| |
COSA
New Zealand Inc.
Casualties
of false Sexual Allegations New Zealand Incorporated
Chairman
(June 2002-May 2003): Don Hudson Ph 03 388 2173
Secretary:
364 Harewood Road, Christchurch 8005, New Zealand
Newsletter
Issue 14
August
2002
|
|
|
|
CONGRATULATIONS
~ LYNLEY HOOD
~
author of
A City Possessed:
the Christchurch Civic Cr�che Case
1st
prize, Montana Book Awards - History Section
(June 2002)
1st
prize, Montana Medal for Non-Fiction (July 2002)
1st
prize, Readers Choice Award (based on readers' votes)
A
City Possessed gained 40% more reader votes than any other entry
Montana judges'
comments:
'Extraordinary
� it could not be ignored.' 'With great tenacity, Hood leads us to
an understanding of how the events in Christchurch could have occurred'.
'The courage of [Ms] Hood in pursuing the book's publication has given
us a narrative that, for all its controversy, makes it a stand-out
not just in this year but in any year.'
- Witi
Ihimaera
Thank you
Thank
you, Lynley Hood, for your courage, tenacity, and honour, in creating
such an important revelation of the judiciary's shortcomings and limitations,
and of the Creche case injustice, and in finally bringing this knowledge
to the people of New Zealand and further afield.
|
|
| |
CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
Maximum damages
awarded to ex-accused because child sex allegations were untrue
A recent
UK decision - announced around the world earlier this month - has poignant
echoes for New Zealand, in the case's resemblance to the Civic case.
Of course,
an inquiry into the Civic case has again just been rebuffed, but despite
recent inaction here, there is a different story in the UK.
In this
case, two former nursery nurses accused of child abuse at Shieldfield
in Newcastle in April 1993, have each been awarded �200,000 in damages
- the maximum allowable - after winning a libel case against accusers
who would not let go of sex abuse allegations.
The action
by the formerly accused, Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed, was taken
out against Newcastle city council, the four members of the review team,
and the local Evening Chronicle.
In the
decision, the city council's defence, of qualified privilege, succeeded:
the court found the council had not acted maliciously in publishing
the report. Not so for the report-writers, however: they were found
guilty of malice, and damages awarded against them.
These writers
- of the 1998 report in question - wrote things that flew in the face
of the acquittal of the accused in a 1994 criminal trial, and that led
to the hounding and persecution of the two exonerated-but-still-accused
people.
At that
criminal trial, Mr Justice Holland acted so as to prevent matters being
left to the jury, because (said one report): 'having watched three video
interviews with the key witness, he considered they pointed to Reed's
innocence, and that the evidence against Lillie was dangerous and unreliable'.
Just after
that acquittal, Tony Flynn, leader of Newcastle City Council (as he
still is), told the media 'We do believe that abuse has taken place�we
have dismissed them as employees".
Judge Eady's
oral summary of his 700-page report for the new decision, however, started
with this: "I have found the allegations of child abuse against Christopher
Lillie and Dawn Reed are untrue".
Dawn Reed
responded with tears.
Judge Eady
found that the two "merited an award at the highest permitted level."
"Indeed,
they have earned it several times over because of the scale, gravity
and persistence of the allegations." These had included being hounded
and made to feel in fear of their lives (after widespread and lurid
media coverage).
"What matters
primarily is that they are entitled to be vindicated and recogni sed
as innocent citizens who should, in my judgment, be free to exist for
what remains of their lives untouched by the stigma of child abuse."
The trial
had lasted 74 days, over 6 months.
'Review team' members
acted with malice
The independent
review team which produced the report for Newcastle City Council in
November 1998 ('Abuse in Early Years') were identified by Justice Eade
as guilty of libel, and to have acted with malice. However, he rejected
the claim that certain named officers and the leader of the city council
were maliciously motivated in arranging publication of the review team's
report.
Focussing
on the review team's report, he found it contained "untrue" allegations
of the "utmost gravity" and the review team had "forfeited" the protection
of qualified privilege because they were "malicious in the promulgation
of their report".
"That is
because they included in their report a number of fundamental claims
which they must have known to be untrue and which cannot be explained
on the basis of incompetence or mere carelessness," he decided.
The report's
authors were Dr Richard Barker, social worker in an academic post at
University of Northumbria, Newcastle; Roy Wardell, former director of
social services for Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Jacqui Saradjian,
clinical psychologist; and Judith Jones, senior social worker.
Richard
Webster, a journalist and writer, and instrumental in bringing the case
to justice (with fellow-journalist Bob Woffinden), has written that
two of the report authors are documented as believing in satanic ritual
abuse. They were Judith Jones - who, as Judith Dawson, was the social
worker at the center of the 1989 Nottingham case - and Jacqui Saradjian.
Another
expert's evidence that was savaged was Dr Barker's. One news report
said:
� if
a child denied she had been abused, he assumed she meant the opposite.
This inverted logic, the judge said, was part of a pattern. If a child
said she had been raped or penetrated with a knife, yet displayed
no physical sign of abnormality, then, in the view of Reed and Lillie's
accusers, 'the absence of physical findings does not mean that abuse
has not taken place'. If a child said she had not been abused, that
was 'terrorisation by the supposed abuser'.
