Abstract
This chapter first focuses on major challenges confronting child and youth-serving organisations and high-risk settings. It then discusses the nature, key findings and major recommendations of Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, a landmark public inquiry into institutional sexual abuse, including a special focus on the Roman Catholic Church. The chapter then focuses on several recent examples of progress in responses to major problems presented by child sexual abuse in institutional and non-institutional settings. Developments from Australia in particular, but also from other countries, will show how new public health law responses, including through civil law, and with various emphases on primary prevention and secondary prevention, can create frameworks for enhanced prevention, identification, and response to cases of child sexual abuse. Some of these responses, such as redress schemes, reportable conduct schemes and child safe standards legislation, have specific application to institutional settings. Other responses, such as the abolition of statutes of limitation for civil claims for injuries caused by sexual abuse, and other kinds of legislative reporting duties, have broader application across society, as they apply to sexual abuse in all settings, whether within institutions, families, private settings, or other community settings. These responses are of broad application regarding prevention of child sexual abuse, early identification of child sexual offending, and ensuring appropriate responses once it is known or suspected. They are particularly relevant when dealing with high risk institutional settings and prolific individual offenders, both of which present especially urgent examples of the need for an appropriate societal approach to child sexual abuse informed by public health and social justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There are 21 subcomponents of the Reporting and responding dimension: copy on file with author.
- 2.
In May 2017, reporting the most recent data, the Chair of the Royal Commission, the Honourable Peter McClellan, stated that Of those who reported abuse in a religious institution, over half (51%) stated the abuser was a person in religious ministry, and almost one quarter (22%) reported the abuser was a teacher (McClellan 2017).
- 3.
Kenny was also endorsing the Irish Government’s new efforts to protect children, including through its Children First bill. He stated (my emphasis): “Cardinal Josef Ratzinger said: ‘Standards of conduct appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy cannot be purely and simply applied to the Church.’ As the Holy See prepares its considered response to the Cloyne Report, as Taoiseach, I am making it absolutely clear, that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself, cannot and will not, be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic. Not purely, or simply or otherwise. Children…First” … through our legislation, through our Government’’s action to put Children First., those who have been abused can take some small comfort in knowing that they belong to a nation, to a democracy where humanity, power, rights, responsibility are enshrined and enacted, always....always.... for their good. Where the law - their law - as citizens of this country, will always supercede canon laws that have neither legitimacy nor place in the affairs of this country.”
- 4.
The analyses of the career of Cardinal George Pell, who at the time of writing has been committed to stand trial in Melbourne, Victoria, for a range of child sexual offences, may provide insights into this and other aspects of Church culture: see Marr (2014) and Milligan (2017). The Royal Commission’s case studies also detailed the testimony of Cardinal Pell, which included some admissions about his conduct in responding to complaints.
- 5.
In Case Study 28 the Royal Commission inquired into “the response of the Congregation of Chris an Brothers in the St Patrick’s Province of Ballarat and the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat (the Diocese) to complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse by Chris an Brothers, clergy and religious.” The Christian Brothers operated or provided staff for six primary and secondary schools in Ballarat and Warrnambool. St Alipius Boys’ School, a primary school in Ballarat East, and St Patrick’s College, a secondary school in Ballarat, were primarily staffed by Christian Brothers and were the principal focus of this study. Part One of the public hearing examined the response of relevant Catholic Church authorities to the impact of child sexual abuse on survivors, their families and the community of Ballarat. It also examined their responses to survivors, their families and the community of Ballarat following the conviction of clergy and religious for acts of child sexual abuse committed at institutions associated with Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat. Part Two examined the knowledge of Catholic Church authorities in and around Ballarat to allegations of child sexual abuse and their response to those allegations. It also examined the response of Victoria Police. Part Three examined the knowledge of and response to allegations of child sexual abuse by Christian Brothers in St Patrick’s Province, specifically in institutions within the Diocese: See Case Study 28, Executive Summary, p. 21.
- 6.
Kenny declared: “Clericalism has rendered some of Ireland’’s brightest, most privileged and powerful men, either unwilling or unable to address the horrors cited in the Ryan and Murphy Reports”.
- 7.
Most notoriously regarding this, see Ellis v Pell [2006] NSWSC 109, where Cardinal George Pell was heavily involved in the proceedings and litigation strategy: see the comprehensive account provided in Marr (2014), and Royal Commission transcripts in Case Study 8: Mr. John Ellis, Towards Healing and civil litigation. Here, the plaintiff was John Ellis, who it was accepted experienced sexual abuse between 1974 and 1979 while he was an altar server, by Father Duggan, who was the third defendant. The first defendant was “His Eminence Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney for and on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Sydney”; and the second defendant was The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney. At this first hearing, Patten AJ granted an extension of time in which to commence civil legal proceedings, also finding that while there would be some prejudice to the defendants’ fair trial rights, this did not preclude there being a fair trial. Patten AJ further held that, while it did not need to be determined finally, there was at least “an arguable case that the Trustees, at all relevant times, constituted the entity which the Roman Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Sydney adopted and put forward as the permanent corporate entity or interface between the spiritual and temporal sides of the Church legally responsible for the Acts and omissions of the Archbishop and his subordinates”, meaning that there was an entity that could be sued.
However, this second finding was overturned on appeal by the Church in The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church v Ellis [2007] NSWCA 117. While the court accepted that statute may modify the situation, the Court accepted the Church’s argument that the Trustees could not be liable. The key finding [47] was that the Church was an unincorporated association, and “An unincorporated association that is not a partnership is a group of individuals associated together for some lawful purpose other than profit that may or may not have a rigid constitution or a fixed and finite membership. Procedurally, it cannot (at common law) sue or be sued in its own name because, among other reasons, it does not exist as a juridical entity.”
