Child abuse victims get slice of will

The estranged children of a sexually abusive father have been awarded just under half of his estate, despite being snubbed in his will.

Three of four siblings contested their father’s will in the Family Court in April, after he left his entire estate - about $178,000 - to his partner and her children, one of whom he had never met.

Judge Belinda Pidwell awarded 45 per cent of his estate to the children, in recognition of their father’s ‘moral duty’ to them. The siblings had initially sought 20 per cent each. The 73-year-old man died in 2014, leaving no provision in his will for his two sons and two daughters.

The man’s de facto partner of 11 years knew he had sexually abused his children but did not believe his moral duty to them had been breached through their exclusion from his will.

His earlier will, written in 2006, said his children were ‘‘very well off and on good salaries’’ and did not need to receive any of his estate. ’’I don’t very often hear from my children and don’t wish to provide for them.

‘‘I feel I have provided quite a bit for my children in my lifetime,’’ the will stated.

The man stated in his recent will that he had no contact with his children for more than six years, and they did not return any of his calls, emails or text messages.

What he did not disclose in his will was the reason for their estrangement - he had sexually abused each of the three children contesting his will.

During the hearing, his children told Judge Pidwell of their ‘‘torturous childhoods’’.

The eldest son reported the family was poor, and the children were made to carry out manual labour for their father’s business, meaning their school work suffered.

The beatings and sexual abuse began when he was teenager.

His twin sisters were sexually abused from the time they were 9 years old, until about age 15.

One of the twins said she had no-one to turn to, as their family lived overseas.

Her sister recalled feeling like there was no other option but to endure his abuse.

Both sisters financially supported their parents as adults, one acting as a guarantor on her parents’ home and even paying her father’s rent, and both sisters had loaned them money.

The man’s partner recalled him as being ‘‘loving’’ and ‘‘thoughtful’’, saying he was not abusive to her in any way, and that though he had a moral duty to his children, as his surviving spouse she should be the sole benefactor of his will.

She also argued she was receiving the pension and was unable to work, and made the claim that as each of the children are financially comfortable, their suffering wasn’t as long-term as suggested.

Judge Pidwell found the man committed the ‘‘ultimate act of violation’’ against his children, and accepted that they were still suffering.

She said redress was about support, not just recognition that their father breached his ‘‘moral duty’’ but in acknowledgement of the abuse they suffered.

‘‘They should be commended for living productive lives in this society, and not be prejudiced by their own strength and fortitude.

‘‘No award will restore the harm suffered, but it may achieve some form of restorative justice to each applicant,’’ Judge Pidwell said. - Fairfax NZ