Revisions clarify law on false claims of child abuse

"They wanted to call attention to it," Ellison said, adding he remains concerned about the potential fallout for mothers trying to protect their children from an abusive father.

"Basically this is a bill designed to protect husbands in divorce cases," Ellison said. "This is a bill written by men for men." 

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110807/NEWS/108070329

 

August 07, 2011

By Sanne Specht

Mail Tribune

 

Local experts played a key role in rewriting a bill introduced by State Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, which originally was viewed with alarm by those who work to protect children.

The bill, recently signed into law and designed to discourage punitive or vindictive reporting of child abuse, underwent significant changes as it made its way to the governor's desk. The changes were necessary to protect children and to assure the public that reporting suspected abuse is not only the right thing to do, it is safe for them to do so, experts say.

"This bill started out as a major disaster and a blow to child victims. But it has been reduced and narrowed to a much less harmful form," said Ashland resident Randy Ellison, an adult survivor of child sexual abuse and board president of Oregon Advocates and Survivors in Service.

House Bill 2183, which was signed into law by Gov. John Kitzhaber in July, makes it a violation — punishable by a $720 maximum fine — to knowingly make false allegations of child abuse to police or the Department of Human Services. The state must prove that the intent of the false report is to influence child custody, visitation or child support, Ellison said.

One of the bill's main targets was adults who use malicious allegations of abuse in bitter divorce or child custody cases, said Esquivel.

"People getting divorced can make ugly accusations," Esquivel said. "It happens more often than you might think."

When Esquivel and House Judiciary Co-chairman Wayne Kreiger, R-Gold Beach, initially presented their bill before the House, the proposed fine was $6,250 and the violator faced a misdemeanor criminal charge which could have resulted in jail time.

The changes are a relief to child abuse experts who said Esquivel's bill, as written, would have had a chilling effect on a crime that is already under-reported.

Ellison testified in Salem against the proposed legislation, along with representatives from the Oregon District Attorneys Association, the Oregon Network of Child Abuse Intervention Centers, the Oregon School Employees Association, Children First and the Child Advocacy Section of the Oregon Department of Justice.

Ellison said he remains concerned the new law will be misinterpreted by the public, which could have a quelling effect on everyone from teachers to neighbors to relatives who might suspect child abuse, and be afraid to report due to misunderstandings.

The law does not punish those who might make a false reports based on honest mistakes. Only those that are due to malicious intent, Esquivel said. It was never his intent to limit reporting of actual child abuse, or cause consternation amongst child welfare experts. He also does not oppose the changes that were made to his bill, Esquivel said.

Ellison said holding people accountable for false reports is appropriate. But there was already a law on the books that made it a crime to knowingly make a false report of any crime to the police or other agency. ORS 162.375 states that initiating a false report is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,250 fine and 30 days in jail. Ellison questions the need for a new law that "pulls out that one type of false reporting and makes it a violation," he said.

"They wanted to call attention to it," Ellison said, adding he remains concerned about the potential fallout for mothers trying to protect their children from an abusive father.

"Basically this is a bill designed to protect husbands in divorce cases," Ellison said. "This is a bill written by men for men."

There could be unintended consequence of keeping children trapped in abusive situations because adults are fearful of making a report that, while true, might not be able to be proven, he said.

"If a woman is out and away from an abuser, it may be the first time ever she feels safe to report (her partner committed child abuse)," Ellison said. Esquivel's bill had the support of at least one Oregon senator. According to news reports, Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, testified he was once the victim of a trumped-up claim of child abuse.

Ellison said he had sympathy and empathy for anyone victimized because of a false report of abuse. But statistics show child abuse is the most under-reported crime next to domestic abuse, he said.

People should not be worrying about being wrong when deciding to report or not, Ellison said. People need to report suspected abuse. If people are in doubt, they should err on the side of reporting, he said.

Esquivel said he encourages people to report child abuse.

"You won't get in trouble unless you have malicious intent," Esquivel said.

