A PROPOSAL ON CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEDURES
PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE EU COURT OF PETITIONS and submitted February 5, 2017. A notification was received in June 2017 saying that this proposal was found inadmissible by the Committee on Petitions by the European Parliament as it “fall outside the Union’s fields of activity.”
Updated version is repeatedly submitted to the UN Committee on the Right of the Child.
CHILD WELFARE
A PROPOSAL ON CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEDURES
PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
March 10, 2017.
I am approaching the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child with a proposal regarding
optimising Child care authorities’ child welfare procedures in child abuse investigations.
Child abuse is a great concern for society. Needless to say, child abuse has been sufficiently
reported to have a detrimental effect on the psychiatric health and moral values of society. It has
been more than sufficiently reported that child abuse is responsible for mental illness in adults,
self destructive behaviour and criminal behaviour of adults. It is deemed by psychiatrists and
psychologists as one of the major mental and even physical health risks for children.
There are numerous laws and protocols giving outlines to authorities involved in child welfare, as
to what is acceptable and lawful behaviour towards a child.
The problematic area is that child protection authorities are not given, or obliged to take precise
procedures, techniques, standards and guidelines in the process of investigating/executing child
protection. Leaving policemen/social service/ children’s doctors/judges to their own personal
discretion when making choices. This is not always in the best interest of the child or the child’s
welfare and rights, since the moral character and intellectual capacity of individuals can be taken
into question.
It is my sincere wish that authorities will take children and the integrity of their lives more
seriously and value them as precious. Which means taking any and every caution and steps to
ensure such safeguarding.
Respectfully proposed,
Carol Gobey
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
C O N T E N T S
A. Case Studies 1, 2 & 3 with conclusions
B. Proposed standards, procedures and boundaries
1. Protect the legal rights of the weak and vulnerable child
2. Protecting the integrity of the child’s testimony in the interview procedure of the case
3. Medical examination guidelines in cases of child sex or physical abuse
4. Police’s role in protecting children
5. The Social Service worker’s role
6. Data recording and documentation keeping
7. Court roles and procedures
C. Pro-active measures to detect and prevent child abuse
1. Child education
2. Compulsory classes in compassion and child rearing for parents.
3. Standards and requirements for employees in the care sector: foster carers, social service
workers, child psychologists, police youth officers, family court employees
4. Monitoring of countries’ institutions and their effectiveness in protecting children
5. Funding
A. CASE STUDY
To briefly explain some of the behaviour of authorities in investigating child abuse cases, I list
three examples:
Case study 1
The country is Luxembourg: In a family with 3 small children ages 5, 3, and 2 years old, the two
children, ages 5 and 3 years old, are reported to police as having spoken about being sexually
molested by their father.
Police choose to interview only one child “victim” – the 5 year old. They refuse to interview the
other reported 3 year old child “victim”.
The Police choose to interview the small 5 year old child, a foreign immigrant who is only fluent
in a foreign language, in a police conference room, while openly recording the child. They
interviewed the child via an interpreter, in the presence of, whom the child perceives as, several
strangers. The child was reported by his school to be a shy child who hardly speaks. Police
disregarded this information. No 5 year old is used to such interviewing conditions on top of it
being such a sensitive topic. Authorities also did not ensure the child has not been threatened into
silence or denial by the abuser, since the child was also still in the care of the abuser.
In this case, authorities completely disregarded the necessity that the interviewed child “victim”
needs to feel comfortable in their environment and feel save enough to disclose a trauma.
In the same family a 3 year old child was also pointed out as a possible victim of sodomy. In this
specific investigation the 3 year old child was completely ignored and neglected by all authorities
and professionals and was not interviewed at all. Even a doctor refused to medically examine the
child during the consultation. During this investigation he did glancingly examine the 5 and 2
year old children. But refused to examine the 3 year old, who was reported to him as a suspected
victim of sodomy. Once again the suspect abuser was allowed to be present in the examination
room and allowed communication with the child.
No police, social service worker or child welfare institution involved, requested or arranged any
psychological evaluation for sexualization or play therapy for the three small foreign immigrant
children, who did not speak the country’s languages fluently.
