The investigating clinician should document and discuss factors that argue for or against the validity of the allega-tion. The strongest validation criteria are based on docu-menting explicit sexual experiences with a progression of sexual acts over time described by the child. The inter-viewer should look for sexual experiences beyond the child’s expected knowledge or experience, a description told from the child’s viewpoint and vocabulary, and an emotional response consistent with the nature of the abuse. The assessment of a sexual abuse complaint should also include possible motivations for the issuance of a false sexual abuse complaint by either the child or the adult (Quinn 1988).
The two most common reasons to view an allegation of CSA as not credible are a recantation by the child and the existence of improbable elements in a child’s disclo-sure. As described earlier, recantations are common even in high-certainty cases and should be assessed for their own credibility. Recent interest in high-profile cases with bizarre and improbable elements has prompted a small literature on this little-studied aspect of CSA allegations.
Everson (1997) has written that the existence of improb-able or fantastic elements in a child’s account should not prompt an automatic dismissal of the child’s account. He details possible sources of the implausible accounts: the event, the assessment process, and influences outside the assessment process. He describes 24 specific mecha-nisms to explain implausible elements in a child’s account of abuse. Severe abuse produces more implausible and fantastic allegations (Dalenberg 1996). Fantasy elements should not automatically lead evaluators to suspect the entire allegation.
CASE EXAMPLE EPILOGUES
Case Example 1
Several months after the first set of interviews, the investigators became concerned that their techniques would be criticized. They redid the interviews, this time separating the children and using an interview protocol that contained a series of questions surveying the child’s knowledge of body parts and screening for abuse. The children were much less forthcoming at the time of the second set of interviews, denying all sexual abuse. Due to the inconsistencies between the interviews and the poor techniques used initially, the prosecutor decided not to include these children in the pending lawsuit against the day care. Repetitive nightmares and sexualized play suggested that the children had been abused in some way.
Case Example 2
The social worker for the department of human ser-vices initially worked up the case by interviewing the girl in her mother’s home and made no attempt to interview the father. However, a psychiatrist associ-ated with the domestic relations court consulted with the worker and recommended an interview of the child at a neutral site (the social worker’s office) and contact with the father. A series of two interviews with the girl revealed a consistent history of fondling and nudity within the father’s home. The disclosure was noted to be in age-appropriate language with unique details such as who said what to whom. The social worker, after her initial skepticism that this might be a false allegation, concluded that the abuse was substantiated. The case was scheduled to be heard in domestic relations court to determine what, if any, contact between the father and daughter would be permitted.
Case Example 3
The intake worker, on hearing this history, decided that additional expertise would be required on this case. She called the local hospital-affiliated sex abuse team and asked to speak to the coordinator. The two professionals decided that a senior member of the sex-ual abuse team with experience in early childhood development and special needs children would inter-view the child while the social service personnel watched behind a one-way mirror. The two inter-views, which were conducted over the next several days, appeared to indicate that the 3-year-old was describing hygienic touching as opposed to abuse. The family readily decided to change their handling of the 3-year-old’s toileting. No other overstimulating or inappropriate experiences were detailed during the evaluation. The 3-year-old was also referred for a speech and language assessment.
ACTION GUIDELINES
A. General principles
1. Document the chronology, context, and consis-tency of the complaint.
2. Maintain objectivity.
a. External independence: not allying oneself with any particular individual involved in the investigation.
b. Internal independence: not allowing oneself to be biased relative to the allegations.
3. Gather uncontaminated data for the court system.
B. Interviewer requirements
1. Be skilled in managing parental behaviors, emo-tions, and reactions.
2. Be comfortable interacting with children.
3. Have knowledge of basic child development prin-ciples.
4. Be skillful in managing a wide range of children’s behaviors.
5. Remain current with regard to child witness and child sexual abuse literature.
6. Establish interview format.
C. Avoiding role confusion
1. Maintain evaluation stance rather than engaging in therapeutic procedures.
2. Avoid emotional interpretation of events to child.
3. Remember who is trier of fact (judge/jury).
4. Maintain independence by avoiding inappropriate advocacy.
D. Triaging intake
1. Determine whether evaluation by clinician is man-datory or voluntary. If possible, get court-appointed status.
2. Determine ability to perform requested evalua-tions; learn the legal issues at stake.
3. Assess amount of time available for necessary pro-cedures and availability for any court propro-cedures.
4. Inform participants of financial considerations.
5. Assess divorce, custody, and visitation arrange-ments.
6. Obtain pertinent court information.
7. Assess quality of any previous evaluations, includ-ing who did it, what kind of traininclud-ing the person has, techniques utilized, availability of written report, who received feedback, and contaminative influences.
