 |
 |
|
|||||||||
RSS
Join us on Facebook
 |
Home > The Role of Law Enforcement in the Response to Child Abuse and Neglect > The Role of Law Enforcement in the Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: Special Types of Investigations
The Role of Law Enforcement in the Response to Child Abuse and Neglect
Special Types of InvestigationsLaw enforcement officers will be called upon to investigate allegations of child maltreatment involving members of different ethnic or racial groups from their own. In some parts of the country, the cultural diversity of the community requires tremendous flexibility in the investigative style. Not only must officers be able to communicate with others who do not speak English, but they must also know the style of interview that will yield the most accurate results. Investigators will also need to consider cultural factors in the validation process. Investigators need to be sure that their personal beliefs about child care do not become the standard to which they legally seek to hold others. As Elmer and Schultz illustrated, "an unproven popular belief is that young children should not be cared for by their older siblings. In some other cultures such caretaking arrangements are standard."33 They further note that, "determining whether caretaking by siblings is evidence of neglect should be a matter of context; whether such caretaking is valued by the group or imposed on an unwilling child."34 Numerous other examples exist that place the predominant culture's view of child rearing at odds with other cultures. In addition, some cultural practices have the potential to be misinterpreted as child abuse. For example, Vietnamese may cause synthetical linear bruises from the cultural practice of coin-rubbing. The practice is for the treatment of fever, chills, or headache and involves massaging the back and chest with a coin.35 The result may appear to be abuse related. Other practices of foreign cultures must be explored when the officer is called upon to investigate people whose culture is different and/or unknown. However, the officer must also be cautious about the influence of racism. A national consensus building on law enforcement and CPS suggested, "just as racism plays a role in many parts of society, it is expressed in the child protection process at both individual and institutional level."36 Officers must be attuned to their own beliefs about members of other racial groups and ensure that their beliefs do not influence their case judgment. Sexual Abuse Allegations in Divorce Proceedings or Related to Child Custody Disputes Reports of child sexual abuse arising during divorce or custody disputes seem to be increasing. These cases present some unique and perplexing issues to the investigator. Truly false reports of abuse are rare (as opposed to legitimate misunderstandings). Children rarely make up stories about abuse, and adults rarely report sexual assaults they know not to be true.37 Motivations on the part of the parents in a custody dispute, however, may be different. One parent may act with vindictiveness or malice toward the other parent. Currently, allegations of abuse are one of the most powerful weapons available to an estranged parent in courts. Alleging child sexual abuse changes the balance of power and can immediately alter visitation arrangements and custody. For these reasons, many divorce judges and attorneys have become highly skeptical of any allegations of abuse that arise during the dispute. They presume that if the charges were legitimate the charging parent should have made the allegations before divorce proceedings were initiated. There are numerous reasons why the abuse may not have surfaced before the divorce, including changes in the offending parent's emotional support system, sexual outlets, housing and sleeping arrangements, or level of supervision over the child.38 Investigators should consider the following special issues when investigating these cases:
It is also important to realize that some unfounded reports in custody cases come from a misunderstanding of some action on the part of the alleged perpetrator. For example, a preschool child may tell mother that, "Daddy hurt me on my pee-pee." The mother responds based on her negative feelings about the spouse and assumes child sexual abuse. The attention she focuses on the child reinforces the statement and encourages the child to say and do whatever generates the attention. In fact, the "hurt" the child described may have been from normal parent interactions,39 playing, bathing, or changing clothes or diapers. Consequently, it is important for investigators to be sure that the child is describing actual abuse, not normal parent-child interaction that has been misinterpreted. Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Foster Care With divorce cases, false allegations may arise out of the vindictiveness or misunderstandings of an adult and usually involve small children. Allegations in foster care more commonly involve somewhat older children, many of whom have a history of victimization. While children rarely lie about abuse, former victims of abuse are somewhat more likely to fabricate such charges or to misinterpret the actions of their caregivers as sexual abuse.40 Assessing cases of abuse of children in foster care is more difficult, because the children may have been abused elsewhere and may be able to accurately describe sexual assault. They may have explicit knowledge of abusive behavior and know that last time it was accompanied by secrecy and/or coercion. Assessing their statement may be further complicated by emotional disturbance and/or a history of fabrication. Special issues to consider in these cases include:
The fact that some foster children who were previously abused have a history of lying and emotional disturbance does not mean that such a child's statements regarding this abuse are not accurate. Abuse and exploitation of children in out-of-home care settings have occurred in many communities nationwide. The long-held stereotype of the single "stranger" offender who abuses a lone victim is one that has increasingly proved to be unrealistic. Many of the out-of-home care cases now being properly investigated show that where there is a single offender, there probably will be multiple victims (possibly involving hundreds of children), and that a number of these offenders communicate and/or associate with others who have a similar interest in children. Some investigations may well involve multiple offenders, multiple children, and multiple jurisdictions. These cases are the most complex and time consuming in which an investigator is likely to be involved. Correctly handling this type of situation from its inception is of utmost importance. These multiple victim and multiple jurisdiction cases have been called "macro-cases" because of the potential size of the case. While the macro-case protocol is described here, other excellent protocols exist, such as Los Angeles County's Interagency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect's multivictim, multisuspect protocol. Media reports on alleged sexual acts committed against children in numerous out-of-home settings have elevated public and professional concern about the investigative procedures followed, as well as the safety of children. This media attention does not stop with the initial reporting of the complaint but continues as the investigation progresses into the trial. The focus of such attention may prompt investigators to move more rapidly and prematurely than the case and caution would warrant otherwise. It is critical in the face of such media pressure that investigators proceed methodically and in an organized manner. In the final analysis, when confronted with such a case, an investigator must pause, plan, prepare, and then proceed carefully. The investigative team should determine who will be the spokesperson for the investigation. This person must be comfortable talking on camera or to newspaper reporters. The team and its agency supervisors must agree on a media strategy. Obviously the spokesperson cannot disclose the details of the ongoing investigation. The spokesperson can, however, give the media useful information without compromising the investigation, the rights of the alleged offender, or the children. The team spokesperson can discuss how investigations like these are handled and assure the reporter that the team is seeking facts and that they have taken steps to control the contamination of the children's statements. The spokesperson can also provide background information on the number of reports of child abuse received each year and the rarity of allegations of multiple victim/multiple perpetrator cases. The spokesperson should present an image of professionals doing a difficult job in an objective manner. Having done so, it is incumbent that the team live up to this role. If the spokesperson responds to media inquiries with "no comment," the team opens itself up to manipulation by defense attorneys who, in many cases, have sought to portray the investigators as misguided zealots on a witch hunt. Another overriding concern is to avoid pitfalls that defense attorneys will later use to try to destroy the case. Such cases defy the public imagination (and sometimes even that of the professionals investigating the case). This incredibility factor is easily exploited by defense attorneys. Attorneys will try to convince the public and jurors that "misguided zealots" (i.e., the investigators) have for some reason fabricated, induced, or brainwashed this preposterous tale into these innocent children's minds. The primary defense strategy that has emerged in many cases is to identify the principal investigators as the problem, rather than the offender(s). By diverting attention away from the defendant, the defense attorney clouds the issue of exactly who is on trial and what the issues really are. The defense seeks to convince the jury that it is more likely that one or possibly two well-intentioned but inept investigators planted the story in the children's minds, rather than face the reality of large-scale methodical abuse of children. To limit such strategies, investigators are cautioned against relying exclusively on one or two principal investigators and are encouraged to establish two or more separate investigative teams and even involve multiple medical examiners when possible. The fewer the investigators, the greater the chance of challenge. Investigative Teams and Design As soon as the possibility of a macro-case becomes known, the original investigator should request that additional personnel be assigned. These investigative teams should divide into separate units and act as separate units with absolutely no direct exchange of information among the different teams. The overall investigation and the work of these units should be coordinated by a central team leader. Each unit should be assigned a cluster of potential victims to interview. It is wise to divide the high-risk population into different clusters and consequently different units.41 The actual interviewing styles followed are consistent with other child victim interviews. Investigators should attempt to ascertain special activities, if any, that have involved the children, such as movies, television shows, games, clowns, magicians, or other similar events. Documenting such events may be important in separating fact from fantasy and in corroborating children's statements. This information may also become critical in avoiding erroneous conclusions that mix actual abuse with a special event in such a way as to mislead investigators to conclude that ritualistic abuse has occurred.42 In some macro-cases where extraordinary levels of coercion have been employed by the perpetrator(s) to enforce the