|
Post by Grant on Apr 25, 2018 10:52:22 GMT -5
Why would the child go to the parent if it is the parent who is abusing them as in the case you mentioned. How is education of the parent as in your case going to stop that person abusing them? It may even give them more tools to keep it hidden.
I never said anything about an age to educate the child someone else did but now you have said that, age appropriate education does make sense. I said that education is good but it is unrealistic to think that it will stop the abuser who is far more powerful than the child's ability to stop the abuse considering that even adults get fooled by the abuser.
I would say that the child should go to a teacher rather than a parent as a teacher is more likely to have to report it than a parent who is more likely to be fooled by the person abusing the child.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 25, 2018 12:40:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 25, 2018 16:27:19 GMT -5
While this advice sounds good & well, devastatingly sexual abuse occurs to babies & children who are too young for any such education to be age apprpriate. The perpetrator in this specific case targeted young girls (youngest known victim was 4 when abuse commenced). His charming demenour allowed him to befriend families (with young daughters) & they trusted him - how could such a wonderful, funny, polite, religious man be a sexual predator? Even when one mother witnessed him abusing her girls he was able to talk his way out of it, all due to the "perfect" persona that he had built up for himself over so many years. Comparing a country fair to convention is also a bit of a stretch too... people would let their guard down more at convention, believing they are amongst friends & people who had committed such a crime would not be allowed to attend. Convention is also different in that people have their jobs to do so as someone has already mentioned, parents cannot always keep a watchful eye on their children when trying to get their jobs done while their children are off doing their own jobs. Rational's post also under estimates the power of the abuser. Like we have seen the abuser is able to manipulate and fool parents, so how much more a child. It's good to educate children and parents but if you think that is all to it then we are continuing to put children at risk. It does not even touch the tip of the iceberg. Children don't live in an ilgloo. They need some freedom. Bear in mind that some children grow up in abusive homes and are not able to even protect themselves even from their own parents so howmuch less a sexual abuser who grooms them. I think that parents need to understand that everyone can potentially be an abuser. Sad as that may sound, it's also true. I don't know of any sure way of never having it happen. You wouldn't be able to live life at all. But I agree that we do need to teach children about sexual abuse as early as we can. We have to understand that those we think are trustworthy, may not be. Convention was a place where kids just ran wild between meetings if I remember what it was like when I was a kid. In fact, by the time I was 8 years old my parents just left me at convention when they went home for the night. One of the friends daughters who was older than me was supposed to look out for me. I was totally at risk when I think about it now. I was lucky. Another thing I see as making it riskier at convention is the belief that these are all good righteous people, that would never do that and can be trusted. More so than in the 'world'. Obviously we know that's not true. Another thing that makes kids in some religions more vulnerable is the lack of education they might receive from their parents regarding anything sexual. I know I certainly never got talked to about anything sexual by my parents. You learned it from your friends. Many different aspects of religious groups makes kids more vulnerable as we've sadly found out. Parents trusting workers, elders, priests, pastors etc. Finding out that no one is trustworthy based on their title alone.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 25, 2018 19:37:04 GMT -5
In Australia at the conventions most toilet blocks are very separate for male and female, as are the main living quarters. There have been many that have condemned this arrangement because basically it leaves the mother doing most of the care of the children until boys are old enough to go over to the men's living quarters. There was always a tendency for parents to leave their children behind so that they could enjoy their convention, it is rare that children get left at convention and the parents go home. Sometimes the couple would not attend convention together but instead take it in turns of childminding, this practise and that of leaving them in the care of others probably put them at more risk of abuse than them attending convention.
As far as this case goes, my family has been associated with this man's family and his wife's for most of their lives. To say that no one was warned is a lie, I know it's not nice to be told your child or your relative's child is exhibiting certain behaviour, but sometimes there is truth in the matter.I personally know of seven professing people who, although they had not witnessed any criminal behaviour, sought to warn both the parents, friends and relatives of this person's behaviour, as it was concerning. Only a few listened, some ganged up on the bearers of such news, those that listened didn't get hurt. I was recently speaking with a relative, the family of which did listen...she just said "I know, I know...so much pain that could have been avoided".