Soon after
Barker left the witness box, the Evening Chronicle withdrew its defence.
American
expert William Friedrich (Mayo Clinic, Minnesota), as an expert witness,
claimed the interviews were evidence of abuse. Having "reviewed "the
documents and videotapes," he said, he believed that the 28 children
cited in the libel trial had been sexually abused and that "the perpetrators
were Lillie and Reed". However, it emerged Friedrich had not at that
point SEEN any video interviews or transcripts. This led Mr Justice
Eady to observe: "As things stand, Dr Friedrich's report is not worth
the paper on which it is written."
Expert witness Maggie
Bruck, who the judge considered the most important expert witness, said
the interviews were some of the worst and most dangerous she had seen,
using 'the full array of suggestive techniques to elicit allegations
of abuse'.
Based
on various reports, and links, such as available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,769002,00.html.
The
site http://www.richardwebster.net/ is also very interesting.
|
|
| |
A new study suggests
that hypnosis doesn't make people recall events more accurately, it
just gives them more certainty that the mental events in their minds
during the hypnosis, are memories of real events.
A belief appears
to be present that hypnosis as a tool validates an event more than any
other technique.
The bottom line
is that memories recovered through any means, hypnosis or otherwise
(eg, diaries and drugs), need corroboration before we can begin to take
them as matter of fact.
The study was carried
out by Joseph Green, of the psychology department of Ohio State University
at the Lima campus, and Steven Jay Lynn of the State University of New
York at Binghampton. The results were presented at the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Association on 26 Aug 2001.
The thinking of
psychoanalysts about their patients "is as 'culturally embedded' as
the patients' thinking about themselves", says Renuka Patel, reviewing
a new work described as 'a complex and fascinating book'.
This is a central
idea of the book's author, Dr Jeffrey Prager, a practicing psychoanalyst
and sociologist. The embedding of the therapists (or analysts) occurs
despite their efforts to try to identify the hidden (unconscious) desires
of their clients, and despite the therapists keeping a neutral stance.
The cultural embedment
of therapists and clients currently includes frames of reference - such
as having been abused, homosexuality, or being African-American: patients
currently use these to understand their difficulties.
However, to help
minimise embedments, Prager suggests that rather than therapists focusing
on clients' narratives as many currently do, they should concentrate
on each client's affect.
"Affect" in this
sense is the EMOTIONAL CONTENT in the patient; this is a quality.
Modern culture often
tends to try to uncover a quantity, or effect - ie, 'objective
truth', reality, fact, something measurable. This tendency spilling
over into therapy has helped spawn the recovered memory movement, Prager
seems to be saying.
Prager says in therapy
clients can focus on using memories as a way of accounting for her/his
"feelings" and "bodily sensations", but the right way to do this is
to do so as a way of knowing an inner world, and in conjunction with
that, fulfil the desire to articulate it.
Prager also links
the current cultural desire for 'objective truth' in therapy with reluctance
to delve into underlying affects and feelings.
- "Presenting
the Past: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Misremembering," by Jeffrey
Prager. Harvard University Press 1988. Reviewed in the Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1 July 2001).
Rowland Mak has
confronted his past, including confabulated allegations of anal rape
by his father when he was 2-3, which false conclusions started in therapy
and led into him believing in a secret group that controls all of society.
Rowland told his
story publicly at a Toronto conference in November 2001.
His father Adriaan
Mak, now 70, had been accused by his son in 1991, to devastating effect,
leaving him standing in the street, totally shocked. Since then, Mr
Mak snr has worked assiduously on exposing issues in relation to false
'recovered' memories, and is notable in the false memory networks in
the US and Canada.
The son's story
of his difficulties included going to a therapist who suggested he look
at sexual abuse to explain why he felt afraid of his father.
The therapist said
she had been a victim of ritual abuse herself, and knew a great deal
about repressed memories.
Rowland Mak said
his therapist crossed lines she shouldn't have. However, he is not angry
at the recovered memory community: he sees it as just a colossal, well-intentioned,
mistake.
- 'Man
recants' Globe & Mail (Canada) 3/1//01 p A12
The Irish Supreme
Court on 5/7/01 delivered a decision in a case which said a person charged
with very old offences on the basis of alleged recovered memory was
entitled to seek to inform himself about every aspect of the therapy.
If this cannot be done then there was no effective test or control of
the mechanism of alleged recovered memory and the situation would be
fraught with unfairness, it said.
-
Irish Times 3/9/01 p 18
|
|
| |
One day a farmer's
donkey fell into an abandoned well. The animal cried piteously for hours
as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally, he decided the
animal was old and the well needed to be covered up anyway; so it just
wasn't worth it to him to try to retrieve the donkey.
He invited all
his neighbours to come over and help him. They each grabbed a shovel
and began to shovel dirt into the well.
Realizing what
was happening, the donkey at first cried and wailed horribly. Then,
a few shovelfuls later, he quieted down completely.
The
farmer peered down into the well, and was astounded by what he saw.
With every shovelful of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing
something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up on the new
layer of dirt. As the farmer's neighbours continued to shovel dirt on
top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up.
