UCL Department of Risk and Disaster Reduction (RDR)’s Post

📢 #WomanityIndex2023 findings on Rivers State! In Rivers State, there are laws like the Violence Against Persons Law 2020, the Abolition of Female Circumcision Law, the Child’s Rights Law, and the Prohibition of Curtailment of Women's Rights Law 2022. However, public awareness of these laws is limited. Different ministries share the duty to address GBV regarding access to justice. For instance, reporting and enforcement are to the police and security agencies, and enforcement is to the Ministry of Justice, etc. The Legal Aid Council provides legal assistance and pro bono services to indigent victims. A witness protection program is provided for children. Adults can apply only when they have valid reasons, and this is limited to indigent persons. There is a functional family court in the state, but it is less known by the public. There are informal justice systems in the state, including alternative dispute resolution centres, the Justice of Peace, the Council of Chiefs, and the Royal Highness. On support services, there is no Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) in the state. There is a temporary safe home for victims of domestic violence, GBV, and other forms of violence. Also, there is a GBV reporting pathway in the state, which includes the police, CSOs, NGOs, legal aid, etc, but there is limited knowledge of these. The State Government provides a formal support system through the Ministry of Women Affairs and the Ministry of Social Welfare, while the Ministry of Health provides rehabilitation. Awareness efforts include radio jingles and school programs. However, the state mostly disseminates information rather than communication materials, and GBV awareness programs are not disability-friendly. The #WomanityIndex2023 report has more 👉 https://lnkd.in/dgRpEnm4 #GBVResponse #GBVPrevention

What to Do After Exhausting All Administrative Appeals in a Social Security Disability Case In this clip, Maria outlines the steps you can take after receiving multiple denials in the Social Security Disability process. From a denied hearing with an Administrative Law Judge to a rejection by the Appeals Council, many people don't realize there’s another layer of appeal available. Learn how you can file a complaint in federal court to have a judge review the Social Security Administration's decisions to deny your benefits. Watch the full video on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/e6j6zem3 For more insights and a complimentary case evaluation, visit: https://lnkd.in/eghjNAcZ #SocialSecurityDisability #FederalCourt #DisabilityBenefits #AppealsProcess #ALJDecision #DisabilityAdvocacyGroup #SeguroSocial #Incapacidad #SubtítulosEnEspañol

“Coercive control (CC) and pre and post-separation abuse often go hand in hand. CC is a severe form of IPV/DV. Perpetrators of CC subject their victims to persistent, wide-ranging controlling behaviour over a long period of time making clear that disobedience will be punished. Punishment is not always violent, but usually something the victim-survivor fears, such as abusing them economically or abusing their child, often through child-custody arrangements, with an intention of terrorising the victim into permanent subjugation (Hardesty and Ganong Citation2006, Stark Citation2009, Kelly et al. Citation2014, Katz Citation2022, Spearman et al. Citation2023). The family courts in Brazil provide an opportunity for this violence to increase, where perpetrator fathers use the pseudo-conceptFootnote2 ‘Parental Alienation’ (PA) and similar variations, to penalise mothers and children (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CEDAW Citation2022). So-called PA broadly suggests the idea that if a child has a negative stance towards one parent (the non-preferred parent, typically the father), then the child’s preferred parent (typically the mother) is to blame. When victim-survivors report abuse and violence, this counter-allegation and legal strategy of PA is frequently drawn upon globally to denounce and disqualify reports of abuse, implying that mothers are lying and manipulating children, resulting in negative outcomes for mothers.”

These stories will continue, especially in Pennsylvania, where in response to congregate care providers' complaints that too many abuse reports are being called in against their staff, Pennsylvania issued a bulletin (3800-21-01) to deter the reporting of abuse. Included in their guidance was the encouragement of the congregate care staff to interview the victims prior to deciding if an abuse report should be made. They also included this example of a case not meeting the criteria for a report: "Referral Information: A child reported that he engaged in a verbal altercation with a staff member and that the staff member pushed him against a wall. The child’s arm shows a fingerprint bruise. This referral would not be identified as a CPS referral. Additional Information for CPS: In this example, the level of force involved with the push is a key factor in considering a CPS. Would a reasonable person believe that the child would have likely sustained substantial pain or impairment from the incident? Other factors would include the location of the child’s body that made contact with the wall and what material the wall was made from (concrete versus drywall)." Systemic abuse is ok in PA.

I question the validity and agenda of some of these disability representative organisations. I question their knowledge outside of their own echo chamber i question their conflicts of interest and their agenda. How else can we explain the misinformation the incorrect information to the greater community. How else can we explain the lack of condemnation of the fraud and misuse of funds. How else can we explain the lack of sound response to the DRC and NDIS review. To want no change serves only a few. Do you really want the NDIS to fail? Do you really believe the current phenomena of unregistered providers and the wild west and unqualified staff serves anyone at all. The hypocrisy and the selfishness is astonishing.We can expect others to play politics with our lives to get their 15 minutes of fame but those who say they speak for us. Nothing about us without all of us.

This is terrible take and attack on representative disability organisations. The misinformation has come from the government, and this fact becomes clearer by day. NDIS participants I speak to, and their disability organisations, have generously given their time on short notice, under duress and restrictive NDAs, to give evidence and highlight issues in this Bill. The below smear should be taken as that, particularly in light of the lack of evidence to support key claims made.

