Did they never wonder why he was so popular? Or did they think (as many do) that “it’s none of my business”.
People seldom realise that sex offenders seduce children and manipulate those responsible for their safety using charm. They “groom” school principals, colleagues and parents to gain their trust before they commit offences. They offer their services for out-of-school activities that give them unsupervised contact with students and give the impression that they are outstanding, enthusiastic and committed members of the community. They become popular with boys by behaving like teenagers, providing sex talk, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and pornography.
When sex offenders are trusted, supervision may become sloppy and inappropriate, high-risk behaviour is ignored. In Canberra, a court heard that staff at a Marist College knew that boys were visiting a brother in his office and were rostered to wake him up each morning and no-one challenged him. It was revealed in court that paedophile staff tested the limits and when no boundaries were found, their inappropriate behaviour became more daring. Some schools have paid horrendous financial penalties for this negligence17.
Beginning teachers find reporting an established colleague particularly difficult, especially if they have short-term contracts and hope to be re-employed. Staff may also resist making reports because of the fear that they will be identified. Although they are guaranteed confidentiality, there are obvious risks when they live in the same, small communities.
On the other hand, mandatory reporting does not ensure that one telephone call to the child abuse report-line will change the child’s situation immediately. Making a report doesn’t end the process and save the child, but is simply one step towards creating change to meet the child’s needs.
Quite clearly the safety and weIl-being of children must be the priority. If a child continues to suffer, the reporter should keep on reporting. If the response to the call is unsatisfactory, the reporter should ask to speak to the duty officer and if that fails to provide protection for the child, the Chief Executive Officer of the department responsible for children’s safety and the Government Minister and Shadow Minister responsible for children. When a sexual crime has been committed, the police child sex abuse unit should be informed.
Staff training
Objectives for staff training should include being able to demonstrate a sound knowledge of:
legislation, regulations and guidelines for reporting abuse and neglect
what constitutes physical, emotional and sexual abuse and neglect
indicators of all forms of child maltreatment including indicators in children’s drawings
what to do when a colleague is suspected/accused of child abuse
understanding the effects of abuse and neglect on children’s development
how to differentiate between behaviour that constitutes normal sexual curiosity and behaviour suggesting that a child may have been abused
how to handle children’s problematic sexual behaviours
dynamics of child sex abuse and incest
grooming methods used by paedophiles to manipulate children and those responsible for their safety
risk management for group visits, home-stays and student exchanges
child protection curricula that is comprehensive, realistic and developmentally appropriate
how to talk to children and respond appropriately and supportively when abuse or neglect is disclosed or suspected
how to recognise and deal with personal emotions about abuse
resources available for children and families: where parents can find counselling and support after learning that abuse occurred
what happens after reporting and how the legal system works
where parents can find treatment for children with problematic sexual behaviours
how to protect vulnerable children with special needs and young people in state and residential care and boarding schools
cyber safety and risks to children
how to keep staff safe
Research by Hawkins and McCallum (2001) into the impact of training for reporting abuse showed the importance of recent training for teachers’ abilities to identify abuse, their awareness of their reporting responsibilities and their responses to children’s disclosures of abuse18. Tucci, Goddard and Mitchell (2001) also confirmed that professional support must be ongoing given that 75% of respondents in Victoria found it difficult to identify abuse and 63% experienced difficulty in knowing when to make a report. Further, in 64% of cases where professionals did report, they received no feedback whatsoever from the child protection service19.
Very young children are most frequently involved in reports of abuse
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Child Protection Australia annual reports have shown that more than one-third of children on child protection orders are aged less than four years.
Child sex offenders target young children because they are obedient and, if abuse is disclosed, there is little likelihood that they will be prosecuted and punished if there are no independent witnesses.
Schools and early childhood centres should have a greater role in child protection
Given that all social services are receiving more child abuse reports than they can investigate, social work academics now argue that schools should be more involved in family support20,21. They say that:
school approaches to child abuse prevention are most effective in the context of a whole-of-school “child safe policy” approach which offers a range of institutional supports to teachers working with children “at risk”
schools should be explicitly supported as a principal site of child abuse prevention and response in partnership with child welfare agencies
There is nothing new about this. England’s Plowden Report “Children and their Primary Schools” (HMSO – London 1967) introduced the value of parent participation in schools while the Halsey Report (HMSO, “Educational Priority”, 1972) and the work of Dr Eric Midwinter, resulted in funding for Educational Priority Schools in disadvantaged areas to serve and involve the community. Curricular changed to become community-relevant; for example maths lessons took place in post offices and butchers’ shops. Schools provided childcare, parent-education, health and social welfare services. Parents who dropped out of school prematurely were given the opportunity to study to gain admission to tertiary education or enrol in the Open University. Parent Centres with child care were established nationally to provide all of the necessary services to “at risk” families, many attending by order of a court.
South Australia again took the lead. Dingy school buildings in low socio-economic areas were renovated and given funding for innovative community ventures. Empty classrooms were allocated to parent groups for programmes to raise self-esteem and develop new skills. Parents published newsletters and arranged workshops on relevant topics. They were financially supported to attend further education courses (such as car maintenance) on the understanding that they came back to teach other parents what they learned. Unemployed fathers’ groups repaired church and school premises and community centres and gained skills that led to training and regular employment. When public facilities such as transport, footpaths and lighting were inadequate, officials were invited to meet complaining parents on school premises. Crèches were provided to enable overweight mothers to attend weight-loss programmes and enable single mothers to return to school. Parent volunteers were recruited to help speech therapists, new migrants, librarians and teachers in classrooms. Some told the author that the school had made them better parents. One said, “If I weren’t here I would be watching soapies on TV or out shop-lifting for things that tempt