Pretty soon,
the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and trotted off, to
the shock and astonishment of all the neighbours!
Life is going
to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick to getting out of
the well is to not let it bury you, but to shake it off and take a step
up. Each of our troubles is a stepping-stone. We can get out of the
deepest wells just by not stopping, never giving up!
Shake it off
and take a step up!
Also, the donkey
kicked the crap out of the guy that tried to bury him.
Which brings
me to another moral for this story:
When you try
to cover your ass, it always comes back and gets you.
|
|
|
|
Although
I had spoken to the defendant early on and had attended the depositions
hearing, I had no firm opinion on his innocence or guilt. A father
was accused by 3 of his 4 children of sexual offences when they
lived in the family home about 30 years ago.
As
usual, the trial began with the selection of the jury. This is a
difficult introduction to the court process for the defendant. He
is required to stand in his "own little box" for up to 45 minutes
while the jury is selected from a very large pool. After selection,
the defendant takes his place in the body of the court but separated
from his lawyer. I wonder why he cannot sit with his lawyer as in
depositions hearings. It seems to work reasonably well there.
The
charges were read out. There were 15 in all. I felt this put the
defendant on the back foot right from the start. To bombard the
jury with 15 charges must have had an immediate persuasive effect.
How often do you hear that first impressions are important?
The
Crown lawyer gave her opening address to the jury followed by the
defence lawyer. Even at this stage it was becoming apparent to me
that the Crown lawyer carried more charisma. Her voice was stronger
and she always faced the jury as if she was addressing each one
of them personally. By contrast, the defence lawyer was quiet, unassuming
and was far from forceful in any argument he might introduce. He
was the kind who tended to put a jury to sleep. This unevenness
in ability between The Crown lawyer and the defence is an issue
which should be seriously looked at. The Crown with its almost infinite
resources always seems to be much better prepared.
A
little while ago someone told me that the outcome of most cases
is decided by the Crown and the defence lawyers before trial. I
would be horrified if this was true. On the other hand such a statement,
if true, wouldn't surprise me. It is relatively easy for either
lawyer to adjust in such a way that they become ineffective. It
would be difficult for the layman to pick this up.
By
the afternoon session, it was time for the complainants to give
their testimony. I was surprised to find the public were excluded.
The judge has power to exclude and does so in specific cases. Notable
among these are sexual cases involving children. He can in sexual
cases involving adults also but I am mystified why this was done
in this case. It could not have been because they did not wish to
be identified. All complainants assembled in a room off the area
where the public sat outside the courtroom. They frequently had
the door open and occasionally filtered out in the public area.
They were in plain view often. They all wanted to testify. It seems
they were not coerced into doing so. They were in their 30s and
upwards, and therefore mature adults. I was concerned to see laughing
and joking after the testimony of at least one of the complainants.
Because I did not hear what the complainants had to say I found
that I could not form my own opinion about the innocence or guilt
of the defendant. The cynical side of me would say that this is
exactly why I was excluded. A layman with some knowledge and experienced
enough to not let emotion rule his decision may be in a position
to be highly critical after a verdict. At the very least I cannot
say that in this case, justice was seen to be done.
After
lunch on the second day the mother was to act as a witness and so
we were re-admitted. The marriage had dissolved in the 1980s and
it was clear the mother had aligned with the children. The mother
gave evidence that one or two of her children had spoken to her
at the time and they had indicated that some kind of offending was
taking place. She appears to have done little about it. What I find
a little strange is that although most of the alleged offending
seems to have taken place in the home, the mother seemingly was
unaware that it was going on, even though it supposedly took place
over a number of years. It seems that a complaint was made to the
police by one of the children then, but was not acted upon. The
fact that a complaint was made at this time would be a point against
the defendant but that it was not acted on at the time would be
in his favour.
It
was then left for the Crown and defence to sum up. Here, the Crown
lawyer clearly outshone the defence. The Crown lawyer spoke in a
loud clear voice, was turned towards the jury, and had strong emphasis
on key points. The defence lawyer was the opposite. He was very
quiet and monotonic, was facing the front of the court and placed
no real emphasis on anything. The judge completed the proceedings
with his summing up, which I felt was reasonably fair.
The
jury retired to consider its verdict. For observers this is a frustrating
time. Frustrating because it is difficult to know just when a verdict
will be given. What do you do while waiting? I wandered down town,
had yet another cup of coffee, and then returned. The jury had apparently
asked three questions and the judge, Crown, and defence were discussing
the questions amongst themselves. It was at this stage that the
judge made this comment:
"Strictly
speaking much of Mrs. X's testimony (the mother's) is hearsay, but
it was useful to have her input"!
Hearsay
of course because she was in part recounting what her children had
told her.
I
found this a bit disconcerting. I wonder if a defence lawyer had
tried to admit hearsay evidence whether he would have had any success!
Why didn't the defence lawyer challenge at least some of this evidence?
Because
one of the questions related to the tenth charge, I realised that
a decision was not too far away. I raced away to shift my vehicle
parked in a limited time zone. When I returned I could see that
the jury had returned to the courtroom. As I opened the door the
court Registrar was asking the jury their verdict on count one.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. I noticed the defendants
head lower. On all but one charge the defendant was found guilty.
