The horrific child abuse

case currently in the headlines has thrown up something which has long puzzled and worried me.

The present case involves a young man currently charged with more than seventy offences. There is also a need for over one thousand two hundred young children to be tested for STDs. 

Yes, this man worked in "child care". He had passed a "working with children check".  These things raise questions which need to be answered.

Many years ago my mother was the headmistress of what was known as an "infants"  - now "junior primary" - school. She was posted to several such schools in her career and at one of these she was told by the Education Department they would be appointing a young man to the staff. (The Education Departments decides such things here rather than the school.) 

Up until that time only women were on the staff in the infants school. Now, or so they were told, men had to come in too. Children needed "male" figures. My mother and many others were prepared to cooperate, indeed had no real choice, but they were concerned. The parents were informed of the arrival of the new teacher in the school newsletter in the usual way.  That was on a Friday.

On the Monday my mother had a small "delegation" of parents who informed her that they knew the new teacher. He had been the "leader" of a church based youth group and been asked to leave. No action had ever been taken because there was no "proof" but there were good reasons to believe his behaviour was, at best, "questionable". He had disappeared from the church and they had lost sight of him. They were unaware he had chosen to train as a teacher of very young children. 

My mother had the unenviable job of reporting this to the head office. There were no "working with children checks" back then but even one of those would not have thrown up any issues. There would not have been any police records to suggest there might be a problem. The concerns had never been reported to the police. The church people thought they had solved the problem when he left. There was no "mandatory" reporting that might have led to an inquiry. 

I thought about this some time ago when I had to get a working with children certificate. All the volunteers at our state's main agricultural show had to get one even if we had no actual contact with children. It seemed a bit "over the top" but my first thought was, "Well at least anyone who knows they have a record won't try to come back." My second thought was, "But if they are that way inclined and they don't have a record then nothing is going to show up. They will still get a certificate."

There is of course no absolute answer to this problem. It means that the rest of us need to be constantly vigilant, especially when we are around vulnerable people.  And, for all we might want to believe in "equality" or the need for "male role models" there might be places where males should not work except under extremely close supervision. There will be people who will argue with me over this but I think of that young man who claimed to "love children". Some years later he was fronting court because of that "love".