The Child Social Services of Luxembourg, whose representative is childless and thus have no
experience in raising children, focussed their welfare concerns on animals, (hamsters and gold
fish), instead of making child abuse their focal point. While irrationally complaining of children’s
toys on a carpet etc., she ignored the children.
No advocate was appointed to these children. With the court saying the children are too small to
be legally represented.
All involved authorities condoned and approved an adult’s indecent assault on children and even
appraised the adult as “worthy of the court’s trust”. Also refusing video evidence of the indecent
assault of the man (grabbing a small boy on his penis) , saying the rights of this adult/father (who
has been spreading rumours about his pedophilia for about 20 years) needs to be protected.
Case study 2
England : A 6 year old girl testifies to police and social service that she has been sexually
molested by her father. This child is shockingly further traumatised and put through 3 medical
examinations, 2 examinations finding no abnormal variations. The child psychologist report, that
the mother obtained, is not accepted. Social services are utilised, but no child psychologist
professional is enlisted by authorities to clarify the child’s testimony and to confirm whether the
child is indeed sexualised and if the information is from another source. Authorities progress with
an evidence void reckless choice – that of making assumptions and gambling with a child’s life.
Case study 3
England: Suspect victims (children ages 8 and 9) report being sexually attacked by a group of
people including their father. The suspected victims were medically examined by a doctor,
finding scar tissue etc. In this case authorities also arranged that the children frequent a child
psychologist undocumented/unrecorded. The children testify to clear, identifiable body markings
on their attackers. The police interrogated these children several times. On one occasion they
disturbingly interrogated these small children around midnight. But authorities did not even
interview one of the accused child sex offenders, nor are they bodily searched for identifiable
markings and tattoos.
Shockingly there are many more case examples like these all over the world and it appears to be
increasing just as child sex media has been increasing on the internet. It is evident from just the
above-mentioned cases that the following is applicable:
First, child protection procedures are inconsistent and incompetent. There is a chaotic fumbling
as to what needs to be done. Which results in a situation where, whatever they feel is “enough”
for them to do, is done. There is no mandatory schedule or structure set in place to guide these
authorities in performing child care investigation in an organised and effective manner.
Secondly, inevitably authoritative individuals have their own personal moral standards and
boundaries. Some do not have a healthy perspective for what is legal and morally acceptable
respectful behaviour towards a child.
Thirdly, child neglect is freely performed during investigations. Which is easily accomplished
with no regulating authority for them. It appears that some Prosecutors’/General Advocates’
offices and judges will allow any and all behaviour towards the child during the investigation, i.e.
midnight interrogations or even ignoring a suspected victim completely.
Fourthly, some authorities lack the mental and educational ability to process situations and
information regarding behaviour of a child victim and how to apply appropriate actions in the
best interest of the child’s welfare. For example, interviewing a 5 year old possible victim in a
conference room via a translator, perceiving this as a child friendly environment.
Fifthly, the psyche of some authorities are shockingly negative. Common comments, feelings and
attitudes displayed by some authorities are: Feelings of helplessness; That trying to find evidence
to protect children is difficult; That even making efforts to find evidence is futile.
Sixthly, authorities do not utilise or seek out the latest available technology, expert knowledge or
statistical crime analysing in their investigations to safeguard children. They are stagnant, with
no positive advancement.
Conclusion:
Inevitably these authorities, with this attitude, moral values and work ethic, will be assisting
perpetrators in child abuse. They are a high risk to endanger children, which is the opposite of
what they are employed to do, which is to first and foremost protect the weak and vulnerable
child.
Action:
The risk these authorities pose to children needs to be minimised and/or eliminated. Their
procedures need to be revised and improved and their training increased.
For this cause the proposal is made that:
Mandatory standards and boundaries are set in child abuse investigations to aid, guide and
support these authorities. Which in turn will increase effectivity in safeguarding children. It will
add support and care for children and will also support judicial authorities in effective decisionmaking
concerning the child’s life.