At this point it wasn't a police matter and it wasn't a "worker problem", and now we have individuals wishing to blame this or that....the fault was with the perpetrator and earlier his parents, there were even those who although they were warned sought to snob those that warned them....sorry people sad though it is ....everyone has the burden of learning to be more watchful....don't blame others or a system...look to yourself and ask, what could I have done...the people who really feel bad in all this are those that cried out "warning"...and so many didn't listen.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 25, 2018 22:02:29 GMT -5
In Australia at the conventions most toilet blocks are very separate for male and female, as are the main living quarters. There have been many that have condemned this arrangement because basically it leaves the mother doing most of the care of the children until boys are old enough to go over to the men's living quarters. There was always a tendency for parents to leave their children behind so that they could enjoy their convention, it is rare that children get left at convention and the parents go home. Sometimes the couple would not attend convention together but instead take it in turns of childminding, this practise and that of leaving them in the care of others probably put them at more risk of abuse than them attending convention. As far as this case goes, my family has been associated with this man's family and his wife's for most of their lives. To say that no one was warned is a lie, I know it's not nice to be told your child or your relative's child is exhibiting certain behaviour, but sometimes there is truth in the matter.I personally know of seven professing people who, although they had not witnessed any criminal behaviour, sought to warn both the parents, friends and relatives of this person's behaviour, as it was concerning. Only a few listened, some ganged up on the bearers of such news, those that listened didn't get hurt. I was recently speaking with a relative, the family of which did listen...she just said "I know, I know...so much pain that could have been avoided". At this point it wasn't a police matter and it wasn't a "worker problem", and now we have individuals wishing to blame this or that....the fault was with the perpetrator and earlier his parents, there were even those who although they were warned sought to snob those that warned them....sorry people sad though it is ....everyone has the burden of learning to be more watchful....don't blame others or a system...look to yourself and ask, what could I have done...the people who really feel bad in all this are those that cried out "warning"...and so many didn't listen. The sad fact is that it was a police matter. Making it a worker problem only muddied the water and protected the criminal. This raises a legal/ethical question. How many people who suspected child abuse reported their suspicions to the proper authorities? Of course it was a different time. These things were looked differently. But that is where education comes into play. Protect the children or protect the criminal? In the state of Texas all persons are mandated reporters. The statute in part reads: Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code. A report of child abuse is not an accusation or a proven fact. It does not require a reporter to be certain of abuse or neglect. In Texas: Degree of certainty which must be met is that the person reporting has “cause to believe” that abuse or neglect has occurred or will occur. Now times have changed and everyone needs to stand up and protect the children.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 25, 2018 22:37:06 GMT -5
No rational a person displaying an unusual interest in the anatomy without actually touching anyone is not a matter to be reported to the police, however it was noted by some and some listened, some didn't. By the time he was getting married he had already exposed himself to some minors and I believe in all cases although it was reported he was let go with a slap on the wrist. The girl married him anyway and on he went to eventually abusing his own daughter, some relatives and quite probably quite a few that as yet have not been brought out in the open....the shame of it all is there were people who could have acted and didn't and those that did weren't listened to and because of that innocent children became his victims....I distinctly remember someone commenting on his 'closeness' to a certain young female and her parents joking about it and telling the person not to be silly, with parents like that telling the police was useless it was just let go as there being a squabble between families.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 0:15:03 GMT -5
I suppose when people have a Worker in their family, they don't want to accept that with a lot of these cases the Workers have failed in their duty to others all for the sake of not giving "the Truth a bad name" !
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 1:18:55 GMT -5
I suppose when people have a Worker in their family, they don't want to accept that with a lot of these cases the Workers have failed in their duty to others all for the sake of not giving "the Truth a bad name" ! Yes I guess that sometimes happens, but funnily enough some of those that were told to be careful and they listened, did and do still have relatives in the work....so I'm not really sure where you're coming from....I think in this case those that are so upset about it and are trying to blame the church should have a closer look at themselves
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 26, 2018 2:06:34 GMT -5
No rational a person displaying an unusual interest in the anatomy without actually touching anyone is not a matter to be reported to the police, however it was noted by some and some listened, some didn't. I am not sure you could sell that idea as a defense for a voyeur. Perhaps it was an earlier time. I doubt it would be the same if charged as an exhibitionist today. There is no accounting for taste. And with all this abuse there was no reporting to the appropriate authorities? Certainly there is a child protection service - perhaps the Department of Health and Human Services or Child Protection and Family Services.It would seem like Child Services (or whatever it is called where you are located) would have been the agency to inform rather than the police. I am not certain of the time period when all of this occurred but since the 80s section 5 has included punishment of jail time for obscene/indecent exposure, more if a minor was involved. It doesn't seen that obscene/indecent exposure involving a minor would result in just a slap on the wrist. Perhaps moving forward people will have learned more about the dangers and actually report their suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 2:25:17 GMT -5
I suppose when people have a Worker in their family, they don't want to accept that with a lot of these cases the Workers have failed in their duty to others all for the sake of not giving "the Truth a bad name" ! Yes I guess that sometimes happens, but funnily enough some of those that were told to be careful and they listened, did and do still have relatives in the work....so I'm not really sure where you're coming from....I think in this case those that are so upset about it and are trying to blame the church should have a closer look at themselves I would be very careful generalizing about what those that are "so upset now" actually knew. Also none of that changes the Workers involvement with the case when it first come out. From memory howitis you have stated that your abuser has not been charged, so can the same be said for those who knew/know and done nothing?
