C H A P T E R 1 3
Drawings in Forensic Investigations
National organizations have published guidelines for the evaluation of children who may have been abused (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1990; American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 1990). The central component of a child sexual abuse investigation is an interview of the alleged victim by a highly skilled child interview specialist or law enforcement agent. Frequently, child abuse interviews are conducted at multidisciplinary interviewing centers that promote interagency collaboration and team cooperation in an effort to minimize re-petitive interviews while maximizing the information provided by the child (Cohen-Liebman, 1999; Davies et al., 1996; Sheppard & Zangrillo, 1996; Sorenson, Bot-toms, & Perona, 1997). Investigative interviews often are conducted according to guidelines, although different communities subscribe to distinct interview guidelines or protocols (Bourg et al., 1999; Carnes, Wilson, & Nelson-Gardell, 1999; Davies et al., 1996; Myers, 1998; Poole & Lamb, 1998; Reed, 1996; Sorenson et al., 1997;
Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk, 1993). Component parts may vary, yet the con-tent is comparable not only in this country but abroad as well (Cheung, 1997;
Cohen-Liebman, 1999; Davies et al., 1996; Monteleone, 1996; Poole & Lamb, 1998). Effective interviewing techniques and best practice for investigative interviews have been the focus of study in recent years.
Civil proceedings such as custodial matters may require the skills of forensic evaluators commissioned by the court to conduct a neutral and objective evaluation.
The process may involve the parents/guardians and the child(ren) who are the subject of the dispute. The objective of a court-ordered process is to assist the court in deci-sion making by providing objective information and informed opinions (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1990). The expert is essentially charged with the task of explaining behavioral and psychological findings in lan-guage that is applicable to the court and useful in the decision-making process. Spe-cialized competence is required, as is familiarity with state laws (American Psychological Association, 1994).
FORENSIC ART THERAPY
Forensic art therapy is developing into a specialization within art therapy extending the practical application of the field beyond the traditional realms of evaluation and treatment (Cohen-Liebman, 1997). Forensic art therapy integrates art therapy prac-tice and theory within a legal context and with standard forensic procedure and pro-tocol. It is used for fact-finding purposes and is investigative in nature rather than interventive (Cohen-Liebman, 1997, 2002; Gussak & Cohen-Liebman, 2001). Fo-rensic art therapy uses creative expression in the elicitation of information pertinent for fact finding or investigative purposes. Forensic art therapy assists in the resolu-tion of legal matters that are in dispute (Gussak & Cohen-Liebman, 2001).
Forensic art therapy is practiced in a nontraditional setting that is outside the pa-rameters of clinical practice. Clients are referred by a system involved in a legal dis-pute or engaged in an investigative function such as law enforcement, prosecution, child protection, or judiciary (e.g., judge or mediator). Such clients often come invol-168 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS WITH CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
untarily and may be remanded by the court or an investigative body to participate in an interview or evaluation. Forensic art therapy is distinct from art therapy practiced within a forensic setting (e.g., prisons or detention centers) (Cohen-Liebman &
Gussak, 1998; Gussak & Cohen-Liebman, 2001), but because of the scope of this brief chapter, these differences are not addressed here.
The forensic art therapist does not assume the role of advocate or adversary but, rather, retains a neutral, objective stance. The process and resultant information are communicated to an investigative team and findings may be presented at court re-quiring testimony by the therapist, necessitating knowledge of legal tenets, case law, and ethical issues.
FORENSIC VERSUS CLINICAL PROCEDURES
There are inherent differences between investigative and clinical approaches to inter-viewing children regarding sexual abuse. The purpose of the clinical evaluation of child sexual abuse according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-chiatry (1990) guidelines is to determine whether abuse has occurred, if the child needs protection, and if the child needs treatment for medical or emotional problems.
In the assessment of allegations of child sexual abuse, the goal of the interviewer is to gather information in a nonthreatening manner while minimizing secondary trauma that can be induced by systemic intervention.
In contrast, a forensic process addresses legal issues and obtains information to assist with legal determinations (Haralambie, 1999; Mannarino & Cohen, 1992). A central objective of a forensic interview is to obtain information in an effort to ascer-tain whether abuse occurred (Reed, 1996) and to procure information in a manner that is objective, developmentally sensitive, comprehensive, and forensically defensi-ble (Cohen-Liebman, 1999; Davies et al., 1996). Additional goals of the interview in-clude corroboration of the data collected, the exploration of alternate hypotheses, and the assessment of suggestibility, credibility, and competency. Competency is de-fined as a child’s ability to testify in court in a reliable, meaningful manner, whereas credibility refers to the child’s truthfulness and accuracy (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1997).