I
suppose at this stage the correct terminology is "prisoner". The
prisoner was led away. The judge thanked the jury and dismissed
them. Shortly, the lawyer and prisoner returned. The lawyer asked
that the guilty man be released on bail in order to put his affairs
in order. The Crown opposed this and the defence lawyer put up what
was plainly a pathetic argument for his release. He clearly had
not prepared for this and there was plenty of indication he did
not know much about his client. The result was inevitable, and the
judge remanded him in custody for sentencing, about a fortnight
from that date.
Duly,
a fortnight later, the judge handed down a sentence of nine years.
All things considered the length of sentence did not surprise me,
and was about what I thought was appropriate for the alleged crimes.
The question is - did the alleged offences happen?
Because
I was excluded from hearing all the evidence I cannot answer that
question.
A
number of people had written testimonials as is the custom when
sentencing is due. I personally doubt that they have much effect.
The judge commented that the testimonials had been written recently
and therefore did not represent the picture when the alleged (that's
my word) offending took place some 25 years ago. Does this suggest
that one should perhaps, each year, ask friends to write testimonials
just in case you are brought to trial some time in the future?
I
am left pondering what the parties concerned have gained or lost
from this. One man is in prison for a long term. It has been said
that the mother and all 3 complainants have already received a considerable
monetary sum from ACC. The cynical side of me again might say that
in this alone we have good reason to make a complaint. It is disturbing
that since the reintroduction of lump sum ACC payments in April,
sexual complaints have trebled.
It
was the usual story for a trial involving sexual allegations. No-one
saw anything. It was the complainants' words against the defendant's.
Without doubt, emotion plays a major role. The jury came down on
the side of the complainants. There is a slim chance of a male winning
against such odds.
|
|
| |
Tennessee (US,
historical): After 22 years, Clark McMillan was cleared of the
rape conviction. Before Judge Chris Craft in Memphis Tennessee, DNA
tests showed that genetic markers in McMillan's blood did not match
those in semen left on the rape victim's clothes. The judge dismissed
the man's 1980 rape conviction. It was a case of him being misidentified.
DNA tests clear inmate. ODT 16/5/02 p 9.
Christchurch
(NZ): A man wasted 43 hours of police time by falsely claiming
that he had been attacked by two men, and sodomised, while he was
out walking, trying, he said 'to memorise the names of factory premises
for his job delivering pizza'. Inconsistencies developed in his story,
and he eventually admitted the complaint was false. Judge Ray Kean
said: "I consider it to be a serious matter when people complain to
the police about an offence, especially a serious one like this, and
it proves to be false". The penalty was 180 hours of community work
and payment of $601 - for the medical examination costs. His sex allegations
were false (The Press 5/7/02).
Saskatoon (US):
City police officer John Popowich was recently given, in an out-of-court
settlement, a full apology, and $1.3 million. This was because of
sex allegations against him (and others) being false. Accused in June
1992, he was exonerated by 1993, but it took 10 years to reach this
outcome. In the case, phoney charges, 180 in all, were laid against
himself, a couple who ran a daycare home, and six other people. They
were allegations of committing ritualistic child sexual abuse, practising
Satanism, and carrying out bizarre and sickening brutalisations and
sadistic acts with children and animals, and the allegations constituted
the Martensville case.
Reportedly, settlements
for the other accused in the case are likely to rapidly ensue after
Popowich's settlement.
However, the corruption
that was found involved civil servants, and therefore concerns the
government, and the public deserves a full explanation. It was not
true, despite the Justice Minister's saying it, that the case could
be explained away and merely used as an example where 'lessons have
now been learned". The case had gone ahead despite the fact that by
1993 a lot was already known from other states, about so-called satanic
ritual abuse in daycare centers and the genesis of these kinds of
bulk allegations. Most of these earlier cases foundered because of
the lack of substantiation, and this case ought to have been brought
to a rapid halt. The writer asked, 'Is the government covering something
up?' He asked for voters to demand justice and a full airing of the
case. ('Province too eager to forget Martensville
blunder', John Gormley, The Star, Phoenix, AZ, 21/6/02 p A2.)
Auckland (NZ):
Phil Bennett of Raumati South (near Paraparaumu), a presenter of the
"Isaiah 61" prayer ministry, focuses on inner healing for people who
have experienced painful memories or emotional distress, according
to an internet report. The method is apparently linked to the "Theophostic
Counselling" methods of Dr Ed Smith of Kentucky. This technique appears
to revolve substantially around prayer.
'We don't have
to have a diploma in counselling to be able to pray', said Mr Bennett.
Asked if there were any hazards in this type of counselling, he said
very few, with an exception. "If one is chosen to take on the more
advanced ministry of dealing with such cases as satanic ritual abuse
and de-programming, then that danger can be quite significant, as
with all spiritual warfare." He described a chequered spiritual background,
including being "'hijacked' by the enemy and ... involved in freemasonry"
('Proclaiming liberty to the captives' by Julie
Belding, Challenge Weekly, 31/10/01).