Reach reporter Sanne Specht at 541-776-4497 or email sspecht@mailtribune.com

General child welfare-related legislation in the U.S. Congress

Put together by:  Legally Kidnapped

This is a list of current child welfare-related bills in the U.S. Congress. Although I attempted to ensure that it is an exhaustive list, I may have missed one or more. If you know of a child welfare-related bill that is not in this list, please let me know! General child welfare-related legislation in the U.S. Congress

For More information, please visit Legally Kidnapped or at http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2011/08/general-child-welfare-related.html#ixzz1UZCyDYxh

EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES

By Barry Goldstein

Dear Custody Court Judge:

The research is now clear that certain extreme decisions in domestic violence custody cases that have become all too common are contributing to an increase in the frequency of domestic violence homicide and other harmful consequences. This is established in the leading resources about domestic violence and custody including THE BATTERER AS PARENT by Lundy Bancroft and Jay Silverman, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY edited by Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein and the major new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan. Judges should be aware of the research that demonstrates the danger of creating these dangerous decisions avoid these decisions in the future and modify existing arrangements that create substantial risks to the children.

The decisions that must be avoided and corrected are ones in which an alleged abuser is given custody and a safe, protective mother is limited to supervised or no visitation. I will more fully describe these dangerous cases below and I am not saying it can never be right to give someone custody who was accused of domestic violence or child abuse or that a mother who makes abuse allegations should never be denied normal visitation.

I will discuss the harm and danger of these extreme decisions below, but judges should be aware that these decisions are probably the largest factor in the recent increase in domestic violence homicide. Furthermore these extreme decisions are never in the best interests of children even when the court is right that the abuse allegations are false and the mother seeks to take the father out of the child's life for bad faith reasons. More commonly, the research demonstrates that court professionals who used flawed practices to justify the extreme decision also got the underlying facts wrong. Judges should look to the specialized body of research now available that can help courts make the best decisions in domestic violence custody cases. .....

Excerpts - To read the article in its entirety, please visit Barry's website.

The real problem is the 3.8% of cases that go to trial and usually far beyond. The vast majority of these cases, probably around 90% are domestic violence cases that involve the worst of the worst abusers. These are usually cases where the father had little involvement with the children during the relationship, but suddenly demands custody as a way to pressure her to return or punish her for leaving. Abusers tend to be good at manipulation and court professionals are usually happy to find a father who appears to want to be involved in his children’s lives. The flawed “high conflict” approach works great for abusers because it requires the parties to interact and cooperate with each other. This gives him the access to his victim he sought by playing the custody card. At the same time it pressures the mother to cooperate with her abuser and punishes her reluctance to interact with someone she experienced as dangerous and difficult. In other words the “high conflict” approach gives abusers a huge advantage.

The most dangerous abusers are the ones who believe she has no right to leave him. They usually respond to her leaving in one or more of three ways. They respond by killing her which is why75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. They respond by killing their children. In the last couple of years over 175 children have been murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases. Most often they respond by going after custody as a tactic to regain control and too often custody courts help them do so......

....The evaluators and other mental health professionals routinely relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and usually unfamiliar with the specialized body of research now available. This has led judges and lawyers to be taught a lot of misinformation and continue to use outdated and discredited practices. Significantly, the Department of Justice study found many evaluators and other court professionals do not have the domestic violence training they need. Those professionals without the needed training are more likely to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse and therefore make recommendations harmful to children.....

....The Department of Justice study found that court professionals pay far too much attention to the anger or emotion a mother displays in court in comparison to its significance in determining how good a mother she is. Similarly over forty states have had court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found substantial bias against women and particularly against mothers involved in custody disputes. One of the common forms of bias is to blame a mother for the actions of her abuser. This is exactly what a court does when it blames the mother for her emotion or anger caused by the father’s history of abuse and use of abusive litigation tactics instead of blaming him for intimidating and coercive behaviors that caused her reaction. Gender bias is often difficult to recognize because it is not done deliberately or consciously and some court professionals become extremely defensive when this issue is raised. A good remedy is to frequently consider how you would have reacted to the same situation if the genders were reversed....

As discussed earlier these decisions lead to a higher crime rate in addition to the increase in domestic violence homicide. A large majority of our prison population witnessed domestic violence or suffered direct abuse. The extreme decisions discussed in this article increase this unfortunate population. These mistakes also have a profound negative impact on society. The increased crime requires substantial expenditures in the criminal justice system as well as property losses and injuries. These mistakes also substantially increase health expenses that raise insurance rates and taxes when the government pays health costs. At the same time, by destroying or limiting the potential of these children, and others, it reduces economic output thus reducing tax revenue. 

