CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT, AND MOLEST ISSUES
(A Report by the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury)
INTRODUCTION TO SEXUAL ABUSE ISSUES
Through expert testimony and case studies, the Jury obtained a
wide range of information in the area of child sexual abuse. This
controviersial and highly complex subject has suffered from
excessive, sometimes bordering on hysterical, media attention,
reporting of inaccurate or questionable statistics, and the
failure to define and identify child sexual abuse accurately.
Within the limits of the expert testimony received by the Jury,
and a study of cases brought to the Jury's attention, this report
will provide an overview of some child sexual abuse issues
existing with the dependency process.
ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MOLEST
Allegations of in-home molest/abuse seem to cause the most severe
conflict with the system. There are many reasons for this. Child
molest is a societal taboo. It causes extreme emotional upheavals
in the family, internally, and for family members in relation to
society at large. Allegations of molest provoke bias in everyone
with the system. Molest can rarely be proven. Molest leaves no
physical evidence. Because it can rarely be proven, the system
seems determined to err on the side of assuming guilt - that
which cannot be proven to be false must be true. This is an
aberration in our system of justice. (Appendix A defines sexual
abuse; sexual assault; sexual exploitation within the Criminal
and Dependency Systems.)
Child sexual molest is real, it happens, and it is terrible.
Whether or not it is as prevalent and widespread as the media
would have us believe is subject to considerable debate. The
current trend in therapeutic treatment is to accept reports of
molest as true, notwithstanding that they may be inherently
incredible, made for motives of harm or gain, or the product of
months or years of "therapy". The justice system, particularly
the dependency process, has "bought into" this therapeutic model.
The legal system's traditional truth-finding tools - witness
confrontation, cross-examination, restrictions on hearsay and
"expert" testimony - have been abandoned in a rush "to protect".
However, when truth suffers, as it has, the system fails to
protect and ultimately harms the innocent child as well as
parent.
In many cases, those who deny molest are guilty. However, in many
other cases, those who deny are, in fact, innocent. Ironically,
"denial" is taken as evidence of guilt unlike any other area of
our judicial system, in Juvenile Court the alleged perpetrator of
in-house molest does not have to be proven guilty in order to
achieve a true finding. The dependency process focuses on the
child as an object of molest or abuse. Precise issues relating to
the alleged abuser and the abusive incident lose their focus and
become nearly irrelevant. The Jury has witnessed the court take
jurisdiction on the basis of a true finding that "the child
believes she has been molested." Once the system musters
sufficient cause to suspect molest, the child becomes a ward of
the system and the family is forced to comply to its dictates or
suffer the loss of the child.
If the court believes a molest occurred and the family member
could have been responsible a "true finding" is made and wardship
declared. If a father denies molest and a true finding is made,
he suffers the ultimate Catch 22 - he can either admit and take a
chance that the department will allow him to begin reunification
with his family or he can deny and no reunification will occur.
But the irony does not end there. If the spouse supports her
husband's denial, she is "accommodating his denial". If she
accommodates this denial, she cannot be trusted to protect the
child and she too will not be allowed to reunify with the child.
Even when the mother believes the molest occurred and wants to
protect the child, a current assertion is that the mother must
have known all along and failed to protect. That then becomes a
protective issue and reason to remove the child from the mother.
Still worse, if the child denies the molest, this can be seen as
part of a "child abuse accommodation syndrome (1)" and an
additional reason why the child should have no contact with the
parents. The child may be diagnosed as "multi-phasic"
dissociative, or "in-denial" and thus unable to remember the
experience. (while this does happen on occasion, the Jury has
been convinced by numerous experts in this field that this is
infrequent and should not be treated as the norm.) Thus, all
members of the family can deny a false molest allegation and, in
each instance, the system uses the denial as evidence of guilt.
(2)
In the case of Alicia W., the father persisted in denying
allegations of molest, but the mother was repeatedly told by her
attorney and the social worker that her only chance to reunite
with Alicia was to say that she believed her husband did it. The
child, who persistently described a stranger perpetrator, was not
believed. In order to allow her "the freedom" to "remember"
without trauma, visits with her parents were terminated until she
could come up with "a more believable story." This child was
kept in court ordered therapy for two and a half years, twice a
week, "dealing with the molest".
The Jury has heard reliable expert testimony that it is a mistake
to force a child to relive and keep talking about an alleged
traumatic event. Further, there is little evidence that a child
will repress a traumatic event. There is good evidence that a
traumatic event tends to etch itself indelibly on the mind.
After a true finding of molest, and the establishment of
wardship, a reunification plan may be put in place. The
reunification plan will inevitably require that the offending
spouse complete Parents United. Parents United is a self-help
group for in-home perpetrators of sexual abuse. The only way to
complete Parents United is to admit the molest. If Parents United
is not completed, there is failure to comply with the
reunification plan. Not complying with the reunification plan is
grounds for termination of services to the family and termination
of parental rights.
Parents united has not always required admission of guilt to
complete the program. In fact, it is still not required in some
Parents United chapters. All psychologists testifying before the
Jury were unalterably oppose to this requirement. Testimony was
also received indicating that the recidivism rate for
heterosexual child molest is 7-14%, irrespective of the treatment
received.