B. PROPOSED STANDARDS, PROCEDURES AND BOUNDARIES
1. To protect the legal rights of the weak and vulnerable child
1.1. In every possible child abuse case the police will be notified.
Police and other authorities must be educated that the legal boundary is: An adult shall only be
allowed to touch a child’s private areas for hygiene and medical reasons. An adult viewing or
touching a child’s private areas for “entertainment” value, is deemed sexual molestation. What is deemed assault/torture between adults, the same will be deemed assault/torture between an adult and a child.
1.2 The child will be appointed an advocate by police – irregardless of the child’s age.
A similar procedure to a chance draw must be used to appoint the child’s advocate. The
concerned parent/care giver can commence the draw of the allocated advocate.
1.3. The child advocate will have the responsibility to oversee that the child is not battered,
neglected, their rights violated, or completely ignored in procedures and that rational outlined
procedures/standards are followed by authorities in the investigation. The child advocate will take
immediate legal steps against the perpetrator should this occur. Should the argument be made that
the child advocate failed the child in this responsibility, the advocate may be legally held
responsible.
2. For protecting the integrity of the child’s testimony in the interview procedure of the case
2.1. At the moment of reporting child abuse to police, the child shall then also immediately be
appointed an independent child psychologist – in another procedure similar to a chance draw.
2.2. A child 15 years and under can only be interviewed for an abuse testimony, by a
professional child psychologist in a child-friendly environment. The police do not interview the
child in their offices, but only ensure the interviews with the psychologist are scheduled and at
what point a report can be expected.
2.3. The psychologist needs to be fluent in the child’s mother tongue. If doubt exists, a language
evaluation must be done to ensure effective communication is achieved.
2.4. At least 10 x 30minute sessions over a 2 month period, are needed for the psychologist to
gain an abused child’s trust and build a rapport. This time frame is needed to secure the integrity
of the child’s testimony.
2.5. The sessions have to take effect within 2 weeks of the case being reported.
2.6. That all interview sessions with the children, in entirety, be video recorded via a hidden
camera. The recordings are useful to other involved authorities in ensuring the child is not
exposed to further trauma by having to repeat the information. Possible contamination of the
testimony is also avoided.
2.7. The psychologist interview is mandatory for every child who has been reported to be at
risk. No reported child victim, irregardless of age, will be ignored simply for the convenience of
countries’ authorities. If 5 children are reported, 5 children’s safety shall be investigated.
2.8. The investigative child psychologist has to interview the parents or care givers before
starting the interview with the reportedly abused child. The adult interview can take place
together or separately, depending on the adults’ requests.
2.9. The investigative child psychologist must be trained in and make use of the best child
interview protocol, of which the NICHD (International Evidence-Based Investigative
Interviewing of Children – http://nichdprotocol.com/) interview protocol has proven to have
more success in encouraging the child to speak about their abuse incidents. This forensic
interview protocol also yielded the most information.
The NICHD interview protocol with the child includes three phases:
• Introductory
• Rapport-building
• Substantive or free recall**
** https://www.nij.gov/journals/267/pages/child-victim-interview.aspx
2.10. The child interviewer must, in conjunction with the reported child abuse, produce
educational evaluations, test the child’s concentration, emotional development and other reports
deemed necessary by authorities and parents to ensure the child’s well-being. The psychologist
may request increased time for effectivity.
2.11. No judicial authority or parent (irregardless of custody status) will be allowed to attest /
prevent / delay /interfere with the procedures of a child, being examined by a child psychologist
or by a medical professional. Should it become apparent that an adult is interfering in the
investigation in a preventative/avoidance manner, the adult shall be deemed to perform child
endangerment and neglect and be removed out of the immediate environment of the child.
2.12. The child psychologist, committed to investigating the child’s welfare, will conclude and
finalise the investigation, unless a valid argument can be made for replacing the professional. In
which case the transition from the one psychologist to another (who has built no rapport yet with
the victim) shall be done in a manner which takes the victim’s trust in consideration.
2.13. During this investigative process, the person who poses the abuse danger to the child, must
be removed out of the child’s normal living environment and not a procedure of: removing the
child out of their normal habitual environment. As this could cause the child trauma and curb/
block the child psychologically from feeling secure to open up about abuse.