Dunedin (NZ):
An affair between a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy, and the
brutal sexual violation of a 5-year-old, are clearly very different
behaviours and circumstances, yet they are portrayed as equivalent,
under the term rape, by the media, argues Lynley Hood. In an attempt
to try to talk some sense in the over-hyped world of commentary on
human sexual behaviours, and their varieties and extremes, she notes
also that male homosexual behaviour, which is legally accepted (for
people of legal age), often leads, because of "society's fears and
hatred of homosexuality, to a scapegoating of gay people, falsely
stereotyping them as child molesters" - ie, to demonising. This lesson
from the 1992 Civic case is as relevant now as it was back then, she
said. Her comments came in the wake of the acquittal in Dunedin of
former choirmaster, Raymond White, on 'historical' sexual allegations,
but a guilty verdict for him over a recent incident with a youth.
('Demonising any class of people is wrong' by Lynley
Hood, Otago Daily Times, 29/5/02.)
Willie Talau,
26, a provincial and national rugby league star, when aged 15 kissed
and gave love-bites to a girl aged 13. With embellishments added to
this, he was recently charged in a Wellington court with sexual violation
and indecent assault. His Defence argued the other allegations did
not happen. The jury - in 35 mins - found him not guilty.
Defence lawyer
Dr Donald Stevens said no-one could substantiate the woman's story,
which demonstrated the ease with which an innocent person could be
tried for a serious offence without supporting evidence. He said "It's
worrying that the state of the law in this country at the moment is
that any disturbed person can walk into a police station and make
a false allegation, and someone can be put on trial for a serious
offence - it's pretty disturbing".
Talau, a father
of four, whose wife and baby son were present throughout the four-day
trial, said "It has been a terrible ordeal to face such a charge when
innocent �very hard on my family." Commentator Rosemary McLeod in
"There but for good fortune' and Frank Haden in 'Teenage gropes are
not crimes' independently concluded the same thing: the charges should
not have been pursued. McLeod said that while one - or both - ended
up with bad feelings, "the fact is that all such bad experiences don't
deserve to end up in courtrooms. They are all about growing up, not
crime."
Various
NZ newspaper reports 31/5/02-9/6/02
|
|
| |
In
conjunction with an article titled 'Imagining the Worst' by Nadia Lerner,
the following analysis of child behaviours, identifying which are worrying
and which not, was recently printed in Christchurch's The Press. This
return to commonsense is a long way from the days when a boy touching
his penis 'meant' he'd been abused.
To help parents
and caregivers gauge what is "normal" sexual exploration in children,
New Zealand and Australian agencies group behaviours in three categories.
Green light behaviour
This refers to appropriate
behaviour that does not require parental intervention.
- 0-4 years old Wanting
to touch other children's genitals. Asking about or wanting to touch
a familiar adult's breasts or penis.
- 5 -8 years Masturbating
and/or using self-soothing touching. Telling "dirty" stories. Becoming
more private about their own bodies.
- 9-12 years Using
sexual language. Having girlfriends and boyfriends. Kissing and petting.
Exhibitionism eg, "brown-eyes"or flashing among same-age chiIdren.
Orange light behaviour
These signal the
need to take notice, and if the behaviours persist, seek advice.
- 0-4 years Demonstrating
preoccupation with adult sexual behaviour. Pulling another chlld's pants
down or lifting up girls' skirts against their will. Explicit sexual
conversation using sophisticated adult language.
- 5-8 years Writing
sexually threatening notes to other children. Engaging in mutual masturbation.
Using adult language to discuss sex.
- 9-12 years Persistently
expressing fears of pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases.
Behaviour that is uncharacteristic; eg, suddenly wanting to dress in
a provocative manner or mix with new or older friends. Bullying persistently
involving sexual aggression. Pseudo-maturity; ie, inappropriate knowledge
of sexual, or discussions of sexuality in an adult manner.
Red light behaviour
Parents should seek
advice from a health professional about these behaviours.
- 0-4 years Simulating
explicit foreplay or sexual behaviour. Persistently masturbating; ie,
active rubbing of genitals. Persistently touching the genitals of other
children. Persistently attempting to touch the genitals of adults.
- 5-8 years Persistently
engaging in masturbation, particularly in front of others. Engaging
significantly younger children in sexual activity. Simulating sexual
acts that are inappropriately sophisticated for their age.
- 9-12 years Persistently
engaging in masturbation, particularly in front of others. Engaging
in sexual activity such as oral sex or intercourse. Coercing other children
of similar or younger age.
Source:
Child at Risk Assessment Unit, Australian Capital Territory Community
Care.
Reprinted
from: Christchurch's The Press, 25/6/02 p B3.
|
|
| |
The evaluation of
people who may've been sexually abused: that's the subject that US Attorney
Barbara C. Johnson - also currently a candidate for governorship of
Massachusetts - takes up at http://www.falseallegations.com/evaluat1.htm#conflict,
where she has a copy of guidelines for this purpose. These were published
in J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 1997, 36:423-442 and J. Am.
Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 1997, 36 (10 Supplement):37S-56S.
The paper and parameters
may be seminal because the approach seems professional - more professional
than seems to be the case in existing approaches in sex abuse allegations
in New Zealand, for example - and because the paper draws on ideas from
each end of the spectrum.