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com 

‘It Should Not Hurt to Be a Child’

Commentary by Eileen King

April is Child Abuse Awareness Month, and it is an occasion for being reminded that  “it should not hurt to be a child.”  The soul-destroying, long-term consequences of child physical/sexual abuse and neglect obviously merit a year-round focus, but media attention to such awareness campaigns helps encourage parents, especially mothers, to seek help if they suspect child abuse.

At the same time, however, the long and exhausting journey that parents must take to secure protection for endangered children, often involving legal battles costing many thousands of dollars, is rarely mentioned.  

Who wants to hear that no amount of money can assure justice in systems that disbelieve children and distrust protective parents?

It is, however, a grim reality.  Parents who act appropriately and lawfully to protect their children may be punished by family court judges for reporting abuse or for refusing to force their terrified child to visit an abusive parent.  

In the worst cases, custody is reversed and the protective parent may be denied any contact with his or her child.   The message: failure to be a “friendly parent” is worse than child physical or sexual abuse.

The non-profit agency I work for, Justice for Children, often finds itself on the front lines of complex cases of child abuse, arising during separation and divorce,  that may be litigated for years.  Although Child Protective Services (CPS) investigates abuse reports, these cases are generally treated with suspicion and ruled out as “custody battles” despite urgent, compelling evidence.  

Rarely prosecuted by the State, intra-familial abuse allegations are relegated to a domestic relations court of equity where a serious crime against a child is reduced to a civil law question of property. Such courts, in  contrast to the traditional adversarial nature of a courtroom, allow judges to apply injunctions or writs instead of monetary damages, according to the principle of “fairness. ”

Family courts in most (if not all) jurisdictions are considered “courts of equity.”  A recent New York case in which the Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether a teacher imprisoned for molesting boys can see his own child illustrates the limits of an approach that considers a child just a piece of property to be divided.[Stephen H1] 

The systemic failures and practices that place abused or at-risk children in the care or custody of a dangerous parent are well known, but it has taken over 15 years for these agonizing and sometimes tragic cases to be officially recognized as serious problems in our judicial and CPS systems.  

The Catch 22 nature of a parent’s duty to report, and penalties for failure to protect, sinks protective parents in the quicksand of family court litigation. Very little help is available from public agencies or non-profits.  Abusers know they have unparalleled opportunities to abuse and control their children and ex-partners with few consequences. 

Non-profit advocates have been working for years to get these issues before federal agencies. 

Last month, the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)[Stephen H2]  held a Roundtable at George Washington University Law School, sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence with help from the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project.  Judge Susan Carbon, OVW director, , and participants from other federal agencies listened to a panel of mothers and a courageous 13-year-old share their experiences in family court. 

In the experts’ panel, we shared our extensive knowledge of how CPS and family courts can fail abused children and their protective parents.  A report on the roundtable will be posted soon on the OVW website.

Change must also happen in state CPS agencies and family courts. Court appointees (psychological evaluators, Guardians ad litem, children’s attorneys, mediators and parenting coordinators) should not evade oversight or consequences for negligent practices that harm children.  

Policies forcing children to reunite with their sexual assault perpetrators need immediate re-evaluation.  These are just of few of the many changes recommended by advocates and legal/mental health professionals.

The worst betrayal a child can endure is sexual/physical abuse or neglect by a parent.  Assuring a child that if they tell they will be protected, but then failing to protect heaps betrayal upon betrayal. 

We need to carry through on our promises to children.   This is the next  level of child abuse awareness our society needs!

 Here are some further resources for anyone who wants to explore the issue further:

From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running From the Family Courts and What to Do About It, by Amy Neustein, Ph.D. and Michael Lesher, J.D., Northeastern University Press, 2005. www.upne.com/1-58465-462-7.html

Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody edited by Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D and Barry Goldstein, J.D., The Civic Research Institute, 2010. http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/dvac.html

Eileen King is Regional Director of Justice for Children-DC.  She welcomes comments from readers.

Study Finds New Guidelines Help Judges Better Serve Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families

More children are able to return home safely or live with extended family  
RENO, Nev., July 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Children who are removed from their parents for abuse or neglect allegations experience better outcomes when judges follow a set of decision-making guidelines during the initial removal hearing, according to a study released today by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ).  Development of a benchcard containing the guidelines grew out of a national NCJFCJ initiative, Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care (CCC).  In partnership with Casey Family Programs and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJFCJ member judges throughout the country are working to reduce the overrepresentation of children of color in the foster care system along with the disparate outcomes they and their families experience.

