Forensic Issues with Non-Offending Guardians

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:

• Crisis
• Problem Solving
• Stabilization
• Maintenance

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).