A consensus of experts found that: parents and children need to
learn to establish boundaries; children need to learn to protect
themselves; an admission of guilt should not be required for
reunification; the present system does not distinguish between
degrees of molest; and removal of the father is not always in the
best interest of the family. The Jury has heard testimony from
parents who have "admitted" molest only in order to reunify with
their children. A permanent bitterness and distrust of the system
results.
One of the most profoundly disturbing discoveries by the Jury was
an extensively used test which is highly touted by many
professionals for its ability to predict "age-inappropriate"
sexual response. This test is called penile plethysmography. An
attachment is made to the male penis, various sexually arousing
slides are displayed, and the subject is asked to fantasize. The
penile erection reaction is measured. Experts hotly debate the
validity of this controversial test. In San Diego County almost
every man accused of sexual perversion of any kind will take this
test
Due to the inherent difficulty in determining the truth in sexual
molest cases, the Grand Jury recommends that the standard for a
"true finding" be changed from "preponderance" to "clear and
convincing" evidence. The effect of such a finding is so
profound, on the offender, the child, and the family unit, that
this heightened standard of proof is truly justified.
When an allegation of sexual molest is made, the accused parent's
contact with the child is usually terminated. The majority of the
psychologists who testified before the Jury maintained strongly
that this was not healthy for the child and that the child should
at the least have conjoint therapeutic visits with the accused
parent. The Jury concurs with that recommendation.
FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MOLEST DURING CUSTODY DISPUTES
There is no dispute within the Juvenile Dependency System that
false allegations of sexual molest during custody disputes occur
and that the system fails to deal with them properly. There is,
however, considerable dispute about how to handle these cases.
The Jury has found that a parent making a false allegation of
abuse or molest during a custody dispute is very likely to
achieve the desired result. These accusations are made primarily
to avoid visitation and joint custody provisions and the accuser
frequently succeeds.
Particularly with allegations of molest, visitation will almost
certainly be at least temporarily terminated. The longer the
accused parent goes without visitation, the more difficult
resolution of the case becomes. The Jury has studied numerous
cases of allegations of molest in custody disputes which have
never been at Juvenile Court and where the father has had no
further visitations. Parents who knowingly make false allegations
generally seek to contaminate the child's relationship with the
other parent. The children are subjected to a range of
contamination starting with simple personal deprecation and
escalating in the worst cases to brainwashing. Parents who do
this are not stable, not protective, and are doing permanent harm
to the child.
The Jury has studied many of these cases. Not one of them has
been resolved despite years of conflict. Because all of these
cases involve mothers who made allegations against fathers, we
will speak in those terms.
Family Court Services has recognized the seriousness of this
problem and has instituted the Family Court Case Study Team to
try to help resolve some of these long term cases and to
reestablish fathers' visitations wherever possible.
Unfortunately, by the time a case gets to that point the child is
usually so contaminated that (s)he fears the father and
psychologists are loathe to force the child to see a feared
parent. Furthermore, only a fraction of such cases stay in
domestic court where they reach the attention of this team. Most
of the cases end up in Juvenile Court where there are no
resources to redress the problem.
This situation is best illustrated by a brief overview of three
cases with which the Jury is most familiar. (The Jury received a
large number of similar complaint.) The summaries of these cases
were written in January, 1992. The updates, as of June 1992, are
in the footnotes.
Case 1:Michael P (6). and Calle P.(8)
A young military couple with two children were divorced in
1986. There was no custody dispute though there was bitterness as
the genesis of the divorce was the wife's affair with a neighbor.
The wife ultimately married this man and had several more
children over the course of years. The father was almost
immediately transferred East. During the next 18 months he
visited the children several times on very short trips to San
Diego solely for this purpose.
On a Christmas visit in 1988, he called the mother because
Calle was complaining of pain in her vaginal area. He applied hot
compresses and returned the child home. Three months later after
a phone visitation with the children he told the mother that he
was arranging for the children to have an extended summer visit
with him and with his extended family. The father reported that
the mother said no and that if he proceeds with his plans, she
will find a way to stop him, including making allegations of
molest. Such allegations were made. CPS became involved.
Calle was interviewed and reported her daddy touched her. A
medical evidentiary was done which showed extensive ongoing
molest inconsistent with the child's statement of just touching.
The father was contacted in the East. He came to California,
hired a lawyer, and began a battle which continues to the
present. He subjected himself to polygraphs, penile
plethysmographies, psychological profiles, etc. Upon his lawyer's
advice he cooperated completely with everyone. The mother was, by
all accounts, uncooperative with everyone and had a hard time
following through on anything. It was discovered that there were
other CPS reports on the mother and her new husband. These
included reports of neglect of the children and reports of
battery.
Because the father had no contact with the children, there was
no Juvenile Court jurisdiction and the case stayed in Family
court. Family Court Services provide years of counseling,
mediation, and the father still has no visitation. The father was
concerned that Calle might have been subject to ongoing molest as
evidenced the medical finding of molest. Michael, by that time,
reported satanic abuse. Each child was sent an individual
therapist. The stories esculated dramatically. They have not seen
their father for years. They saw him a couple of times this year
in supervised therapy for the purpose of psychological
evaluation.
The child who reported satanic abuse was less than two when he
last had an unsupervised visit with his father. Interestingly,
while he expressed fear at the thought of seeing his father, he
immediately relaxed and enjoyed these visits. All therapists and
evaluators seem certain that the mother has contaminated the
children but still are unwilling to assist in putting the
children back into a relationship with their father.
