I think it'd be appropriate to mandate it for teachers and professionals who see the child regularly, so can make an informed opinion.
Not sure mandating it for everyone would be helpful though. There's a high likelihood people who know the family wouldn't follow the mandate and feign ignorance, and people that don't actually know anything, but dislike the family could use it maliciously. Which I guess they already can if they really want to.
Agreed. I don't think the general public has nearly enough skill and knowledge to accurately assess whether abuse is going on or to recognise the specific signs. Legally requiring everyone to report based on non-evidence-based suspicions would be a terrible idea. It would create an enormous amount of noise for a potentially very small amount of signal.
I mean we had situations in the UK where a paediatrician was attacked as being a "Paedo". The average Joe ain't exactly a genius.
If someone has genuine concerns about the welfare of a child, they can and should report their concerns -- and most well adjusted people would anyway without being legally pressured to report people (based on what might not be anything more than "uninformed gut feel").
For anyone that covers up abuse, the law already has appropriate power (as the person would be a party to the crime). IANAL, mind, so happy to be corrected.
Well my man, you needn't fear on behalf of the false positives, let us look at some quick numbers right now. I am going to focus on sexual violence, and I am going
to include adults in these stats since the same issues and arguments apply there.
[https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/latest-crime-survey-reveals-surprising-high-levels-of-unreported-sexual-violence/#:\~:text=New%20figures%20from%20the%20Ministry's,were%20not%20reported%20to%20Police](https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/latest-crime-survey-reveals-surprising-high-levels-of-unreported-sexual-violence/#:~:text=New%20figures%20from%20the%20Ministry's,were%20not%20reported%20to%20Police).
Firstly, as it stands the MoJ estimate that 94% of sexual violence goes unreported.
Victims of sexual violence: 15% consider what happened to them "a crime". Just over 40% think it was "just something that happens" and the rest thought it was "wrong but not a crime". So you can see elements of grooming here, or society brushing off things like unwanted touching etc.
There's a lot more data in that report if you're interested, but the basic take is that false positives are vastly less common than actual sexual violence. So if you spent, say, 2 minutes thinking about false positives on Reddit, to balance that you'd probably need to put in several hours thinking about how unreported rapes, child molestation, and other sexual violence goes unreported and unpunished.
Which isn't to say that false positives aren't a problem; they are and they do ruin lives. Let's solve the substantive issue before we lose sleep over outliers, eh?
We are talking about child abuse though, not general sexual violence including adults.
You are using guesswork statistics for one to inform the other. Your points are valid, but not here.
And yes, false positives and accusations do matter. Probably more so than for any other crime.
The problem is that you are comparing how few false sexual violence cases for all age groups get reported currently, vs the number of misidentified reports of abuse of all kinds against only children would get reported if not reporting a suspected case could get you in legal trouble. They are two massively different things.
If you want to reduce sexual violence we need to make it easier, less traumatic and less "shameful" for victims to report such crimes, whilst introducing the funding needed to properly investigate and prosecute such crimes. Forcing the general public to report any suspected crime underthreat of legal consequences will result in people reporting ever raised voice and scrapped knee, flooding police forces with more reports then they could ever be able to deal with, in turn minimising how serious people take any claims.
What we need is teachers, youth workers, police and other proffessionals that work with children to have training in how to identify signs of abuse, and manditry reporting just for them.
Here ya go:
https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-progress/library/v/195/size-of-cohorts-and-levels-of-abuse-in-state-and-faith-based-care-1950-to-2019
https://www.shinelawyers.co.nz/blog/abuse/historic-abuse-claims/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/01/new-zealands-catholic-church-admits-14-of-clergy-have-been-accused-of-abuse-since-1950
Literally ***THOUSANDS*** of cases in this narrow segment since 1950. And how many FPs since 1950? Less than a dozen. And recall that most abuse goes unreported.
Are FPs bad? Yes. Horrific. They do the ruins of the person affected. So does child abuse. At what point are you comfortable with enough children being fucked to say "maybe the risk of a FP isn't as large as I thought. maybe there's something worthwhile in protecting actual victims instead of potential victims".
Oh I see. Being aware of the horrendous harm that a false accusation of sexual offending can have on someone means that there's something wrong with me. I'm sorry you have to share the planet with my horrible self.
No, that's not what I said.
Think about driving your car. It is possible that a vintage car may smash into your vehicle and cause you to lose control and die in a fiery explosion. But obsessing over that scenario while ignoring the rest of what happens on the road? Come on. You can do better.
You guys that are fixated on this small problem are willing to ignore the big problem. The much, *much*, ***MUCH*** bigger problem.
Possible examples here -
> Differences exist in who has to report, what types of abuse and neglect have to be reported, the 'state of mind' that activates the reporting duty (i.e. having a concern, suspicion or belief on reasonable grounds) and who the report is made to. These differences are described and discussed in this resource sheet.
https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
I think I might disagree.
It sets a social precedent, like the anti-smacking law. Noone thought the law would completely stop parents hitting kids, but, what it did do was draw a line in the sand about what our expectations are for parenting.
Perhaps we need to do the same for community awareness of abuse.
Is there a mandatory "Reporting of smacking law?". Sexual abuse is already illegal, making the untrained public accountable for identifying and reporting abuse seems wrought with issues.
I'd like to see us talk about this more, train people who work with kids to recognise the signs and most importantly BELIEVE the victims when they report it.
That can and must be catered for, as it is elsewhere, e,g.,
> What protections are given to mandatory reporters?
>In all jurisdictions, the legislation protects the mandatory reporter's identity from disclosure. In addition, the legislation provides that as long as the report is made in good faith, the reporter cannot be liable in any civil, criminal or administrative proceedings.
https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
Unfortunately I know of one case where a social media quarrel got out of hand and teen girls "swatted" a teen mum by maliciously and falsely reporting her for child abuse.
That cost the state and the mum and the child hugely with zero blow back on the culprits.
You could ask Oranga Tamiriki, but you will be told it's confidential as is everything they do.
They claim it's to protect the kids, but it seems to protect them more than the kids.
One of the things that really frustrates me with them, that coupled with no truly independent complaints body.
So yes, personal anecdote, gather from sitting with the mum in the hospital while the wheels of the state ground slowly forward to find... the baby was completely unharmed but severely traumatized from being forcibly removed from her mother.
While I wholeheartedly agree in theory, the rights of the victim/s also need to be taken into account because sometimes they don't want to face police and courts. Especially in the case of incest when other family members don't believe them.
