Table 8-2(a) describes the number of investigations that
were judged to have been triggered by an intentionally false – i.e. malicious
– report. The study found that 4%
of the 135,573 investigations estimated to have been conducted in Canada in
1998 were bases on an intentionally false report. Of the estimated 14,406 sexual abuse
investigations conducted in 1998, 4% as well – involving an estimated 591
child investigations – were judged to have been based on intentionally false
reports.
Table 8-2(b) describes the source of intentionally false
reports. The three groups of
reporters were equally responsible for 90% of intentionally false
reports: (1) relatives or
neighbours, (2) anonymous reporters, (3) parents, and (4) professionals. While
the table does not provide a breakdown by form of maltreatment, nor does it
identify situations where there are on-going custody disputes, it shows that
less than 25% of false reports involve a parent or non-custodial parents.
Extrapolating from Table 8-2(a) one can guesstimate that at most 150 out of
14,406 sexual abuse investigations fit the profile described by Ms. Malenfant.
(we are conducting a more precise analysis of these figures and will share
them with anyone interested when they are ready to be released).
We are currently completing a first level of comparative
analysis comparing rates of reported maltreatment in Ontario documented in the
1993 Ontario Incidence Study and the Ontario portion of the 1998 CIS. Our data are consistent with the data
reported by Jones and Finkelhor.
We did not find, as suggested by Ms. Malenfant, that substantiation
rates have changed significantly in cases of sexual abuse. We also did not find that there were
more intentionally false reports in 1993 than in 1998.
In summary, our findings do not support Ms. Malenfant’s
hypothesis that the decrease in sexual abuse reports is due to a decrease in
intentionally false reports.
(Note: The CIS estimates are based on a nationally
representative sample of 7,672 child welfare investigations conducted across
Canada in 1998. Free copies of the
CIS Final Report can be ordered from 1-(800)-267-1291, or
1-(613)-957-2938 or may be downloaded from: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/nc-cn.)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:14
PM
Subject: re: Child Abuse Statistics
Decline
Drs. Strauss and Trocme:
I have been watching this sight for a while, and
reading the comments of some of the best researchers on child abuse in the
world; my intimidation arising from the august names in this group is
partly why I have waited so long to write myself. I am a Canadian
sociologist who has been working in the child abuse field of investigative
reform since 1992. To do this work effectively required that I study
many disciplines, including forensic psychology, medicine, law, etc..
My own take on the subject of the dramatic declines in the rates of reported
and confirmed child abuse is what prompted Dr. Finkelhor to invite me to
share those views on this list. If you don't mind, I think I
will. I also hope you don't mind that I forwarded the message to
discrete experts and government officials whom I have come to admire, to
solicit their thoughts on the subject.
The City of Winnipeg witnessed a dramatic ski-hill
drop in its rates of sexual abuse, especially from the years 1991 (the peak)
to 1999. In those years the rate dropped by nearly 60%, from the high
of 728 in 1991 to 242 in 1999. Physical abuse dropped as well, but not
so dramatically, from 564 to 445 over the same nine years. In the
recent article by Drs. Jones and Finkelhor called "Decline in child sexual
abuse cases" and published by the OJJDP, the rate of decline reaches a high
of approximately 30% in their data, still very high. While I
appreciate that every one of the theories reviewed on this list and in the
"Decline" article can likely account for some of this drop, I take issue
with the fact that when this decline is discussed, no where is it considered
a possibility that at least a portion of it is a
result of a drop in sexual allegations in divorce, and false allegations in
general. I know this would mean that the research establishment would
have to accept that a great portion of the child abuse allegations made in
this last 15 years or so were false, but based on my experience in Winnipeg,
it is my opinion that you will have to if you want a full understanding of
this drop.
My own research began in 1992, when I noticed that a
prominent local study had reported a figure that demonstrated how easily the
child protection system was labelling people as child abusers. Dr.
