Forensic Issues with Non-Offending GuardiansC. Curtis Holmes and Sharon A. McGee |
|
What is a Nonoffending Guardian? Nonoffending Guardians are also referred to as Nonoffending Parents, or even more generally as Nonoffending Caregivers. For this Wweb site section, the term Nonoffending Guardian has been chosen which as it indicates one who has relatively long-term care of a child, (not simply a baby sitter or day care worker). In addition to parents, This termrole may possibly include others, in addition to parents (such as grandparents with custody). In practical terms, Nonoffending Guardianthis refers to the legal guardian, of an abused child, who did not actively participate in the abuse of that child. When referring generally to this role, feminine pronouns will be used throughout this text, although a Nonoffending Guardian can certainly be either male or female.also be male as well. The Nonoffending Guardian as the Single Biggest Resource of Information It is crucial to engage the Nonoffending Guardian early on in the process. Among other things, Nonoffending Guardians are usually the richest source of information about their child’s functioning and history. One helpful way to engage the interest and assistance of the a Nonoffending Guardian in a positive manner is to involve her in compiling the child’s history. The That collection of history is helpful will to be used for assessment and/or treatment purposes directed forat the alleged child victim. Including the Nonoffending Guardian in the process from the beginning can provide that Guardianher with a sense of purpose and involvement, which is often a positive step toward properly assessing and/or treating the alleged child victim. A useful initial involvement in theis process with the Nonoffending Guardian is to obtain a genogram. A genogram is a visual/schematic outline of family relationships. Genograms can also record other important information, such as who in the family has a previous history of; sexual abuse, sexual offenses, substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, criminal history, etc., etc. Most persons find talking about themselves and their family a positive experience if the interviewer remains non-judgmental and interested in the interviewee . The genogramIt also provides a wealth of information that can prove helpful in this process. Genograms then lend themselves naturally to a discussion of family history, starting with the Nonoffending Guardian’s childhood and working forward in time to the present circumstances. A timeline is another way for the family history to be schematically represented, This can also be schematically represented through the concept of a timeline which showings the Nonoffending Guardian’s life on a horizontal line with significant impacts written at a diagonal angle (Murdoch & Lewis, 2000). Historical data that may be relevant to the child is important to explore. Areas of significance might include such things as:
Specific to information about the child, the Nonoffending Guardian can provide a history of:
The Nonoffending Guardian is also apt to be one of the best sources of information about current emotional/behavioral symptoms. Areas most relevant to possible abuse issues would include such things as:
Other data obtainable from a Nonoffending Guardian may vary by training and habits of interviewers. The primary point is to remember is that no one knows the details of a child like the Nonoffending Guardian. The encouragement of an appropriate parental role is a potential first step in a successful intervention process. To avoid the Nonoffending Guardian, or to place them in a negative light, may serve to severely hinder the intervention process and inevitably cause further problems for the child. Continuum of Complexity The complexity of how a Nonoffending Guardian responds to the news of an allegation of sexual abuse of her child is often correlated with the closeness of theat Gguardian’s relationship to the alleged offender. Thus, the greatest complexity is often found when the alleged perpetrator is a husband or live-in boyfriend and plays an active role in the support of the family. A much less complex role (although still potentially very distressing) for the Nonoffending Guardian would arise when the alleged offender is a stranger who enticed a child into a sexual abuse situation away from the Gguardian(s) home territory. A continuum of complexity could be visualized as follows: Minimum Complexity Maximum Complexity perpetrator is a stranger, perpetrator loved by Gguardian, abuse is unrelated to parental protection, economic dependence on -perp, perpetrator has history of molestation of history of domestic violence, other children, Gguardian an untreated survivor, unpredictable via parental awareness, abuse disclosed after years, single incident of abuse, child tells others-not -not gGuardian, child immediately tells Gguardian, police investigate if Gguardian parent(s) assists police in -finding perpetrator, was a participant in abuse, investigation occurs very briefly, investigation slow or stuck, perpetrator confesses perpetrator has ongoing access, Guardian not kept informed of process, perpetrator is seen in positive light by community The reality of most child sexual abuse (CSA) cases is, however, that they are much more apt to be in the direction of greater complexity versus. lower complexity for the Nonoffending Guardian. The vast majority of cases involve family members or other trusted adults (Mannarino & Cohen,; 1986;, Deblinger, et .al., 1993). Domestic violence often plays a role, and is actually more likely to be a factor in CSA cases involving incest (Deblinger, et .al., 1993; Truesdell, McNeil, & Deschner, 1986), as compared to CSA cases of perpetrators as other relatives, or nonrelatives. Thus, it is not surprising that Nonoffending Guardians often respond in ways that reflect the complexity of the reactions they experience upon becoming aware of the news of the abuse allegations. Viewing the Pattern of Reaction as a Type of Grief Cycle At some point early in the investigation, Nonoffending Guardians are faced with the shocking news that their world is not what they thought it was and that some of their worst fears are arising in stunning fashion. In many ways, we could think of the Nonoffending Guardian of a child sexual abuse victim as a secondary victim (Cammaert, 1988). They are enduring the ramifications of trauma in their own lives even when they have not directly been victimized. Many important factors supporting stability are suddenly lost. We know from previous models of loss that people go through stages of grief when faced with catastrophic losses. A Nonoffending Guardian must also go through stages of grief, but unlike the death of a loved one, the grief cycle continues to get upset and reactivated by the actions of the perpetrator, other quarreling family members, and the legal/investigative process. Thus, without appropriate intervention, many Nonoffending Guardians will continue to recycle earlier grief stages, often at a time when their support and wise decision making is most needed by the child victim. Different theoreticians have proposed different specific grief stages as a response to loss. One logical model for Nonoffending Guardians is that the one proposed by the Family Advocate Program of the National Children’s Advocacy Center of Huntsville, Alabama (National Children’s Advocacy Center, 2001). The program suggests that without proper intervention and support, Nonoffending Guardians can continually reactivate more primitive levels of functioning which typically progress in the following sequence:
New events can easily trigger a recycling of grief stages which can causereturn the Nonoffending Guardians to return back to the crisis stage unless sufficient, timely, and appropriate intervention is offered (www.ncac-hsv.org). In addition to the grief stages, the Nonoffending Guardians are hit with the inevitable impact that the traumatic events can cause. Trauma creates a contradiction in the understanding of how things are supposed to be. It can shatter our illusions of ourselves, and the world around us, and call in to question how much control one has in one’s own life. When a trauma is perpetrated by a loved one, it can undermine one’s basic sense of trust in other people, including those involved in the therapeutic/legal/investigative process. Trauma causes a disruption in the basic needs to feel safe, to trust, to feel some control over one’s life, to feel of value, and to feel close to others. Suddenly things that were once manageable and ordinary leave the Nonoffending Guardian feeling overwhelmed and unable to cope effectively. There can be physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral ramifications to a person, whether a primary or secondary victim of trauma. The terrorist event of September 11, 2001, has provided a stark and overwhelming illustration to most all Americans of that the reality of trauma. Realizing how these issues are reflected in the Nonoffending Guardian can often provide insight into how professionals can respond to them in a way that benefits the child, the Nonoffending Guardian, and the entire investigative process. (Rosenbloom & Williams, 1999). Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution Early intervention efforts in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases in the 1970’s and 1980’s often attempted to resolve issues without much more. involvement of the Nonoffending Guardians than the advice to them not to interfere with the investigation. A typical response from the system included Child Protective Services (CPS) asking Nonoffending Guardians to process the news of the abuse and immediately decide whether or not to force the alleged perpetrator to leave the home and not contact the child in any form. If the Nonoffending Guardian hesitated to "believe" the child’s story, or indicated weakness in being able to move the alleged perpetrator out of the scene, the child was often immediately removed from the Gguardian’s care. It was not at all unusual for law enforcement to tell the Nonoffending Guardian not to discuss the case at all with the child, and then question the Gguardian’s behavior about possible "collusion" in the abuse itself (Sarles, 1975; Kaufman, Peck, & Tagiuri, 1954; Sgroi & Dana, 1982). Many times, a A link to the abuse might have often seemed to be apparent by if the Nonoffending Guardian relying relied on the perpetrator for child care duties, or leaving left the child "unsupervised" in the perpetrator’s care. Child