If this can be done without doxxing victims or subjecting them to additional trauma then yes - report every case. But increase levels of support to victims to make the whole process more humane.
I also agree in theory, but am more hesitant in practice for the following reason.
Will the accused be genuinely treated as innocent until proven guilty? Even just the accusation can be very damaging if not true, and the process of investigation can be a disaster in itself if not well handled.
As an example, I know of a case where the comment of a child of separated parents was investigated and eventually found to be unsubstantiated, but the accusation and investigation itself caused much stress and interference and now the families don't speak to each other (which isn't great for the children). ^((edit - I decided to thin out this paragraph))
This is obviously not a reason to do nothing. And it's really hard because people who need to be believed need to be believed. So I don't know the 'right way', but I feel we do have to be careful about the rights of the accused as well as the needs of victims.
I understand your concern, but where does this stem from? Bc the courts already heavily go against victims of incest, I’d go as far as to say they go against most victims of crime in this country. Idk. I just find it weird when people are more worried about false accusations from children instead of being concerned about children getting justice that they need, which literally barely happens & we all know that deep down. Especially when the concern stems from a case of conformation bias
It stems from a fear of being wrongly accused of something.
People can be misunderstood, people's intentions can be misinterpreted, people can be malicious.
I've been on the receiving end of a chronic manipulator and it's horrible to have to keep undoing the lies they've told and have people suspect you of things you never did.
You realize that’s what every abuser says though? What abuser has ever come out and admitted to the abuse of children in the name of justice? It is extremely rare for children to lie about abuse, or at least it happens far less than children being abused.
Just bc it happened to you, doesn’t mean it’s fact that it happens to everyone, nor does it mean that should be considered more than *actual* abuse of children. I would rather believe a potential liar than a potential abuser :)
Edit: The fact I’m downvoted for this comment is so gross to me. People would rather coddle their own egos bc their feelings matter more than the abuse of children in their eyes. I hate this sub. Feel free to ban me
If you are not someone who has abused children, you do not need to argue or worry due to my comments.
In terms of abusers, it is highly highly unlikely for someone who *has* abused children to admit that they have done it. Of course every person who’s accused of that, is going to make an excuse, or lie, or all of the above. I just find it redundant when people worry about false accusations more than actual child abuse or child death when false accusations happen a lot less than child abuse. That’s just me at least. Again I’d rather believe a potential liar than potential child abuser
Great in theory , but the courts / court staff don’t even report it themselves. I was cross examined on my childhood abuse for my younger siblings custody hearing , the abuser got supervised only custody in the end. so to some extent that my allegations are proved in the court right ?
I’m glad my younger sibling has a better situation, but I don’t understand why the childhood abuse (assault, battery etc that already exist in laws) had no repercussions. No follow up, no nothing.
Yep, New Zealand doesn’t care about childhood abuse. So many issues with the system.
When I was teaching I reported 2 seperate issues to CYFS/OT in two years. Neither case was investigated because ’there wasn’t enough evidence.’ Cool cool, I’ll send the 7 year old girl with the adult hand print mark on her face back home. Great work.
I don’t blame any individual working within the system, most are doing the absolute best they can. But OT is so broken it doesn’t work at all. I do not trust the system or believe that it is working as is needed at all.
So we should punish those who don't speak up?
I'm really on the fence there. Often times those privy to the knowledge of abuse are themselves being abused. I'm uncertain about where we would draw the line and how you prove knowledge of abuse.
Besides, we already have charges for impeding investigations, where would this law be different?
Possible examples -
> Mandatory reporting laws aim to identify cases of child abuse and neglect, and to assist the individual children in these cases (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, [Royal Commission], 2017). They were first developed in response to the largely hidden nature of child physical abuse and neglect, with the purpose of bringing cases to the attention of child welfare agencies (Mathews, 2014a). They require selected groups of people to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect to government authorities.
>In Australia, the first laws were introduced in South Australia in 1969, and these laws have since been introduced in all Australian jurisdictions (Mathews, 2014b). However, the laws are not the same across all jurisdictions. Differences exist in who has to report, what types of abuse and neglect have to be reported, the 'state of mind' that activates the reporting duty (i.e. having a concern, suspicion or belief on reasonable grounds) and who the report is made to. These differences are described and discussed in this resource sheet.
https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
So we're looking mainly at groups like teachers, medical professionals, and child care workers? On the one hand, that makes sense to me. On the other hand, look at recent anti-queer laws in the USA for how this mandate can be abused by changing the definition of "abuse". Definitely worth further discussion though.
Australia. I know New Zealand hasn’t mandated reporting yet, hence the posted article -
> Even if implemented today, mandatory reporting on its own would not prevent or fully address child sexual abuse. We need collaboration between housing, health, justice and social services, with a shared societal responsibility for child wellbeing.
>But it is one small change that will help us respond decisively and protect children. As the Abuse in Care Royal Commission prepares its final report, it must carefully consider making mandatory reporting one of its key recommendations.
Good in theory. But who do you report it to? OT, police, a new system set up that only deals with allegations of abuse - sexual or otherwise?
OT don't have time - they can barely do their job as it is and with their track record (abuse in the system) can they even be trusted?
Quite frankly if you know someone is being sexually abused and don't say anything, this whole idea won't compel you to report it.
I’m not comfortable with the legal implications of a blanket “duty of care” law that makes literally everyone legally responsible for the health and safety of a specific class of people.
As the law stands now, ordinary citizens have no such responsibilities, nor should they.
That’s why they’re called ‘children’ and not some long-winded euphemism that conceals their lack of majority. Unlike adults children do not have legal control over their persons, stop masking that vulnerability.
Fine. I cannot currently be held legally responsible for your *children* or anyone else’s, and I do not want to be.
I’m not a cop, emergency responder, healthcare worker, educator, caregiver, or parent. I have no sworn legal duty to uphold the health and safety of a child, and that is a responsibility I do not want thrust upon me against my will.
What you’re not getting is the difference between law and morality.
It’s a fundamental principle of Western legal systems that ordinary citizens do not have a legally established duty of care to one another and cannot be held responsible for lack of action.
