is that the suggestibility of young children has been exploited outrageously, while there has been no apparent attempt by the bureaucracy to rid the system of these ‘psycho-cheats’ who prey on this suggestibility.

The following extract from an extensive investigation into children’s false memories came up with the disturbing conclusions that: " Unfortunately there are still many professionals who reject (or have not learned of) the ease with which false memories can be implanted into children. Some still used closed suggestive questions, some believe that the truth will eventually come out if one interviews the child long enough. Many children end up with memories of horrible abuse that never happened - they will be effected by these memories forever."

In my opinion, inept child investigators abuse their legislated immunity against prosecution, especially when investigations go sour. The by-product of these flawed investigations results in thousands of innocent people being left in limbo, as these social vandals abandon all parties to an existence of bitter confrontation and recrimination. In the meantime, a host of children are left convinced that they are victims of an abuse that, in reality, has never occurred.

The sexual abuse of one child is, and must, always be viewed as one too many, however, when conviction rates involving alleged Confirmed cases run at less than 3%, it is obvious that ‘evidence’ presented in support of alleged child sexual abuse is mainly unreliable and fatuous. It is my opinion, instead of protecting children from sexual abuse, the existing child protection agenda is placing more children at risk than our trusting and ill-uninformed public could possibly envisage.

[End part 2]

*************************************

In this case study the names of parties involved, including dates and places have been altered - all other information is factual. The sequence of events is presented in three stages to get a better understanding of the overzealous and destructive use of bureaucratic power that ensured the denial of natural justice to both the falsely accused and alleged victims.

Included is the substance of extracts from records produced on subpoena from DOCS and allied Sexual Assault Units.

The subject child’s parents were married in 1987 and finally separated in Aug/Sep1991. There are two children of the relationship - ‘S’ and ‘B’ born on the 10 Jan 1988 and the 10 Sept.1989 respectively. There was an initial separation of two months between the parties in August 1990 that included a six weeks period during which time the mother voluntarily admitted herself to the Greersville Psychiatric Clinic.

During the mother’s hospitalisation the natural father, employed at a plant nursery, cared for the children’s day to day needs with the help of his parents. Shortly before the wife discharged herself from the clinic the pair reconciled, however they finally separated some twelve months later. Records of the mother’s psychiatric profile were never requested by either counsel representing the parties in preparation for the final custody hearing set down for late 1992 at the Family Court.

Details contained in the working notes of a social worker (Doris), beginning on the 23 June 1990, provide a disturbing insight into the dark side of the operations of DOCS and Child Sexual Assault Units that claim expertise in alleged child sexual assault assessment.

(Extracts from Doris’s work notes.)

Child ‘S’ DOB. 10.01.88. Suspect sexual abuse victim.

‘S’ referred by locum from Bondi Surgery.

Present. Suspect victim’s parents.

Interview date: 23.06.90.

• The mother said that ‘S’ had been using kitchen utensils to masturbate herself.

• Last weekend ‘S’ was with the maternal grandparents. She was crying during the night and crying out, "kiss my bottom better."

• ‘S’ said that, "Uncle Tim tie me up." The mother asked Tim about this and he laughed at her.

• S’ fell while at the paternal grandparent’s home and started to bleed and was taken to the Greersville Clinic for treatment. She was suspected of having a kidney infection.

• ‘S’ more clingy to the maternal grandmother, however she doesn’t shy away from anyone in particular.

• ‘S’ coming home from paternal grandparents using ‘F’ words and being aggressive in her speech to her mother.

• Uncle Tim has a girlfriend who is moody and uses bad language.

• The husband said that he is close to his brother Tim.

• The mother said that after one visit to the paternal grandparents she found the child ‘S’ with a tampon. The child ‘S’ allegedly said to her mother that "it goes in here" while pointing to her bottom.

Observations. The father was quiet. Both looked upset when I told them that they had not failed as parents. The father rocked his legs rapidly when he told me that he is close to his brother.

Intervention. Gave examples of sexual abuse indicators. Talked about role of police, Department of Community Services (DOCS) and the Sexual Assault Service. Explained medical examination of children. Talked about safety and effects and management of sexual abuse.

24. 06. 90. Phone call to Teresa Green of DOCS.

*********************

Telephone conversation with Doris from Child Sexual Assault Unit. Doris sought a medical examination of ‘S’ to ascertain any physical evidence of sexual abuse. As yet this has not been performed as Dr Bear is reluctant to go ahead without having more information.

03.07. 90. Made phone call to ‘S’s’ mother. Appointment to see the child and

both parents arranged for the 07^th Jul 1990.

***************************

‘S’ interviewed by District Officer Donald Duck in my presence. The parents were briefed, but were not in the room during the child’s interview. The following information was ascertained and observed:

• ‘S’ presented herself as a fairly mature 2 year old.
• She was shy and not willing to separate from her mother.
• Occasionally it was difficult to understand her due to her language development.
• The child did not know or could not understand the difference between a good and bad secret - good and bad touch - and feeling safe. She could not provide answers to open questions.
• She showed some interest in drawing for a short period.
• While being asked about time spent at the paternal grand mother’s house and people residing there, she named the grandparents and Aunt Olive and her son (visitor only). She did not come up with any names.
• The child indicated that she liked playing with the paternal grandmother. She mentioned a type of game that was not, subsequently, understood by the investigating officers.
• When asked if she was scared of anything she replied, "No".

• When asked about good people known to her, she named the maternal grandmother and grand father, her own father and mother and Aunt Olive. However when asked if Uncle Tim was a good person, she automatically became distressed and demanded to leave the interviewing room. She was not interested in returning to the room.
• The parents were notified about the outcome of the interview, and encouraged to contact the Sexual Abuse Trauma Authority in order to discuss further actions such as a medical examination, and provision of a protective behaviour program. The child does not go to paternal grandparents unless accompanied by one of her parents as Uncle Tim resides there with his girl friend.

*******************

Notification Intake Summary. Report dated 07.07 90.

Notification date. 24^th June 1990.

Narrative. Suspected sexual abuse.

• The subject child ‘S’ and her parents were referred to the Bondi Sexual Assault Unit for a medical examination and counselling.
• The referral was made by a locum from Dr Kathy Singh’s surgery in Bondi. *Dr Singh is ‘S’s ‘ family doctor.
• Approximately 6 months ago ‘S’ was presented to Dr Singh for a medical examination. At that time she was suffering perineal pain - bleeding from the anus with vaginal discharge. The doctor was suspecting urinary tract infection or possible kidney disorder.
• Recently ‘S’ was seen by her family doctor. She was complaining of a sore bottom – perineal pain.
• The child often has nightmares.
• ‘S’ wakes up in the middle of the night and says, "Don’t touch me there." (pointing to her bottom) - "I have a sore bottom."
• Dr Singh did not wish to notify DOCS since she did not want to put the alleged perpetrator in the spotlight.
• The child’s parents are aware of DOCS being notified. They are willing to cooperate to help their daughter.
• When the child was asked, "who told you that mummy was yukky?" she replied, " I’m not telling you, I am not allowed to tell you."
• The alleged perpetrator is in his early twenties. He is the paternal uncle of the subject child. Uncle Tim lives in close proximity to the subject child’s house. He sleeps in a caravan at the front of his parent’s home.
• For the last 4 months Tim has been in a living-in relationship with Lorna - a young bad mannered woman, who is aggressive and uses inappropriate language.
• The child used to spend time with the paternal uncle and grandfather.
• The child is always in a naughty mood following contact with Tim.
• The child often wakes up during the night saying, " Don’t touch me I am sore." She keeps saying to her parents, "You won’t hurt me" - "kiss my bottom, it’s sore", "Tim tied me up" - "I hate you" - "mummy is yukky".
• When asked, who told you that mummy is yukky? she replied, " I’m not telling you, I am not allowed to tell you."
• The child’s parents confronted Tim about the allegations of physically restraining the child, while Tim laughed and denied it.
• The child is using the ‘F’ word in a more indiscriminate way.
• Recently ‘S’ returned home with a tampon, she said, "Mummy is going to put it in her bottom later on." Natural mother has denied possibility of ‘S’ witnessing her inserting or using tampons.

**************************

Doris Notes (cont)

10.07.1990. Had a phone call from Teresa Green of DOCS.

Teresa advised that she and Donald Duck had interviewed ‘S’ but were unable to obtain a disclosure. The child didn’t mention Tim and the girlfriend.

When Teresa and Donald asked ‘S’ about Tim, the girl said that "I want to go out."

They showed ‘S’ the good and bad puppet. ‘S’ was afraid of the bad puppet.

Teresa said that the child’s language is not developed enough to give clear answers.

Teresa said that there was not enough evidence of sexual abuse, but that ‘S’ may have been subjected to something traumatic which has left her feeling afraid.

*************************

[Comments: After studying the reports of Green and Doris, as well as other documentation that included affidavits submitted by the parties concerned, I was able to make the following observations, albeit, with the advantage of hindsight:

• The father swore in an affidavit some months later, that the alleged ‘tying up’ incident implicating his brother was never mentioned to him by his wife prior to attending the interview with Doris on the 23^rdJune1990.
• He also asserted that alleged ‘falling and bleeding’ incident involving ‘S’ was never mentioned to him by his wife during the marriage nor was such an incident discussed in his presence during the interview with Doris on the 23^rdJun1990. According to the father, the first time he was made aware of any falling and bleeding incidents was months after he and his wife finally separated and then only through reading her affidavit material.
• On perusing the mother’s affidavits and extracts from her subsequent interview by police, there is irrefutable evidence of more than one version of the alleged ‘falling and bleeding’ incident - all related by the mother. Each version fashioned and chronologically presented by her to suit the circumstances at the time (Pages 57 to 65 refer.)
• The father always maintained that he was never made privy to the bulk of alleged incidents detailed by Doris in her record of interview of the 23^rdJun 1990. He was also adamant that the only matters discussed during that interview was that Doris’s suggested that ‘S’ had probably been a victim of sexual abuse, while his own brother Tim could be a likely suspect, and that Tim had allegedly tied-up ‘S’ on some obscure occasion.
• According to the father no matters of an inappropriate sexual nature, involving the subject child, were ever raised or brought to his attention by his wife prior to the interview with Doris on the 23^rd Jun 1990.
• The entry in Green’s report stated that, "the parents have noted that ‘S’ comes home from the paternal grandparents with a sore bottom on and off over the past few months." The substance of this entry, according to the father, was a complete fabrication and was never discussed by his wife in his presence, during the interview with Doris on the 23^rd Jun 1990.
• Doris’s own records never indicated that she had sought the father’s corroboration of any of these critical matters during that same interview, however Doris wanted others to believe that such conversations actually took place at the time.
• Doris’s record of interview shows that only the mother confronted Tim as to the alleged ‘tying up incident’ - whereas Green reported that both parents confronted Tim at the time.

For Green to suggest that the follow up action for ‘S’ should involve a medical examination and protective behavioural programs on such flimsy evidence, was unethical, self-serving and insensitive to the child’s real needs. That Tim was even considered for police interrogation is a serious attack on the young man’s self esteem and a blatant abuse of the privileged position given to DOCS personnel and police.

Throughout the entire investigation into the mother’s claims, there was no corroborative dialogue initiated with the father by any Docs officer to substantiate the truth of any of the alleged bleeding incidents, sore bottom complaints or alleged nightmares involving the subject child.

This fact became evident when the father’s solicitor issued a subpoena on Singh’s Surgery on the 20^thJun1992 requesting the production of all relevant documentation. The effect of the subpoena was as follows: "Please forward to the Family Court all records, notes, clinical notes, memoranda and other records relating to treatment and examination by your locum Dr Helen Headstrong and Dr Singh of ‘S’ and ‘B’, between January 1988 and to date."

A letter from Dr Singh’s Surgery dated 11^th August 1992 and directed to the Family Court stated as follows: "On checking our records, we have been unable to find any files for ‘S’ and ‘B’."

Yet, Doris had recorded the alleged referral of the child from Singh’s surgery as fact in her work notes of the 23^rdJun1990. This absence of documentation to support the alleged referral is exacerbated by the absence of medical records from any source to support the mother’s claim that that ‘S’ had ever suffered from vaginal bleeding or other genital discomfort. No medical records were produced to support the mother’s claim that she had sought any medical advice for the child’s alleged condition.

Green’s claim that the child had been a possible victim of sexual abuse is therefore blatantly dishonest and misleading. The complete absence of medical records must indicate that the child had never been presented to Dr Singh’s office with genital problems, in spite of Green naming Dr Singh as the child’s family doctor.

It now seems certain, that the alleged history of the girl’s genital problems was nothing but a mischievous and outrageous hoax by the mother. It is also certain that Doris and the mother had deceived Green, who was an inept and unsuspecting party to a ‘conspiracy’ involving Doris and the mother in their determined effort to support the concept of child sexual abuse based solely on the mother’s anecdotal outpourings.

On the strength of the wife’s statements and the biased records of Doris and Green, the father’s brother Tim was confronted by police and interrogated, the result of which, no charges were laid and he was released unconditionally. The fact that this deceit, supported by DOCS, was not made obvious at an earlier date is due to the system’s habit of launching into unilateral investigations, as soon as notifications of alleged sexual abuse are confirmed by DOCS.

The entry from Teresa Green’s report stating that, "Dr Singh did not want to notify DOCS so as not to put the alleged perpetrator in the spotlight." is another blatant piece of fabricated mischief. There were no records from Singh’s surgery to support such an alleged statement, whereas all NSW doctors are duty bound to notify DOCS whenever there is any suspicion of any form of child abuse.