victims also sometimes express belief that their Nonoffending Guardian must have known about the abuse. Further evidence of this apparent complicity to the perpetrator also seemed to be present if the Nonoffending Guardian argued for the perpetrator’s innocence, or showed anger about CPS intervention efforts. Clearly, Nonoffending Guardians of CSA cases were often viewed as "part of the problem" (Kaufman, Peck, & Tagiuri, 1954; Sarles, 1975; Sgroi & Dana, 1982). Between a Rock and a Hard Place Occasionally, Nonoffending Guardians find themselves recipients of criticism for being "overzealous" in their wish to blame an alleged offender. A motive that appeared questionable was often assumed to relate to manipulative/negative emotions toward an alienated spouse. It was then often further assumed that this was the negative and manipulative goal of a spiteful custody battle, a desire for increased child support or, alimony, or just plain vengeance. The concept of Parent Alienation Syndrome, a This seemingly credible concern with parental alienation, has best been articulated by Gardner (, has best been articulated by Gardner who established the concept of Parent Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, 1987, ; Gardner, 1995). Professionals were are warned to be highly skeptical of the honesty and validity of claims made by Nonoffending Guardians who accuse a spouse from whom they are divorcing, especially if the accuser has their her own history of child sexual victimization (Gardner, 1995, P. 265-266). Gardner’s warning about possible ulterior motives and possible influence on the child are certainly worth considering, but research has so far indicated a low rate of intentionally falsified allegations of CSA, even in divorce/custody cases. To the contrary, Mannarino and Cohen (1986) found that in the majority of a sample of validated incest cases, sexual abuse actually did occur AFTER a separation or divorce had taken place. Possible reasons for this timing may include; the decision of the perpetrator deciding to act at that time out of loneliness or anger, or the disclosure of ongoing abuse by a child becoming emboldened once the perpetrator is out of the home to disclose ongoing abuse once the perpetrator is out of the home. Thus, appropriate anger by the Nonoffending Guardian, persistent reporting, and concern about the child’s safety may be misinterpreted by the system as a form of vengeful manipulation and dishonesty. In order to grasp how this can happen even when well meaning professionals seem the be doing their best, an An example may be helpful to grasp how this can happen even when well meaning professionals seem to be doing their best. Several years ago, a child was referred to one of the authors of this section. The child had made allegations of sexual abuse by her father. The 10 ten-year- old’s mother claimed her daughter had disclosed the abuse to her first. The mother secretly moved the child with her to a relative’s home while the father was at work in his high-level white-collar job. After researching who was qualified to identify minor medical findings indicative of sexual abuse, the mMother then took the child to two different physicians after researching who was qualified to identify minor medical findings indicative of sexual abuse. The mother hired an attorney and immediately started to pursue a no-contact order from the courts, and, only then, did she contact Child Protective Services. When dealing with CPS professionals, the mother was highly critical and demanding. The facts of this situation, as stated here, could lead one to question whether this was a case of a false allegation by a Nonoffending Guardian, and, indeed, that question came up over and over again with investigators. Does this sound like a Nonoffending Guardian making a false allegation? That question certainly came up over and over again with investigators. What may change the reader’s perspective, however, is the knowledge was to know that the mother had previously been employed as a CPS case manager, and had often been dismayed at how difficult it often was to convince a court of a perpetrator’s offense in a way to guarantee the future safety of the child. The mother participated in therapy and also shared that she had become more and more distant from her husband before this disclosure because of his focus on winning and controlling others, and as well as his highly refined skills of manipulation (which served to makde him a success in the business world). The mother despaired that the father would take it as a challenge to eventually obtain unsupervised visitation just to be able to show he could accomplish this goal. Indeed, the father went to great lengths to convince the courts of his right to see his child without interference even the though the girl consistentinvariably stated to the therapist and the court that she did not want to see her father alone. The girl consistently stated she only wanted to visit her father in her mother’s presence. Eventually, during a therapy session, the girl disclosed new allegations of much more extensive sexual abuse by her father, which she had previously been previously too ashamed and too frightened to disclose. This effective, proactive, and concerned mother was perceived by many people as