In a forensic process, the interviewer adopts a neutral stance and refrains from interviewer bias. The interviewer is an advocate for the facts and is considered a truth seeker. Adherence to prescribed forensic procedure is mandatory in order for the process to be legally defensible in court.
In contrast, a therapeutic relationship is not neutral and is predicated upon an empathetic response by the therapist. Thus, subjective interpretations and nonspe-cific accounts are acceptable. The manner in which data are collected is not integral to the process. In a clinical process a general idea of abuse is sufficient whereas in a forensic process details are imperative (Raskin & Esplin, 1991). In a forensic con-text, the task is to gather information and discern the truth through the acquisition of factual material while the clinician provides support and intervention usually after the investigative process is complete. Validation of thoughts and feelings is an inte-Drawings in Forensic Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse 169
gral part of a clinical process. In contrast, a forensic process is centered around ob-jectivity, fact finding, and truth seeking. Forensic practice is governed by ethical and legal practices that extend to collection and preservation of data.
DRAWINGS AND FORENSIC INVESTIGATION
Drawings can assist the interviewer in achieving many of the goals associated with the investigative process. Drawings have been identified as enhancing and increasing the productivity of the interview process (Farley, 1987). A child’s experience can be expressed pictorially through a drawing which can later serve as evidentiary material (Burgess, Hartman, Wolbert, & Grant, 1987; Cohen-Liebman, 1995; Gussak &
Cohen-Liebman, 2001). Information derived from drawings can assist the investiga-tive team in the determination of additional measures and interventions.
Drawings are considered novel, scientific evidence and are subject to a special admissibility hearing in some jurisdictions (Cohen-Liebman, 1994). Drawings have been identified as an ancillary support for interviewers (Poole & Lamb, 1998) and a means of eliciting information regarding allegations of sexual abuse (Schetky &
Green, 1988). Human-figure drawings have been identified as helpful to interviewers in eliciting information from children (Haralambie, 1999). Children may lack the cognitive capability or the verbal capacity to articulate their abusive experiences.
They also may be too embarrassed or ashamed to discuss the abuse. Research studies (Kelley, 1984) indicate that often children who have been reticent to discuss their ex-periences may become more open and verbal after drawing the abuse. On occasion, a child may ask to show rather than tell what happened. Such a depiction may enhance disclosure and signal additional elements to explore.
Faller (1996) identified a number of authors who offered suggestions regarding specific drawing tasks that might elicit information relevant to sexual abuse. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1997) guidelines state that the usefulness of drawings lies in the affect and information they elicit and certain characteristics that may be suggestive of sexual abuse. They indicate that drawings are helpful in forensic assessments. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (1990) addresses the use of drawings within the psychosocial evaluation of sexual abuse and provides suggestions for drawing tasks within a forensic evalua-tion. Conte, Sorenson, Fogarty, and Dalla Rosa’s (1991) survey to assess the use of free or nondirected drawings in the evaluation of sexual abuse yielded an 87% posi-tive response. Drawings are frequently cited as valuable for the development of rap-port (Bourg et al., 1999; Davies et al., 1996; Friedrich, 1990). Haugaard and Reppucci (1989) contend that a child’s depiction of an abuse scene decreases concern regarding possible influence. The clinical application of spontaneous drawings has also been addressed (Cohen-Liebman, 1995; Faller, 1996; Friedrich, 1990; Schetky
& Green, 1988).
Drawings are frequently categorized in the same manner as anatomically de-tailed dolls. Some research identifies these aids as least suggestive and most useful when used for recall and demonstration purposes after a child has made a verbal 170 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS WITH CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
disclosure (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 1995; Bourg et al., 1999). Drawings are considered similar to dolls for discussion and demonstration of anatomy (Bourg et al., 1999; Davies et al., 1996). Bourg et al. (1999) discuss the use of dolls and various media to offer assistance with regard to a child’s understand-ing of forensic concepts because it is often easier for a child to demonstrate understanding rather than provide a verbal explanation.
Many authors concur that care should be taken in the interpretation of drawings (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1990; Burgess & Hartman, 1993; Cohen-Liebman, 1995, 1999; Farley, 1987; Friedrich, 1990; Hibbard, Rogh-mann, & Hoekelman, 1987; Malchiodi, 1998; Schetky & Benedek, 1992; Sorenson et al., 1997). Interviewers are cautioned not to interpret or overinterpret drawings in an effort to determine the likelihood of sexual abuse.
