“We are not listened to, not taken seriously“, says Amélie, mother of two children, in a testimony collected by 20 Minutes. In 2019, she discovered child pornography videos on her husband’s computer, then an email where her ex-daughter-in-law accused her of touching. Later, her two children confided to her that they had been sexually assaulted. Amélie separated, but had to continue to entrust her youngest son to his father.
What she experiences is nothing exceptional. As long as the criminal investigation is not completed, mothers remain required to present the child to the father in question, under penalty of placement in a shelter or prosecution for non-representation of the child. A situation that raises questions, while recent texts claim to better protect minor victims of domestic violence.
Why children who are victims of incest still see their violent fathers
“I didn’t ask to see Dad, and I didn’t understand why I had to see him. I don’t want to see him at all anymore“, says Malo, 9 years old, Amélie’s son, quoted by 20 Minutes. In practice, visiting rights often continue to apply as long as no court decision has suspended it, even when the child has spoken. According to an Ipsos survey for the association
Facing incestless than one in two victims are separated from their attacker (49%), protected (45%) or helped to file a complaint (37%).
The law of March 18, 2024, known as the Santiago Law, extended the automatic suspension of the exercise of parental authority and visitation and accommodation rights to the parent prosecuted or indicted for sexual assault or incestuous rape, or for any other crime against their child. But this suspension only comes into effect from this advanced stage of the procedure. However, according to Face à l’incest, there is an average of five years between a complaint for incestuous rape and conviction, and three and a half years for an incestuous sexual assault.
A temporary protection order to cut off emergency visits
To fill this void, MoDem MP Perrine Goulet is proposing a new temporary protection order. Its text would allow the prosecutor to decide, within 72 hours, to shelter the child as soon as violence is revealed. The child would be protected for three weeks: eight days for the prosecutor to refer the case to the children’s judge or the family affairs judge, then fifteen days for the judge to make an urgent decision. The prosecutor could also award the use of the family home to the protective parent and prohibit any contact with the alleged aggressor parent.
President of Face à l’inceste, Solène Podevin-Favre considers this text “clearly a step forward”, but regrets that shelter remains a simple option. The draft in fact indicates that the prosecutor “may” organize provisional protection. “Today, when women file a complaint for domestic violence, there is immediate shelter. Why can’t we do the same for children? The risk that he does not take it is the same“, she criticizes, quoted by 20 Minutes. Aude Doumenge, head of advocacy, adds: “Even if the intervention of the prosecutor was made obligatory, we would still not be certain that all children would be protected: it would remain at the discretion of the magistrate (prosecutor or judge) to qualify the danger (serious)“.
Between bills and petitions, protection still incomplete
In the same spirit, the Minister of Justice summarizes the objective of a draft child safety order with these words: “Protect a child without delay from an abusive parent“, according to Enfance Jeunesse Infos. This emergency measure would be triggered”upon notification and in the event of probable danger“, to prevent the child from being left at home”the alleged abusive parent” the time of the investigation. The Ciivise had already recommended a specific order so that the priority protection of the child is guaranteed from thelikely incest.
Face à l’incest maintains its online petition “Let’s protect child victims of incest!” and recalls that on average only 8% of children revealing facts are supported by a relative who initiates proceedings, and that 4 out of 5 cases are then closed without further action. The association underlines that 96% of French people demand the immediate removal of the child from the alleged attacker(s). “We are encouraged to denounce the facts, but we almost regret having done so, because it is almost worse afterwards“, confides Amélie, convicted for non-representation of a child. Perrine Goulet’s bill must be examined in committee, with a response expected at the end of January.