The father requested temporary placement of these children in
a neutral foster home to allow them to recover from the
alienation and to see whether it would be possible for him to
reestablish a relationship. Never reevaluated in this case was
the original physical finding of sexual molest. The Jury has
information that this doctor's findings are no longer being
accepted as the basis of petitions filed with Juvenile Court.
This case is now with the Family
Court Case Study Team. (3)
Case 2: Melissa F. (4) and Kimberly F. (7)
Melissa and Kimberly's parents were living an apparently normal
life in North Carolina. They had lived there several years and
were well established in the community with many friends. The
mother left abruptly in December, 1990 without warning to the
father. She was eventually located, with the children, living
with the maternal grandmother in San Diego.
In April, 1991, the father left North Carolina and relocated
to San Diego in the hope of maintaining regular visitation with
his children. He had several visits with the children in San
Diego always in the company of the mother and the maternal
grandmother. The children had begun seeing a therapist who was
just starting his internship. The father asked to meet with the
therapist. The therapist refused.
Five weeks after the father's arrival in San Diego, a molest
report was made. The record show that this was not the first
attempt to file a complaint of molest in this case. Five weeks
later a petition was filed in Juvenile Court alleging sexual
molest by the father. Ultimately the children testified to a wide
range of abuse. This abuse was described in fantastic detail
during the jurisdictional hearing. Kimberly provided graphic
descriptions of oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse. All of the
physical evidence was inconsistent with this testimony.
The referee in the case found that the stories were
"incredible, potentially exaggerated, and maybe even sometimes
fantasized." He found the physical findings inconclusive.
Nonetheless he concluded that the children had exhibited "acting
out" sexual behaviors and that these behaviors were learned. The
petitions were sustained.
The father took a polygraph administered by a respected
polygrapher who said he would trust the father to babysit his
grandchildren. The father went through many psychological tests.
He passed them all. He had a psychological evaluation done by a
court-appointed psychological evaluator. It is differed
dramatically from every other evaluation done. Notably, it said
nothing good about the father and quoted the mother extensively.
Social worker notes in this case are exhaustive. The maternal
grandmother and mother moved the children to several different
schools and have now changed the children's first and last names
Social workers have investigated reported inappropriate
discussions of the molest by the mother and grandmother in front
of the children, and concerns expressed by teachers, etc.
Nonetheless, the social workers have continued to support the
mother.
The original minor's counsel did no independent investigation
and supported the Department in all motions. In January, 1992,
there was a substitution of minor's counsel. The request for an
independent psychological evaluation of the children was finally
granted. A change in therapist for the children was also ordered.
These psychologists now are convinced that the children have been
heavily coached. However, because the children now fear their
father these psychologists are opposed to forcing the children to
visit with him.
If indeed the children have been so heavily coached that they
can no longer tell truth from fantasy then the Department of
Social Services and Juvenile Court have played a pivotal role in
this tragedy. These children should not be left in the custody of
a parent so severely disturbed that she would do this to her
children. She needs help and the children need time to recover.
(4)
Case 3: Shannon S. (8)
Shannon's mother was hospitalized for severe manic depression.
Initially, she had other emotional problems which led to a
divorce. The parents lived close to one another.
The child attended a private school a block from her father's and
a couple of blocks from the mother's. She spent approximately
half the time in each home. It seemed to be going as well as
these things ever go in a divorce. The child was in weekly
therapy for over a year to help her adjust to the parent's
separation. The therapist reported that she was happy and well-
adjusted despite the divorce and mother's illness.
Shannon also had the added benefit of a large, extended,
paternal family. She had always been very close to her paternal
grandparents and they continued to play a major role in her
caretaking.
The mother decided to move to the San Francisco area to be
closer to her family. The father agreed but wanted extensive
visitation. The mother and father began a protracted custody
dispute which eventually cost everything both parents had.
It led, immediately after Shannon started with a new therapist
in the bay area, to an allegation of sexual molest. Minor's
counsel was appointed in Family Court and determined after an
extensive investigation and psychological profiles that a molest
had not occurred. An order was entered for a new therapist for
the child.
At the continued instigation of someone, most likely the San
Francisco therapist, CPS became involved and a petition was
filed. When the petition was heard in Juvenile Court, the
appointed minor's Counsel from Family Court appeared to explain
the findings in Family Court. He was told by the judge that he
had no standing in Juvenile Court and he was dismissed. A panel
minor's counsel was appointed. He examined the existing records
and also recommended that the case be returned to the
jurisdiction of Family Court. The Judge dismissed him too. A
third minor's counsel was appointed. The third minor's counsel
agreed to the judge's jurisdiction and stayed on the case. There
was a five-month trial in Juvenile Court with little resolution.
(Mid-trial, the parties agreed to stipulate to a "true finding"
which stated that the "child was saying she had been molested.")
The child continued with the same therapist who is convinced of
the father's guilt.
There is very probable contamination of the child by the
therapist. The Jury spoke with the professionals involved in the
case who are convinced that the child has been manipulated
and contaminated.
