What the Melbourne Jewish community is not being told about child sexual abuse

What the Melbourne Jewish community is not being told about child sexual abuse

By Vivien Resofsky

J-Wire - June 25, 2013

About a month ago I sat in the Rabbi’s office, hopeful despite the negative responses over the last 7 years.  The question took me by surprise.  ” How many people support you?”…writes Viven Resofsky.

I first saw a Rabbi about child sexual abuse in 2004 while I was working at Jewish Care. A terrible example of child sexual abuse was the catalyst. The abuse had gone on for years and finally the girl had the courage to ask for help. She went to a teacher she trusted at Beth Rivkah Ladies College but the teacher did not help her.  Instead she told her student that she was not a pure diamond because her parents were not born into Ultra Orthodox families  and had become Ultra Orthodox by choice. (Baal Teshuvah).

Despite the fact that the teacher was mandated to report disclosures of abuse she did nothing and consequently nothing in the girl’s life changed.  So the girl did something she could do by herself and began to hurt herself physically. Luckily, she came across a doctor who not only knew how to respond but had the confidence and conviction to respond responsibly.

There were other referrals about child sexual abuse and in my opinion, many people who were working with children weren’t sufficiently educated and confident to deal with child sexual abuse.

Four years later I spoke to the same Rabbi again about child sexual abuse. It was 2008 at the time of the publicity surrounding alleged abuse and non-reporting by school authorities at Adass Ladies College.  Comments from community members and leading organistions plus the Australian Jewish News (AJN) editorials revealed widespread ignorance about child sexual abuse.

“We are pleased to be able to report is that the likelihood of such an event taking place now or in the future in any Australian Jewish school – Orthodox or otherwise is remote”. (A lesson learned, AJN Editorial 17/10/2008).

At the time I publicized my opinion that there indeed was a high likelihood of such an event taking place again.  Compliance with Working With Children checks is a minimum measure, Yeshivah’s assertion that it would  enforce mandatory reporting and child protection polices outside school hours (but not during school hours)‘ reflects the minimum standard of care that the law required.

The solution to child sexual abuse is public awareness backed up by comprehensive community education. This is more than the minimum required by law. The organisation leading the response to child sexual abuse, The Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault (The Taskforce) opposed  providing comprehensive community education. The Taskforce is a volunteer organisation whose leaders who address the public are not qualified in child protection or any field related to children. I believe that it’s policies are based on selectively chosen ‘experts’ assertions, rather than those derived from research and programs that have been evaluated and been proven to work.

This is clear from the written policy of The Taskforce in 2008 in relation to parental education that  ‘parents should educate themselves: by attending workshops, internet research, or taking advantage of the many professional organisations that provide information, resources and training.’  (1).

The approach of parents educating themselves contradicts the latest Victorian child protection inquiry report (2012).  Recommendation 10 states :  “The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development should develop a wide-ranging education and information campaign for parents and caregivers of all school-aged children on the prevention of child sexual abuse.(2)   Comprehensive educational programs have  not been developed in Australia so how  parents be expected to find the right  education by themselves?  Why not help them? Research supporting the inquiry’s conclusions is now at least 10 years old.

In 2011, Manny Waks told the public about the abuse he suffered at Yeshivah and the fact that leaders of Yeshivah including Rabbis, did not report the abuse. For example,  Rabbi Kluwgant made public comments such as this one published in the US, Jewish Daily Forward newspaper.

“ ..Rabbis approach to disclosures of sexual abuse has definitely changed for the better in recent years.”   But Kluwgant added that there has been no attempt to cover up abuse in Australia and that the rabbinate there is committed to addressing the issue. “A lot (of abuse accusations are) based on rumour and innuendo, unless they’re proven in a court of law,” Kluwgant added. “I could tell you lots of lashon hara (evil talk).”

