The American legal system plays an important role in responding

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases John E.B. Myers John E.B. Myers, J.D., is professor of law at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. Abstract This article discusses issues in the adjudication of child sexual abuse allegations. Such allegations may be tried in criminal court and/or civil court (in child abuse or divorce proceedings), and these forums are discussed. Often central to any of these proceedings is the necessity for a child to testify. The article reviews research about the believability of child witnesses and discusses accommodations for the child that could assist the child witness and encourage accurate testimony, as well as continue to protect the rights of the accused. The American legal system plays an important role in responding to child sexual abuse. The system is immensely complex, consisting of federal and state courts, trial and appellate courts, innumerable investigative agencies, and thousands of attorneys, probation officers, and related professionals. Moreover, the legal system varies from place to place. The particular complexities involved in responding to child sexual abuse only complicate further an already labyrinthine legal system. This chapter provides an overview of child sexual abuse litigation. The article begins with a discussion of children as witnesses. Next, child sexual abuse litigation is discussed as it occurs in three different types of proceedings: criminal, juvenile court, and divorce. The article concludes by discussing the need for enhanced coordination of these proceedings of the legal system. Children as Witnesses As mentioned above, children testify in different types of legal proceedings. Child sexual abuse is a serious crime in all states, and many children testify in criminal trials. Children also testify in several types of civil proceedings. When a parent sexually abuses a child, proceedings may be initiated in juvenile court. The juvenile court has authority to protect the child by placing the youngster in foster care or leaving the child at home under supervision from an appropriate agency. The juvenile court also has authority to order abusive parents to participate in treatment to reduce the likelihood of future abuse. Finally, sexual abuse allegations can be heard in civil divorce proceedings. When parents divorce, the custody of their children can become an issue. Most separating parents agree on a custodial arrangement. In a small number of cases, however, one parent accuses the other of sexually abusing their child, and the stage is set for acrimonious litigation in family court. Here too the child may have to testify. Regardless of the type of litigation criminal or civil child sexual abuse is often exceedingly difficult to prove. The The Future of Children SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN Vol. 4 No. 2 Summer/Fall 1994

85 U.S. Supreme Court has observed that [c]hild abuse is one of the most difficult crimes to detect and prosecute, in large part because there often are no witnesses except the victim. 2 In many cases, the child s testimony is the most important evidence. It is ironic that children are victimized because they are weak, and yet children s strength on the witness stand is often their best hope for protection. Children s Competence to Testify and Take the Oath Before a child may testify in court, the judge must be convinced that the child is competent to testify. 3 Testimonial competence requires basic cognitive and moral capacities. The child must be able to observe and remember events, must understand the difference between truth and falsehood, and must appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. 4 The vast majority of children as young as three and four possess these capacities. 4 In addition to the cognitive and moral capacity to testify, children must take a religious oath or a secular affirmation to testify truthfully. There was a time in American law when children below specified ages typically 10 or 12 were presumed to lack testimonial competence. When a young child was brought to court, the judge asked questions to assess the youngster s cognitive and moral capacities and ability to take an oath. If the child possessed sufficient understanding, the child testified. During the era when children were presumed incompetent, most youngsters passed this preliminary test. As time passed, states abandoned the presumption that children were incompetent to testify, and today the presumption in most states is that children are competent. Although judges still question young children to make sure that they understand the proceedings, most children are allowed to testify. Believability of Children s Testimony While most children have the cognitive and moral capacity to be competent witnesses, competence is not the same as believability. A witness may be competent to testify but unworthy of belief. Thus the crucial question is, can children be believed? At the outset, it is worth asking whether children deliberately lie about sexual abuse. By age three, children learn to bend the truth. There is no evidence, however, that children are any more or less prone to lie than adults. 5 Although children particularly adolescents sometimes deliberately fabricate allegations of sexual abuse, research reveals that deliberate fabrication is uncommon, particularly among young children. 6 Moreover, young children are not very good at maintaining a lie. 7 Of greater concern than deliberate lying is the possibility that young children who are not abused may be coached or led into believing that they are. Some harsh and unbalanced critics envision an army of corrupt and malevolent professionals on a witch-hunt of false allegations. 8 There is no evidence of such a witch-hunt. There is evidence, however, that some well-intentioned but misguided therapists, police, social workers, and attorneys use interview techniques that could distort children s memories. 9 In rare instances, improper interviewing may actually create a memory of abuse that never happened. In these instances, children describe nonexistent abuse, all the while believing what they say. Although wholesale creation of abuse memories appears to be rare, the possibility cannot be ignored. The possibility that flawed interviewing distorts children s memories is one of the most important issues facing professionals working to protect children. Unless the professional community comes to grips with this issue, two decades of progress for abused children could be jeopardized. The media contain numerous stories of improper interviewing, and public skepticism appears to be on the rise. 10 Moreover, incredulity is not limited to the man on the street. Judges too are worried, and if judges lose confidence in children, children will have lost a powerful ally.

86 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 Primary concern about interviewing focuses on young children s suggestibility and memory. Although memory skills increase with age, young children, including preschoolers, have good memories. 11 Fivush writes that [t]he single most important finding to emerge from the research on children s autobiographical memory is that children s recall can be quite accurate. Moreover, preschoolers seem to be as accurate as older children and accuracy does not appear to diminish over a period of years. 12 Baker-Ward and her colleagues add that young children s reports of personally experienced events can be extensive and accurate. 13 Concern about interviews should not focus on children s memory ability, which is good. Rather, the focus should be on suggestibility. By age 10 or 11, children appear to be no more suggestible than adults. 14 This is not to say, of course, that children approaching adolescence are not suggestible. Psychologists have long documented suggestibility in adults. 15 The important point is that concern about suggestibility does not have to be greater in older children than in adults. Turning to young children, most studies find that young children, particularly preschoolers, can be more suggestible than older children and adults. 16 Research also discloses, however, that young children are better at resisting suggestive and Given the developmental constraints of young children, it is often impossible to avoid suggestive questions. This need for suggestive questions is the central dilemma facing interviewers. misleading questions than many adults believe. 17 Thus, concern about young children s suggestibility is well founded, but should not be exaggerated. Academic psychologists continue their research on young children s suggestibility. All the researchers share the goal of greater understanding, although they approach children s suggestibility from different perspectives. One group of researchers emphasizes children s suggestibility. Stephen Ceci of Cornell University typifies this approach. 18 Ceci structures some of his experiments to make extreme attempts to influence the child and to demonstrate children s suggestibility. 19 Not surprisingly, experiments designed to demonstrate suggestibility do just that given the right circumstances, young children can be quite suggestible. Thus, when preschoolers are interviewed over and over again with highly misleading questions, many of them eventually make inaccurate statements. A second group of researchers take a different approach, acknowledging and demonstrating that, in some instances, children can be suggestible but also demonstrating that, in less extreme situations, children often are able to resist misleading questions. Gail Goodman of the University of California at Davis is prominent in the second group, 20 and her experiments highlight children s strengths as well as their weaknesses. The two approaches described above are not at loggerheads. Researchers like Ceci, who concentrate on children s suggestibility, remind us of the critical need to improve the interviewing skills of the thousands of police officers, social workers, and other professionals talking to children and to avoid extreme situations in which children are barraged with leading questions from a number of professionals over a considerable period of time. At the same time, researchers like Goodman highlight children s strengths and give us confidence that, when children are interviewed by competent professionals, it is appropriate to have reasonable confidence in what children say. How then should interviews of young children proceed? Most experts agree that suggestive questions should be avoided when possible. But given the developmental constraints of young children, it is often impossible to avoid suggestive questions. This need for suggestive questions is the central dilemma facing interviewers. Although young children are most at risk of suggestibility, young children often require suggestive questions to unlock memory. This is so for two reasons, one having to do with the psychological dynamics of sexual abuse, the other with normal child development. The first reason for suggestive questions during interviews relates to the nature of child sexual abuse. Many sexually abused children hesitate to disclose their abuse. 21 Abused children often are threat-

