Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:57:38.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing allegations of child sex abuse in custody disputes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2019

Emily Schindeler
Emily Schindeler*
Affiliation:
Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Emily Schindeler, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Risk assessments by expert witnesses appointed by the Family Court of Australia (FCA), and as informed by findings of any investigations by police and child protection agencies, play a critical role in the adjudication of custody disputes involving allegations of child sex abuse. This study focuses on the contribution made by these independent advisors as documented in the FCA trial transcripts of a sample of 62 such cases in the period 2012–2016. Analysis reveals that those responsible for assessing risk shared a concern for an emerging pattern of applicant responsibility for systems abuse, in conjunction with emotional abuse, as a significant child protection issue. It also raises issues for the Court when there are multiple risk assessments coming from experts who bring different disciplinary and organisational perspectives. As an exploratory study, the implications of these findings need to be viewed through the lens of protecting the best interests of the child.

Keywords

Risk assessmentsystems abuseemotional abuseexpert witness
Type
Articles
Information
Children Australia , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 5 - 12
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Australian Standards of Practice for Family Assessments and Reporting (2015). Family court of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/about/policies-and-procedures/asp-family-assessments-reportingGoogle Scholar
Bergkamp, L. (2017). The concept of risksociety as a model for risk regulation – its hidden and not so hidden ambitions, side effects, and risks. Journal of Risk Research, 20(10), 1275–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, F., Schweitzer, R., & Varghese, F. (2012). Allegations of child sexual abuse in family court cases: A qualitative analysis of psychiatric evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(4), 482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Family Law Act (1975). (Cth).Google Scholar
Family Law Rules (2004). (Cth).Google Scholar
Gould, J., & Martindale, D. (2005). A second call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance: Comments on Tippins and Wittmann (2005). Family Court Review, 43, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guidelines for Independent Children’s Lawyer (2018). Family Court of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/about/policies-and-procedures/guidelines-independent-childrens-lawyerGoogle Scholar
Hand, L. (1901). Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. 15 Harvard Law Review 40 at 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant (2012). The use of extrinsic materials –With particular reference to social science and family law decision making. Judicial Conference of Australia colloquium October, 5–7 2012, Fremantle, Western Australia.Google Scholar
Kennedy, R. (2005). Psychotherapists as expert witnesses families at breaking point. London: Karnac Books Ltd.Google Scholar
O’Neill, A., Bussey, K., Lennings, C., & Seidler, K. (2018). The views of psychologists, lawyers and judges on key components and the quality of child custody evaluations in Australia. Family Court Review, 56, 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, P. (2015). Possibilities, probabilities and the standard of proof in determining an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse. Australian Journal of Family Law, 29, 1–23.Google Scholar
Rathus, Z. (2012). A call for clarity in the use of social science research in family law decision-making Australian. Journal of Family Law, 26, 81–114.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. (2011). Family courts, risk assessment and the moral compass. Journal of the America Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39, 454–459.Google ScholarPubMed
Shuman, D., & Berk, A. (2012). Judicial impact: The best interests of the child and the Dauber and Fry evidentiary framework. In Kuehnle, K. & Dozo, L. (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations – Applied research for the family court (pp. 563–576). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zumbach, J., & Koglin, U. (2015). Psychological evaluations in family law proceedings: A systematic review of the contemporary literature professional. Psychology: Research and Practice, 46, 221–234.Google Scholar
