I read the social worker's report.
1) The first incident of molestation occurred at a babysitter’s house. So,,,,This could never happen to your child?
2) The report stated the older teen went to the emergency room but said nothing about whether she was treated for any injuries. Or, if there were injuries, that they were definitively from the father. Being that this girl is the product of a failed first marriage, there could likely be many reasons why an older teen may wish to stir up trouble. Also, we do not know if the teen was homeschooled from the beginning. If she attended government school, there was plenty of opportunity there to learn “street-smart” manipulative behavior.
3) The report also stated the the second incident of molestation came from a visitor to the house, **not** from the parents.
4) The social worker's report suggested that the father's insistence that his daughters wear modest dresses was somehow abusive. A missing door from one of the bedrooms was reason for abuse. That the family's house was crowed and cluttered. ( Geeze! With prices as they are in California, is it any wonder the house is SMALL?)
5) A father's insistence that a teen be home by 9 p.m. is NOT child abuse! It is being responsible!
The opinion is quite clear that the question wasn't whether the parents themselves molested the children--it was whether they provided protection from that.
It pointed out that re-inviting the guy back to the house when the girl was present sent the message that they cared more about the guy than the girl's well-being.
Was she telling the truth? Maybe...maybe not.
A father's insistence that a teen be home by 9 p.m. is NOT child abuse! It is being responsible!
Did anyone say it was? I think it was the fact that she was sent to the hospital after the "brutal" physical assault she received from the father that was considered the "abuse."
Funny how the girls all wanted to get the heck out as soon as they could.