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 87 ened into silence, many are ambivalent about disclosing, and some are embarrassed. 22 Sorensen and Snow examined interviews of 116 sexually abused children and found that nearly 80% of the children initially denied the abuse or hesitated to disclose. 23 Thus, the very nature of child sexual abuse inhibits disclosure, and professionals sometimes have little choice but to help children along by asking suggestive questions. The second reason for cautious use of suggestive questions is youth itself. Although young children have excellent memories, they often need suggestive questions to trigger their memories. Young children usually do not provide much information in response to nonspecific, open-ended questions like Do you know why I m talking to you? or Why are we here today? Pipe and her colleagues observe that such open-ended questions are seldom likely to be a satisfactory basis for obtaining children s testimony, 24 and Fivush adds that young children often need many specific questions to trigger memory. 25 To anyone with young children, a simple example illustrates the need to pry information out of young children. Ask your four- or five-year-old, What happened at preschool today? and the answer is predictable, I played. It is not that the child cannot remember. Rather, the youngster needs specific questions to bring the memory to the surface. Thus, during interviews of young children, it is often necessary for developmental reasons to ask specific questions, some of which are suggestive. In this author s view, interviewers are often justified in asking suggestive questions after less worrisome techniques prove unsuccessful in getting the child to provide information about what he or she remembers. An increasing number of judges recognize the necessity of such questions. 26 Of course, as the number of suggestive questions goes up, confidence in the child s statements goes down. It must be remembered, however, that answers to suggestive questions are often true. The challenge is to reduce the need for such questions while, at the same time, respecting the need to ask them. Gail Goodman and others, notably Karen Saywitz of the University of California at Los Angeles and Amy Warren of the University of Tennessee, are producing valuable research on practical ways to lower children s suggestibility. 14,27 In the final analysis there is no single, correct way to interview young children, although professionals increasingly agree on basic dos and don ts. 28 Interviewers usually begin by making children feel comfortable. Young children are better at resisting misleading questions when they are put at ease. 29 Children should be told in language they understand that it is okay to say, I don t know or I don t remember, and that they should feel free to correct and disagree with the interviewer. Initial questioning should be as open-ended and nonsuggestive as possible. If the child does not respond to such questions and many young children do not then the interviewer asks specific questions that focus the child s attention on particular topics. When specific questions are asked, the Done poorly, interiews undermine the ability to protect children and raise the specter of false allegations. Done well, interviews help children reveal their memories. interviewer proceeds along a continuum, usually beginning with questions that simply focus the child s attention on a particular subject and, when necessary, moving gradually to more specific questions, some of which are suggestive. 30 Interviewing young children is a delicate and difficult task. Done poorly, interviews undermine the ability to protect children and raise the specter of false allegations. 9 Done well, interviews help children reveal their memories. Courtroom Accommodations for Young Witnesses After children are interviewed, some of them must take that long walk from the courtroom door to the witness stand. Children are particularly vulnerable witnesses. Imagine the emotions that grip young children required to speak publicly in the forbidding and foreign environment of a courtroom. The courtroom itself, however, is seldom the greatest impediment to testimony. Many children are required to describe on the witness stand the unspeak-

88 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 able acts of an adult sitting a few feet away. In many cases, the child testifies against a loved one, even a parent. Finally, once the child tells what happened, defense counsel may cross-examine with an eye toward destroying the child s credibility. For many children, facing the defendant is the most difficult aspect of testifying. With testifying so difficult for many children, why not close the courtroom to spectators and reporters? Why not allow children to testify in less intimidating surroundings like the judge s chambers? Why make children endure face-to-face confrontation with the defendant? And why require children to submit to crossexamination? The answers to these questions change with the type of litigation. Closing the Courtroom In criminal cases, the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant a public trial. 31 Additionally, the Constitution guarantees the press and public a right to attend criminal trials. 32 Although these constitutional rights are important, they are not absolute, and, in appropriate cases, the judge may close the courtroom to the public and the press. 33 Closing the courtroom is particularly appropriate when children must describe degrading and embarrassing acts. 34 Nevertheless, the need to protect children does not justify closure in every case. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a law that closed courtrooms for all children. 33 In deciding whether to close the courtroom for a particular child, the judge considers the child s age, the nature of the sexual abuse, and the psychological strength and stability of the child. In contrast to criminal litigation, civil litigation involving children is often conducted behind closed doors. In most states, proceedings in juvenile court are closed to the public and the press. Although litigation in family court is usually open, judges have authority to close the proceedings when children testify. Face-to-Face Confrontation with the Defendant In criminal cases, the U.S. Constitution guarantees persons accused of crime the right to face-to-face confrontation with the witnesses against them, including children. 35 For many children, however, facing the defendant is the most difficult aspect of testifying. Moreover, psychological research discloses that face-to-face confrontation undermines some children s ability to testify. Goodman and her colleagues observed children testifying in criminal court and discovered that young-