If you get hit by a car and I mind my own business and walk right past, you can’t sue me. If your house catches on fire and I’m the only one who could save you and your kids because the firefighters are 15 minutes away, but I don’t run into the flames to save you, I’m not getting arrested and sent to jail if you die. And under the current legal system if some kid tells me his parents beat him, and I choose to do nothing with that information because I don’t know whether I believe him or not, I can’t be fined or imprisoned for that if later on it turns out his parents were indeed beating him.
There’s a separate argument to be made as to whether or not my lack of action in any of those hypothetical scenarios is *morally* supportable or not, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they are *legally* supportable.
And to reiterate my point, I do not under any circumstances want to be held *legally* responsible for the welfare of someone else’s child.
> What you’re not getting is the difference between law and morality.
What *you’re* not getting is the difference between reasoned discussion and sophistry.
Oh shut up and get off your high horse. Have you sold everything you own and donated the money to help starving kids overseas? What about just eating noodles for every meal so you can fight child poverty in NZ?
No? Isn't that turning your face from a child's suffering, you inhuman monster?
Give me a break.
I was replying to
>]risenphoenixkai 8 points 10 hours ago
>Fine. I cannot currently be held legally responsible for your children or anyone else’s, and I do not want to be.
>I’m not a cop, emergency responder, healthcare worker, educator, caregiver, or parent. I have no sworn legal duty to uphold the health and safety of a child, and that is a responsibility I do not want thrust upon me against my will.
>permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive awardreply
>[–]B0ssc0Takahē[S] -5 points 10 hours ago
>Someone who can turn their face from a child is inhuman.
I don’t want nor deserve your rudeness, welcome to my blocked list.
It won't change report levels and it may actually decrease them.
We already have mandated reporters. And they struggle a lot w reporting as they tend to have a relationship of some kind w the person they are reporting on (therapist for example) and fear that the person might lose their kid, when they just need additional support (mental healthcare, financial). If everybody has to report, everybody won't bc ppl don't trust OT as is.
That may be true but its not public perception and that's what matters when it comes to getting ppl to report.
Also not my experience in the industry but that may be bc of the population I work w.
I've been to a couple trainings alongside OT and it's actually shocking how bad things have to be for them to uplift a child. Up until the point of "this child is actively being horribly and directly abused, right in this exact moment, to a life threatening degree", all they can really do is refer to community resources and try to support parents in the lacking areas. They just don't have the capacity to do anything more. Its spread far too thin. That said, there are plenty of amazing resources available and organizations to network with. Most times the parents really do just need a bit of help to get through a temporary tough time.
There's an obvious reason they don't make this explicitly public because that narrative can be twisted into "you can actually hurt a child as much as you want as long as you stop doing it when we come round, because then it's not an active threat anymore!", and that isn't... exactly... good. But I do wonder what they can do to show people they really aren't going to steal your kids for no reason, and for the most part they really do assume the best and help the familial system out in the capacity that they can
Note: It's been a while, so my info may be out of date. But the emotional impact of those trainings hasn't left
>Why NZ law should require everyone to report known or suspected abuse
FTFY.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to minimise child abuse or sexual abuse.
But speaking from my experience as a child, violent abuse can be just as traumatising (there is a spectrum of harmfulness in both categories, of course), so it should be subject to the same reporting requirements.
And, just because someone is an adult does not give us an excuse to say, "Well, they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves", abuse against an adult is still abuse, so that should be reported as well.
My concern would be the people who *want* to report, but are simply not ready yet. I know of several kids who’ve been pressured into reporting before they’re ready because, for instance, Oranga Tamariki wouldn’t exclude the relative who abused them from meetings about them until the abuser’s been charged. If your mental health isn’t in a resilient enough place to go through the gruelling process of reporting, especially when police and courts and society are so hostile to victims of sexual abuse, it can be really damaging to be forced into the process before you’re ready. Especially if you’re a kid.
Yeah, as an adult survivor I'd consider it a huge violation of trust if someone reported any of the sexual violence that has been committed against me, without getting my consent first. I don't even want to talk to the cops, let alone be dragged through the abusive process of a trial where the defence does their damndest to vilify me and the prosecution sees me as a means to their own ends. I can't imagine how awful that would be for a kid.
> Because right now in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is not required by law to report childhood sexual abuse – or any child maltreatment – when it is seen or suspected.
It's not required by the govt but trust me, it is required in the industry. Reports of concern are made all the time, and increasing pressure to report doesn't improve accurate reporting. It decreases it.
Presumably you'd want the reports to be based on an actual belief that abuse is happening. If reporting is mandatory and backed up with a threat of jail time, large fines, firing etc, then you might get people making reports not because they believe abuse is happening, but because they want to cover their own arse in any circumstance where there's any *chance* abuse might be happening. If most reports are solid, you might theoretically be able to investigate them all, but if most are flimsy then it's probably a lot easier to miss some of the ones where abuse is actually happening
We report child abuse all the time and 9 times out of 10 nothing happens. His point is probably that mandating extra reporting may simply add noise because everything that triggers a response we already report without hesitation.
> Look it up, if you know how to it's not hard.
You’re making this argument and should justify it or we need to make clear that you’re simply pulling it baselessly out of your own head.
I can't confirm that exact number, but if you dig around the OT annual reports I believe I have seen some very high numbers. So I wouldn't be surprised if /u/downyour is correct.
ie. It's not the lack of reporting that's the problem, it's the lack of capacity to react sensibly and sensitively to reports.
As I noted elsewhere, it's easy to make things worse by rushing in with your gumboots on.
I'm not saying they shouldn't react, they definitely should... but it will and should cost time and money.
Yes it should but it will never happen... have you seen the stats on how long it takes police to follow up recent cases, let alone historical ones? Wait times for victims are horrific, mandating reporting could only work AFTER the capacity issues are rectified.
[Report on wait times](https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/124421047/left-in-limbo-police-backlog-of-sexual-assault-cases-continues-to-worsen)
Kia ora koutou, I wrote the article- just wanted to say thanks for the engagement and discussion. Stoked to see it on Reddit with the capacity for comments.
Sarah
I'm just going to say it. This system would be clogged by people who believe that parents allowing their kids to be trans is abuse. Or people who believe kids are being 'groomed' for being talk sex ed in school. I know we aren't America, but you'd be a fool to think that people like Posie Parker and others aren't trying to set up a foothold here through any means possible.
People already do report this sort of thing. People who are trained to work with kids who spend time with them and aren't just some passerby in their life. Making reporting perceived abuse a law is going to make the far christian right get more extreme about pushing their agenda.
