http://justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices.html
Here is just one of the many points made in this comprehensive article:
Most all CPS/juvenile court Systems deal ONLY with Intra familial Child Abuse. This schism between the way society deals with child abuse perpetrated by a family member versus child abuse perpetrated by an 'outsider' points out a staggering hypocrisy in the rhetoric about treating child abuse seriously. Behind the rhetoric is a child welfare and police system that in reality works hand in hand to let most child abusers walk free.
Many people are very surprised when they call CPS to report a child abuse case perpetrated by a neighbor, a priest, a stranger, or by any one outside the family. CPS tells the caller they don't handle these cases. They only respond to cases in which the perpetrator is a family member. So in most cases in which the perpetrator is not a family member, CPS tells the caller they'll need to report to police.
Another thing that may surprise you is that if you call police to report a case of child abuse perpetrated by a family member, police will often tell you should report the case to CPS. Granted police could take the report if they wanted to, and they should take the report. But police themselves are all too often on the same philosophical page as CPS. They too often believe that when fathers 'grow their own victim', the fathers shouldn't be held accountable like other offenders.
And another thing. Even if police do take a report of sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member, chances are very good that the perpetrator, even if convicted, will get off lightly compared to an outside-the-family perpetrator. California law, like the law in many states, maintains gaping legal loopholes where, prosecutors can, and frequently do, charge intra familial child sex abuse under different codes which allow the family offenders much lighter sentences. In addition, the law allows convicted intra familial child sex offenders to be given probation, different from outsider child sex offenders who must go to prison. And the law allows convicted intra familial child sex offenders to stay off the state's public registered sex offenders lists, also unlike 'outside'. (For a good discussion of the legal loopholes for fathers and other family members who sexually molest their children see Child Sexual Abuse and the State by Ruby Andrew at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=904100))
There isn't a civic leader out there that doesn't publicly rage to the heavens about what monsters child molesters are, and how these 'animals' should be strung up at the crack of dawn. But, remember, the overwhelming majority of all child sex abuse is perpetrated by family members. What this means is that, in reality, we have a system that publicly beats its chest over the small percentage of child molesters who attack someone else's child, while by legal slight of hand that same system lets the vast majority of child molesters go free. Not by accident, but by legal and institutional design.
What's perhaps most telling is that, at least in California, these legal loopholes for intra familial perpetrators have been widened over recent years, rather than tightened.
view the rest of the comments →
2impendingdoom ago
Thanks for these links and bringing this up. The courts are able to hide all of this because of the policy to seal cases involving juveniles and applying gag orders. I haven't read them yet but Mark Harmon Snow has written two books exposing the corruption in the family courts, one, focusing on Connecticut, is called "In the Worst Interests of the Child". I haven't met Mr. Snow but from his TED talk and other work I believe he has honorable intentions.
The amount of systemic abuse that is perpetrated by the judiciary is mind-boggling.
Factfinder2 ago
Mind-boggling indeed. I had no idea of the depth of the problem. Regarding the sealing of cases and gag orders, the article I linked addresses this but actually provides some hope for change:
"In 2005, The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges voted approval of presumptively open hearings with discretion of courts to close. This isn't yet law, but it's a big step in that direction."
I still need to determine whether there's been any movement on that front since 2005.
2impendingdoom ago
Discretion of the courts is still a big hurdle. If it comes down to individual judges ordering closed cases it will be MORE difficult to unseal the cases, because the "standard policy" excuse is gone. I do not trust any of them to make things more just.
Factfinder2 ago
Excellent point.