The approach used
in the parameters is 'chronological', ie, they start with what the forensic
assessor should do from the time they are first engaged as the evaluator
in the case. The following list of the sections in the 'Parameters,'
and an indication of some of their content, will give a brief idea of
the approach, ordering, and extent of this document:
I. Role definition:
Explain forensic evaluator's role to parents, other adults and systems,
and the child, appropriately; Explain who has requested evaluation,
purpose, who gets the report, and confidentiality issues; Clarify
the forensic evaluator and the child's therapist should be separate
individuals; Be prepared to testify in court; and Clarify payment
issues.
II. Diagnostic
assessment:
A. Obtain a
history from parents, child, and other pertinent informants (12
points are itemised);
B. Consider
requesting collateral information after obtaining authorizations,
from protective services; school personnel and past school records;
other caretakers, such as baby-sitters; other family members, such
as siblings; and pediatrician police reports.
C. Process of
the interview with the child, including mental status examination
(13 points itemised).
D. Content of
the interview with the child (10 points itemised).
E. Other procedures
(Consider risks and benefits of drawing pictures; consider the risks
and benefits of using anatomical dolls; there are contra-indicated
items (hypnosis, amytal, facilitated communication, guided imagery,
and either rewards or negative reinforcement of the child's statements).)
F. Psychological
testing (4 points itemised).
G. Physical
examination of the physically abused child (8 points itemised).
H. Physical
examination of the sexually abused child (4 points itemised).
I. Other interviews
(If possible: interview the person who is raising the allegation
of abuse; and the alleged perpetrator. Do not interview the child
and alleged perp together, except if the allegation proved to be
false - in that case a careful joint interview could be made, keeping
in mind the effect on the child.)
J. Consider
an in-home evaluation by the evaluator or a child protection team
member.
III. Possible
explanations of denials of abuse (8 points A to H itemised)
IV. Possible explanations
of allegations of abuse
A. A
false allegation arises in the mind of a parent or other adults
and is imposed on the child: Parental misinterpretation and suggestion;
Misinterpreted physical condition; Parental delusion; Parental indoctrination;
Interviewer's suggestion; Misinterpreted parental behavior; Group
contagion.
B. The allegation
is produced by mental mechanisms in the child that are not conscious
or not purposeful: Fantasy; Delusion; Misinterpretation; Miscommunication;
Confabulation.
C. The allegation
is produced by mental mechanisms in the child that are usually considered
conscious and purposeful: Fantasy lying; Innocent lying; Deliberate
lying D. Perpetrator substitution.
V. Issues regarding
the child's testimony: Competency (4 points itemised), Credibility
(9 points itemised), Whether the child should testify (2 points itemised).
VI. Recommendations
regarding placement and treatment (4 main points itemised).
VII. Written report
(13 headings are identified that should be used, corresponding to
the points I to VI).
The report also
notes that its contributors have very likely a monetary interest in
services discussed in the parameters, which is noted as a 'Conflict
of Interest' as required under US law. A section of 'References' completes
the document.
We hope some of
this flexibility and innovation will filter through into New Zealand
assessment and investigative practices.
|
|
| |
Two fathers sued
network for libelous 'documentary', and won (Netherlands)
The
Dutch NCRV-TV network has again offered apologies for its incest documentary
"Hidden Mothers". An earlier apology had been extended to the Broere
family and now the network has also settled with the Kok family. The
family will receive payment for damages the amount of which has not
been made public.
So reported 'Reformatorisch
Dagblad,' reporting from Hilversum (Netherlands 11/6/02). Also, the
network's program guide was to contain a further rectification, where
NCRV-TV would publicly admit that it had been guilty of libel.
The background to
this was as follows, according to the report:
In the
documentary "Hidden Mothers", broadcast two years ago, a female member
of the Kok family, Annemarie, had stated that as a child she had been
ritually and sexually abused for many years. She alleged that her
children had been either sacrificed in rituals or sold.
Although the father
had been accused of incest, the family consistently maintained that
Annemarie's stories were confabulations which arose as a result of her
visits to a therapist who believed in recovered memory therapy.
The Kok family had
pointed this out to NCRV and said that its documentarist, Verheul, had
not made an effort to hear the family's side of the story.
In the case of the
Broere family, whose libel decision came earlier, the network, in another
segment of "Hidden Mothers," broadcast allegations from the daughter
of a minister emeritus in the Reformed Church. She said her father,
Rev G. Broere, had sexually abused her.
The network in broadcasting
this segment on the Broeres had ignored the protests of the family.
However, when the reverend started legal proceedings, the network began
to take heed. In its retraction and apology in the program guide, the
network had admitted the allegations against him had no basis in fact,
either.
Therapist successfully
sued re client's allegations (Netherlands)
Damages awarded
against therapist - 'incest past' may be totally fictive
The daughter believed
she was systematically raped from age six on, with ritual murder of
infants, but a court found effectively a therapist was guilty of directing
her, as a client, to abandon control over her memories - false or imagined.
The court ordered this therapist to pay the parents damages, for wrecking
their lives with the false 'memories'.
