Are Judges getting the Full Story through Court-ordered Reports and Investigations? A Critical Analysis of the Discourse of Disbelief in an Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse

Abstract

The care and protection of children takes a different turn when there are allegations of child sexual abuse in a custody battle in the Family Court. In the case referred to in this discourse analysis, two 4- and 5-year-old sisters disclosed incest to a number of people. These were the police, their mother and maternal grandmother, as well as to 12 other people, including contact supervisors and a psychologist. In cases of this kind, the court may ask relevant experts to provide reports in order to decide what action will be in the ‘best interests’ of the children. The following is an analysis of the conversation between the investigating police officer, the social worker and the mother. It shows that mindsets become evident when discourse analysis is applied, and indicates that judges may not be receiving appropriate and comprehensive information or, indeed, ‘the full story’. Discourse analysis, in this instance, suggests that courts could become more aware of other issues at play within interlocutory situations, which may, in fact, determine a child's wellbeing more than is evident before the bench.