Supreme Court allows children’s indirect testimony in child abuse cases, Unofficial Secrets – Child Sexual Abuse: the Cleveland Case

June 19, 2015 Comments Off on Supreme Court allows children’s indirect testimony in child abuse cases, Unofficial Secrets – Child Sexual Abuse: the Cleveland Case

Unofficial Secrets – Child Sexual Abuse: the Cleveland Case
Just as there was a determined not-knowing in 1987, there was equal resistance to any attempt to follow up those 121 children, and reluctance to co-ordinate referrals. Some children did return to the attention of the statutory services. Some children did go on enduring abuse by adults who – having been acquitted by the public debate – had permission to carry on.”

Supreme Court allows children’s indirect testimony in child abuse cases
Richard Wolf and Brad Heath, USA TODAY June 18, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that teachers’ reports of child abuse based on conversations with young children can be admitted as testimony, despite a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accuser.

The unanimous judgment came in the case of a 3½-year-old Ohio boy whose wounds were visible to teachers at his day care center. Upon questioning, he said his mother’s boyfriend was to blame.

Although the boy was too young to testify reliably in court, the teachers’ reports were admitted at trial, resulting in Darius Clark’s conviction and 28-year prison sentence….

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court’s majority, said that the teachers’ “primary purpose” in asking about the abuse was not to help the prosecution, so allowing their testimony did not violate Clark’s constitutional rights.

When police take children’s statements out of court and present it as testimony at trial, it can violate the confrontation clause. But in this case, Alito said, the child spoke to teachers immediately after his wounds were discovered, in an emergency setting on school grounds — not in preparing courtroom testimony….
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/18/supreme-court-child-abuse/27726965/

For a Day in July 2014…

FOR A DAY in July 2014, the advocates of children in care institutions who have been sexually abused by adults — including suspects shielded from scrutiny by the Establishment — tasted triumph: their campaign for an inquiry into historic abuse and cover-up had finally been rewarded, there was to be a public inquiry….

A new e-edition of my book, Unofficial Secrets – Child Sexual Abuse: the Cleveland Case, is forthcoming.
Meanwhile, here is an extract from the 1997 edition:

….The Cleveland case challenged our world view about sex. It also became a crisis of  knowing, of what is known and how it may become knowable. As the months and then the years went by, we were not allowed to know what had happened in Cleveland.

Just as there was a determined not-knowing in 1987, there was equal resistance to any attempt to follow up those 121 children, and reluctance to co-ordinate referrals. Some children did return to the attention of the statutory services. Some children did go on enduring abuse by adults who – having been acquitted by the public debate – had permission to carry on.

….For example, the first edition of this book contains an interview with a man and a woman whose children all showed worrying symptoms. The father was already a convicted sex offender. He was candid: yes, he had ‘previous’; yes, he’d confessed and then retracted. His explanation for anal and vaginal medical signs? He didn’t have one. I didn’t believe his protestations, but I faithfully reported his story. And I didn’t ask why his career as a sex offender and his absurd alibis weren’t relevant.

If this case was deemed controversial, it was not because a convicted sex offender was given custody of his children. It was because Dr. Marietta Higgs’ diagnosis had ignited an investigation. If this case was controversial, it was not because the convicted sex offender made a confession — like his previous record, that didn’t matter.

….That the signs scrolled on the bodies of children suggested serious sexual abuse. They also knew that, if the children had indeed been abused, then the signs were telling us something more – that the children were so marooned in their abusers’ needs and pressure and point of view that silence was itself a survival strategy. A tactic of accommodation was revealed by the signs: the architecture of the body suggested the anatomy of adaptation, of small bodies adapting to overwhelming intrusion, orifices scarred and altered by incoming objects, orifices speaking into the silence of their young subjects.

Not all the children were silent. Some spoke loudly and clearly. Some spoke obliquely and hesitantly. But the adult community chose to interpret the silence — rather than the signs — as the relief of suspicion, rather than as a clue to the difficulty of disclosure. Instead of interpreting the matrix of signs and silence as a dynamic, as a drama of physical suffering and survival shrouded by secrecy, it chose an interpretation of this eerie scenario that reinstated the ideologies and institutions that were so stiffly challenged by these children.
http://www.beatrixcampbell.co.uk/day-july-2014/

Advertisements

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Unofficial Secrets – Child Sexual Abuse: the Cleveland Case category at Eassurvey's Weblog.