Eric Reid and his associates reported that of 1,430 child apprehensions
tracked during the term of the 1989 study, only 17 had reached the trial
process. Manitoba also had the highest rate of provincial fostercare
in Canada at 18 children per thousand, almost double the next highest
province of Saskatchewan at 10 children per thousand. I found this
alarming and worth further inquiry, and noted that the local medical child
protection unit had documented that the ratio of abuse type was 2 sexual for
every one physical abuse allegation, a reversal of the 1:2 national figure
for the US that year. Winnipeg's rate of double sexual abuse in
comparison to physical abuse indicated either a population grossly
pathological or a high rate of false allegations. In 1996, sexual
allegations comprised 51% of all cases placed on the child abuse
registry. In addition, the child welfare system admitted in the
same year that at least 25% of all investigations they did arose during
divorce. I don't think it was a coincidence or unrelated to these
numbers, that Manitoba government was quite comfortable establishing a Blue
Ribbon Task Force on Satanic Ritual Abuse in 1993, so frequently were those
popping up everywhere. We even had "Satanic Ritual Experts" employed
by the child welfare system, and no one asked how one social worker could
find so many of these multiple offender multiple victim type of cases in a
single career. The Task Force actually operated until 1994 and
verified these allegations all over the province; by the time I got through,
however, their final report was buried so deep in the bowels of government
records that I would challenge anyone to ever find it. I view that as
a good thing.
It took me about two years to find this out and
identify a solid picture of the extent of the problem, and my next step was
to find out how the system was doing this. It's no secret that the
primary causes of false allegations are as follows:
(1) the child welfare system, that
adopted a working investigative orientation stipulating "all allegations are
true" as "children never lie about abuse". Since every investigation
began with the conclusion that abuse happened, few persons escaped the fate
of a child abuser label. As well, something that approached a status
system gave glorification and added honours to the investigation of sexual
abuse. These factors in conjuction with an obscene imbalance of power
between individual and state, especially in the legal arena, was experienced
as an era of child abuse "hysteria" with particularly sexual
overtones. The second greatest cause of false allegations in Winnipeg
was,
(2) Experts, those medical,
psychology and "play therapy" practitioners who dramatically departed from
the standards of practice established in their disciplines and "validated"
nearly every allegation that came their way as true instances of
abuse. While the public was ignorant of their names, the child welfare
system certainly wasn't, identifying their "favorites" as experts who could
be counted on to substantiate abuse. The next biggest cause of false
allegations was,
(3) Lawyers, who didn't discriminate between
the rich and poor when it came to providing the same poor quality of
service. For the legal aid client, representation was often provided
by lawyers who took on a great volume of cases at the lower pay rate,
subsequently did nothing to prepare the case for trial, and more often
browbeat their poor clients into "settlements" that grossly disadvantaged
their clients. My favorite was the common line I heard, "sign this
permanent order now, and you can always appeal in a year...", even though
legal aid rarely approves an appeal. The rich were served no better,
because the uglier, dirtier, messier and longer a case continued, the more
wealth and benefit accrued to the lawyer's trust account. It was not
uncommon for these lawyers to recommend the well known "favoured
practitioners" as experts for their clients, and this was especially true of
lawyers who charged more than 200 dollars an hour. The child welfare,
the experts, and the lawyers, were greatly aided in the manufacture of false
allegations by the roled played by,
(4) Divorcing Mothers, who learned quickly how
to get rid of fathers and the paternal family for good with the power of an
allegation of sexual abuse. With the other three causes geared toward
supporting them, it was easy to launch and maintain an allegation of abuse
throughout court proceedings. Eventually, many of these allegations
could go on for years, even when many had never resulted in criminal charges
while some had not even been reported to the child welfare system.
