Post by litigator on May 29, 2007 10:08:33 GMT -5
The problem of the suggestibility of young children in sexual abuse allegations has become one of great concern to those defending false allegations of child sexual abuse. Clearly, when such allegations are false, it is incumbent upon the accused to provide an explanation to the court in regard to why a child would make such a false allegation and how such an allegation could evolve from a so called “disclosure” to a court proceeding.
The problem:
Cases involving false allegations of child sexual abuse require a special burden of proof whereby it must be shown that:
the alleged victim's testimony is false
why the false allegations were made, and
how the false allegations were developed
children’s accusations are often founded on unreliable perceptions or memories caused by improper investigative procedures and that admission of testimony premised upon those accusations could lead to an unfair trial. the use of coercive or highly suggestive interrogation techniques can create a significant risk that the interrogation itself will distort the child’s recollection of events, thereby undermining the reliability of the statements and subsequent testimony concerning such events.
evidence may be deemed inadmissible because it was corrupted by the manner in which it was collected. The courts have identified various factors for assessing accusations of sexual abuse made by children, however, they caution that the list was not exhaustive and that the matter must be analyzed in the totality of the circumstances involved. The factors identified are:
[1] the age of the alleged victim:
[2] the circumstances of the questioning;
[3] the alleged victim’s relationship with the interrogator; and
[4] the type of questions asked.
The Court has a responsibility to ensure that evidence admitted at trial is sufficiently reliable so that it may be of use to the finder of fact who will draw the ultimate conclusions of guilt or innocence. This concern implicates principles of constitutional due process. Reliability is the linchpin in determining admissibility of evidence under a standard of fairness that is required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Competent and reliable evidence remains at the foundation of a fair trial, which seeks ultimately to determine the truth about culpability. If crucial inculpatory evidence is alleged to be derived from unreliable sources, due process interests are at risk
If your child has been questioned by the police in regards to allegations of sexual abuse it is imperative that you obtain copies of the officers notes and copies of any videotaped interviews as well. The police often used flawed interviewing techniques to elict information from children. As we all know CAS workers almost always use highly suggestive and leading questions when interviewing children and family court judges don't think twice about allowing this evidence to be further tainted by "Judicial Recognition"
Sadly, within the context of false allegations of child sexual abuse, partially educated caseworkers combined with poorly defined "indicators" are a potent formula for disaster. To be sure, children in our society are indeed sexually abused. Equally certain is the fact that innocent parties are falsely accused, and moreover, non-abused children are "treated" for abuse that in fact never took place.
The following "indicators" are generally believed to support the presence of child sexual abuse by child protective agencies: A "confession" by the child; Sudden distrust of adults; Not wanting to go someplace; Not wanting to be left somewhere; Sex knowledge unusual for age; Sleeplessness, fears, worry; Bedwetting, masturbation; Sudden loss or gain in appetite; Increased interests in body parts; Wanting to be away from others; Unexplained money or "gifts"; Spending time with older people; Imitating older teens or adults; Wanting approval of older people; Acting out sexual activities; and, Injured sexual body parts.
These "indicators" obviously contain behaviors sometimes found among non-abused children. Understanding that the presence of any of these "indicators" may be used to launch an "investigation" by an agency, and further understanding that the proliferation of these "indicators" in the media is somewhat responsible for an hysterical over-estimation of the prevalence of child sexual abuse, it must be said that in order for an "indicator" to be of any value, it must be "abnormal", that is to say, the presence of the "indicator" must be extremely uncommon. It is therefore necessary to be thoroughly familiar with normal childhood development.
The presence of a so-called "indicator" of child sexual abuse must be examined against the backdrop of behavior and manifestations "normally" observed during typical childhood development. The viewing of these "indicators" in a vacuum is singularly responsible for the clinical support of a false allegation of child sexual abuse.
Similarly, children who exhibit other pathology may include as part of their disorder one or more of these indicators.
The problem:
Cases involving false allegations of child sexual abuse require a special burden of proof whereby it must be shown that:
the alleged victim's testimony is false
why the false allegations were made, and
how the false allegations were developed
children’s accusations are often founded on unreliable perceptions or memories caused by improper investigative procedures and that admission of testimony premised upon those accusations could lead to an unfair trial. the use of coercive or highly suggestive interrogation techniques can create a significant risk that the interrogation itself will distort the child’s recollection of events, thereby undermining the reliability of the statements and subsequent testimony concerning such events.
evidence may be deemed inadmissible because it was corrupted by the manner in which it was collected. The courts have identified various factors for assessing accusations of sexual abuse made by children, however, they caution that the list was not exhaustive and that the matter must be analyzed in the totality of the circumstances involved. The factors identified are:
[1] the age of the alleged victim:
[2] the circumstances of the questioning;
[3] the alleged victim’s relationship with the interrogator; and
[4] the type of questions asked.
The Court has a responsibility to ensure that evidence admitted at trial is sufficiently reliable so that it may be of use to the finder of fact who will draw the ultimate conclusions of guilt or innocence. This concern implicates principles of constitutional due process. Reliability is the linchpin in determining admissibility of evidence under a standard of fairness that is required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Competent and reliable evidence remains at the foundation of a fair trial, which seeks ultimately to determine the truth about culpability. If crucial inculpatory evidence is alleged to be derived from unreliable sources, due process interests are at risk
If your child has been questioned by the police in regards to allegations of sexual abuse it is imperative that you obtain copies of the officers notes and copies of any videotaped interviews as well. The police often used flawed interviewing techniques to elict information from children. As we all know CAS workers almost always use highly suggestive and leading questions when interviewing children and family court judges don't think twice about allowing this evidence to be further tainted by "Judicial Recognition"
Sadly, within the context of false allegations of child sexual abuse, partially educated caseworkers combined with poorly defined "indicators" are a potent formula for disaster. To be sure, children in our society are indeed sexually abused. Equally certain is the fact that innocent parties are falsely accused, and moreover, non-abused children are "treated" for abuse that in fact never took place.
The following "indicators" are generally believed to support the presence of child sexual abuse by child protective agencies: A "confession" by the child; Sudden distrust of adults; Not wanting to go someplace; Not wanting to be left somewhere; Sex knowledge unusual for age; Sleeplessness, fears, worry; Bedwetting, masturbation; Sudden loss or gain in appetite; Increased interests in body parts; Wanting to be away from others; Unexplained money or "gifts"; Spending time with older people; Imitating older teens or adults; Wanting approval of older people; Acting out sexual activities; and, Injured sexual body parts.
These "indicators" obviously contain behaviors sometimes found among non-abused children. Understanding that the presence of any of these "indicators" may be used to launch an "investigation" by an agency, and further understanding that the proliferation of these "indicators" in the media is somewhat responsible for an hysterical over-estimation of the prevalence of child sexual abuse, it must be said that in order for an "indicator" to be of any value, it must be "abnormal", that is to say, the presence of the "indicator" must be extremely uncommon. It is therefore necessary to be thoroughly familiar with normal childhood development.
The presence of a so-called "indicator" of child sexual abuse must be examined against the backdrop of behavior and manifestations "normally" observed during typical childhood development. The viewing of these "indicators" in a vacuum is singularly responsible for the clinical support of a false allegation of child sexual abuse.
Similarly, children who exhibit other pathology may include as part of their disorder one or more of these indicators.