Researchers tracked more than 500 children through the court system in three cities and found that 45% more children were able to return home to their parents or live with extended family members when judges used the benchcard during their hearings. The findings are detailed in a report, Right from the Start:  The Courts Catalyzing Change Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study Report – Testing a Tool for Judicial Decision-Making. The report details positive qualitative and quantitative results when the guidelines outlined in the benchcard were used.

"Parents were more engaged, child welfare workers were prepared with better, and more complete information about the family's conditions and circumstances," said Judge Nan Waller, Presiding Judge in Multnomah County, Oregon, one of the study sites. "We were able to drill down to specific barriers that prevented the child from remaining at home and to meaningfully engage parents in fashioning solutions to keeping families together safely."

In the fall of 2009, the NCJFCJ began studying the effects associated with the use of an enhanced set of guidelines – the CCC benchcard – for conducting the first hearing after children are removed from their home for alleged abuse or neglect. This hearing, known as the preliminary protective hearing, focuses on whether a child can safely return home or must remain in foster care.

Three juvenile court sites agreed to participate in a pilot implementation and assessment of the benchcard: Los Angeles, California; Omaha, Nebraska; and Portland, Oregon.  Judges in the benchcard pilot sites were trained on its use, including key decision points at the initial hearing.  Each randomly assigned judicial officer heard 10 preliminary protective hearings using the benchcard, while a control group of judicial officers in each of the sites heard 10 preliminary protective hearings without using the benchcard. Researchers analyzed information from case files and from courtroom observations. The study finds that use of the benchcard was associated with increases in the quality and quantity of discussion at the hearings.

Though there is variation by site, before benchcard implementation, 12.6% of children were returned home at the initial hearing compared to 17.3% after benchcard implementation. Reunification rates also increased after implementation of the benchcard at a later stage of the case, the adjudication hearing.

"Every day I hear from someone involved in our Dependency Court in Los Angeles that these guidelines are changing judicial practice in our courtrooms in a way that better engages families, advocates and caseworkers, and ultimately improves the outcome of the case," said Judge Michael Nash, presiding judge for the Los Angeles Juvenile Court.

As with all field research, the present study has limitations, but is one of several steps necessary for establishing the benchcard as an evidence-based practice.  The benchcard study has not yet examined the impact of the hearing guidelines on different racial and ethnic groups.  NCJFCJ sought first to measure the effectiveness of the benchcard for all children before further analysis is conducted. The NCJFCJ will continue to track the results of the benchcard implementation and is currently expanding its research as the guidelines are used in additional jurisdictions.

About NCJFCJ
The NCJFCJ, headquartered on the University of Nevada campus in Reno since 1969, provides cutting-edge training, wide-ranging technical assistance, and research to help the nation's juvenile and family courts, judges, and staff in their important work. Since its founding in 1937 by a group of judges dedicated to improving the effectiveness of the nation's juvenile courts, the NCJFCJ has pursued a mission to improve courts and system practice and to raise awareness of the core issues that touch the lives of many of our nation's children and families. http://www.ncjfcj.org

SOURCE National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)

RELATED LINKS
http://www.ncjfcj.org

74th Annual Conference – Junk Science

Posted on June 29, 2011 by Megan Gibson

 

What is “junk science”? 

Generally speaking, junk science refers to research lacking scientific rigor and findings that are often based on spurious correlations. Perhaps one of the more known examples of junk science is phrenology – or the practice of assessing personality from the contours of the skull. Certainly, very few people would now consider phrenology anything but an interesting “bump in the historical road of psychology”. (Pardon the pun.) However, junk science has a way of taking hold in our popular culture – including our systems of justice - and it can be difficult to identify and eliminate. To learn more about junk science and how it intersects with the justice system (e.g., implications related to the Daubert standard), please join us in New York for the NCFJCJ Annual Conference July 24-27, 2011. Dr. Mary Alice Conroy, Professor of Psychology and American Psychological Association representative will present a session on junk science within a legal context.

