Total Credits: 1 including 1 American Psychological Association, 1 Association of Social Worker Boards, 1 State Bar of California
Proving child sexual abuse is difficult. Because there is seldom physical evidence to support a claim of abuse, a child’s disclosures may be the most compelling evidence.
However, often the child’s statements are discounted for reasons that are not supported by the latest science, such as the child was inconsistent in his or her disclosures, or the child seemed coached to make false allegations.
Also, the child may have given dates/time frame that made abuse by the accused impossible (e.g., accused had an air-tight alibi) or the child also disclosed fantastic and/or impossible elements (e.g., “I was rescued by my dog, who shot [the abuser].”). Finally, the child may subsequently recant his or her prior disclosures of abuse.
These are some examples of why a Child Protective Services investigator may discount or rule out abuse. Doing so often has a cascading effect in that law enforcement may not criminally charge an alleged abuser and judges in custody cases may fail to protect the child based on CPS’s rule out.
Therefore, it is important that we have an understanding of the science concerning abuse, disclosures, children’s use of language, and multiple issues related to properly conducting forensic interviews.
The presenter will discuss such science and will include real-world examples of instances where child abuse was ruled out or disregarded despite the presence of studies indicating that the reasons for doing so were not inconsistent with abuse.
After this session, participants will be able to:
1. State at least five reasons why a child’s seemingly implausible statements during his or her disclosure of child abuse are in fact not inconsistent with documented cases of child abuse.
2. State at least 3 reasons why a child’s superficially contradictory statements concerning child abuse are in fact not inconsistent with documented cases of child abuse.
3. Identify at least four key principles of a properly conducted child-forensic interview.
4. Identify explanations of why a child with no physical evidence of child-sexual abuse may nonetheless have been the victim of such abuse, including penetrative sexual abuse.
5. Explain how language barriers and cultural nuances can make it difficult to effectively interview and investigate victims and witnesses.