- Girl, 5, contracted her father's sexual disease
- By Bellinda Kontominas
- The Sydney Morning Herald
- 03/10/2008 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: The Rooster ( 264 articles in 2008 )
A FIVE-year-old girl who contracted a sexually transmitted infection was allowed to return to the family home after a judge ruled that he could not be certain her father had abused her.
But the Department of Community Services yesterday argued that Judge Jonathan Williams did not need to be certain whether the abuse occurred and that he had erred in law by allowing the girl, now 7, to continue living with her parents.
In the District Court, both parents successfully appealed against the DOCS finding, although an undertaking was made that the girl would not live with her father again until the end of all proceedings, the court heard.
The girl, to whom the court gave the pseudonym Sophie, contracted the infection from her father after he visited a prostitute in Bali. "It is known she contracted the infection from her father," Ian Temby, QC, for the Department of Community Services, told the NSW Court of Appeal yesterday.
"The question is whether she received it as a result of sexual interference or innocently."
The District Court judge had considered it "highly improbable" the disease might have been transmitted by the child using a towel her father had used. But he could not be sure that it had been transmitted by sexual interference. Mr Temby said the judge had reached "a false conclusion" after applying the wrong test for the standard of proof in such a case.
The department intervened soon after the girl's diagnosis in July 2006, and an order was made in the Children's Court that she remain in the care of DOCS and have no contact with her father until she turned 18.
In the District Court hearing the mother had been a "less than enthusiastic supporter" of her husband, the court heard yesterday. But Judge Williams could not say "with certainty" whether sexual interference had taken place.
Mr Temby asked that the District Court order be quashed and for another hearing to take place before Judge Williams in the District Court.
Counsel for the father, Jonathan Wells, SC, said the judge's decision was correct because anything considered highly improbable had not been proved. The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment.
But the Department of Community Services yesterday argued that Judge Jonathan Williams did not need to be certain whether the abuse occurred and that he had erred in law by allowing the girl, now 7, to continue living with her parents.
In the District Court, both parents successfully appealed against the DOCS finding, although an undertaking was made that the girl would not live with her father again until the end of all proceedings, the court heard.
The girl, to whom the court gave the pseudonym Sophie, contracted the infection from her father after he visited a prostitute in Bali. "It is known she contracted the infection from her father," Ian Temby, QC, for the Department of Community Services, told the NSW Court of Appeal yesterday.
"The question is whether she received it as a result of sexual interference or innocently."
The District Court judge had considered it "highly improbable" the disease might have been transmitted by the child using a towel her father had used. But he could not be sure that it had been transmitted by sexual interference. Mr Temby said the judge had reached "a false conclusion" after applying the wrong test for the standard of proof in such a case.
The department intervened soon after the girl's diagnosis in July 2006, and an order was made in the Children's Court that she remain in the care of DOCS and have no contact with her father until she turned 18.
In the District Court hearing the mother had been a "less than enthusiastic supporter" of her husband, the court heard yesterday. But Judge Williams could not say "with certainty" whether sexual interference had taken place.
Mr Temby asked that the District Court order be quashed and for another hearing to take place before Judge Williams in the District Court.
Counsel for the father, Jonathan Wells, SC, said the judge's decision was correct because anything considered highly improbable had not been proved. The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment.
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/02/1222651267677.html
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here