Evidence subsequently showed that the only likely record of ‘S’ attending a medical practitioner for treatment prior to the 23^rdJun1990 was when the child, at 12 months of age, was taken by the mother to the Greersville Clinic in June 1988. This is supported by a copy of a ‘treatment record’ from the Greersvile Clinic found among Doris’s work records that read as follows:

It would be accurate to say that the child’s mother deliberately confused these two visits to the Greersville Clinic to impress and persuade the overzealous and inept social worker (Doris) into attacking the father’s family members in a spiteful and mischievous fashion.

The child’s parents finally separated in August 1991.

***************************

(Further extracts from the work notes of Doris, some fourteen months later.)

08.09.91. Phone call from S’s’ mother. The mother has observed S’s’ behaviour, and feels that there are sexual abuse indicators. The mother noticed the following:

• A child placed a tissue on S’s face. ‘S’ said, "that’s dirty."
• When ‘S’ was undressed, the mother went to walk towards her and ‘S’ screamed, "Don’t touch me there mummy."
• ‘S’ often wakes up in the night and goes to her parents bed saying, " You won’t hurt me."
• ‘S’ seems to prefer females to take her to the toilet.
• Clingy with mother.

Plan: I will contact DOCS at the Coogee branch.

08.09.91. Phone call to Penelope Price at Coogee DOCS.

[Comment: The following entry was recorded by Doris in her diary on the 27.09.91 : "Two days after the mother moved back into her Sydney flat with the children, the mother lodged a notification with the Sydney Assault Unit on the 22.09.91. This notification was referred to the Child Mistreatment Unit. While DOCS had no involvement at this stage, Chris Cringle from the Sexual Assault Unit supplied the information as indicated in this narrative report left on my file. Chris advised, in effect, through her report that:

• The child’s natural mother had contacted the Sydney SAU on 22^nd Sept 1991 to speak to me (Doris) but, being unable to contact me, the mother phoned the SAU again today to make her notification.
• Chris also noted from previous records that that over 15 months ago a similar notification had passed through the SAU office, however, according to the mother the child has since made further disclosures. This time in relation to the paternal grand father.
• Chris said that the child said to her natural mother that the grandfather had been naughty again and that, "he had stuck his finger in mine and ‘B’s bottom". The child spoke about grandfather’s ‘pencil’ and when her other asked, "what is a pencil?" the child points to her vagina.
• The child is alleged to be masturbating a lot and when her mother says stop it, she puts her head down and says, "It’s all my fault."
• The mother said that ‘S’ had discharge in her pants.
• The child’s natural father has access to her weekly and, in fact, ‘S’ was due to go on access with the father at 2.30 p.m. that day. Chris suggested to the mother to say to the father that both children are ill and cannot go on access today.
• The mother is reluctant to tell the father what is going on, because he does not want to believe it. Apparently the father’s family was very nasty towards her when she reported possible sexual abuse on the last occasion.
• The child mentioned something to her mother about Uncle Tim (previously the alleged perpetrator) but no examples were given.
• The child has nightmares after access, and that this access had been ratified through the Family Court ".

************************

[Comments: Chris Cringle’s report is the first official notification of the mother implicating the paternal grandfather and the mention of the word ‘pencil’ as a part of the alleged abuse. Doris’s version of Cringle’s report would need corroboration, as a copy of Cringle’s report was not among the subpoenaed documents. All the alleged details of the child’s condition and disclosures are of the mother’s reporting only.

One must now ask, " How is it, that during the mother’s phone call to Doris on the 08^thSep1991, there was no mention of the grandfather?" Yet, according to the mother on the 21^st Sep (the day prior to allegedly lodging her notification to Cringle) ‘S’ allegedly disclosed graphic details of sexual abuse by the grandfather.

The mother’s alleged reluctance to tell the father "what was going on " demonstrates her cunning to manufacture ‘new’ evidence of abuse without the need to have her claims corroborated by anyone. It is obvious that the mother volunteered considerably more information to Cringle, than was given to Doris on the 08^th Sep1991.

The mischief of Doris becomes apparent in the setting up of this notification by the wife, as she conveniently stayed in the background waiting for a report she knew would be coming her way. This scenario is evident in that the wife ‘asked’ for Doris, prior to giving her detailed report to Cringle. Cringle could have referred the matter to other officers, however Doris ensured her own involvement by getting the mother to mention her name when lodging her notification.]

The mother came to the Sexual Assault Unit with ‘S’ and the child’s godmother Pandora. I interviewed the mother alone as ‘S’ had not yet been to DOCS on the occasion of the fresh allegations.

• The mother said that she suspected child sexual abuse since she last contacted me on the 08.09.91. The stress of this had contributed to her having what she called a nervous breakdown and admission to Greersville Clinic.
• The mother said that she had been under great stress from the husband’s drinking. She had previously separated from her husband in August 1990.
• Since separation the mother and the two children have lived with her parents. The mother and the children have moved several times, but plan to settle in Petersham.
• The mother had a private and verbal agreement with her estranged husband that she have custody and he have access on Fridays - 2.30 p.m to 6.00 p.m.

Over the last 12 months, the mother has noticed the following:

• ‘S’ wakes up saying, "please don’t touch me ... please don’t hurt ".

Discharge in the child’s pants, a few days after she arrives home on Friday evening access.

• On May or Jun 1991, on one occasion, the mother noticed a watery and bloody discharge covering an area approximately 4sq.cms.
• Jul 1991 more blood on the child’s pants.
• Child masturbates and says. "It’s all my fault mummy." " Grandad puts his pencil in my bottom."
• The child said that, "Police will have to lock us up, because grandad loves us."
• On the 21^st Sep1991, the child disclosed, "grandad put his finger in my bottom."
• On the 22^nd Sep1991 the child woke up and said, "Mummy can I tell you that grandpa is naughty?"
• ‘S’ asked Pandora, "do you know how you cut off your fanny with a big knife?"
• The child’s brother seems very protective of her.
• The child gets distressed when asked to get in an unfamiliar car.
• She will not let anyone, but her mother, wipe her bottom while toileting.

During this interview with the mother, I telephoned Vicky Hickey at the Child Sexual Assault Unit to check on what they propose to do about the matter. Vicki advised that they were not going to do anything because the grandfather does not live in the same house as the child and that they had referred the matter to the Child Molestation Unit. I accordingly advised the mother as to the present position. The mother said that the children were to go on access at 2.30 p.m. that day, and that she was not sure what to do about the problem as she did not want the children to be at risk.

The mother has an AVO out against her husband because of violence by him towards her. She indicated that her own father seems good towards the kids. Her own parents are very supportive. The mother has a solicitor.

Observations. The mother’s eyes were red. She said that she was in shock. She cried when she described what ‘S’ had disclosed to her.

Intervention: Referred matter to police. Consulted DOCS about their role. Gave pamphlets on Child Sexual Abuse to the mother. Discussed with the child’s mother, how to respond to disclosures. Explained possible medical procedures for ‘S’

Plan. The mother to phone police. Medical examination arranged with Dr Rupee for the 02^nd Nov 1991.

[Comments: This flurry of activity by Doris resulted from the fact that although the mother had made her notification to the Child Sexual Assault Unit on the 22 Sep 1991, there was no action by police during the interim to confront the grandfather for reasons stated by Vicky Hickey. The father was also obviously unaware of the mischief being generated by the wife and Doris, even though he had been denied access to his children since the 22 Sep 91.

A critical observation that begs explanation is that, during the mother’s phone conversation with Doris on the 08^th Sep 1991 (page 11 refers), the mother made no reference to her daughter’s alleged vaginal discharges, let alone signs of bloodied discharges mentioned in the ‘History of Sexual Abuse’. One would suspect that bloodied discharges would be given high priority on the mothers’ list of concerns in her conversation with Doris on the 08.09. 91.

The initial separation (Aug 1990), although short lived, had nothing to do with the husband’s alleged drinking and everything to do with the mother’s failed attempt to have her brother in-law accused of the subject child’s sexual abuse. The pair resumed their relationship just prior to the wife discharging herself from the psychiatric clinic. After the final separation in August 1991, the father agreed to having limited access to the children, defined as for 2 hrs 30 mins on each Friday.

There had been no access to the children by the father and his family since the 15^th Sept 1991. The father had never been subjected to an AVO. The Family Court had earlier imposed a non-molestation order on both parties, this being the usual formality when bitterness exists in a perceived atmosphere of non-cooperation between parties.

Doris’s duplicity in compiling such a dubious history of sexual abuse, based purely on the mother’s anecdotal accounts, was at first puzzling. However it soon became apparent, that the aim of this exercise was to get the child to the Child Sexual Unit’s own doctor (Dr Rupee) for what turned out to be a most controversial medical examination.

It became obvious that the lack of further action by Vicky Hickey of the Sydney Sexual Assault Unit was well founded. Not only did the subject child not live in the same household as the suspect grandfather, but the access duration (2.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. each Friday) would also have been in the presence of the paternal grandparents, the natural father, as well as Tim and his wife Laura.

Not to be thwarted by Vicky Hickey’s decision, Doris then unilaterally conducted her own investigation against the grandfather in her capacity as a Child Sexual Assault worker starting on the 23^rd Oct 1991. On that date Doris arranged the medical examination of ‘S’ with a Dr Rupee scheduled for the 02^nd Nov1991 then, on the same day she arranged for police to interview ‘S’ on a the 05^th Nov 1991 - that being after the scheduled medical examination by Dr Rupee! ]

‘S’ with her mother and godmother Pandora presented at the Centre today for the child’s medical examination.

• The mother said that her son ‘B’ had overheard ‘S’ talk about her own abuse. ‘B’ then disclosed that ‘S’ told him that grandpa had put his finger in her bottom.

• The mother said that she would bathe ‘S’ in the mornings that the child was due to go on access at the paternal grandparents. When ‘S’ came home she had a smelly and mucous discharge in her pants. ‘S’ had not been to the paternal grandparents for about 6 weeks (as since the father has been refused access to the children) and ‘S’ has not had any discharge in her pants since that time.

• The mother said that ‘S’ is talking more about what grandad has done to her.

During the medical ‘S’s’ godmother waited outside.

While Dr Rupee was examining ‘S’, the child told the doctor that Grandpa put his pencil in there.

Ten minutes later the doctor took a swab of the child’s genital area and after the swab was removed I heard ‘S’ ask. "Is the pencil out yet."

The doctor’s findings were explained to the mother who said, "This means that it is true, and I am not going mad."

Observations : ‘S’ was quiet and cooperative. The mother was shaking and crying when told about ‘S’s’ hymen. The mother was appropriate with ‘S’. The mother had some questions, which showed that she was unsure what to do about access arrangements.

Intervention : Effect telephone and face to face counselling. Advised children to keep away from paternal grandfather. Advised mother to get legal service (Legal Aid). Suggest mother’s son ‘B’ be interviewed.

Plan: To inform DOCS of medical results. The mother to telephone me tomorrow. The mother to ring for book Facing the Unthinkable.

My examination showed a normal labia majora - normal intact fouchette - a crescent shaped hymen with an irregular edged and bump (thickened edge) at 6 o’clock - with disrupted vascularity at 6 o’clock.

There was also anterior peri-utheral bands.

The anal area was normal - there was no discharge noted.

Low vaginal swabs were taken and blood and urine tests were requested.

The genital findings showing an irregularity of the hymen and disrupted vessels is consistent with digital or penile penetration as stated by the disclosed history.

**********************

[Comment: It appears that Doris was with the doctor in the examining room with ‘S’ at the time. The alleged disclosure by ‘S’ to Dr Rupee that ‘Grandpa put his pencil in there’ could also be seen as an attempt by Doris to isolate the paternal grandfather as the alleged offender. It is interesting to note that any reference to this alleged exchange between ‘S’ and the doctor did not appear in the doctor’s own subsequent report.

The other concern is that the natural father was never informed of this medical examination until months later, and that he had no idea what the child had to endure over the weeks and months during which access to ‘S’ was denied him.

The mother no doubt lied when she informed Doris that the father had given his begrudging approval for his daughter’s medical examination by Dr Rupee, otherwise why would it take months before he was informed of the results?

The child was again examined by Dr Rupee some 4 months later. She stated that all irregularities noted before had disappeared. The standard reply, in these instances is that, as the alleged perpetrator has been removed from the scene, the cause for further vaginal aggravation was removed. It comes as no surprise that, after this alleged ‘healing process’ was confirmed, the father first learned, through his solicitor, of the results of the Nov 1991 examination!

As a result of Dr Rupee’s report, the paternal grandfather later faced interrogation by police. No charges were laid against the bewildered and distraught man.

Doctor Rupee’s official report states disrupted vascularity, whereas Doris’s report claimed increased vascularity. I have since been informed by a medical expert that disrupted vascularity equates to contused or ruptured blood vessels that would have been accompanied by considerable localised bleeding at the time of the injury. Whereas increased vascularity indicates swelling or inflammation with no apparent blood loss.

I then asked the expert how long the healing process would take, after describing Dr Rupee’s findings. The doctor assured me that complete healing at such a localised and blood rich site would take no more two to three weeks … most likely less.

It is important to know that, at the time of Dr Rupee’s examination, it had been at least six weeks since the child had been with the father and his family for the agreed 2.5 hr access on the 15^th Sep 1991. However, the last occasion on which the mother allegedly observed a bloodied discharge in the child’s pants was July 1991, some 12 weeks prior to Dr Rupee’s examination. It is also on record that the mother always examines the child's pants and genital area after every access visit to the father’s parents, yet after the last access visit (6 weeks after allegedly observing a bloody discharge) the mother made no report of any unusual discharges after that occasion.