I contacted the Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV) about this and other comments made that I considered misled the public.  A Rabbi looked at a community education program which had been developed by a highly regarded  child protection organisation in the UK.   The program is easily accessible on the internet, at no cost.  His feedback seemed positive. “It’s like the education for  Rabbis. But that’s to be expected”. But still nothing changed.

It was AJN’s  Editor, Mr  Zeddy Lawrence’s article  Enough is Enough that led me to contact Rabbi Kluwgant again.   Mr Lawrence was scathing in his criticism of our spiritual leaders

“ for not owning up their past actions in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse.” (AJN 8/3).

Surely now, I thought  the RCV would be more willing to look at the elements that community education should contain. It was due to this contact that I found myself sitting in the Rabbi’s  about the same issue.  He told me that  had recently attended an educational workshop presented by Tzedek (the new child advocacy organisation). I think he was suggesting that the issue of community education was resolved as Tzedek was providing education.  I disagreed. I believe that Tzedek’s workshop was a good beginning but it did not cover all of the elements community members need to know to prevent, recognize and respond responsibly to child sexual abuse.

” How many people support you?” Rabbi Goodhardt asked me.  Seven years ago The Taskforce took away support for community education when it pressurized The National Council of Jewish Women to withdraw its support for a community education initiative.

I believe that Rabbi Goodhardt’s question reflects the essence of the problem. Responding to child sexual abuse should not be about who has the support of influential organisations.  I believe that until our leading organisations seek the best answers, based on information derived from genuine experts that reflects the best interests of children, the change required for the future health of our children will not be good enough.

Some missing elements in existing community education efforts.

• Education about child protection policies

Schools and programs for children should have specific child sexual abuse prevention policies that focus on appropriate adult and child boundaries and adult and child situations. The Taskforce did not deal with child protection policies. They just left it out, yet they told the community that they were ‘Tackling abuse head on.’ (AJN 21/09/12 ).

The Taskforce also left out community education that incorporates parents checking  their school’s policies, how to check them and what to look for. How can parents advocate for sound policies if they don’t know they exist and if they don’t know what ‘good policies’ look like?

The JCCV recently started another group within its organization, called the JCCV Reference Group to deal with this important element of protecting children that The Taskforce had previously ignored.

History has shown that leaving it to organizations to reform themselves is not the entire answer.  I agree with Rabbi Yakov Horowitz that  parents will have to take the lead role and create a groundswell for the protection of children. (3 ).  Although JCCV Reference Group leader, Andrew Blode “acknowledged the role of the parent in sharing this responsibility by requesting child protection policy and practice from the organisations to which their children are entrusted”  he does not mention providing parents with the education they need to request these policies.  Why not?

• Education about responding to child sexual abuse.

What would you do if you suspected that a member of your congregation is abusing a child? What should you do if a child told you that this person is sexually abusing him or her?

When a child tells someone about sexual abuse, a supportive, caring response is the first step in getting help for the child and re-establishing their trust in adults.  Many of us feel panicked and want to deny it, or are afraid of making a mistake and some just want to brush it aside and not be involved.

Our fear of responding to child sexual abuse is one of the reasons many incidents of child sexual abuse go unreported. Experts tell us that protecting children is the responsibility of every adult as there is the possibility of any adult being called upon to help a child. That is why community education that includes responding to child sexual abuse is so important. Not only do we need to be educated and prepared – just in case, we need to be confident enough to respond responsibly.

Education about how to respond to child sexual abuse is one missing element in existing community education.

• Support to act on suspicions.

What should you do if you sense something is wrong but you are not sure?  How can they check it out and work out what choice might be the best option for this particular situation. How should you deal with it?

If you suspect abuse or suspect that someone is grooming a child for abuse, you don’t have to assume you are right. By acting on suspicions of child sexual abuse you may spare not only one child but perhaps countless others. Many of those who abuse have more than one victim.