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 89 sters who were most frightened of the defendant experienced the greatest difficulty answering questions. 36 Although the defendant s constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation is important, it is not absolute. With its 1990 decision in Maryland v. Craig, 37 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in selected cases, children may be spared the ordeal of faceto-face confrontation. Before confrontation may be curtailed, however, the judge must determine that a face-to-face encounter would cause the child serious emotional distress that interferes with the ability to communicate. Mere nervousness or reluctance to testify is not sufficient to curtail the defendant s confrontation right. During the 1980s, many states enacted laws authorizing video testimony by children in criminal cases. 38 Although video testimony laws vary from state to state, a common scenario allows the child to testify in the judge s chambers rather than the courtroom. The judge, jury, defendant, and spectators remain in court where they watch the child s testimony on a television monitor. The primary goal of video testimony is to reduce children s stress. The Supreme Court s decision in Maryland v. Craig cleared away obstacles under the U.S. Constitution to allowing selected children to testify outside the physical presence of the defendant. It should be noted, however, that state constitutions contain confrontation clauses. Although most state courts have ruled that state constitutions permit video testimony for certain children, the supreme courts of Pennsylvania and Illinois have struck down laws allowing video testimony. 39 In England, where there is no constitutional right of confrontation, the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991 authorize routine use of video testimony with children. Davies and Noon report that video testimony has been demonstrated to have positive and facilitating effects on the courtroom testimony of children and to have widespread acceptance among the various professional groups involved in the processes of justice, 40 including judges and barristers for the prosecution and defense. Although video testimony is a promising alternative to face-to-face confrontation in criminal court, Maryland v. Craig made clear that the U.S. Constitution precludes widespread use of this technique. Moreover, in states where video testimony laws are on the books, prosecutors seldom use the technique, preferring instead to present children s testimony in open court. The right to face-to-face confrontation is strongest in criminal trials. A more limited confrontation right applies in juvenile and family court cases, which are civil rather than criminal. 41 When parents are accused in juvenile court of abuse, judges have considerable latitude to spare children the ordeal of face-to-face confrontation. The same is true in family court, where it is common for children to testify in the judge s chambers, away from parents. Cross-Examination The right in criminal cases to confront witnesses includes the right to cross-examine them. 42 Although cross-examination is important, the Supreme Court has ruled that judges retain wide latitude... to impose reasonable limits on such crossexamination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness s Judges have authority to protect children from harassment and intimidation, and this authority applies in criminal and civil litigation. safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. 43 Thus, judges have authority to protect children from harassment and intimidation, and this authority applies in criminal and civil litigation. Attorneys often ask questions that are beyond the ken of children. For example, one four-year-old was asked, On the evening of January third, you did, didn t you, visit your grandmother s sister s house and didn t you see the defendant leave the house at 7:30, after which you stayed the night? 44 It is doubtful that the adults in the courtroom understood this question, let alone the preschooler. Judges need to take a more active role in requiring lawyers to ask questions children understand. In California a statute allows judges to forbid the asking of a question which is in a form that is not reasonably likely to be understood by a person of the age of the witness. 45 Similar laws are needed elsewhere.

90 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 Reducing Children s Stress and Improving Their Testimony Although testifying is difficult for most children, the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Children are strong and resilient, and most of them cope with testifying and move on with their lives. Indeed, with proper preparation and support, some children are empowered by testifying. Runyan and his colleagues found that, for many children, the opportunity to testify in juvenile court may exert a protective effect on the child. 46 Because children s testimony in court is so often indispensable to their protection, the wiser course is not to seek ways to keep them off the witness stand, but to Children are strong and resilient, and most of them cope with testifying and move on with their lives. Indeed, with proper preparation and support, some children are empowered by testifying. help children testify more effectively. The first step toward improving children s testimony and reducing their stress is familiarizing them with the courtroom and what goes on there. Saywitz and Snyder point out that [p]reparation of children for painful medical procedures has proven successful in lowering children s perceptions of pain and raising their level of cooperation. Children facing similarly stressful forensic procedures deserve no less. 47 Prosecutors often give children a tour of the courtroom, pointing out various aspects of the room, allowing the child to sit in the witness chair, and introducing the child to court personnel such as the bailiff and clerk. Although preparation of this kind is laudable, Saywitz and Snyder point out that a brief tour of the courtroom is only the beginning of effective preparation. 48 In ground-breaking research on preparing children to testify, Saywitz and her colleagues describe techniques for improving the completeness of children s reports and enhancing children s ability to resist misleading questions. 14,49 This important research deserves study, replication, and expansion. A number of communities have court schools for children who are scheduled to testify. 50 Children attend classes where they learn about court. Role playing is used to allow children to practice testifying about innocuous events unrelated to their abuse. These worthwhile programs reduce the fear of the unknown and boost children s confidence. One obvious way to reduce children s stress is to allow a parent or other trusted adult to remain in the courtroom while the child testifies. 38 In appropriate cases, the judge allows the support person to sit near the child. In some instances, however, courts will preclude this if the adult is also to be a witness in the case. Research by Goodman and her colleagues reveals that the presence of a supportive adult enhances children s ability to answer questions. 36 Moreover, when a supportive adult is present, children are less likely to give inconsistent answers to questions or to recant. The search for truth is advanced by the simple step of providing emotional support for child witnesses. Providing such support violates none of the defendant s rights. Children pose many challenges for interviewers, judges, and attorneys. The law makes reasonable accommodations for children, although more can be done for children without sacrificing defendant s rights. The Criminal Justice System Prosecution of child sexual abuse has been part of the legal armamentarium since the beginning of organized child protection in the nineteenth century. 51 It was the 1970s and 1980s, however, that witnessed substantial growth in prosecution. Increased prosecution is one result of greater societal awareness of the prevalence and seriousness of child sexual abuse. Unfortunately, there are no national statistics on the number of prosecutions for child sexual abuse. 52 (See the article by Finkelhor regarding criminal justicestatistics in this journal issue.) It is clear, however, that thousands of criminal cases are filed each year. Virtually all experts agree that prosecution is often necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of prosecution, writing that [t]he prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance. 53 In a similar vein,