Individuals within an unincorporated association can assume an active or managerial role, and if the activity in which they exercise control creates a contractual or tortious claim, they can be held liable individually as principals; however, this liability remains personal and not representative in nature, and liability remains with the members who formed the committee or other controlling body who were in office at the relevant time of the tort. The relationship between individual office holders and the “members of the Church as a whole” was not sufficiently strong to establish liability of the broader organisation either in contract, or through vicarious liability in tort (negligence). Further, there was insufficient evidence of a relationship of employment of Father Duggan by Pell or by the Trustees; it was not suggested in evidence that the priest was “engaged or employed by either named defendant, let alone by all of the members of the Church in the Archdiocese during the relevant years… the evidence showed the trustees “played no role in the appointment or oversight of priests in the Archdiocese in the 1970s”. Regarding Archbishop Pell’s liability, the Court observed that “liability in tort (even vicarious liability) is personal”. Most actions in tort die with the wrongdoer. In this case, Archbishop Pell was not in office during the period of abuse. Argument was made, however, that the Archbishop is a corporation sole, with obligations to settle claims. The Court rejected this, finding there was “no statute or Crown grant constituting the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney a corporation sole”.
In New South Wales each diocese has established such a legal entity under the Roman Catholic Church Trust Property Act of 1936. For the Archdiocese of Sydney, its body corporate is The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney, who hold legal title to the real property owned by the Archdiocese of Sydney and by all the parishes within the Archdiocese. This land is held for the Church or for the use or benefit or for any purpose of the Church, unless subject to a specific trust. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney is the legal entity used in all matters relating to contracts as required by the norms of canon law.
- 8.
Other Volumes with findings and recommendations not covered here are: Vol 8: Record-keeping and information sharing; Vol 9: advocacy, support and therapeutic treatment services; Vol 10: Children with harmful sexual behaviours; Vol 12: Contemporary out-of-home care; Vol 15: Contemporary detention environments; Vol 17: Beyond the Royal Commission.
- 9.
See for example Western Australia’s Civil Liability Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse Actions) Act 2018; see also Victoria’s Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Bill 2018.
- 10.
Modelled on Victoria’s s 49C.
- 11.
See for example Marr (2014) and the discussion of the Melbourne Response, established by Cardinal Pell in the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, with an initial cap of $50,000. This was later slightly increased (first to $55,000, then to $75,000), but this process has been estimated to have saved the Catholic Church hundreds of millions of dollars. Pell’s scheme was expedited at a time when the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference was seeking to create a national scheme, named Towards Healing; this scheme did not cap the redress payment. See also the discussion of this in: Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015). Report of Case Study 16: The Melbourne Response; and Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015). Redress and Civil Litigation Report, including Part 11.6.
- 12.
Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015). Redress and Civil Litigation Report, Chapters 1–12, especially Chapters 10 and 11.
- 13.
- 14.
The Royal Commission identified more than 4000 institutions where sexual abuse took place. The Commission estimated that almost 40,000 survivors were sexually abused in institutions run by non-government bodies such as those run by churches and charities, and 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions.
- 15.
On 22 May 2018, the Tasmanian Government committed to join the Scheme. On 28 May 2018, the South Australian and Northern Territory governments also announced they would join the Scheme. Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland had previously committed.
- 16.
Part 4 of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act, 2005, The Residential Institutions Redress (Amendment) Act 2011, The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012 and by Regulations made by the Minister for Education and Skills in accordance with the Act.
- 17.
These were: A Guide to the Redress Scheme under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002; A Short Guide to the Redress Scheme under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002; The Residential Institutions Redress Board Guide to Hearing Procedures.
- 18.
Inserted by the Crimes Amendment (Protection of Children) Act 2014.
- 19.
In s 49O(7), a relevant organisation means— (a) an organisation that exercises care, supervision or authority over children, whether as its primary function or otherwise, and includes but is not limited to— (i) a church; and (ii) a religious body; and (iii) a school; and 11 other types of child and youth serving organisations.
- 20.
New South Wales Government, Press Release, 3 April 2018, Holding child sex abusers to account.
- 21.
Other developments include: legislating a maximum life sentence for a strengthened offence of persistent child sexual abuse; requiring courts sentencing historic child sexual assault offences to apply current sentencing standards and the present understanding about the lifelong effects of sexual abuse on children; requiring courts not to take into account an offender’s good character when sentencing for historic offences where their reputation facilitated the offending; and introducing a new offence of grooming an adult to access a child and strengthening the grooming offence to include providing a child with gifts or money.
- 22.
See for example the New South Wales scheme, set out in the Ombudsman Act 1974 Part 3A. Under s 25C, the head of a designated government or non-government agency is required to notify the Ombudsman of: (a) any reportable allegation, or reportable conviction, against an employee of the agency of which the head of the agency becomes aware; (b) whether or not the agency proposes to take any disciplinary or other action in relation to the employee and the reasons why it intends to take or not to take any such action; (c) any written submissions made to the head of the agency concerning any such allegation or conviction that the employee concerned wished to have considered in determining what (if any) disciplinary or other action should be taken in relation to the employee. Under s 25F, results of an investigation and the action taken or proposed to be taken must also be reported to the Ombudsman. The key investigative power possessed by the Ombudsman is in s 25G. This empowers the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation concerning any reportable allegation, or reportable conviction, against an employee of a designated government or non-government agency of which the Ombudsman has been notified under this Part or otherwise becomes aware. In addition, the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation concerning any inappropriate handling of or response to any such reportable allegation or reportable conviction, whether on the Ombudsman’s own initiative or in response to a complaint.
- 23.