ADVANTAGES OF DRAWINGS IN FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS Drawings offer significant advantages in a forensic context:
1. As interviewing tools, drawings are used in a supportive capacity in the inves-tigation of a legal matter.
2. In the capacity of charge enhancement, drawings provide contextual informa-tion that can contribute to the determinainforma-tion of charges as well as the identifi-cation of additional arenas to investigate.
3. Drawings as judiciary aids provide evidentiary material that is admissible in a judicial proceeding (Cohen-Liebman, 2002; Gussak & Cohen-Liebman, 2001).
DRAWINGS AS INTERVIEWING TOOLS
Interviewing tools are referred to as aids, media, tools, or props. These tools include, but are not limited to, free play, drawings (both free or nondirected and anatomical), and anatomically detailed dolls. Pros and cons associated with the incorporation of interviewing tools have been delineated from differing perspectives and generally they have been regarded with secondary significance as supportive elements within forensic interviews. Myers (1998) states that during investigative interviews and courtroom testimony, props are often used to help children describe events.
Drawings and drawing materials as interview tools or investigative implements can help facilitate the development of rapport and establish trust between the child and the interviewer. Often a variety of media are selected in advance of the process, providing the child with a choice of materials. The art materials connote a child-friendly process, and the ability to self-select materials encourages a sense of empow-erment. These tools may serve as a stimulus for both the interviewer and the child to explore material that is both manifest and latent. Material that is initially presented through drawings may serve as a catalyst for eventual disclosure of information and Drawings in Forensic Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse 171
provide details that may be salient to the investigation. Drawings can stimulate and focus conversation, provide structure to the process, and be used to explore related topics and issues.
Cohen-Liebman (1999, 2002) has expanded on the notion of drawings as inter-view tools through exploration of the role drawings contribute within an investiga-tive process. The inclusion of drawings within an investigainvestiga-tive interview format was examined in combination with the Common Interview Guideline (CIG) developed by Cohen-Liebman for child sexual abuse investigators in the city of Philadelphia (Cohen-Liebman, 1999, 2002). The author identified intrinsic benefits associated with the integration of drawings within the investigative format as well as the inher-ent advantages for the child, the team, and the process. Drawings integrated within the phases of the CIG assist in the attainment of the specified goals and objectives.
Drawings were demonstrated to supplement and complement the five phases of the CIG identified as Rapport Building, Developmental Assessment, Anatomy Identification, Fact-finding, and Closure.
Regardless of the manner in which drawings are included as interviewing tools, verbalization by the child is integral. Several authors advocate that verbal descrip-tions be sought by the child for clarification and explanation purposes, thus alleviat-ing an assumptive stance by the interviewer (Farley, 1987; Sorenson et al., 1997).
Bourg et al. (1999) state that communication with tools cannot effectively substitute for statements, but they can provide value for clarity when verbalization is limited.
Children may be asked to explain the subject matter contained in the drawing or they may be asked to show what happened next.
Drawings as interview tools help in culling information to assist in the compre-hension of developmental levels and associated spheres including social, emotional, and cognitive. This information is integral for the interviewer in addressing the needs of the child while adhering to forensic practice. Suggestibility and accuracy, funda-mental components within the interview process, can be addressed and clarified through the child’s own depictions.
Drawings are valuable as an interview tool in anatomy identification and allow for identification of sexual and nonsexual body parts. Some children have difficulty identifying sexual parts through direct body demonstration and such a request may provoke stress or encourage a traumatic reaction. The use of a client-generated pic-ture or diagram allows for distillation of anxiety and stress as well as a concrete and permanent record that is objective.
Case Example
A 6-year-old boy was interviewed following allegations that he was molested by a 19-year-old male. The child presented with speech difficulties and displayed a possi-ble tic disorder or a neurological propossi-blem for which he was scheduled for further evaluation. He proceeded to make a spontaneous drawing which he referred to as an alien. He was asked to use his drawing to assess anatomy identification. He identi-fied nonsexual body parts and sexual body parts on the figure. When asked if he had similar body parts he reported that he had two private parts, and he proceeded to 172 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS WITH CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
make a second figure which he referred to as himself with a monkey ear. He identi-fied buttocks through the use of a marker. Finally, he drew a picture of a figure which he stated was his mother. Although he did not have terminology for private parts, he indicated that girls (his mother) have a different private part than boys (see Figure 13.1).