Let us assume the unlikely scenario that the mother failed to examine the child after that last access occasion 6 weeks prior to Dr Rupee’s examination, and that the child had actually suffered sexual abuse as alleged by Dr Rupee. According to my expert’s advice any indication of ruptured blood vessels would have completely disappeared by the time of Dr Rupee’s examination on the 3^rd Nov 1991.

That the alleged damage to blood vessels was so noticeable during Dr Rupee’s examination leaves one only explanation, that for any sexual abuse of ‘S’ to cause bleeding, the injury must have been sustained no more than two weeks prior to Dr Rupee’s examination. However for Dr Rupee to observe such ‘visible’ and descriptive damage to blood vessels suggests that the healing process was in its early stages and therefore abuse to cause ‘disrupted vascularity’ must have occurred within a few days of the examination!

The only explanation for Dr Rupee’s alleged findings could be:

1. That the doctor herself was mistaken and overstated what could have been a normal genital condition in a child of that age or
2. The child had recently inflicted the injury on herself recently during the mother’s full time care or
3. Someone unknown had recently inflicted the alleged injury to ‘S’ while she was in the mother’s full time care or
4. The ‘unthinkable’ actually happened and the mother, desperate to make the sexual abuse allegations against the grandfather stick, injured her own child prior to the medical examination by Dr Rupee.

As stated earlier, no documentation was ever produced by the mother or her counsel to corroborate the occasions on which the mother had allegedly taken the child to seek medical help for vaginal bleeding. This leaves open the premise that the child had never been medically examined for genital problems, prior to Dr Rupee’s examination. Her report can now be seen as a tad too convenient and cries out for corroboration, not the unilateral ‘fait accompli’ as delivered by the doctor on this occasion. However if one chooses to believe Dr Rupee, then the child must have sustained the injury while in the mother’s exclusive care.

The absence of evidence to support the mother’s claims of child sexual abuse, in my opinion, explains why the mother and Doris were desperate to come up with medical evidence at this critical time. What is also significant is that Doris, on the 23^rd Oct 1991, arranged, without any clinical evidence, the appointment for the child’s genital examination to be followed by an appointment for the police interview a few days later.

While one may argue that such arrangements would not appear unusual, however in this instance the whole sequence of events seemed too fortuitous under the circumstances. For instance, prior to making these arrangements, Doris had just learned from Vicky Hickey that no further action would be taken against the grandfather because of lack of evidence!

The doctor not only ‘found’ physical evidence of child sexual abuse, but Doris had isolated the paternal grandfather as the alleged perpetrator through that fortuitous alleged ‘aside’ conversation between the doctor and the child. (It is interesting to note that Dr Rupee never made mention in her report of this ‘aside conversation’.)

The police not only had medical evidence of sexual abuse, but they now have the identity of the perpetrator. All that is required of Detective Rumbold is to skilfully and benignly extract information and disclosures from the child that should see the grandfather literally ‘go up the river’ for quite a number of years.]

Q1 ‘S’ how old are you.

A Three

Q2 Do you know what truth is

A Grandpa stuck his pencil in my bottom

Q3 What do you mean by pencil

A (No response by victim)

Q4 What do you mean by your bottom

A I went to the doctors, two doctors and they looked at my bottom.

Q5 Can you tell me where grandpa lives

A At … grandpa’s name is …...

Q6 Does grandpa live with grandma

A Yes and grandma name is …(asking mother) What’s grandma’s name?

Q7 Does anyone else live with grandma and grandpa

A Bruce and Lorna and my daddy and Don and Tim

Q8 What is grandpa’s pencil

A (No answer from victim, her attention was distracted by a video on the t.v.)

Q9 ‘S’ I am going to ask you some questions. Some Questions will be lies and some will be the truth. Do you understand me.

A yes

Q10 What colour is your shirt

A Blue (victim wore blue shirt)

Q11 What colour is my shirt

A White (Detective Rumbold wore a white shirt)

Q12 If I said that my shirt was red, what would that be

A It’s white

Q13 If I said that my shirt was red would that be the truth

A No

Q14 When I ask you some questions will you tell me the truth

A Yes

Q15 When you said that grandpa put a pencil in your bottom, was that the truth

A Yeah, it was like your white shirt and paper (Rumbold writing on white paper note-book)

Q16 When he did this, can you tell me what happened

A I had to call daddy because he had to smack grandpa

Q17 Why

A Because he did be naughty

Q18 Where was grandpa’s pencil

A On the fridge over the freezer

Q19 Can you point to where grandpa put his pencil

A There (victim points to her vagina with her hand)

Q20 Can you point to where grandpa’s pencil is

A It’s in my bottom. He tried to push it in but he can’t. He’s a good boy now

Q21 Why is grandpa a good boy now

A Cause I told him

Q22 Did grandpa say anything to you when he did this

A No

Q23 What about after, did he say anything to you

A No

Q24 Where were you when grandpa put his pencil in your bottom

A Grandpa and grandmas

Q25 What room were you in

A The lounge room

Q26 Where was grandma when grandpa put his pencil in your bottom

A In the kitchen

Q27 Did it only happen once

A only once

Q28 When did it happen

A The other Friday

Q29 Friday

A . ‘B’ had a new bike, it was his birthday. He had a truck too.

Q30 When grandpa put his pencil in your bottom did it hurt

A No

Q31 When you say grandpa’s pencil, what do you mean

A It’s like crayons - we have pencils that don’t hurt - they only keep drawing

Q32 Do I have a pencil

A No, …. Pencils hurt, not all, only grandpas. Not the little peoples ones, only the big peoples ones hurt. Big people have big ones.

Q33 Can you point to where grandpa’s pencil is

A There (victim points to her vaginal area.)

Q34 When grandpa put his pencil in your vagina, where were his pants.

A I was wearing them.

Q35 What do you mean

A Because… - (victim mumbling to herself, unable to explain her answer)

Q36 Where were your pants

A I wear them on top of grandpas

Q37 Where was grandpa, when his pencil was in your bottom

A Beside the pencil case

Q38 Was grandpa holding you when he put his pencil in your bottom

A The pencil was hurting. It was twisting my arm around

Q39 Had you seen grandpa’s pencil before this

A No

Q40 How did grandpa get his pencil out

A Just have to stick it out hard, then he put it out really hard (victim indicates by pushing her hands out violently)

Q41 Out from where

A My bottom. Then he put some paint on my bottom, so my pooey didn’t come out

Q42 When you say that grandpa put his pencil in your bottom. How did he put it in your bottom

A Put it in hard

Q43 What was grandpa wearing when he put his pencil in your bottom

A Pencil clothes

Q44 What are pencil clothes

A He was very excited he wanted his grandma back

Q45 What was grandpa wearing

A Pencil clothes

Q46 What do you mean

A Bluey’s clothes

Q47 Do you have a pencil like grandpa’s

A Grandpa different

Q48 Why

A Cause his is different colours

Q49 Do all boys have pencils

A No, grandpa not a boy

Q50 What is he

A His a girl

Q51 How can grandpa be a girl

A He turned into a girl,

Q52 When

A About 5 o’clock on Friday.

Q53 When grandpa put his pencil in, where were your pants

A They were on

Q54 How did he put his pencil in if your pants were on

A . He tried and I cried

Q55 Did he come

A Yep

Q56 What happened when daddy came

A. He told grandpa to stop putting his pencil in my bottom

Q57 After this did you tell anybody

A Yes

Q58 Who

A Aunty Kate

Q59 Where does Aunty Kate live

A (No answer)

Q60 Does she live with grandpa and grandma

A No

Q61 Where does she live

A Lillypool (Liverpool)

Q62 What did you say to Aunt Kate

A Said, hello Kate

Q63 Nothing else

A Nothing else

Q64 Why

A. She ate too many lollies…(to mother), "and ‘S’ ate some paint didn’t she?"

Q65 When grandpa put his pencil in your bottom, did he put it anywhere else

A No ….. that’s all I can tell you

Q66 Why

A. Because nanna was standing by the wardrobe in her place

Q.67 Did you see nanna

A Yeah, seen her in her room looking at the funny bits and pieces in her wardrobe

Q68 When

A Thursday

Q69 ‘S’ is there anything else you want to tell me

A No

Q70 Have you been telling me the truth

A yes

Interview concluded at 12.15 p.m.

[ Comments : This procedure was hardly a benign and sensitive journey into a child’s fantasy world.]

***********************

Stage Three - Bureaucratic Thuggery.

(The Doris Diary Cont). A month after the police interview.

13.12.91. Detective Rumbold informed the child’s mother that they would not be charging the paternal grandfather due to lack of corroborating evidence. The mother was upset at the news, but believes that the paternal grandmother is innocent.

Since the ‘phone call from Inspector Rumnbold, ‘S’ has told the mother that daddy had sexually abused her with a pencil. The child said that the father said, ‘ that if she told people that poppa abused her and also if she told anyone that daddy did it, mummy would be taken away’.

Plan : The mother agreed to allow me to ‘phone Detective Rumbold about the latest disclosure.

13.12.91.

• Detective Rumbold suggested I notify DOCS when ‘S’ is older and more prepared to talk, then the police could take a statement.

• Phone call from ‘S’s’ mother, The mother has been to her solicitor because the child’s father wants access to his daughter. The solicitor said that she should not allow the child to see her father.

• The child is afraid to tell police as they may make her have blood tests and another medical.

• The child is willing to tell Dr Rupee and myself about the abuse.

• The child has told her Aunt, that daddy put his pencil in her bottom and she is not allowed to tell anyone or mummy will go away. Daddy said that I have to say its grandpa who put the pencil in.
• The mother wants me to interview ‘S’. I said that I would check with the police to see if I can do this and ‘phone her back.

[Comments: The mother has again changed horses mid-stream, while the Child Protection zealots readily adjust their own strategy to accommodate the wife’s latest revelations.]

************************

(Doris Diary Cont)

‘S’ stood in the waiting room and didn’t offer to come into the room. I had to coax her. The child didn’t say anything during the first part of the interview.

The mother believed that ‘B’ was saying that his father touched him because he has heard ‘S’ talking about what daddy did.

• ‘S’ has told more people about the abuse, she has also told Santa.

• The mother has told her husband that she believes that something has happened to ‘S’ and that she will be ordering a medical. [Comment : The father was not aware at the time that he was being targeted as the alleged offender, and that a medical examination had already been performed on his daughter in Nov 1991, while the medical exam referred to here is for the follow up medical performed in March 1992.]

• The mother said that the father did not want ‘S’ to be medically examined, but agreed to it recently. The father is still pursuing access.
• Paternal and maternal grandfathers both agreed to go under hypnosis and to have a polygraph to demonstrate that they have not touched ‘S’. The father has not offered to do this.
• The mother said that ‘S’ told her that she was being abused and that dad was punishing her for being naughty.
• The mother agreed for the father to see ‘S’ for one hour on Christmas Day.
• ‘S’ told the mother that she was petrified of police.
• The child had not indicated whether she wanted to se her dad or not.
• The mother asked ‘S’ if she wanted to see her dad and she nodded her head.
• I asked ‘S if she missed her dad but she didn’t answer.
• The child, since hearing that the police are not going to press charges against the father, has been uncooperative and testing mother out - she has been withdrawn from time to time.

Observations: ‘S’ quite withdrawn and drew pictures on the boards.

Intervention: To notify DOCS.

Plan : To notify the child’s mother.

**************************

[Comments: That alleged experts, including the wife’s solicitor, chose to ignore the wife’s motives is sadly regrettable. It was patently obvious, even to a lay person as myself, that the mother was concocting these false disclosures to attack the father and distance him from the children.

One notices that Doris has never extracted one disclosure from the child or noted any unusual behaviour to justify the mother’s crusade against the father and his family. Doris is blatantly insensitive to the real needs of both children as she pushes her own agenda to the limit.]

Phone call to Sydney DOCS officer Ron Mcleod.

I advised that the child was disclosing that her father had sexually abused her and made a notification to that effect.

Narration: I am renotifying this child on the basis that the child has made further disclosures that pertains to her father. The disclosures were as follows :-

• Daddy put his pencil in my bottom.
• Father told her to say that it was her grandfather and not him and that if you tell anybody it was me, mummy will go away.
• The mother suspended all access other than Christmas Day, when she will supervise contact with the father for one hour.

Mother and the children are currently residing with the child’s maternal grandparents. Police are aware of this fresh disclosure, but felt that a DPCS investigation is more appropriate at this stage.

***********************************

[Comment: One could be excused for thinking that Doris is the recipient of these disclosures outlined in her diary when, in fact, she is only parroting the mother’s outpourings throughout this investigation. That Doris was allowed to make her own notification, especially after her previous involvement in this debacle is a gross misuse of the system. The fact that these ‘fresh’ allegations were made by the mother the day after the police dropped their investigation of the paternal grandfather was conveniently omitted by Doris in her notification to the unsuspecting DOCS officer. The mother is again supported by inept operatives, who were unfamiliar with, or totally ignored, the background history of this case.]

Initially ‘S’ gave the impression of being determined not to converse with Departmental Officers, she showed signs of being insecure and timid when left alone with the officers. The natural, mother needed to be invited back into the room and asked to sit nearby.