unyielding, stubborn, and overly reactive until her concerns were later entirely validated. The Clinical-Forensic Connection Most of the efforts at intervention programs, and much of the literature about Nonoffending Guardians haves come from clinical interests. However, it It has, however, become apparent that a Nonoffending Guardian who receives appropriate clinical support and services is much more apt to follow the instructions of investigators in order to make the legal case less complicated and the child more comfortable in their his/her role of disclosing the abuse. We might call this overlap a clinical-forensic connection. Another way to perceive this connection is to think of services to Nonoffending Guardians as emanating from the plans developed by a Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT). An MDT approach is highly recommended in many aspects of intervention in CSA cases. Plans for the Nonoffending Guardian also seem to fit this MDT approach very well. When exploring the composition of MDT groups, it becomes apparent that the clinical and the forensic interests in the case are all thoroughly represented. In addition, we many in the system often assume a Nonoffending Guardian does know, or should know, the proper procedures to follow when a child discloses sexual abuse. When that the Guardian strays from the proper procedure or fails to report the allegations immediately to CPS, suspicions and motives are called into question. Because it is assumed the community at large is aware of the proper procedure to follow and exactly what to do when allegations of sexual abuse occur, Nonoffending Guardians are we often hold Nonoffending Guardians held up against this standard of "proper behavior." In sharp contrast, it has been the experience of the authors of this section that Nonoffending Guardians often do not know the procedure to follow when a child discloses sexual abuse. Initially, they make several contacts to family and others in the community before discovering exactly what they should do. Add to this the shock, trauma, and grief issues flooding in on the Nonoffending Guardian, and it should not be surprising that they are confused and unaware of what the next step is in this process. The Shift in Forensic Role from Irrelevant to "Crucial Player" This The shift in more recent thinking about Nonoffending Guardians also comes from experiences in both forensic and clinical literature. When appropriate and timely services are offered to Nonoffending Guardians, not only does the distress level of the Nonoffending Guardian get resolved more quickly, but the responses by of the Nonoffending Guardians can greatly enhance their her child’s future adjustment and mental health. , and The response of the Guardian can also improve the child’s ability to fill the role of honest responder to forensic questions vs. versus a reaction of trying to anticipate and avoid negative reactions in others through changing the story to fit the perceived expectations of the listener. When in this the positive role of a helper taking appropriate advice, the Nonoffending Guardian seems to have one of the strongest positive influences on the child’s long-term future adjustment of all single factors in the child’s life (Conte & Schuerman, 1987; Everson, et .al., 1989). Indeed, the Nonoffending Guardian is the most crucial player in the child’s life and recovery. To ignore that this fact would be to omitting an essential piece in this process. Models of Intervention with Nonoffending Guardians One of the earliest models of intervention involving Nonoffending Guardians coames from the work of Henry Giaretto (Giaretto, 1982). Giaretto’s model was primarily designed for incestuous families. Treatment for all of the major players has been recommended as a way to change the systemic family dynamics that were thought to lead to the abuse. The Nonoffending Guardian, like all of the other players, is included in elaborate treatment services in this model. The use of systems theory plays a major part of this intervention model. Another model that has strong research involvement has beenis what might be described as a trauma model. One of the leaders in exploring the field of trauma has been Dr. Bessel van der Kolk. Van der Kolk has established a service center within a health delivery system referred to as The Trauma Center (www.traumacenter.org/). Although this model overlaps with issues raised in the previously described model, the emphasis byby van der Kolk is on treatment specific to issues of trauma. Naturally, the child victim and their his/her trauma issues become the main focus, but services to Nonoffending Guardians are also available within this model. They are, after all, secondary trauma victims. Specific changes in functioning attributable to the effects of trauma has have been a primary focus of the works of Dr. van der Kolk, even including changes in brain functioning (van der Kolk, McFarlane, & Weisaeth, -Eds., 1996). Therefore, pPart of this approach seeks to deal with secondary trauma in the Nonoffending Guardian or even the original trauma of prior victimization that may have occurred to the Nonoffending Guardian through severe domestic violence, or previous childhood abuse. Another aspect of emphasis is to the educatione of the Nonoffending