False Allegations Of Child Sexual Abuse. Edward Nichols
ten minutes building to a crescendo. And then he dropped the bombshell (in his mind): "Frankly, Mr. Nichols, this is what you are telling the court, but frankly, you simply don't look old enough to have done all these things?" My reply?: "Well thank you sir, it is very kind of you to say that." The judge and jury broke out into laughter, the prosecutor was visibly flustered, and my belief in the importance of attitude was confirmed.
While on the subject of "hired guns", there is a perception that if you pay an expert enough he will say anything you want to hear. The extremist view of many experts confirms this suspicion, and I suspect, there are some who engage in this unethical practice. To my knowledge, I have never provided testimony that I believed was assisting a child abuser. My standard engagement agreement provides that I may withdraw from any case wherein this becomes my opinion. This is a rather standard procedure among forensic experts in this area.
What is more common, however, is for the "hired gun" to engage in very creative "spin artistry" wherein he more resembles an "advocate" than a reporter of fact and opinion based upon his training and experience. Judges and juries know what "advocates" are by virtue of listening to attorneys. The expert who is hired to engage in this practice is a poor investment.
The "reasoned and seasoned" expert will put to the court, in simple language, the research and state-of-the-art "practice wisdom". He will be appreciated and believed.
Protective Caseworkers A Personal Note:
The author's secondary purpose in creating this volume is to purge himself of the residual of guilt that he has carried as a result of being an unwitting participant in the shameful enterprise of "protective" service agencies who generally employ an army of partially-educated "protective caseworkers" whose sincere ignorance is only superseded by their missionary-zeal to rid humanity of the pedophile, who accordingly, is to be found under every rock. Though the author must confess to having been employed as such a partially-educated caseworker, he stands redeemed of his past in knowing that he was at all times mindful of his ignorance. He also lacked the zeal to engage in what appeared to be a seedy enterprise, top-heavy with sexual abuse "victims," and others with chronic patterns of underemployment.
In 1980 I had just been accepted to attend the School of Social Work at Hunter College which is part of the City University of New York. Hunter boasted then, and I suppose still does, that 40 applications were made for each available seat for its clinical social work program. This was due to three realities: Tuition was the lowest in the Greater New York area (and at one time was free); The professors were the highest paid in the city (Why not? The taxpayers were footing the bill); and it is one of the smallest social work schools in America (About 200 students with 25% being part of the coveted "clinical" major). The Hunter College School of Social Work was and remains a bastion of elitism wherein the partially-educated worship the socialist leanings of its very distinguished facility. Hunter is where you went if you "had plans". This is evidenced by its president at the time, Donna Shalala, who radicalized Hunter on her way to becoming our nation's current Secretary of Health and Human Services.
But I was not a typical student: I was in my thirties. I had long traded acne for gray hair. I didn't wonder what I was going to be when I "grew up". And I was poised to challenge the wisdom of the sages while determined to learn how to practice social work without being on the public dole.
The State of New York has very high standards for the practice of clinical social work. One is required to earn a Master's Degree in Social Work (M.S.W.), have two years of supervised clinical experience, and sit for an exam which has become the national standard. Upon successfully achieving this, one was licensed as a Certified Social Worker (C.S.W.), and many so licensed went into the private practice of psychotherapy. This was my goal.
The required clinical internship was designated by the school which also supervised the work along with a licensed supervisor at the placement. For reasons known only to God, I was placed at the Queensboro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, otherwise known as Q.S.P.C.C. My job? Protective Caseworker!
New York City, like many large cities, has two varieties of child protective services: a city-run agency; and a nonprofit, voluntary, agency, sometimes affiliated with large charitable organizations or churches. In New York there is the Bureau of Child Welfare (BCW), which is a city agency; and the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (S.P.C.C.'s), one for each of New York's five Boroughs. The S.P.C.C.'s earned their name in connection with one of the first child abuse cases which was brought under laws to protect animals since animal protection statutes preceded child abuse statutes. (Thus borrowing their name from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals A.S. P.C.A.)
Though Q.S.P.C.C. was not a city agency, its "protective caseworkers" had "peace officer" status which allowed them to ask for assistance from the real police department when removing children. This was performed without a court order if the protective caseworker (PCW) felt the child was in "imminent danger". I soon learned that "imminent danger" was in the eye of the beholder, and the primary reason we had badges was to insure that the real police would arrive quickly when we were attacked by "clients" who were "resistant to treatment". "Treatment" was defined as doing whatever the PCW wanted them to do.
Though I had earned an undergraduate degree in psychology and sociology and had been a father for twelve years, I was no more ready to "hit the streets" and make the world safe for children than I was to eat rocks. As I turned to my "colleagues" for guidance, I found a few who "almost" finished a degree in art history and many who were recently fired from city agencies whose mission did not remotely relate to the protection of children. Being a "Hunter student", I quickly earned the respect of the partially-educated. Nonetheless, I protested to my supervisor, "I need to learn what I'm doing before I start taking children out of homes and testifying in court!"his was immediately interpreted as being an early sign of "burnout". I was quickly referred to in-house training and "support". Here I was told to get in touch with "the child within". I was urged to share my personal experiences of abuse as a child. If I could not remember any abuse as a child, I was urged to put "the child within" to work in remembering. I did, and concluded that my "child within" wanted to find real work and stop the playing.
Within weeks a child was brought to my office for my training. I was told that I should interview the child to determine if she manifested any "signs" and "indicators" of being sexually abused. I was given a form which contained a checklist of "indicators" that virtually insured that she would "manifest the indicators": If she admitted she was abused, she obviously was. If she denied she was abused, she is in "denial" because of fear of reprisals, or because her "reality was regressed". If she was not afraid of the alleged perpetrator, this was consistent with the fact that most victims "identify with the aggressor". If she was afraid of the alleged perpetrator, it is obviously because he is guilty, etc., etc.
Since my career depended on this "internship", I played the game thinking that no "real harm" would come of it (presuming, wrongfully, that the case would be subjected to "adult" supervision at some point). To my surprise, the agency's attorney appeared in my office and informed me that we had a half-hour to prepare to "try this case". She explained that the child was going to be placed in "emergency" foster care pending a full hearing and my testimony would be necessary to "validate" that the child had been sexually abused by her father.
I explained that this was not my conclusion, that I truly did not have an opinion based on less than an hour's interview, and that I had not interviewed the accused, or his wife, the accuser. I was asked in a stern voice, "Do you think you're qualified to practice law?" I, of course, admitted that I was not. She then spent half of our allotted thirty minutes lecturing me on "how the law says" that since I had filled out the "official" assessment form as I had, "under the law" it was "my responsibility" to place this child into "protective custody". Walking to the Courthouse on the next block, she explained what I would be asked and cautioned, "Now, ONLY answer the questions you are asked, and NEVER volunteer any information."
As we stood outside the courtroom waiting for the case to be called, I asked: "What do you expect me to say when this man's attorney asks me