Support lines for professionals as well as community members are important.  I believe that best practice for such a service is when professionally qualified people, with expertise in child protection, work within organisations that are independent, transparent, and accountable respond. This is not the case in the Melbourne Jewish community.

• exactly is a ‘sensitive’ approach?  Is that an approach based on what some self proclaimed so called experts assert?  Do Taskforce volunteers who are not professionally qualified advice about how to deal with a person suspected of abusing?  Dealing with offenders is a very specialised area that requires expertise. What are the policies and measures The taskforce have adopted to deal with sex offenders to prevent further child sexual abuse?
  Surely the rabbinate who are involved with responding to child sexual abuse have learned lessons from the past.  I believe the late Rabbi Groner tried to address allegations of abuse by trying to ‘cure’ alleged offenders through psychiatry and that he genuinely thought this was the best solution.  Isn’t that what The Taskforce with the support of the RCV is doing despite the fact that we now know so much more about child sexual abuse?. The role of Rabbis.

In its submission to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry, The Taskforce stated that they have an informal liaison with the Rabbinical Council of Victoria and “can informally advise them when a situation arises”.

What does that mean?  Is the word informal code for ‘keeping it in house?” How does The Taskforce advise Rabbis during certain sensitive cases, including ones “where there wasn’t enough evidence to charge anyone but there were many concerns”? Where is this stated?  Doesn’t this come under the heading of responding to child sexual abuse? Where can the community access information about the processes between The Taskforce and the RCV?

Who decides whether there is enough evidence to charge anyone?  What

The Problem with the Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault

The Problem with the Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault

By Vivien Resofsky

Galus Australia - October 19, 2012

I have been attempting to engage The Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault (The Taskforce) since 2006, both directly and in the pages of The Australian Jewish News because I am deeply worried by their approach – particularly by their assertion that children can and should be taught to protect themselves against adult predators. The truth is, they can’t.

I am so concerned that I have also submitted complaints to the JCCV, Jewish Care and the Rabbinical Council of Victoria about what I believe is The Taskforce’s dangerously misguided approach to a very complex issue; however, nothing has changed.

The best evidence indicates that we cannot leave children to protect themselves; however, The Taskforce refuses to acknowledge this. The Protecting our Vulnerable Children Inquiry Report (Feb 2012), weighed up all the worldwide research and evidence about the effectiveness of teaching children personal safety to prevent abuse. It accepted Finkelhor (2009 ),Smallbone et al. (2008) “There is little convincing evidence for the effectiveness of these programs for preventing sexual abuse.”

Ms Weiner, who has no degree or equivalent in any field related to child protection does not agree with the research. She states that, “Giving a child the tools to say NO denies the perpetrator the opportunity to abuse.”

Why would Ms Weiner advocate a position that goes against the best evidence? Unfortunately, Ms Weiner’s position is echoed by Mrs Balfour, head of The Early Learning Centre at Beth Rivkah, who believes The Taskforce – that schools do not need to educate parents, because children under the age of five can protect themselves!

Alongside Debbie Weiner, Taskforce board member, Sheiny New, also speaks publicly on behalf of the group and about child abuse. Ms New has spoken and written extensively about this issue, however, like Ms Weiner, she has no degree or equivalent in the area.

This information, however, is not available on The Taskforce website. In fact, much information about who comprises the Taskforce and their work with children is absent from their website. There is a serious lack of transparency that characterises the group. It is usual practice for a group that purports to protect children to articulate this and to clearly state it as part of their vision; however, the word, “child,” is hardly mentioned on The Taskforce site.

While The Taskforce has existed for 17 years, it only first acknowledged the issue of child abuse  in 2006. It then moved to gain a monopoly on the protection of our children despite its lack of experience and the lack of qualifications of Taskforce volunteers.

In 2006, The Taskforce emailed Di Hirsh of the NCJW, strongly requesting that Ms Hirsh and her organisation withdraw their support from a community child protection awareness and education campaign. The Taskforce’s reasoning for this demand was that they wanted to present an efficient and unified communal response to such a sensitive subject in The Taskforce’s forthcoming forum.