Guardians to enable her to better understand her traumatized child as to reasons why the child behaves the way she/he he/she does, and including how to best help the child in the healing process from trauma while at home. Another model that could be conceptualized as a general approach toward Nonoffending Guardians is referred to as the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) Model. An MDT model is one in which the emphasis is on intervention as determined by the MDT. As a point of comparison, an MDT approach is equally concerned with both clinical AND forensic issues. Thus, an MDT model attempts to address the well being of the Nonoffending Guardian, and the child victim while staying focused on being able to effectively intervene in legal/court proceedings where appropriate. An MDT approach pays close attention to such factors as; whether the Nonoffending Guardian may be increasing or decreasing the child victim’s ability to testify accurately; whether the Nonoffending Guardian is acting in a protective or non-protective manner that impacts the children; and whether the Nonoffending Guardian is learning new skills to decrease the likelihood of future issues of deprivation. At the same time, an MDT approach will also pay entail close attention to the quality of the relationship between the Nonoffending Guardian and the children,; as well as the mental health/economic/safety, and social needs of the Nonoffending Guardian and the children. An example of a comprehensive intervention text, which can probably best be described as an MDT model that includes Nonoffending Guardians, is the 2 two-volume set entitled "The Sexual Predator" (Schlank & Cohen, -Eds., 1999). This particular comprehensive series has a strong legal orientation toward intervention with sexual offenders. However, an entire chapter is also devoted to working with nNonoffending partners of those offenders as well. Perhaps one of the most thoroughly developed programs using this the MDT approach has been created at the National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC) in Huntsville, Alabama. The program is now referred to as the Family Advocate Program. To further educate others on this model, the National Association of Family Advocates was also developed through NCAC (www.ncac-hsv.org/nafa/). Training and instructional publications are readily available. It is this program that suggests that without intervention, Nonoffending Guardians can frequently start to go through a cycle of reactions (which could be described as a grief cycle), and then be triggered back into recycling the same steps over and over again. Misreading the initial steps, and/or recycling the steps is suggested to be related to problems the "system" historically has had with Nonoffending Guardians in past experiences/research. Intervention, then, helps a Nonoffending Guardian break out of this cycle, or "circle," of never-ending reactions, in order to be in a better position to use rational judgment as a caring parent. No clear lines of contrast can really be made between these models in the sense that there are not many few theoretical conflicts from one model to another. Rather, describing approaches from a model perspective can offer the reader points of emphasis. In practice, many programs use a blend of ideas quite successfully. Key Factors to Consider Regardless of Program Model Research is still ongoing regarding exactly what factors are crucial in intervention programs with Nonoffending Guardians. At this stage Currently, it is suggested that intervention approaches pay include attention to several key factors. Refinement of these factors may occur over the next 10ten years as research of these multi-factored issues assists in further clarification of which factors have the most impact:
Proactive Responding by Nonoffending Guardians Not all Nonoffending Guardians are so impaired as to be unable to make independent positive steps without direction from the intervention professionals. What then can a Gguardian do on her own to help her child? The answer, of course, is that a responsible parent can do a great deal to help her child. One important step is to read about advice written specifically with a Nonoffending Guardian reader in mind (Hagans & Case, 1988; Byerly, 1992; Ashley, 1992; Golder, 1987). From All of these references, provide positive suggestions are offered about what a responsible parent can do to help a child who has been molested. Some of these suggestions include:
Sexual abuse is a devastating situation for many reasons. In some ways, theThe upheaval is like could be described as a tidal wave of stressors. The impact has wide ripples that go far beyond the epicenter around of the child victim. Very close to this the center of the impact is the child’s Nonoffending Guardian. She is not isolated from this stressful situation and must be regarded as the secondary victim in an overwhelming situation. Professionals dealing with child sexual abuse cases have a responsibility to learn everything they can to arm themselves with effective tools in making the Nonoffending Guardian’s powerful influential role with the child that of a powerful positive force, not a stumbling block in the investigation and treatment of the child. She must not simply be allowed to become