The mother's and
father's experiences had included both being arrested and interrogated
for 17 days, and the allegations being subjected to a lengthy police
investigation. This investigation was eventually abandoned, with a forensic
psychologist, Van Koppen, reckoning that the chances were great that
it was a total confabulation, and that it was clear that the accounts
originated in the therapy room.
It was the parents'
Defence attorney Coumans who advised the parents to bring charges.
The judgement has
been described as making therapists responsible for the grief the daughter
caused to the parents.
Both 'sides'
still to appear in TV program
The Netherlands'
"Zembla" TV program was to show the daughter describing her past and
the parents expressing their disbelief and bitterness ("Sex Lies and
Therapy," VARA/NPS ZEMBLA (Station Netherland), 21/6/02).
Netherlands
Health Council to report on fictive memories
The Minister of
Health, Borst, relying on the Health Council, is looking into the role
of the therapist in the generation of fictive memories and will generate
a report by the end of the year. This move was supported by Van Koppen.
He said the Minister had to take matters in hand, because 'anyone without
proper training may call themselves a therapist'. He said it was clear
that this sort of therapy causes harm, even when no criminal charges
are laid.
|
|
| |
Differentiating
between true and false - enhancing rationality
Issues involved
in differentiating between true and false allegations of sexual abuse
was the subject of a 1-day conference for psychologists, attorneys,
social workers and law enforcement personnel, held recently in Pittsburg
(Carnegie Mellon University, 13/4/02).
It aimed to offer
suggestions for incorporating knowledge into clinical practice. Other
subjects to be covered were factors which affect the reliability of
both children's and adult's testimony, the history of false memory,
and information about the science of memory.
Rumour and irrational
thinking often play in the genesis of false beliefs - including not
only amongst pseudo-scientists and lunatics, but also amongst 'the rest
of us'!
The goal was to
give attenders an insight into how conviction rates can be improved
by separating out false claims from genuine cases of abuse, thereby
'enhancing the rationality of verdicts in child sex abuse prosecutions
and allowing for the exoneration of innocent people who have been caught
up in the sex abuse hysteria which has swept our nation'.
A similar line-up
and 1-day programme, but with some changes, was held in May in Canada
(Law Building, University of Western Ontario, London, ON).
'Reconciliation'
focus for Melbourne AGM
A seminar and the
Annual General Meeting of the Australian False Memory Association Inc
is scheduled for Saturday, October 26th, at the Holiday Inn, World Trade
Centre, 1-5 Spencer Street, Melbourne, Australia, with reconciliation
intended to be a focus. Speakers will include Dr Yolande Lucire, from
Sydney, Australia, and Mr David Hunter from Illinois. Registration is
$55.00 per person, and includes morning and afternoon teas and a buffet
lunch.
Dr Lucire, PhD,
MBBS, DPM, FRANZCP, is an experienced defender of those destroyed by
the practice of Recovered Memory Therapy. She will speak on some medical
and legal aspects.
Mr David Hunter,
Chairman of Parents Against Cruel Therapy (PACT) is a full-time activist
against exploitative therapy. To gain more background on his activities,
visit http://angryparents.net. Three years of monthly newsletters are
posted on this site.
For further information
and the Registration Form, contact AFMA by phone 61 (from overseas)
1300 88 88 77 (in Australia). Accommodation is available at the Holiday
Inn and at other nearby hotels.
|
|
| |
COSA posted members information, recently, about the opportunity to
make submissions to the Law Commission's review of New Zealand's court
system. As we explained, the Commission had published, and made freely
available, a position paper titled "Striking the balance," together
with a booklet and framework in which to make submissions.
Although
the COSA committee itself didn't representatively make a submission,
several separate submissions were made by individual COSA members.
Submissions
were due on 12 July 2002, but it is noted that the Commission is always
open to hearing submissions from people who would like to make them.
The
Honourable Justice J Bruce has now reported that the submission process
has revealed problems, but only in terms such as were already expected.
Time
will tell whether the Commission will take any heed of suggestions and
ideas from people affected by false sexual allegations.
|
|
| |
Proposals
for the new Health Professionals' Competency Assurance Bill were
announced on 21 December 2001 by Health Minister Annette King
The main proposal
appears to be to separate the registration functions of the relevant
professionals' organisations from the complaints and discipline procedures
to apply to them. Apparently, the organisations are going to be legislated
to retain their registration functions, but to lose the control of the
complaints and discipline procedures applying to themselves. The current
eleven health occupational regulatory statutes will be replaced with
the single new statute, to rationalise health professionals under unified
legislative umbrella/s . [The 11 pieces of legislation
to be replaced are: Chiropractors Act 1982, Dental Act 1988 (Dentists,
dental technicians, clinical dental technicians), Dietitians Act 1950,
Medical Auxiliaries Act 1966 (medical laboratory technicians, medical
radiation technologists, podiatrists), Medical Practitioners Act 1995
(MPA), Nurses Act 1977 (which includes midwives), Optometrists and Dispensing
Opticians Act 1976, Occupational Therapy Act 1949, Pharmacy Act 1970,
Physiotherapy Act 1949 and the Psychologists Act 1981.] The bill
will identify what are the tasks that can be practised only by certified,
qualified and competent practitioners, and provide for certain declared
quality assurance activities to improve the practice or competence of
health professionals.