Banks & Banks (2012). FamCA 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baur & Furman (2013) FamCA 957.Google Scholar
Blake & Torino (2015) FamCA 512.Google Scholar
Blake, Torino, & OR (2015). FamCA 512.Google Scholar
Bramford & Ainslee (2016). FamCA 463.Google Scholar
Brennan & Emery (2014) FamCA 492.Google Scholar
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938). 60 CLR 336.Google Scholar
Burridge & Yeats (2016). FamCA 180.Google Scholar
Carpenter & Carpenter No 2 (2012). FamCA 1005.Google Scholar
Cocknye & Cocknye (2012). FamCA 449.Google Scholar
De Silva & Rogers (2015). FamCA 936.Google Scholar
Dixon, Barnes, & Ors (2013). FamCA 12.Google Scholar
Dover & Rogers (2016). FamCA 392.Google Scholar
Dylan & Bilsen and Anor (2015). FamCA 573.Google Scholar
Earles & Highsmith (2016) FamCA 1012.Google Scholar
Gahen & Gahen (2013). FamCA 730.Google Scholar
Hammond & Hammond (2014). FamCA 577.Google Scholar
Helbig & Rowe (2015). FamCA 146.Google Scholar
Helbig & Rowe & ORS (2016). FamCAFC 117.Google Scholar
Hemmingway & Holmes (2012). FamCA 17.Google Scholar
Heriot & Maverick No (2012) FamCA 986.Google Scholar
Hollister & Gosselin (2016). FamCA 759.Google Scholar
Howard & Lipschitz (2013). FamCA 75.Google Scholar
Howard & Lipschitz (2014). FamCA 272.Google Scholar
Lavery & Lavery (2012). FamCA 126.Google Scholar
Lett & Lett (2014). FamCA 529.Google Scholar
Meinhardt & Santos (2012). FamCA 255.Google Scholar
Melton & Hurley (2017). FamCA 346.Google Scholar
M v M (1988). 166 CLR 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N & S & the Separate Representative (1996). FCA 92–655.Google Scholar
Pollock & Breen No 3 (2014). FamCA 1026.Google Scholar
Prentice & Wilfred (2017). FamCA 290.Google Scholar
Rilak & Tsocas (2015). FamCA 1235.Google Scholar
Sealy & Sealy (2016). FamCA 523.Google Scholar
Smoothe & Enmore (2016). FamCA 275.Google Scholar
Smythe & Leopold No 2 (2012). FamCA 350.Google Scholar
Tamarovic & Gillard (2014) FamCA 532.Google Scholar
Tyler & Sullivan (2014). FamCA 178.Google Scholar
Walker & Baldwin (2015). FamCA 1007.Google Scholar
Webber & Hatton (2013). FamCA 150.Google Scholar
Vezzoni & Maxwell (2013). FamCA 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawadzki & Zawadzki (2014) FamCA 238.Google Scholar
Banks & Banks (2012). FamCA 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baur & Furman (2013) FamCA 957.Google Scholar
Blake & Torino (2015) FamCA 512.Google Scholar
Blake, Torino, & OR (2015). FamCA 512.Google Scholar
Bramford & Ainslee (2016). FamCA 463.Google Scholar
Brennan & Emery (2014) FamCA 492.Google Scholar
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938). 60 CLR 336.Google Scholar
Burridge & Yeats (2016). FamCA 180.Google Scholar
Carpenter & Carpenter No 2 (2012). FamCA 1005.Google Scholar
Cocknye & Cocknye (2012). FamCA 449.Google Scholar
De Silva & Rogers (2015). FamCA 936.Google Scholar
Dixon, Barnes, & Ors (2013). FamCA 12.Google Scholar
Dover & Rogers (2016). FamCA 392.Google Scholar
Dylan & Bilsen and Anor (2015). FamCA 573.Google Scholar
Earles & Highsmith (2016) FamCA 1012.Google Scholar
Gahen & Gahen (2013). FamCA 730.Google Scholar
Hammond & Hammond (2014). FamCA 577.Google Scholar
Helbig & Rowe (2015). FamCA 146.Google Scholar
Helbig & Rowe & ORS (2016). FamCAFC 117.Google Scholar
Hemmingway & Holmes (2012). FamCA 17.Google Scholar
Heriot & Maverick No (2012) FamCA 986.Google Scholar
Hollister & Gosselin (2016). FamCA 759.Google Scholar
Howard & Lipschitz (2013). FamCA 75.Google Scholar
Howard & Lipschitz (2014). FamCA 272.Google Scholar
Lavery & Lavery (2012). FamCA 126.Google Scholar
Lett & Lett (2014). FamCA 529.Google Scholar
Meinhardt & Santos (2012). FamCA 255.Google Scholar
Melton & Hurley (2017). FamCA 346.Google Scholar
M v M (1988). 166 CLR 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N & S & the Separate Representative (1996). FCA 92–655.Google Scholar
Pollock & Breen No 3 (2014). FamCA 1026.Google Scholar
Prentice & Wilfred (2017). FamCA 290.Google Scholar
Rilak & Tsocas (2015). FamCA 1235.Google Scholar
Sealy & Sealy (2016). FamCA 523.Google Scholar
Smoothe & Enmore (2016). FamCA 275.Google Scholar
Smythe & Leopold No 2 (2012). FamCA 350.Google Scholar
Tamarovic & Gillard (2014) FamCA 532.Google Scholar
Tyler & Sullivan (2014). FamCA 178.Google Scholar
Walker & Baldwin (2015). FamCA 1007.Google Scholar
Webber & Hatton (2013). FamCA 150.Google Scholar
Vezzoni & Maxwell (2013). FamCA 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawadzki & Zawadzki (2014) FamCA 238.Google Scholar