2.14. The accused adult shall not be permitted to transport, or accompany, the child to
professionals during the investigation.
2.15. That the child’s safety, comfort, security, psychological and emotional wellbeing are made
paramount by all professionals involved in the investigation process.
3. Medical examination guidelines in cases of child sex or physical abuse
** sourced http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215093/
3.1. The Police will at the time of having been notified of the child abuse also, – again in a chance
draw procedure -, appoint a doctor to medically examine the child.
3.2. The doctor will complete the examination in an appropriate time frame and in an approved
manner. Should the doctor not follow protocol or decide not to examine the child at the time of
the child being present, he/she will notify police, so another draw can immediately be made for a
doctor who feels competent to handle the examination.
3.3. The child psychologist should be consulted before the doctor examine the child. Discussing
if the child is too emotional or not co-operating, the child may be sedated for purposes of the
investigation although this should not be procedural, but only in cases where needed. A parent/
care giver will sign permission for sedation.
3.4. In essence, the physical examination in cases of suspected sexual abuse consists of inspection
of the anogenital region through a variety of examining methods and techniques while the child
is suitably positioned: supine, in the knee-chest position, and in the lateral decubitus position. A
combination of three standard techniques—labial separation, labial traction, and knee-chest
position—increases the yield of positive findings and is also required by the current Adams
classification for a finding to be designated as definitive evidence of abuse.**
3.5. The use of a colposcope is mandatory, as it combines the advantages of excellent lighting,
magnification, and high-quality documentation. This also aids in the checking of definitive
findings and their confirmation by a second examiner (as currently required) and obviates the
need for further, repetitive follow-up examinations, which may be emotionally traumatising.**
3.6. During the medical exam swabs, hair and blood samples need to be automatically taken and
examined for sexual diseases and drug intake.
3.7. Identifiable body markings, moles, scars etc. shall be photographed and the data handed to
the police to further investigations.
3.8. All examination procedures and findings or injuries of abuse should be meticulously
documented, e.g. images, reports etc.**
3.9. According to medical findings, no medical exam can be relied on to nullify sexual abuse.
Because the tissues in these areas are capable of rapid and usually complete regeneration, physical
injuries of youths, caused by abuse, become less evident over time; this accounts for the rarity of
positive findings.
– The context of potential sexual abuse is highlighted by a study in which only 2 (6%) of 36
pregnant teenagers manifested clear evidence of a prior penetration injury, and only 4 (11%) had
suspicious, though not definitive, findings: “‘Normal’ does not mean ‘nothing happened’”.
Normal findings are the rule, not the exception, in victims of child sexual abuse, with or without
penetration, whether chronic or acute.**
No medical report shall be judicially used to dismiss or negate child abuse, but the report may
only prove insignificant.
3.10. Abnormal findings of the medical examination may not be ignored or excused, but only
utilised in a supportive role compliant to the child abuse accusations.
4. Police’s role in protecting children.
4.1. As soon as sex child abuse has been reported the police will perform the tasks and
procedures providing for the suspected child victim. E.g. allocating a child advocate to protect
the child’s rights, a child psychologist for the child’s forensic interview, and the medical doctor
for the medical examination. As said before, this must be a chance draw procedure for fairness.
4.2. Allotted police, together with the child’s advocate, will ensure that these investigative
professionals appointed schedule meetings and that high standard protocols and procedures are
followed during these investigations.
4.3. In a case of possible child sexual abuse, the police immediately search the property, as well
as all electronic equipment, of the accused for possible child sex abuse images. The equipment
must be obtained at the time the child abuse is reported. The content must be examined by police
within the 2 month investigation period.
This procedure is vital due to historical evidence that: According to the National District
Attorneys Association of America, “In light of the documented link between individuals who
view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography
case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.”[5] John Carr,
founding member of the United Kingdom Home Secretary’s Internet Task Force on Child
Protection, in a report published by the NCH stated, “Many pedophiles acknowledge that
exposure to child abuse images fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading
them to commit hands-on sexual offences against children.”[3]**
A 1987 report by the U.S.A. National Institute of Justice described “a disturbing correlation”
between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation..[6]**
**Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse
4.4. In the case of child sex abuse Police will submit pictures of the child/suspect victim, at
various ages and with all identifiable body marks, moles etc. (data obtained from the medical
examination and child care taker) for further investigations to centres which houses data for
exploited children.