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 2:32:07 GMT -5
rational he was arrested and the cops basically told him to leave town...so they did. The other concerning behaviour noted was before this and if anyone should have possibly been reported to children's services it was the parents...I know some of the teachers had a bit to say at one time, but it was all long ago early '70's was the start and it seems the behaviour left unchecked kept on escalating. It was like most people had their heads in the sand....I can still remember being shocked he was getting married. Yes we all must move on and hopefully we have all learnt something from this. I know I did....the people that should listen often don't and I always held my children that little bit closer and now my grandbabies🙂 And don't trust anyone as far as reporting goes keep making reports to the police to family and community services, keep going back until someone does something!!
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 2:35:48 GMT -5
Yes I guess that sometimes happens, but funnily enough some of those that were told to be careful and they listened, did and do still have relatives in the work....so I'm not really sure where you're coming from....I think in this case those that are so upset about it and are trying to blame the church should have a closer look at themselves I would be very careful generalizing about what those that are "so upset now" actually knew. Also none of that changes the Workers involvement with the case when it first come out. Just when do you think it first came out Roselyn T when you first knew about it or when he first started showing concerning behaviour? I know some workers had quite a bit to say very early on and it wasn't received very well at all. No none of that changes anything some people just don't want to believe the truth about their loved ones!!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 2:43:41 GMT -5
I would be very careful generalizing about what those that are "so upset now" actually knew. Also none of that changes the Workers involvement with the case when it first come out. Just when do you think it first came out Roselyn T when you first knew about it or when he first started showing concerning behaviour? I know some workers had quite a bit to say very early on and it wasn't received very well at all. No none of that changes anything some people just don't want to believe the truth about their loved ones!! I am well aware of what happened before. I am talking about what happened in 2009 and how the Workers handled it.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 3:11:30 GMT -5
Just when do you think it first came out Roselyn T when you first knew about it or when he first started showing concerning behaviour? I know some workers had quite a bit to say very early on and it wasn't received very well at all. No none of that changes anything some people just don't want to believe the truth about their loved ones!! I am well aware of what happened before. I am talking about what happened in 2009 and how the Workers handled it. Yes because you have no idea what they said in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980....need I go on (I certainly haven't listed them all)....you know of one instance it wasn't to your liking and you go on about it....until a little while ago you actually had not much of an idea at all pre 2009....and you still actually don't know all the workers said then either
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 3:17:43 GMT -5
I am well aware of what happened before. I am talking about what happened in 2009 and how the Workers handled it. Yes because you have no idea what they said in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980....need I go on (I certainly haven't listed them all)....you know of one instance it wasn't to your liking and you go on about it....until a little while ago you actually had not much of an idea at all pre 2009....and you still actually don't know all the workers said then either Wow you are assuming a lot howitis !! You have no idea what I knew ! But then again I don't have a brother in the Work I suppose ...... What makes you think I had no idea at all pre 2009 ?
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 3:36:12 GMT -5
Yes because you have no idea what they said in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980....need I go on (I certainly haven't listed them all)....you know of one instance it wasn't to your liking and you go on about it....until a little while ago you actually had not much of an idea at all pre 2009....and you still actually don't know all the workers said then either Wow you are assuming a lot howitis !! You have no idea what I knew ! But then again I don't have a brother in the Work I suppose ...... What makes you think I had no idea at all pre 2009 ? Who has a brother in the work Roselyn T surely not the Blythes and certainly not me...Well unless it's the one that's been married three times and his current girlfriend isn't his wife, he does do some things without letting us know but I'm sure his name would be on a workers list somewhere, my other one is married to a lady who's not very well....anyway enough about me Oh and quite a few things you've said...but enough about you too....