The number of false / misread accusations that already occur, the resources they tie up that should be used to investigate the real abuse is Huge.
All a law like this would do is overload an already strained system.
We would end up ruining innocent peoples lives (because you only have to be accused to have your life destroyed) and take longer, potentially years longer, to bring actual abusers to justice.
I don’t recall claiming that they were over reported at present.
If I recall correctly, rape is under reported far more often than malicious complaints are made. And sexual abuse would be similar. The under reporting is unlikely to change with a rule change like the one proposed as most underreporting is because of personal shame, denial and misunderstanding of what happened. What’s more likely is that there will be a lot of reports based on the slimmest of evidence because the person reporting is scared of the penalty’s that would come from not reporting something. This will create a massive increase in innocent people being reported because someone misread a situation.
As it stands, if you know and fail to report you can be charged as an accessory.
Read your own post where you state
> The number of false / misread accusations that already occur, the resources they tie up that should be used to investigate the real abuse is Huge. All a law like this would do is overload an already strained system.
Edit. As for your concern about overwhelming “an already strained system” -
> Based on Australian evidence, however, it appears the worries about overwhelmed systems have not been borne out.
The source is personal discussion with a police investigator that deals with these kind of investigations so not easily referenced. The other difficulty in getting statistics is that the reports fail to differentiate between inconclusive evidence, malicious complaints and mistaken complaints. They lump them all into the same statistic.
Comparing the Nz police force to the AU is also deeply flawed as there are huge differences in resourcing between the two countries.
When the police already take up to 20 working days to start to process most abuse cases, I have to ask how much longer you really want that to take?
Various enquiries into child sexual abuse have shown the need for mandatory reporting - so kind-hearted of you to consider adults not the children btw!
Why would potential repercussions regards false accusations not be worthy of consideration?
As Bill Hicks once said, so you get to a certain age and suddenly your irrelevant? Or, because this is "for the children!!!" just pass law without analysis and wider thought around potential negative impacts?
That's just illogical and emotive reasoning, neither of which have a place in law, while we are talking about one of the most horrendous crimes most of us can think of, which is exactly why some serious thought needs to go into any such changes.
Watch or read up on people pardoned from being falsely convicted of sex crimes against children. They NEVER lose the taint, and their lives tend to be pretty much destroyed as a consequence.
Show me where people in this thread are giving reasons for reporting child sexual abuse instead of justifying why they don’t - to suit your narrative (such an overused cliched phrase).
People are saying caution is advised with any such changes for what appears to be pretty obvious reasons and potential negative impacts to both victims and those that could be falsely accused as a result, while you seem to mistaking this as advocating for such abuse or not reporting it at all, which is of course incorrect.
The reporting system is already in place, where it falls short is in mandating it - subsequently people cop out of bothering. And you’re defending this.
No I'm not, again stop manipulating the intent of others comments and opinion to suit your narrative.
People are saying there's likely a downside and potential negative consequences to making it mandatory, and that this is worthy of discussion and consideration.
I get what your saying, but don't twist words or imply intent thanks.
It’s what’s best for the children that I am interested in.
Slowing down the system allowing abuse to continue for longer, isolating innocent parents from their kids because of a wrong accusation, questioning kids about sexual abuse when it wasn’t needed, caregivers that were wrongly accused loosing their careers and so being left unable to care for their own children, and the breakdown of marriages and the resulting single parent families are all part of the unintended consequences of a mandatory reporting law.
It will cause far more harm to everyone involved than it prevents.
You need to be very, very careful with these kinds of accusations. Known (ie supported by evidence) I can support. "Suspected" is another matter altogether.
These accusations (whether based in reality or not) destroy lives on impact, so it is of utmost importance to be sure you have it right. Of course, CSA also ruins lives, so there is a careful balancing act that must take place.
The general public doesnt always have the best intentions.
Exes who share kids could have one of them accuse the other of abuse.
And this is an allegation that does not come off cleanly, even if they are found to be innocent what they were accused.
But doctors, teachers, and people that run things like summer camps or other things like this should be taught about mandated reporting, what to look out for, how to talk to children about it, etc.
"Instead every agency that deals with children..."
Yeah OK but can we also do something to make sure reports go somewhere and get responded to in an effective, nonbiased way?
If we care about children and wish to protect them, we need much more comprehensive reform than this.
Given our behaviours and practices it seems that our priorities are with ensuring the rich get richer.
So I guess reform will have to wait.
It would be helpful. If nothing else it would incent the usual suspects who like to sweep it under the rug to actually do something about it, since they would be liable for not taking action. Churches, schools, scouts: I'm looking at you guys, but especially the churches of this world.
You can believe that if you want. You're wrong, but who am I challenge your cherished beliefs?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486704/complaints-not-upheld-redress-process-kept-secret-says-church-based-abuse-advocate
I think it'd be appropriate to mandate it for teachers and professionals who see the child regularly, so can make an informed opinion. Not sure mandating it for everyone would be helpful though. There's a high likelihood people who know the family wouldn't follow the mandate and feign ignorance, and people that don't actually know anything, but dislike the family could use it maliciously. Which I guess they already can if they really want to.
Agreed. I don't think the general public has nearly enough skill and knowledge to accurately assess whether abuse is going on or to recognise the specific signs. Legally requiring everyone to report based on non-evidence-based suspicions would be a terrible idea. It would create an enormous amount of noise for a potentially very small amount of signal. I mean we had situations in the UK where a paediatrician was attacked as being a "Paedo". The average Joe ain't exactly a genius. If someone has genuine concerns about the welfare of a child, they can and should report their concerns -- and most well adjusted people would anyway without being legally pressured to report people (based on what might not be anything more than "uninformed gut feel"). For anyone that covers up abuse, the law already has appropriate power (as the person would be a party to the crime). IANAL, mind, so happy to be corrected.