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 91 the Florida Supreme Court wrote that society has a strong interest in eliminating the sexual abuse of children through vigorous enforcement of child-abuse laws. 54 Debate persists over the extent to which the criminal justice system should play a leading role in responding to child sexual abuse. 55 Critics of increased prosecution point out that the law is a blunt and adversarial system that is poorly equipped to cope with the social and psychological dimensions of child sexual abuse. Critics of prosecution suggest that the best way to reduce child sexual abuse is prevention and therapy, not heavy reliance on litigation. Critics also worry that the threat of prosecution causes abusive adults to hide their deviance rather than seek desperately needed professional help. 56 Offenders realize that, if they seek counseling, the therapist will file a report with child protective services (CPS) or the police. Proponents of prosecution do not underestimate the value of prevention and treatment for sex offenders. Proponents point out, however, that prevention often fails. Moreover, although the threat of prosecution undoubtedly keeps some offenders away from therapists offices, it is unlikely that an appreciable number of sex offenders would voluntarily seek counseling in a system where therapists were not required to report suspected child abuse. Most important, proponents of prosecution assert that anyone who sexually abuses a child commits a serious crime and should be held accountable. 57 Peters and his colleagues make the case for prosecution: (1) criminal intervention clearly establishes that the children are innocent victims and that the perpetrators are solely responsible for their wrongful behavior; (2) punishment validates the victims and society s sense of fairness that an older person has no right to violate or exploit the relative weakness of children; (3) successful prosecutions and public identification of offenders educate the community regarding child abuse and underscore its unacceptability, thereby having a deterrent effect on others tempted to commit similar crimes; (4) the court can order offenders into treatment programs in an attempt to modify deviant sexual interests or other abusive behavior and reduce the likelihood of recidivism; and (5) criminal prosecution gives an offender a criminal record that... will follow him from state to state. 58 Debate will continue over the proper role for prosecution. It is unlikely, however, that prosecution will recede appreciably from its present level. The Criminal Justice System in Operation When citizens think of prosecution, they imagine a trial. The public is generally unaware that trials are the exception rather than the rule. Only a small fraction of the cases that come to official attention end in trials. Investigation Reports of child sexual abuse are received by child protective services agencies and the police. As discussed above, however, CPS typically investigates only when the suspected abuse involves the actions or omissions of a parent. When this is the situation, cross-reporting between CPS and the police is required in some states and is increasingly common even when not required. 59 Thus, it is not unusual in intrafamilial abuse cases to find parallel investigations, one by the police and one by CPS. Unfortunately, as Finkelhor discusses in his article in this journal issue, statistics on sex crimes are aggregated, and we do not have information about the numbers of separate sex crimes against children or to what extent criminal cases are also crossreferred to CPS. The public is generally unaware that trials are the exception rather than the rule. Only a small fraction of the cases that come to official attention end in trials. Many reports are screened out with little or no investigation. 60 Reports warranting criminal investigation are pursued by the police. When the criminal investigation leads to the conclusion that abuse occurred, the suspect is arrested. If the investigation leads nowhere, the criminal case is closed. 61 One of the most promising innovations in the investigation of child sexual abuse is the interdisciplinary approach. 62 (See also the discussion in the article by Pence and Wilson in this journal issue.) The goal of this approach is to coordinate

92 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 and streamline the investigative efforts of law enforcement, CPS, and related agencies. In particular, the interdisciplinary approach reduces the number of times the child is interviewed. In California, a committee of experts described the need for greater coordination, writing: [C]hildren are interviewed numerous times by many individuals during the course of a child abuse investigation. In response to intrafamilial child abuse reports, children may be interviewed by law enforcement officers, social workers, physicians, nurses, mental health professionals, prosecutors, defense attorneys and probation officers.... Children frequently suffer emotional trauma from the frequent requests from numerous interviewers to retell their stories. 63 In examining ways to meet the needs of child victim witnesses during the investigative process, the committee focused on the concept of creating a child-oriented environment for interviewing the child. The ideal approach would involve the establishment of child victim witness centers. 63 With the multidisciplinary approach, the child is spared repetitive interviews by professionals from different agencies. Instead, the child is taken to a specialized, child-friendly interview center, where a With the multidisciplinary approach,... the child is taken to a specialized, child-friendly interview center, where a highly trained and experienced professional interviews the child. highly trained and experienced professional interviews the child. Other professionals including the police, prosecutor, and child protective services-watch from behind a one way mirror, and suggest additional questions as the interview proceeds. 64 Wherever investigative interviews of children take place, the question arises: Should such interviews be videotaped? This question is hotly debated, 65 and, although there are advantages and disadvantages to videotaping, in this author s view, the argument in favor of videotaping is stronger. 66 (See also the discussion in the article by Pence and Wilson in this journal issue.) Moreover, recent research in California suggests that videotaping in- vestigative interviews of children does not have deleterious effects on investigation or litigation of child abuse. 67 The Decision to File Criminal Charges When a law enforcement investigation yields evidence of abuse, the next step is the prosecutor s decision to file formal criminal charges. Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding when to prosecute. 68 Few national data are collected, however, about the percentage of investigated child sexual abuse cases that are prosecuted. In exercising their discretion, prosecutors consider many factors, including the strength of the evidence and the likelihood of conviction. 36,69 In many cases, the strength of the evidence depends on the child s ability to testify. Children are usually the only eyewitnesses to sexual abuse, and prosecutors are more likely to file criminal charges when they believe children will be effective witnesses. Not surprisingly, age plays a role in prosecutorial decision making. Preschool-age children are sometimes ineffective witnesses, with the tragic consequence that the law is least able to protect the youngest and most vulnerable victims. Adolescents too have their difficulties. Although teenagers have the ability to testify, prosecutors worry that some jurors view teenagers as partly responsible for their sexual abuse. Tjaden and Thoennes found that cases with victims ages 7-12 years were significantly more likely to result in prosecutions than cases with younger or older children. 70 Prosecution is more likely when the abuse is severe, when force is used, when the child s story is consistent over time, and when the accused has a prior criminal record. Charges are also more likely when there is evidence to corroborate the child s testimony. When medical evidence of abuse is available, it can be used to corroborate children s testimony, increasing the likelihood of prosecution. Unfortunately, medical evidence exists in a relatively small percentage of cases. 7l (See the article by Kerns, Terman, and Larson in this journal issue.) Plea Bargaining Once criminal charges are filed, prosecutors engage in plea bargaining with defense attorneys representing defendants. In many cases, the defendant pleads guilty to a less serious offense than originally charged, or agrees to plead guilty to the original charge in exchange for the prosecutor s commitment to recommend