In this case, spontaneous drawings served several purposes. They provided an opportunity to assess developmental and skill levels as well as establish rapport.
They also provided a way to assess anatomy identification that was client directed and spontaneous. The drawings also encouraged further exploration of related issues including the allegations. Through the drawings the child was able to convey what the alleged perpetrator did to him. He also discussed the use of force and confirmed his verbal statement by pointing to the buttocks he drew. He also verbally stated what the alleged perpetrator did.
DRAWINGS AS CHARGE ENHANCEMENTS
Charge or forensic enhancements are details or elements of an event that may con-tribute to the determination of charges. Charge enhancements are identified as Drawings in Forensic Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse 173
FIGURE 13.1.Drawing by 6-year-old boy molested by 19-year-old male.
threats, bribes, rewards, coercion, pressure, physical harm, restraint, force, weapons, abduction, pornography, photography, sexual aids, media including television, cable or videos, mapping (a diagram of the scene/event), witnesses (observers), additional participants, and additional victims. These elements may be integral in obtaining and providing the basis for the acquisition of a search warrant in conjunction with verbal descriptions.
Charge enhancements can surface in the content of drawings. Children may de-pict elements of their abusive experience, including situational and contextual infor-mation, that may contribute to the direction of additional investigation and eventual prosecution. The information imparted through a graphic depiction may influence the filing of charges in tandem with a verbal confirmation or statement that lends credence to the depiction or in which the picture corroborates a verbal statement.
Figure 13.2 is an example of a drawing that depicts situational and contextual material. Drawn by a 6-year-old girl, the child attempted to depict her abusive expe-rience, which occurred on a school bus. The drawing is indicative of the location of the abuse (on the school bus). It also provided information regarding how the perpe-trator, an upper classman, took her to a seat in the back of the bus where he molested her before returning her to her seat in front behind the bus driver. The child’s verbal associations provided additional information in tandem with the drawing which sup-ported charges. Finally, it provided a map or diagram of the scene.
Disclosure drawings are characterized by Cohen-Liebman (1999) as including 174 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS WITH CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
FIGURE 13.2. Example of charge enhancement: Drawing by a 6-year-old girl of the place (a school bus) where the abuse happened.
salient and significant information pertaining to the child’s experience of abuse and may support charges. These drawings can support and expand on a verbal account thus promoting corroboration.
Figure 13.3 is a disclosure drawing. The drawing was made by a 7-year-old girl.
The line extensions provided the child with an ego-syntonic way to communicate the types of abuse perpetrated against her.
DRAWINGS AS JUDICIARY AIDS
Drawings have been identified as evidentiary material. A representative sampling from the various disciplines addresses the viability of drawings as judiciary aids and as a support to facilitate testimony (Burgess et al., 1987; Cohen-Liebman, 1995;
Farley, 1987; Malchiodi, 1990; Veltkamp & Miller, 1994). In some states, statutes have been written that specifically provide for the use of drawings to assist the child witness at the discretion of the court (Haralambie, 1998). The child’s identification of pictorial elements demarcates a drawing as a piece of evidence that is legally and clinically convincing and also renders it admissible in court (Faller, 1993).
In the capacity of judiciary aids, drawings can evoke a profound and intense re-sponse by both judge and jury. Because they are client generated, drawings afford an objective and developmentally congruent statement that is reflective of the child’s ex-perience. Often the emotional response and level of traumatization are also charac-terized in the drawings made by children. Whether in isolation or combination, fac-tual material and emotional response can have a significant impact on a legal proceeding.
If an investigative process proceeds to a judicial hearing, the interviewer may be Drawings in Forensic Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse 175
FIGURE 13.3.Example of charge enhancement: Drawing depicting the sexual abuse of a 7-year-old girl.
called into court to present evidentiary material as a witness. In this capacity, the pre-sentation of drawings may be offered to support the conclusions and findings of the interviewer. The propensity of drawings to function as judiciary aids is considerable (Burgess, McCausland, & Wolbert, 1981; Kelley 1984; Landgarten, 1987; Miller, Veltkamp, & Janson, 1987). They may contain the effects of the abuse; details of sit-uational factors contributing to the abuse; the content of the abuse, depicting who, what, when, where, and how; provide details pertaining to the setting, participants, observers, and other victims; help rule out alternate explanations; and offer corroboration and clarification of verbal statements.