It is axiomatic that modern child protection investigation teams must use all possible measures to avoid unnecessary distress and intrusion both during and after investigations. There is not a body of compelling and representative evidence about whether and to what extent investigations cause unavoidable trauma for children, parents and others, including for different types of maltreatment. The quantitative study in Iowa by Fryer et al. (1990) of 176 families with parents reported for abuse or neglect found that 74% of respondents rated their overall experience of the quality and impact of CPS ser-vice as either excellent or good, with satisfaction levels the same for both substantiated and unsubstantiated outcomes. Detailed analyses by Finkelhor et al. (1990) and Drake and Jonson-Reid (2007) have concluded there is no compelling empirical evidence that investigating unsubstantiated reports causes undue distress. Drake and Jonson-Reid (2007) found that a range of studies yielded a proportion of two thirds to three quarters of CPS clients being satisfied with the investigation process and services received, and concluded that “From the client’s perspective, the common and much-repeated assertion that CPS is viewed negatively and is harmful to most families is simply wrong” (p. 357). It is also arguable that the need to protect children from such fundamental violations outweighs mere distress and intrusion (Finkelhor et al. 1990).
Yet, small qualitative studies of the experience of mothers have identified both positive and negative experiences with CPS investigations and other systemic interactions, which indicate that at the very least, ongoing efforts are required to develop the required professional attributes and monitor investigators’ practice. Plummer and Eastin (2007) conducted focus groups (n = 19) and a survey (n = 40) with mothers who themselves suspected their child had been sexually abused, and whose suspicions had been confirmed by a CPS process or other professional decision. While some mothers reported that CPS workers, police, therapists and attorneys were “very helpful”, other responses indicated delays, unprofessional comments, and disrespectful treatment. In Norway, Softestad and Toverud (2012) interviewed 19 parents. Most welcomed professional involvement, but also reported problems with delay, variable professional competence, and in some cases severe emotional strain, especially in cases where the parent was suspected. There is a clear need for rigorous research, including mixed methods research going beyond small qualitative studies, into the experience of children, parents and families regarding investigation, to identify the nature and extent of adverse consequences, their causes, and how they can be ameliorated. This would be particularly useful for different kinds of maltreatment. The experiences and challenges of investigations for CSA may be less common as most investigated CSA reports will not focus on parental behaviour, whereas virtually all other maltreatment reports (neglect, physical abuse, psychological abuse) will relate to the parent’s acts or omissions. Finally, some have argued that the cost of investigation and its impact on other areas of the child protection system is also an important consideration. Yet, Drake and Jonson-Reid (2007, 2015) have argued that the actual cost of investigating cases in the USA is an extremely small proportion of the child protection budget, “most likely below 10% of total costs, and possibly below 5%” (2015, p. 41). Others have concluded that in Australia mandatory reporting is not producing excessive rates of reports and investigations in relation to identified cases (Segal 2015).
- 24.
These findings are likely related to the factors affecting agency capacity to substantiate a report, including: evidentiary thresholds for reaching a finding of substantiated; availability of evidence of harm even where there is sufficient evidence of abuse; availability of evidence of abuse even where there is sufficient evidence of harm. As well, reports may not be comprehensively investigated due to internal agency factors such as availability of personnel and resources, and multiple reports about the same child being recorded as one investigation. A limitation of this body of research is that, while some studies expressly include a proportion of CSA reports in their designs and others did not exclude CSA report outcomes from their findings (Cross and Casanueva 2009; Drake et al. 2003; Kohl et al. 2009), the strength of the application of these general findings to the subset of CSA reports is not entirely clear. It is plausible that these findings could apply to the subset of CSA reports, given that a report of suspected CSA is frequently based on the reporter observing the child’s adverse health symptomatology, behaviour, and social context, with the child’s symptomatology and hence health and welfare need as the basis of the report being unaltered even where the report is unsubstantiated. Nevertheless, further research into this question is necessary to clarify the situation. What seems clear is that there is not firm ground for concluding that when exploring trends in reporting and report outcomes, the sole measure of the “soundness” of a report of suspected CSA is whether it is substantiated. Outcomes such as actual service provision to the child, and perceived need for service provision even if this is unable to be provided, are among those that are also relevant.
- 25.
For the purposes of the study, the researchers collated data on reports by the four major mandated reporter groups – police, teachers, doctors and nurses and grouped these as mandated reports. These four groups account for the overwhelming majority of all reports of CSA. The estimate is conservative in that for illustrative purposes, it counted as “mandated reports” reports by police even if the state legislation did not expressly designate police as mandated reporters (e.g., Queensland), or if the mandated reporting duty only commenced at some point in time during the ten year period (e.g., Western Australia, where the duty commenced on 1 January 2009).
- 26.
One small state provided data for 9 years; and one large state provided data for 3 years. Data on substantiated cases could be located for the 7 years in the large state from other sources, resulting in a further 24,019 CSA substantiations.
- 27.
Some jurisdictions have different approaches to counting reports and making decisions about whether or how to investigate, so that proportions of investigated reports varied.
- 28.
The introduction of the duty did not constitute a single new factor in a pure social experiment. First, a policy-based reporting duty had existed for these professionals for many years, although there was evidence that it had been widely unrecognized (Mathews et al. 2009c). Second, a research study had been conducted with teachers in 2006–2008, which heightened awareness of CSA and spurred new teacher training efforts (Mathews et al. 2009c). Third, the issue of CSA had attracted media attention because of government inquiries into child abuse (Ford 2007) and debate over several years about the introduction of a reporting law (Mathews et al. 2009a). Fourth, some of the professions to be mandated had received further instruction about the duty prior to its commencement. Therefore, it could be expected that the public as a whole, and those in the mandated professions in particular, had a recent and heightened level of sensitization to CSA over the period before the introduction of the duty.
- 29.
(1990) 170 CLR 394.
- 30.