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 93 leniency when the judge pronounces sentence. Approximately 66% of child sexual abuse charges end in guilty pleas before trial, a proportion which is similar to that for other crimes. 72 Diversion from Prosecution In some jurisdictions, prosecutors have authority to divert selected defendants away from prosecution for child sexual abuse and into treatment. The American Bar Association describes diversion: Based upon certain eligibility guidelines, offenders are diverted from the traditional criminal justice process, either before or after charges are filed, but prior to conviction or entry of judgment. Criminal proceedings are suspended conditioned upon the performance of specified obligations by the defendant, often including participation in counseling or treatment. Upon successful completion or compliance with the conditions of diversion, the case is dismissed. 72 As with the decision to file charges, data about the frequency of diversion are far from complete. Decision making about diversion turns on several factors, including the seriousness of the abuse, the defendant s amenability to treatment, and the likelihood the defendant will reoffend. Not all communities use diversion, and, in those that do, most require the defendant to acknowledge that the abuse occurred before diversion becomes an option. Critics of diversion point out that it allows acknowledged sex offenders to escape the punishment they deserve. Moreover, offenders who complete the conditions required for diversion do not have a conviction on their record, and their name may not find its way onto one of the sex offender registries described below. There are few data about the extent to which those who are diverted ever recommit child sexual abuse. Trial As a result of plea bargaining, diversion, and dismissal for other reasons, the number of cases that go all the way to trial is small. Approximately 10% of cases filed by prosecutors are tried. 73 Most cases that go to trial end in conviction. Sentencing After a Plea of Guilty or a Conviction Following Trial Convicted child molesters often receive long prison terms. As with other crimes, however, some individuals convicted of child sexual abuse do not go to prison. Rather, their punishment consists of a suspended prison sentence and probation. 36,74 Probation is a sentence under which the court either suspends or substantially reduces the period of incarceration, but retains the authority to condition the defendant s freedom on her agreement to abide by certain requirements and to revoke the grant of freedom should any of the conditions be violated. 75 Although there are no national statistics on probation in child sexual abuse cases, the federal government s Bureau of Justice Statistics compiles probation data on all crimes. In 1990, [a]bout a fourth of convicted defendants were sentenced to probation instead Approximately 66% of child sexual abuse charges end in guilty pleas before trial, a proportion which is similar to that for other crimes. of incarceration, regardless of whether the conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor. 76 The mean length of probation for felony convictions was three and onehalf years. 77 A person on probation lives in the community under the supervision of a probation or parole officer. Among the many conditions of probation, a sex offender may be ordered by the judge to participate in therapy to reduce the likelihood of future child sexual abuse. Failure to participate in treatment can lead to revocation of probation and incarceration. But is it safe to put convicted child molesters on probation with the requirement that they get psychological treatment? Does treatment work? Judith Becker discusses the treatment literature elsewhere in this journal issue, and her analysis is not repeated here. Experts are far from unanimous on the efficacy of treatment. Becker and Hunter write that probation and the supervision that it affords the perpetrator appear to be effective in the majority of cases in assisting them in not acting out on their atypical sexual urges during probation. 78 Marshall and his colleagues reviewed the literature and concluded that some treatment programs have been effective with child molesters and exhibitionists but not, apparently, with rapists. In examining the

94 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 value of the different approaches, we concluded that comprehensive cognitive/behavioral programs (at least for child molesters, incest offenders, and exhibitionists) are most likely to be effective.... 79 On the other hand, Quinsey and his colleagues reviewed the literature and wrote that the effectiveness of treatment in reducing sex offender recidivism has not yet been demonstrated.... 80 Treatment is only as effective as the professional providing it. Although national standards for offender treatment are lacking, improvement is under way. On the national level, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers provides leadership. 81 On the state level, the most impressive achievement to date comes from the state of Washington, where the Legislature enacted strict certification requirements for professionals treating sex offenders. 82 Of course, some convicted sex offenders do go to prison. Of these, many are released on parole, and the remainder return to the community when their term of imprisonment expires. As discussed in the article by Becker in this journal issue, there are very few data about recidivism. Because of the fear and belief that sex offenders will reoffend, approximately half the states require convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies. In 1990, the state of Washington, however, acknowledging that some sexual offenders are likely to reoffend after they are released, adopted a rational approach to the danger posed by violent sexual offenders. The Washington law permits particularly dangerous offenders to be institutionalized for long-term treatment after their prison term ends. 83 In 1993, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law. 84 Sex Offender Registration Laws In large part because of the fear and belief that sex offenders will reoffend, approximately half the states require convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies and to change their registration when they move. 85 In addition to local registries, these states maintain statewide registries of convicted sex offenders. Registered information is confidential and is accessible only to law enforcement personnel. Registration laws are helpful to law enforcement. When a child is abused or abducted by an unknown assailant, or when a child is murdered and the body reveals evidence of sexual abuse, the police use child abuse registries to generate a list of possible suspects. Several states improve the odds of identifying the perpetrator by requiring registered sex offenders to submit specimens of body fluids that can be genetically compared with specimens taken from victims. 86 In several cases, sex offenders have challenged the constitutionality of registration laws, arguing that such laws constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 87 Courts reject such challenges, 88 and in this author s view, states without registration laws should enact them. On December 20, 1993, President Clinton signed the National Child Protection Act of 1993. 89 The purpose of the act is to require the States to report information on arrests and convictions for child abuse crimes to the national criminal history record system maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.... 90 This important law is a valuable step toward a national child abuse registry. The Juvenile Court System As discussed above, when a parent is alleged to have sexually abused a child or to have permitted such abuse, the juvenile court and the child protective service system investigate and may litigate the case in a civil dependency proceeding. Finkelhor estimates in this journal issue that child protective services agencies handle approximately 150,000 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse each year. Some of these may also be prosecuted as criminal cases, but no national data reveal how many. The juvenile court originated in 1899 as part of the social reform movement known as the Progressive Era. The first juvenile courts were in Chicago and Denver. The concept of a special court for children was immediately popular, and the juvenile court spread quickly across the United States. Today, every state has a

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 95 system of juvenile courts. In some states for example, Hawaii, Nevada, and New York the court is known as a family court. The juvenile court has authority over two categories of children and adolescents: (1) delinquents, and (2) abused and neglected children. 91 Child sexual abuse cases may be heard in either category. A minor who commits a crime is a juvenile delinquent and may be prosecuted in juvenile court. Indeed, one of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in young sex offenders: children molesting children. (See the article by Becker in this journal issue.) These cases must be taken seriously and should not be brushed aside as childish experimentation with sex. Unfortunately, many juvenile courts are illequipped to handle the increase in young sex offenders, and few communities have adequate treatment resources. A recent report from the National Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offending provides many recommendations for responding to this serious problem. 92 The second category of children under the authority of the juvenile court are abused or neglected. Juvenile court proceedings to protect abused children are usually initiated by government attorneys at the behest of CPS social workers. In some communities, the attorney is the local prosecutor. In other communities, the attorney works for CPS. The parties to the litigation are the state and the child s parents. In some states the child is also a party. The state is represented by a government lawyer. Parents may retain their own counsel, and in most states poor parents are represented by the public defender. Increasingly, the child is also represented by an attorney, often called a guardian ad litem. There is a critical need for welltrained attorneys to represent children in juvenile court. 93 When the juvenile court becomes involved, a form of plea bargaining occurs. As in criminal litigation, most juvenile court cases do not proceed all the way to trial. Government attorneys hammer out agreements with attorneys representing parents and children. Under these agreements, parents often agree to services designed to reduce the likelihood of future abuse. When cases proceed to trial, the proceedings in juvenile court are civil rather than criminal. A finding that abuse occurred does not result in a criminal conviction or punishment of the parent. Rather, a determination of abuse gives the juvenile court authority usually called jurisdiction over the abused child. The court s jurisdiction lasts as long as the As in criminal litigation, most juvenile court cases do not proceed all the way to trial. Government attorneys hammer out agreements with attorneys representing parents and children. child needs protection. In these proceedings, juvenile courts are mandated by federal and state law to make reasonable efforts to provide whatever supervision or services are necessary to the family to allow it to stay together. If it is impossible to protect the child adequately without removing the child from the home, the court is mandated to ensure that the child protective agencies make reasonable efforts to help the parents and child to reunify. There are very few data about the effect that these requirements have on the handling of sexual abuse cases. Are reports of sexual abuse more likely to result in an investigation and opening of a case than reports of other kinds of abuse? 94 Is emergency removal of the child from the family more likely in these cases? What services are typically provided either to keep the family intact or to reunify the family? Is reunification more or less likely in sexual abuse cases? When reunification occurs, is it likely to be successful? 95 More formal data about what currently happens are essential to understand what needs to be done in these difficult cases. Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Litigation Disputes over child custody and visitation in the context of divorce are resolved in family court, often a court separate and distinct from a juvenile court or a court that handles criminal or nonfamily civil matters. Unfortunately, contested custody litigation can be acrimonious, bitter, and destructive. In a gradually increasing number of custody cases, one parent accuses the other of sexually abusing the couple s child. 96 Some portion of these allegations