It is not likely that this child will ever have a normal
relationship with her father. Her therapist is adamantly opposed
to a resumed relationship. The first time she saw her father in
over a year she gave him a huge hug and immediately sat on his
lap. The savings to provide for Shannon's college education are
gone. The mother was receiving a large property settlement and
substantial alimony and child support. That is gone too. Everyone
lost because no one within the system seemed willing to challenge
the therapist's allegations and what was likely a child's
distorted story. (8)
In all three of these cases the children have been deprived of
their fathers for extended periods of time. Their relationships
with their fathers are probably irreconcilable. The professionals
have backed away from the hard decision that contamination
occurred, that contamination is a protective issue requiring at
least temporary removal from the contaminating parent, and giving
custody to the accused parent or neutral family member until the
accusing parent can receive help.
Included in the Jury recommendations is the establishment of a
protocol which recognizes that without prompt attention in these
cases they will continue to be the source of many of the most
serious, ongoing problems in the dependency process. This
protocol could include the establishment of a multi-disciplinary
court team, like the Family Court Case Study Team, with a highly
trained counselor appointed to coordinate these teams and to
facilitate cooperation between the Domestic and Juvenile Courts.
It is also recommended that visitation not be stopped when an
allegation of sexual molest is made, but that visitation be
continued under therapist supervision. Where a false allegation
is suspected, the complaining party should be warned that
contamination of the child's relationship with a parent is
sufficient grounds for a change of physical custody, and
visitation should not be altered while an investigation is
occurring.
SEXUAL MOLEST CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Guilt or innocence is not determined in Juvenile Court. That is a
standard of criminal court. Perpetrators of in-house molest are
sometimes charged in criminal court and tried by a jury. A
verdict of not guilty in a criminal court will not effect the
"true finding" in Juvenile Court because that finding is based on
a different and lower evidentiary standard.
The jury finds that the criteria for criminal prosecution is also
less than objective and consistent. Law enforcement submits
cases to the District Attorney for prosecution. The District
Attorney has a special Child Abuse Unit. The official criteria
for filing a criminal case is whether the evidence will support a
determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the
case of Alicia_W., the case was ranked as very weak by the
District Attorney and prosecuted anyway. Other prosecuted child
abuse cases were also very weak and seemed to have more of a
personal flavor to them than an objective decision to take the
worst cases and prosecute. (6)
In sexual abuse cases there appears to be a prosecutorial
reliance on the likelihood that a charge will produce a plea to a
lesser offense. The penalties for conviction are very high, and
the cost of a defense prohibitive. Further, a criminal proceeding
against a father keeps the reunification process from proceeding.
Pleas are often structured to salvage a "minor" guilt admission
for the prosecution.
Numerous defense attorneys testified that they allow and even
encourage their clients to plea to a minor charge even when they
are certain of the client's innocence in order to facilitate the
reunification of the family and to avoid a trial. Defense
attorneys feel it is in the client's best interest to avoid a
trial because of public sentiment about allegations of molest.
In one case investigated by the jury, the father was accused of
13 felonies. After 18 months in Juvenile Court and personally
bankrupt, he decided, upon the advice of counsel, to plea to a
single misdemeanor. After reunification with his family, he asked
to have his case reexamined. He contacted a ranking detective in
the Child Abuse Unit and asked how he could do this. It was
suggested that he take a polygraph exam. He did. He followed
other procedures recommended to him. The detective began to
believe that this man was innocent. He talked to the Deputy
District Attorney on the case who treated the exonerating
evidence as irrelevant and refused any action.
In the case of Alicia W., the first DNA results returned
indicated that the father was not the perpetrator and that the
identified and previously convicted serial attacker was within
the 5% of males who could be the perpetrator. A repeat test to
confirm these results was pending. The Department of Social
Services had responded rapidly to a Grand Jury request to look at
the new evidence and stop the pending proceedings in Juvenile
Court. In response to a motion from DSS, the court ordered the
hearing for the termination of parental rights vacated, ordered
unsupervised visitation with the mother and supervised
therapeutic visitation for the father. The District Attorney
refused to lift the "no Contact" order.
There was apparent proof that the father had not raped his child.
Moreover, there was very strong evidence pointing to the person
who had. Instead of "letting go", even the District Attorney's
office looked for unsubstantiated scenarios in which the father
could be involved.
The most specious statement was made by the head Deputy District
Attorney of the District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit. "We have a
believable child saying her Dad did it." This child gave a very
credible description of another man for over a year. A detailed
description was given to law enforcement on the day of the rape.
That description was even used by a another Deputy District
Attorney to obtain physical evidence to aid in the prosecution of
another sexual assault perpetrated by the man described by this
child. During the intervening year Alicia was in twice a week
therapy with a therapist who believed the father was the
perpetrator. She was isolated from anyone who would believe her
other story. The therapist and the social worker blocked defense
efforts for her to see the judge on the case, have an independent
psychological evaluation, and be placed with relatives.
This same head Deputy District Attorney had provided the Jury
early in its investigation with a copy of the Child Victim
Witness Protocol which she had helped develop. This protocol
clearly states that the earlier uncontaminated statements are the
most reliable. It cautions against employing multiple
interrogations. Why was the child not believed when she told her
early story but believed implicitly more than year later when she
told a story implicating her father?
The Jury believes that personnel within the District Attorney's
Child Abuse Unit subscribe to many myths about the dynamics of
sexual molest which were described in this report under
Allegations of Molest. The District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit
needs to maintain strict objectivity in its decisions to
prosecute and to maintain a protocol of cooperation, but a
distinct separation from the Child Protection system.