Case Example
A report was received by Child Protective Services (CPS) alleging that a 7-year-old girl had disclosed to her mother that her father had lifted up her nightie and put his finger in her cookie (vagina). The child was referred for an investigative interview.
The Interview Center has a strict policy prohibiting the entry of anyone suspected to be an alleged perpetrator. The father brought the child to the center and gained ac-cess to the building. In an effort not to provoke additional stress for the child, a quick decision was made to allow the father to remain in the lobby while his daugh-ter was indaugh-terviewed. The child presented as highly agitated and anxious. She denied the allegations. It was not until the child was brought back to the center for a second interview the following week that the impact of the father’s presence was comphended. During the time interval between the appointments, the child had been re-moved temporarily from the care of her parents and placed in a shelter. The parents were making reciprocal accusations and both were contending that they had custody.
Thus, in an effort to resolve some of the child protective issues, the child was placed in a residential facility.
The child was brought to the center by the child protective worker for the next appointment. Upon entering the interview room the child disclosed that she was afraid to tell previously because her daddy told her not to say anything. She ex-pressed that she was afraid he would not take her to nice places if she told. She spon-taneously disclosed that her daddy promised to buy her a pet and clothing and take her to the zoo if she did not tell what happened. The child was emotionally fragile, agitated, and upset. She indicated that she did not want to discuss the allegations, but she was willing to depict the abuse graphically. She proceeded to make a series of drawings illustrating the alleged activity. This means of communication appeared to provide her with a cathartic release for associated thoughts and feelings. The child discussed the allegations in detail for the first time.
Through a succession of drawings she was able to depict her account of what transpired during a single abusive incident. The drawings, poignant and compelling, convey the gravity of the child’s emotional and physical discomfort. Based on the in-formation obtained in conjunction with collateral investigation, the report of sexual abuse was substantiated by the child protective worker. The father was also charged criminally. At the criminal proceeding, however, the drawings and the corresponding 176 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS WITH CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
report were not allowed into evidence. In fact, only one question was asked of the terviewer on the witness stand, “Did Mr. Z come to the center?” Other than being in-formed that there were concerns regarding the possible backlash if the interviewer’s extensive report was admitted into evidence, no plausible explanation was offered re-garding the sequestration of the material. As a result, the jury never saw the drawings made by the child. The alleged perpetrator vehemently denied on the witness stand that he had been to the center. The criminal and child protection systems conduct parallel investigations and may reach different conclusions based on their respective burden of proof. Despite the CPS finding, the alleged perpetrator was found to be not guilty by the criminal justice system.
In response to the finding by CPS, the alleged perpetrator appealed and was granted a hearing. During this proceeding which was conducted with a hearing offi-cer, the drawings were presented and discussed individually. In addition to the attor-neys, the hearing officer asked specific questions regarding the use of drawings as well as the depictions contained in the drawings. Several months passed before a de-cision was made. The interviewer received a phone call from the city solicitor in which she relayed the hearing officer’s decision to uphold the finding of sexual abuse.
The city solicitor acknowledged the role the drawings contributed as well as the in-formation imparted by the interviewer as significant in the decision to uphold the original indicated finding. The drawings in effect communicated the child’s experi-ences while demonstrating the intrinsic role they served within the investigative process and as judiciary aids.
CONCLUSION
The literature indicates that sole reliance on a child’s drawing as confirmation of sex-ual abuse is not plausible at this time (Cohen-Liebman, 1995; Levick, 1986;
Malchiodi, 1990, 1998). Although empirical data are not available to conclusively support graphic indicators as the sole indication of sexual abuse, consensus is evident with regard to the use of drawings within the assessment or investigation of sexual abuse in an ancillary or adjunctive capacity (Cohen-Liebman, 1995; Poole & Lamb, 1998). Drawings have been used in the evaluation and assessment of sexual abuse most often in the form of interview aids, props, and communication tools. They can provide assistance in the assessment and evaluation of sexual abuse for forensic pur-poses. Drawings created within the context of an investigative interview provide data for both investigative and prosecutorial purposes while minimizing interviewer interpretation due to the integration within the fact-finding process.
Drawings employed in combination with other investigative processes may yield additional information which may provoke further exploration. An investigative in-terview which includes drawing tasks can provide insight into a child’s coping skills, level of trauma, emotional reaction to the abuse, and, in many cases, abuse-specific information (Cohen-Liebman, 1999).
Proponents of multidisciplinary investigations support the use of drawings with-Drawings in Forensic Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse 177