Chase Securities Corporation v Donaldson 325 US 304 (1945).
- 31.
See for example Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, s 16.
- 32.
See for example the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 11(2), and the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW) s 12A.
- 33.
See for example in Australia the cases of GGG v YYY [2011] VSC 429; NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110; State of Queensland v RAF [2010] QCA 332.
- 34.
In Australia, examples include A, DC v Prince Alfred College Inc [2015] SASC 12; Carter v Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Rockhampton [2001] QCA 335; Ellis v Pell [2006] NSWSC 109; Hopkins v State of Queensland[2004] QDC 021 (Unreported, McGill J, 24 February 2004); HWC v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2009] QCA 168; NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110; Salvation Army v Rundle [2008] NSWCA 347; Tusyn v State of Tasmania [2010] TASSC 55; VMT v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2007] QSC 219. Scholars have criticised defendants’ exploitation of the time bar in cases of clear liability, and the complexity of extension provisions and judicial interpretation of them, in the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, and New Zealand.
- 35.
- 36.
Berger v United States 295 US 78 (1935).
- 37.
Skogman v The Queen [1984] 2 SCR 93.
- 38.
Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333.
- 39.
See for example the case authorities detailed below, in notes 10–11.
- 40.
Victoria was the first state to enact reform, with a bill introduced on 23 February 2015, which commenced on 1 July 2015. The bill had three components. First, it removed the limitation period for personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse, physical abuse, and psychological abuse arising from those acts. Second, it applied this with both retroactive and prospective effect. Third, to protect defendants’ fair trial rights and prevent abuse of process, it preserved courts’ powers to stay proceedings. These reforms were influenced by a government inquiry into the mishandling of abuse allegations in religious and other non-government institutions. The Betrayal of Trust - Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Non-Government Organisations (Victorian Government Family and Community Development Committee, 2013) exposed widespread child sexual abuse in these organisations, and unjustifiable reliance by defendants on the expiry of limitation periods to block survivors from accessing civil courts. The inquiry recommended abolition of the time limit for civil claims in child abuse cases, finding “There is no public policy justification for applying limitation periods to civil cases relating to criminal child abuse” (Volume 2, Finding 26.7, p. 542–3).
- 41.
It is not expressly applied to matters that have been settled, although there is conflicting information about this. The second reading speech indicates not; but the definition of “judgment” in Sched 5 Pt 3 s 8(2) as “a judgment given extends to a judgment entered and also to an agreement entered into before and in connection with any such judgment” indicates it may.
- 42.
Court retains its power to summarily dismiss, or permanently stay proceedings, where lapse of time creates overwhelming burden to defendant’s fair trial rights, through the court’s inherent, implied, statutory or other common law jurisdiction, or under a rule of court, practice note or practice direction – see, e.g., NSW s 6A(6); Vic s 27R).
- 43.
In the Northern Territory, the provisions effectively allow the bringing of a new claim if a previous judgment was given on the basis of expiry of time. “Judgment” includes an agreement entered into, providing further protection and capacity for plaintiffs. Under s 54(5), if an action is brought, the court may, if it considers it is just and reasonable to do so: (a) set aside any [previous] judgment; (b) take into account any amounts paid or payable by way of damages under such a judgment’; and(c) take into account costs paid or payable in connection with any such judgment.
In Western Australia, the Civil Liability Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse Actions) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament 22 November 2017, and was passed on 19 April 2018; the provisions amending the Limitation Act 2005 have not yet been proclaimed. The key provisions are s 6A, and Part 7 (ss 89–92). Section 91(1) allows an action on a “previously barred cause of action” to be commenced where the action was statute barred; or an action had been commenced but discontinued or not finalized; or a judgment was given, or an action was dismissed, on the ground that the action was statute barred. Under s 91(3), the court may, if it is satisfied that it is just and reasonable to do so, set aside the previous judgment. Under s 91(4), if an action on a previously barred cause of action is commenced, the Court may, if it is satisfied that it is just and reasonable to do so, take into account any amount paid under a previous judgment.
Similar provisions apply to “previously settled” causes of action. Section 92 allows an action to be brought on a “previously settled cause of action”. Under s 92(2) the plaintiff must apply for leave to commence the action. Under s 92(3), the Court may, if satisfied it is just and reasonable to do so, grant leave to commence the action, and set aside the settlement agreement and any judgment giving effect to the settlement. Under s 92(4), if the action is commenced, the agreement relating to the settlement is void to the extent to which it relates to the CSA the subject of the cause of action. Under s 92(6), the Court may, if satisfied it is just and reasonable to do so, take into account any amount paid under an agreement, to the extent to which it related to the child sexual abuse the subject of the cause of action.
- 44.
As amended by the Civil Liability Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse Actions) Act 2018 (WA), passed on 19 April 2018; the relevant provisions have not yet been proclaimed.
- 45.
Section 15B(1)–(3) effectively provides that if the office holder at the time of the CSA is no longer in office, an action can be brought against the current office holder of an unincorporated association, and the current office holder is liable for the former office holder’s liability. Further, s 15C provides that the holder of the office may satisfy the liability out of assets held by or for the office of the institution, including assets of a trust, whether or not a charitable trust.
- 46.
Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Bill 2018 (Vic).
- 47.
(1984) 10 DLR (4th) 641.
- 48.
(1999) 172 DLR (4th) 385.
- 49.
(1992) 3 SCR 6.
- 50.