SEXUAL ASSAULT VERSUS SEXUAL MOLEST
Alicia W. was treated as a case of alleged sexual molest. This
was a violent sexual assault. While incestuous sexual molest is
relatively common, particularly with step children and within
extended families, it is extremely rare to have a sexual assault
on a natural child. It is even more rare for that sexual assault
to be a first time sex act.
If there was one major flaw in the way Alicia W. was handled, it
was this initial assumption by the system. Alicia W. was a sexual
assault and should have gone to the sexual assault team instead
of to social workers conditioned to assume that it was sexual
molest.
One of the tragic ironies of this is that Alicia's detailed
description of the perpetrator was actually used to obtain the
physical evidence necessary in another case to convict Alicia's
own rapist. The case of Nicole S. was handled by the sexual
assault team which is the team which should have handled Alicia's
case. The Jury heard evidence that the sexual abuse team was
called in on Alicia W. because it happened to be available. This
employment of the sexual abuse team had a long term and serious
prejudicial effect on the case. It is the Jury's recommendation
that all sexual assault cases be handled by the sexual assault
unit.
The social worker, the investigators at the Center for Child
Protection, the physician, and the therapist all agreed to the
sexual molest theory and all evidence to the contrary was ignored
as unessential, unreliable, or irrelevant. Even the detective to
whom Alicia gave a detailed description later decided it was not
believable.
Evidence of this bias is found in written reports of the initial
evidentiary interview of Alicia done at the Center for Child
Protection. When asked what Alicia would tell her brother to keep
him safe, Alicia responded, "tell him to keep his window locked."
That statement was omitted from the narrative report because it
didn't fit with what the interviewer wanted to hear. Far more
damming, Alicia was asked with whom she would feel safe. She
clearly stated, as attested by the Grand Jury's Viewing of this
tape, "my mom, dad, and brother." This is reported in the
narrative of this interview as, "my mom and brother." It was
later cited by the evidentiary interviewer in her narrative, the
social worker in her social study, and the Director of the Center
for Child Protection in his letter to the court. This statement
was used to show Alicia's exclusion of the father as a person
with whom she felt safe. The best that can be said is that these
people heard what they wanted to hear. The worst is that they
committed perjury.
The Jury has heard expert testimony that rape or sexual assault
on a natural child is unlikely. In fact, any harmful act against
a natural child is 100 times less likely than is such an act
against a non-blood relative. There was no evidence in the
father's family of any previous history of abuse much less
molest. The professionals involved in this case considered no
such evidence or research, and made decisions based on their own
biases.
These biases were activated by "red-flag markers". The "red
flags" present in this case were freely revealed by the parents
in initial interviews. The mother said she had been molested as a
child. The father had recently completed an obesity program with
the Navy and had decided to stop drinking at that time. He
volunteered that he had occasionally, when away from home,
consumed sufficient alcohol to black-out. The son was
hyperactive. The mother didn't drive. The father was an enlisted
man in the Navy. Both parents were over-weight. They didn't know
many people in the community.
Jurors have heard testimony and seen evidence that these "red
flags" are used regularly as diagnostic, risk-assessment
indicators. This is appropriate. However, there has also been
testimony and evidence has been seen that such "indicator"
information is actually employed as evidence. Such information is
set out in social study reports without any balancing information
and proffered and accepted as evidence of abuse.
For example, the social study in Alicia W. detailed all of the
above indicators in detail. It did not mention that the father's
drinking was not a source of a problem in his family. It did not
mention the father's superb rating and a history of excellent
performance reports and rewards in the Navy. It did not mention a
family with extended paternal relatives. It did not mention that
the mother managed all of the household finances and was very
independent with a day care business in her home. It did not
mention that there were no reports of any problems with her day
care service. There was no interview of the parents of these
children. It did not mention that Alicia was an "A" student who
had just won Student of the Month. No one at her school was
interviewed. It did not mention an active participation in church
and community activities despite a relatively recent transfer to
San Diego.
DO CHILDREN LIE ABOUT ABUSE AND SEXUAL TRAUMA?
Psychological experts testified that children lie about these
issues. Recent literature reflecting studies conducted by the
American Psychological Association not surprisingly concluded
that some children lie and others don't. Studies also indicate
that young children can be very easily contaminated to believe
that things happened which, in fact, did not occur.
Witnesses from DSS and the District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit
told the Jury that children rarely lie about abuse and sexual
trauma. It was disturbing to the Jury that these same witnesses
often concluded that a child was in denial or being protective if
they denied abuse by a parent but were never lying when they
accused.
The Jury examined cases where children made allegations of abuse
and then later wanted to retract them. The children said they had
lied and were sorry. The same social workers, therapists,
prosecutors, and judicial officers who believed the stories of
abuse, refused to believe the children when they admitted to a
lie.
Jurors observed a teenage girl testify to molest by her step-
father. She reported to a school counselor that he had touched
her once on the breasts and genital area while she was clothed.
She denied any previous occurrence. Evidence presented at trial
included love letters she had written to an older maternal uncle
with whom she was romantically involved. In these letters she
wrote graphically about her sexual attraction to this uncle. She
also wrote that she was trying to get her mother to strike her so
that she could report the abuse to CPS and live with the
grandmother. (Not coincidentally, the uncle also lived with the
grandmother and the mother was trying to limit contact.)
Prior to the introduction of the letters the teenager had
testified to a good relationship with her mother and no
conflicts. The letters clearly indicated that this was not true.
