How a small group of professionals were able to raise children’s voices above the din

1. How a small group of professionals were able to raise children’s voices above the din Children’s voices being heard above the racket in family court proceedings:

2. Researcher: Wendy Foote • PhD findings • Purposive sample – dispute between experts • 21 judgments 1997-2001 • Thematic analysis • Using literature review and repeated themes.

3. Reason for the research: • Working as a child and adolescent child sexual assault counsellor • Aware of different criteria being used in different legal contexts • Influential assessing professionals in Family Law context – court ordered assessor- usually child and family psychiatrists

4. Foundations of psychiatry/family law framework - 1980s • Small clinical and unrepresentative samples • Predominantly presented false allegations mothers in custody disputes • Focus on true/false dichotomy

5. Foundations of psychiatry/family law framework - 1980s • Influential practitioners o f the day- eg Gardner • Anti mother bias • Use of allegation as court room tactic

6. Psychiatry/family law framework The interplay between the child’s and the custodial parent’s fears may result in increasing symptoms in the child and/or interpretation of the non custodial deceit but is instead an example of overreaction and misperception in which both custodial parent and the child develop a shared belief that the abuse has occurred and/or could occur during contact with the other parent. (Sink, 1988:147)

7. Recent developments in the field: • Greater range of disciplines • Larger research samples • Assessment schedules more inclusive of children’s experiences • Broader range of possible explanations including • Allegations as indicator of CSA

8. Results: • Context of family law- • Family dispute/conflict is a frame through which the evidence is interpreted. • Skepticism about allegations • Minimisation • Focus on alleger – motive, mental health, quality of evidence • High threshold of evidence to hear allegations

11. Judicial findings in the sample: • 7 cases where there were positive finds of risk • 4 of these where there was a sustained focus on the entirety of evidence about the child

12. Judgical process • Dealing with conflicting evidence • Piecing together /filling in the blanks • Creating a narrative

13. What were the characteristics of the four? • 4 professionals from outside the court system provided key evidence. • Significant evidence to confirm a positive risk finding eg father presenting poorly in witness box or giving part admission • These cases were characterised by: supporting evidence by professional

14. Eg Duchamp family • 9 day hearing • Two girls 10 & 13 yrs • Application for residence by father • 19-year-old daughter alleged rape by father 10 yrs previously • Other evidence about father consistent with allegations - emotionally abusive & manipulative of the girls.

15. Duchamp cont. • Judicial finding: risk of sexual abuse to the younger daughters • Role of expert – support the adult daughter’s evidence

16. Eg 2: Ceracchi • Father, applied for shared residence • Two girls 8 & 6 years • Issues: DV, violence between parents, father’s lack of control of his anger • Abusive interaction between the grandparents & children • Lack of veracity of the grandparents’ evidence • Children seen over a number of months by child protection unit Social Worker

17. Getting children’s voices heard • Space for hearing the child’s voice- best done in assessments and therapy/counselling over a period of time

18. Getting children’s voices heard • One to one relationship i.e. counsellor/child • Context of the family – some contact with mother • Refusal to be drawn into the polarisaion of family law dispute- gaze on the child • Counsellors who knew their clients well, and independently of their mothers/grandmothers

19. Children’s comments • ‘I just want the fighting to stop’ • Behaviours that speak volumes- child exposed to DV: ‘in the school setting his behaviour mirrored the bully tactics employed by his father.’

20. Mary’s wishes • after Mary had described the sexual abuse he asked her whether if the father promised not do this it would change her feelings, and she said that "she would love him and would like to see him as long as he promised not to do this".

21. Getting children’s voices heard • Unbroken gaze on the child – • Contrasts with a position of polarised position – backing the mother or the father. • Contrasts with understanding the allegations through the lens of family dispute/conflict.

22. Characteristics of the professionals • Professional takes a stance that is ‘open’ and objective • Findings derived from own assessment • Chain of evidence used to substantiate assessment • Over a period of time – not one off assessment • Knowledge of the child high and based on the development of a child/counsellor relationship • Child’s feelings and thoughts and reactions recorded

23. Issues • Resource driven decisions about assessors • Paradigm driven – parental conflict is the dominant paradigm • Influence of the skeptical position vis-a-vis allegations still influential