96 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 is fabricated to gain an advantage in the litigation. There is uncertainty, however, about how often such allegations are fabricated. The body of research on fabricated allegations of child sexual abuse is small. Most of this research focuses on fabrication in the general universe of child sexual abuse reports including, but not limited to, custody cases. Jones and McGraw evaluated all reports of suspeced sexual abuse received by Denver CPS during 1983 and found a fabrication rate of 8%. 97 Jones and McGraw s important research is presently being replicated. Other studies disclose rates of fabricated allegations ranging from two to ten percent. 98 When the focus narrows to custody cases, several researchers report high rates of fabricated allegations. Green evaluated 11 suspected victims and concluded that 4 of the allegations were probably fabricated (36%). 99 Benedek and Schetky were unable to document abuse in 10 of 18 cases (55%). 100 Commenting on these studies, Quinn observes that these were very small clinical samples with a selective pattern of referrals. 101 Berliner adds that these and similar studies describe a limited number of cases referred for evaluation.... In most of the cases described, It sometimes happens that child sexual abuse litigation is under way in two or more courts simultaneously. there were multiple evaluations and conflicting opinions among professionals. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing that the authors assessments are accurate. 102 Coordination among courts is essen- tial when multiple proceedings are under way concerning the same child. 106 Coor- dination eliminates courts working at cross-purposes and avoids the awkward spectacle of judges entering conflicting orders. In one case, for example, the fa- ther of a young child was accused of sexual abuse. A judge in criminal court ordered the child s mother to allow the father su- pervised visits with the child. Meanwhile, a judge in family court ordered the father to have no contact with the child. These Jones and Seig evaluated 20 cases in which allegations of child sexual abuse arose during custody litigation. 103 The researchers found that 20% of the allegations probably were fictitious. Jones and Seig concluded that the setting of the divorce and custody dispute does seem to raise the likelihood that clinicians will find an increased number of fictitious allegations. However, in this study, nearly three-fourths (70%) were reliable, 104 confirming the point that all allegations must be taken seriously. There is no doubt that an increasing number of parents embroiled in custody litigation broach the subject of sexual abuse. There is no systematic evidence, however, that the number of allegations has reached flood stage. Nor is there convincing evidence that a significant portion of the allegations is fabricated. In every case, it is vital to search out the truth unshackled by preconceptions and biases. The Importance of Coordination Among Courts As the above discussion highlights, child sexual abuse cases are handled by a number of different courts. In fact, allegations of child sexual abuse can be litigated in as many as ten separate legal proceedings. 105 Criminal litigation is, of course, the most highly visible and emotionally charged. The media spotlight focuses on the drama and symbolism of criminal trials, pushing other types of litigation into relative obscurity. Yet, noncriminal litigation, although less often in the public eye, is equally important to sexually abused children. It sometimes happens that child sexual abuse litigation is under way in two or more courts simultaneously. Suppose, for example, that five-year-old Sally is sexually abused by her father. When Sally s mother learns of the abuse, mother s attorney begins a divorce action seeking child custody. At the same time, child protective services believes Sally is unsafe in the family home; therefore, the attorney for CPS files a petition in juvenile court. A week later, the local prosecutor files criminal charges against Sally s father. In some metropolitan areas, each of these legal proceedings is initiated by a different attorney, in a different court, and before a different judge. Sally may have to testify in each proceeding, perhaps multiple times.

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 97 irreconcilable orders put the mother in the position of violating a court order regardless of what she did. Coordination among courts eliminates such unfortunate episodes. Moreover, cooperation among courts sometimes reduces the number of court appearances for the child. One of the most exciting legal innovations for children is the family court, where all proceedings concerning a child and family are consolidated before one judge. 107 Family courts exist in a small but growing number of states, including Hawaii, Nevada, and New York. The unified family court holds real promise for improving services for troubled families and for protecting abused children. Conclusion Sexual abuse robs children of childhood. Clearly, society must do everything in its power to prevent child sexual abuse and, when prevention fails, to rescue children from further abuse. Although the legal system cannot solve the tragedy of child abuse, the law plays a central role in ongoing efforts to protect children. 1. There are, however, no national statistics on how many children testify in criminal trials each year. 2. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987). 3. The same requirements of testimonial competence and oath or affirmation are imposed on adult witnesses. 4. Melton, G. Children s competence to testify. Law and Human Behavior (1981) 44:1225-33; Myers, J. The competence of young children to testify in legal proceedings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law (1993) 11:121-33; Myers, J. Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992. 5. Berliner, L. Deciding whether a child has been sexually abused. In Sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation cases. B. Nicholson and J. Bulkley, eds. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1988, pp. 48-69; Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., and Slobogin, C. Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford Press, 1987. 6. See note no. 4, Myers, 1992, pp. 225-29, for a summary of the literature on fabricated allegations of child sexual abuse. 7. Quinn, K. The credibility of children s allegations of sexual abuse. Behavioral Science and Law (1988) 6:181-99; Yates, A., and Musty, M. Preschool children s erroneous allegations of sexual molestation. American Journal of Psychiatry (1988) 145:989-92. 8. For examples of harsh rhetoric, see Eberle, P., and Eberle, S. The abuse of innocence: The McMartin preschool trial. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993; Gardner, R. Sex abuse hysteria: Salem witch trials revisited. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, 1992. For analysis of writing that is hypercritical of efforts to protect children, see Myers, J.E.B. The literature of the backlash. In The backlash: Child protection under fire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994. In this author s view, such unbalanced criticism does more harm than good in improving society s response to abuse and neglect. 9. State V. Michaels, 625 A.2d 489 (N.J. Super. 1993). 10. See note no. 8, Myers, for a review of media coverage of child sexual abuse. 11. Fivush, R. Developmental perspectives on autobiographical recall. In Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. G.S. Goodman and B.L. Bottoms, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 1993. 12. See note no. 11, Fivush, p. 18. 13. Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B.N., Ornstein, P.A., et al. Young children s long-term retention of a pediatric examination. Child Development (1993) 64:1519-33. 14. Saywitz, K., and Snyder, L. Improving children s testimony with preparation. In Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. G.S. Goodman and B.L. Bottoms, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 1993. 15. Loftus, E. Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. 16. Ceci, S., and Bruck, M. Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin (1993) 113,3:403-39; Goodman, S., and Clarke-Stewart, A. Suggestibility in children s testimony: Implications for child sexual abuse investigations. In The suggestibility of children s recollections. J.L. Doris, ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991.

