Caroline Overington writes in The Australian today that the Family Court has ordered two girls aged 8 and 10 to have sleepovers with their child sex offender father. As long as there’s a lock on the bedroom door. This man has filmed child pornography and created links to child porn sites. He also previously invited one of his daughters into his bed. In my opinion, this man has forfeited any right to have his daughters stay over. The 10-year-old sobbed that she didn’t want to stay with him. Too bad. And what about during the day, after the girls have unlocked the door that kept their father out of their room the night before? The Judge said the risk of sexual abuse was “diminished when they are awake and alert, and when the children are together”. So these very young girls have to be alert and vigilant about possible attack, and look out for each other? Who could possibly think that is a good environment for children? This ruling must be re-examined.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Who can we yell at – Attorney Generals? This is so wrong…………..I’m still feeling anger and frustration after viewing the Jill Singer report of the Deanne Bridgeland case on the 7.30 Report…where’s the protection…just basic, decent protection…what’s going on? what can we do?
March 15th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
This is PTSD waiting to happen for those two girls, if not sexual abuse. While it’s alleged that he hasn’t actually assaulted anyone – what’s to say that he hasn’t already? What’s to say that he doesn’t get tired of watching and want some himself. What’s to say he doesn’t invite around another one of his mates from his child sex abuse videos rings? That’s another ‘adult’ potentially, right? He’s actively partaken in filming child sex abuse – has he done this to his daughters? IS THIS JUDGE ON CRACK?!
That man forfeited his right to parent the minute he decided to log onto those websites instead of taking himself off to see a therapist.
Sex abuse doesn’t only happen at night time. Sex abuse isn’t only defined by penetration. In my own abuse, it occured in the mid-afternoon most of the time. It was bright, sunny. There were birds chirping, and children being picked up from the school a few blocks away and people were grabbing their afternoon snack in the offices 10 minutes away. Please. Anyone who thinks otherwise should speak to a survivor.
I mention that it’s PTSD waiting to happen earlier. The reason I mention this is because regardless of whether or not something traumatic happens, if you are in the situation where you feel as if you are at risk; your life or your wellbeing, and you have ptsd symptoms, you qualify for a diagnosis. By suggesting that these girls need a lock to be safe at night is suggesting that they are in danger. By insinuating danger – their anxiety response is likely to be higher….so potentially they will end up with PTSD.
This isn’t justice. This isn’t looking at the rights of the child. This is pathetic. What’s the judge’s vested interest in this? What a stupid decision.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
If I were the mother of those girls, I would take my children and hide. Screw the law if they are going to put children in danger.
March 15th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
This is so disturbing. This ruling acknowledges that children are at risk, and then places ‘protections’ that are so inadequate they’d be laughable if it were possible to laugh at something like this. Child sexual abuse does not only happen at night, and another adult could also be a predator – or a poor advocate for the girls.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
What an absolute disgrace. The family court boasts that it protects children and places their interests first. This is certainly not the case here. And I agree with Grace, as the mother of those girls I’d pack my car and get myself a very long way away.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Complete insanity.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I have just read the entire judgment:
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf
I believe the Judge made the right decision, on balance. The case isn’t and never was about the father’s rights. It’s about the detriment the children will suffer if they have no relationship with their father, and how to manage that relationship in light of all the circumstances.
The article in the Australian is misleading. The father has been actively involved in raising the children, and the children love him. If the Stolen Generation has taught us one thing, it’s that we should be extremely reluctant to separate children from their parents.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Buck, I’m more concerned about the detriment to the children *if* they have a relationship with their father. Downloads porn *and* smokes dope. Oh yes, father of the year!
A psychologist I once knew said to me in conversation about childhood sexual abuse “if Australian’s stopped sexually abusing their children, we could shut down 75% of mental health institutions.” This is nothing to do with “the stolen generation” Buck and everything to do with protecting children from the long term physical and psychological consequences of the threat of being molested by their father. The threat alone is damaging to their well being.
Reading that full judgement was very upsetting and I don’t know how a rational person can arrive at the conclusion that the children will benefit from a relationship with a manipulative pot user who downloads child porn and who is believed to have already interfered with one of the children.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
And if one of the little girls forgets to lock the door at night…..?
And if one of the little girls becomes unwell through the night…..?
