Children as Victims of Crime (From National Symposium on Victimology - Proceedings, P 171-179, 1982, P N Grabosky, ed. - See NCJ-90209)

• NCJ Number: 90218
• Author(s): H Gamble
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 9 pages
• Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

Before the state intervenes to assume control over a child victim of an offense by a family member, the child's attitude toward the crime, the offender, and the child's situation within the family should be given weight, except when the child is too young or confused to express a rational preference about future care.

Abstract

The principal debate regarding child victims of offenses by family members focuses on the grounds for state intervention to assume control of the child. While all sides of the debate agree that it is generally best for the child to remain within the family with the state intervening only under the most serious circumstances of child abuse and neglect, there are differences of opinion about the ground for such intervention. While some authorities (e.g., Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit) argue that state intervention should occur only when physical injury to the child has occurred or is likely to occur or when a parent has been convicted or acquitted by reason of insanity for a sexual offense against his child, other authorities, notably Wald, argue that the state should intervene to provide services for a child when there is evidence of emotional neglect and abuse. Both of these views err, however, in not including as grounds for state intervention the desire of the child for such intervention, or when intervention is not desired by the child, restricting its use. Australia's Family Law Act grants a child over 14 years-old the right to express an opinion about his/her custody and guardianship. While the act does not forbid consideration of the wishes of a child under 14 years-old or deprive such a child of an action for maintenance, the possibility of such action is remote. Since even very young children can express reasonable and sincere preferences about who shall care for them and where they shall live, those contemplating the use of state intervention should give weight to such preferences in their decisionmaking. Sixteen footnotes are provided.