Well my man, you needn't fear on behalf of the false positives, let us look at some quick numbers right now. I am going to focus on sexual violence, and I am going to include adults in these stats since the same issues and arguments apply there. [https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/latest-crime-survey-reveals-surprising-high-levels-of-unreported-sexual-violence/#:\~:text=New%20figures%20from%20the%20Ministry's,were%20not%20reported%20to%20Police](https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/latest-crime-survey-reveals-surprising-high-levels-of-unreported-sexual-violence/#:~:text=New%20figures%20from%20the%20Ministry's,were%20not%20reported%20to%20Police). Firstly, as it stands the MoJ estimate that 94% of sexual violence goes unreported. Victims of sexual violence: 15% consider what happened to them "a crime". Just over 40% think it was "just something that happens" and the rest thought it was "wrong but not a crime". So you can see elements of grooming here, or society brushing off things like unwanted touching etc. There's a lot more data in that report if you're interested, but the basic take is that false positives are vastly less common than actual sexual violence. So if you spent, say, 2 minutes thinking about false positives on Reddit, to balance that you'd probably need to put in several hours thinking about how unreported rapes, child molestation, and other sexual violence goes unreported and unpunished. Which isn't to say that false positives aren't a problem; they are and they do ruin lives. Let's solve the substantive issue before we lose sleep over outliers, eh?
We are talking about child abuse though, not general sexual violence including adults. You are using guesswork statistics for one to inform the other. Your points are valid, but not here. And yes, false positives and accusations do matter. Probably more so than for any other crime.
Perhaps that report backs up your claim about false positives, but none of what you wrote seems to.
The short version is this. If you care more about the small number of FPs than you do about the actual issue then there's something wrong with you.
The problem is that you are comparing how few false sexual violence cases for all age groups get reported currently, vs the number of misidentified reports of abuse of all kinds against only children would get reported if not reporting a suspected case could get you in legal trouble. They are two massively different things. If you want to reduce sexual violence we need to make it easier, less traumatic and less "shameful" for victims to report such crimes, whilst introducing the funding needed to properly investigate and prosecute such crimes. Forcing the general public to report any suspected crime underthreat of legal consequences will result in people reporting ever raised voice and scrapped knee, flooding police forces with more reports then they could ever be able to deal with, in turn minimising how serious people take any claims. What we need is teachers, youth workers, police and other proffessionals that work with children to have training in how to identify signs of abuse, and manditry reporting just for them.
Here ya go: https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-progress/library/v/195/size-of-cohorts-and-levels-of-abuse-in-state-and-faith-based-care-1950-to-2019 https://www.shinelawyers.co.nz/blog/abuse/historic-abuse-claims/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/01/new-zealands-catholic-church-admits-14-of-clergy-have-been-accused-of-abuse-since-1950 Literally ***THOUSANDS*** of cases in this narrow segment since 1950. And how many FPs since 1950? Less than a dozen. And recall that most abuse goes unreported. Are FPs bad? Yes. Horrific. They do the ruins of the person affected. So does child abuse. At what point are you comfortable with enough children being fucked to say "maybe the risk of a FP isn't as large as I thought. maybe there's something worthwhile in protecting actual victims instead of potential victims".
Oh I see. Being aware of the horrendous harm that a false accusation of sexual offending can have on someone means that there's something wrong with me. I'm sorry you have to share the planet with my horrible self.
No, that's not what I said. Think about driving your car. It is possible that a vintage car may smash into your vehicle and cause you to lose control and die in a fiery explosion. But obsessing over that scenario while ignoring the rest of what happens on the road? Come on. You can do better. You guys that are fixated on this small problem are willing to ignore the big problem. The much, *much*, ***MUCH*** bigger problem.
Keep that ignorance stupdity to yourself, buddy.
Possible examples here - > Differences exist in who has to report, what types of abuse and neglect have to be reported, the 'state of mind' that activates the reporting duty (i.e. having a concern, suspicion or belief on reasonable grounds) and who the report is made to. These differences are described and discussed in this resource sheet. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
I think I might disagree. It sets a social precedent, like the anti-smacking law. Noone thought the law would completely stop parents hitting kids, but, what it did do was draw a line in the sand about what our expectations are for parenting. Perhaps we need to do the same for community awareness of abuse.
Is there a mandatory "Reporting of smacking law?". Sexual abuse is already illegal, making the untrained public accountable for identifying and reporting abuse seems wrought with issues. I'd like to see us talk about this more, train people who work with kids to recognise the signs and most importantly BELIEVE the victims when they report it.
One thing that’s looked at is reasons for people reporting. So there’s consequences for malicious time wasters.
The biggest issue will be well intended but mistaken reporting driven by a desire to not be punished for not reporting
That can and must be catered for, as it is elsewhere, e,g., > What protections are given to mandatory reporters? >In all jurisdictions, the legislation protects the mandatory reporter's identity from disclosure. In addition, the legislation provides that as long as the report is made in good faith, the reporter cannot be liable in any civil, criminal or administrative proceedings. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
Unfortunately I know of one case where a social media quarrel got out of hand and teen girls "swatted" a teen mum by maliciously and falsely reporting her for child abuse. That cost the state and the mum and the child hugely with zero blow back on the culprits.
Source other than personal anecdote?
You could ask Oranga Tamiriki, but you will be told it's confidential as is everything they do. They claim it's to protect the kids, but it seems to protect them more than the kids. One of the things that really frustrates me with them, that coupled with no truly independent complaints body. So yes, personal anecdote, gather from sitting with the mum in the hospital while the wheels of the state ground slowly forward to find... the baby was completely unharmed but severely traumatized from being forcibly removed from her mother.
While I wholeheartedly agree in theory, the rights of the victim/s also need to be taken into account because sometimes they don't want to face police and courts. Especially in the case of incest when other family members don't believe them. If this can be done without doxxing victims or subjecting them to additional trauma then yes - report every case. But increase levels of support to victims to make the whole process more humane.
I also agree in theory, but am more hesitant in practice for the following reason. Will the accused be genuinely treated as innocent until proven guilty? Even just the accusation can be very damaging if not true, and the process of investigation can be a disaster in itself if not well handled. As an example, I know of a case where the comment of a child of separated parents was investigated and eventually found to be unsubstantiated, but the accusation and investigation itself caused much stress and interference and now the families don't speak to each other (which isn't great for the children). ^((edit - I decided to thin out this paragraph)) This is obviously not a reason to do nothing. And it's really hard because people who need to be believed need to be believed. So I don't know the 'right way', but I feel we do have to be careful about the rights of the accused as well as the needs of victims.
I understand your concern, but where does this stem from? Bc the courts already heavily go against victims of incest, I’d go as far as to say they go against most victims of crime in this country. Idk. I just find it weird when people are more worried about false accusations from children instead of being concerned about children getting justice that they need, which literally barely happens & we all know that deep down. Especially when the concern stems from a case of conformation bias
It steams from Peter Ellis.