And if one of the little girls has a nightmare…..?(beside the one they could be already living)
And if one of the little girls needs the bathroom and bumps into Daddy along the hallway…?
And, and, and……
Split Milk also makes a vaild point…. Child sexual abuse does not only happen at night, and another adult could also be a predator…..
March 16th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
aslong as there is a lock on the door. and the key has been swallowed by a whale. along with the father.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
eyeroller
That was a GREAT call
March 16th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@Grace,
I agree with you, the father is not ‘father of the year’ material.
But I’m not sure about your psychologist friend’s comment. He/she is essentially saying the dominant cause of debilitating mental illness in Australia is child sexual abuse. That sounds like an exaggeration. But that’s really beside the point.
The point is section 60CC of the Family Law Act. Of primary consideration is:
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
The judge had to balance the risk of being sexually abused with the benefit of having a relationship with the father. I don’t envy the judge’s position, it was a lose-lose situation. But what you’re all calling for is for the mother and children to effectively have a long term AVO taken out on the father. The children don’t want this. It’s not in their best interests.
We can all agree that section 60CC calls for a balancing act. I’m calling for a less hysterical analysis of the risk of harm, and a greater appreciation of the benefit of continuing to have a meaningful relationship with the father.
And you’ll never, ever be dealing with father-of-the-year material when it comes to section 60CC.
March 16th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
buck, i agree with you, the judge was torn between ‘maintaining a good relationship with the father’ and the safety of the girls.
however, i dont quite agree with forced submission.
i agree as outsiders we are all preempting a ‘lamb to the wolves’ situation without knowing the people involved.
then again, i just dont understand why ‘maintaining a good relationship’ with a pedophile cant simply involve taking the kids to the park.
March 16th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Having also read the entire judgment, i would say those kids are in serious danger so long as they have any contact with their father what so ever.
March 17th, 2010 at 11:34 am
@Brad
I think you’ve got to lower your standards of fathers in Australia’s dysfunctional sub-working class (my terminology).
Yes he looked at child porn. Yes he’s a vindictive, unsavoury ne’er-do-well. But he does have a loving, functional relationship with his daughters.
If DOCS and the Children’s Court had standards this high then an entire generation of children would have AVOs out on their fathers. And analogies with the Stolen Generation would cease to be hyperbole.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Buck, the judge’s choice was not between the girls having no relationship with their father or them staying overnight.
There are supervised access visits. There are one-day-only access visits (safer, although not as safe as if they are only supervised). There are phone calls, email, letters, attending school concerts and events and parent teacher nights… all of which could be allowed without putting the girls at risk.
Rulings can also be reviewed. What cannot be reversed is child sex abuse, molestation, exposure to pornographic images during childhood. Why risk it?
March 17th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@Spilt Milk, that is a good point. This is all I can say:
Those methods of access are vastly inferior to alternate weekends and school holidays. Think back to your childhood. The only adults with whom you had any rich, intimate and meaningful relationship were those whose houses you slept in.
Those methods of access are the kinds that I would deem appropriate where the father was convicted of sexual assault.
Why risk it you ask? Because the risk of harm is low and the benefit to having a meaningful relationship with the father is high. In this case, the risk of child sex abuse and molestation was actually found to be acceptably low.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I don’t think it is too high a standard to require that a parent *not* view child pornography. Clearly our standards with regards to children have dropped if we even have to have this discussion.
The lack of compassion that has to be involved when watching a child be abused is disturbing to think about. Think about the kids in these videos, the obvious fear, the confusion, the tears, the pain and the screams. Some of them are babies. Some of them die from their injuries. These people who watch do not only have no respect and no care for these children – they actually get off on their pain and humiliation.
No way would a man like this ever have access to my children.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:54 am
I have a friend who is living in fear because she may soon be forced to place her child into this sort of danger. Her marriage broke up because of his addiction to sadistic pornography, prostitutes and degrading sexual practices. He has refused to undergo any therapy. She is dreading the day when her daughter is old enough to be made to have unsupervised and overnight visits.
I had not thought it possible that a child could be placed in a situation of possible risk if it were known that her father suffered such addictions. i see now that I was wrong.
What can she do? It’s too late after the child has suffered abuse and had it proven. I’m still suffering the effects of one sexual assault seven years ago.