IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

No. AD5409 of 1989

IN THE MATTER OF

Charles Richard Watson

AND

Pauline Ruth James

FAMILY REPORT

March 26^th, 1999

FAMILY COURT COUNSELLING SERVICE

Background Information

Mr. Watson and Ms. James were married on 24^th March 1979. They separated on 1^st June 1989. There are three children of the marriage: Jeremy (d.o.b. 7.4.82; age: 16 years, 11 months), Helen (d.o.b. 17.3.85; age: 14 years) and Sasha (d.o.b. 22.1.87; age: 12 years, 2 months).

On 31^st August 1989, Ms. James applied for sole guardianship and custody of the children. Mr. Watson responded to this application by applying for joint guardianship and access to the children every weekend from Friday to Sunday. On 27^th November 1989 the Judicial Registrar made an order that the Wife have custody of the children and the Husband have access each Saturday. A further order was made on 20^th December 1990 giving Mr. Watson access each alternate Saturday and on the alternate intervening Sunday.

No other action was taken in Court in regard to the children until March 1992 when Ms. James applied to have the orders for access discharged alleging that Mr. Watson had sexually abused the two girls, Helen and Sasha Mr. Watson had been charged with rape and indecent assault of the girls. On 20^th March 1992 the Judicial Registrar suspended access and made an order that a separate representative be appointed for the children.

Reports were tendered to the Court from Dr. George Blake, Senior Staff Specialist in Paediatrics at Flinders Medical Centre. Based on medical examinations of Helen held on 17^th December 1991 and 20^th January 1992, Dr. Blake concluded that there was physical evidence of sexual interference. Based on medical examination of Sasha conducted on 19^th November 1991, he concluded that there was physical evidence of sexual interference of Sasha.

A report, dated 21^st January 1992, was also tendered by Mr. Peter Mulhearn, Senior Assessment Worker and Ms. Karen Fitzgerald, Senior Clinical Psychologist from the Child Protection Services at the Flinders Medical Centre. Based on a series of interviews of the children and Ms. James, some of which were witnessed by the police, they concluded that there was a "...high probability that Sasha was sexually abused by her father... " and that the "... risk to both Sasha’s and Helen's safety posed by their father is unacceptably high for unsupervised access to occur between Mr. Watson and his daughters.

In a further report dated 21^st May 1992, Ms Fitzgerald had interviewed the child Helen on two occasions on the basis that she had made further allegations against her father. Ms. Fitzgerald concluded that "Unsupervised access to her father should not occur."

On the 24^th July 1992 Justice Murray ordered that all orders for access be discharged and that Mr. Watson be restrained from attending or remaining in the vicinity of any premises at which the wife or children reside; from harassing, molesting, assaulting or communicating with any of the children.

On the 24^th November 1992 Mr. Watson applied for access to the children on alternate weekends and other special occasions. He indicated a wish to take the children on holiday to New Zealand.

On the 5^th February 1993 the criminal charges in relation to the alleged sexual abuse of the children were dropped. Mr. Watson applied to the Court to have contact with his children prior to a trip to New Zealand. On the 9^th February 1993, Justice Gun ordered by consent that Mr. Watson have access to the children for one hour each fourth Sunday and that it be a condition of such order that access be in the presence of and under the supervision of specified persons; that the husband be at liberty to communicate with the children in writing provided that he shall not make any reference to the question of alleged sexual abuse; and that the wife is restrained from raising with the children the topic of sexual abuse.

Ms. Ann Thornton, Clinical Psychologist provided a report to the Court dated 19^th April 1993 based on a series of interviews of the children, Mr. Watson and Ms. James and three occasions of supervised contact between the children and their father. Ms. Thornton recommended that there be supervised access, therapeutic intervention and that this be reviewed at six monthly intervals to monitor the children's emotional status.

Mr. Watson continued to apply for unsupervised contact in January 1994. In a further report, dated 6^th March 1994, by Ms. Thornton she once again recommended supervised access and a review of this arrangement. On the 8^th March 1994, the Judicial Registrar, noting that Mr. Watson had undertaken to undergo therapy, ordered by consent that access occur on alternate Sundays for two hours under supervision and that further interviews be conducted by Ms. Ann Thornton in July 1994.

Mr. Watson continued to seek unsupervised access through April and May 1994 and asked the Court to allow him to take the children to New Zealand.