Despite contradictory testimony from three adults who were awake
and present within 15 feet, and a sibling who was awake in the
next bed, at the time of the alleged abuse, a true finding was
made. At no time was the teenager cautioned about telling the
truth. Everyone in the courtroom was solicitous of this child to
the point of ignoring contradictions in the girl's testimony.
The Jury investigated a case brought by citizen complaint. The
natural 18-year old son of a foster mother was accused by a 10-
year onld foster child of sexual molest. The child was
immediately removed, the foster care license pulled, and the 18-
year-old prosecuted for felony-sexual assault. The only evidence
in the case was the child's allegation. The 18-year-old adamantly
denied the charge. The 18-year old pled "nolo" to a misdemeanor
charge with the understanding that this would be removed from his
record in one year.
The foster mother had not been informed prior to the placement of
this child that the child had a history of sexual molest,
multiple placements, and false allegations against various
parties. While in this home the child made allegations against
his social worker and classroom teacher.
The DSS file includes a long history of psychological problems
and psychological evaluations which reported that the child was a
pathological liar. The District Attorney and DSS had this
information, the defense did not. There was no physical evidence
and the decision to prosecute was based solely on the child's
allegation. Defense costs bankrupted this family. The Department
lost a foster care provider.
A professional family adopted an abused, very petite, four year
old. She did well in this home until p;uberty. She began to act
out, lie, not come home, etc. She told a counselor at school that
she was being abused at home. She told the counselor that she
wasn't being fed and that was the reason she was so small. The
family investigated. The family cooperated and agreed to services
in the hopes that the child and family could be helped. The child
wasn't pulled but social worker contact continued. The child made
allegations to her social worker of sexual molest by her brother.
The parents became alarmed and agreed to her placement in foster
care in order to protect their son. Each person who believed the
stories told by this child ultimately regretted it. The social
services record show a trail of gullible adults. Even a Deputy
District Attorney tried to adopt this child. She returned the
child after several serious problems. This deeply troubled child
now has an extensive record as a delinquent and no family to turn
to. The adoptive family no longer feels capable of coping with
her problems.
There are dozens of these stories. Some children lie. Failure to
recognize this as fact is ultimately not in the child's best
interest. Each one of the children in the stories above has
suffered as a result of the system's gullibility.
SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE
In October, 1991, a Grand Juror was present at a meeting of the
San Diego Commission on Children and Youth when a report on
ritual abuse was adopted. This report, entitled Ritual Abuse
Treatment, Intervention and Safety Guidelines, was the result of
a a task force effort and made numerous recommendations for
handling ritual, and, of particular concern to the Jury, satanic
abuse. The following definition of "satanic" appears in this
report.
Satanic - Satanists may infiltrate other types of cults, or
remain separate. Satanic cults may range from an extra-familial
collection of methamphetamine abuses who torture for excitement,
to decades old, multi-national sects, with established political
systems, revenue mechanisms, etc., which indulge in the
deification of Satan. Numerous cults exist which have
sophisticated suppliers of sacrificial persons, from kidnapers
through "breeders" (women who bear children intended for sexual
abuse and sacrifice).(7)
Within the week Jurors were present at a dependency proceeding
where a referee was presented a detention petition involving
allegations of satanic abuse. The referee followed the
recommendations in the social study which were almost verbatim
from the recommendations made for handling these cases in the
Commission on Children and Youth report. The children name in the
petition were placed in confidential placement with no family
contact whatsoever. They were also placed with a therapist
"well-versed" in ritual abuse.
Citizen complaints of social workers pursuing satanic ritual
abuse cases began to come to the Jury. Four families were from
the same church congregation; the other complaints were
unrelated. In one case the County Counsel filed a petition
actually alleging that the child would be sacrificed on his
birthday. All of the cases tested rational credulity. Each
involved the same set of social workers, therapists, and
detectives. At this time, all cases with which the Jury is
familiar have been terminated. The emotional cost to the children
and families cannot be calculated. In at least two cases,
lawsuits against the County have followed.
Jurors contacted expert witnesses across the country. The ritual
abuse report was sent to various experts for evaluation.
Police detectives involved in these investigations, members of
the task force who wrote the report and an involved therapist
were interviewed. Jurors attended a conference workshop by
another therapist who served on the task force which prepared the
report and was being used as a recommended ritual abuse
therapist. Witnesses were asked to provide a factual information
or evidence they had available which would substantiate the
existence of satanic ritual abuse in San Diego County or
elsewhere. No such information or evidence was provided. The Jury
found that there is no physical evidence of satanic ritual child
abuse in San Diego County. There is evidence and considerable
professional testimony that the existence of satanic ritual abuse
is a contemporary myth perpetuated by a small number of social
workers, therapists, and law enforcement members who have
effected an influence which far belies their numbers. These
"believers" cannot be dissuaded by a lack of physical evidence.
The Jury had extensive contact with Ken Lanning, head of the FBI
Behavioral Sciences Investigation Unit. Mr. Lanning has spent ten
years in nationwide search for reliable evidence of satanic
ritual abuse. He has found none. It is his position that if
satanic ritual abuse were occurring his unit would have found
some concrete evidence during their exhaustive search.
Mr. Lanning advised jurors that epidemic allegations of satanic
abuse frequently follow conferences where social workers and
therapists are exposed to a "survivor" or speaker on the subject.