The lack of such an impact can be explained by two main factors. First, while an initial increase in lawsuits is to be expected, especially where a revival window or retroactive removal of the time period is part of the reform, even those claims that are commenced are likely to be settled out of court without reaching the trial stage. Accordingly, the burden on the court system is diluted. Second, for a range of reasons, most survivors of child sexual abuse will not wish to institute legal proceedings. Many survivors will not experience personal injuries of an extent sufficient to warrant a legal claim. Even for those who do, a substantial proportion of potential claims will never be brought because civil suits are futile where the defendant is deceased, unable to be located, or impecunious. Many survivors will lack the agency and capacity to bring proceedings; many will be unable to pursue a claim due to existing trauma, fear of re-traumatisation, distrust of the legal system, inability to navigate the system, or lack of funds. As well, many survivors’ primary desire is not financial compensation, but an assurance that steps be taken to diminish the likelihood of sexual abuse in future, especially in institutional contexts (Law Commission of Canada, 2000). Further, for cases of sexual abuse in institutional contexts, many jurisdictions have created informal methods of providing redress or ex gratia payments. These have proven to be accessible to survivors, and preclude pursuit of civil remedies (Australian Government Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 2015a).
Note also that scholarly analysis has concluded that claims about “false memories” not supported by strong evidence (Bulkley and Horwitz 1994). Based on an analysis of the literature, including the review of 25 studies by Scheflin and Brown (1996), Freyd (1998, p. 103) concluded “there is no research to date documenting a “false memory syndrome”” and that “there is a large and growing body of evidence documenting the occurrence of essentially accurate recovered memories” (p. 107). Studies have indicated that, as a natural defence mechanism, individuals are more likely to forget details of abuse or to have periods of forgetting when they are abused by parents or caregivers (Freyd et al. 2001; Williams 1995). Freyd (1998) also concluded that in terms of persistence of memory – namely, whether a memory can be recalled at different points in time – recovered memories of CSA are neither more nor less likely to be inaccurate than continuously accessible memories of sexual abuse. Accordingly, delayed disclosure may sometimes be caused by lack of memory (whether through suppression or blocking), which is subsequently reliably retrieved. Further research into the neuroscience of suppression of memory has confirmed the normality and mechanism of “motivated forgetting” (Anderson and Green 2001; Anderson and Hanslmayr 2014; Benoit and Anderson 2012). Overall, the evidence indicates there is not compelling evidence of “false memories” to cast doubt on the viability of reforms to civil statutes of limitation.
- 51.
Healing requires survivors to be able to articulate their suffering, be heard, and taken seriously (Herman 1997). Yet, the presence and use of the time limit silences the survivor once more. Judith Lewis Herman has noted the indifference of bystanders can be particularly traumatic, exceeding even the initial abuse (1997, p. 100–101). For survivors, legislatures which do not enact reform can make them a special class of bystander, exacerbating trauma. Rosanne Sliney, whose testimony influenced reform in Massachusetts, crystallised this when she said: “I felt like the state of Massachusetts was like my family…They all were ignoring the fact that I’’m suffering. … No one protected me...and now my state wasn’t protecting me.” (De Jesus 2016). In contrast, a legislature enacting reform to allow claims recognises and validates the experience of CSA survivors, even for those who do not make a claim.
References
Alaggia, R. (2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10(5), 453–470.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders – Fifth edition (DSM-V). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association.
Anderson, M., & Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature, 410, 366–369.
Anderson, M., & Hanslmayr, S. (2014). Neural mechanisms of motivated forgetting. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(6), 279–292.
Anderst, J., Kellogg, N., & Jung, I. (2009). Reports of repetitive penile-genital penetration often have no definitive evidence of penetration. Pediatrics, 124(3), 403–409.
Australian Government. (2013). Letters Patent for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, S No 12 of 2013, 11 January 2013.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2014). Interim Report. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2015a). Redress and civil litigation report. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2015b). Report of case study 13: The response of the Marist Brothers to allegations of child sexual abuse against Brothers Kostka Chute and Gregory Sutton. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2016). Report of case study 22: The response of Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse made against people associated with those institutions. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017a). Final report: Preface and executive summary. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017b). Report of case study 34: The response of Brisbane Grammar School and St Paul’s School to allegations of child sexual abuse. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017c). Analysis of claims of child sexual abuse made with respect to Catholic Church institutions in Australia. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017d). Analysis of complaints of child sexual abuse received by Anglican church dioceses in Australia. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Beck, A.J., Harrison, P.M., & Guerino, P. (2010). Sexual victimization in juvenile facilities reported by youth, 2008–2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Beck, K., & Ogloff, J. (1995). Child abuse reporting in British Columbia: Psychologists’ knowledge of and compliance with the reporting law. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(3), 245–251.
Benoit, R., & Anderson, M. (2012). Opposing mechanisms support the voluntary forgetting of unwanted memories. Neuron, 76, 450–460.
Bingham, T. (2007). The rule of law. Cambridge Law Journal, 66, 67–85.
Böhm, B., Zollner, H., Fegert, J., & Liebhardt, H. (2014). Child sexual abuse in the context of the Roman Catholic Church: A review of literature from 1981–2013. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23(6), 635–656.
Boyle, P. (2014). How youth-serving organizations enable acquaintance molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2839–2848.
Bulkley, J., & Horwitz, M. (1994). Adults sexually abused as children: Legal actions and issues. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 65–87.
Carmody, T. (2013). Taking responsibility: A roadmap for Queensland child protection. Brisbane: Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry.
Collin-Vézina, D., De La Sablonniere-Griffin, M., Palmer, A., & Milne, L. (2015). A preliminary mapping of individual, relational and social factors that impede disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 43, 123–134.
Cross, T., & Casanueva, C. (2009). Caseworker judgments and substantiation. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 38–52.
Cummins, P., Scott, D., & Scales, B. (2012). Report of the protecting Victoria’s vulnerable children inquiry. Melbourne: State of Victoria Department of Premier and Cabinet.
Currie, D. (1978). Res judicata: The neglected defense. University of Chicago Law Review, 45, 317–350.