A further report was tendered by Ms. Ann Thornton dated 7^th June 1994. Ms. Thornton's conclusion stated that she believed that Mr. Watson was in need of therapeutic intervention and that supervised access should continue and should be monitored.

This matter went to trial in June 1994. Justice Burton concluded that there was an "...unacceptable risk of sexual abuse to the children if unsupervised access is granted at the present time." Orders made by Justice Burton were that Mr. Watson was to have access to the children on alternate Sundays and such access to be supervised; that there be a review of this matter after the expiration of 6 months and that Ms. Ann Thornton interview Mr. Watson, Ms. James and the three children and provide a report to the Court directed to future access arrangements and the welfare of the children.

Ms. Thornton prepared a further report in this matter on 22^nd August 1995. Ms. Thornton had interviewed the parties and the children in February 1995 and a period of supervised access took place and the children and parents were again interviewed in June 1995. Ms. Thornton again recommended supervised contact for the girls, and for the arrangement to be reviewed in 12 months, but concluded that for the older child, Jeremy supervision was no longer necessary, and that access between Jeremy and his father should be negotiated between them and reviewed in three months.

On the 19^th December 1995 Justice Burton ordered that Ms. James have sole guardianship of the children and that all previous orders for access be suspended. He also ordered that Mr. Watson was not to file an application for resumption of access unless such application be accompanied by an affidavit from a person nominated by the husband as supervisor and indicating a willingness to supervise such access and an understanding of the responsibilities involved.

In June 1996, Mr. Watson had arranged a supervisor for access. He also in affidavit material stated that he had evidence that Dr. Blake had erred in judgment in relation to the physical evidence of child sexual abuse of the two younger children of the marriage. Mr. Watson therefore applied that the order, that access be suspended, be discharged. In November 1996 Mr. Watson applied for a new trial to be held in this matter.

In March 1997 Mr. Watson applied for joint residence of the children, that a parenting plan be drawn up and that the children have liberal contact with their extended family members in New Zealand.

In response to this application Ms. James applied to have Mr. Watson's application dismissed as frivolous or vexatious and that an order be made to the effect that Mr. Watson was not without leave of the Court to institute further proceedings concerning the children of the marriage.

On the 31^st August 1998 Justice Dawe, in the absence of Mr. Watson ordered that Mr. Watson not institute further proceedings concerning residence of the children without obtaining leave of the Court and that Mr. Watson shall not institute further proceedings concerning contact with the said children unless such proceedings are brought by a solicitor on the husband's behalf and without prior leave of the Court.

On the 19^th November 1998 Mr. Watson applied for leave of the Court to proceed in an application for contact and residence. On 11^th January 1999 Justice Robinson ordered that a Family Report be prepared in this matter.

The Sexual Abuse Allegations

Ms. James alleged in 1992 that Mr. Watson had sexually abused the two younger children, Helen and Sasha from July to November 199 1. Helen was 6 years old and Sasha 4 years old at the time. Reports from Dr. George Blake at the Flinders Medical Centre found physical evidence that both children had been sexually interfered with. Interviews were also conducted by Mr. Peter Mulhearn and Ms. Karen Fitzgerald in 1992. Their report dated 21^st January 1992 concluded that Sasha had made a specific allegation of abuse against her father and that there was a "...high probability that sasha was sexually abused by her father". It was noted that Sasha had also alleged to her mother that Helen had also been abused by their father. In May 1992 a further report was prepared by Ms. Karen Fitzgerald who concluded that Helen had also made an allegation of sexual abuse which implicated her father.

Mr. Watson has continued to deny that he sexually abused any of the children and throughout the proceedings in this Court he has sought to be cleared of these allegations. His major claim appears to be that Dr. Blake, the paediatric physician who physically examined the girls, erred in his judgement in concluding that they had been sexually interfered with.

Whilst criminally charges were laid against Mr. Watson, these were dropped in February 1993. This led to Mr. Watson being able to have supervised contact with the children.

Ms. Thornton, clinical psychologist has conducted a number of interviews with the children and their parents. These interviews appeared to be conducted not with the aim of further investigating the sexual abuse allegations but it would appear were directed at assessing the relationship between the children and their father with a view to decision making about. contact visits.

