Child witnesses and the confrontation clause.

• Author: Lyon, Thomas D.
• Position: IV. The Dynamics of Child Abuse B. Grooming of the Victim through Conclusion, with footnotes, p. 1205-1232

2. GROOMING OF THE VICTIM

   Perpetrators emphasize the extent to which they seduce their victims over time rather than commit isolated assaults. Most child molestation typically includes attempts to obtain the assent and cooperation of victims. The first step for the sex perpetrator is to befriend the child, typically before any kind of physical contact is attempted. Leclerc and colleagues noted that child sex perpetrators adopt strategies "that are similar to prosocial behaviors which consist of demonstrating love, attention and appreciation." (141) Both intrafamilial and extrafamilial sex perpetrators describe spending time with the child (142) and giving the child gifts, (143) sometimes introducing children to alcohol and pornography. (144) The first sexual contact often does not occur for a substantial period of time, particularly given the speed with which children, particularly younger children, can form attachments to adults. In Smallbone and Wortley's study, 76% of the intrafamilial perpetrators, 28% of the extrafamilial perpetrators, and 39% of the mixed-type perpetrators knew the child for more than one year before initiating abuse. (145)

   The second step is to desensitize the child to sexual touch through progressively more invasive sexual touch and talk. Kaufman and colleagues (146) found this to be the most-often-endorsed means of obtaining the child's compliance by both intrafamilial and extrafamilial child sex perpetrators. (147) This approach has several purposes. The perpetrator can test the child's willingness to acquiesce (148) and the likelihood that the child will disclose. (149) If the child discloses at an early stage of the process, the perpetrator can claim that the touch was merely affectionate, accidental, or otherwise nonsexual. (150) As the abuse progresses, the perpetrator can assure the child of the harmlessness and morality of his actions. (151)

   When the sexual abuser is the child's parent, the extra attention paid to the child not only has the effect of making the child feel special, but also isolates the child and the offending parent from the other family members. Christiansen and Blake found that "[p]otential victims become alienated from the mothers because these daughters are placed by their fathers in their mothers' traditional role of confidante, intimate friend, and sex partner. Alienation from siblings occurs because of the privileges and special favors potential victims receive." (152)

   Third, the perpetrator initiates overtly sexual acts. In part because of careful victim selection and preparation, this need not involve violent force. In Fleming's population survey, only 7% of victims recalled actual violence, whereas 64% recalled verbal threats (including threats of violence), and 72% stated that some form of coercion was used. (153) In Hershkowitz's large study of sexual abuse cases investigated in Israel, children reported coercion in 30% of the cases, and threats in only 10%. (154) In Lang and Frenzel's sample, two-thirds of the sex perpetrators "frightened the children in some way." (155)

   Much of the persuasive power comes from the perpetrator's status as an adult. Kaufman and colleagues pointed out that adults' "greater physical sizes, statuses afforded by their age (i.e., 'When adults tell you to do something, you listen'), and greater perceived credibility may reduce the need for explicit threats to gain victim compliance in abusive sexual activity." (156) They found that when comparing adolescent to adult perpetrators, adults endorsed fewer strategies for obtaining compliance and in particular, adults were less likely to have threatened the child with a weapon.

   When perpetrators do endorse strategies for inducing compliance, they mention a mixture of bribes and threats, and the strategies are similar for both intrafamilial and extrafamilial perpetrators. (157) In Lang and Frenzel's sample, bribery was as common as physical force. (158) Kaufman and colleagues found that the most common form of bribery was giving gifts, and that the most common threat--particularly among intrafamilial perpetrators--was to prey on children's helplessness by threatening to "tell on them about having sex with [the perpetrator] or by making them feel as if there was nothing they could do to stop it." (159) Researchers have speculated that the efficacy of such a threat is founded on the desensitization process: "[V]ictims' repeated acquiescence early in the grooming process (e.g., to nonsexual touch) may lead victims to believe that they have granted permission for more intrusive sexual contact." (160)