another major stressor for the child, like the rebound effect of a huge wave bouncing off obstacles in the ocean of responses bound to occur in such cases. With the help of a system designed to meet their Weneeds, we must use our skills to help the Nonoffending Guardians weather the storm, ride out the waves, and direct themselves and their children toward calmer waters with the help of a system designed to meet their needs. The primary needs of a child It must be a the system’s with the primary needs of a child as it’s core goal, and whose with a focus that will not overlook the single most important factor in the child’s life and recovery:, the Nonoffending Guardian. These guardians must be regarded as part of the team working to assist the child unless they clearly demonstrate otherwise. We must understand them in reference to the realm of the stress, shock, confusion, and grief they are responding from, and relate to them in light of that realization. When we meet the Nonoffending Guardians where they are and assist them from that point forward, we set the stage for the entire process and, likely, for the future of the child. If the efforts of the system set the stage in a negative manner, frequentlythen everyone involved will feel a negative ripple effect it will frequently be felt have a negative ripple effect for everyone involved and the process itself can be affected. If the system sets the stage in a positive manner, then the Nonoffending Guardian looks to the system as a source of direction, support, and strength. Then, and only then, we can we can provide the child, the Nonoffending Guardian, and the entire family the tools they need to successfully navigate their way through these uncharted waters of the trauma of child sexual abuse. References: Alderson, J. (1993). Investigation and early intervention with nNonoffending spouses. Presented at the 8th National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, Huntsville, AL. Amacher, E. (1993). Intervention with Nonoffending parents and siblings. Advanced training in child sexual abuse intervention, National Children’s Advocacy Center and University of Alabama-Huntsville campus, Huntsville, AL. Ashley, S. (1992). The missing voice: Wwritings by mothers of incest victims. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Bentovim, A. (1988). Understanding the phenomenon of sexual abuse: A family systems view of causation. In A. Bentovim, et. al. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse within the family: Assessment and treatment. London, England: Wright. Billing, A., & Moos, R. (1983). Comparison of children of depressed and nondepressed parents: A social-environmental perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 463-486. Burgess, A, & Holmstron, L. (1978). Accessory to sex: Pressure, sex, and secrecy. In A. Burgess, et .al. (Eds.), Sexual assault of children and adolescents. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Burgess, A., et .al. (1990). Parental response to child sexual abuse trials involving day care settings. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3(3), 395-405. Byerly, C. (1992). The mother’s book: How to survive the molestation of your child (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Cammaert, L. (1988). Nonoffending mothers: A new conceptualization. In L. Walker (Ed.), Handbook on sexual abuse of children: Assessment and treatment issues. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Conte, J., & Schuerman, J. (1987). Factors associated with an increased impact of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 201-211. Currie, J. (1988). An integrated treatment program for sexually abused children and mothers (Final eEvaluation rReport). Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Focus Consultants. Deblinger, E., et .al. (1993). Psychosocial characteristics and correlates of symptom distress in nNonoffending mothers of sexually abused children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 155-168. Deitz, C., & Craft, J. (1980). Family dynamics of incest: A new perspective., Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 61, 102-109. DeJong, A. (1988). Maternal responses to the sexual abuse of their children. Pediatrics, 81(1), 14-20. Doueck, H., Levine, M., & Bronson, D. (1993). Risk assessment in child protective services. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(4), 446-467. Elbow, M., & Mayfield, J. (1991). Mothers of incest victims: Villains, victims, or protectors? Families in Society, 72(2), 78-85. English, D. (1989). Risk assessment in child protection: A brief review of issues and concerns. In P. Schene & K. Bonds (Eds.), Research issues for child protection. Denver: American Association for Protecting Children. Esquilin, S. (1987). Family responses to the identification of extrafamilial child sexual abuse. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 5(1), 105-113. Everson, M., et .al. (1989). Maternal support following disclosure of incest. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(2), 197-207. Fairfield, J. (2001). Working with Nonoffending partners. In A. Schank & F. Cohen (Eds.), The sexual predator, Volume 2, Legal issues, clinical issues, special populations., Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. Faller, K. (1988). The myth of the collusive mother: Variability in the functioning of mothers of victims of intrafamilial sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(2), 190-196. Faller, K. (1988). Interviewing the mother. In, Child sexual abuse: An interdisciplinary manual for diagnosis, case management and treatment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Faller, K., & Devoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 1-25. Friend, C. (1997). Child protection update: Aligning with the battered woman to protect mother and child. Presented at the 13th National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, Huntsville, AL. Gardner, R., (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between false and genuine child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc. Gardner, R. (1995). Protocols for the sex-abuse evaluation. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc. Giaretto, H. (1982). Integrated treatment of child sexual abuse. A treatment and training manual. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Golder, C. (1987) If it happens to your child, it happens to you! A parent’s help-source for sexual assault. Saratoga, CA: R & E Publishers. Gomes-Schwartz, B., et. aAl. (1990). The myth of the mother as "accomplice" to child sexual abuse. In Gomes-Schwartz, B., et .al. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: The initial effects (pp. 109-131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Goodman, G., et .al. (1989). Emotional effects of criminal court testimony on child sexual abuse victims, final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice under Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0020. Goodwin, J. (1981). Suicide attempts in sexual abuse victims and their mothers., Child Abuse and Neglect, 5, 217-221. Green, A., et .al. (1995). Incest revisited: Delayed post-traumatic stress disorders in mothers following the sexual abuse of their children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(10), 1275-1282. Gresham, A. (1990). The role of the nNonoffending parent when the incest victim is male. In M. Hunter (Ed.), The sexually abused male: Application of treatment strategies (Vol. 2). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Groff, M. (1987). Characteristics of incest offender’s wives. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 91-96. Hagans, K., & Case, J. (1988). When your child has been molested: A parent’s guide to healing and recovery. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Heriot, J. (1996). Maternal protectiveness following the disclosure of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(2), 181-194. Hildebrand, J., & Forbes, C. (1987). Group work with mothers whose children have been sexually abused. British Journal of Social Work, 17(3), 285-303. Hoagwood, K. (1990). Parental fFunctioning and child sexual abuse. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 7(5), 377-387. Holmes, C. (1994). Working with nNonoffending parents of sexually abused children. Presented at The 2nd Annual Georgia’s Initiative on Child Abuse: Insights to Prevention, Savannah, GA. Hubbard, G. (1989). Mother’s perception of incest: Sustained disruption and turmoil. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 3(1), 34-40. Humphreys, C. (1992). Disclosure of child sexual assault: Implications for mothers. Australian Social Work, 45, 27-35. Joyce, P. (1997). Mothers of sexually abused children and the concept of collusion: A literature review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(2), 75-92. Kaufman, I., Peck, A., & Tagiuri, C. (1954). The family constellation and overt incestuous relationships between father and daughter. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24, 266-278. Kelley, S. (1990). Parental stress response to sexual abuse and ritualistic abuse of children in day care centers. Nursing Research, 39(1), 25-29. Keppel, J., Lipovsky, J., & Saunders, B. (1991). Family of origin characteristics of mothers in father-daughter incest families. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Krebs, S., & MacFarlane, K. (1988). Responding to parents. Child sexual abuse: The clinical interview (pp. 44-47). New York: Guilford Publications. Laing, L., & Kamsler, A. (1990). Putting an end to secrecy: Therapy with mothers and children following disclosures of child sexual assault. In M. Durrant & C. White (Eds.), Ideas for therapy with sexual abuse (pp. 54-69). Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Center Publications. Larsen, C., & Zaro, A. (1989). How to survive the sexual abuse of your child: Answers to commonly asked questions (rev. ed.). Spokane, WA: Lutheran Social Services. Lipton, M. (1997). The effect of the primary caretaker’s distress on the sexually abused child: A comparison of biological and foster parents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14(2), 115-127. Manion, I., et. al. (1996). Secondary traumatization in parents following the disclosure of extrafamilial child sexual abuse: Initial effects. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(11), 1095-1109. Mannarino, A., & Cohen, J. (1986). A clinical-demographic study of sexually abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 17-23. Mara, B., & Winton, M. (1990). Sexual abuse intervention: A support group for parents who have a sexually abused child. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 40(1), 63-77. Massachusetts State Department of Social Services. (1987). Services to sexually abused children and their families: Characteristics of children and families in treatment (Part 2). Boston, MA: Author. Mayer, A. (1993). Re-structuring client’s self-image. In Incest: A treatment manual for therapy with victims, spouses and offenders (pp. 93-94). Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc. Meyer, M. (1985). A new look at mothers of incest victims. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 3, 47-58. Muram, D., Rosenthal, T., & Beck, K. (1994). Personality profiles of mothers of sexual abuse victims and their daughters. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(5), 419-423. Murdoch, B., & Lewis, S. (1992). Love and problems of living. Macon, GA: Fore (In) Sight Foundation. www.foreinsight.org. National Children’s Advocacy Center. (2001). Family Advocate Program, National Association of Family Advocates, Huntsville, AL. www.ncac-hsv.org/nafa/. National Training on Effective Treatment Approaches. (NTPETA-1993). Treatment factor: Nonoffending parents, Huntsville, AL. Newberger, C., et .al. (1993). Mothers of sexually abused children: Trauma and repair in longitudinal perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(1), 92-102. Ovaris, W. (1991). After the nightmare: The treatment of nNonoffending mothers of sexually abused children. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications. Peterson, R., Basta, S., & Dykstra, T. (1993). Mothers of molested children: Some comparisons of personality characteristics. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 409-418. Plummer, C., & Eastin, J. (1998). The nonabusive mothers of sexually abused children: Preliminary study findings. Presented at the 14th National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, Huntsville, AL. Power, D. Working with nNonoffending parents (2001), South East Centre Against Sexual Assault (SECASA), East Bentleigh, UK. www.secasa.com.au/workers/html/working_with_Nonoffending_pare.html . Regehr, C. (1990). Parental responses to extrafamilial child sexual assault. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(1), 113-120. Rosenbloom, D. & Williams, M.B. (1999). Life after trauma. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Runyan, D., et. al. (1988). Impact of legal intervention on sexually abused children. Journal of Pediatrics, 113, 647-653. Salt, P., et .al. (1990). The myth of the mother as "accomplice" to child sexual abuse cases. In B. Gomez-Schwartz, J. Horowitz, & A. Cardarelli (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: The initial effects. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sarles, R. (1975). Incest. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 22, 633-642. Schlank, A., & Cohen -(Eds.). (1999). The sexual predator: Law, policy, evaluation and treatment, Volumes I & II. Civic Research Institute: Kingston, NJ. Schonberg, I. (1992). The distortion of the role of mother in child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 47-61. Sgroi, S., & Dana, N. (1982). Individual and group treatment of mothers of incest victims. In S. Sgroi (Ed.), Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse (pp.191-214), Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Sirles, E., & Franke, P. (1989). Factors influencing mothers’ reactions to intrafamily sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13(1), 131-139. Sirles, E., & Loftberg, C. (1990). Factors associated with divorce in intrafamily child sexual abuse cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(2), 165-170. Smith, J. (1990, June 10). Mothers: Tired of taking the rap. New York Times Magazine, pp. 32-34, 38. Tamraz, D. (1996). Nonoffending mothers of sexually abused children: Comparison of opinions and research. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(4), 75-96. The Trauma Center, Child Sexual Abuse Program. (2001). Allston, MA. www.traumacenter.org/. Truesdell, D. McNeil, J., & Deschner, J. (1986). Incidence of wife abuse in incestuous families. Social Work, 31, 138-140. Tufts’ New England Medical Center, Division of Child Psychiatry. (1984). Sexually exploited children: Service and research project. Final report for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Van der Kolk, B., McFarlane, A., & Weisaeth, L. (1996). Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society. New York: Guilford Publications. Walters, S. (2000). Effective strategies for victim advocates in child abuse cases. American Prosecutors Research Institute. www.ndaa.org/apri/NCPCA/Update/apri_update_vol_13_no_12_2000.html, pp. 1-6. Whitcomb, D., et. al. (1994). The emotional effects of testifying on sexually abused children, Research in Brief, National Institute of Justice, April 1994, NCJ146414. Winton, M. (1990). An evaluation of a support group for parents who have a sexually abused child. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 397-405. Wyatt, G. (1988). Ameliorating the effects of child sexual abuse: An exploratory study of support by parents and others. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 403-414. |
|
|
