CalamityJane wrote:dlowan wrote:One of the dilemmas is that people are saying the kids ought not to have been removed while the investigation was done.....and the media tells me the authorities attempted to investigate without doing so.
However, how is a child living with their alleged abuser going to feel freely able to talk about what has been happening in their lives?
Right. The children were taught to fear the outside world and not to
trust anyone outside their compound. They fear everyone and everything.
It would have been impossible to investigate while the children remained at the ranch.
Quote:Another issue seems to me to be a cost/benefit thing. Not to mention all the reasonable concerns expressed here re how we balance state vs parental vs children's rights in all this. Guess what? I don't believe we'll EVER be able to do that perfectly.....again we can only humbly and mindfully do our best to do what is least worst.
Agreed!
Quote:I am wondering if a lot of the expertise re what would be helpful might lie with the adults who experienced abuse in cults as kids.
It would indeed be interesting to hear from them. I have read a number
of documentaries from adults who were in cults as children, and it is very
disheartening to read.
Quote:I am also wondering if there IS a body of knowledge developing re intervention in these situations? Do you guys have any "experts" coming out of the woodwork and discussing what has occurred in what seems to be a rational and reasonable way?
CNN has "experts" on TV talking about the case, nothing concrete though,
mainly due to the absence of information from the authorities in TX.
Thing is, heaps of kids don't disclose abuse even when they are not in contact with the alleged abuser and where the practice of the interview process is excellent.
Just the way things are. I think some of you folks are operating under a belief that, if abuse is occurring in the sect, beyond what is physically manifest, it will be disclosed.
Oh, I mean they don't disclose where there IS abuse........as evidenced by what they say later once they feel powerful and safe enough to disclose.
At least here, where I work, there's almost always only one bite of the cherry as evidentiary forensic psychosocial interviews must follow the strictest of guidelines re not leading a child and a host of other factors.
There is only one preliminary interview to familiarise the child with the interviewer, and to assess the child's capacity re a number of factors (like language ability, concept of time, concept of lie vs truth, ability to identify parts of body, ability to correct interviewer when they are wrong etc. etc. etc,)
There is then one forensic interview, which is strictly, as I said, guided by rules of evidence.
Interviewing again, if a child discloses something after the forensic, only happens sometimes, if new material emerges, the expression of which also meets certain guidelines. Re-interviewing a child on the same material, unless there were factors which clearly rendered it justifiable, would normally be seen as highly questionable in court.
This is all supposed to guard against false accusations and other abuses, and I can see the point. The balance is tough. Personally, here, I think the abusers are better protected than the kids, by a wide margin.
Now.
In effect, if you're a little kid, and there's no witnesses or physical evidence, (usual in most sexual abuse situations), cases seldom get as far as court, and it's a matter of what the jury decide.
It's pretty safe to sexually abuse a little kid here, criminally speaking.
It gets less safe as they get older, but your chances of being convicted for it are still damn low.
When kids disclose in therapy, that is legally questionable, as therapy does not, of course, work in the same way as forensic interviews!
A therapist wise in the ways of courts, or just wise, does not, of course, ask leading questions, and, if you are well-informed, therapy disclosures may often end up being potentially forensically useful.......but most kids, if they disclose well after the event, will not be able to meet the strict criteria of being able to recall the date, the time of day, exact place, what they were wearing, what the alleged offender was wearing, what hand, finger/penis was placed where at what exact moment, what item of clothing was removed at what time, and where it was placed etc. etc. etc. etc.
I kind of get the impression that things are less strict in some places, at least, in the USA?
Anyhoo, I guess my point is that, even if systemic abuse is occurring in this cult, I wouldn't be holding my breath that it will come out.
Hence the importance of a cost/benefit assessment.
