关于养育纠纷中儿童性虐待的指控:对澳大利亚家庭法院司法裁决的审查

Q1 Social Sciences Journal of Child Custody Pub Date : 2018-01-05 DOI:10.1080/15379418.2017.1415776
C. Ferguson, Sara Wright, Jodi Death, Kylie Burgess, J. Malouff
{"title":"关于养育纠纷中儿童性虐待的指控:对澳大利亚家庭法院司法裁决的审查","authors":"C. Ferguson, Sara Wright, Jodi Death, Kylie Burgess, J. Malouff","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2017.1415776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examined Family Court of Australia (FCA) judicial determinations in parenting disputes when allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) are made by an interested party, usually the mother. For the study, 156 published judgments from 2013–2015 were examined to measure how often allegations of CSA are substantiated, suspected to be true, and disbelieved. The characteristics most common in substantiated versus unsubstantiated cases, evidence of abuse presented, and resulting parenting orders were assessed. Findings indicate that, against international comparisons, FCA judges substantiate cases very conservatively, with rates of substantiation much lower than in other studies. Allegations made by mothers against fathers were disproportionately unsubstantiated, as were those which did not fall under the Magellan case management system. Cases where the only evidence of CSA was a child’s disclosure and parent’s allegation were common in both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases, meaning that a lack of other evidence does not preclude a positive finding of risk of CSA by the FCA. Those cases also involving a protection order against the accused were more likely to be substantiated. Confirmation biases and a judicial tendency to err on the side of false negatives are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allegations of child sexual abuse in parenting disputes: An examination of judicial determinations in the Family Court of Australia\",\"authors\":\"C. Ferguson, Sara Wright, Jodi Death, Kylie Burgess, J. Malouff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15379418.2017.1415776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study examined Family Court of Australia (FCA) judicial determinations in parenting disputes when allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) are made by an interested party, usually the mother. For the study, 156 published judgments from 2013–2015 were examined to measure how often allegations of CSA are substantiated, suspected to be true, and disbelieved. The characteristics most common in substantiated versus unsubstantiated cases, evidence of abuse presented, and resulting parenting orders were assessed. Findings indicate that, against international comparisons, FCA judges substantiate cases very conservatively, with rates of substantiation much lower than in other studies. Allegations made by mothers against fathers were disproportionately unsubstantiated, as were those which did not fall under the Magellan case management system. Cases where the only evidence of CSA was a child’s disclosure and parent’s allegation were common in both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases, meaning that a lack of other evidence does not preclude a positive finding of risk of CSA by the FCA. Those cases also involving a protection order against the accused were more likely to be substantiated. Confirmation biases and a judicial tendency to err on the side of false negatives are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1415776\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Custody","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1415776","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要本研究考察了澳大利亚家庭法院(FCA)在有关一方(通常是母亲)提出儿童性虐待(CSA)指控时,对育儿纠纷的司法裁决。在这项研究中,研究人员检查了2013年至2015年发表的156项判决,以衡量对CSA的指控被证实、怀疑和不信的频率。在有证据的与无证据的案例中,最常见的特征是虐待的证据,以及由此产生的育儿令。研究结果表明,与国际比较相比,FCA法官对案件的证实率非常保守,证实率远低于其他研究。母亲对父亲的指控不成比例地缺乏证据,那些不属于麦哲伦案件管理制度的指控也是如此。CSA的唯一证据是儿童的披露和父母的指控的情况在有证据和没有证据的情况下都很常见,这意味着缺乏其他证据并不排除FCA对CSA风险的积极发现。那些还涉及对被告发出保护令的案件更有可能得到证实。确认偏差和司法倾向于错误的一面否定进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Allegations of child sexual abuse in parenting disputes: An examination of judicial determinations in the Family Court of Australia
ABSTRACT This study examined Family Court of Australia (FCA) judicial determinations in parenting disputes when allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) are made by an interested party, usually the mother. For the study, 156 published judgments from 2013–2015 were examined to measure how often allegations of CSA are substantiated, suspected to be true, and disbelieved. The characteristics most common in substantiated versus unsubstantiated cases, evidence of abuse presented, and resulting parenting orders were assessed. Findings indicate that, against international comparisons, FCA judges substantiate cases very conservatively, with rates of substantiation much lower than in other studies. Allegations made by mothers against fathers were disproportionately unsubstantiated, as were those which did not fall under the Magellan case management system. Cases where the only evidence of CSA was a child’s disclosure and parent’s allegation were common in both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases, meaning that a lack of other evidence does not preclude a positive finding of risk of CSA by the FCA. Those cases also involving a protection order against the accused were more likely to be substantiated. Confirmation biases and a judicial tendency to err on the side of false negatives are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Child Custody
Journal of Child Custody FAMILY STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Since the days of Solomon, child custody issues have demanded extraordinary wisdom and insight. The Journal of Child Custody gives you access to the ideas, opinions, and experiences of leading experts in the field and keeps you up-to-date with the latest developments in the field as well as discussions elucidating complex legal and psychological issues. While it will not shy away from controversial topics and ideas, the Journal of Child Custody is committed to publishing accurate, balanced, and scholarly articles as well as insightful reviews of relevant books and literature.
期刊最新文献
The Child Abuse Risk Evaluation Dutch Version (CARE-NL): A retrospective validation study Assessment criteria in relocation cases: An exploratory study of Spanish family court Judges Adjustment of children in joint custody and associated variables: A systematic review First, do no harm to self: Perspectives around trauma-informed practice and secondary traumatic stress among rural child protective services workers Understanding the relationship between mothers’ childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and current parenting behaviors through adult intimate partner violence: A moderation analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1