98 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 17. Goodman, G.S., and Bottoms, B.L., eds. Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. New York: Guilford Press, 1993; Saywitz, K., Goodman, G., Nicholas, E., and Moan, S. Children s memories of physical examinations involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1991) 59:682-91. 18. Ceci, S., and Bruck, M. Child witnesses: Translating research into policy. Social Policy Report (1993) 7,3:1-30; also, see note no. 16, Ceci and Bruck. 19. Bruck, M., Ceci, S., Francoeur, E., and Barr, R. I hardly cried when I got my shot! : Influencing children s reports about a visit to their pediatrician. Child Development. In press; Ceci, S., Leichtman, M., and White, T. Interviewing preschoolers: The remembrance of things planted. In The child witness in cognitive, social, and legal context. D. Peters, ed. Netherlands: Kluwer. In press. 20. See note no. 17, Goodman and Bottoms. 21. Summit, R. The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect (1983) 7:177-93. 22. See note no. 17, Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas, and Moan. 23. Sorensen, T., and Snow, B. How children tell: The process of disclosure in child sexual abuse. Child Welfare (1991) 70:3-15. 24. Pipe, M., Gee, S., and Wilson, C. Cues, props, and context: Do they facilitate children s event reports? In Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. G.S. Goodman and B.L. Bottoms, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 1993, p. 26. 25. See note no. 11, Fivush, p. 6. 26. Idaho v. Wright, 110 S. Ct. 3139 (1990); People v. Edwards, 586 N.E.2d 1326 (Ill. Ct. App. 1992); State v. Komurke, 560 So.2d 986 (La. Ct. App. 1990). 27. Saywitz, K.J., Nathanson, R., Snyder, L., and Lamphear, V. Preparing children for the investigative and judicial process: Improving communication, memory and emotional resiliency. Final report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Grant No. 90-CA-1179, 1993; Warren, A., Hulse-Trotter, K., and Tubbs, E. Inducing resistance to suggestibility in children. Law and Human Behavior (1991) 15:273-86. 28. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Chicago: APSAC, 1990. 29. Goodman, G.S., Bottoms, B.L., Schwartz-Kenney, B.M., and Rudy, L. Children s testimony about a stressful event: Improving children s reports. Journal of Narrative and Life History (1991) 1:69-99. 30. Faller, K.C. Understanding child sexual maltreatment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990; Myers, J.E.B. Legal issues in child abuse and neglect. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992. 31. U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment. See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979). 32. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986). 33. See note no. 32, Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court. 34. United States ex rel. Latimore v. Sielaff, 561 F.2d 691 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1076 (1978); also, see note no. 32, Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court. 35. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990); Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988). 36. Goodman, G.S., Taub, E.P., Jones, D.P.H., et al. Testifying in criminal court. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (1992) 57,5:1-141. 37. See note no. 35, Maryland v. Craig. 38. See note no. 4, Myers, 1992. 39. People v. Fitzpatrick, 1994 W.L. 46899 (Ill. 1994); Commonwealth v. Louden, W.L. 74082 (Pa. 1994). 40. Davies, G., and Noon, E. An evaluation of the live link for child witnesses. London: Home Office, 1991, p. 138. 41. In re Mary S., 230 Cal. Rptr. 726 (Ct App 1986). 42. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974). 43. See note no. 42, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, at p. 679. 44. See note no. 14, Saywitz and Snyder, pp. 117-46. 45. California Evidence Code Section 765(b).

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 99 46. Runyan, D., Everson, M., Edelsohn, G., et al. Impact of legal intervention on sexually abused children. Journal of Pediatrics (1988) 113:647-53,652. 47. See note no. 14, Saywitz and Snyder, p. 119. 48. See note no. 14, Saywitz and Snyder, p. 123. 49. See note no. 27, Saywitz, Nathanson, Snyder, and Lamphear. 50. Videotapes are available describing court schools. See Maleng, N. King County prosecutor: A day at King County kid s court. Hosted by Harry Anderson. Seattle: Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, 1992; Children s Hospital and Health Center, Center for Child Protection. Kids in court. San Diego: Children s Hospital and Health Center, 1989. 51. Gordon, L. Heroes of their own lives: The politics and history of family violence: Boston 1880-1960. New York: Penguin Books, 1988. 52. Although national statistics are lacking, a growing body of research focused on particular communities provides insight into the way child abuse cases are handled. For a brief review of these studies see Myers, J.E.B. Commentary: A cail for forensically relevant research. Child Abuse & Neglect (1993) 17,5:573-79. 53. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982). 54. Dell Orfano v. State, 616 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1993). 55. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. Neighbors helping neighbors: A new national strategy for the protection of children. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. 56. Berlin, F., Malin, M., and Dean, S. Effects of statutes requiring psychiatrists to report suspected sexual abuse of children. American Journal of Psychiatry (April 1991) 148,4:449-53. Dr. Berlin and his colleagues argue that requiring mental health professionals to report their patients admissions of child sexual abuse effectively deters perpetrators from voluntarily seeking therapy. For commentary on Dr. Berlin s article, see Kalichman, S. Letter to the editor: Laws on reporting sexual abuse of children. American Journal of Psychiatry (November 1991) 148,11:1618-19. 57. Peters, J., Dinsmore, J., and Toth, P. Why prosecute child abuse? South Dakota Law Review (1989) 34:649-59. 58. See note no. 57, Peters, Dinsmore, and Toth, pp. 654, 659. 59. For an example of a reporting statute that requires cross-reporting, see California Penal Code Section 11166(g). 60. Pizzini, S. The backlash from the perspective of a county child protective services administrator. In The backlash: Child protection under fire. J.E.B. Myers, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994. 61. See note no. 30, Myers, for a more detailed description of the criminal justice system s handling of child abuse cases. 62. For information regarding the multidisciplinary approach, contact the National Children s Advocacy Center, 106 Lincoln St., Huntsville, AL 35801, or call (205) 533-KIDS; or write to the Crime and Violence Prevention Center, Department of Justice, 1515 K St., Ste. 100, Sacramento, CA 95814, or call (916) 322-2900. 63. California Attorney General s Office. California child victim witness judicial advisory committee: Final report. Sacramento: California Attorney General s Office, 1988, pp. 22-23. 64. Congress recognized the promise of the multidisciplinary approach. See 42 United States Code Section 13001 et seq. 65. Compare Stern, P. Videotaping child interviews: A detriment to an accurate determination of guilt. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1992) 7,2:278-84, with Stephenson, C. Videotaping and how it works well in San Diego. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1992) 7,2:284-88. 66. Myers, J.E.B. Investigative interviews of children: Should they be videotaped? Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy (1993) 7,2:371-86. 67. California Attorney General s Office. Child victim witness investigative pilot projects: Research and evaluation. Final report, 1994. 68. LaFave, W., and Israel, J. Criminal procedure. St. Paul, MN: West, 1985, p. 561. 69. For research on factors considered by prosecutors in deciding whether to file charges, see Bradshaw, T., and Marks, A. Beyond a reasonable doubt: Factors that influence the legal disposition of child sexual abuse cases. Crime and Delinquency (1990) 36:276-85; Gray, E. Unequal justice: The prosecution of child sexual abuse. New York: Free Press, 1993; Lipovsky, J., Tidwell, R., Crisp, J., et al. Child witnesses in criminal court: Descriptive information from