The proposals for
the bill are the first in a suite of papers on related issues in response
to the Gisborne cervical screening inquiry, and a related review by
Helen Cull QC (it is available on the internet by going to http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/wpg_Index/Publications-Index,
then to one of their publications pages, and looking for 'Review of
Processes Concerning Adverse Medical Events' of March 2001.
The separation of
registration and discipline functions already seems to be underway in
some respects (eg, through the use of the Health and Disability Commissioner
office). The proposals, if adopted as seems likely, will take this direction
further. That being the case, the proposals need to draw comment and
input from a wide range of society, not just from PC-advocacy sources.
The target idea, presumably of fair and effective appraisal, control,
and delivery of health professionals' services, should always be kept
in mind in the proposed legislation, so that it will not be capable
of being interpreted in a way that could lead to degeneration of complaints
into various types and instances of partisan, unwarranted, or 'politically-motivated'
attacks.
The proposed Bill
has been preceded so far by input from the health groups and other individuals
and groups (eg, identified in a coded way, in Helen Cull's report).
One focus found in these submissions is indicated in the Minister's
memo:
[There
is] Much debate and comment about discipline processes. [They] Want
processes with Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), Health and
Disability Commissioner (HDC), registering authorities and disciplinary
tribunal(s) to be streamlined to prevent delays and multiple investigation
of the same complaint.
A very complicated
diagram on page 116 of Helen Cull's report indicates the 'consumer perspective
of [the current] complaint procedure against a health professional.'
And indeed it looks a nightmare!
The Pharmacy Guild
said in its newsletter that the proposed bill amounted to an ambush,
although they are listed as having been consulted by Helen Cull. The
minister's response to their complaints was tart. She said: "I can see
that it [the changes presaged by the bill] is a challenge to the Pharmacy
Guild's role - they have a position to protect. It is not for the benefit
of health professionals, it is for the benefit of public health and
safety" (http://www.pharmacy-today.co.nz/cover_stories/feb02_ambush.html).
The Homeopathic
Council of NZ said the proposals amounted to "a timely opportunity to
formalise the status of homoeopathy along with other complementary health
modalities in New Zealand" (http://www.homeopathy.co.nz/presentation.htm);
but they are not in the list of groups included, so far.
The proposals are
meant to ensure that health professional groups do not operate restrictive
practices. The registering authority that is to be retained by the professional
groups will include the authority and responsibility for verifying qualifications
achieved under other jurisdictions.
Whether the Medical
Council, who recently commissioned their own report on doctors (this
was discussed in our last newsletter, May 2002), is likely to balk at
the removal of discipline from their responsibility, is yet to be seen.
The tide may be turning and irresistible for them and others.
The prescribing
and controlling of doctors' and health professionals' regulation in
terms of both expertise and behaviour is important, and if a replacement
system is somehow more efficient and more up to date than the present
system, this will be all to the good.
Doctors need to
use a system that protects them from false patient allegations, and
patients need systems that protect them from abuse from any wayward
doctors.
The public also
needs regulatory bodies that are not immured in historical ways of working,
to the exclusion of modern changes, including doctors trained in university
systems not traditional for NZ.
A working party
of representatives from the Psychologists Board, the NZ Psychological
Society (NZPsyS), and the NZ College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP),
would formulate a submission to the [Education and Health] Select Committee
on the proposed Health Professional Competency Assurance Bill, according
to their site in late April 2002 (at http://www.psychology.org.nz/ on
11/4/02, under "February 2002").
Will they help force
accountability into the system for COSA-type cases?
|
|
| |
There is a high
case for intervention in an occupation, to control it, if these
four conditions are met.
- There is significant
harm,
- The harm is
irreversible,
- Risk is involuntary,
and
- There is a
high probability of harm occurring.
This is according
to an analysis, made in June 1999, for the regulation of occupations
in New Zealand, conducted by the Business Law and Trade Group of the
Ministry of Economic Development (see "Policy Framework for Occupational
Regulation: A Guide for Government Agencies�", at http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/bus_pol/policyframework/diagram1.pdf).
There are several
sets of circumstances that may fit a possible case for intervention,
one of which is where the harm is irreversible and there is a high probability
of harm occurring (as for the 'high' case), but the risk is voluntary.
A 'no case
for intervention' condition is defined as either where there is
not significant harm, or where there is significant harm but it is reversible,
and the risk is voluntary, and there is a low probability of harm occurring.
It could be argued
that in relation to the persons using these that "A Courage to Heal,"
and certain kinds of counselling, including counselling that would not
be prohibited under ACC guidelines, would often fit the 'possible case
for intervention' category.
For people who get
accused as an outcome of the counselling, falsely, their situation is
worse, and would seem to mean that these aids and means would fit the
category of 'high case for intervention'.
|
|
|
|
COSA
has received support from Christchurch Community Trust and Christchurch
City Council
If
you want to send us a newsletter contribution by email, please do so
to [email protected]
Opinions
expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of COSA
New Zealand Inc.
|
|