More care needed for sake of children

Press, 30 October 1984, Page 21

More care needed for sake of children

Dr John Church, co-ordinator of the Battered Women’s Support Group, wants the Family Court to take more care with access decisions. “When the court makes a custody order, it takes care to see that the child is given into the custody of one who will make a reasonable job of bringing up the child,” he says. “What I want is for the court to treat applications for access just as seriously and carefully. I want the court to give children into the unsupervised care of a parent only if it can be demonstrated that that parent is capable of caring for the child in the access periods. I want access td be treated just as seriously as custody.” Dr Church says this is just not happening at present. “Access applications are being granted too lightly and without proper consideration of whether the parent is capable of contributing to the care

and development of the child.” It is unreasonable to wait for objective evidence that child abuse which occured during the marriage is continuing after separation. “If this happened in the marriage, is it appropriate to make an order leaving the child in the unsupervised care of that parent?” he Officials say the court must have evidence that such things occurred, but Dr Church says that in the cases he cited at the seminar the relevant information was presented to the Family Court, but in his view it was not given the weight it deserved. Research and experience showed that where sexual molestation took place, that pattern of behaviour continued even though the circumstances changed. While it was true that access was ordered to be supervised in some such cases, Dr Church says the problem is that supervision ceases after a few

months and the situation begins to deteriorate. In the case of the child ordered into “week about” custody, Dr Church says the relevant evidence of the effect on the child’s health was taken back to the court, but the order for joint custody, week about, continued. “I’m at a loss to know what evidence the court requires in that kind of case, short of the death of the child,” he adds. Medical opinion is that while the child is not physically ill, it is not thriving, it is failing to grow, and it is emotionally distressed by the joint custody arrangement. It is not a case where the mother can call in the Social Welfare department, Dr Church says, because failure to thrive is not covered by the Children’s and Young Persons Act. He has seen the child, and says its weight is down to a point where if it contracts any serious illness it might die. A G.P. and a paediatri-

cian both gave evidence to the court of the harmful effects on the child of being shuttled from one parent to the other at the end of each week, but the judge said he considered the evidence insufficient for him to overturn a custody order made by a fellow judge. His study of the many cases brought to Battered Women shows that where an abusive parent — usually the father — applies for access to the child he always gets it. He says that a high proportion of sexually abusive parents try hard to keep in contact with the affected child. The official attitude is that there must be some evidence that abuse is happening, but Dr Church says the Family court makes its decisions on the balance-of-probabili-ties rule, and judges should be more ready to act on any evidence that abuse of a child is possible.

“We have half a dozen cases on our books where there is a strong

suspicion that sexual molestation has gone on,” Dr Church says. “There was a virtual admission in one case, and medical evidence in others. In cases where a child reports sexual abuse, or a doctor reports evidence of it, the matter needs serious consideration, and this is not being given.” He has studied nearly 1000 cases and does not know of one where a wife has made an unfounded allegation of that kind. Furthermore, he adds, children never fabricate stories of sexual molestation by a parent. Dr Church disputes the claim that his assessment of cases must be less informed than the Family Court’s because he hears from only one of the parties. “That’s not true. In many cases we have the court’s decision before us, and it is clear from that that the evidence has been presented but has been disregarded.” In two cases which he has cited,

the judge had to decide which of the marriage partners was telling the truth. In one case where sexual abuse was alleged, Dr Church says he knew it was true because he has spoken to the children. In the other there was medical evidence of physical abuse, but in both cases the judge decided that the wife was lying and disregarded her evidence.

He thinks the judges were in error in both cases, and that it would be difficult for them to defend their decisions.

“I never go out on a limb,” says Dr Church. “I only put forward cases that I’m sure of. Where a child reports sexual molestation it has to be given serious weight. It’s a red herring to say that I have not seen both of the parties.” Dr Church says that non-moles-tation orders have been obtained by women in most of the cases he cited, but those orders are accompanied by orders for unsupervised

access to the children. He agrees that a violent husband is not necessarily a violent father, but says that a person known to be violent and unable to cope with stress should not be taking part in the stressful business of bringing up children. “Is it relevant that the child has not yet been beaten up?” he asks. “The risk continues to the child. The court obviously wants us to accept access orders and come back when the child has been knocked about. “The expectation is that access continues unless the circumstances become very extraordinary indeed. Lawyers know that to make a case for discontinuing contact with a parent it has to be a very strong case indeed. Bruises and suspicion of of sexual molestation, and the child being frightened, won’t do. It

has to be much more than that. “All expectations are shaped up by decisions that the court makes. Parents of abused children are not making applications for ‘no access’ or rehearings because they are told by their lawyers that they will fail.”

Tomorrow: A court that would rather counsel than rush to judgment.