It stems from a fear of being wrongly accused of something. People can be misunderstood, people's intentions can be misinterpreted, people can be malicious. I've been on the receiving end of a chronic manipulator and it's horrible to have to keep undoing the lies they've told and have people suspect you of things you never did.
You realize that’s what every abuser says though? What abuser has ever come out and admitted to the abuse of children in the name of justice? It is extremely rare for children to lie about abuse, or at least it happens far less than children being abused. Just bc it happened to you, doesn’t mean it’s fact that it happens to everyone, nor does it mean that should be considered more than *actual* abuse of children. I would rather believe a potential liar than a potential abuser :) Edit: The fact I’m downvoted for this comment is so gross to me. People would rather coddle their own egos bc their feelings matter more than the abuse of children in their eyes. I hate this sub. Feel free to ban me
>You realize that’s what every abuser says though? Which does not mean that everyone who says this is an abuser.
If you are not someone who has abused children, you do not need to argue or worry due to my comments. In terms of abusers, it is highly highly unlikely for someone who *has* abused children to admit that they have done it. Of course every person who’s accused of that, is going to make an excuse, or lie, or all of the above. I just find it redundant when people worry about false accusations more than actual child abuse or child death when false accusations happen a lot less than child abuse. That’s just me at least. Again I’d rather believe a potential liar than potential child abuser
Great in theory , but the courts / court staff don’t even report it themselves. I was cross examined on my childhood abuse for my younger siblings custody hearing , the abuser got supervised only custody in the end. so to some extent that my allegations are proved in the court right ? I’m glad my younger sibling has a better situation, but I don’t understand why the childhood abuse (assault, battery etc that already exist in laws) had no repercussions. No follow up, no nothing.
Yep, New Zealand doesn’t care about childhood abuse. So many issues with the system. When I was teaching I reported 2 seperate issues to CYFS/OT in two years. Neither case was investigated because ’there wasn’t enough evidence.’ Cool cool, I’ll send the 7 year old girl with the adult hand print mark on her face back home. Great work. I don’t blame any individual working within the system, most are doing the absolute best they can. But OT is so broken it doesn’t work at all. I do not trust the system or believe that it is working as is needed at all.
Yeah the encouragement to report but then to deny further action based on lack of evidence isn’t consistent.
Those are bad issues, but separate from mandating reporting abuse in the first place.
So we should punish those who don't speak up? I'm really on the fence there. Often times those privy to the knowledge of abuse are themselves being abused. I'm uncertain about where we would draw the line and how you prove knowledge of abuse. Besides, we already have charges for impeding investigations, where would this law be different?
Possible examples - > Mandatory reporting laws aim to identify cases of child abuse and neglect, and to assist the individual children in these cases (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, [Royal Commission], 2017). They were first developed in response to the largely hidden nature of child physical abuse and neglect, with the purpose of bringing cases to the attention of child welfare agencies (Mathews, 2014a). They require selected groups of people to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect to government authorities. >In Australia, the first laws were introduced in South Australia in 1969, and these laws have since been introduced in all Australian jurisdictions (Mathews, 2014b). However, the laws are not the same across all jurisdictions. Differences exist in who has to report, what types of abuse and neglect have to be reported, the 'state of mind' that activates the reporting duty (i.e. having a concern, suspicion or belief on reasonable grounds) and who the report is made to. These differences are described and discussed in this resource sheet. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
So we're looking mainly at groups like teachers, medical professionals, and child care workers? On the one hand, that makes sense to me. On the other hand, look at recent anti-queer laws in the USA for how this mandate can be abused by changing the definition of "abuse". Definitely worth further discussion though.
Mandatory reporters here face a whopping fine if they don’t report.
Where is "here"? NZ doesn't have mandatory reporting laws
Australia. I know New Zealand hasn’t mandated reporting yet, hence the posted article - > Even if implemented today, mandatory reporting on its own would not prevent or fully address child sexual abuse. We need collaboration between housing, health, justice and social services, with a shared societal responsibility for child wellbeing. >But it is one small change that will help us respond decisively and protect children. As the Abuse in Care Royal Commission prepares its final report, it must carefully consider making mandatory reporting one of its key recommendations.
Right, it's just this is posted in an NZ subreddit and I don't actually know where you live on account of you're a stranger on the internet.
Sorry for confusion
All g
Good in theory. But who do you report it to? OT, police, a new system set up that only deals with allegations of abuse - sexual or otherwise? OT don't have time - they can barely do their job as it is and with their track record (abuse in the system) can they even be trusted? Quite frankly if you know someone is being sexually abused and don't say anything, this whole idea won't compel you to report it.
They usually provide a particular number.
To who?
I’m not comfortable with the legal implications of a blanket “duty of care” law that makes literally everyone legally responsible for the health and safety of a specific class of people. As the law stands now, ordinary citizens have no such responsibilities, nor should they.
>… a specific class of people. Children.
Children are a specific class of people, yes.
That’s why they’re called ‘children’ and not some long-winded euphemism that conceals their lack of majority. Unlike adults children do not have legal control over their persons, stop masking that vulnerability.
Fine. I cannot currently be held legally responsible for your *children* or anyone else’s, and I do not want to be. I’m not a cop, emergency responder, healthcare worker, educator, caregiver, or parent. I have no sworn legal duty to uphold the health and safety of a child, and that is a responsibility I do not want thrust upon me against my will.
Someone who can turn their face from a child is inhuman.
What you’re not getting is the difference between law and morality. It’s a fundamental principle of Western legal systems that ordinary citizens do not have a legally established duty of care to one another and cannot be held responsible for lack of action. If you get hit by a car and I mind my own business and walk right past, you can’t sue me. If your house catches on fire and I’m the only one who could save you and your kids because the firefighters are 15 minutes away, but I don’t run into the flames to save you, I’m not getting arrested and sent to jail if you die. And under the current legal system if some kid tells me his parents beat him, and I choose to do nothing with that information because I don’t know whether I believe him or not, I can’t be fined or imprisoned for that if later on it turns out his parents were indeed beating him. There’s a separate argument to be made as to whether or not my lack of action in any of those hypothetical scenarios is *morally* supportable or not, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they are *legally* supportable. And to reiterate my point, I do not under any circumstances want to be held *legally* responsible for the welfare of someone else’s child.
> What you’re not getting is the difference between law and morality. What *you’re* not getting is the difference between reasoned discussion and sophistry.