"Believe the victim" philosophies that bestowed automatic credibility were
extended to "non-abusing parents" and females in general, with the notion
that questioning the alleged victim added to the trauma of abuse, and
many victims refused to come forward "in fear" that they would not
believed. Common features of many of these mothers included a history
of conflict with others and psychiatric treatment throughout their life
spans; many cases that were eventually provided with clinical assessments by
skilled practitioners frequently identified borderline and manic-depressive
disorders. Many of these women were also completely alienated from
their own families as well, ensuring that their victorious elimination of
the paternal family would deprive their children of all extended family
kinship ties. If I live to be a thousand, I will never understand how
the child abuse experts could ever have convinced themselves that this total
elimination was remotely in the best interests of the child. Another
notable cause of false allegations in Winnipeg until 1995 was,
(5) Women's shelters - they were involved in
one out of three cases I accepted advocacy responsibility for. There
methods consisted primarily of providing an excellent guide to favoured
practitioners of the first three causes, and a well developed selection of
ideological literature and staff that encouraged war-like divorce
tactics. Worst of all, they formed the habit of questioning children
outside the presence of their mothers, using leading methods of questioning
that ensured a simple, facile, undetailed, disclosure from children who
exhibited no sad or angry affect in the telling. The most common was "daddy
touched my private parts" which only exploded into bizarre, unsexual
accounts after repeated questioning from other "investigators" from the
regular child abuse system. Unfortunately, it took several years to
acquire this knowledge, learned primarily from mothers who had stayed at the
shelter and were forced to support the "allegation" on threat of losing
their child. Thankfully, once the facts were known, the government of
the day acknowledged that questioning children about abuse exceeded the
mandate of the women's shelters, and their involvement in false allegations
came to an end in 1997.
Without going into any great detail (some details can
be found at www.fathersforlife.org/php/toc.htm),
I developed multiple methods for making the five causes accountable as
individuals on a regular basis, and let those efforts be known to the local
media. I also examined the functioning of the system by providing
advocacy support to those cases that I considered false (after extensive
investigation), thereby showing the system how to change by bringing these
cases to resolution and out of the courtrooms with their families
intact. This work began in earnest in 1994 until by 1998, I was
whispering to close advisors that I was witnessing a dramatic decline in the
frequency of false allegations, inspite of my high profile in the
community. By 1999, I was glad to admit that I would have to leave the
jurisdiction to find false allegations of child abuse, as the rate of all
sexual abuse allegations had dropped by 60%.
More ominously, by 1999, I learned the answer to this
question - What happens when you eliminate false allegations? Only the
true ones are left. Not only I, but respected clinical practitioners
in the field were reporting the identification of true allegations at a much
more frequent rate. Though I despise child abuse, particularly where
any adult would believe any child wants their sexual thoughts or advances, I
was not equipped for the dangerous work of revealing true pathology, and
this was not the mandate for my organization or the primary motive for my
work.
After an extensive case law review of the country, I
identified Edmonton, Alberta as one of the hotspots for allegations in
divorce, and moved here in September of 1999. Interestingly, the
police far usurp the local child welfare system as a cause of false
allegations, even though the former rarely lay charges in divorce related
allegations. They accomplish the task by "leaving files open" and
testifying in family court on a regular basis.
As Dr. Trocme notes in his discussion with Dr.
Strauss, Canada is woefully inept at gathering statistical data on its child
welfare activities. In spite of this, I maintain that we can learn a
great deal from the analysis of specific jurisdictions such as
Winnipeg. I further suggest the hypothesis that the higher the drop in
abuse allegations, the higher was the rate of false allegations in that
jurisdiction. Where jurisdictions did not experience the dramatic rise
in the 80's and the subsequent drop in the 90's, I suggest this means that
the five causes never succumbed to the excesses of the hysterical age in
child abuse identification. Finally, where jurisdictions experienced
the great climb, and have not experienced a significant drop, I suggest
these will be future locations for Parents Helping Parents to consider
moving its operations to, as the system has not yet recognized the five
causes.
In short, while I don't think that false allegations
are the entire reason for the drop in sexual abuse allegations, it is very
likely a primary one. The good news is that the drops further indicate
advanced and effective investigative methods being adopted by those
authorities responsible for child abuse services.
Thank you, and I would welcome your views on this
issue. I would also like to ask any one who reads this message to help
me identify some literature on the following related problem. I have
noted a high frequency of cases where children are placed in foster care for
alleged neglect or physical abuse, but eventually "disclose" sexual abuse to
foster parents after a 2 or 3 month stay. I have noted, for example,
that certain foster homes I have encountered make a habit of reporting
sexual disclosures with every child placed in their care time after
time. Frequently, these include alleged observation of "sexualized
play" that includes allegations of sexual interest between siblings in the
same foster home. My problem is that I have not found any good
database of articles that provide studies on foster care in general, or
their involvement in the investigative procees in particular. Can
anyone help me out?
Louise Malenfant
Family Advocate
Parents Helping Parents,
Canada