Eventually the child became more relaxed and comfortable while sitting on the mother’s knee. The following interview took place:-

Q. What makes you happy ‘S’.

A. Biscuit.

Q. Is there anything else that makes you happy.

A. No

Q. What makes you sad.

"The child was not interested in continuing the interview, instead preferred to play with toys - wooden blocks and play-dough. While playing with the toys she gradually started to volunteer information about her family and time spent with her natural father and paternal grandfather. She claimed that she had been taken shopping with her father. She said that, "Daddy takes me shopping to Gladstone."

Q. Where else does daddy take you,

A. Somewhere.

Q. When he takes you somewhere, what do you do.

A. Buys me a surprise.

Q. What’s a surprise.

A. Chocolates.

Q How did she hurt someone.

A Someone put a pencil in her bottom.

Q Who put a pencil in your bottom.

A Grandad and daddy.

Q What kind of pencil did they put in your bottom.

A No response.

Q ‘S’ you told me that grandpa and daddy put a pencil in your bottom. Can you tell me what you meant by bottom.

A Bottom.

After a picture/figure was drawn by one of the officers to represent ‘S’, the child took a crayon and pointed at the drawing and the area depicting between her legs and said, "between her legs."

Q What does he do with his tossy ‘S’

After no response initially she replies, "Something makes me sad."

Q When does he make you feel sad.

A Sometimes.

Q How does he make you sad.

A When he just wants to put his pencil in my bottom.

Q What does daddy’s pencil look like.

A. No response.

Q Can you draw it for me.

A No.

Q Can you show it to me.

A Yeah (she pulled up the front of her dress and pointed with her finger at the lower part of her abdomen.)

Q. Where were you when daddy put his pencil in your bottom

A. In the house, the big house - daddy’s place.

Q. Was there anyone else with you when daddy put his pencil in your bottom.

A. Yeah, grandpa.

Q. What was grandpa doing

A. Watching. He smacked daddy, because daddy was being naughty.

Q. Do you remember what happened.

A. Yeah, it was Friday.

Narrative : Interview of the child took place at the Community Services Centre On the 06^th Jan 1992.

• The child presented herself as very talkative and was quite pleasant to talk to.

Matter referred to the Child Mistreatment Unit (MSU). ‘S’ will continue to go to child sexual abuse counselling. Natural mother and children are residing with the maternal grandparents. The children are not having access to the father.

As ‘S’ is being adequately protected and having on - going counselling our involvement is no longer warranted at this point in time. I would recommend that this case be registered and filed.

[Comments: This is the first time that the word ‘tossy’ ever appeared in any of the interviews and, no doubt, was of the mother’s influence as the interview did not ‘get under way’ until the mother eventually came into the interviewing room.

The blatant separation of daddy from grandad during the questioning was crude but an effective manipulation of the child’s assumed awareness of what their questions were about. ]

25.01. 1992 Phone call to Robin Tree of DOCS.

• Robin has interviewed ‘S’, who has disclosed that, ‘daddy has put his pencil in her bottom’. The pencil is daddy’s tossy and she lifted her dress and pointed to her groin area when she said this.
• DOCS has received a copy of Dr Rupee’s medical examination of ‘S’ and they have referred the case to Doreen Chung of the Mistreatment Unit.

Phone call to Doreen Chung of the CMU. She was not available so I left a message. Sent copy of medical statement to Robin Tree.

Place: Sydney Docs Office.

Date: 03 Feb 1992.

Q. ‘S’, do you remember policeman Reg Rumbold.

A. Yes.

Q. What did you tell Reg

A. (no answer)

Q Did you tell Reg about grandpa.

A. Yes

A. Dad, grandpa. (This has to be a fabricated ‘reply’ with the view of isolating the father.)

Q. Did daddy ever say anything to you about grandpa

A (no answer)

Q. What did daddy say to you

A. No answer

Q ‘S’ did you tell Reg about grandpa

A Told him the truth

Q Did you tell Reg anything about daddy

A Yes

Q What did you tell Reg

A Leslye and a dog

Q ‘S’ did you tell Reg about a pencil

A Yes

Q What did you tell Reg

A No

Q ‘S’ you told Reg that daddy and grandpa did it.

A Yeah

Q ‘S ‘ who really did it

A I forgot.

Q ‘S’ did anyone ever tell you what to say

A Yes.

Q Who told you

A Grandpa

Q What did grandpa say

A I will smack daddy because he out a pencil in your bottom

Q What’s a pencil

A It looks like that (‘S’ pointing to my pen.)

Q What did the pencil look like

A . It looks like nanny’s pen

Q ‘S’ who put the pencil in your bottom

A Daddy

Q When did daddy do that

A On the other Friday, when I was at grandmas

Q Where were you at grandma’s when daddy did it

A On the verandah

Q ‘S’, when daddy did it, was it day or was it dark outside

A Dark and it hurt.

Q ‘S’, where did daddy put it in

A There (‘S’ pointed with her finger to her groin area.)

Q What does it mean when you tell a lie

A You get a smack and your teeth fall out

Q What does it mean when you tell the truth

A Daddy did it

Q ‘S’ is there anything else you want to tell me about.

A Yes, I’m ready to go

Q ‘S’ can you tell me who really did do it

A (no answer)

Constable Oldman leaves the room and returns with Teresa Green who the asks ‘S’:

Q What did you tell me about grandpa

A Yes

Q How does grandpa know

A. He knows he will get me a drink

Q What did he do to you

A . Told me he would go and smack daddy

Q How did grandpa hurt you

A. He put a pencil in my bottom

Q Did anyone tell you to say anything about grandpa

A. Daddy

Q. What did he say

A. Something

Q. Can you remember

A . He said that he would smack grandpa and daddy.

Comment: In my view such questioning can only emphasise the incompetence and mischief of these people claiming expertise in a process during which a skilled child psychoanalyst would tread with the utmost caution.]

Approximately three months ago ‘S’ indicated to her mother, that she had been sexually abused by her natural father during access visits. The child started making statements "It’s all mine and my brother’s fault. My brother and I were naughty "

‘S’ then disclosed to her maternal Aunt Maud that she has been instructed by her natural father to say that she has been abused by the paternal grandfather as she had been scared of losing her natural mother in case of sharing this information with other people.

Just recently Aunt Maud, a social worker, and the natural mother alleged the above disclosure by ‘S’ in their presence.

Approximately two years ago ‘S’ made allegations of sexual abuse against her paternal uncle Tim and her paternal grandfather. S was interviewed by DOCS officers at the time, but no disclosures were made by the child. Following the most recent disclosures, late October 1991, the natural mother contacted the SAU and attended a meeting with one of the officers familiar with the matter.

According to the natural mother ‘S’ related to the officer extremely well and told her something. ‘S’ was examined by a Health Services doctor on the 02^nd Nov 1991.

The mother signed a consent form for a release of information pertaining to her daughter’s special medical examination.

***************************

(Doris notes cont.)

92. Record of Session with:

• She has now recently informed me that that they will not be making charges and that they will not be interviewing the father. [Comments: the father was interrogated by police two days later on the 19^th Feb 1992.]

• All gathered discussed and agreed that the criminal court would not be helpful due to the lack of evidence against the husband, and the need of 100% proof for conviction.We suggested that the easiest way to stop the children’s access to their father is going via the Family Court. The Court uses probabilities in making decisions.
• Discussed possibility of getting restraining order out for ‘S’

Observations : ‘S’ was well groomed in a pretty dress.

Plan: Next session with ‘S’ and mother on the 03^rd Mar 1992.

****************************

[Comments: In this summary of interview by Doris, the above people had convened to implement a strategy to dissuade the child’s natural father to press his application for custody of both children. Birkowski has since been employed by the Family Court to compile Family Reports as a Reg 8 counsellor.

The Family Court does not take out restraining orders on children. The criminal court’s standard of proof does not require 100% proof of guilt, but is based on the requirement to prove guilt ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. In my opinion, reasonable doubt does not fit into the thinking of these Child Protection zealots, who assume by their rhetoric that the ‘alleged perpetrator’ is ‘guilty until proved innocent’.

Family Court legislation evades issues in which guilt needs to be proved or proof that the subject child is actually a victim of the alleged abuse. The Family Court standard of proof is the ‘civil standard’ where culpability is determined on the Balance of Probabilities.

However the court has since added a further impediment to natural justice by adopting the concept of ‘lingering doubts’ (see Family Law Case 1988M&M) as a reason to deny an accused party access to his/her child.

The police, however, abandoned their investigation into all allegations of child sexual abuse against the father after subjecting him to one interrogation session. While there were no charges made against any person, the collective efforts of all the investigating teams involved in this matter has left a bureaucratic stench that lingers to this day.]

(Doris notes cont.)

The wife brought ‘B’ to the SAU with her friend Pandora. The three were seen by Dr Rupee and myself. The purpose of the meeting was for a medical examination of ‘B’. The boy initially said that it was grandad who put pencils in his bottom, but more recently he said that it was dad who put pencils in his bottom.

The wife said that the father had access stopped to ‘B’ in Jan 1992. Prior to this ‘B’ refused to get into the car for access visits. He would get distressed if he thought his mother was going to leave him. He would refuse to sleep in beds. More recently he has accepted his own bed and sleeps init.

Pandora said that while ‘B’ was having access to his father, when he stayed over with the maternal grandparents his behaviour was loud and unmanageable. Since access has been stopped he is a ‘different’ child. He is quite and a pleasure to look after.

While a history of sexual abuse was being taken, ‘B’ hid himself from Dr Rupee and myself. He walked away from the scales and measuring device (for height) and cried. After Dr Rupee played with him he relaxed and laughed. He said that he wanted to go to McDonalds.

Plan : Doris to arrange for counselling and assessment compensation.

[Comment : Apart from another tirade of self-serving nonsense, these social misfits then recommended that this ‘doctor’ perform an unnecessary anal examination on ‘B’. ]

• ‘S’ initially seen alone and later I saw her with her brother ‘B’ and her mother. The girl is shy at pre-school, but otherwise o’kay. She agreed to let Dr Rupee examine her bottom to see if she has healed. She is unsettled at night.

• ‘S’ and ‘B’ have not seen or heard from their father since Jan 1992.
• The mother has brought both children new bedroom suites because they refuse to sleep in beds that the mother purchased while they were living in the Sydney flat. Apparently the father had lived in the same flat.
• The mother has not heard from the father for a while. She said that her solicitor had sent copies of statements and medical report to the husband’s solicitor to indicate that there was evidence of sexual abuse.

Observations: The mother and children at ease and talkative

Intervention: Play therapy to engage ‘S’.

Plan : Next session 28.03.92. Medical for ‘S’ 12.04. 92.

[Comments: This action by the wife’s solicitor to send this critical information so late in the investigation must be viewed as legalised form of ‘blackmail’ designed to place serious doubt in the mind of the father’s solicitor as to his own client’s innocence. In my opinion, Dr Rupee’s medical report was not thoroughly scrutinised by the father’s solicitor and is a dereliction of duty of his client’s interests and the real needs of the child.]

******************************

(Doris Notes cont )

Phone call from mother. She said that she would not be coming today. She said that she had been to the doctor for a lump in her breast and goes to hospital in the 31May1992. ‘B’ became depressed about his mother going to hospital. ‘B’ thinks that mummy will not come home if she goes to hospital.

The mother thinks that ‘B’ remembers the threats the father made i.e "If you tell, your mother will go away and she will not come back." ‘S’ said that she is being punished because she disclosed what daddy did to her.

12.04.92. The mother, daughter and Pandora presented for medical review. Dr Rupee examined ‘S’ and found that the bump and inflammation in the hymen to have gone, hence normal. See medical protocol.

Review of a 4 year old girl with a history of sexual assault involving digital fondling and vaginal penetration by known adult male. Previous examination on 02.11.91. Contact with perpetrator a few weeks before. No contact since. No complaint since - no pain no discharge no dysuria.

Examination : Cooperation - normal intelligence.

Normal system examination. Wt … 15kgs Ht… 102cms.

Genital Examination: " Normal vaginal area. Normal labia majora, minora, fouchette. Hymen membrane - crescent shaped, normal posteriore rim. No evidence of ‘disrupted’ vascularity or fibrous tissue. Anterior uretheral bands as previously described . Normal findings on genital examination indicative of healing over time of previous findings. Previous blood testing / low vaginal swabs reported normal."

I then saw the mother alone, while Pandora played with ‘S’. .

• ‘B’ afraid of doctors and doesn’t want his mother to be treated by doctors, he has not trusted doctors for a while.
• ‘S’ is very distressed when her mother told her that she would have a needle inserted in her breast, when she goes to hospital.
• The husband has not contacted the mother and he appears to have dropped his pursuit of access. The mother will eventually take custody to the Family Court just to have it settled.
• The mother is upset about allegations made by the child’s paternal relatives. They claim that ‘S’ has lied about the sexual abuse and that the mother is cruel for not letting the children see the paternal grandparents.

Observations: ‘S’ quite today, especially during medical. The mother teary when she said she doesn’t want to go to hospital if the children are going to be traumatised by this.

Intervention: Discussed preparing children for hospital and involving the children in preparing for mother’s return from hospital viz. the children arrange transport and welcome party.