Daly, K. (2014). Redressing institutional abuse of children. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Daly, K. (2017). Redress for historical institutional abuse of children. In A. Deckert & R. Sarre (Eds.), Australian and New Zealand handbook of criminology, crime, and justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Jesus, I. (2016). ‘One woman’s journey out of child sex abuse helps reform Massachusetts child sex crimes law’. PENNLIVE.
Dorbeck-Jung, B., Vrielink, M., Gosselt, J., van Hoof, J., & de Jong, M. (2010). Contested hybridization of regulation: Failure of the Dutch regulatory system to protect minors from harmful media. Regulation & Governance, 4, 154–174.
Doyle, T. P., Sipe, A. W. R., & Wall, P. J. (2006). Sex, priests, and secret codes: The Catholic Church’s 2000-year paper trail of sexual abuse. Los Angeles: Volt Press.
Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2007). A response to Melton based on the best available data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 343–360.
Drake, B., & Pandey, S. (1996). Understanding the relationship between neighborhood poverty and child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 1003–1018.
Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Way, I., & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8, 248–260.
Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2015). Competing values and evidence: How do we evaluate mandated reporting and CPS response? In B. Mathews & D. Bross (Eds.), Mandatory reporting laws and the identification of severe child abuse and neglect (pp. 33–60). Dordrecht: Springer.
Erooga, M. (2012a). Creating safer organisations: Practical steps to prevent the abuse of children by those working with them. Sussex: Wiley.
Erooga, M. (2012b). Understanding and responding to people who sexually abuse children whilst employed in positions of trust: An overview of the relevant literature – Part One: Offenders. In M. Erooga (Ed.), Creating safer Organisations: Practical steps to prevent the abuse of children by those working with them (pp. 7–43). Malden: Wiley.
Erooga, M., Allnock, D., & Telford, P. (2012). Sexual abuse of children by people in organisations: What offenders can teach us about protection. In M. Erooga (Ed.), Creating safer 250 organisations: Practical steps to prevent the abuse of children by those working with them (pp. 63–84). Malden: Wiley.
Fallon, B., Trocmé, N., & MacLaurin, B. (2011). Should child protection services respond differently to maltreatment, risk of maltreatment, and risk of harm? Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 236–239.
Finkelhor, D. (2005). The main problem is underreporting child abuse and neglect. In D. Loseke, R. Gelles, & M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 299–310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19–28.
Fontes, L., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(5), 491–518.
Ford, P. (2007). Review of the department for community development. Perth: Department for Community Development.
Frawley-O’Dea, M. (2004). Psychosocial anatomy of the Catholic sexual abuse scandal. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 5, 121–137.
Freyd, J. (1998). Science in the memory debate. Ethics & Behavior, 8, 101–113.
Freyd, J., DePrince, A., & Zurbriggen, E. (2001). Self-reported memory for abuse depends on victim-perpetrator relationship. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 2, 5–16.
Fryer, G., Bross, D., Krugman, R., Benson, D., & Baird, D. (1990). Good news for CPS workers. Public Welfare, 48(1), 38–41.
Fung, D. S., & Chow, M. H. (1998). Doctors’ and lawyers’ perspectives of child abuse and neglect in Singapore. Singapore Medical Journal, 39(4), 160–165.
Godden, N. (2010). Sexual abuse and claims in tort. Feminist Legal Studies, 18, 179–190.
Hamilton, M. (2012). Child sex abuse in institutional settings: What is next. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 89, 421–440.
Hansen, P., & Ainsworth, F. (2013). Australian child protection services: A game without end. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22, 104–110.
Heger, A., Ticson, L., Velasquez, O., & Bernier, R. (2002). Children referred for possible sexual abuse: Medical findings in 2384 children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 645–659.
Herman, J. L. (1997). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Holpuch, A. (2016). Windows closing for clergy sex abuse victims to sue Catholic Church. The Guardian.
Hussey, J., Marshall, J. M., English, D., Knight, E., Lau, A. S., Dubowitz, H., & Kotch, J. B. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction without a difference? Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 279–292.
Hutter, B. (2011). Negotiating social, economic and political environments: Compliance with regulation within and beyond the state. In V. Nielsen & C. Parker (Eds.), Explaining compliance (pp. 305–321). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kaufman, K. L., Holmberg, J. K., Orts, K. A., & Hilliker, D. (1998). Factors influencing sexual offenders’ modus operandi: An examination of victim-offender relatedness and age. Child Maltreatment, 3(4), 349–361.
Kaufman, K. L., Tews, H., Schuett, J. M., & Kaufman, B. R. (2012). Prevention is better than cure: The value of situational prevention in organisations. In M. Erooga (Ed.), Creating safer Organisations: Practical steps to prevent the abuse of children by those working with them (pp. 140–166). West Sussex: Wiley.
Keenan, M. (2012). Child sexual abuse & the Catholic Church: Gender, power, and organizational culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F., Steele, B., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H. (1962). The battered-child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181, 17–24.
Kenny, E. (2011). Enda Kenny speech on Cloyne report. https://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0720/303965-cloyne1/
Kenny, M. C., & Wurtele, S. K. (2012). Preventing childhood sexual abuse: An ecological approach. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(4), 361–367.
Khan, S. (2018). Australian archbishop becomes most senior Catholic clergyman to be convicted of covering up child sex abuse. The Independent. 22 May.
Kohl, P., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2009). Time to leave substantiation behind: Findings from a national probability study. Child Maltreatment, 14(17), 26.
Koziol, M. (2018). Malcolm Turnbull blasts ‘indifference and resistance’ by churches in child sex abuse letter. Sydney Morning Herald. 28 March.
Lanning, K., & Dietz, P. (2014). Acquaintance molestation and youth-serving organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2815–2838.