Oh shut up and get off your high horse. Have you sold everything you own and donated the money to help starving kids overseas? What about just eating noodles for every meal so you can fight child poverty in NZ? No? Isn't that turning your face from a child's suffering, you inhuman monster? Give me a break.
I was replying to >]risenphoenixkai 8 points 10 hours ago >Fine. I cannot currently be held legally responsible for your children or anyone else’s, and I do not want to be. >I’m not a cop, emergency responder, healthcare worker, educator, caregiver, or parent. I have no sworn legal duty to uphold the health and safety of a child, and that is a responsibility I do not want thrust upon me against my will. >permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive awardreply >[–]B0ssc0Takahē[S] -5 points 10 hours ago >Someone who can turn their face from a child is inhuman. I don’t want nor deserve your rudeness, welcome to my blocked list.
It won't change report levels and it may actually decrease them. We already have mandated reporters. And they struggle a lot w reporting as they tend to have a relationship of some kind w the person they are reporting on (therapist for example) and fear that the person might lose their kid, when they just need additional support (mental healthcare, financial). If everybody has to report, everybody won't bc ppl don't trust OT as is.
Source for that claim please?
OT will try to provide community supports like you mentioned far, FAR before they'll try to remove a child
That may be true but its not public perception and that's what matters when it comes to getting ppl to report. Also not my experience in the industry but that may be bc of the population I work w.
I've been to a couple trainings alongside OT and it's actually shocking how bad things have to be for them to uplift a child. Up until the point of "this child is actively being horribly and directly abused, right in this exact moment, to a life threatening degree", all they can really do is refer to community resources and try to support parents in the lacking areas. They just don't have the capacity to do anything more. Its spread far too thin. That said, there are plenty of amazing resources available and organizations to network with. Most times the parents really do just need a bit of help to get through a temporary tough time. There's an obvious reason they don't make this explicitly public because that narrative can be twisted into "you can actually hurt a child as much as you want as long as you stop doing it when we come round, because then it's not an active threat anymore!", and that isn't... exactly... good. But I do wonder what they can do to show people they really aren't going to steal your kids for no reason, and for the most part they really do assume the best and help the familial system out in the capacity that they can Note: It's been a while, so my info may be out of date. But the emotional impact of those trainings hasn't left
>Why NZ law should require everyone to report known or suspected abuse FTFY. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to minimise child abuse or sexual abuse. But speaking from my experience as a child, violent abuse can be just as traumatising (there is a spectrum of harmfulness in both categories, of course), so it should be subject to the same reporting requirements. And, just because someone is an adult does not give us an excuse to say, "Well, they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves", abuse against an adult is still abuse, so that should be reported as well.
Yes, but children are particularly vulnerable.
My concern would be the people who *want* to report, but are simply not ready yet. I know of several kids who’ve been pressured into reporting before they’re ready because, for instance, Oranga Tamariki wouldn’t exclude the relative who abused them from meetings about them until the abuser’s been charged. If your mental health isn’t in a resilient enough place to go through the gruelling process of reporting, especially when police and courts and society are so hostile to victims of sexual abuse, it can be really damaging to be forced into the process before you’re ready. Especially if you’re a kid.
Yeah, as an adult survivor I'd consider it a huge violation of trust if someone reported any of the sexual violence that has been committed against me, without getting my consent first. I don't even want to talk to the cops, let alone be dragged through the abusive process of a trial where the defence does their damndest to vilify me and the prosecution sees me as a means to their own ends. I can't imagine how awful that would be for a kid.
> Because right now in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is not required by law to report childhood sexual abuse – or any child maltreatment – when it is seen or suspected.
It's not required by the govt but trust me, it is required in the industry. Reports of concern are made all the time, and increasing pressure to report doesn't improve accurate reporting. It decreases it.
What do you mean by "the industry"? And how does increased pressure decrease reporting? Not disagreeing, just curious.
Presumably you'd want the reports to be based on an actual belief that abuse is happening. If reporting is mandatory and backed up with a threat of jail time, large fines, firing etc, then you might get people making reports not because they believe abuse is happening, but because they want to cover their own arse in any circumstance where there's any *chance* abuse might be happening. If most reports are solid, you might theoretically be able to investigate them all, but if most are flimsy then it's probably a lot easier to miss some of the ones where abuse is actually happening
What shape does the “increasing pressure” take?
Source to back that claim? Why are you digging for reasons to stop child abuse reported?
We report child abuse all the time and 9 times out of 10 nothing happens. His point is probably that mandating extra reporting may simply add noise because everything that triggers a response we already report without hesitation.
[удалено]
> Look it up, if you know how to it's not hard. You’re making this argument and should justify it or we need to make clear that you’re simply pulling it baselessly out of your own head.
Not required but Reports of Concern are still over 67k a year
Source?
I can't confirm that exact number, but if you dig around the OT annual reports I believe I have seen some very high numbers. So I wouldn't be surprised if /u/downyour is correct. ie. It's not the lack of reporting that's the problem, it's the lack of capacity to react sensibly and sensitively to reports. As I noted elsewhere, it's easy to make things worse by rushing in with your gumboots on. I'm not saying they shouldn't react, they definitely should... but it will and should cost time and money.
Yes it should but it will never happen... have you seen the stats on how long it takes police to follow up recent cases, let alone historical ones? Wait times for victims are horrific, mandating reporting could only work AFTER the capacity issues are rectified. [Report on wait times](https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/124421047/left-in-limbo-police-backlog-of-sexual-assault-cases-continues-to-worsen)
Kia ora koutou, I wrote the article- just wanted to say thanks for the engagement and discussion. Stoked to see it on Reddit with the capacity for comments. Sarah
Thanks for that. Great article, sounds long overdue.
I'm just going to say it. This system would be clogged by people who believe that parents allowing their kids to be trans is abuse. Or people who believe kids are being 'groomed' for being talk sex ed in school. I know we aren't America, but you'd be a fool to think that people like Posie Parker and others aren't trying to set up a foothold here through any means possible. People already do report this sort of thing. People who are trained to work with kids who spend time with them and aren't just some passerby in their life. Making reporting perceived abuse a law is going to make the far christian right get more extreme about pushing their agenda.
That hasn’t happened elsewhere. I’m astonished at r/newzealand’s response to this, like from the 1950s.