11.07.92. Session with mother and ‘S’

• The mother said that ‘S’ and ‘B’ are sleeping with her. They get out of their beds and at 12 midnight get into her bed.
• I spoke to ‘S’ about what makes her go to her mum at night. ‘S’ said, "Mother bear comes and sees her at night and the roar of the bear scares her and she goes to mum." ‘S’ said that the mother bear doesn’t roar but the father bear does. She said that the bears live far away in a forest and she then said that the forest is in their back yard. She said that other animals come to her house and "they are sad." Because they have been woken up. She said that she became angry, because the animals came to her bedroom. She said that she is not afraid when she sleeps with her mother. She said that the bears and the animals are really there and are not dreams.
• The mother said that ‘S’ will see her father now because he will not abuse her further, because he has been told not to do it. ‘S’ said that she will tell him not to touch her if he does it again.
• The mother said that when people talk about the father, ‘B’ becomes very upset and says, "daddy put pencils in my bottom.". she then added that ‘B’ doesn’t to see his father.

Discussed triggers for children hopping into bed, but mother has not identified any. The mother has been off anti-depressants, but has depressed days when her routine is changed and children don’t get the same level of attention. The mother says that she withdraws and her temper is shorter. The mother wants to work, but does not trust anyone with her children, except her sister. She said that ‘B’ is clingy and wants more cuddles than usual. He is sometimes good and sometimes bad. The mother said that when appears S’ upset, she will ask about this, but ‘S’ says, "I will tell Doris."

The mother has not been having counselling but may contact Greersville Clinic for an appointment. She said that she thought she would be o’kay, but has since become depressed.

Observations: ‘S’ close to mother - slowly left her and quietly played with toys’. ‘S’ would contradict what she said at times.

Plan: Next session 22.07.92 with ‘S’

[Comment : As mentioned, all alleged disclosures by the child were of the mother’s reporting only, and always at most convenient and opportune times viz, the switch of suspicion from Tim to the paternal grandfather and then from the grandfather to the natural father.

Even though Doris is trying desperately to get a disclosure from the child ‘S’, she has came up empty handed throughout the investigation period. The most disturbing aspect of these sessions with Doris is that the mother, with the apparent approval of Doris, is trying to keep the allegations alive in the children’s minds to get ‘S’ to disclose in readiness for the coming Court case. Doris is encouraging this ‘brainwashing therapy’, under the pretext of sexual abuse rehabilitation.]

(Doris Notes cont.)

‘S’ told me in the waiting room that she wanted to see me on my own. I invited both ‘S’ and the mother into the room.

The mother wanted to be referred to a psychiatrist. After discussing the mother’s options I saw ‘S’ on her own,

‘S’ told me that she wanted to draw a picture. She drew about eight pictures on one sheet of paper. She said that she was drawing a dinosaur, but later said it was a dog.

When she started drawing another picture she said that she was going to draw Doris - then she said nanny - then she said mummy.

She kept changing the description of the drawings several times.

When she finished one drawing she said that she would give it to daddy, so he could give it to someone else.

She didn’t mention daddy again in this session.

When she completed her drawings, she put texture colours in their case, so that the dark blue was next to light blue and shades of green together.

The mother said that after the last session she took the child to pre-school. The mother thought ‘S’ was distressed because she talked about the animals in her dream. During counselling the mother wanted to know if ‘S’ had said anything about this today as ‘S’ told the teacher and her that she would tell me about the animals.

Observations : ‘S’ would talk about one topic and before I could get her to elaborate, she would talk about something else.

Intervention : Play therapy.

Plan: Two appointments 29Jul 92 and 03Aug 92.

[Comments: ‘S’ appears to be behaving in a perfectly normal fashion for a child of her age. For Doris to try and read some dark meaning out of the child’s actions is scurrilous and unacceptable. The fact that the child has not exhibited sexualised behaviour or had ever repeated one single disclosure, as alleged by the mother, during all these sessions with Doris or any other expert is very significant. The fact that the child appears to remember her father with kindness is also fascinating.]

********************

(Doris notes cont)

‘S’ was brought to the Bronte SAU by her maternal grandmother, who said that ‘S’ didn’t want her mother to bring her here to see me today, because she wanted to tell me something.

I took ‘S’ to the interview room. She wanted to draw. She drew a picture of a rocket, then a picture of a duck. She said that she was going to draw something then changed what she was going to draw. She said she wanted me to draw.

Then she said that she wanted me to read her a story. I gave her three choices. She said that she didn’t want me to read about the puppy dog, so I read her another book. She said that she did not want to talk.

She said that she did not want to go, but said that her father lived at Cronulla with her. She said, when questioned why she was so upset about animals at pre-school during our last session, that she was ‘afraid of dogs’.

I then took her back to the waiting room. The maternal grandmother said that ‘S’ told her maternal grandfather, "I want to tell you what poppy and daddy did." She then changed the subject and went to bed.

10.08.92 ‘S’ and mother were in the waiting area. The mother said that ‘S’ wanted to see me alone. I saw ‘S’ alone. ‘S’ wanted to draw.

‘S’ continued to draw for a while. I then said after you draw your picture do you want to talk to me - she answered, " yeah, I’m going to tell you the truth about daddy, when I finish drawing." She continued to draw a window in the house she was drawing.

Ten minutes passed and no conversation around the truth.

‘S’ when encouraged to talk, said, " I am not allowed to go to grandpa’s and grandma’s until I tell the truth."

I then asked, ‘Do you want to go there and see them?’ ‘S’ replied, ‘mummy said I have to tell the truth’.

I then asked, " Do you know what the truth is? " ‘S’ replied, "No, I have not told the truth before." She continued to draw I tried to encourage her to listen to a talk on protective behaviours, which I was going to tell, but she continued to draw.

Later I asked, "Do you want to go out and get your mother, and before we do is there anything else you want to do?". ‘S’ replied, " Yes, I will tell the truth, because I never told the truth before." She continued to draw.

I saw the mother alone. She said that ‘S’ doesn’t talk about ‘telling the truth’ at home, except that ‘S’ seems to trust the maternal grandfather, and has told him that she will tell him the truth. The mother said that the maternal grandfather is willing to come to counselling to support her talking about it. The maternal grandmother mother said that ‘S’ will not ‘disclose’ to her, because she believes that she (‘S’) will be separated from her mother.

The mother said that ‘S’ was afraid of a dog kept at the paternal grandfathers’ home, and to help overcome this fear of dogs, she bought a German Shepherd. ‘S’ was afraid of the dog and the mother had to give it away.

The mother says that ‘S’ says that she loves Doris.

[Comments: It is fairly obvious that ‘S’ only wants to draw, talk and be entertained in the same way as happens during pre-school. She realises that Doris, not her mother, supplies these outlets and for that reason must look forward to seeing Doris. On the other hand, Doris is using the child’s innocence for her own ends and, in my opinion, is guilty of an insidious form of child abuse.

The natural mother is obviously incapable of giving ‘S’ the attention she needs, being too preoccupied in her own paranoia. There is nothing in this child’s responses from which this despicable pair could possible draw any comfort to vindicate their own outrageous and dishonest behaviour.]

(Doris Notes cont.)

I saw the mother and ‘S’ together at the AAU in Cheetah Street.

• The mother told me that the father had applied for un-supervised access of both children. She found out last Saturday and this has precipitated great anxiety for her. She believes that access will place the children at risk of abuse.

• The mother told me that ‘S’s’ friends at pre-school treat her in a positive way. She comes home and tells her mother that she wants a father.

• ‘S’ told the mother that it was her (‘S’) fault that she doesn’t have a father because she(‘S’) disclosed the abuse and daddy was not allowed to see her. ‘S’ also told her mother that she (‘S’) was naughty and that it why daddy abused her. When the mother explained to ‘S’ that it was her father’s fault, ‘S’ replied, " It wasn’t daddy, it was grandpa."

• The mother said that ‘S’ changes ‘who abused her’ from time to time and this frustrates her greatly.
• The mother believes that the child wants a father figure rather than her own natural father, so she has noticed that ‘S’ has addressed the mother’s new partner Derrick as dad. ‘S’ said that one of her uncles can be dad.
• The mother said that the natural father’s cousin Dennis has two children and that their mother Nellie claims that they have been sexually assaulted, including anal abuse. Dennis and his wife are divorced. Nellie told the mother that her (Nellie’s ) children were saying that ‘S’s’ paternal grandmother , "put medicine on our sore bottoms." And said, "not to tell anyone about this."
• The mother said that ‘S’ also said that her paternal grandmother gave medicine to her bottom, and that she should not tell anyone.
• The mother is wondering if the paternal grandmother is hiding sexual assault. The mother said that, prior to her stopping access ‘S’, when told that, " you are naughty." by her father, would react strongly and become distressed. However when the mother tells ‘S’ that she is naughty, the child’s reaction does not include stress.
• The mother said that the natural father is not fit to care for her children because he drinks. She also said that he once broke into some premises while drunk, and was later charged by police.
• The mother is puzzled at the child’s fear of animals. Apparently ‘S’ was not always afraid, but developed a fear of dogs, especially around the time the parents separated.

Observations : ‘S’ played quietly with doll and doll’s house. I did not interview her. Plan : One more session to say goodbye to ‘S’, and if the mother would like counselling with me she can see me. Next appointment 31.10.92.

The above note ended further records of official meetings between Doris, the mother and the child.

***************************

Background. The viability or otherwise, of the mother’s persistent and serious allegations against the subject child’s natural father and his extended family, goes directly to her own credibility. Should her credibility be found wanting, such a conclusion would place a serious question mark against the expertise and credibility of officers from DOCS, the Sexual Assault Units and police involved in this matter. The failure of all welfare officers concerned to place any significance on the mother’s performance throughout this unfortunate saga is tragically regrettable. In my opinion, the lack of expertise by these incompetents places the subject children at real psychological risk while in the care and control of this mother.

My own investigation identified five (5) variations or versions of one alleged ‘falling and bleeding’ episode, each variation fashioned by the mother to suit the occasion either chronologically or in the detail. Each version usually entailed vilifying someone from the child’s paternal side of the family.

Fact: The only corroborated instance of the mother taking the child to any hospital or surgery for treatment was contained in a loose note in Doris’s working file that showed that when the child was 12 months of age she was taken to the Greersville Clinic by the mother. This file note read as follows:

18.06.88 1/12 unwell, intermittent fever, urine no growth. Little else found.

88. Recycle? - allergic rash - treated with phernegan - no other investigation.

The following statement was made in the context that the mother and the Child Sexual Assault Unit had already named the paternal grandfather as the alleged perpetrator. Her efforts to slant her statement to isolate the grandfather as a child sexual offender became evident. This interview of the mother by police followed on Dr Rupee’s finding of alleged physical evidence of child sexual abuse and after the child was interviewed by Rumbold.

Police Statement: The natural mother claimed that in June 1990 her daughter’s behaviour started to be noticeably different on returning home after visiting the paternal grandparents, claiming that ‘S’ was a little horror, being very cheeky and disobedient. The mother said that:

About a month or two after this my husband took ‘S’ to his parent’s house in Cronulla. In the afternoon I received a telephone call from the paternal grandfather who said, " ‘S’ has blood in her pants. She fell over. What can I do?" He said, "I am on my own, I don’t know what to do". He then said, "I have checked her and she doesn’t seem to have any cuts or bruises or anything."

Comment: After perusing the mother’s affidavit sworn on the 13^th July 1992, we are now left with 5 versions of the same incident and all versions related solely by the mother.

Version 1. As told to Doris and appears in her record of interview of the 23^rd Jun 1990 (pages 2,3.) from which the father’s brother Tim was targeted as the ‘alleged perpetrator’.

Versions 2 and 3. As told to police in her statement of Nov 18^th 1991.

Versions 4 and 5. As sworn in her affidavit of July 13^th 1992.

**********************************

On the 23rd Jun 1990 (‘S’ was almost two and a half years of age), Doris noted in her record of interview that the mother had told her that, "‘S’ had fallen while at the paternal grandparents home and started to bleed and was taken to the Greersville Hospital for treatment. She was suspected of having kidney infection."

The time of this alleged incident can be traced to Sunday the 14^th Jun 1990, the evening of which the mother claimed she noticed blood on the child’s pants in the crotch area. However, when at her own parents the following night (15^thJun1990) she apparently made no mention of taking the child to the Greersville Clinic, as her parents made no reference to any such conversation with the mother in their subsequent affidavits in support of the wife’s case. June 15^th was the ‘bingo night’, when she and her husband went over to her parent's house with the children, prior to taking the maternal grandmother to bingo.

It was on the strength of this alleged falling and bleeding incident that the mother alleges she took the child to Dr Singh’s locum on Tuesday the 16^thJun1990, from which the child was allegedly referred to the Child Sexual Assault Unit for sexual abuse assessment by the locum.

Version 2.

In describing the bleeding incident in her statement to police on the 18^th Nov1991, the mother made no mention of taking the child to the Greersville Clinic. She stated that she ‘rang someone there at the clinic’ after which she made no statement as to any follow up medical examination of ‘S’ at the Clinic.

**************************

This version is also from the same police statement in which the mother was targeting the paternal grandfather as the ‘alleged perpetrator’. It continued on straight after version 2 as follows:

" … About a month or two later (early Aug or Sep 1990) my husband took ‘S’ to his parent’s house in Cronulla. In the afternoon I received a telephone call from the paternal grandfather who said, " ‘S’ has blood in her pants. She fell over. What can I do? " He then said, "I am on my own, I don’t know what to do". He then said, "I have checked her and she doesn’t seem to have any cuts or bruises or anything."

I then asked, "Where’s the father?" he said, "He’s had some running around to do." I then said to him, "When he comes back, tell her to bring him home." When I hung up I had a conversation with two women who were at my place at the time.

[Comments. This version was obviously meant to place suspicion directly on the grandfather, as at the time of her statement to the police the grandfather had already been targeted as the alleged perpetrator. By indicating that her husband was elsewhere when the grandfather ‘phoned her, the mother wanted to convince police that the old man was at the house alone with the girl, therefore had the opportunity to molest her.

By claiming that the paternal grandfather said that that there were no abrasions around the vaginal area suggests that the child’s vagina must have been physically interfered with to cause the bleeding. The mother underlined this fact by saying that she did not see any cuts on the child, yet there was evidence of vaginal bleeding.

This August incident also allegedly occurred during the thirteen months ‘silence’ following the wife’s failed attempt to have the husband’s brother Tim charged with the alleged abuse of ‘S’, and would explain why no record of this alleged incident appeared in Doris’s work notes over that period.

However, when contact was re-established between the mother and Doris on the 08^th Sep1991, the mother omitted to mention any falling and bleeding incidents to Doris. Yet, two month’s later, the wife recalled, not one, but two alleged accounts of falling and bleeding in detail during her statement to the police on Nov18th 1991! ]

***********************

Version 4. In the wife’s affidavit, sworn the 13^th Jul 1992, an opening paragraph describing an alleged incident, that had originally started with the typed words, "On Sunday 24^th Jun1990……" this opening phrase was amened and initialled by the wife and her solicitor to read, " On a Sunday in Mar / April 1990…."

This paragraph then continued, "… when ‘S’ came home from access at my husband’s parents, I noticed a small amount of watery blood adjacent to the vaginal area in her pants. I said to my husband, "What’s this blood in the child’s pants?", he replied, "I don’t know." I then telephoned Greersville Hospital and spoke to a nurse in casualty. I said to her, "My daughter’s got blood in her pants. What could it be? The nurse seemed to be rather guarded and said that it could be kidney infection, if you are concerned take her to your doctor tomorrow."

It now appears that by mid 1992, with a court hearing drawing closer, the wife’s solicitor apparently found difficulty in logically placing the alleged ‘falling and bleeding’ incidents into chronological perspective. The wife’s efforts later to place these alleged incidents into an acceptable time frame that would Implicate the father has only exacerbated the problem and reflected further on her lack of credibility.]

***************************

Version 5. Later in the same affidavit, the wife stated, "Approximately one month later (April/May 1990) my husband’s father telephoned me and said, "‘S’ has got blood in her pants. What should I do? I replied, "What the hell’s going on?", he replied," She’s had a fall ,I don’t know .". I then asked, "Where’s my husband?" he replied, " He’s not here.". I then said, "When he gets back tell him to bring her straight back home." When they arrived home, I observed a small amount of blood on her panties near her vagina. I then said to her," How did you hurt yourself sweetie?" She would not reply to my question, she in fact did not speak at all. I said to my husband, "What in the hell is going on?" he replied, ‘ I don’t know what you are talking about.

Comments: One now notices in versions 4 and 5 that the husband is the one being asked the questions as at the time of the wife swearing her affidavit since he was now the ‘new target’.

Version 5 also has an uncanny resemblance to version 3, except for the time frame and the fact that the wife has now compromised both the grandfather and the father. She claims that the grandfather rang and said that ‘S’ had blood in her pants (no mention of falling). The wife is implying that the child mysteriously started bleeding from the vagina, and that the grandfather was covering up for the father, who was allegedly, "not here" when the question of his whereabouts was asked by the mother. When the father got home the wife allegedly asked him, " What in the hell is going on?", to which he replied,"I don’t know what you are talking about."

Summary.

It is significant to note that the first indication that the child had an alleged ‘history’ of perineal pain, bleeding from the anus and vaginal discharge, appeared in Teresa Green’s ‘Final Report’, dated 07Jul1990. Green claimed that six months prior to the child’s notification to the Child Sexual Assault Unit, the child was taken to Dr Singh’s Surgery, where the Dr Singh allegedly suspected Urinary Tract Infection. However no records of such a visit or examination could be produced when Dr Singh’s Surgery was subpoenaed to produce all documents relating to both children!

One can correctly assume that the mother fabricated this alleged evidence to impress Green and bolster her claims of the child’s alleged abuse. As there were no ‘treatment’ records from any hospital, other than the one from the Greersville Clinic when the child was 12 months old, the information given to Doris by the mother in all instances, is not only uncorroborated and unreliable, but mischievously motivated.

In version 2 the wife apparently waited two days after allegedly noticing blood before seeking medical advice at Dr Singh’s Surgery, where the child was supposedly given a brief examination. However Singh’s surgery had no records of any visits by the wife or examinations of the child at anytime. Nor was there any record of the child ever being referred to the Child Sexual Assault Centre from Singh’s Surgery.

In version 3 the wife was apparently too preoccupied in compromising the paternal grandfather, while there was no mention of any medical ‘follow-up’ for ‘S’. This omission appears unusual until one realises that it would make her story more difficult to verify in the short term, especially when she was well aware that she had taken no action to seek medical help for the child.

In versions 4 and 5, in spite of the implied bleeding episodes the wife never took the child for medical treatment or examination. In version 4 she alleges that she made an attempt to seek medical advice, but after a conversation with ‘someone’ she never followed it up.

The mother’s deceit in describing a bogus ‘tying –up’ incident together with bogus vaginal bleeding incidents to point suspicion at Tim, the paternal grandfather and finally the natural father, is mind boggling. The integrity of all Child Protection agents involved in this case has been decimated through their unilateral support of this psychotic mother.

On the opening day of the hearing the father, faced with a seemingly insurmountable task to vindicate his innocence after hearing from His Honour the ramifications of 1988 M&M, walked away from his children. His Honour, when noting the father’s decision, remarked that he considered that the father had done a courageous thing that would enable the children to get on with their lives without further disruption.

The father, a gardener’s assistant, had little or no financial resources to fight for his rights in this matter, whereas the mother had the comfort of Legal Aid, a fact that would have precluded a lengthy trial on the father’s part. One can be assured that the counsel for the mother was well aware of the father’s circumstances and the reluctance of the father’s solicitor to ‘make a fight of it’.

Because the case did not proceed, the trial judge was not privy to any subpoenaed documents, however His Honour must have had a fair idea of the limited value of the wife’s evidence. I say this in the knowledge that this judge was in receipt of a list of documents (affidavits etc) to be relied upon by both sides for the hearing. This particular trial judge always insisted on reading the documents from such a list, prior to going into court.

I cannot believe that the glaring discrepancies in the mother’s accounts of significant events would not have gone unnoticed during His Honours scrutiny of this material. While the subpoenas requesting information were included in this list of documents, the trial judge would not have had access to the actual subpoenaed material itself. As the trial did not proceed, the judge would not have been in a position to come to the same conclusions as myself. However the trial judge would have had the opportunity to see the subpoena directed to Dr Singh’s surgery from the husband’s solicitor and the subsequent letter of non-compliance from Singh’s surgery. From those documents alone it was obvious that there were no records held at the surgery to show that the subject child had even been there, let alone referred by that surgery to the Sexual Assault Unit.

The trial judge’s observation that the father showed courage when he abandoned his pursuance of access smacks of a judicial determination not to rock the boat. As a consequence, the father and his family have been treated dishonestly by a dysfunctional system that purports to have children’s interest at heart. These alleged experts have effectively ‘abused’ the children they purport to be protecting by depriving them of a significant parent and important contact with the father’s extended family.

For my part I am thoroughly disgusted with the bias and limited capacity of an inward looking court that could be so unaware of children’s real needs, while giving unwarranted support to incompetents who set themselves up as child protection experts.

The complete absence of proof that the child was ever presented for medical examination during any of the alleged ‘bleeding’ incidents is unconscionable and goes to the very heart of this entire investigation. The credibility of all alleged child sexual assault experts involved in this matter hinges on the simple requirement to produce corroborating evidence to support the mother’s claims. In the absence of such evidence, DOCS and the Child Sexual Assault Units went to incredible lengths to support this mischievous and paranoid woman throughout this outrageous farce. The father’s solicitor exhibited a disturbing lack of interest in his client’s innocence as well as the welfare of the children. The solicitor’s need for guaranteed financial remuneration obviously overtook his moral obligation to the father and the children.

[End part 3]

****************************

Within two months of filing her application, the wife filed a Notice of Risk of Child Abuse, in which she accused the husband of the sexual abuse of the younger of the two daughters. The subject child was approximately two and a half years of age at the time of the alleged offence.

The parties separated in late Jan1992, after which there was a shared access arrangement of the two children. A few months prior to separation the wife, without the husband’s knowledge, formed a romantic relationship with a male doctor with whom she was working during her internship. The father filed a custody application for both children in March1992.

Just prior to the wife making her cross application for custody, the modicum of ‘goodwill’ between the parties began to deteriorate sharply, finally coming to a head when the father, for no apparent reason, refused to allow the wife access to the two girls. The wife responded by collecting both children from the school and day-care centre respectively. On the same day she lodged a Domestic Violence Order against the father as a result of a disputation that followed between them. While there was no evidence of physical violence, both parties took out Domestic Violence Order applications on the other.

When questioned by police, the wife claimed a history of violence by the husband throughout the marriage, including an allegation of rape. The husband denied the wife’s allegations and claimed that she had recently harassed him over the ‘phone. While both parties claimed exaggerated accounts of abuse that reflected on their own credibility, it was the husband’s credibility that suffered the most in the trial judge’s eventual findings.

Prior to the wife filing the Notice of Risk of Child Abuse an interim custody application came before the court, during which the presiding judge was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before him to make an informed decision as to such an order. The judge directed that a short Family Report be prepared and appointed a Separate Representative on the children’s behalf. His Honour also made restraining orders against each of the parties from molesting or interfering with the other. In the meantime the existing shared access arrangements remained in place.

In late August 1992, during his care of both children, the father stopped taking the younger child to a Day Care Centre. On the 11^th Nov 1992, the wife notified the Department of Community Services that she suspected the sexual abuse of the younger child by the father, and had unilaterally stopped the father’s access to both children.

The wife alleged that, soon after an access occasion in early October 1992, the younger child complained of ‘stinging’ when urinating and soreness of the vagina. The wife and her now defacto husband decided to perform a ‘dipstick’ test on a sample of the child’s urine. The wife said that she diagnosed urinary tract infection, while her defacto prescribed the appropriate medication.

When giving evidence in the witness box, the defacto said that he never saw the wife take the urine sample from the child, however he did agree that the dipstick test showed indications of probable urinary tract infection.

The wife alleged that, during the next access changeover, she informed the father that the subject child had suffered from a urinary tract infection following the previous access occasion and that the ‘infection’ had since cleared with medication. She further alleged that, after the third of three further access occasions, the child raised the same complaint of burning while urinating, and vaginal soreness. The wife carried out another dipstick test and again allegedly found indications of UTI. This condition allegedly cleared after a few days of medication.

Approximately one week after the second dipstick test and two days prior to the father’s next scheduled access occasion, the wife and her defacto took the child for a kidney-imaging test. While this test indicated normal, the pair claim, that since there was no evidence of kidney damage, there could be only one reason for the child’s alleged recurring genital infection - that being sexual interference!

The wife immediately reported a notification of suspected child sexual abuse to DOCS on the 11^th Nov 1992. In a unilateral decision, DOCS denied the father’s access to the children due the next day. During the hearing, the husband denied that his estranged wife had ever mentioned to him that ‘R’ had complained of, or suffered from any genital infection prior to denying him access to the children.

Following the wife’s notification to DOCS, the child was subjected to a medical examination including anal, vaginal and throat swab testing. All tests and inspections were clear with no evidence of infection or sexual interference. In spite of this negative result, the DOCS paediatrician made the following statement in her report:

When referring to this same report, the trial judge made a finding as follows:

The maternal grandmother (a church pastor) said in her affidavit that the wife had indicated a history of violence throughout the marriage. Notwithstanding the fact that the wife told police that she had been raped on at least one occasion during the marriage, the wife’s counsel agreed that she failed to mention any rape incident when relating the alleged history of domestic violence to her mother. This alleged history of violence was first brought to her mother’s attention just prior to the wife taking a clandestine holiday with her future defacto husband shortly before the break-up of the marriage. The pastor, prior to this conversation with her daughter was unaware of past violence between the couple.

The pastor alleged that during October 1992 ‘R’ had complained to her, during nappy changes, that she had a sore vagina. The child was saying, "don’t hurt me " and sometimes saying, "don’t hurt my vagina." According to the pastor, there were other alleged occasions since August1992 when ‘R’ yelled out in the night a couple of times, "daddy don’t hurt." During Sep/Oct1992, she also alleged that ‘R’ had redness in the vaginal area and, on a number of occasions, complained to her that her wee hurts. Over the ensuing weeks the pastor said that she had the decided impression that the child was suffering from some sort of a urinary infection, because the child used to cry when she went to the toilet. The pastor also alleged that ‘R’ made a disclosure while sitting in the back seat of her car in Dec.1992, claiming that the child lifted her dress and punched herself in the vagina saying that, "Daddy does this."

However, during questioning in the witness box, the pastor’s husband (the maternal grandfather) admitted that he was unaware of some incidents described in his wife’s affidavit. He did not know that the child had suffered from a urinary tract infection and denied any knowledge of the alleged incident in the back seat of the car, or that the child had cried out in her sleep as described by the maternal grandmother.

A Preschool teacher, appearing for the mother, had had all her evidence rejected by the trial judge, after His Honour found glaring discrepancies between her testimony and that alleged by the wife. The father had always strongly denied abusing his daughter.