Layton, R. (2003). Our best investment: A state plan to protect and advance the interests of children (Review of Child Protection in South Australia). Adelaide: Government of South Australia.
Leahy, T., Pretty, G., & Tenenbaum, G. (2002). Prevalence of sexual abuse in organised competitive sport in Australia. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(2), 16–36.
Leclerc, B., Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2011). Getting into the script of adult child sex offenders and mapping out situational prevention measures. Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 209–237.
Leclerc, B., Feakes, J., & Cale, J. (2015). Child sexual abuse in youth-oriented organisations: Tapping into situational crime prevention from the offenders perspective. Crime Science, 4(1), 209–237.
Lee, P.-Y., Fraser, J., & Chou, F.-H. (2007). Nurse reporting of known and suspected child abuse and neglect cases in Taiwan. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 23(3), 128–137.
Letourneau, E., Nietert, P., & Rheingold, A. (2016). Initial assessment of stewards of children program effects on child sexual abuse reporting rates in selected South Carolina counties. Child Maltreatment, 21, 74–79.
London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S., & Shuman, D. (2007). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: A review of the contemporary empirical literature. In M.-E. Pipe, M. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 11–39). New York: Routledge.
Lothstein, L. (2004). Men of the flesh: The evaluation and treatment of sexually abusing priests. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 5, 167–195.
MacMillan, D., & Jefferies, D. (1981). Sexual abuse of children: A police overview. Australian Crime Prevention Council Forum, 4(6), 17–23.
Manning, J. (2000). The reasonable sexual abuse victim: “A grotesque invention of the law”? Torts Law Journal, 8, 1–9.
Marr, D. (2014). The prince: Faith, Abuse & George Pell. Melbourne: Black.
Mathews, B. (2003). Limitation periods and child sexual abuse cases: Law, psychology, time and justice. Torts Law Journal, 11(3), 218–243.
Mathews, B. (2004a). Queensland government actions to compensate survivors of institutional abuse: A critical and comparative evaluation. Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal, 4(1), 23–45.
Mathews, B. (2004b). Post-Ipp special limitation periods for cases of injury to a child by a parent or close associate: New jurisdictional gulfs. Torts Law Journal, 12(3), 239–258.
Mathews, B. (2012). Exploring the contested role of mandatory reporting laws in the identification of severe child abuse and neglect. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Current legal issues volume 14: Law and childhood studies (pp. 302–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mathews, B. (2013). Legal cultural and practical developments in responding to female genital mutilation. In R. Maguire, B. Lewis, & C. Sampford (Eds.), Shifting global powers and international law: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 207–222). London/New York: Routledge.
Mathews, B. (2014). Mandatory reporting Laws for child sexual abuse in Australia: A legislative history. Sydney: Royal Commission into institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Mathews, B. (2015). A theoretical framework for designing and evaluating strategies to identify cases of serious child abuse and neglect. In B. Mathews & D. Bross (Eds.), Mandatory reporting Laws and the identification of severe child abuse and neglect (pp. 127–156). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mathews, B. (2017). Optimising implementation of reforms to better prevent and respond to child sexual abuse in institutions: Insights from public health, regulatory theory, and Australia’s Royal Commission. Child Abuse and Neglect, 74, 86–98.
Mathews, B., & Bross, D. (2008). Mandated reporting is still a policy with reason: Empirical evidence and philosophical grounds. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(5), 511–516.
Mathews, B., & Collin-Vézina, D. (2016). Child sexual abuse: Raising awareness and empathy is essential to promote new public health responses. Journal of Public Health Policy, 37(3), 304–314.
Mathews, B., & Kenny, M. (2008). Mandatory reporting legislation in the USA, Canada and Australia: A cross-jurisdictional review of key features, differences and issues. Child Maltreatment, 13, 50–63.
Mathews, B., Cronan, J., Walsh, K., Butler, D., & Farrell, A. (2008a). Teachers’ policy-based duties to report child sexual abuse: A comparative study. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law & Education, 13(2), 23–37.
Mathews, B., Fraser, J., Walsh, K., Dunne, M., Kilby, S., & Chen, L. (2008b). Queensland nurses’ attitudes towards and knowledge of the legislative duty to report child abuse and neglect: Results of a state-wide survey. Journal of Law and Medicine, 16, 288–304.
Mathews, B., Goddard, C., Lonne, B., Short, S., & Briggs, F. (2009a). Developments in Australian laws requiring the reporting of suspected child sexual abuse. Children Australia, 34(3), 18–23.
Mathews, B., Payne, H., Bonnet, C., & Chadwick, D. (2009b). A way to restore British paediatricians’ engagement with child protection. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 94, 329–332.
Mathews, B., Walsh, K., Rassafiani, M., Butler, D., & Farrell, A. (2009c). Teachers reporting suspected child sexual abuse: Results of a three-state study. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 32(3), 772–813.
Mathews, B., Bromfield, L., Walsh, K., & Vimpani, G. (2015). Child abuse and neglect: A socio-legal study of mandatory reporting in Australia –report for the Australian Government (Vol. 1–9). Brisbane: QUT.
Mathews, B., Lee, X., & Norman, R. (2016). Impact of a new mandatory reporting law on reporting and identification of child sexual abuse: A seven-year time trend analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 56, 62–79.
Mathews, B., Bromfield, L., Walsh, K., Cheng, Q., & Norman, R. (2017). Reports of child sexual abuse of boys and girls: Longitudinal trends over a 20-year period in Victoria, Australia. Child Abuse & Neglect, 66, 9–22.
McClellan, P, The Honourable Justice. (2017). Address to the National Council of Churches.
Melton, G. (2005). Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 9–18.