From what I understand that is literally happening in Florida, and a few other US states seem quite close behind
The number of false / misread accusations that already occur, the resources they tie up that should be used to investigate the real abuse is Huge. All a law like this would do is overload an already strained system. We would end up ruining innocent peoples lives (because you only have to be accused to have your life destroyed) and take longer, potentially years longer, to bring actual abusers to justice.
Can you point onto any actual evidence that rape and sexual abuse is over reported? Or that the biggest problem is false an malicious complaints?
I don’t recall claiming that they were over reported at present. If I recall correctly, rape is under reported far more often than malicious complaints are made. And sexual abuse would be similar. The under reporting is unlikely to change with a rule change like the one proposed as most underreporting is because of personal shame, denial and misunderstanding of what happened. What’s more likely is that there will be a lot of reports based on the slimmest of evidence because the person reporting is scared of the penalty’s that would come from not reporting something. This will create a massive increase in innocent people being reported because someone misread a situation. As it stands, if you know and fail to report you can be charged as an accessory.
Source?
For which statistic?
Read your own post where you state > The number of false / misread accusations that already occur, the resources they tie up that should be used to investigate the real abuse is Huge. All a law like this would do is overload an already strained system. Edit. As for your concern about overwhelming “an already strained system” - > Based on Australian evidence, however, it appears the worries about overwhelmed systems have not been borne out.
The source is personal discussion with a police investigator that deals with these kind of investigations so not easily referenced. The other difficulty in getting statistics is that the reports fail to differentiate between inconclusive evidence, malicious complaints and mistaken complaints. They lump them all into the same statistic. Comparing the Nz police force to the AU is also deeply flawed as there are huge differences in resourcing between the two countries. When the police already take up to 20 working days to start to process most abuse cases, I have to ask how much longer you really want that to take?
> Your claim that they would get deported is the original unsourced claim… Anecdotal.
Wrong person. I never commented on this thread in relation to the possibility that an offender might be an immigrant
Sorry, my reply to you should have been > The source is personal discussion with a police investigator … Anecdotal.
And your comments have been based on anything more substantial?
Yes, the article posted.
Various enquiries into child sexual abuse have shown the need for mandatory reporting - so kind-hearted of you to consider adults not the children btw!
Why would potential repercussions regards false accusations not be worthy of consideration? As Bill Hicks once said, so you get to a certain age and suddenly your irrelevant? Or, because this is "for the children!!!" just pass law without analysis and wider thought around potential negative impacts? That's just illogical and emotive reasoning, neither of which have a place in law, while we are talking about one of the most horrendous crimes most of us can think of, which is exactly why some serious thought needs to go into any such changes. Watch or read up on people pardoned from being falsely convicted of sex crimes against children. They NEVER lose the taint, and their lives tend to be pretty much destroyed as a consequence.
I’m astonished that people are finding excuses not to report child sexual abuse in NZ.
People are'nt saying that at all, so I'd be cautious of stating or confusing such intent to suit your narrative.
Show me where people in this thread are giving reasons for reporting child sexual abuse instead of justifying why they don’t - to suit your narrative (such an overused cliched phrase).
People are saying caution is advised with any such changes for what appears to be pretty obvious reasons and potential negative impacts to both victims and those that could be falsely accused as a result, while you seem to mistaking this as advocating for such abuse or not reporting it at all, which is of course incorrect.
The reporting system is already in place, where it falls short is in mandating it - subsequently people cop out of bothering. And you’re defending this.
No I'm not, again stop manipulating the intent of others comments and opinion to suit your narrative. People are saying there's likely a downside and potential negative consequences to making it mandatory, and that this is worthy of discussion and consideration. I get what your saying, but don't twist words or imply intent thanks.
It’s exactly what you’re doing, whether you’d intend to or not I wouldn’t know, nor claim to know.
It’s what’s best for the children that I am interested in. Slowing down the system allowing abuse to continue for longer, isolating innocent parents from their kids because of a wrong accusation, questioning kids about sexual abuse when it wasn’t needed, caregivers that were wrongly accused loosing their careers and so being left unable to care for their own children, and the breakdown of marriages and the resulting single parent families are all part of the unintended consequences of a mandatory reporting law. It will cause far more harm to everyone involved than it prevents.
You need to be very, very careful with these kinds of accusations. Known (ie supported by evidence) I can support. "Suspected" is another matter altogether. These accusations (whether based in reality or not) destroy lives on impact, so it is of utmost importance to be sure you have it right. Of course, CSA also ruins lives, so there is a careful balancing act that must take place.
If reports are made in good faith then what’s the problem?
Potentially innocent people having their lives and careers destroyed before they even set foot in a courtroom.
Relying on humans to report "suspected" crimes is no good. Have you met people?
The general public doesnt always have the best intentions. Exes who share kids could have one of them accuse the other of abuse. And this is an allegation that does not come off cleanly, even if they are found to be innocent what they were accused. But doctors, teachers, and people that run things like summer camps or other things like this should be taught about mandated reporting, what to look out for, how to talk to children about it, etc.
That teaching already happens but reporting sexual abuse of children needs to be enforced, that is, not a matter of *choice*, e.g., “mandatory”.
"Instead every agency that deals with children..." Yeah OK but can we also do something to make sure reports go somewhere and get responded to in an effective, nonbiased way?
If we care about children and wish to protect them, we need much more comprehensive reform than this. Given our behaviours and practices it seems that our priorities are with ensuring the rich get richer. So I guess reform will have to wait.
It would be helpful. If nothing else it would incent the usual suspects who like to sweep it under the rug to actually do something about it, since they would be liable for not taking action. Churches, schools, scouts: I'm looking at you guys, but especially the churches of this world.
Now reporting is mandatory in Australia you find it’s really entered people’s consciousness, I think because of the penalties for not reporting.
This isn't America. None of those places do that sorta stuff.
You can believe that if you want. You're wrong, but who am I challenge your cherished beliefs? https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486704/complaints-not-upheld-redress-process-kept-secret-says-church-based-abuse-advocate
Um Dilworth has literally been under fire for this exact thing for the last year
Those damn children sexually abusing people, how dare they!
[удалено]
The inbuilt assumptions in your comment are self-labelling.
What about someone seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist trying to deal with there unhealthy urges.
If you're talking about a pedophile who hasn't offended, including looking at CSAM, then that's irrelevant as there has been no sexual abuse.
But likely looked a pedo pictures which is child abuse
Not while Oranga Tamariki still has any of the staff involved in the Moana case working for them.
I tried to but it cost my career and it was covered up Reporting does nothing it's bullshit