False allegations of sexual abuse: What can be done?

By Michael G. Brock

Over the past few years I have published several articles about the prevalence of false allegations of sexual abuse in child custody cases. The purpose of these articles has been to heighten the awareness of mental health professions, lawyers, the judiciary and the general public regarding these allegations, and to cite the research regarding how to differentiate true from false allegations of abuse. During this time, however, very little has changed; the same allegations are made in the same way, with more or less the same results. The typical scenario goes like this:

1. There is a dispute of custody or parenting time between the parents, either during the divorce process, or after the divorce has taken place. Child custody/parenting time litigation is set in motion.

2. An allegation is made—usually by the custodial parent—stating that the child has been physically abused by the other parent.

3. A Protective Services investigation takes place, including an interview with the child alleged to have been abused. In a false allegation case, there is either no evidence, or any marks or bruises can be adequately explained by the child’s normal play activities (skinned knees, etc.) There is a finding by the investigator that the abuse did not take place or cannot be confirmed.

4. Protective Services may recommend that the child be enrolled in therapy. There is usually no clear suggestion regarding what the diagnosis is, or what the goals of therapy should be. Sometimes the P.S. report will reflect that the child needs treatment for the trauma of being caught in the crossfire of a child custody dispute. When such therapy is initiated, the custodial parent is usually the presenting parent, and typically, sets the time and agenda for therapy to take place. This parent often does not inform the non-custodial parent that therapy is taking place, or suggest to the therapist that they be contacted.

When a child is enrolled in therapy, the therapist depends on the presenting parent to provide the presenting problem and the child’s history. Unlike adults, children are generally unable to provide accurate histories, or to fully articulate any problems they may be having. This provides a false accuser an excellent opportunity to suggest to the therapist that the child is being physically and/or sexually abused by the other parent and/or their spouse. The parent says that the allegation was made by the child, but the records in these cases show that the report is typically made by the presenting parent. The therapist’s intake and treatment notes will reflect a presumption that the abuse has occurred, with such treatment goals as, “alleviate trauma of abuse,” or “facilitate child’s ability to verbally express trauma.”

Such presumptions are appropriate to therapy in general, but when the anticipated use of the therapy is to make a recommendation regarding the parenting time that the child will have with the parent who is not there—in other words, is intended to be used as evidence in court—a more objective process is required. This is the entire reason that an interviewing protocol has been developed, but it is useless if those using the protocol are going to refer the child to a person unskilled in investigative interviewing, and who will employ improper therapeutic techniques to obtain forensic evidence.

5. One or several more reports are made to Protective Services, additional forensic interviews are done by this agency using the protocol developed for this purpose, but none of these interviews are recorded. No abuse is discovered.

6 A referral is made to a hospital, where the child undergoes one or several examinations for evidence of physical trauma for sexual abuse. Sometimes doctors will talk about “hymeneal irregularities” or other such “findings of past trauma,” but the urologist with whom I confer on these cases tells me that the smallest amount of pressure on a child’s hymen is sufficient to rupture it, and is sometimes necessary if urine is collecting behind the hymen and causing infection. Most often, no evidence is found, but the examining physician feels obliged to hedge his bets (or cover his behind) by saying that the examination “does not prove that the child was not abused.” No, and the fact that there is no evidence of abuse does not mean that the child was not molested by the examining doctor either. (In one recorded case, an examining physician actually stuck his finger in the child’s rectum and asked the kid if his parent did that to him. Needless to say, the doctor was not charged.)

7. The hospital refers the kid to their own mental health expert, who performs a forensic interview with the child, ignoring proper protocol, and confusing the process in two ways; first, by drawing conclusions which have no forensic value; and secondly, by making yet another referral for treatment. It is his clear presumption that the purpose of treatment is to continue the investigation, which is completely contrary to the separation of treatment and forensic (court-related) evaluation that is clearly indicated by Michigan Protocol, and the evaluation guidelines of both the American Psychological and the American Psychiatric Associations.

The National Association of Social Workers has no established protocol for forensic procedures, but it does suggest that social workers avoid dual roles and conflicts of interest.