Mercy, J., Rosenberg, M., Powell, K., Broome, C., & Roper, W. (1993). Public health policy for preventing violence. Health Affairs, 12(4), 7–29.
Millar, R., Schneiders, B., & Vedelago, C. (2018). Catholic Inc. What the Church is really worth. The Age. 12 February.
Milligan, L. (2017). Cardinal: The rise and fall of George Pell. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Murphy Commission of Investigation. (2009). Report into the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. Dublin: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Murphy Commission of Investigation. (2011). Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Diocese of Cloyne. Archdiocese of Cloyne.
Palmer, D. (2016). The role of organizational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Parent, S., & Demers, G. (2011). Sexual abuse in sport: A model to prevent and protect athletes. Child Abuse Review, 20(2), 120–133.
Parkinson, P. (2016). Submission to the Royal Commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse issues paper 11: The Catholic Church.
Parkinson, P., Oates, K., & Jayakody, A. (2012). Child sexual abuse in the Anglican Church of Australia. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(5), 553–570.
Plummer, C. (2013). Using policies to promote child sexual abuse prevention: What is working? Harrisburg: VAW net, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
Plummer, C., & Eastin, J. (2007). The effect of child sexual abuse allegations/investigations on the mother/child relationship. Violence Against Women, 13(10), 1053–1071.
Residential Institutions Redress Board. (2011). Annual Report of the Residential Institutions Redress Board 2011.
Rheingold, A., Zajac, K., Chapman, J., Patton, M., de Arellano, M., Saunders, B., et al. (2015). Child sexual abuse prevention training for childcare professionals: An independent multi-site randomized controlled trial of stewards of children. Prevention Science, 16(3), 374–385.
Roach, K. (2001). Reforming statutes of limitations. University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 50, 25–55.
Robertson, G. (2010). The case of the pope: Vatican accountability for human rights abuse. Camberwell: Penguin.
Robinson, G. (2007). Confronting power and sex in the Catholic Church. Mulgrave: John Garratt.
Rodriguez, C. (2016). Professionals’ attitudes and accuracy on child abuse reporting decisions in New Zealand. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(3), 320–342.
Ryan, P. (2009). The commission to inquire into child abuse. Dublin: Department of Justice.
Sarmas, L. (2008). Mixed messages on sexual assault and the statute of limitations. Melbourne University Law Review, 32, 609–638.
Saul, J., & Audage, N. (2007). Preventing child sexual abuse within youth-serving organizations: Getting started on policies and procedures. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Schaper, D. (2016). In aftermath of Hastert case, states push to change reporting of child sex abuse. NPR News.
Scheflin, A., & Brown, D. (1996). Repressed memory or dissociative amnesia: What the science says. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 24, 143–188.
Schneiders, B., Millar, R., & Vedelago, C. (2018). Catholic Church fails to confront tragedy of ‘epic proportions’. The Age. 10 March.
Segal, L. (2015). Economic issues in the community response to child maltreatment. In B. Mathews & D. Bross (Eds.), Mandatory reporting laws and the identification of severe child abuse and neglect (pp. 193–218). Dordrecht: Springer.
Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Sipe, R. (2011). Scandal versus culture. In T. Plante & K. McChesney (Eds.), Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church: A decade of Crisis, 2002–2012 (pp. 117–129). Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Smallbone, S. W., & Wortley, R. K. (2001). Child sexual abuse: Offender characteristics and modus operandi. Australian Institute of Criminology, 193, 1–6.
Smallbone, S., Marshall, W. L., & Wortley, R. (2013). Preventing child sexual abuse: Evidence, policy and practice. New York: Routledge.
Smith, C., & Freyd, J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69, 575–587.
Smith, D., Letourneau, E., Saunders, B., Kilpatrick, D., Resnick, H., & Best, C. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(2), 273–287.
Softestad, S., & Toverud, R. (2012). Parenting conditions in the midst of suspicion of child sexual abuse. Child and Family Social Work, 17, 75–84.
Tapsell, K. (2014). Potiphar’s wife: The Vatican’s secret and child sexual abuse. Adelaide: ATF.
Terry, K. (2015). Child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church: A review of global perspectives. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 39(2), 139–154.
Terry, K. J., & Ackerman, A. (2008). Child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church: How situational crime prevention strategies can help create safe environments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 643–657.
Terry, K. J., & Freilich, J. D. (2012). Understanding child sexual abuse by Catholic priests from a situational perspective. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(4), 437–455.
Terry, K., Smith, M., Schuth, K., Kelly, J., Vollman, B., & Massey, C. (2011). Causes and context of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Valentine, K., Katz, I., Smyth, C., Bent, C., Rinaldis, S., Wade, C., et al. (2016). Key elements of child safe organizations. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Walsh, K., Berthelsen, D., Nicholson, J. M., Brandon, L., Stevens, J., & Rachele, J. N. (2013). Child sexual abuse prevention education: A review of school policy and curriculum provision in Australia. Oxford Review of Education, 39(5), 649–680.
Williams, L. (1995). Recovered memories of abuse in women with documented child sexual victimization histories. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 649–673.
Wood, J. (2008). Report of the special committee of inquiry into child protection services in New South Wales. Sydney: Government of the State of New South Wales.
Wright, K. (2017). Remaking collective knowledge: An analysis of the complex and multiple effects of inquiries into historical institutional child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 74, 10–22.
Wurtele, S. (2012). Preventing the sexual exploitation of minors in youth-serving organizations. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2442–2453.
Wurtele, S. (2014). Child sexual abuse prevention evaluation tool for organizations. On file with author.
Yeung, K. (2004). Securing compliance. Oxford: Hart.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mathews, B. (2019). Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional and Non-institutional Contexts. In: New International Frontiers in Child Sexual Abuse. Child Maltreatment, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99043-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99043-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99042-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99043-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)