Reports of Abuse by Children / Sandus...

Reports of Abuse by Children / Sandusky / Judge William Adams

Posted in the Rockport Forum

David Sibley

Portland, TX

#1 Jul 12, 2012
SANDUSKY TRIAL REVEALS THE NEED TO BELIEVE CHILDREN
One of the most arresting moments in the trial of Jerry Sandusky came when an alleged victim of the former Penn State assistant football coach took the stand and explained why he never said anything about the abuses he’d suffered years before.“Who would believe you?” he said. Sandusky’s “an important guy. Everybody knows him. He was a football coach. Who would believe kids?”

Disbelief has always been a problem in the prevention of childhood sexual abuse. Although the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, enacted in the mid-1970s and revised several times since, established a national definition of child abuse, reports don’t always happen. Fear of backlash and its consequences may deter some adults from reporting others, but fear of disbelief — as testimony in the Sandusky trial have shown — is also still very much an issue.

While there may never be an adequate solution that gets adults to trust children’s stories in these traumatic situations, one thing that can help increase plausibility is readily available public information that reveals the frequency with which children are abused. Some such information already exists: The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, issues an annual report that includes statistics compiled from child protective service agencies nationwide. As important as they are, however, these numbers are general, and they don’t necessarily convey to parents the risks their children can face in their daily lives.

That’s why a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision was a good one. Last week, the court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America must release 20,000 pages of documents containing information on, among other things, alleged child molesters in the organization over the last few decades. The documents were used as evidence in a 2010 lawsuit by a plaintiff who claimed that the Scouts had failed to protect him from an assistant scoutmaster’s abuse decades before, and the court ruled that made them public.

The Scouts argued that releasing the documents may “negatively impact victims’ privacy and have a chilling effect on the reporting of abuse.” But more public information means more awareness. Should incidents occur in the future, disbelief might not be such an issue when there is documented evidence on the table.

It’s true that the Boy Scouts organization makes commendable efforts to combat any such abuse, but a private institution releasing this information to the public can only help more people “believe kids.” As the Sandusky trial has shown, that’s a pressing need.
David Sibley

Portland, TX

#2 Jul 12, 2012
We don't need to convince people to believe children. That goes too far. Some children are not telling the truth. Sometimes, the adult should be believed. But, we absolutely do need to listen to children in other words not ignore them. We then need to do our best to determine the truth.

Refusing to even listen to a child who reports child abuwse and in fact attacking the child's parent (and her lawyer) for believing the child and assert what the child said in Court is just morally wrong. Those who behave that way (or support that kind of misbehavior or ignore it) need to removed from their responsibilities and relieved of their authority relating to children or the legal system in general.

Judge William Adams did this. He attacked a mother for believing her child's outcry of abuse (her lawyer also). The child was perfectly credible and there was no evidence presented contrary to what the child said (other than conclusory denials). The sole ground for this was the remarkable assertion that children are "fantasizers." This child was a highly intelligent child nearly 6. Both parents testified he was honest.

The following people should be relieved of office and all credentials based on either active malfeasance or dereliction of duty because each was involved and had an opportunity to address this isssue and did not either actively participating, covering up, or ignoring.

1) Judge William Adams
2) Lanette Joubert
3) William Dudley
4) William Kelly
5) James Ehler
6) Marie Haspil
7) The 13th Court of Appeals
8) The Texas Supreme Court
9) The Texas Judicial Conduct Commission
10) The entire governance of the Texas Bar.

There is no excuse for ignoring a child's outcry of abuse on the ground that children are "fantasizers." This is no more acceptable in the case at issue than in the Sandusky Case.
Moab

United States

#3 Aug 22, 2013
Adams is corrupt, retarded, or both

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rockport Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) 15 hr New Resident 1,031
Markus Ramirez Jan 12 Caraphernelia 2
chris bradford (Mar '11) Jan 8 Bradford 30
Con Man Posing as a minister in Rockport TX - ... (Mar '11) Jan 5 Sapphira 35
Wives beware! Dec 26 Christi 6
ashley ortiz (Sep '12) Dec 23 Doriz 10
guy named ryan Dec 16 jay 3

Rockport Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rockport Mortgages