In doing this, The Taskforce successfully removed support for a campaign that included child welfare professionals so that a group of volunteers could be the sole providers of communal education on child abuse.

It is important to remember that The Taskforce is a voluntary organisation whose members are not professionals in the area of child protection; however, The Taskforce have positioned themselves as the community’s authority on the matter.

Because they have worked for 17 years to raise awareness of family violence, they believe that qualifies them to advise on child abuse. Not only is this a logical problem, it also requires a real leap of faith because The Taskforce has only spoken out against child abuse in the last 6 years.

The Taskforce personnel also base their credibility on the training they receive from experts. Many of these experts are highly respected in their fields; however, educational seminars that last for a couple of hours, or at most, a couple of days, can not qualify people to do the work of trained professionals. The Taskforce should not therefore position itself as able to give advice on a par with professional advice.

The Taskforce’s lack of professional personnel leads it to offer poor advice (such as the idea that children can protect themselves). Ms New’s public statement that with the right treatment, victims of child sexual abuse will be, “just fine,” goes against research that demonstrates that only 1 in 10 cases of abuse is even reported. Many abused children cannot get help at all, because their abuse is unknown. Educating parents to spot signs of abuse can address this issue. This is not, however, what The Taskforce is doing.

This makes Ms Weiner’s claim that The Taskforce is, “tackling abuse head on,” difficult to believe. Ms Weiner’s and The Taskforce’s refusal to support parent-directed education is evidence that best practice is not in place. Parents need guidance to help them learn how to assess whether or not good child protection procedures are in place in schools and other institutions. They need to know what to look for. For example, does the organization train staff about child sexual abuse? Does the organization have a code of conduct for adults working with children? Does it outline clear expectations about boundaries between staff and children? How is staff misconduct handled?

It is difficult to understand why The Taskforce relies on extremely out of date ideas of child self protection. We used to think programs that teach children to identify and refuse inappropriate touch would prevent child sexual abuse. Personal safety programs for children have been in existence for over 25 years but experts now advise that children can’t fend off would-be abusers by themselves.

The Protecting our Vulnerable Inquiry 2012, weighed up all the worldwide research and evidence about the effectiveness of teaching children personal safety to prevent abuse. It agreed with Finkelhor 2009 and Smallbone et al. 2008: “There is little convincing evidence for the effectiveness of these programs for preventing sexual abuse.” (The Protecting our Vulnerable Children’s Inquiry Report 2012)

Telling parents that something will prevent abuse when it clearly will not puts children at unacceptable risk. Sexual abuse is most commonly a gradual process of desensitization, further complicated by the power imbalance between the victim and perpetrator. Would-be abusers use a grooming process to gain trust and acceptance.

Grooming can be described as a psychological process that breaks down a child’s resistance by using techniques such as gift giving, engaging the child in peer like activities, desensitizing the child to touch, isolating the child and then making the child feel responsible for the abuse. Grooming can take place over months or longer. Those who would offend try to get themselves into a situation where they are alone with a child who trusts them. The abused child is then caught in a web of confusion, guilt, deceit and mistrust and a child commonly feels overwhelmed and powerless to stop the abuse.

Ms New, however, advises that parents should educate themselves and then educate their children. The Child Protection Inquiry, however, does not expect parents to educate themselves. It recommends that efforts should focus on raising public awareness of child sexual abuse and providing parents of all school-aged children with education.

Parents need to become aware and even trained in the defence of their children. They can create a barrier between those who would abuse and their children. They need to discuss matters with their children in language that is not threatening and gives the child age-appropriate references. Parents can vet situations when they leave their children in the care of others and ensure that stringent screening, monitoring, training and reporting policies are in place. They need to know the steps they can take when they suspect something is not right. Schools should continue to teach children about personal safety, but the responsibility for protecting children should be placed on adults.