*Trigger Warning* Because this is a much bigger and broader systemic issue, than Watchouses alone. Some police are very aware that some Watchouses do not meet human rights standards as a bare minimum-what is the government doing to address this? Specifically, what are government s doing to bring Watchouses to a human rights minimum? Watchouses are very awful places, and ideally no young person would be held in one…at all. When are we collectively going to consider the ongoing systems abuse and assault of children and young people, and what this writes into our social story. We have some highly experienced people in this space who can (and I would say have) offer many alternatives and or solutions, so how are their voices heard, considered and reflected? I haven’t seen enough example that invites my trust, that’s for sure. Last night an interviewee on the 7.30 report stated that children should be removed from dysfunctional environments. (Lets keep in mind is that dysfunction is not necessarily abusive, part of another big yarn.) Apparently this would result in less engagement with the statutory system- where is the common sense in this when nationally 43.7% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are placed into out of home care. Through the statutory system these children become the responsibility of the state in which they have been removed. Let’s not forget, that this responsibility is supposed to be until the young person reaches the age of 25, even if they self place, the system has made them their responsibility, but what do we see happen instead? If child removal was the answer, why do the rates of engagement with the youth justice system keep increasing as well? This person then went on to make comments about sexual abuse. Now this part made me a little more upset. Certainly some of the young people who find themselves in youth detention have experienced sexual abuse. As standard practice, how many of us know that every time you visit your young person within a detention centre they are pyshically searched in invasive ways before returning to their unit, ways that for a person who has experienced sexual abuse could be highly retraumatising and if they have not, could be/would be considered an assault if not perpetrated behind the protective veil of ‘protective custody’ The technology is available to change this practice, so why not? Let’s move on, not only are Watchouses not appropriate, I would say that holding young people in their ‘rooms’ for 23hours a day, not really providing care through a human rights lens either. I’m going to spend some time reading this today and sharpen my argument.

How does the Support and Rehabilitation team in Enfold Trust, Bangalore, assist child victims of sexual violence? (Link to BLOG) The Support and Rehabilitation team supports children in their journey through the criminal justice and child protection systems, after facing sexual violence. Over the past 12 years, the team has helped over 250+ children and their caregivers. Every child who has faced sexual violence and abuse has a story to share about their journey, their doubts, conflicts, griefs, pain, strength and resilience. The concept of Support Person was introduced in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Rules, 2020 and has made the journey of such children less traumatic while ensuring that the provisions of the law are followed at all stages of investigation, trial and rehabilitation. A Support Person, after being appointed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), becomes, in effect, the liaison between the child and their caregivers and those involved in the implementation of POCSO Act. Working in collaboration with stakeholders like the police, CWCs, doctors, mental health professionals, Public Prosecutors and the District Child Protection Unit, the Support Persons try to ensure systemic traumatization is minimized and that children are able to access their rights in a timely and child-centric manner. The team has shared stories below about the ways Support Persons helped child victims under the POCSO Act & Rules, during the process. #POCSO #POCSOtraining #sexualabuseofchildren #protectionofchildren #personalsafety #CSA #supportpersons #enfoldtrust #enfoldindia. #rehabilitation #trauma

Facebook has kindly reminded me that it is now ten years since my paper "The harms beyond imprisonment: Do we have special moral obligations towards the families and children of prisoners?" was published in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. The paper deals with the issue of how imprisonment not only negatively impact prisoners, but also their families. An issue that should matter to the moral philosophical debate on legal punishment but which is often overlooked. The paper was one of my first papers to be accepted in a philosophical journal and was later included in my PhD thesis. To date it has been cited about 50 times in research concerning parental imprisonment and is mentioned in the prestigious Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as part of its entry on legal punishment). I had the chance revisit this topic a while ago, publishing a paper entitled "Who is morally responsible for remedying the harm caused to children of prisoners?" in Ethics & Social Welfare, which I personally think is a much more persuasive paper advocating my views on this matter. But my 2013 paper still is very dear to me. Below is a link the paper in Ethics & Social Welfare. https://lnkd.in/ddJjZrMX

📢| NEW ARTICLE | OPEN ACCESS Our new article with Kate Fitz-Gibbon and María Atiénzar Prieto examines children’s experiences of violence in the home and the role of different types of maltreatment in children and young people’s use of violence in the home. Domestic violence between parents or carers was the most commonly reported form of childhood victimisation and increased children’s risk of experiencing emotional and verbal abuse 30-fold. Childhood experiences of DV and emotional/ verbal abuse were the strongest predictors of children’s use of violence in the home during adolescence. These findings have significant implications for our approaches to interventions and prevention measures designed to break the intergenerational cycle of violence. Identifying and responding to children’s experiences of non-physical forms of maltreatment is critical and must form part of professional development initiatives for educators, child and family welfare services, child and youth health services and disability services. DV prevention efforts play a critical role in preventing other forms of child maltreatment along with its adverse short- and long-term effects on children. Access the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gQrefeqJ #domesticviolence #familyviolence #children #childmaltreatment #childabuse #nonphysicalviolence #identification #responses #prevention #intergenerational #education #health #childandfamilywelfare Tom Allsop Luke Twyford Liana Buchanan Anne Hollonds Emma Gierschick OAM Griffith Criminology Institute Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre