Читать книгу False Allegations Of Child Sexual Abuse - Edward Nichols - Страница 10

The author's secondary purpose in creating this volume is to purge himself of the residual of guilt that he has carried as a result of being an unwitting participant in the shameful enterprise of "protective" service agencies who generally employ an army of partially-educated "protective caseworkers" whose sincere ignorance is only superseded by their missionary-zeal to rid humanity of the pedophile, who accordingly, is to be found under every rock. Though the author must confess to having been employed as such a partially-educated caseworker, he stands redeemed of his past in knowing that he was at all times mindful of his ignorance. He also lacked the zeal to engage in what appeared to be a seedy enterprise, top-heavy with sexual abuse "victims," and others with chronic patterns of underemployment.

In 1980 I had just been accepted to attend the School of Social Work at Hunter College which is part of the City University of New York. Hunter boasted then, and I suppose still does, that 40 applications were made for each available seat for its clinical social work program. This was due to three realities: Tuition was the lowest in the Greater New York area (and at one time was free); The professors were the highest paid in the city (Why not? The taxpayers were footing the bill); and it is one of the smallest social work schools in America (About 200 students with 25% being part of the coveted "clinical" major). The Hunter College School of Social Work was and remains a bastion of elitism wherein the partially-educated worship the socialist leanings of its very distinguished facility. Hunter is where you went if you "had plans". This is evidenced by its president at the time, Donna Shalala, who radicalized Hunter on her way to becoming our nation's current Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But I was not a typical student: I was in my thirties. I had long traded acne for gray hair. I didn't wonder what I was going to be when I "grew up". And I was poised to challenge the wisdom of the sages while determined to learn how to practice social work without being on the public dole.

The State of New York has very high standards for the practice of clinical social work. One is required to earn a Master's Degree in Social Work (M.S.W.), have two years of supervised clinical experience, and sit for an exam which has become the national standard. Upon successfully achieving this, one was licensed as a Certified Social Worker (C.S.W.), and many so licensed went into the private practice of psychotherapy. This was my goal.

The required clinical internship was designated by the school which also supervised the work along with a licensed supervisor at the placement. For reasons known only to God, I was placed at the Queensboro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, otherwise known as Q.S.P.C.C. My job? Protective Caseworker!

New York City, like many large cities, has two varieties of child protective services: a city-run agency; and a nonprofit, voluntary, agency, sometimes affiliated with large charitable organizations or churches. In New York there is the Bureau of Child Welfare (BCW), which is a city agency; and the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (S.P.C.C.'s), one for each of New York's five Boroughs. The S.P.C.C.'s earned their name in connection with one of the first child abuse cases which was brought under laws to protect animals since animal protection statutes preceded child abuse statutes. (Thus borrowing their name from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals A.S. P.C.A.)

Though Q.S.P.C.C. was not a city agency, its "protective caseworkers" had "peace officer" status which allowed them to ask for assistance from the real police department when removing children. This was performed without a court order if the protective caseworker (PCW) felt the child was in "imminent danger". I soon learned that "imminent danger" was in the eye of the beholder, and the primary reason we had badges was to insure that the real police would arrive quickly when we were attacked by "clients" who were "resistant to treatment". "Treatment" was defined as doing whatever the PCW wanted them to do.

Though I had earned an undergraduate degree in psychology and sociology and had been a father for twelve years, I was no more ready to "hit the streets" and make the world safe for children than I was to eat rocks. As I turned to my "colleagues" for guidance, I found a few who "almost" finished a degree in art history and many who were recently fired from city agencies whose mission did not remotely relate to the protection of children. Being a "Hunter student", I quickly earned the respect of the partially-educated. Nonetheless, I protested to my supervisor, "I need to learn what I'm doing before I start taking children out of homes and testifying in court!"his was immediately interpreted as being an early sign of "burnout". I was quickly referred to in-house training and "support". Here I was told to get in touch with "the child within". I was urged to share my personal experiences of abuse as a child. If I could not remember any abuse as a child, I was urged to put "the child within" to work in remembering. I did, and concluded that my "child within" wanted to find real work and stop the playing.

Within weeks a child was brought to my office for my training. I was told that I should interview the child to determine if she manifested any "signs" and "indicators" of being sexually abused. I was given a form which contained a checklist of "indicators" that virtually insured that she would "manifest the indicators": If she admitted she was abused, she obviously was. If she denied she was abused, she is in "denial" because of fear of reprisals, or because her "reality was regressed". If she was not afraid of the alleged perpetrator, this was consistent with the fact that most victims "identify with the aggressor". If she was afraid of the alleged perpetrator, it is obviously because he is guilty, etc., etc.

Since my career depended on this "internship", I played the game thinking that no "real harm" would come of it (presuming, wrongfully, that the case would be subjected to "adult" supervision at some point). To my surprise, the agency's attorney appeared in my office and informed me that we had a half-hour to prepare to "try this case". She explained that the child was going to be placed in "emergency" foster care pending a full hearing and my testimony would be necessary to "validate" that the child had been sexually abused by her father.

I explained that this was not my conclusion, that I truly did not have an opinion based on less than an hour's interview, and that I had not interviewed the accused, or his wife, the accuser. I was asked in a stern voice, "Do you think you're qualified to practice law?" I, of course, admitted that I was not. She then spent half of our allotted thirty minutes lecturing me on "how the law says" that since I had filled out the "official" assessment form as I had, "under the law" it was "my responsibility" to place this child into "protective custody". Walking to the Courthouse on the next block, she explained what I would be asked and cautioned, "Now, ONLY answer the questions you are asked, and NEVER volunteer any information."

As we stood outside the courtroom waiting for the case to be called, I asked: "What do you expect me to say when this man's attorney asks me what I base my opinion on? Why I didn't interview the accused? What is the evidence that demonstrates that this child has been sexually abused, or if it is actually my opinion that this father sexually abused his child?' Her reply, "Don't worry, he won't." To my utter shock, he didn't!

A year came and went and in case after case attorneys failed to ask the "right" questions. Whether in civil or criminal court, mere speculation, without a solid research foundation, became "expert" opinion. On the few occasions when an attorney wandered close to the "threatening truth", I was instructed to use the "supervisor maneuver". Protective service agencies often have "opinions" and "findings" that conflict with the actual opinion of the caseworker. Each case is "reviewed in supervision", which simply amounts to a supervisor telling the caseworker what the "agency's finding" is. When cornered by a useful question, I was instructed to say, "Based upon a review of the case, it is the agency's opinion that so and so occurred." Each supervisor, who is almost never available on the day of trial, has a flock of other supervisors to turn to if cornered. In my experience, this "system" remains intact in these agencies today.

Being the only male protective caseworker in my unit, a common practice of tokenism, I was often required to work with "incest perpetrators" who I regularly referred to as "people". They were required by their "treatment" plan to see me, or they faced the alternative of incarceration. The vast majority denied any guilt, but quickly "recovered" from this "denial" when asked to report to jail on the following week. But one particular individual made an impression on me that remains until today.

I was prepared for this client by my supervisor: He had admitted to having a sexual relationship with his teenage daughter, other children had witnessed this over a long period of time, and what is more, one of his younger daughters had taken numerous Polaroid photos of him engaged in the act! At last, an actual incest perpetrator was being sent to my office!

While the details of the case go far beyond the scope of this discussion, the first ten minutes I spent with this client have enriched my understanding of one of the major problems in this arena of practice: He walked into my office and sat in front of my desk. He was well dressed and groomed. Every hair was in place and he politely asked if he could smoke (in those days smoking was not yet unpatriotic). He lit his cigarette with a gold cigarette lighter as I could not help but notice the diamond pinky-ring on his right hand.

There was no doubt in my mind, this was indeed an incest perpetrator! You could see by the way he was dressed, by his calm and measured demeanor, and that pinky ring that was a dead giveaway. Looking into his eyes, one could tell immediately: Those were the eyes of a child molester, no doubt about it! I noticed his brown leather shoes, imported to be sure: It simply made sense to me a child molester would certainly wear those shoes!