Comments: There is no doubt that the uncorroborated allegations of the wife and her mother were the most persuasive elements in the trial judge’s findings. In the total absence of any corroborated clinical evidence, His Honour’s acceptance of the credibility of these two witnesses is the sum total of the case against the father’s interests.

The evidence of the wife’s defacto was speculative and self-serving, when he allegedly diagnosed the dipstick test as a ‘probable’ indication of UTI. This trend was compounded by the assumption of the wife and defacto that, as a result of the ‘negative’ imaging test, the child must be a victim of sexual abuse. The point to be made is that none of the alleged evidence against the father can be corroborated as to the truth of that evidence. The only corroborated fact presented by the imaging test was that no kidney damage was evident.

The real question to be asked is, when the first dipstick test showed ‘possible urinary tract infection’, why didn’t these ‘professionals’ take the child to a local GP for official verification, prior to prescribing medication? While their behaviour, following the first alleged complaint by the child, could be guardedly acceptable, however after the second alleged complaint by the child, to repeat the test and diagnosis and then take the child for an ‘imaging ‘test is most irregular. Their lack of professionalism could only be seen as a self-fulfilling exercise in an attempt to compromise the father in the sexual abuse of his daughter.

In summary, these alleged ‘infections’ were not corroborated from any source other than the word of the wife and her defacto. The maternal grandmother allegedly noticed reddening of the vaginal area with comments that the child could have been suffering from UTI. There was no ‘official’ documentation from any source supporting a history of urinary tract infection. The child was wearing diapers, therefore reddening around the vaginal or ‘urine scalding’ would not be an unusual occurrence.

The pastor’s credibility was suspect in that her own husband was not aware of the child’s alleged history of urinary tract infection, nor of the alarming ‘disclosure’ by the child in the rear seat of her car. The alleged ‘nightmare incidents’ were equally based on her hearsay evidence, while not corroborated by the grandfather. My opinion is, that the trial judge was more impressed by the fact that the maternal grandmother was a church pastor, rather than her being a credible witness.

The trial judge also stated in his findings that the maternal grandmother, on arriving unannounced at the father’s residence, saw ‘R’ sitting on a couch naked with legs apart and alone at home with the father. The trial judge however failed to mention that the older sister was playing on the front lawn when the maternal grandmother arrived - a fact that was recorded by the Family Court counsellor during her interview with the maternal grandmother, as part of compiling the Short Family Report.

It is on record that the child had also shed her clothes when at the maternal grandfather’s residence - does that suggest that he too may have abused the child? Obviously, the little girl had not developed a sense of modesty, whereas such behaviour in one so young is quite normal. How the child’s behaviour could be viewed as sexual is sheer humbug.

There was no corroborated evidence that the subject child had ever displayed behaviour of a sexual nature during the months she was being observed by the experts, including the teachers at the pre-school.

His evidence was that he thought that the dipstick test could probably indicate a urinary tract infection and that he allegedly ‘overheard’ part of a phone conversation between the father and the subject child in father, during which the father had allegedly suggested that he may ‘hurt her’. Such an alleged conversation could hardly be taken seriously as evidence, especially in the event that the defacto had no idea of the full context of the phone call.

Her evidence could not possibly be deemed as corroborated fact. The first record of alleged violence, in the course of the relationship, first surfaced during a conversation between the wife and her mother just prior to the wife going on a prearranged ‘holiday’ (Jan 1992) with her future defacto husband. The wife told her mother that the father had struck her on numerous occasions throughout the marriage. However, inexplicably, the wife failed to tell her mother of an alleged rape incident, later related in her statement to the police. Rape would be hardly a forgettable experience when recalling a ‘history’ of violence.

In the witness box, the wife’s brother testified that on two occasions (his affidavit referred to one.) he had noticed slight bruising on the wife’s upper arm during social functions and added, that as the wife had made no complaint he did not ask her about it. More significantly, he testified that while staying with the couple over a period of six months he had never heard them argue or display any signs of violence to one another. For the trial judge to cite a history of violence during the marriage is stretching a very long bow indeed.

The other point to be made is that the father was telling the truth when he claimed that the wife had never mentioned the child’s alleged urinary tract infection or alleged medication on the access changeover. Had the father sexually abused the child on the first occasion to cause vaginal infection, it would be highly unlikely that he would risk a repeat performance after being alerted by the wife (a doctor) as to the child’s ‘infection’ following a previous access occasion.

The paediatrician’s findings, following her examination of ‘R’, could not possibly be accepted as clinical evidence of sexual abuse. Such a finding was without qualification and blatantly self-serving. She stated:

Surely the paediatricians role was to assess any obvious physical evidence that would support or refute the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse, while her reference to current knowledge could only be the anecdotal evidence of the child’s mother. The statement that, "normal physical findings are consistent with a history of genital touching or attempted penetration" is arrogant and mischievous.

Such ad hoc conclusions demonstrate the abject lack of objectivity of these government funded experts who think that their only role in life is to ‘prove sexual abuse’, regardless of the lack of proper clinical evidence to support such findings.

The trial judge’s version of the same report was even more obnoxious when he stated, "These swabs were sent to pathology services and tests carried out showed no infection, and revealed no indication of sexual abuse that would exclude sexual abuse. Of course the findings of the examination are also consistent with there having been no sexual abuse of R."

One wonders what aspect of swab testing would indicate that sexual abuse occurred - other than a positive test? The trial judge was indulging in a self-fulfilling exercise when suggesting that the absence of physical evidence does not necessarily point to the absence of sexual abuse. Whereas the medical examination was nothing but a blatant fishing expedition, given unwarranted credibility through the witch-hunt mentality of this ‘trial judge from Salem’

Approximately six months after this court order, the mother again filed a Notice of Risk of Child Abuse against the father, repeating a similar sexual abuse pattern involving the same child. The mother alleged that the elder girl relayed certain information to her, and this together with the younger daughter’s alleged disclosures to her and a DOCS officer, she again accused the father of child sexual abuse. The mother and DOCS officer again unilaterally stopped further access of the children to the father, the result of which the children lost any opportunity of further meaningful contact with him and his extended family.

While the husband had lodged an Appeal against the trial judges initial findings, the whole matter virtually fell into limbo as the father had run out of funds, the result of which he had to abandon his Appeal proceedings while seeking another solicitor.

As a consequence of being denied access to his children the father lodged a Contempt of Court application against the wife. When the contempt hearing finally took place the father, on his new solicitor’s advice, relinquished his access rights until a hearing date for variation of access could be arranged. Such was the delaying tactics of the wife’s solicitor that this application (also supported by an access application by the paternal grandparents) was heard approximately two and a half years after the mother and DOCS unilaterally stopped the father’s access to the two children on the second occasion.

A Family Report was ordered by the second trial judge - the report to be prepared by a Court designated expert - a Clinical Psychologist, Professor ‘W’

The mother later made a statement to the Court Designated Expert, some two years after the father’s access was unilaterally stopped by the mother and the DOCS officer to the effect that,

"Between the 25 Feb 1993 and 26 May 1993 and beginning on the week-end of the 13 and 14 Mar 1993, certain things came to my notice indicating that the younger child had again been sexually abused by the her father."

The admission by the child’s mother, also placed the sexual assault officer’s credibility on the line when she set out to consolidate an alleged history of child sexual abuse covering the previous three months, This same Child Sexual Assault officer featured in another case study I named ‘Muddied Waters’.

The fact is that this allegedly concerned mother claimed that the father had ‘broken’ the terms of the court order as early as the 13^thMar1993. Surely such an admission would have had a rationally thinking person asking the question:

The mother now suggests that, after learning of the alleged ‘breach’ of court orders, she stoically ‘endured’ a further three months of unbearable anxiety and silence, during which the father, a ‘convicted’ child molester, allegedly continued to sexually assault the child during supervised access occasions. One wonders if the DOCS officer was dumb or foolishly overzealous in her determination to support a mother, who presumably condoned using her child as a guinea pig to snare a ‘convicted’ child molester.

The DOCS Officer’s Report. June 1993. (Family seen at mother’s home.)

• "The child was much more talkative and comfortable in my presence.

End of interview.

Moreover, from the original investigative details available to me, it is open to conclude that the original allegations may even be the result of ‘leading interrogation’ of the children, particularly the younger child, with the older sister being an innocent but loyal participant.

The ‘yelling’ incident occurred when the R’s mother took it upon herself to ‘warn’ the mother of one the child’s cousins that R’s father was a ‘convicted’ child molester. The cousin’s mother instead let the doctor know, in no uncertain terms, what she thought of her, after which R’s mother left in unceremonious haste.

The sketchy recollections of the younger child, with respect to the father, are quite extraordinary under the circumstances. This fact places all previous interviews of the child by DOCS, and the alleged disclosures claimed by the mother, into clearer perspective. It is clear, that the child had no recollection of any alleged abuses by the father, notwithstanding the report of DOCS Sexual Assault officer. For the child also to have no recollection of being in the same bed as the father, puts paid to any allegations of an abuse that, had they occurred, would have seen this child traumatised and exhibiting some form of uncharacteristic behaviour in past and recent times. No such behaviour had ever been recorded by any of the professionals involved in this case - including the sexual assault worker.

The designated expert’s opinion of the child’s mother was definitely at variance to that of the original trial judge, who found the mother to be ‘truthful’. The professor indicated that he had, "some concerns with the wife’s credibility." This is a professional way of saying that the mother is a liar.

While the original trial judge conceded that, "the child did not think that she had been dealt with improperly by the father", it was noted by other professionals, that the child was always warm and friendly towards her father throughout the interviewing periods.

The father eventually had his day in court, where counsel for the father exposed the mother’s duplicity that resulted in the trial judge firmly discrediting the mother’s evidence while making a clear statement as to the father’s innocence in the current matter. The trial judge made findings that the mother was a consummate liar and had influenced the older child to discredit the father and turn against him.

In addition the trial judge indicated that there were serious reservations as to the father’s guilt as determined by the previous trial judge, however there were no means available to ‘turn’ the initial trial judge’s findings. Had evidence existed, at the time of the first trial, that was capable of overturning that trial judge’s decision and, for whatever reason, was not presented to the court at the time, then the second trial judge could have permitted the introduction of this evidence into the second hearing. However as such evidence was not available, regardless of the second trial judge’s finding as to the mother’s credibility, the original trial judge’s findings must stand as to the father’s culpability.

While the second trial judge cleared the father of any guilt on this second occasion, the father’s joy was short lived when the same trial judge inexplicably performed the dubious task of informing him that his access to the two children would be denied indefinitely. This outcome means that even though he did not breach the access orders made by the first trial judge, the father has been further penalised on the refuted evidence of liars.

The second trial judge concluded that access would not be in the child’s best interest, because of the elder child’s demonstrated rejection of the father and that the younger child, according to the Separate Representative for the child, was now in fear of the father.

While there is no doubt that the mother took advantage of the elder child’s loyalty and turned her against the father, however the evidence that the younger child was now in fear of the father had to be nonsense and a grave miscarriage of justice. Counsel for the Separate Representative, while pressing such a claim from the Bar table, did not provide ‘expert’ opinion that could have discounted the relatively recent observations of the Court Designated Expert.

I have selected extracts from the Professor’s report that indicate clearly that the younger child was everything but in fear of the father:

1. "When I asked her about her father she surprised me by referring to him as ‘daddy’"
2. "she had little recollection of her father, but did remember some family events with pleasure."
3. "The child told me that she didn’t recall anything about access. She couldn’t recall sleeping in her father’s bed and she did not respond affirmatively to questions in relation to the alleged sexual abuse. Not surprisingly, the girl could not recall previous investigating interviews. She did recall meeting the Separate Representative."
4. "When I spoke to the younger child she denied any recollection of any of "the alleged incidents."
5. "The child is an engaging little girl. She did not seem prejudiced against the father, and gave indications that she was curious about him."

After declaring the mother a liar and aware of Professor W’s comments as to the child’s noticeable lack of fear of the father, how could the trial judge then entertain a submission from the Bar table that the child was now in fear of the father? This unfortunate outcome was another classical example of the destructive roles played by DOCS and a Family Court that rewards the mischievous and punishes the innocent including the children, who have now lost an important part of their lives because of a trial judge’s need to ‘wrap it up’.

The second trial judge, in my opinion, evaded real issues that should have seen this maligned father reunited with both children in a program of graduated access. The failure to put a plan into place to reunite the children with the father and his extended family was a blatant denial of natural justice to the father and the children.

The court in this case, as in many others, ignored its moral obligation to look after the child’s long term welfare. This is the same old story when the system is caught out. All ‘professionals’ involved with child protection (including the Family Court), close ranks and leave the real victims of ‘abuse’ to fend for themselves. As in this case, both children are now in the care of liars, who would have no compunction in vilifying the father in the future, when those inevitable questions will be asked by R’ as to the whereabouts of her natural father.

The older child has been brainwashed by the mother, who has used the child’s loyalty in the most disgusting fashion of all, yet this mischievous mother was rewarded by having the natural father removed out of the children’s lives. That the child was subjected to bogus rehabilitation programs and unnecessary invasive medical examinations was totally ignored by all concerned.

It is not the first time that the court has called on ‘outside’ experts as Professor ‘W’ to sort out possible mischief however, true to form, the miscreants go free after inflicting irreparable psychological damage on the innocent, including their own children.