In the first series of these interviews in April 1994, Ms. Thornton states that Helen had made a statement which tended to confirm the allegation of sexual abuse. Ms. Thornton states that the children's disclosures during the assessment "...give further weight to the probability of abuse occurring." She further states in this report of April 1994 that:

"It is important to note that whether or not the allegations are that both the girls and Pauline (Ms. James) believe that they are and therefore perceive that they are at risk of re-abuse. Charles Watson's lack of appreciation and respect of their fears makes his daughters emotionally vulnerable when with their father."

In June 1994 a trial was held in this case. Justice Burton's conclusions in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse were that whilst being critical of Mr. Mulhearn's interviews he accepted the evidence of Dr. Blake that the children had suffered interference. In his Judgement Justice Burton stated:

"...I am unwilling to take the next step of finding on the balance of probabilities that the husband has committed this abuse."

But goes on to state:-

"Having regard to the evidence of Dr. Blake of the probability of external interference and the absence of evidence before me of any possible perpetrator other than the husband, I am of the opinion that despite the unsatisfactory state of the rest of the evidence, there is an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse to the children if unsupervised access is granted at the present time."

In 1995 Mr. Watson attempted to raise the issue that Dr. Blake's original conclusions about child sexual abuse had been wrong. He claimed that Dr. T. Donald had recommended that given new knowledge gained since the original physical examination that there should be a reconsideration of the medical diagnosis.

At about this time, Ms. Thornton reports (report dated 22^nd August 1995) that Ms. James alleged that Mr. Watson was distributing information regarding the sexual abuse allegation to other people which she alleged was creating a risk that the children may be subject to ridicule and abuse by their peers as a result of this knowledge being made available through their father. Ms. Thornton goes on to say in this report..-

"Mr. Watson, in his attempts to assert his innocence and raise questions about the methodology used in assessing the allegations of sexual abuse, has been distributing in public places, highly sensitive and confidential material about the sexual abuse allegation made by Helen. She is named in the document ... it also contained a photograph of the children on the front page. This exemplifies a lack of appreciation, if not disregard of Helen's feelings. The consequences to her emotional well-being, should she ever become aware that such material has been disseminated about her, is likely to be devastating."

In July 1996 Mr. Watson sought leave to bring new evidence to the Court in relation to his belief that there had been an error in judgement by Dr. Blake in his conclusions about physical evidence of abuse of the two younger children. In November 1998 Mr. Watson has again applied for leave of the Court to proceed with an application for contact and residence to the children based on his disputing of Dr. Blake's evidence. Whilst Mr, Watson has argued consistently that the evidence against him is faulty, over the years from 1992 to 1995 the children, particularly Sasha and Helen, have consistently requested that they have supervised contact only with their father and have indicated feeling anxious and afraid of being alone with Mr. Watson. It is therefore assessed that the most important issue at this point in time is the children's relationship with their father.

Relationship between Mr. Watson and the three children

Jeremy (d.o.b. 7.4.82. age: 16 years, 11 months)

Helen (d.o.b. 17.3.85. age: 14 years) and

Sasha (d.o.b. 22.1.87. age: 12 years, 2 months)

From information on the Court file it would appear that Mr. Watson had regular day contact with the children from December 1990 until March 1992. As a result of the allegation of sexual abuse the order for access between Mr. Watson and the children was discharged and Mr. Watson was unable to have contact with the children until a new order for supervised access was made by Justice Gun in February 1993. Mr. Watson then had three periods of supervised access which were assessed by Ms. Thornton.

Prior to these three periods of supervised contact, Ms. Thornton interviewed the children. She assessed that the child, Jeremy had shown a positive attachment to his mother but appeared ambivalent towards his father, claiming that "...seeing his friends was more important than seeing his father". Helen also showed a strong attachment to her mother and her father was viewed as being minimally involved in her life. According to Ms. Thornton, Helen expressed anger at her father for his abuse of her and for denying that the abuse had occurred. Sasha also expressed some ambivalence about seeing her father and showed no emotional involvement with her father.

However, following the periods of supervised contact there was greater willingness on the part of the children to having ongoing contact with their father. However, both Helen and Sasha had expressed clearly that they wished that such contact should be supervised by an adult and had maintained that they were fearful of being alone with their father. Ms. Thornton therefore recommended that Mr. Watson have regular supervised contact with the children and that this should be reviewed in six months.

