For the past few years, mens groups have been going on about how most child abuse allegations are false and often concocted by the mother. They say how "easy" it is, are able to demonstrate in detail on how such an act can occur. It is then, no surprise that the latest research on false allegations demonstrate from a neutral ground that a majority of the accusers are in fact male.
The response of course has been to diminish its credibility by labeling the research as "bias", whilst at the same time stating that the information from mens groups is somewhat superior to forty years of scientific credibility that points toward all factors including child abuse and intimate partner terrorism are indeed prevalent, underreported and serious.
For years this perpetuated belief has managed to thrive within the community and influence vital laws that were implemented to protect children. The results of this study can be found here and the results are:
Consistent with other national studies of reported child maltreatment, CIS-98 data indicate that more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases are considered to be intentionally fabricated.Within the subsample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%. Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents (usually fathers) mostfrequently make intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect. - Nico Trocm´e a, Nicholas Bala ba University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Further countering the claims that such research is bias is that the researchers are male and the report itself reads from a gender neutral perspective. Clearly, the true gender bias is embedded within the culture of male violence, community justification and the courts endorsement of providing orders that maintain the environment where children are mostly at risk.
It is logical to conclude that considering the challenges of both the child and the mother raising the concerns, reports are sadly underreported. Knowing that courts are set up in such a way that re - trauma is inevitable and the possibility of costs being raised against the victim if enough evidence is not provided, can be a major barrier to a natural course of justice.
Most victims see the course of justice as not a place for revenge of the act/actions itself, but rather an endeavor to ensure that no other members of the community become victimized.
Child Abuse in custody cases are far more complex as the laws that surrounds it is tailored to the assumption that the level of conflict derives from equal ground, that there seems to be a problem coming from those "maternal gatekeepers". This is not only a superficial view that lacks insight into the problem, but a harmful on to say the least.
If a survey was conducted on how many mothers were given consideration as to why they had pursued legal avenues to prevent contact, I would hypothesize that the result would be small. Given the mass of judgements I have read and the large number of "unsubstantiated" cases, I believe I would be correct to imply that the access to justice for mothers in custody cases raising issues of protection is very low.
Posts
