Experts should be held accountable for actions in child-abuse cases

By Jim Barlow

Professionals who intercede in suspected child-abuse cases should be
accountable for their actions, says a family psychologist who also is
calling for an examination of how intervention methods affect the children
involved in alleged abuses.

Frank Fincham, a UI psychology professor, found himself reviewing how
America deals with child abuse following an Internet exchange on the Family
Science Network, where a query was placed for published work on
false-memory syndrome in child sexual-abuse cases. The request drew a
variety of accusations against the querier.

At the request of the journal Family Relations, Fincham teamed with Steven
R.H. Beach of the University of Georgia and UI colleagues Thom Moore and
Carol Diener to examine child-protection efforts used since the Child Abuse
and Treatment Act was approved in 1973. Their findings are detailed in two
papers in the journal's July issue. The journal also includes two articles
that challenge their work and a third piece that supports and praises it.

"The problem I see is a lack of judgment being used by professionals,"
Fincham said. "Too often they employ a one-size-fits-all kind of approach
that automatically assumes that abuse has occurred."

His team critiqued the language and assumptions of researchers and the
tactics used by professionals in the field. Investigators seem to assume
that the accused is guilty and sometimes use leading questions, harassment
and even bribery to get children to confirm that abuse has occurred, he
said.

Such abusive tactics were made evident in an amicus brief, which Fincham
signed, to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which threw out the conviction of
day-care worker Kelly Michaels. For a new trial, the state must show that
the evidence it obtained from the children against Michaels was not
tainted.

Fincham decries the inaccessibility of records of court cases and of
agencies that provide child-protective services, because researchers are
kept from documents that can allow them to examine the effect of
intervention - usually protective custody - on children, regardless of
whether abuse has occurred. He also criticizes the "awesome power invested
in child-protective services workers" and argues that states should not
grant them immunity that protects them from consequences of their actions.

"I find it astounding that professionals who claim to be invested in the
best interests of children have managed to do some of the things that
they've done to children," he said. "The relative unwillingness to engage
in any self-examination is a disservice to our children."

His team calls for better validation methods. Child-abuse claims should be
taken seriously but investigated without bias, he said. "Investigators
should not simply seek to confirm that abuse occurred; they also should
entertain other possibilities and seek information to disconfirm them."
"It's time to ask if we are doing the best we can," Fincham said. "We need
to be open to the possibility that some things we are doing may be
harmful."