Very limited contact took place between the children and their father between the time of the above assessment in April 1993 and a further assessment conducted in April 1994. It would seem that W. Watson chose not to take the opportunity of having supervised access to the children and that he spent at least some of this time in New Zealand. In Justice Burton's Judgement he notes that in evidence Mr. Watson had

"formed the opinion that the supervised access recommended by Ms. Thornton was of no value to the children and he therefore had no contact with the children between May and October 1993."

Justice Burton, in commenting on Ms. Thornton's report went on to say:

"Ms. Thornton was adamant that throughout the course of her interviews with the husband extending over a period of a year, he has at all times been unable to focus on the interests of the children and has always placed his own interests ahead of theirs. There seems little doubt that the husband has in fact behaved in this manner over a long period of time. His extended absences on overseas and interstate trips show little regard for the feelings of his children, but rather a preference to satisfy his own needs. On occasions when things have not gone his own way he has simply walked away from the situation."

In her further report of April 1994, Ms. Thornton again recommended that there be supervised contact, based on the children's wishes. This recommendation was reiterated in her report dated 7^th June 1994. Jeremy and Helen at this time were reported as being committed to ongoing supervised contact with their father. The youngest child Sasha apparently showed some signs of anxiety indicating some emotional trauma. Ms. Thornton suggests that

"...it is likely to be the result of Sasha’s difficulty in resolving issues of hurt and betrayal by her father. In view of this, Sasha's emotional status, in regard to continuing supervised access visits with her father, needs to be regularly monitored."

Following the Judgement by Justice Burton in June 1994 giving Mr. Watson supervised contact with the children, Mr. Watson failed to have contact with the children for a seven month period. Ms. Thornton conducted further assessments beginning in February 1995 involving two supervised access visits. In Ms. Thornton's report she quotes Mr. Watson as stating that he would refuse to comply with the Court order that access be supervised and that he perceived that such supervision to reflect that he posed an unacceptable risk to the children, which he denies. It is noted by Ms. James at this time that Mr. Watson had breached his restraining order several times by visiting her home and the children's school. Apparently Mr. Watson was arrested and placed in the remand centre because he had told the magistrate that he would not follow his bail conditions regarding contact with the children. Mr. Watson was reported as saying that he would continue to fight the Court order of supervision in order for proper guidelines for child sexual abuse allegations to be established.

In her report dated 22^nd August 1995, Ms. Thornton asserts:-

"It appeared that Mr. Watson's commitment to take access with his children had been subsumed under the goal of proving that the accusation of sexual abuse were false."

In her conclusion Ms. adds:-

"Mr. Thornton [SIC] 's commitment to access has been highly questionable. If he continues to view his relationship with his children as expendable in pursuit of proving his innocence, he will undoubtedly jeopardise his ability to form any kind of relationship with his children."

And

"...if he continues to take access irregularly and only under conditions that suit him, the ongoing benefit of access of these children to Mr. Watson will become debatable."

Following the initial periods of supervised contact in February 1995, Mr. Watson and Ms. James were able to reach an agreement about supervised contact and it would appear that some supervised contact visits were conducted between February and June 1995. However, in affidavit material by Ms. James dated December 1995, Ms. James claims that Mr. Watson did not take any further supervised contact following Ms. Thornton's assessment.

Whilst Ms. Thornton recommended that supervised contact between the children and the two girls continue and be reviewed in twelve months time and that Jeremy have unsupervised contact with his father, Mr. Watson did not take this contact with his children.

As a result of Ms. James application to the Court in December 1996 all previous orders for access were suspended. It is therefore assumed that Mr. Watson has not had contact with the children since that date.

Assessments of the children

Jeremy (d.o.b. 7.4.82. age: 16 years, 11 months)

Helen (d.o.b. 17.3.85. age: 14 years) and

Sasha (d.o.b. 22.1.87. age: 12 years, 2 months)

Since 1991, the children have been exposed to numerous interviews and assessments. These include:-

In November 1991, the Child Protection Services at Flinders Medical Centre interviewed the child, Sasha on four occasions. The child, Jeremy was interviewed twice and Helen was interviewed three times. Helen was again interviewed in May 1992.

The children were then interviewed by Ms. Ann Thornton, clinical psychologist--

· In April 1993, all the children were interviewed on three occasions each.