During nine days of public hearings, the Subcommittee found that the sexual exploitation of
children over the Internet has reached a crisis point. Current estimates indicate that, at any given
time, approximately 50,000 child predators are online searching for children. Commercial child
pornography websites are increasing in number and may generate billions of dollars a year in
revenue. To date, the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children’s (“NCMEC”) Child
Victim Identification
Program (“CVIP”) has reviewed over six million individual images related to apparent child
pornography.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the images now being found on the Internet are becoming
more violent in nature, including depictions of rape and torture, and the children abused in these
images are younger and younger. According to NCMEC, more than 80 percent of the images
found on the computers of those individuals caught with images of child sexual abuse include
children who are 12 years old or younger. Thirty-nine percent of those persons caught with
images of child sexual abuse possessed images of children younger than 6 years old and 19
percent of those persons arrested on child pornography charges between July 2000 and June
2001 possessed images of children younger than 3 years old.**
**Source:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-109HPRT31737/html/CPRT-109HPRT31737.htm
4.5. After every psychology interview session of the child, Police will view the video recording.
They shall confer with the child psychologist, to obtain viable investigative information relevant
to the abuse. The child’s mental capacity and abilities should be taken into consideration by
police and every relevant information pertaining to the abuse shall not be ignored, but examined.
4.6. The police will also arrange for the suspect abuser to do a psychometric analysis as well as
brain activity imaging. The police will appoint a professional for this purpose, again in a
procedure similar to a “chance” draw.
Brain imaging technology should be implemented by authorities to identify neurological brain
patterns in discovering high risk child abusers. There are brain imaging technology (volumetric
and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), diffusor tensor imaging (DTI), magnetic
resonance spectroscopy (MRS)). This is implemented for diagnosing psychiatric / neurological
deviances. For example:
**http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/10-where-does-sex-live-in-brain-from-top-to-bottom
The first imaging studies of sex in the brain have appeared only in the past few years. Serge
Stoléru, a neuroscientist at Pierre and Marie Curie University in France, published one on sexual
desire in 2003. He and his colleagues showed a series of pictures and films—some erotic, some
ordinary—to 15 men. To record the activity in the subjects’ brains, the scientists used PET scans:
They injected radioactive tracers into the volunteers and then tracked how the tracers moved in
the brain. The radioactive signal accumulated in areas where neurons became active, as their
energy was replenished by the surrounding blood vessels.
Ortigue and Bianchi-Demicheli put the improved EEG to the test by placing a set of 128
electrodes on a group of healthy volunteers and showing them pictures of people in swimsuits.
The subjects then had to decide whether each person they were looking at was desirable or not
and press a computer key to register their vote. These EEG recordings detected activity in many
of the same regions that turned up in the early fMRI studies. **
**http://koenigslab.psychiatry.wisc.edu/
The identification of neural correlates of the disorder could have profound implications for the
clinical and legal management of psychopathic criminals, as well as for the basic understanding
of the biological substrates underlying human social behaviour.**
Anderson, N.E., Steele, V.R., Maurer, J.M., Rao, V., Koenigs, M.R., Decety, J., Kosson, D.S.,
Calhoun, V.D., & Kiehl, K.A. (in press). Differentiating emotional processing and attention in
psychopathy with functional neuro-imaging. Cognitive Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience.
4.7. The police can also appoint a professional to confirm if the victim or victims are suffering
from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result a trauma by utilising brain imaging
technology. PTSD is a natural response to having experienced a trauma. For example:
**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3384234/
Both fear and pain processing are altered in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as evidenced
by functional neuro imaging studies showing increased amygdala responses to threats, and
increased insula, putamen and caudate activity in response to heat pain. Using psychophysiology
and functional magnetic resonance imaging, we studied conditioned and unconditioned
autonomic and neuronal responses in subjects with PTSD versus trauma-exposed non-PTSD
control (TENC) subjects.**
4.8. Should more child abuse, by another adult on the same child, come to light during the
investigation, this will only be processed after the first logged complaint’s investigation is in
totality completed.
