BishopAccountability.org
	Woman to Sue Church The Timaru Herald [New Zealand] July 14, 2007 http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4127135a6010.html A woman is looking for other victims of sex abuse and a lawyer to take on the Salvation Army. Rhonda Markby reports. A woman who was sexually abused while living at the Salvation Army Temuka children's home is looking to take civil action against the church. She was one of eight complainants in last year's trial which saw former home manager and Salvation Army officer John Gainsford jailed for 10 years on rape and indecent assault charges committed in the 1970s. The woman, whose name is suppressed by the court, but will be known as Vanessa, is now seeking out others who were abused while living at the home to join her in the legal action. She has decided to take civil action for several reasons, including that approaches to the church after the court case for additional compensation have been rebuffed. She is also unhappy at the apparent random way in which the church has decided on the level of payment to the complainants. Vanessa remains angry that the church never removed Gainsford from the home in spite of numerous complaints from the girls regarding his offending. She was one of four women who gave evidence against Gainsford after receiving a payout from the church. Gainsford was found guilty of indecently assaulting her, while he was found guilty of raping the other three. The payouts ranged from $20,000 to $40,000 and the women signed papers stating they would not take further action against the church. Although Vanessa has asked what its criteria was for making the payments, no answer was given. She received $40,000, but was aware of men receiving $40,000-$50,000 for the physical abuse they received from another of the home's managers. Following Gainsford's sentencing, the church said it was leaving the door open for further compensation claims from victims of abuse at the home. At that time Major Ross Gower said while some of Gainsford's victims had received compensation, they could still approach the church, as could others who had been at the home, and last week he said every person who had approached the church had received a payout. Vanessa denied that, as her own sister, who also gave evidence at the trial, has been sent a list of questions by the church asking for information, including when she was at the home, for how long, why she was there and asking about the nature of the abuse and the perpetrators of the abuse. Gainsford was found guilty of indecently assaulting her. Vanessa and the three other women who received payouts prior to the trial approached the church again early this year seeking further recompense. By that stage Vanessa had returned from living overseas, determined to finally put the matter behind her. Vanessa believed she was entitled to more based on information which came out during the trial. She considers the trial disclosed the church's negligence in failing to protect the children and ignoring their complaints of sexual abuse, as well as destroying evidence relating to the abuse. She also said the church was negligent in that Gainsford was not asked to resign until more complaints of impropriety against him a decade later. As a ward of the state she believes Social Services should have been advised of the abuse at the time. She understood the four women would meet church representatives together back in April, but said the church split her from the other three who had all been raped by Gainsford. In spite of them having all signed the earlier discharge stating they would not seek further compensation, the other women were given further payouts, topping up their previous compensation to $80,000. Vanessa considered that figure totally inappropriate considering what had happened to the girls. The church has a copy of the victim impact report she gave to the court, which refers to lost job opportunities, relationship difficulties and having been diagnosed with post traumatic stress. She also had a miscarriage two weeks before the trial, brought on, Vanessa believes, by the stress of the situation. A letter from the church stated that while it appreciated the matters she had raised were important to her, and it recognised the impact on her life as set out in the report, those matters were not relevant to the church's decision not to compensate her further as it was relying on the discharge she had signed. Vanessa says that's not good enough. It made further payments to the other women in spite of them having signed the same document. The letter also said the discharge was to achieve finality for both her and the church. "This enabled you to achieve closure or should have done. The Salvation Army also needed to know that, if it paid the amount to which you agreed, you would not bank the cheque and then later come back looking for more. "Just as you would be disinclined to refund a portion of the amount already paid if, for whatever reasons, the Salvation Army now felt that it had overpaid you, so the same applies to your request." That's not good enough for Vanessa. She believes the church owes her more. Now the fight begins to find others who share her cause v and a lawyer willing to take the case.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.