The Previous Approach To Abuse Claims And The New Approach For Claims By Victim Survivors Of Abuse

Our society and it’s children are fortunate that the brave victim survivors of child sexual abuse not only disclosed what had happened to them but kept insisting that someone did something about it. These days most organisations have a starting point that the person disclosing such abuse should be believed, offered treatment and their claims investigated. Compensation is much more readily available and there is no time limit in South Australia to bring a compensation claim and/or complain to Police. Contrast that to the excerpt below from the Report of The Board of Inquiry into the handling of claims of sexual abuse and misconduct within the Anglican Diocese of Adelaide released in 2004 and analysing the historical approach taken to complaints made:

“The evidence that has been presented to the Board indicates that past pastoral responses often emphasized forgiveness and concern for the person who was the subject of the complaint, at the expense of the complainant. There was an emphasis on the complainant needing to ‘forgive’ and to ‘understand’ the perpetrator’s motives. It appears that in a number of cases this was associated with maintaining the reputation of the Church and its representatives. The potential possibility of the involvement of the police, at the instance of the Church, was, seemingly, abhorrent.

It is evident to the Board that the Diocese initially adopted a defensive approach in its handling of claims of sexual abuse. Often, its first priority seemed to be one of protecting the Church at all costs, even to the extent, on some occasions, of warning complainants that they could be sued for defamation if their complaints could not be substantiated.

Victims were, at times, badly let down when the Diocese (and the police), informed them that there was nothing that could be done about their complaints because of the statutory moratorium provisions that may have existed at that point. In such situations it was often the case that neither the Church nor the police conducted investigations to determine whether or not the alleged perpetrator was still active, or to see if there were other victims of the same person.

It was not unusual for complainants’ allegations to be minimised or for them to be told that their allegations were without foundation. There appeared to be an attitude that a member of the clergy simply would not sexually abuse another person and that any person, but particularly a younger person, who made such a claim, was at best being mischievous.

In situations where it was a child making an allegation, there was in some cases an underlying assumption that children’s recall of events was not accurate or truthful. The reasons for such beliefs are not clear. In effect this privileged the alleged perpetrator’s version of events, which generally involved a denial of the accusations. Unfortunately, such complaints were very rarely passed on to authorities for them to determine the accuracy of allegations. As a result the complaints and concerns were usually dealt with ‘in-house’ at either parish or diocesan level.”

While the approach of most institutions to these claims has changed, they still raise legal arguments to attempt to minimise the compensation amount. It is important you have legal representation when negotiating your claim.

If you are a victim survivor of child sexual abuse or serious physical abuse you can contact MKF Lawyers for a no obligation confidential discussion by phone, text or email and we can advise whether you can pursue a claim for the compensation you deserve. Alternatively, click the button below to submit an online claim enquiry.