What Actually Happened External Factors Affecting Child Testimony

What Actually Happened? External Factors Affecting Child Testimony: A Case Study Barry S Parsonson Ph. D Applied Psychology International & Explore Specialist Advice NZ

Case Study 1 Head Injury A teen falls 6 metres from a tree she has climbed and sustains a very severe closed head injury as well as limb fractures, requiring admission to intensive care. A Neuropsychologist assessed her. On return to school, teachers noted that her personality had changed, she was less attentive, was easily angered and fatigued; and her academic performance had deteriorated. She joined a group living on the streets by climbing out of her bedroom window at night and began using drugs and alcohol on these occasions.

Allegation of Sexual Abuse Her mother noticed her missing one night and notified the police. Found with her “friends”, she refused to go home, and was passed to welfare services. Due to her refusal to go home and her aggressive behaviour, she was placed in a care facility. There she made an abuse allegation against her stepfather who, because of her plaster-casts, had to assist with her daily bathing following hospital discharge. He was arrested and charged.

Was it Sexual Abuse? The Crown case relied on the evidential interview recording her allegation and on a psychologist’s evidence that the personality and academic changes were consistent with sexual abuse; As expert witness for the defense, I gave evidence that the personality and academic changes described were consistent with a brain injury; The teen’s mother gave evidence that her daughter had said that girls at the care facility had told her she could get $10 K from the state injury insurer for a sexual abuse claim.

What went wrong in this investigation? Crown did not call the Neuropsychologist to give evidence, relying instead on a Clinical Psychologist who had provided a report on symptoms of abuse; In cross-examination the Clinical Psychologist refused to give evidence on whether the alternative argument that symptoms she attributed to abuse, could equally be consequences of a brain injury; The Police had not interviewed the mother or the Social Welfare so were unaware of the fact that the complainant had been told by peers that she could benefit financially from making an allegation.

Case Study 2 Background A boy, living with their separated mother began to present behaviour challenges at school including, what was referred to as “sexualized” behaviour. His mother referred him to a counsellor. The counsellor subsequently obtained an allegation of sexual abuse by “Dad” from the boy The child was evidentially interviewed. The father was arrested and charged with CSA.

What Happened? The child’s video testimony was shown in court and the child’s step-parent was assigned as the support person. The father was found guilty and imprisoned. First Appeal was denied. Months later, the boy asked his mother “Does God know when you lie? ” He said the abuser was not his father. The counsellor and interviewer advised retraction was normal and advised to ignore. Counselling continued. Mother caught the step-father sodomizing a disabled boy. Appeal 2. Judge interviewed boy who identified step-father as abuser. Father was released from prison and compensated for wrongful imprisonment.

What Went Wrong in This Case? The Counsellor failed to check who “Dad” was and led the boy into believing it was his birth-father who had abused him. The boy was too young and too afraid to correct the counsellor. But he tried to recant ahead of the trial and was not believed. The Police failed to disclose the attempted recantation to the defense; The step-father (and abuser) was able to get himself appointed “support” person and his presence during the boy’s testimony may have inhibited his ability to change testimony even though the boy knew he was his abuser.

Case Study 3: Background The “Christchurch Civic Crèche Case” (1991 -92) involved allegations of child sexual abuse by 4 staff. In all 118 children were interviewed. Investigative interviews of 14 children who “disclosed” abuse led to charges involving seven children (3 M, 4 F) aged from 5 y. 6 m. to 8 y. 11 m. Of the four staff, only the male child care worker was sent to trial following a depositions hearing. The investigative interviewers had received minimal training and were supervised by a psychiatrist who was also the Prosecution’s expert witness.

The Investigation All interviews were videotaped and transcribed. Six of 7 complainant children selected for trial were interviewed repeatedly (3 -6), mostly by two interviewers. Interviews included repeated, closed, multi-choice and direct, suggestive questioning and prompts, reference to outside sources of information, and props ( toys, anatomical dolls and body diagrams). Regular consultation on progress occurred between the interviewers, their supervisor and the senior police investigator (who was in regular contact with parents).

Internal Influences There were several sources of internal influence seen as imposing on the children’s testimony within the context of the investigative interviews, namely: Props used in the process of gathering information e. g. , Anatomically correct dolls, body parts diagrams; Toys (e. g. , cars, furniture, dolls) used to recreate “scenarios” and to keep children engaged; Use of Positive Reinforcement and Social Influence.

External Influences came from a number of sources outside of, and at times concurrent with, the investigative interview timeframe, including: Parental involvement; Media Sources; “Venue” visits; Information sharing; Imagination and Routines; Counselling.

What Went Wrong Here? Inadequately trained interviewers; Failure to follow up on known external influencing factors by their supervisor & Police; Police handling of the case was abysmal; Unquestioning belief in the children’s allegations regardless of improbability; The Presiding Judge determined cuts in the evidential videos and restricted expert defense testimony.

What Issues Arise from these Examples? Failure to prevent and monitor internal and external sources of contamination and interference before and during the investigative process; Failure to identify and investigate potential sources of contamination, even when these were evident in the context of interviews; Failure to establish whether alternative explanations could account for the behaviour or statements of the child witnesses and failure to evaluate these; Failure to reality-test the information provided in child testimony in a critical fashion. Faith in the testimony and opinions of “Experts”

Which Strategies can be used to Mitigate or Avoid such Failures? Evidence-based interviewing procedures; Knowledge of children’s development in memory, cognitive function, language, number, and time; their responses to “authority figures” and adult attention; Triangulating claims; testing hypotheses; Police challenging assumptions; questioning conclusions; Preparing families and monitoring their activities and involvement in the investigative process; Checking and eliminating sources of external contamination.

Experts? The use of expert witnesses necessitates the selection of well-qualified and experienced experts who are aware of their role as non-partisan. Experts have a responsibility to inform the triers of fact by enabling understanding of matters relevant to reaching a decision and of any limitations in the scientific information they are presenting. Professionals working with the children in any capacity need to ensure that they do not contaminate, influence or misrepresent a child’s testimony. Judges need training in establishing expertise.

Thank you Barry S Parsonson drp@appliedpsych. co. nz