Re: Children's evidence

["Sue and Mark Foley" <smfoley@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the distinction being made here is between a "connection" that
allows the process to "happen" and the connection that sets up an
expectation of pleasing the interviewer through the use of any kind of
"positive re-inforcers" - like "thank you for the interview", or "that's a
great drawing" or "nodding" in response to answers - my confusion lie in the
lack of clear articulation of the basis if this belief. I am concerned about
an interview process that an abused child may or would find more difficult
or distressing because of the deliberate withholding of emotional support in
the belief that "neutrality" will provide more credible evidence.
Thanks for all the posts so far
Sue Foley
MSW, M.A. B.Soc Studs.
smfoley@mpx.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: DBuckley1@aol.com <DBuckley1@aol.com>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
<CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Date: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Children's evidence


>I agree with Lisa.  Connection is essential to working with children - and
>most human beings for that matter.  It does not mean that we have to
suspend
>out ability to assess a situation.
>