For more information, please visit The National Council Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Feds: Child pornography victims get younger, violence increases

January 31, 2011

Written by:  TRESA BALDA; Daily Record

DETROIT — Child pornography isn't just more pervasive, it's getting even uglier.

Federal prosecutors here say they have witnessed the disturbing trend with the kids getting younger — toddlers and infants as young as 6 months old — turning up in photos and videos.

And the assaults are getting worse. It's not just still images of children in the nude, they say.

"There's a misconception in the public arena that these are mainly still images of children without clothes on. Well, the truth is that the majority of the pictures that are traded among these guys almost inevitably involve a child being either raped, or being forced to perform some type of sexual act on an adult or child," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Mulcahy, chief of the general crimes unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit.

Child porn lovers live in your neighborhood

They aren't just creepy loners.

Seemingly normal people — doctors, coaches, authors, engineers, teens — are charged with possessing and making child porn, a $3-billion-a-year industry that the federal government has labeled the new silent child abuse.

Outed by their Internet activities, the accused stand before a judge, heads usually hung low, while their families sit in the back of the courtroom aghast at the accusations. And there typically is no criminal history to point to.
"There's this notion that it's the creepy neighbor who lives in the basement of his parent's house and downloads this stuff," Mulcahy said.

Far from it, he said.

There's another misconception about child porn, he added.

"It's not an eastern European problem, or southeast Asian problem. Half of the child porn traded in this country is made in this country," he said.

100,000 websites

 

Currently, there are an estimated 100,000 known child porn websites, according to Brigham Young University Women's Services. Child porn accounts for one-quarter of the $12-billion U.S. porn industry.

Fueled by the secret nature of the Internet, child porn has increased to the point where the federal government can't keep track of it all. The Justice Department conceded in a report issued in August that the growth of child porn is outpacing efforts to combat it.

"Tragically, the only place we've seen a decrease is in the age of victims," Attorney General Eric Holder said then following the release of the report, which promised to hire 38 prosecutors especially for child porn cases.
The Justice Department report says complaints of online enticement of children have more than tripled from 2004 to 2008, and complaints of child prostitution rose tenfold. Since 2006, more than 8,600 people have been prosecuted at the federal level on child porn charges.

Equally troubling, authorities said, is that not only are the kids getting younger, but the images are getting more graphic and violent. Children can be heard crying in some videos, they said.

Some legal and psychological experts think the trend is driven by the addictive nature of porn and its explosion on the Internet. The more users see, they say, the more they want.

"Normal sex acts don't excite them anymore," said Patrick Trueman, a former chief of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. "Now you're seeing the really extreme stuff, because once you've been through the still shots, that's not good enough."

Using social networking

 

In Michigan, a cyber crimes unit with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security has spotted another disturbing trend in recent months: Some people are using social networking to meet other child molesters. They're using peer-to-peer networks to molest kids in unison, with a remote audience participating.

For example, there's the case of Steven Demink, who a federal magistrate referred to as "a cyber predator of the worst kind."

Demink, 41, of Redford, Mich., is accused of manipulating women in three states into molesting their children and letting him view the sex acts via webcam or photographs, according to court records.

"This is the dark side of the Internet," said Brian Moskowitz, special agent in charge of ICE investigations in Michigan and Ohio. "There have always been people with a deviant sexual interest in children. It's now easier for them to do what they do."

And they're getting better at covering their tracks, said Moskowitz, who pointed out that today's child pornographer is computer savvy, some changing URLs every few days to throw the feds off track.

For more information, please visit The Daily Record

Child Fatalities Hearing Witness List and Testimony of Michael Petit, Every Child Matters Educational Fund

Child Fatalities Hearing, July 12, 10 am, Rayburn House Office Building

Attached is the Witness List and testimony from Michael Petit for the House Ways and Means  Hearing on Child Fatalities last Tuesday.

Every Child Matters Educational Fund:  http://www.everychildmatters.org/

URL for the National Center for Child Death Review is:  http://www.childdeathreview.org/

One can access NCCDR's information on what constitutes a thorough child fatality review.

The GAO Report is here:  http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-811T

Child Fatalities from Maltreatment: National Data Could Be Strengthened

GAO-11-811T July 12, 2011
Full Report (PDF, 9 pages) 

All the testimony can be accessed _and_ one can also make a submission for the record at:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=249922