Child Sexual Abuse Report

posted by Edward Nichols, MSW, LCSW-R on Feb 19

The forensic interview, also referred to as an investigative interview, is an essential component of the fact-finding process.  The goal of the interview is to gather information from a child in a developmentally sensitive, unbiased, and truth-seeking manner that will support accurate and fair decision-making in the criminal justice and child welfare systems.  Although information obtained from the interview might be useful for making treatment decisions, the forensic interview is not part of the treatment process.  Treating professionals are ethically bound not to conduct a forensic interview.

A forensic interview should be child-centered.  Although the interviewer directs the flow of conversation through a series of phases or steps, the child’s abilities should determine the vocabulary and specific content of the conversation.  The interviewer must be alert to developmental differences in language and memory and never assume what a child means by the use of a particular word.  For example, “oral sex” might mean talking about sex to a child.  Therefore, the interviewer should clarify potentially ambiguous words or phrases. Similarly, the interviewer must make certain to use words and concepts that the child understands.

It is critically important that the interviewer not begin an interview with a preconceived notion of what happened. During an interview, the interviewer should attempt to rule out alternative explanations for the allegations. For example, when a child uses terms that may indicate sexual touching, the interviewer should assess the child’s understanding of those terms and explore whether the touching might have occurred in the context of routine care taking or medical treatment. When a child reports details that seem inconsistent, it is the interviewer’s responsibility to clarify whether the events described could have occurred by exploring whether more than one event is being described or whether words are being used in an idiosyncratic way.  For example, “Daddy touched me down there with his finger and it hurt” could have a number of explanations:  The child complained of “pee” hurting and Daddy asked to see where it hurt and touched the area; Daddy touched the child for sexual reasons; or Daddy was applying cream for a severe rash.  It is important to generate several hypotheses about the case.  If the investigator entertains only a single hypothesis, there is a chance that the investigation might turn into an effort to “prove” the hypothesis rather than an effort to find the hypothesis that best matches the facts of the case.  Not only is this a poor investigative technique, it goes against the best interests of the child if the hypothesis is inaccurate.

Finally, the forensic interviewer needs the skills to interview children in a non-leading and non-suggestive fashion.  The interviewer should avoid introducing information or suggesting events that have not been mentioned by the child.  In addition, the interviewer should not project adult interpretations on situations and use comments such as “that must have been frightening.”  Many child sexual abuse cases have no medical evidence, no physical evidence, and no witnesses other than the child and the alleged perpetrator of the abuse.  Thus, decision-making in these cases must, in part, depend upon the child’s statements, corroboration, and the fact pattern of the case.  False allegations of  child sexual abuse do occur and investigators require tools to distinguish false allegations form valid allegations of abuse.

Generally forensic interviews are recorded via video.  It is part of my practice to review these videos in false abuse cases.  Leading or suggestive interviews can render the child’s testimony unreliable and this factor can lead to the successful defense of false child sexual abuse cases.

[For more information see The Child Suggestibility Litigation Library.]