8. Determine levels of documentation to be utilized (e.g., audiotaping, videotaping, written report, etc.).
E. Interviews
1. Arrange for parental interviews, separate and bal-anced, if parents are seen separately.
2. Obtain psychosocial, family, and childhood histo-ries from each parent.
3. Make appointments for the child’s interview, informing parent of need to see child alone.
4. Prepare interview room with minimum number of toys and desired evaluation materials.
5. Establish free play period for child, with goals of a) making child comfortable and relaxed with interviewer, b) rapport building, c) informal devel-opmental assessment of memory, suggestibility, capacity to lie, cognitive style, and level of sexual knowledge.
6. Guide child through interview from open-ended to focused questions.
F. Ancillary services
1. Arrange for psychological testing, if indicated.
2. Refer for medical exam if not already done.
G. Assessment of contamination
1. Review interviews for interviewer’s behaviors that may have affected child’s responses.
2. Judge technical, system, and/or parental factors that may have influenced child (videotaping, intensive questioning, etc.).
H. Report writing
1. Write a complete report, including a. referral information
b. time, place, and participants of each contact c. background information
d. behavioral observations
e. type of procedures utilized in evaluation f. information gathered from interview g. testing report if done
h. impressions i. diagnosis
j. recommendations
2. Include degree of factors that may have affected child’s responses in past as well as present evalua-tions.
REFERENCES
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Guide-lines for the Evaluation of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse, Revised Edition. Washington, DC, American Acad-emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1990
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Prac-tice parameters for the forensic evaluation of children and adolescents who may have been physically or sexually abused. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 36(10), sup-plement, October 1997
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children:
Guidelines for Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sex-ual Abuse in Young Children. Chicago, IL, American Pro-fessional Society on the Abuse of Children, 1990 (Avail-able from APSAC, 407 South Dearborn Avenue, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60605)
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children:
Guidelines for the Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse in Young Children. Chicago, IL, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 1995 (Available from APSAC, 407 South Dearborn Avenue, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60605)
Bays J, Chadwick D: Medical diagnoses of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse Negl 17:91–110, 1993
Boat B, Everson M: Interviewing young children with anatomi-cal dolls. Child Welfare 57:337–352, 1988
Boat BW, Everson MD: Anatomical doll exploration among non-referred children. Child Abuse Negl 18:139–153, 1994 Bradley A, Wood K: How do children tell? the disclosure
pro-cess in child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl 20(9):881–
891, 1996
Brosing CL, Kalichman SC: Clinician’s reporting of suspected child abuse. Clin Psychol Rev 12:155–168, 1992
Bruck M, Ceci S, Francoer R: Children’s use of anatomically de-tailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical exami-nation. J Exp Psychol Appl 6:74–83, 2000
Bulkley J: Child Sexual Abuse and the Law, 5th Edition. Wash-ington, DC, American Bar Association, 1985
Bull R: Innovative techniques for questioning children, especial-ly those who are young and those who are learning dis-abled, in Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness. Ed-ited by Zaragoza MS, Graham JR, Hall GCN, et al.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1995, pp 179–194
Ceci SJ, Bruck M: Jeopardy in the Courtroom. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 1995
Conte J, Sorenson E, Fogarty L, et al: Evaluating children’s re-ports of sexual abuse: results from a survey of profession-als. Am J Orthopsychiatry 61:428–437, 1991
Coy v Iowa, 487 US 1012 (1988)
Dalenberg CJ: Fantastic Elements in Child Disclosure of Abuse.
9 APSAC Advisor 9(2):1, 5–10, 1996
DeLoache J: The use of dolls in interviewing young children, in Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness. Edited by Zaragoza MS, Graham JR, Hall GCN, et al. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1995, pp 160–178
Everson MD: Understanding bizarre, improbable and fantastic elements in children’s accounts of abuse. Child Maltreat-ment 2:134–149, 1997
Everson MD, Boat BW: Sexualized doll play among young chil-dren. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 29:736–742, 1990
Everson MD, Boat BW: Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective. Child Abuse Negl 18:113–129, 1994 Faller KC: Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment
Is-sues. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993
Finkelhor D: Sexually victimized children. New York, Free Press, 1979
Finkelhor D: Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. Future Child 4(2):31–53, 1994 Friedrich WN: Sexual behavior in sexually abused children.
