”The vast majority (”probably over 95%”) of all sex abuse allegations are valid.”
Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics (pp. 7, 140).
Then you have a judges comments to the AIFs review of the Magellan classification for Family Law cases saying:
“The Court can’t ever say that [there was no harm or risk of harm], of course. The best you can say is that, on the evidence, we can’t make a finding that there has been abuse, or even unacceptable risk in some cases. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It just can’t be proved to any decent level of satisfaction.”
Judge
“By far, there are rare cases of deliberate falsity. It’s a gutsy thing to do, and I think few people have that sort of personality: to go on oath, in the witness box. It’s a pretty gruelling process. You don’t do it unless you really think you’ve got a grievance, because the odds are you are going to get caught out. You’ve got people cross-examining you, you’ve got Independent Children’s Lawyers checking it out, you’ve got a Judge—who’s usually fairly experienced—making assessments. You’re running a real risk.
I also think that a lot of people are deterred from making a false allegation because of the mere fact: How could they have been so wrong in partnering somebody who could do that? ..’”
Judge
".....whether Judges are always taking into account that a lack of evidence from a statutory child protection department does not mean that abuse has not occurred. A departmental outcome of ‘unsubstantiated’ does not mean that abuse did not occur and that the notifier’s allegation was false, but rather, that evidence was not sufficient to be able to substantiate the allegation; or that the notification did not fall within the statutory grounds for intervention in that state/territory."
"Although participants admitted that deliberate false allegations happen, this was not seen as the major issue. Instead, they thought that the usual situation was either (a) a parent misidentifying signals from the child, (i.e., making the allegation based on a genuine belief, which turned out to be false—or at least, not supported by the evidence); or (b) that abuse had in fact occurred, but that through the department’s investigations and the Court’s processes, a safe environment had been created, so that the child/young person is now no longer at risk."
“I keep talking gender-specific, but that’s just the nature of Magellan. It’s the man usually who abused the child. But we’ve got to remember of course that there are a number of allegations made against mothers. Because Magellan also encompasses physical abuse, and that is occasionally perpetrated by the mother. Or the partner. Or the partner might be responsible for the fears of sexual abuse. When I talk about gender-specific, I’m talking about the majority. I’m not intending to convey that that is always the case.”
Judge"
So the conclusion supported by official statistics is that very few false allegations are made, and in any Magellan case, there cannot be a finding that the father was innocent of the allegations only that the claims are not substantiated which does not mean that he is innocent of the allegation, only that there was not enough evidence to prove the allegation. The court does not have the jurisdiction to apportion blame, only to assess the risk to the child/children.