Jurors attended one of these sessions at a national conference on
child abuse held locally and coordinated by the Center for Child
Protection. "Survivors" told about their abuse in detail. One
"survivor" had memories of sexual abuse on the day she was born.
This same survivor reported memories of her mother's attempts to
abort her. Another "survivor" told a detailed story of satanic
ritual abuse which included a large number of prominent citizens
from her hometown.
Mr. Lanning also stated that the blurring of the diagnosis of
dissociative disorder and a resulting logically false conclusion
is at least partially responsible. This opinion was confirmed by
other expert witnesses. The DSM-III defines Multiple Personality
Disorder under Dissociative Disorders. Multiple Personality
Disorder is an unusual condition with childhood abuse (often
sexual) as a predisposing factor. Therapists who have expanded
the parameters of the dissociative disorder diagnosis to include
any form of dissociation have fallen prey to the logical fallacy
followed that all of these patients also suffered severe
childhood trauma. Proponents of this theory believe that with a
sympathetic therapist, if any dissociative disorder is found,
memories of childhood abuse will follow.
According to professional testimony, there is some evidence that
many patients who receive therapy from a therapist who ascribes
to this theory, will eventually "testify" to such memories. In
fact, the "memories" may be the product of the therapist. The
therapy itself may be the abuse. John Money, Ph.D. of Johns
Hopkins University has labeled this abuse in therapy as
nosocomial abuse. (8)
Grand Jurors viewed a Calvacade video circulated by a County
official. This video shows "therapy" being given to very young
"victims". Professionals advised that the type of therapy used in
this video could be defined as nosocomaial abuse.
The alleged satanic abuse cases which have surfaced nationwide
during the past ten years share many common elements. No matter
how incredible the allegations, the "believers" believe them. No
physical evidence is found,. The "believers" have complex
theories to explain the absence of physical findings and
evidence. The "evidence" presented is the testimony of children.
The children testify to fantastic tales which can not be
confirmed. The children have spent a considerable time with
therapists. Most often, religious fundamentalism is an element.
Frequently, a "survivor" or someone who has "memories" of having
been ritually abused as a child is involved either as the
therapist, the social worker, the prosecutor, or the reporting
party. Criminal trial juries find it hard to believe that
children can tell such incredible stories if nothing has happened
to them. They find themselves faced with either believing the
children are lying or the perpetrator is guilty. In some cases
they have chosen to believe the children. Another option is to
choose to believe that the child"s narrative memory has been
contaminated by the therapy.
Of particular interest is the information the Jury received about
the Little Rascals pre-school case in North Carolina. Eighty-five
percent of the percent of the children received therapy with
three therapists in the town; all of these children eventually
reported satanic abuse. Fifteen percent of the children were
treated by different therapists in a neighboring city; none of
the children reported abuse of any kind after the same period of
time in therapy.
Experts have told the Jury that the first story a young child
tells is most likely the true one. Testimony given by very young
children after a year in therapy should be treated with great
caution. Testimony given by children after a year in therapy with
therapists who are "believers" should be treated with deep
skepticism.
The Grand Jury is aware that the Department of Social Services
has reevaluated the investigative protocols on ritual and satanic
abuse. The social worker who investigated in this area has been
reassigned and the Ritual Abuse report is no longer being
distributed by the Commission on Children and Youth. This is as
it should be.
SB 1771 (Russell) is currently before the state legislator. If
passed, it will create a state-wide task force on ritualistic
child abuse. By statute, this task force will be made up of
fourteen members chosen by two groups, one of which is the Los
Angeles County Commission for Women Task Force on Ritual Abuse.
Much of San Diego County's Report on Ritualistic Abuse was
borrowed from materials compiled by this group. The purpose of
this state task force is ostensibly to determine the extent of
the problem of ritualistic abuse. It would appear that the
selection process makes this task force less than objective. The
Jury strongly urges the Board of Supervisors and San Diego's
Department of Social Services to oppose this legislation.
CONCLUSIONS
Child sexual abuse issues are complex. These issues bring out the
strongest bias in the dependency system. There is little attempt
to view or treat sexual abuse on a spectrum of severity. All
molest issues are treated in much the same way. The system has
made little distinction between molest and assault.
At the time"Families in Crisis" was issued, procedures still
dictated pulling children whenever sexual molest was alleged.
Frequently, children were re-victimized by being pulled from
their homes even when there was a protective parent, and removal
of the perpetrator was an option.
The Grand Jury recognizes the need for careful investigation in
these complicated cases due to the risk to the child if left in a
dangerous situation. It is necessary that investigation be done
by highly trained, objective professionals.
Bias in the system frequently prevents an objective observation
of the case, particularly cases which have originated as custody
disputes in Family Court.
Children "in denial" who are placed in therapy for sexual abuse
should be with highly-qualified therapists who will not
contaminate the child.
The Department of Social Services has recently instituted a task
force on Sexual Abuse issues. The Grand Jury recommends that
this task force be expanded to include formerly impacted parents
and psychologists who specialize in Family Court evaluations.
This task force should be asked to provide recommendations to the
Department of Social Services, the Juvenile Court, and Family
Court Services.