100 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SUMMER/FALL 1994 three southern states. Law and Human Behavior (1992) 16:635-50; Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. Predictors of legal intervention in child maltreatment cases. Child Abuse & Neglect (1992) 16:807-21; Whitcomb, D., Runyan, D., De Vos, E., et al. Final report of the child victim as witness research and development program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In press. 70. See note no. 69, Tjaden and Thoennes, p. 816. 71. Bays, J., and Chadwick, D. Medical diagnosis of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse & Neglect (1993) 17:91-110. 72. See note no. 52, Myers. 73. American Bar Association. Innovations in the prosecuting of child sexual abuse cases. 5th printing. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1981, p. 9. 74. See note no. 69, Tjaden and Thoennes. 75. Arthur, S. The norplant prescription: Birth control, woman control, or crime control? UCLA Law Review (1992) 40:1-101. 76. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Felony sentences in state courts, 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993, p. 15. 77. See note no. 76, U.S. Department of Justice, p. 4. 78. Becker, J.V., and Hunter, J.A. Evaluation of treatment outcome for adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior (1992) 19,1:74-92, p. 82. 79. Marshall, W.L., Jones, R., Ward, T., et al. Treatment outcome with sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review (1991) 11:465-85. 80. Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., and Lalumiere, M.L. Assessing treatment efficacy in outcome studies of sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1993) 8,4:521. 81. The address for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers is P.O. Box 866, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. 82. See Revised Code of Washington, Title 18, Section 18.155.010 et seq. 83. Revised Code of Washington, Title 17, Section 71.09.020 et seq. 84. In re Young, 857 P.2d 989 (Wash. 1993). 85. States that have registration laws include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington; see National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse. Legislation requiring sex offenders to register with a government agency. Alexandria, VA: NCPCA, 1993. For information about this publication call (703) 739-0321 or write to the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510, Alexandria, VA 22314. 86. States that require registered sex offenders to provide samples of body fluids include Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, South Dakota, and Tennessee. 87. Registration laws have typically been challenged as a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, or of state constitutions which contain similar provisions. 88. Although certain applications of registration laws are unconstitutional, the basic framework of the laws has withstood constitutional challenge. 89. National Child Protection Act, 42 United States Code Section 5119. 90. U.S. Congress, House. National Child Protection Act of 1993. House Report No. 103-393. 103rd Cong., 1st sess. 91. In addition to its jurisdiction over delinquents and abused and neglected children, the juvenile court has authority over children called status offenders. A minor commits a status offense by violating a curfew law, skipping school, running away from home, or by driving, drinking, or smoking under age. A status offense is not a crime; thus status offenders are notdelinquents. 92. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The revised report from the national task force on juvenile sexual offending. Juvenile and Family Court Journal (1993) 44,4:1-120. 93. For an excellent discussion of the complex task of representing children, see Haralambie, A.M. The child's attorney. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1993. 94. For a breakdown of postreferral dispositions in sexual abuse cases in three California counties during 1991, see Barth, R.P., Berrick, J.D., Courtney, M., and Albert, V. Pathways

Adjudication of Child Sexual Abuse Cases 101 through child welfare services. Final report. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Child Welfare Research Center, May 1992, p. 67. 95. In a study of 625 children ages 0 to 12 who were reunited with their families after a stay of 72 hours to 12 months in foster care, researchers found that physical and sexual abuse were not associated with the reunification outcome, that is, whether there was rereferral or reentry into foster care. Davis, I.P., English, D.J., and Landsverk, J.A. Going home and returning to care: A study of foster care reunification. Summary report. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University College of Health and Human Sciences, 1993, p. 8. 96. Thoennes, N., and Tjaden, P. The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect (1990) 14:151-63. 97. Jones, D., and McGraw, M. Reliable and fictitious accounts of sexual abuse to children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1987) 2:27-45. 98. See note no. 4, Myers, 1992, for a description of the research. 99. Green, A. True and false allegations of sexual abuse in child custody disputes. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry (1986) 25:449-56. 100. Benedek, E., and Schetky, D. Allegations of sexual abuse in child custody and visitation disputes. In Emerging issues in child psychiatry and the law. D. Schetky and E. Benedek, eds. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1985, pp. 145-58. 101. See note no. 7, Quinn, p. 181. 102. See note no. 5, Berliner, pp. 48-69, 52. 103. Jones, D., and Seig, A. Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation cases: A report of 20 cases. In Sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation cases. B. Nicholson and J. Bulkley, eds. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1988, pp. 22-36. 104. See note no. 103, Jones and Seig, p. 29. 105. In addition to criminal cases, juvenile court litigation to protect children, and child custody cases, allegations of child sexual abuse are litigated in administrative proceedings to revoke licenses of day care centers where sexual abuse occurs, guardianship proceedings, civil litigation by victims seeking monetary damages from perpetrators, civil actions by victims against institutions where abuse occurs, civil actions by victims against child protective services agencies for failing to protect children from sexual abuse, and civil litigation by the state to terminate the parental rights of abusive adults. 106. For a thorough discussion of the importance of coordination between family and juvenile court, see Edwards, E. The relationship of family and juvenile courts in child abuse cases. Santa Clara Law Review (1987) 27:201-69. 107. Katz, S.N., and Kuhn, J. Recommendations for a model family court. A report from the National Family Court Symposium. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1991; Edwards, L.P. The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile and Family Court Journal (1992) 43:1-45; Page, R.W. Family courts: An effective judicial approach to resolution of family disputes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal (1993) 44:1-59.