children's silence, the victims will be slow to reveal what has happened; multiple interviews may be necessary. These children may initially deny all knowledge of abuse but then, as they feel more comfortable with the interviewer, the children may say, "it happened to someone else," or "it may have happened to a friend," and finally reveal that it actually happened to them—the process likened to peeling an onion one layer at a time.43 Unfortunately, the defense will later use these inconsistencies to their advantage. A different qualified physician (if available) should be identified to examine the children of each cluster, if medical exams are to be given. When the units complete their interviews (including those of the children's parents) and prepare their reports, the coordinator will then assign the new children to be interviewed. These may be children who were identified by the original cluster as other victims or witnesses, or other children whom the team coordinator has identified as "high-risk." These units will not be informed of the results of the other units' interviews to avoid the charge that the investigators were working in concert to pressure the children into telling the same stories. While each team should validate its own interviews using established validation procedures that can be articulated later in the courtroom setting, it will be the team coordinator who puts the whole puzzle together and validates that it is a macro-case rather than an isolated case or cases within a single population. A diagram of how the structure might appear is given in Figure 1. This investigation format should be followed as long as the possibility of a macro-case continues. While it may not seem feasible to commit that many investigators to a single case, the investigation will be completed far more rapidly, and the likelihood of a positive outcome will be enhanced. In reality, the actual hours of personnel devoted to the case would not increase. This should also help ensure that interviews, medical examinations, and the collection of physical evidence will be conducted in a timely fashion. The team coordinator should take the investigative information submitted to him/her and, with the aid of a charting specialist (where available), prepare association and/or flow charting of all the activities and relationships which interviewees provide. A summary of each interview should be kept to list the name of the interviewee, the primary offender, other victims that the interviewee names, other offenders that the child names, potential witnesses, items of physical evidence mentioned, and locations where the abuse occurred. The prosecutor's office should be kept abreast of this information to better determine when enough information exists to obtain search warrants, at what locations, and what pieces of evidence are believed to be present. If multiple locations have been exposed as abuse sites, the possibility of simultaneous raids should be explored. Since the potential for removal or destruction of evidence exists, this part of the investigation should move as rapidly as legally possible. Once the investigation is known publicly, past experience has shown that the likelihood of finding evidence the children have stated exists or finding it in the same condition that the children have described is rare. As mentioned earlier, different physicians who are trained in the examination of sexually abused children should be employed. Many of these cases will require the use of specialized equipment and sophisticated techniques beyond the capabilities of untrained local physicians. Again, if only one doctor performs the exams, particularly if medical evidence is discovered, it is easy for the defense to challenge one physician's credentials, methodology of exams, and exam findings. Regrettably, many communities have few options in this area. By recruiting a different physician for each team, investigators minimize the chance that the defense will discredit the physician and relieve a single physician of the responsibility of having to document and testify in a multitude of cases. By breaking down the number of interviews into manageable blocks, investigators are less likely to feel overwhelmed and confused about what has been disclosed and where the next step should lead. As always, the chain of evidence must be observed carefully. An important consideration is the reaction of the parents of the child victims and that of parents of possible victims. The mismanagement of the parents may be the single most common mistake in these types of cases and the most damaging to a successful investigation in the long run. Investigators will see many different reactions by parents, from overreactive, overprotective, nonbelieving to supportive. In some situations, these reactions represent stages through which parents must pass to deal with the trauma of knowing that their child has been victimized. With other parents, investigators will see little or no movement toward healthy resolution. An effective investigation will address the issue, with a focus on moving parents to the more supportive mode. Initially, it will fall to the team coordinators to arrange for the proper environment for this process to begin. A suggested protocol would be to call a meeting of all parents whose children are in the possible victim population as soon as the initial validation of a case has been made. This can be done by personal or telephone contact or by sending letters to parents requesting a meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to tell the parents that an investigation is underway and that they are requested to cooperate. Concern for the children and their well-being is stressed. It is appropriate to have one or more mental health practitioners at the meeting to assist in leading this discussion. Investigators can discuss the broad issues of child abuse and perhaps give the parents guidance on how to reduce risk of abuse in the future. The mental health professional can discuss how parents can best react to any disclosures or explain where to secure needed counseling. The investigators should expect a variety of emotions at this meeting, reflecting the various ways parents react to such allegations. In some cases, families may distrust one another, fearing that information shared will get back to the alleged offender(s). The investigator leading the discussion should be clear on what will and can be discussed and what cannot. Smaller parent groups can then be established to help parents deal with the specific concerns they may have and to keep them informed of the progress of the investigation. In summary, investigators must remember the following key points to successfully investigate a macro-case:
Investigating the death of a child can be among the most difficult and frustrating types of cases law enforcement officers will encounter. In some cases the cause of death will be clear and a perpetrator obvious; unfortunately, this does not always happen. The National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse reported 1,211 child abuse-related fatalities nationwide in 1990.45 Also of interest to law enforcement are preventable deaths due to neglect, such as the death of an infant left unattended in a house fire or the child who accidentally ingests illegal drugs. However, officers and medical professionals will often be able to only speculate as to what happened to cause the death, and the autopsy report will read "undetermined" or "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)." In most cases, the investigators must carefully balance their investigative needs with sensitivity and sympathy for the grieving family, who may not be responsible for the child's death. This requires skill and tact. The officer must gain adequate information to determine if the death was the result of the actions of the caregivers, without unduly adding to the trauma of the parents who lost the child. The basic steps in these cases are variations of normal investigations of possible homicides and physical abuse investigations. If the caretakers explain that the injury was sustained in a certain place, that location should be visited immediately. Photographs, videotapes, and/or diagrams should be made of the area where the injury occurred, noting the location of large toys, furniture, and other objects that might play a role in the injury or accident.46 Any objects that might contain trace evidence should be secured. Depending on the case circumstance, the investigator may also wish to see other locations within the home, such as the child's room (if other than the alleged scene of the "accident") to observe any other possible sources of evidence (blood stains, vomit, or signs of struggle). All caretakers and adult witnesses should be interviewed as they are in a physical abuse investigation. Topics to address in the interview include:
If the cause of death appears to be the result of a traumatic injury, any other siblings or children in the house should be interviewed. Investigators should be interested in what the children observed and when. Investigators may explore many of the same issues with all the children. Children should be approached in a nonthreatening manner. Investigators should also assess whether these children may have been abused or are at risk. If abuse is suspected in the death of a child, CPS caseworkers should be working with the officers to assess the history and risk of abuse to any minor siblings. Any physicians, emergency medical technicians, or other professionals who responded to the scene or treated the child in the office or hospital should be interviewed. Complete statements should be taken regarding their observations and/or findings, statements made by the caretakers or others as to how caretakers acted during their contact, or other information of value.47 They should also be questioned as to the medical procedures that they followed, which could have altered medical/physical evidence of abuse important in the validation of the case (for example, clothing the child was wearing was torn by emergency medical technicians to enable them to administer lifesaving measures). Providing Relevant Information to Medical Examiner Prior to Autopsy Officers should seek an autopsy any time the cause of death is suspicious. All pertinent information available should be provided to the medical examiner prior to the autopsy.48 If the injury was reported as an accident, the medical examiner should review the officer's photographs, videotapes, and/or diagnosis to better assess the plausibility of the explanation given.49 Statements taken from any suspects should be included. Based on all the information available, the officer will need to decide if the case warrants further criminal actions such as presentation to the prosecutor and/or grand jury. Some cases will, in fact, be obvious homicides, while others will first appear to be the result of inflicted injuries, but, upon autopsy, may be declared SIDS or, in some cases, "undetermined." Many SIDS cases are medical anomalies that are unavoidable and that defy medical explanation. Some researchers suggest that at least some SIDS deaths are misdiagnosed as child abuse cases and/or accidents. When no outward signs of trauma are noted, the officer must be exceedingly sensitive. Many such cases involve families who did not contribute to the child's death. However, the investigative process cannot be short circuited because some "child homicides resemble (SIDS), more commonly called crib death,"50 such as certain internal injuries, shaken infant syndrome, suffocation, poisoning, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, or drug injection.
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Email
Order (Free)
Print (PDF 212 KB)
Share
Rate This
