ABSTRACT This study examined Family Court of Australia (FCA) judicial determinations in parenting disputes when allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) are made by an interested party, usually the mother. For the study, 156 published judgments from 2013–2015 were examined to measure how often allegations of CSA are substantiated, suspected to be true, and disbelieved. The characteristics most common in substantiated versus unsubstantiated cases, evidence of abuse presented, and resulting parenting orders were assessed. Findings indicate that, against international comparisons, FCA judges substantiate cases very conservatively, with rates of substantiation much lower than in other studies. Allegations made by mothers against fathers were disproportionately unsubstantiated, as were those which did not fall under the Magellan case management system. Cases where the only evidence of CSA was a child’s disclosure and parent’s allegation were common in both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases, meaning that a lack of other evidence does not preclude a positive finding of risk of CSA by the FCA. Those cases also involving a protection order against the accused were more likely to be substantiated. Confirmation biases and a judicial tendency to err on the side of false negatives are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

育儿纠纷中对儿童性虐待的指控：澳大利亚家庭法院司法裁决的审查

摘要 本研究调查了澳大利亚家庭法院 (FCA) 在有关儿童性虐待 (CSA) 的指控由相关方（通常是母亲）提出的育儿纠纷中的司法裁决。在这项研究中，对 2013 年至 2015 年发表的 156 份判决进行了审查，以衡量 CSA 指控得到证实、怀疑为真和不可信的频率。评估了证据确凿与未经证实的案件中最常见的特征、提供的虐待证据以及由此产生的养育命令。调查结果表明，与国际比较相比，FCA 法官非常保守地证实案件，证实率远低于其他研究。母亲对父亲的指控不成比例地没有根据，那些不属于麦哲伦案件管理系统的指控也是如此。CSA 的唯一证据是儿童的披露和父母的指控的案例在经证实和未经证实的案件中都很常见，这意味着缺乏其他证据并不排除 FCA 对 CSA 风险的积极发现。那些还涉及针对被告的保护令的案件更有可能得到证实。讨论了确认偏见和在假阴性方面犯错的司法倾向。