. In February 1994 each of the children was interviewed once.

· In May 1994 the children were again interviewed.

· In February 1995 the children were all interviewed.

· In June 1995 all three children were again interviewed.

These interviews above do not include periods of observation of interaction between the children and their father that were conducted for the purposes of Ms. Thornton's ongoing assessments.

Conclusion

Mr. Watson's major concern over the years has been the allegations that he has sexually abused his daughters, Sasha and Helen. Mr. Watson has consistently denied this and has gone to considerable effort to both have his name cleared and to highlight his perception of wrongful investigation methods in sexual abuse cases. Mr. Watson has not been convicted of sexual abuse, and Justice Burton of the Family Court found that he was unable on the balance of probabilities to find that Mr. Watson had sexually abused the children. He found however that there was an unacceptable risk.

Mr. Watson's latest application to the Court is accompanied by information which indicates that it is Mr. Watson's intention to introduce new evidence which will clear him of these allegations. What Mr. Watson has failed to recognise is that it is not the major task of the Family Court to make determinations of child sexual abuse but to focus on all relevant issues related to determining the best interests of the children.

Ms. Thornton in her series of assessments has consistently argued that Mr. Watson has failed to understand the needs of his children. Whether sexual abuse has occurred or not, the children have steadfastly expressed fears of being alone with Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson has failed to take heed of these fears and has shown no indication of trying to understand the children's position in all of this. Not only has he continued to pursue the goal of unsupervised contact with the children against their expressed wishes, he has also refused to take contact on a consistent basis as recommended by the psychologist involved and in the children's preferred manner. Mr. Watson has been giving his children the message that it is either his way or not at all, and has therefore sacrificed the children's relationship with him, in order to prove his point.

The allegations that Mr. Watson has made public, information regarding Family Court action and the sexual abuse allegations and has named his children publicly is a major concern to this Counsellor. This is an immense betrayal of the children's right to privacy. In fact if these allegations are true one questions whether Mr. Watson is in fact breaching the law. This reinforces the view that Mr. Watson has little regard for or understanding of his children's feelings or the implications of his actions upon the children.

If the Court were to give Mr. Watson leave to apply to the Court in relation to residence and contact issues, then there would be a need for an assessment to be made of the children's needs and wishes. Between 1993 and 1995 the children were exposed to numerous assessments regarding their relationship with their father, all of which were consistent in their findings and all which eventuated in unsatisfactory outcomes in that the children's wishes were not adhered to. To reassess this situation is bound to have a number of negative emotional repercussions for the children. For the children it will again raise up the issue of the sexual abuse. Regardless of the authenticity of these allegations, the topic itself is bound to be a traumatic one for the children and cannot be avoided if further assessments are to take place. Even if such assessment did not directly address the issue of sexual abuse, it is considered that it would be difficult for the children to discuss their relationship with their father without being conscious of previous assessments where the issue of safety was of concern and was addressed.

From the children's perspective there is also the question of what value the assessment would be to them. Historically interviews and assessments of the children have not led to any beneficial result for the children. They have consistently expressed the desire to have supervised contact with their father. Their father has consistently ignored this by applying to vary this. The discomfort in being part of the assessment process can only be compounded by the children's sense that they have not been listened to by their father in the past. It is this writer's opinion that exposing the children to further interviews and assessments could constitute system's abuse of the children.

In the final analysis, regardless of the veracity of the sexual abuse allegations made against Mr. Watson, one questions the benefit to the children of resuming any form of contact with their father. Mr. Watson has not had a continuous or stable relationship with his children since 1991, despite the opportunities that Mr. Watson has been given to have contact with his children, albeit supervised. He has ignored his children's anxieties and fears. It is likely that Mr. Watson may have compounded these fears by his breaking of his restraining order a number of times by approaching their home and school. Further, there is also concern that if Mr. Watson were to resume contact with the children that he would not be able to put aside his preoccupation with the allegations of sexual abuse.

From the information that has been available on the Family Court file it is concluded that it would not be in the children's best interests to reawaken the issue of contact with their father and in fact there exists the potential for considerable emotional risk to the children if the Court were to allow Mr. Watson to proceed with his application. In my view his current application is without merit and poses potential risk to the children should the matter proceed.

Marie Hume

Family Court Counsellor

The hypertext version of this Report can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7077/Hume.htm

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws