Because a child can be sexually abused without leaving
any physical evidence, much of the debate over such abuse has revolved around
the credibility of accounts purportedly given by children. The child savers
portray this as an issue of veracity, declaring "children never lie"
or, more recently "children rarely lie."
But
framing the issue this way is misleading. It is highly unlikely that a very
young child will spontaneously pick up the phone and call a child protective
hotline. Allegations of sexual abuse of children typically are brought by and
filtered through adults. And that's where the problems usually start.
False
reports can result when:
A child misunderstands a child abuse prevention
presentation, as for example when a kindergarten child going to bed gets an
affectionate pat on his bottom from his father and says: "Daddy, I'm sorry
but my teacher says that's my private zone and you can't touch me there.”[1]
An interviewer asks leading questions. In one study, for
example, five- and six-year-olds gave an accurate account of an event staged
before them when the questions put to them later were neutral. But when the
interviewer told them a version of the incident that was false, 90 percent of
the children eventually changed their "recollection" from what they
had seen with their own eyes to what the questioner told them had happened.[2]
A child is lavishly praised for
"disclosing" abuse, but berated and belittled for failing to tell a
therapist what the therapist wants to hear. In the notorious McMartin Preschool
case, for example, a child who insisted he did not see any abuse was told by a
therapist, "you must be dumb!"[3] In another alleged
"mass molestation" case, in Jordan, Minnesota, some children taken
away from accused parents were told they had a better chance of being returned
to their parents if they accused them of sexual abuse.[4]
In
1989, the American Psychological Association brought together the leading
researchers in the field to address the question: Are children reliable
witnesses? Their not-so-startling conclusion: Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
According to one of the organizers of the conference,
Prof. Stephen J. Ceci of Cornell University, "children are often able to
provide courts with much that is forensically valuable, provided that
adults who have access to them do not attempt to alter their reports through
coaching, suggestions, rehearsal, bribes, or threats."[5]
[Emphasis in original]. Unfortunately, all of these techniques have been used
repeatedly by the child savers.
Among
the most tragic examples is the case of an eight year old San Diego girl,
Alicia W.
In
May of 1989, Alicia was kidnapped by a man who came in through her bedroom
window, brutally raped her, then returned her to her room. But that was only
the beginning of her terror.
At
a time when she most needed the love and support of her family, Alicia was
completely isolated from them. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric about the
need to "believe the children" San Diego's child savers refused to
believe Alicia. They refused to believe her even though she gave a detailed
description of her attacker, and even though they knew almost identical crimes
had been committed in the same neighborhood.
Instead,
Alicia was denied all contact with her family and confined to a world of social
workers, therapists, and foster parents, all of whom pressured her to
"admit" that she was "in denial" and she had really been
raped by her father. Through it all, she begged to go home. After 13 months of
this sort of twice-weekly "therapy" she changed her story and named
her father as the attacker. (The father also was in therapy, forced to attend a
"deniers group").
For
the child savers, it was a triumph. At last Alicia had "disclosed." Based
on her new story, they brought criminal charges against the father and tried to
take Alicia away from her parents forever so the foster parents could adopt
her. They were within days of succeeding when a DNA test of semen stains on
Alicia's clothes proved that her father could not have been the rapist. Among
the five percent of men whom it could have been was the same man who by then
had been convicted of the other attacks in the neighborhood.
By the time all charges were dropped, the family had
been bankrupted by legal bills, Alicia's mother had attempted suicide, and
Alicia had been separated from her family for two-and-a-half years. The child
savers did not so much as say they were sorry.[6]
The
harm to innocent families is only half of the problem. The techniques of the
child savers often make it impossible to determine innocence or guilt. The same
techniques that may destroy an innocent family in one case may backfire and let
a real child abuser go free in another.
1. Sherryll Kerns Kraizer, "Rethinking
Prevention," Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal,
Vol. 10, p.260, 1986. Back to Text.
2. Prof. K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, Remarks,
American Psychological Association News Conference, July 25, 1991, p.8 Back to Text.
3. Tom Charlier and Shirley Downing, "Justice
Abused: A 1980s Witch Hunt," The (Memphis, Tenn.) Commercial Appeal,
Jan., 1988, Reprint, pp. A16, A17. Back to Text.
4. Office of the Attorney General, State of Minnesota, Report
on Scott County Investigations, Feb. 12, 1985. Back to
Text.
5. Prof. Stephen J. Ceci, Remarks, American
Psychological Association news conference, July 25, 1991. Back
to Text.
6. San Diego County Grand Jury, The Case of Alicia
W., Report No. 6, June 23, 1992 and Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and
Molest Issues, Report No. 8, June 29, 1992; Jim Okerblom and John Wilkens,
"Tragedy, Errors Shatter a Family," The San Diego Union, Oct.
20, 1991, p.1 Back to Text.