5. The Social Service worker’s role
5.1. Social service will also be appointed in the same chance manner as the other professionals.
Social service will perform a fact based, information gathering process in investigating the child’s
living environment. Performing interviews with each of the parents or/and care givers, teachers
in the child’s life.
5.2. A realistic and evidence supported report, focussing on the children’s lives and on the
interests of child welfare, shall be drawn up within 1 month of the reported child abuse and
handed to the allotted child psychologist to aid in further interviews with the child. The social
service worker shall be responsible for obtaining evidence for the information in the report.
5.3. The report will also be handed to the police and children’s advocate who will ensure the
report is comprehensive, realistic, professional, focusses on child welfare and is factually and
relevantly informative on the child’s environment.
5.4. No gossip must be tolerated. Should non-essential slandering gossip be found it shall be
determined if a new report is needed and, if the gossip is minimal, it shall simply be blacked out
on the report. If a social service worker’s reports are prolifically found to be gossip without any
evidence attached, the social service management will be ordered to instigate disciplinary
hearings for the social service worker.
5.5. All testimonials in the report are required to be independent, in the hand writing of the
testimony giver and must be signed by the testimony giver.
6. Data recording and documentation procedures
6.1. During the investigation, all the professionals involved and appointed will share their
documented information, supported with evidence, with the child psychologist. It shall be done
in a timely fashion, to ensure an effective child interviewing is achieved in the period for the
investigation.
6.2. Should it become apparent that any professional is withholding information/documentation
or not following interview or examination protocol, delaying or disrupting the investigation,
legal actions must be taken against the professional.
6.3. After completion of each of the child’s interviews and examinations the professionals will
draw up a summary report and provide copies of their data recording and documents to the
police and child advocate. They will review and access the data and documents, all ensuring
interview and investigative procedures were followed and that the job was performed
professionally and thoroughly.
6.4. The data of the child’s testimony will be treated as primary evidence. The other
investigations will be secondary and in a supportive function to the child’s testimony. At this
point in the investigation it should be clear what the outcome of the investigation is and whether
criminal court proceedings against the accused should commence.
6.5. The reports are made available to the child’s parents/care givers and their court
representatives at the end of the investigation, but at least two weeks before any court hearing. If
the abuse is confirmed to be a parent the parent will first be restraint before receiving the reports.
7. Court roles and procedures
a) Criminal courts
1. When a child has accused an adult of abuse, the case will be heard in a criminal court. It is an
incident of assault and rape which are criminal actions.
2. No judge will accept an incomplete or insufficient child welfare investigation, but will issue an
order for the investigation to be completed before the hearing commence and take necessary
legal steps to reprimand/fine.
3. The child shall not be required to be present to testify in court, but the child’s recorded
testimonies at the child psychologist will be utilised to prove the case. Should the child wish to
testify and be present this will be allowed, but the child is free to make any decision.
4 Pertaining to documents, reports and recordings made in the investigation: Copies will be
censored and made public domain for purposes such as research, etc.
No court will be allowed to put a gag on information from the court hearing and the procedures.
The public should be kept informed and educated on dangers involving children. Personal
information, e.g. children’s names, addresses, faces etc. should be responsibly removed or
censored in public/social publications.
b) Family/Youth courts
1. Judges in the family court make decisions on non criminal custodial matters, e.g. visitations,
vacations, etc.
2. Care needs to be taken that no parent shall be vindictively “punished” in any judicial
proceedings, divorce or otherwise, for showing validated concern for the welfare of their child/
children. Any adult shall have the responsibility and the freedom to report child abuse and no
system should prevent, harass or discourage adults from behaving responsibly and showing
concern for the child’s welfare.
c) Academic Training
1. Legal professionals’ academic training must be regulated to ensuring that no preconceived
ideas are taught to them endangering children’s safety. For example, academic training which
would include, but is not limited to, training such as: Child abuse reported by one parent against
another, is purely for custody purposes, vindictiveness etc. and the conclusion can thus be made
that no child abuse has actually taken place.