For the father and his extended family, the final outcome is akin to a family bereavement without the closure, when young children are removed so callously from further contact. The final irony being that this outrageous outcome was aided and abetted by a supposedly caring bureaucracy and sensitive Family Court.

[End part 4]

***********************************

This case, while providing an insight into the operations of child protection experts operating in a country town, also highlights the reluctance of the Family Court Judiciary to take children from mischievous carers who use allegations of child sexual abuse to denigrate the character of former partners. This sort of mischief is perpetrated in order to prevent or frustrate their estranged partner’s access to children of the relationship.

While it is considered a ‘civic duty’ to report suspicions of child abuse to the appropriate government department, it would also be the expectation of the public that officers within these agencies are suitably qualified and experienced to exercise their allotted tasks honestly and professionally.

As a consequence of this and other investigations, it is my firm opinion that the communities’ faith and expectations in these particular instrumentalities have been sadly misplaced. The proven deceit of some inept zealots within DOCS and Child Sexual Assault Units, highlight the awesome potential of these misfits to make innocent lives a misery.

The reality, in my opinion, is that the Child Protection bureaucracy has unscrupulously hoodwinked an unsuspecting public into the belief that social workers within their ranks are eminently qualified to perform vital initial assessments, especially with respect to child sexual abuse allegations.

In this particular case the DOCS officer made a finding of confirmed child sexual abuse without proper investigation or clinical evidence, while referring the child for extensive sexual abuse therapy. Throughout the investigation, the father was never informed of the accusations against him or what ‘therapy’ his child was being subjected to until approximately nine months after the mother made her notification that the subject child was a possible victim of sexual abuse to DOCS. The father and his family were never made privy to his former wife’s allegations in the months prior to and after proceedings were finalised at the Family Court in June 1994 granting the father unsupervised access to the subject child.

The ‘history ‘ of the child’s alleged sexualised behaviour in the DOCS officer’s report was compiled wholly on the anecdotal evidence of the mother, and not as a result of the DOCS officer’s own observations of the child or any other clinical evidence. The subject child was three years old at the time of the allegations. Extracts from this officer’s report appears as follows:

Fear of the Dark. The child has been very frightened of the dark. He has the light on at night and as it gets darker in the daytime hours he doesn’t like going to the toilet. He talks about monsters in the house when he comes back from access visits to his father. He is also scared to go to the toilet at night.

Swearing. His swearing is worse after access visits (natural father swears) and despite having his mouth washed out with soap he still swears (‘fuck’, ‘cunt’.) a couple of times per week.

Clothes removed. He likes to walk around with his pants off. Wants to take mother’s and stepfather’s pants off. Only does this at home.

Masturbates. He likes to walk around with his hands down the front of his pants and has been masturbating in his room several times.

Touching. He has asked his mother to touch him on the penis when he is naked.

Licking. Remove mother’s pants and licked her on the buttocks.

Biting. He has bitten the stepfather twice on the penis while they have been showering.

Dependence. Has become more clingy and dependent on the mother than he was in the past.

Doctors and Nurses. Plays with his three-year-old friend, every time they get together.

Strategies.: Encourage the mother to:

Explore the child’s fear of the dark.

Explore gently as to what activities the child does on access occasions and with whom he spends time.

Monitor his behaviourism - when time s they escalate, etc.

The mother also stated that the child wets the bed every night after the father rings.

Has been masturbating at school. Has begun chewing his fingers. He is wanting to lick both the stepfather and mother (pulled up her ‘T’ shirt and licked her stomach).

Writer’s comments: The above assessment technique is typical of the process adopted by DOCS operatives that gives rise to inflated statistics of ‘confirmed child sexual abuse’. What is apparent is that, in an atmosphere of likely child sexual abuse, parents are being told by DOCS or child welfare workers that nightmares, bed wetting, swearing and general misbehaviour are, more than likely, indications of possible sexual abuse. The fact is that such behaviour patterns are emotions that most children display some times in their lives for many reasons other than sexual abuse.

April 1993. The parents of the then two-year old boy separated after a four- year marriage. The wife, now two months pregnant with their second child, walked out of the relationship. The wife never cited domestic violence, rape or allegations of child sexual abuse against the father as reason for the marriage breakdown or separation. There was a non-supervised access arrangement, with respect to the subject child, agreed between the parties on separation.

Aug 1993. The mother formed a romantic relationship with a friend of the father’s brother.

Sep 1993. The mother unilaterally reduced the father’s access to his son from each weekend to alternate weekends.

Oct 1993. The mother gave birth to a daughter.

Nov 1993. The father forms a romantic relationship with his future wife.

Jan 1994. The subject child’s mother enters into a defacto relationship.

31Mar 1994. The mother notifies DOCS that, in her opinion, her son’s behaviour indicated sexual abuse. DOCS ‘confirmed’ this allegation, however declined to investigate further as there had been no disclosures from the boy. DOCS then referred the child to a Sexual Abuse Counsellor, who arranged sexual abuse therapy. This was carried out after the child’s each access occasion with the father.

May 1994. The child’s mother reported that the child no longer displays sexualised behaviour. Nevertheless ‘sexual abuse therapy’ continued as before for a further six months.

June 1994. The Family Court approved consent orders between the parties giving custody of both children to the mother, while granting the father continued non-supervised access to both children.

Comment: The mother, being represented by a solicitor at the time, failed to notify the court that the child was undergoing sexual abuse therapy when these access orders were made in June 1994.

One can only assume that the mother’s solicitor was not made privy to the sexual abuse allegations and the ‘ongoing’ treatment. To suppose otherwise, would see this solicitor and her client in contempt of court as she was bound to notify the court, where such notification would have undoubtedly effected the trial judge’s decision to grant the father non-supervised access. The most likely outcome would have been that a supervised access regime would have been put into place until a full investigation into the allegations had been completed. The object of that would be to protect both the child from further possible abuse and the father from further possible allegations.

June 1994. The father announces his engagement.

8 July 1994. The mother presents the subject child to the local hospital alleging that he was physically abused during access with his father four days previously. The boy had bruising of the inner ear, thigh and leg. DOCS were notified and referred the matter to police.

Sep 1994. As a result of the police investigation, no charges were laid since the four adults (including the child’s mother and her defacto) had access to the child during the stated period. [Comment: the fact that the mother waited four days after the particular access occasion before taking the child to the hospital begs the question as to her motives.

Mid Dec 1994. The child’s father and the mother’s defacto became involved in a fight during an access changeover.

20 Dec 1994. The father files an application for defined access to both children.

Dec 1994. The mother alleges to the Child Sexual Assault worker that the child once again displayed unusual signs of sexualised behaviour after a recent access occasion. In spite of this concern, the mother allowed the child to go on access on the next occasion on the 26 Dec1994.

26 Dec1994. After the father returned the children on this access occasion, the mother unilaterally stopped further access by means of a note handed to him by her defacto’s father.

28 Dec 1994. The mother notifies DOCS that the father has sexually abused the son. On this occasion DOCS did not record a ‘confirmed’ case of child sexual abuse.

Feb 1995. After a hearing before a Magistrate at the local court, an AVO was not issued against the father however, as a precaution, the Magistrate referred any access decisions to the Family Court, set down for Mar 20 1995.

Mar 1995. The mother files a Notice of Risk of Child Abuse with the Family Court. On receiving this application the father’s solicitor made an urgent application to the Family Court on the father’s behalf for ‘defined access’ to both children. The ensuing hearing resulted in the father being placed under a ‘supervised access’ regime to the children from the 20^th Mar 1995.

The Family Court judge also appointed a Court designated expert to make out a Report involving the subject child and other significant adults.

When I saw the mother and her defacto together, he told me that the boy’s sexualised behaviour had been going on for a ‘ two year period’ with a lot at first in early 1994, then a break, then around Christmas 1994 until access was stopped, then it occurred again, the night before this assessment session.

The defacto also told me that, during this period and after access visits to the father, the child would go to the toilet "and the next thing he would be down on his knees saying, ‘No…No’. He also claimed that the night before the assessment appointment with me, when the brother and sister were in the bath together, the sister had the soap in her hand and she was rubbing her brother’s penis with it while he lay back in the bath (it was surprising, in view of the previous allegations of the boy’s alleged sexualised behaviour towards his sister, that they would still allow the children to play in the bath together.)

All this information was given in a matter of fact way with no reference to the effects, either long or short term, on the children. The mother’s and her partner’s lack of expressed effect about these incidents was striking, especially given the fact that the alleged incident occurred only the previous night. There was no expression of distress, no anger, no anxiety that it was happening again.

The natural father vehemently denied that he had abused the children in any way. He said that on Boxing Day in 1994, when he returned the children after access, the child’s step-father handed him a letter which said that the natural mother had talked to police, who had advised her to stop the access because of "accusations made by the boy."

It was not until two months later, when the natural father went to the local court to defend the wife’s AVO application, that he first heard claims alleging that he sexually assaulted his son by inserting his finger in the child’s anus and raping his ex-wife during the marriage.

The natural father said that he was devastated by such accusations and insisted that he had never done anything improper with his son or his ex-wife. He said that he used to shower the boy in a ‘normal way’. The father said that he was not even made aware hat there had been a DOCS investigation concerning his son, as no one informed him or questioned him at the time. That is something he would have wanted.

The father, still bewildered by these allegations, became quite distressed when talking of them. He said that it was like if, "someone had cut his head off’", and that, "some people in the township think that he had abused the son". He added that these allegations have caused family tensions since his brother is married to his former wife’s sister.

The natural father feels powerless to counter the allegations especially since he had not been made aware of them at the time of the initial investigation. The father did not express any direct anger towards his former wife and her defacto, his focus being directed towards his powerlessness after being place in this situation."

"I had a final session with her to put to her some claims that the father had made that contradicted her own. I also gave her my opinion regarding the allegations claiming that her son had been sexually abused.

It is difficult to clinically account for such alleged sudden on-set sexual behaviour on the part of the father towards his younger son, in the context that in the past the mother had no concern about this. The father is heterosexual and had just begun an adult relationship with his future wife. It is difficult to clinically rationalise that in this context he would suddenly, on access occasions, begin to become involved in homosexual paedophilia to the level alleged, viz digital paedophilia.

Comment: The court designated expert, a clinical psychologist with considerable qualifications and many years experience with children of tender years, summarises succinctly ‘a set of causes and effect’ that would apply to 99% of alleged sexual abuse cases that have come before the Family Court since the mid eighties.

All cases that I have witnessed and noted from the Family Court CCH case volumes invariably cite these extreme ‘displays’ of sexualised behaviour in children of tender years. This alleged behaviour invariably ‘appears’ in the same ‘rapid onset’ context that defies logic, always presenting itself after the parties separate and engaged in bitterly contested access and custody disputes. Never once has there been a corroborated account of a child’s alleged sexualised behaviour in the presence of ‘experts’ in all case studies I have witnessed or read about.

In my opinion, if the above standards aspired by the expert in this matter were applied by DOCS operatives or similar agencies, then I would be more confident that children and adults would be reasonably protected from the bloody-minded zealots presently holding sway in the Child Protection empire.

Children of tender years form the bulk of ‘alleged victims’ in Family Court matters involving alleged child sexual abuse. If these children were genuine victims of sexual abuse, their alleged sexual behaviour and disclosures allegedly displayed at home would surely be manifest in the environment of a pre-school or Primary school. No such corroboration of sexual behaviour has ever been noted by any trial judge in matters I have observed or perused in my eleven years working in the Family Court.

It is surely imperative that, in the absence of corroborated evidence of any alleged sexual behaviour outside the home environment viz, at Pre-school or in the presence of DOCS workers and other experts, then alleged sexual abuse must be deemed extremely unlikely.

Basic clinical criteria must be determined before a child is subjected to unnecessary sexually orientated interviews and medical examinations presently performed on the anecdotal evidence of misinformed, paranoid or even mischievous parents or carers.

****************************

(Chronology Cont.)

30 May 1996: This was the date of the final hearing, however the Family Court was advised on the 29^th May, that Consent Orders were signed by both parties at Tamworth, presumably to the satisfaction of the natural father. However the Separate Representative for the child residing in Sydney refused to sign the Consent Orders on the child’s behalf. The solicitor for the wife, in the meantime, had filed a ‘Notice of Ceasing to Act ‘ for the wife.

After many hours of negotiation Consent Orders were drafted and signed by or on behalf of the parties concerned. The natural father was granted increased un-supervised access to both children, with additional orders that required in effect:

**********************

Comments: One wonders why the day to day care of both children was left in the hands of a pair of mischievous liars, who didn’t have the courage to face up to their deception and appear before the trial judge when finalising the Consent Orders?

The irony is that there are experts in the community who are capable of objective analysis and obviously qualified as eminent psychoanalysts, whose propensity to ‘get it wrong’ pale into insignificance compared with the present army of incompetents in DOCS and associated Child Sexual Assault Units. The mistakes and ineptitude of these instrumentalities has made life a living hell for thousands of innocent people in the Australian community.

I argue that, in the child’s best interests, the trial judge was not obliged to accept the parties Consent Orders on the 30^th May 1996. The court has power to insist on other measures including instigating an investigation into the role of DOCS and the Child Sexual Assault Unit in this matter. Instead there resulted the usual retreat from meaningful and humane follow up measures, especially when the ‘system’ is caught out.

The sickening thing is that these incompetents are permitted to return to their inept practices, under the auspices of Child Protection, while vulnerable children, left with cheats and liars, are deprived of growing up and developing with their natural fathers and extended families.

One may well ask, " Who is looking after the children."

************************************