Finally, we must ask ourselves if it is appropriate for a single group to address matters of abuse in both the Ultra Orthodox and less religious communities. The differences in attitudes, values, and culture are enormous between the extremely religious and the less religious sub-groups in our community. Can and should a single group be charged with such a broad agenda?

According to Ms New there are “Jewish” specific factors that impact on why victims of child sexual abuse don’t report. When she refers to “Jewish” factors, are these applicable across the board or only to the Ultra-Orthodox community?

When The Taskforce makes statements like, “We consider ourselves to be a light unto other nations, and if we start talking about violence and abuse in what we consider a perfect Jewish family that light will be dimmed just a little bit and she (the victim) did not want to be the cause of more anti-Semitism…”

or “Living in a host country we would prefer not to create anti Semitism.” or (referring to the Shidduch system)“…The first question asked is: “Is it a nice family?” sexual assault does not a nice family make. Don’t be judgemental. If your brother had to choose between two equally lovely girls but one had been raped 6 months ago which would you choose?”

Do any of these statements apply to non-religious Jews who are the vast majority in the community?

Why then have the JCCV and Jewish Care welcomed The Taskforce’s attempt to be the sole organisation dealing with abuse in the community? Many non-religious Jews are horrified by such attitudes and might wonder why The Taskforce is not doing more to combat them. Meanwhile Ms New asks us not to be judgmental of that belief system. Surely such a group cannot represent our entire community.

***

Vivien Resofsky is a social worker whose specialist training (in both Australia and the USA) underpins her extensive practical professional experience in areas relating to child protection and domestic violence. She has worked with children and families at Jewish Care, The Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service and DHS Child Protection and is an accredited trainer of several programs.

Her writing has appeared in numerous publications; for the Australian government; and for the wider media, including The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail, and The AJN. Vivien is also the author of the highly regarded Wesley World series of books which are parent/child guides to personal safety.

Vivien’s work, which has focused primarily on child abuse in the past six years, draws together research and evidence-based theory, practical experience and programmes with evaluated, evidence-based success.

***

The Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault has been contacted to offer them a right-of-reply. To read a previous article about The Taskforce written from their own point of view, please see Breaking the Conspiracy of Silence.

Get in first to protect our children from abuse

Get in first to protect our children from abuse

By Vivien Resofsky

Herald Sun - December 19, 2007

THE community is outraged at what it perceives to be the inadequate judgments of those in authority with responsibility for protecting children.

But often public outrage wears off all too quickly and the ordeal of children goes on.

Comments by County Court Judge Michael Kelly that children "simply get over it' and a perpetrator and victim "both acquired illicit pleasure" from "experimental lust" have been met with horror and disbelief.

They come after Queensland Judge Sarah Bradley's conclusion that a 10-year-old rape victim "probably agreed to have sex."

It points to the underlying problem about child sexual abuse and why academic research indicates a staggering one in three Australian girls and one in six Australian boys are abused.

If those figures amaze you, it is based on research which has been explained by the Australian centre for Sexual Assault and resembles US studies.

What the judicial comments clearly reveal is a basic ignorance about child sexual abuse.

The fact these people don't appear to comprehend the enormity of the problem indicates the need for wide public education and a change in attitudes.

Judge Kelly and Judge Bradley do not understand that child sexual abuse is not just a "bad experience".

Can you imagine the impact on a child who is repeatedly assaulted by the same person, a person they know and trust?

Yet because they are so confused, scared or so shamed by this person they do not tell anyone. Sometimes the abuse continues over years and the child carries their imagined shame alone in silence.

The silence of victims and ignorance of adults whose role should be to protect children are the allies of sexual abusers.

That's why child sexual abuse should be a public health issue, with a focus on education to change attitudes.

Adults should be given the knowledge about child behaviour which helps them recognise and react responsibly to possible child sexual abuse.