   The fact that perpetrators fail to use force does not mean that they are unwilling to use it or incapable of doing so. Most of the perpetrators in Elliott and colleagues' study stated that if the child resisted, they would stop and try to initiate contact later (61%), but a substantial minority (39%) admitted that they would then resort to threats or actual violence in order to complete the act. (161) Perpetrators may also understate their use of force in an attempt to minimize the seriousness of their acts. In Christiansen and Blake's sample of fathers who abused their daughters, less than one-fourth acknowledged using threats or physical punishment, but almost half of the victims (45%) claimed they had. (162)

   With respect to criminal cases, prosecutors may be more willing to charge when force is involved, as this is likely to be more convincing to jurors. Nevertheless, in criminal samples, abuse without the use of force also predominates. Smith and colleagues, for example, emphasized that "in the vast majority of cases, the sexual abuse was imposed on the child by the defendant simply by using his/her authority, or stature, as an adult." (163) In Sas and Cunningham's sample of children who testified in sexual abuse prosecutions, 30% did not even realize that the sexual act was wrong when it first occurred. (164)

3. THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM CHOICE AND GROOMING: NONDISCLOSURE

   Because of the means by which the perpetrator has selected and groomed his victim, disclosure is unlikely. Population surveys reveal that most respondents who report having been abused as children delayed disclosing the abuse for more than a year, (165) a large percentage had never told anyone before the survey, (166) and 90% of the abuse was never reported to authorities. (167)

   Obviously, because disclosure is the primary means by which abuse is discovered, abuse that is never disclosed to authorities will rarely if ever find its way into clinical samples or criminal case samples of abuse. Indeed, perpetrators typically admit having had a number of victims whose abuse was never brought to the attention of the authorities. (168)

   However, the extent to which perpetrators succeed in silencing their victims in clinical and criminal samples can be assessed by examining delays in disclosure. Clinical samples confirm that delays are common. (169) In criminal samples, delays are common as well. In Sas and Cunningham's sample, two-thirds of the child witnesses reported having delayed reporting more than forty-eight hours after abuse, and one-third delayed more than a year after the first time abuse occurred. (170)

   Further evidence of nondisclosure can be found in the statistics on repeated abuse. If the child fails to report the abuse when it first occurs, it is likely to occur again. (171) Over two-thirds of perpetrators report abusing the same victim over time. (172) Charges of repeated abuse are also the norm in criminal samples, (173) and charges provide a conservative measure of whether abuse was repeated, because prosecutors often charge only what they are most confident they can prove and specifying individual acts is often difficult for child witnesses. (174)

   If the perpetrator has selected a child within his family or under his care, he can rely on the natural bonds between child and family to prevent disclosure. The most common factor that predicts delay in reporting abuse is the relationship between the perpetrator and the child: the closer the relationship, the longer the delay. This is true in population surveys, (175) clinical samples, (176) and criminal samples. (177) The relationship also affects the likelihood that the child will be inconsistent in her reports and ultimately recant the allegation of abuse. (178) Indeed, when asked, children endorse different rates of disclosure against parents and against strangers. By four years of age, children will predict less disclosure of parental transgressions than stranger transgressions (when asked what children "would" do), and by six years of age, children will endorse this difference as a norm (when asked what children "should" do). (179) By six years of age, children also make distinctions among the recipients of their disclosures, particularly disfavoring the reporting of parental transgressions to the police. (180) In laboratory research where children observe a parent or a stranger commit a minor transgression (such as stealing a book), children are more likely to keep secrets for the parent. (181)

   If the perpetrator is close to the child's mother, the mother is less likely to believe her child when the child discloses abuse. (182) If the mother is unsupportive, the child is less likely to disclose in the first place, (183) more likely to delay reporting, (184) and more likely to recant her allegations. (185)

   Of course, not all parents are positive figures in children's lives, and many perpetrators can expect secrecy from their victims because of fear rather than respect. In their sample of sexual abuse cases tried in criminal courts, Sas and Cunningham found that in about half the cases, the child had been exposed to domestic violence (186) and that "overt threats were not necessary [to deter immediate disclosure] if the man had a history of violence within the home." (187)

   If the perpetrator chooses a child outside his family, but nevertheless...