Time to educate our judges

In another session later in the day, an unprecedented move by one of the few men in the room, only added to my sense that this issue of child protection is a battle being fought largely by women against so many powerful men in denial of the problem.

A judge chairing the session (read supposed to be supporting the speakers) stood up to the lectern and said he had been unable to find in Queensland court transcripts any examples of badgering and humiliation of child witnesses such as Dr Taylor had so confrontingly illustrated in her opening address that morning.

Dr Taylor did not let the slight go. She said she had been approached by two Queensland magistrates after her talk, who supported her keynote address by telling her of recent examples of just such instances in courts of their colleagues.

Then, for me the highlight of the day was when a Justice Ian Coleman of the Family Court was asked by Professor Briggs, why so many fathers in recent years, had been awarded custody of their children whom they had been accused of sexually abusing.

The justification often presented to the Family Court, she told us, was that the mother was hostile to her former partner and that she and the child had collaborated in “manufacturing” the story because of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

This “syndrome” we were told, originally accepted by a US court, was the self-published brainchild of a single psychologist who suicided in 2003 by slitting his throat and repeatedly stabbing himself in the chest. The theory has never been corroborated by academic studies, on the contrary, has been refuted by many, yet is used as proven theory, Professor Briggs said.

This “syndrome”, she explained, currently underpins many such decisions of the Family Court to disbelieve mothers who accuse their former partners of sexually abusing their children. They are then considered acting against the best interests of the child and custody is taken from them.

The anger and frustration of delegates was palpable in the form of the conference’s only rousing applause for the question from the floor.

Then, in a coup de grace, a mother approached the microphone. She said her former partner had been awarded 80 days a year access to his 11-year-old son he had admitted sexually abusing. “Experts” in the case, men, had testified that since the father had not ejaculated, and therefore had not derived any satisfaction from the abuse, it was not unduly harmful.

Later that night, around canapés and wine at the Supreme Court, I spoke with Queensland Magistrate’s Court Judge Tony Pascoe, about the humbling and profound innocence of his newborn grandchild. The thought of something like what he hears every day in court happening to this innocence, is abhorrent to him. Like most of the few men at the conference, he was a good, committed warrior for child protection simply because he loves and values women and children.

As often happens as an observer in alien lands, it’s the small things that really bring the nub of an issue home.

Later, I was commending Queensland Chief Judge Wolfe for the speech she had just made. She talked from the heart, with real passion and pride, about the affected child witness suite, where children can give evidence without having to see or confront their alleged abuser - and from which they have a certain degree of protection from hectoring questions - which opened two years ago in the Supreme Court building.