FOOTNOTES
1. Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome has been used excessively
to explain "denial", "recantation", "disclosure" by children
after they have spent months in therapy. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in Com vs. Dunkle 604 A.2d 30 1992 reversed the lower court
and found that admission of expert testimony on this syndrome was
reversible error. The Court noted that the expert did not relate
any of her testimony to the child in question. Finding that
"abused children react in myriad ways and that abused and non-
abused children often exhibit similar behavior problems, the
court fount that "(T)he existence of a child abuse syndrome as
either a generally accepted diagnostic tool or as relevant
evidence is not supportable "and therefor inadmissible. The court
also determined that the expert's testimony failed to meet the
threshold determination of relevance and probability.
Finally the Court found that the expert's testimony concerning
the reasons abused children delay reporting an incident of abuse
to family members, why children omit details of the abuse and why
a sexually abused child may be unable to recall dates and times
of abuse were "not beyond the realm of the average layman" and,
thus, were inappropriate subject of expert testimony.
2. The system has responded with therapeutic "deniers groups"
designed to induce admissions. However, as one father quipped,
there is no denier group for those who are truly
innocent.
3. This case has been with the Family Court Case Study Team
(FCCST) during the entire tenure of this Jury. There were
numerous delays in the evaluation process. These delays were all
attributed to the mother's failure to follow through and to her
intentional obstruction of the process. The evaluation has been
complete for three months but the mother now has refused to pay
her half of the $3,000.00 owed to the psychological evaluator.
The evaluator refuses to release the report until he received
payment. Michael and Calle had several joint sessions with their
father during the evaluation process. Michael was at ease with
his father. Calle was angry at first but relaxed during the
visits. A psychologist on the FCCST strongly recommended that
these children be sent to live with their father for a three
month summer vacation He felt that this would allow the children
to readjust to their father without contamination. There was team
consensus with this recommendation but given the current deadlock
over the release of the evaluation it is doubtful that anything
will occur anytime soon. The father has had no visits with the
children since the evaluation process was completed.
4. An independent psychological evaluation of the whole family
was requested by father's counsel and then ordered by the court
after the new therapists for the minors reported contamination.
The court-appointed psychiatrist prepared this evaluation to be
ready for the contested disposition in February. This evaluation
was favorable to the father and confirmed the therapists in their
concern about contamination by the maternal family. The mother's
attorney informed her of the conclusions of this evaluation
several days before the trial. The mother did not appear at
disposition. It has subsequently been learned that the entire
family has disappeared and is probably relocated in Chile. A
bench warrant was issued for the mother's arrest. Since Chile is
not a signatory to the Hague Convention guidelines, there are no
remedies available to this father. The father has been granted a
rehearing before a judge. The father has also appealed the
jurisdictional decision of the lower court on numerous grounds.
Interestingly, minor's appellate counsel has agreed with the
elements of the father's appeal. Note: 6/11//92 In the rehearing
the trial judge
determined that there was new evidence, that the referee had
erred in not allowing evidence exculpatory to the father, and
hence reversed the true finding against the father.
5. There has been little change in this case. The father now has
only supervised visitation once a month with his daughter.
6. The following studied cases are offered as examples. *A
school teacher was tried for child abuse after pushing a child. A
jury found her not guilty. It was acknowledged by the supervising
Deputy D.A. that this was a weak case, prosecuted "to teach a
lesson, test the parameters of the law, educate the public." *A
teenager was prosecuted for felony child molest upon an
allegation by a foster child in his mother's home. There was no
physical evidence. The D.A.'s office prosecuted despite its
awareness that this child's DSS file contained references to
previous unfounded allegations as well as psychological
evaluations of the child as a pathological liar. *A step-
grandfather was prosecuted for the felony child molest of his 11
year old granddaughter. He and the family adamantly denied the
allegations. Again, DSS files available to the D.A. contained
contradictory information and evaluations of the child as a
pathological liar. There was also a child molest report involving
the natural father and the child. None of this information was
revealed to the defense. The child testified at the preliminary
hearing but was not cross-examined. At the time of trial, the
D.A. stated that the child could not be located. The preliminary
hearing testimony of the child was entered. The step-grandfather
was convicted. Between conviction and sentencing the defense
became aware that the child's whereabouts was known, and had been
know, by the D.A. The defense asked for a re-trial; it has been
granted.
7. Ritual Abuse p.5
8. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation, located in
Philadelphia, was established in February, 1992. The Advisory
Board of FMS Foundation includes twenty Professors of Psychology
and Psychiatry from the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard,
UCLA, Stanford, John Hopkins, UC Berkely, Carnegie Mellow
University. The Foundation is deeply concerned about the growing
phenomenon of false accusations coming out of therapy. The
Foundation is concerned that this dangerous phenomenon will
ultimately impact the profession's credibility. Already they
attribute inappropriate therapy with destroying families and
creating abuse in the minds of children and adults.
APPENDIX A
NOTE: The original report had attached the following which are
only noted herein.
California Child Abuse Reporting Law; Penal Code, Article 2.5.;
Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. Sections: 11164, 11165,
11165.1, 11165.2, 11165.3.
Sexual Assault; Penal Code; Sections 261, 264.1, 285, 286, 289,
288, 288a, 647.6.
Sexual Exploitation; Penal Code Section 311.2.
HTML by David R Throop. Taken from a posting by Michael Rivero
rivero@kwcc.com. A note in that posting said
The following was entered by California FREE member Steve Lind.
False Rape Report Index
(
geocities.com/jgharris7)