Justice Professionals’ Lens on Familial Trafficking Cases

• Date: 01 June 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/07340168211024719
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Author: Jeanne L. Allert
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Justice Professionals’ Lens

on Familial Trafficking Cases

Jeanne L. Allert

1

Abstract

Of the 30þforms of human trafficking that exist worldwide, family-facilitated trafficking of minors

receives little attention in the United States. This original research study sought to identify the

prevalence, characteristics, and challenges associated with familial trafficking cases as experienced by

justice professionals in the areas of case identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim ser-

vices. The study included a survey and in-depth interviews leading to recommendations for

increased training, improved data collection and reporting, heeding minors’ testimony, and

expanding our victim service options.

Keywords

familial, trafficking, juvenile, justice

The Albuquerque Journal headline reads: “Father gets 20 years for neglect.” James Stewart was

found guilty on three counts of human trafficking for forcing three of his children to panhandle to

support his drug habit (Barnitz, 2019), and yet the story behind the headline is not so straightforward.

In 2017, the 7-year-old daughter of James Stewart and Teri Sanchez went to school with blood-

stained underpants and once discovered, disclosed to school staff that she and her mother would

“hustle.” This led to an investigation that resulted in charging Stewart with intoxicating and pros-

tituting his elementary-age child at a local strip club (Associated Press, 2018). That case ended in a

mistrial based on prohibited testimony. Later, both parents were charged with two counts of criminal

sexual contact of a minor involving yet another child, their older daughter.

The United States has formally recognized the commercial sexual exploitation of minors as sex

trafficking since 2000 with the Trafficking in Persons Protection Act. The law made it clear that a

minor engaged in commercial sex was not a criminal but rather was to be considered a victim under

the law. Anti-trafficking advocates decry: “no child wakes up and wants to become a prostitute.” The

phrase is intentionally jarring, to force us to think—and respond—differently. While strides have

been made in thinking differently about victims, one might argue that much of today’s sex traffick-

ing awareness programming limits our understanding of perpetrators. The Modern-Day Slave Mas-

ter has too often been drawn as a cunning and patient outsider, an in-the-shadows manipulator, able

1

Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jeanne L. Allert, Regent University, 1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23464, USA.

Email: jallert@thesamaritanwomen.org

Criminal Justice Review

ª2021 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168211024719

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

2022, Vol. 47(2) 208–224

to exert control through promises, money, drugs, and romance. Now, 20 years into the anti-

trafficking movement within the United States, another reality is to be confronted: that sometimes

the perpetrator is not an outsider but rather a threat residing within the home and heart of the victim.

In 2005, the National Juvenile Prostitution Study interviewed over 2,600 law enforcement

professionals to ascertain their experiences of cases dealing with juveniles involved in prostitu-

tion.

1

Among the findings were that 12%of juveniles were exploited by a family member (Mitch-

ell et al., 2010). The 2019 Data Report from the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline reported

that familial relationship was the second most common form of induction into commercial sex

(Polaris, 2019).

Screening tools do not necessarily ascertain the re lationship of the perpetrator to t he minor

victim (Raphael, 2019), and it is well established that children who are sexually abused in the

home, including those who are victims of incestuous abuse, are less likely to report (Herman,

2000; Raphael, 2019; Schlesinger, 2019). Therefore, we rely on frontline responders, who are both

trained and experienced in human trafficking cases, to shed light on this form of sexual exploita-

tion of children. The limited research on this topic suggests that cases of familial exploitation are

rarely identified, but those that have are more often discerned by healthcare providers, child

welfare workers, education providers, or law enforcement professionals (Sprang & Cole, 2018).

This study selected law enforcement providers as the survey population because of their long-

itudinal relationship to a case and the likelihood of their involvement acros s various phases of a

case including identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim services. Therefore, this study

seeks to add to the literature about what is known on the prevalence, characteristics, and chal-

lenges of familial sex trafficking of minor cases in the United States, as experienced by justice

professionals across those phases.

Literature Review

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ, 2020), 34%of child sexual abuse is inflicted by a

family member. Ninety-four percent of sex trafficking survivors from one shelter program reported

childhood sexual abuse, 70%by a family member (The Samaritan Women, 2021). Familial traffick-

ing, like intrafamilial sexual abuse (or incest), is an unspoken, yet distinct, form of abuse against

children (Ford & Courtois, 2020). Federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 1591 outlines the legal elements of a

child sex trafficking crime:

it is a federal offense to knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a minor

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor and would be caused to engage

in ...any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person. In other

words, it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual

activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors,

or some other kind of benefit. When the victim is a minor, Section 1591 does not require proof that the

defendant used force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion, or any combination of those means, to cause the

minor to engage in a commercial sex act. (U.S. DOJ, 2020)

One study contrasting intrafamilial to extrafamilial child sexual abuse found that verbal threat

was the significantly more common form of coercion in intrafamilial cases and physical threat in

extrafamilial (Magalha

˜es et al., 2009). Dr. Judith Herman (2000) argues that “the question of

whether force is involved is largely irrelevant, since force is rarely necessary to obtain compliance.

The parent’s authority over the child is usually sufficient to compel obedience” (p. 27).

There is no legal distinction for when the commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is at the hand

of a related party; however, child abuse and incest literature offer considerable argument that the

209

Allert