Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: San Diego Child Services Report
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:24:53 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA




              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.(5)

    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.




-- 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.men:17026 alt.dads-rights:2391