Vi-olence Update 3 (5), 1, 7–11, 1993
Friedrich WN: Psychological assessment of sexually abused children: the case for abuse-specific measures. Paper pre-sented at the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Los Angeles, CA, August 12, 1994
Friedrich WN, Grambach P, Damon L, et al: Child Sexual Be-havior Inventory: normative and clinical comparisons. Psy-chol Assess 4:303–311, 1992
Goodman GS, Taub EP, Jones DPH, et al: Testifying in criminal court. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 57:1–159, 1992 Idaho v Wright, 497 US 805, 110 S Ct 3139 (1990)
Jones D, McQuistion M: Interviewing the sexually abused child. Denver, CO, C.H. Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1985
Jones D, McQuistion M: Interviewing the Sexually Abused Child, 2nd Edition. Denver, CO, CH Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1986
Kendall-Tackett KA, Williams LM, Finkelhor D: The impact of sexual abuse on children: a review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychol Bull 113:164–180, 1993 Kerns DL, Ritter ML: Medical findings in child sexual abuse
cases with perpetrator confessions. Presented at the annual meeting of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association, Balti-more, MD, May 7, 1992. Published in American Journal of Diseases of Children 146:494, 1992
Lawson L, Chaffin M: False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7:532–542, 1992
Lipovsky JA: The impact of court on children. Journal of Inter-personal Violence 9(2):238–257, 1994
Maryland v Craig, 497 US 836 (1990)
Massachusetts v Amirault LeFave, 430 Mass 169, 714 NE2d 805 (1988)
McCurdy K, Daro D: Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: the results of the 1993 annual fifty-state sur-vey. Working paper no. 808. Chicago, IL, National Com-mittee for Prevention of Child Abuse, April, 1994 Muram O: Child sexual abuse: relationship between sexual acts
and genital findings. Child Abuse Negl 13:211–216, 1989 Myers JEB: The Backlash. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1994 Myers JEB: Evidence in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, 3rd
Edition. New York, Wiley Law Publishers, 1997
Quinn KM: The credibility of children’s allegations of sexual abuse. Behav Sci Law 23:181–200, 1988
Runyan DK: The emotional impact of societal interventions into child abuse, in Child Victims, Child Witnesses. Edited by Goodman GS, Bottoms BL. New York, Guilford, 1993 Russell D: The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and
Women. New York, Basic Books, 1986
Saywitz K, Camparo L: Interviewing child witnesses: a develop-mental perspective. Child Abuse Negl 22(8):825–848, 1998
Sgroi S, Porter F, Blick L: Validation of sexual abuse, in Hand-book for Clinical Intervention in Child Sexual Abuse. Ed-ited by Sgroi S. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1982, pp 39–80
Sorenson T, Snow B: How children tell: the process of disclo-sure in child sexual abuse. Child Welfare 70:3–15, 1991 State v Michaels, 625 A2d 489 (NJ S Ct App Div 1993), Aff.’d,
642 A2d 1372 (1994)
Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, et al: Effects of intro-ductory style on children’s abilities to describe experiences of sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl 21(11):1133–1146, 1997
Terr L: Forbidden games: post-traumatic child’s play. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 20:740–759, 1981
White S, Quinn KM: Investigatory independence in child sexu-al abuse evsexu-aluations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 16:269–273, 1988
White S, Santilli G, Quinn KM: Child evaluator’s roles in child sexual abuse assessments, in Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases. Edited by Nicholson EB, Bulkley J. Washington, DC, American Bar Association Na-tional Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Pro-tection, 1988
White v Illinois, 502 US 346, 112 S Ct 736 (1992)
Wiese D, Daro D: Current Trends in Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Results of the 1993 Annual Fifty-State Survey. Chicago, IL, National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, 1995
Yuille JC, Hunter R, Joffe R, et al: Interviewing children in sex-ual abuse cases, in Child Victims, Child Witnesses. Edited by Goodman GS, Bottoms BL. New York, Guilford, 1993
161