When statistics point to about 80% of child abuse taking place inside the child’s home.
C. PRO-ACTIVE MEASURE TO DETECT AND PREVENT CHILD ABUSE
1. Child education
1.1 A child must from the earliest age be educated on all types of abuse and what their rights are
as humans and as children.
1.2. Each school class will be visited by a police representative with child psychology education,
who will explain to the children how they should be treated and what they should do if they are
not treated in that manner. These sessions will be recorded via hidden camera, as it is not a rare
phenomena for a child to start asking questions to verify if their treatment is abuse.
1.3. Yearly recorded short psychological evaluations of all children should be performed in the
school. Children who exhibit psychological signs of distress e.g. PTSD, dissociation, isolation,
nervous behaviour e.g. biting nails etc. should be identified and further probing done into the
cause.
2. Compulsory classes in compassion and child rearing for parents
2.1. Parents shall be ordered to enrol in “parenting” classes to educate them on respectable and
compassionate parenting. The parents have to attend a parenting course yearly. Progressing with
the course depending on the age of their children. These parental support courses can be
presented and scheduled by social service.
Generational child abuse cycle refers to when child abuse performed in one generation is
repeated by the next generation. This generally occurs when an adult psychologically refuses to
accept their parents treated them badly and in an unloving manner. For example a father/mother
will force a child to eat until the child throws up, because the individual was forced to eat until
nauseous or throwing up. A father/mother will physically, sexually and emotionally abuse the
children because he/she was raised in such an abusive environment.
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/cycle-of-abuse-faq.htm
3. Standards and requirements for employees in the care sector: foster carers, social service
workers, teachers, child psychologists, police youth officers, family court employees i.e.
judges, etc.
3.1. Not everyone has the personality or psychological traits to ensure optimal care for children.
Thus it is proposed that those who take part in this process of child welfare and/or are employed
by the country’s governing system, who are directly involved with children or in a capacity of
caring for children, complete a psychoanalytical test and/or brain imaging analysis to ensure they
are psychologically well and fit the profile needed to perform optimally. The test should not be
done independently, but under supervision of the country’s government.
3.2. All Employees involved in the child care system will sign a release form submitting
themselves to investigations in the interest of ensuring a safe environment for children and child
welfare. This release will also serve as a binding contract in which they vow to uphold the
ultimate rights of the child and the child’s welfare as dictated by law.
4. Monitoring of countries’ institutions and their effectiveness in protecting children
4.1. Monitoring must be established for monitoring child welfare and child court procedures,
ensuring child welfare is practiced in the appropriate manner, with the primary focus on the
welfare of the child’s best interests and rights.
4.2. Random case monitoring should ensure judicial courts perform their duties in the interest of
children, e.g. follow protocol in child investigations and that these governments are ensuring
their child care employees and professionals are trained/educated and updated on current events
and child abuser strategies.
4.3. An emergency contact method must be provided to support parents who have concerns
regarding a country’s behaviour during child abuse investigations.
4.4. If there is an abnormal tendency to brazenly neglect children with a reckless disregard for
child welfare and correct procedures, these countries should be internationally heavily fined per
child they have neglected/endangered.
5. Funding
5.1. Parents, with or without medical insurance, but with sufficient funds, will be asked to cover
costs such as child psychologists, medical examinations, parenting courses and yearly updates.
Parents with insufficient funds will receive financial support by the countries’ governments.
5.2. Child molesters, child sex media viewers and child abusers, who are to a great degree the
cause for the need for child welfare protection institutions, must be, in addition to sentencing,
pharmaceutical castration, rehabilitation, etc., severely fined and/or additionally taxed. They
need to be severely financially held responsible on their criminal child exploitation behaviours
that contributed towards the endangerment of the lives of children and, as a result, future society
as a whole.
This funding will go for the financial support of the countries’ child protection systems and other
funding needed for the pro-active protection of children.
