Just read an article describing how Family Courts supposedly place children sexually abused by fathers into the hands of sexually abusing fathers, not believing the children.
The key phrase in the article is in the first three words of its headline:
Children's advocates may be those who actually cause this problem - a real problem, I know of several such cases myself where parents asserted that a child made disclosures of sexual child abuse by a relative, and the child nevertheless was placed by the court with that same relative, while the child's own statements, including audio-recorded statements were not believed.
Why do courts do that? Are they that heartless?
And why it is the children's advocates who may be causing the problem, paving a road to the child's very real hell with their good intentions?
By repeatedly interviewing the child with leading questions and without videotaping their interviews, so that courts, as a result, do not know whether the child's testimony is
- the result of coercion and manipulation of "advocates" and/or of the other parent who may have a grudge against the parent the child is accusing through testimony, or
- whether it truly happened.
Try to watch with an open mind, this video about experiments of forensic psychologists showing how easy it is to implant false memories of abuse into children - and about cases where implanting those false memories did lead to criminal convictions, wrongful convictions, overturned convictions.
If parents, and "child advocates" really want to protect the children - they will not mess up the interviewing process and will INSIST that forensic interviewing techniques are followed:
- that the number of interviews of the child is reduced to a minimum;
- that all such interviews are handled by trained forensic (not clinical) psychologists knowing how not to lead the child on; and
- that all such interviews must absolutely be videotaped.
Many police precincts have interviewing rooms with hidden videocameras, so that the person interviewed does not see the actual video camera - that is necessary to put the child at ease, while preserving the evidence properly.
Not doing it, putting the child through numerous, numerous interviews - by the mother, by the "advocates" instead of neutral professional forensic experts, does a disservice to the accused, if they are accused wrongfully.
But, if sexual abuse truly happened, and it DOES happen, the disservice is TO THE CHILD - because doing repeated non-videotaped interviews with the child allows the court to presume that suggestive techniques and leading questions were used, and that what the child says in his testimony may be the result of a long-term manipulation by "advocates", rather than what truly happens.
If you care about your child, if you believe that the child was really sexually abused, INSIST that forensic interviewing techniques are observed.
Otherwise, your child may lose his right to establish in court that sexual abuse ever happened - and even be placed further with the sexual abuser, to be abused more, while his credibility is destroyed, for now and for the future.