As the interview progressed, I became even more knowledgeable. By the time it ended I was sure that I could spot a child molester walking down the street. A few sleepless nights taught me a lesson that guided my career and that is interwoven into the fabric of this publication: There is something unique about the crime of child molestation that must always be considered by all players of the courtroom drama that will either convict or acquit the accused.

I have never been given to hysteria or the pileon mentality that sometimes prevails among zealots of this or that cause. But the plain truth is: Most people can understand the motivations behind most crimes. Indeed, we flock to the movies to vicariously experience them. When was the last time Hollywood produced a movie staring a child molester? It is simply not a big draw (Perhaps, as Freud described, because of the very "grey" area of everyone's mind that houses confused memories of parent child and child-parent love and one's emerging "psychosexual" development in Freud's language).

There is something about pedophilia that is beyond our personal understanding. The vast majority of us are parents who are sexually active, yet trying to imagine the "motivations" and "pleasures" of the pedophile is, by social norms, a taboo. Yet, intelligent people have curious minds that can often play games with us in the face of such a strong taboo. Thus, as this very average New Yorker sat in my office, I saw that which was not there. His dress, his mannerisms and demeanor became "evidence" in a normally rational mind that suspended its rationality in the service of the taboo that this person committed. I have seen this phenomena at work within caseworkers, therapists, attorneys, judges and juries. It may be ignored only at the expense of the victim of the false allegations of child sexual abuse. I've learned this lesson well.

As a final note to my Q.S.P.C.C. experience, I might add that upon my graduation from Hunter and licensure by the state, I was contacted by this agency and asked if I wanted employment as a psychotherapist with my duties being the provision of therapy to convicted incest perpetrators. I had just begun my private family practice, and the terms of their offer were attractive. I accepted under the clear understanding that I would not be doing any protective casework investigations or court work.

I was basically left alone by the agency and rather enjoyed applying my craft to this population of clients who very much needed help. One Friday afternoon, however, I found a stack of clinical charts on my desk along with a note from the agency's director indicating that I "had to sign" the enclosed reports. I quickly explained that there must be a mistake because I had not seen any of these clients. The director explained that the "policy" was that I had to sign these reports because the actual workers on the cases were not licensed or properly credentialed. These reports dealt with the removal of children from homes and the recommendation to criminally prosecute alleged perpetrators of abuse. I was given an ultimatum: Sign the reports or sign your resignation. I chose the latter, without hesitation or reservation.

Two weeks later I saw my replacement on the Sixo'clock news being escorted out of Q.S.P.C.C. by the District Attorney's Office. Unknown to me, there was an ongoing undercover investigation of this agency in progress during my employment. The practices that I refused to participate in became the subject of The People v. Dossinger,

(Supreme Court Decision, Queens County, New York, Feb. 1983) and also the first Chapter of the book Malpractice and Liability In Child Protective Services (American Humane Association, 1984).

Amazingly, nearly a decade and a half later, after participation in scores of false allegation cases in numerous jurisdictions, it remains my impression that otherwise very competent attorneys, and even very distinguished ones, fail to hold the feet of these protective service agencies to the fire! Why is this so? For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that NOBODY is in favor of child abuse! There may be those who might say, "That S.O.B. deserved to be shot," or, "I can understand why she robbed the bank." But never is such a statement made with reference to the sexual abuse of children.

Through the years, my employment as an expert witness and consultant has made me a good living. Half of the time I act as a consultant providing attorneys with much of the information that is contained in this volume. Clearly, many of those who are falsely accused can hardly afford to retain

an attorney, much less an out-of-town expert. It is sincerely hoped that this volume will provide assistance to many in this situation.

The most difficult part of this project has been deciding what not to include. My experience has shown that most attorneys do not suffer for lack of information in this computer age, but rather, they are surrounded by mountains of information from which they must distill the handful they need. Having dedicated most of my professional life to forensic work in this area, I am convinced that cases involving allegations of the sexual abuse of a child rise or fall on an attorney's ability to deal with expert, and not so "expert", testimony. This will be accomplished by effective case management, careful assessment of the accused, understanding the "indicators" of child sexual abuse, refuting adverse expert testimony, and locating and presenting appropriate experts to support your client. To achieve this you will need the latest research at your fingertips. This volume, and its updates, will be a means to this end.