Yet there were no suitable "packaged prevention programs" available in Australia.

Child sexual abuse is a problem in every country and every community. Some, however, are moving in new directions.

Good programs are available from the US which assist development of preventative and protective behaviours.

Despite the facts, we have yet to sustain a movement to prevent abuse.

That's because it doesn't fit into its own category but is often addressed at the periphery of other issues such as domestic violence and sexual assault of all ages.

Government agencies have not accepted the fact child sexual abuse can be prevented through more active action. The solution to the underlying problem is the need for further education, for a mandated reporter in schools who is legally responsible to report abuse.

The epidemic of child sexual abuse cannot be countered when we have not given it the necessary focus, planning, and funding to reduce the damage. To simply bundle it together with other societal maladies camouflages the extent of the problem, as well as its potential remedies. We need a revolution in child sexual abuse thinking that moves away from old and tired approaches and embraces a new way of reaching adults. By continuing with existing strategies that have failed to address and prevent child sexual abuse, state and federal governments are doing our children no favours.

VIVIEN RESOFSKY is a prevention trainer and founder of Prevent Child Abuse Australia

Judicial comments show ignorance about child sexual abuse

Judicial comments show ignorance about child sexual abuse

By Vivien Resofsky 

Courier Mail - December 19, 2007

THE community is outraged at what it perceives to be the inadequate judgments of those in authority with responsibility for protecting children.

But often public outrage wears off all too quickly and the ordeal of children goes on.

Comments by County Court Judge Michael Kelly that children "simply get over it' and a perpetrator and victim "both acquired illicit pleasure" from "experimental lust" have been met with horror and disbelief.

They come after Queensland Judge Sarah Bradley's conclusion that a 10-year-old rape victim "probably agreed to have sex."

It points to the underlying problem about child sexual abuse and why academic research indicates a staggering one in three Australian girls and one in six Australian boys are abused.

If those figures amaze you, it is based on research which has been explained by the Australian centre for Sexual Assault and resembles US studies.

What the judicial comments clearly reveal is a basic ignorance about child sexual abuse.

The fact these people don't appear to comprehend the enormity of the problem indicates the need for wide public education and a change in attitudes.

Judge Kelly and Judge Bradley do not understand that child sexual abuse is not just a "bad experience".

Can you imagine the impact on a child who is repeatedly assaulted by the same person, a person they know and trust?

Yet because they are so confused, scared or so shamed by this person they do not tell anyone. Sometimes the abuse continues over years and the child carries their imagined shame alone in silence.

The silence of victims and ignorance of adults whose role should be to protect children are the allies of sexual abusers.

That's why child sexual abuse should be a public health issue, with a focus on education to change attitudes.

Adults should be given the knowledge about child behaviour which helps them recognise and react responsibly to possible child sexual abuse.

Yet there were no suitable "packaged prevention programs" available in Australia.

Child sexual abuse is a problem in every country and every community. Some, however, are moving in new directions.

Good programs are available from the US which assist development of preventative and protective behaviours.

Despite the facts, we have yet to sustain a movement to prevent abuse.

That's because it doesn't fit into its own category but is often addressed at the periphery of other issues such as domestic violence and sexual assault of all ages.

Government agencies have not accepted the fact child sexual abuse can be prevented through more active action. The solution to the underlying problem is the need for further education, for a mandated reporter in schools who is legally responsible to report abuse.

The epidemic of child sexual abuse cannot be countered when we have not given it the necessary focus, planning, and funding to reduce the damage. To simply bundle it together with other societal maladies camouflages the extent of the problem, as well as its potential remedies.

We need a revolution in child sexual abuse thinking that moves away from old and tired approaches and embraces a new way of reaching adults. By continuing with existing strategies that have failed to address and prevent child sexual abuse, state and federal governments are doing our children no favours.

Vivien Resofsky is a prevention trainer and founder of Prevent Child Abuse Australia.