THE ABUSED SYSTEM
by Armin A. Brott
Reprinted from "The Orange County Register",
Sunday, August 27, 1995
     Before 1973, child abuse - particularly sexual abuse - was rarely
reported to authorities and frequently covered up.  But that year,
then-Sen. Walter Mondale sponsored legislation that took a new
approach.  Federal matching funds became available to states that set
up child abuse detection, prosecution, and prevention programs.
     The results were startling.  From 1976 to 1993, the total yearly
number of child abuse reports grew from 669,000 to more than 2.9
million.  During the same period, the annual number of reports of
sexual abuse grew from just 21,000 to more than 319,000.
     Undoubtedly, the increases have saved thousands of children from
harm. However, there have been some disturbing side-effects.  In 1975,
35 percent of all child-abuse reports were unsubstantiated - a
percentage that, although high, was perhaps understandable given the
Mondale Act's emphasis on bringing even suspicions of abuse into the
open.  But by 1993, 66 percent of reports were unsubstantiated.  And
in divorce cases, that figure may be as high as 80 percent.
     So what accounts for this alarming rise in false allegations?
"There's a complex network of social workers, mental health
professionals, and law enforcement officials that actually encourages
charges of child abuse - weather they're reasonable or not," says Dr.
Richard A. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychiatry at
Columbia University.
     In effect, the Mondale Act, despite its good intentions, created
a virtual child-abuse industry, populated by people whose livelihoods
depend on bringing more and more allegations into the system.
     In most states, child abuse investigations are supposed to be
handled jointly by law enforcement officials and by local Child
Protective Services workers.  In general, police officers have
received extensive training in investigative techniques and, at least
ostensibly, are neutral.  Most CPS workers, on the other hand, don't
even make a pretense of neutrality.
     "They're advocates who seek to promote the welfare of their
patients," says Dr. Lee Coleman, a child psychiatrist and frequent
expert witness in child abuse cases.  "They're taught to believe and
support their clients - no matter what those clients say."
     In fact, many CPS workers refer to themselves as "validators" - a
term that at best raises questions about their objectivity.  "They of
course hold that 'children never lie about sexual abuse,'" says
Gardner, "and they accept as valid every statement a child makes that
might verify sex abuse."
     CPS' approach to child abuse allegations, therefore, is based on
the assumption that abuse took place - an assumption incompatible with
the role of neutral investigator, who is supposed to determine whether
a crime was committed.
    Nevertheless, despite their biased orientation, CPS' role is to
radarman the guilt or innocence of the accused.
     This unfortunate scenario is further complicated by the fact that
the police themselves often rely heavily on CPS' conclusions.  In San
Deigo, for example, a recent grand jury probe found that detectives
"will integrate elements of the social workers' investigation into
their own reports, instead of performing an independent
investigation."
     In 97 percent of the cases where the police conduct an actual
investigation, they are not able to substantiate the allegation, so no
criminal charges are filed.  But to the dismay of the thousands of men
falsely accused each year (and studies have shown that more than 90
percent of those falsely accused are men), this doesn't mean they'll
be able to see their children again anytime soon.  Even after the
police drop the criminal investigation, CPS can still conduct its own.
And to help them do so, the courts have given them incredibly broad
powers.
     CPS workers - armed with nothing more than an allegation, and
without a court order or a hearing - can force parents and children
into therapy for an unlimited amount of time, can compel an accused
man to take lie-detector or other "diagnostic" tests, and can deny a
father access to his children.
     "These are people who, at least for a limited amount of time, are
given as enormous amount of power.  And they routinely abuse it," says
Dr. Melvin Guyer, a psychiatry professor at the University of Michigan
and a practicing attorney.
[cont]
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------