Plan betrays brave victims of sex abuse - Protecting abused children

IMAGINE a child of 12 or 13, a nervous, look-away girl or an overly aggressive boy, frightened, cornered, and untrusting because they have been abused, physically or sexually.

Mon, 08 Jun, 2015 - 01:00

Editorial

Imagine that the child has been dangerously neglected by someone close to them or, as is the case in the minority of child abuse tragedies, a stranger.

Imagine if that young person, already grievously betrayed by an adult, can still find just one adult they still trust enough to share their horror with, one they believe will help them.

Imagine they can find an adult they respect enough to make an accusation of abuse against someone who may have an unblemished reputation, someone of standing in their family, sports club, school, or wider community. Someone, from a vulnerable child’s perspective, of authority and power. Imagine the courage needed to make that leap of faith.

Imagine then if, by making that accusation, that cry for help, they start a process that would see the child, already frightened, unsure, undermined, and angry, cross-examined about their abuse accusations by the very person they accuse of attacking them?

The possibility of such a cross-examination, such an appalling face-to-face with their nemesis, seems absurd and utterly inappropriate, but under proposals from the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) outlining how social workers should respond to allegations of child abuse or neglect, that lunacy may become a part of our child protection policy.

The prospect seems so bizarre, so very off-key, that it is bound to be challenged in the courts should it come to pass.

It would most certainly be a very effective way of silencing generations of abuse victims. What child, no matter how brave, would knowingly enter that cauldron?

A draft document on the issue, which has been seen by the Irish Examiner, has outraged social workers who fear it will silence abuse victims, challenge social workers ethically, and skew the balance of any investigation in favour of the accused. Social workers who spoke to this newspaper on condition of anonymity — so much for legislation to protect whistle-blowers — said that while they recognised the need to protect and offer fair procedure, “the balance of rights seems far too weighted on the side of the alleged perpetrator in this policy”.

It seems as if the proposed process would usurp our courts and needlessly expose those already traumatised. Already the victim support group One in Four has said it “would strongly urge our clients to withdraw from any process where this could occur — it would cause more harm”.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald had committed to progressing a Sexual Offences Bill and even if this disturbing arrangement has been forced on our social services by court rulings, she should move the goalposts to veto it. Basic justice, humanity, and common decency preclude it.

Our track record in this area — the Irish Holocaust — is shameful and if this prospect is not dismissed and made impossible, we will once again betray the children we should be protecting.