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 3:46:04 GMT -5
Wow you are assuming a lot howitis !! You have no idea what I knew ! But then again I don't have a brother in the Work I suppose ...... What makes you think I had no idea at all pre 2009 ? Who has a brother in the work @isabelrose surely not the Blythes and certainly not me...Well unless it's the one that's been married three times and his current girlfriend isn't his wife, he does do some things without letting us know but I'm sure his name would be on a workers list somewhere, my other one is married to a lady who's not very well....anyway enough about me Oh and quite a few things you've said...but enough about you too.... You didn't really answer .... what makes you think I had no idea pre 2009 ? Are you assuming that I don't know this family ?
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 3:50:44 GMT -5
Who has a brother in the work @isabelrose surely not the Blythes and certainly not me...Well unless it's the one that's been married three times and his current girlfriend isn't his wife, he does do some things without letting us know but I'm sure his name would be on a workers list somewhere, my other one is married to a lady who's not very well....anyway enough about me Oh and quite a few things you've said...but enough about you too.... You didn't really answer .... what makes you think I had no idea pre 2009 ? Are you assuming that I don't know this family ? I never said that Roselyn T I said you weren't privy to workers conversations bar the one you speak of....it is obvious because otherwise you wouldn't say what you do.....quite simple really
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 5:22:35 GMT -5
You didn't really answer .... what makes you think I had no idea pre 2009 ? Are you assuming that I don't know this family ? I never said that Roselyn T I said you weren't privy to workers conversations bar the one you speak of....it is obvious because otherwise you wouldn't say what you do.....quite simple really Okay, but of course you were privy to them? I didn't realize you lived in Casino in the late 70's howitis !
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 5:28:11 GMT -5
I never said that Roselyn T I said you weren't privy to workers conversations bar the one you speak of....it is obvious because otherwise you wouldn't say what you do.....quite simple really Okay, but of course you were privy to them? I didn't realize you lived in Casino in the late 70's howitis ! There are obviously quite a lot of things you haven't realised!! I think you're more of a person that Assumes (remember your word not mine) things, just by going by a couple of your posts today😉 if not you make some pretty bad guesses!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 26, 2018 5:44:12 GMT -5
Okay, but of course you were privy to them? I didn't realize you lived in Casino in the late 70's howitis ! There are obviously quite a lot of things you haven't realised!! I think you're more of a person that Assumes (remember your word not mine) things, just by going by a couple of your posts today😉 if not you make some pretty bad guesses! Maybe..... or maybe you are very good at deflecting ! As for assuming I think you have done your share as well
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 5:52:26 GMT -5
There are obviously quite a lot of things you haven't realised!! I think you're more of a person that Assumes (remember your word not mine) things, just by going by a couple of your posts today😉 if not you make some pretty bad guesses! Maybe..... or maybe you are very good at deflecting ! As for assuming I think you have done your share as well So sorry I can't be the person you want me to be Roselyn T....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 26, 2018 18:15:18 GMT -5
Maybe..... or maybe you are very good at deflecting ! As for assuming I think you have done your share as well So sorry I can't be the person you want me to be Roselyn T.... I see a lot of going back and forth between howitis and Roselyn T regarding who knows/knew what and when they knew it. It seems like you both suspected the possibility of child abuse some time ago. Assuming you both live in Australia where everyone is a mandated reporter - did either of you file a report with the appropriate child services organization?
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 18:25:39 GMT -5
So sorry I can't be the person you want me to be Roselyn T .... I see a lot of going back and forth between howitis and Roselyn T regarding who knows/knew what and when they knew it. It seems like you both suspected the possibility of child abuse some time ago. Assuming you both live in Australia where everyone is a mandated reporter - did either of you file a report with the appropriate child services organization? Yes I did, at that time I believe it was called YACS for, Youth and Community Services....and I've learnt my lesson ....once isn't enough obviously...the other thing is that these are state organisations and when offences happened in a different state to what the perpetrator lived in there was an issue as the relevant organisations did not communicate very well with each other state to state, I lived in a different state to both the perpetrator and to where the offences occurred and I remember the difficulty, it's a little better now, but not ideal.
|
|
|
Post by thelight on Apr 26, 2018 20:34:44 GMT -5
Unfortunately when a young child has grown up being abused by her father & her mother sees it happening & does absolutely nothing about it, that child does not necessarily understand that what is happening to them is wrong. So when approached & interviewed by childrens services (in Qld - a seperate, more recent instance of this being reported to the one mentioned above) that may be the first time the child is made aware that what their father is doing is wrong & not normal. What a scary & confusing time slowly coming to this realisation - especially when these people come to interview/talk to you in front of your brothers. Is it no surprise that the child never told them what was happening to her?
It was a completely different time when this abuse was being carried out. As mentioned in the newspaper article, one of the girls went to the police to report it after being paid bribe money to keep quiet - lack of evidence meant they couldnt do a thing. It could only go through the legal processes after he'd already been convicted of CSA twice.
So really, he & his wife could have taken all of this to the grave with them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 26, 2018 22:00:21 GMT -5
I see a lot of going back and forth between howitis and Roselyn T regarding who knows/knew what and when they knew it. It seems like you both suspected the possibility of child abuse some time ago. Assuming you both live in Australia where everyone is a mandated reporter - did either of you file a report with the appropriate child services organization? Yes I did, at that time I believe it was called YACS for, Youth and Community Services....and I've learnt my lesson ....once isn't enough obviously...the other thing is that these are state organisations and when offences happened in a different state to what the perpetrator lived in there was an issue as the relevant organisations did not communicate very well with each other state to state, I lived in a different state to both the perpetrator and to where the offences occurred and I remember the difficulty, it's a little better now, but not ideal. Hopefully, things are more coordinated now. In the US the data bases have been linked to allow for identification nationwide when a report is filed. If everyone who suspects abuse files a complaint, the count goes up and the case becomes more urgent. The goal is to make it more difficult for criminals to slip through the cracks and to make the reporters feel that are not alone but part of a group of concerned individuals.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 26, 2018 22:43:44 GMT -5
Unfortunately when a young child has grown up being abused by her father & her mother sees it happening & does absolutely nothing about it, that child does not necessarily understand that what is happening to them is wrong. So when approached & interviewed by childrens services (in Qld - a seperate, more recent instance of this being reported to the one mentioned above) that may be the first time the child is made aware that what their father is doing is wrong & not normal. What a scary & confusing time slowly coming to this realisation - especially when these people come to interview/talk to you in front of your brothers. Is it no surprise that the child never told them what was happening to her? This was a finding that was reported by Susan Clancy in The Trauma Myth. Excerpt from The Trauma Myth: Clancy writes in “The Trauma Myth” that when she arrived at Harvard in 1996, the trauma theory held that “a child will only participate in abuse if forced, threatened, or explicitly coerced” (p. 41). Then she interviewed victims and learned, “They did not fight it. It was not done against their will. They went along... only 5% tried to stop it” (p. 41). Clancy concludes that since sexual abuse of children is not violent per se, the millions of victims who did not experience their sex abuse as traumatic grapple with crippling thoughts of shame, embarrassment, and self-blame, thus compounding their suffering. She advocates for a refined understanding of the immediate effects of child sex abuse in order to better help those who are excluded from a clinical and popular culture that embraces the trauma model.
A brief review of The Trauma MythBreaking The Trauma Myth - 25 years laterFrom the above link: By the end of the study, the data was clear. Although sexual abuse was not a particularly awful experience for many victims when it happened, looking back on it, from their perspective as adults, it was awful—ratings of shock, horror, disgust, and even fear were all high. Obviously, perceptions of abuse when it occurs and when victims look back on it years later are entirely different. In addition, sexual abuse is very different from other kinds of terrible life experiences. For example, getting into a car accident is traumatic both at the time it happens and later when it is recalled. Sexual abuse, however, becomes traumatic later on. Why? What happens in the aftermath of sexual abuse?
According to victims, they did not experience the abuse as awful when it happened because most simply did not understand clearly the meaning or significance of the sexual behaviors they were engaging in. That being said, at some point later on in life, they do. Over time, the "cloak of innocence lifted," as one victim described it. Victims reconceptualized the formerly "confusing and weird experiences" and understood them for what they were—sexual in nature and clearly wrong. Only at this point—when the sexual abuse is fully apprehended—does it begin to damage victims. The above is an explanation of the findings looking back from the current climate. The conclusions reached in the book have also been supported by others including David Finkelhor, Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, Philip Tromovitch, etc.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Apr 26, 2018 23:10:18 GMT -5
rational, yes the states are better at communicating now not a lot but it is getting better. As for abuse the victims of this man are definitely traumatised, so much so that many have shut it out completely, some of his forms of abuse were so disgusting that his victims cannot even speak of it. I just feel so bad that not many believed, not many listened....it's just so awful.
|
|