Incest in America

There has been a lot of well deserved attention on the plught of women in India as a result of the high profile rape case that is presently before the coutrs. Research in India identifies that the rate of sexual abuse is bery high - over 50% of children according to the officicial statistics. But a new article in The Atlantic tells us that we in the west should save our smugness, if indeed there is any left after the likes of Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles, Gerry Sandusky at Penn State, Graham James in canada and Jimmy Saville in the UK.

However what the article describes is a large, secret problem in the USA (and probbaly in other western countries). It is the dirty secret we do not want to talk about. The article notes:

Here are some statistics that should be familiar to us all, but aren't, either because they're too mind-boggling to be absorbed easily, or because they're not publicized enough. One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family. These statistics are well known among industry professionals, who are often quick to add, "and this is a notoriously underreported crime."

The repotr helps to show how significantly under reported sexual abuse is thus causing one to wonder about under repotring. It also notes that the prime place where sexual abuse takes place is within the family systems.

This is a conversation that we need to have but for which child protection and criminal justice systems are woefully unprepared to have at this scale. One can only imagine the impact if more and more victims begin telling what has and is happening. Yet, that is precisely what we need to encourage. The more the secrets leak out and victims can see society respond supportively, the safer it becomes for victims to disclsoe.

The notion of the family as the primary unit of our society makes sense but only when that has a foundation of safety, nurturance and oportunity for growth. Sexual abuse provides just the opposite.



The Atlantic article is worth a read.

Sandusky, Penn State and the Freeh Report

At one level, all of us who work in the field of child protection should celebrate the Freeh Report on the way in which Penn State University handled the sexual abuse allegations regarding former assistant football coach Sandusky. The report is blunt and scathing in pointing out the lack of accountability and responsibility by the university. It makes it clear that these children were not protected and could well have been (not to mention victims that had yet to be brought into Sandusky's abuse).

The report states:

The most saddening finding by the Special Investigative Counsel is the total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims. As the Grand Jury similarly noted in its presentment,1 there was no “attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2, or to protect that child or any others from similar conduct except as related to preventing its re‐occurrence on University property.”
Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University – President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President‐Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno – failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001. Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity, of what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.

These individuals, unchecked by the Board of Trustees that did not perform its oversight duties, empowered Sandusky to attract potential victims to the campus and football events by allowing him to have continued, unrestricted and unsupervised access to the University’s facilities and affiliation with the University’s prominent football program. Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims. Some coaches, administrators and football program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky’s behaviors and no one warned the public about him. (pp.14-15).

Already we see some of those named coming out to deny their culpability. Certainly, the individuals resposnible should be identified and their actions held up to scrutiny with all of the resultant consequences. What matters most here, however, is what can be learned about sexual abuse in institutions that can be useful elsewhere.

The report is long and has many suggestions.

In my mind, one of the most poignant lessons is that wealth, power, prestige can all combine to make an institution and those who serve it wilfully blind to events that can tarnish that reputation. at best, it can cause them to cover up or act behind the scenes. As I have said before, sexual abusers uses secrecy as one of their best tools to keep going In the Sandusky case, he had powerful allies to Penn State to help him with that.

Critics argue against mandatory reporting laws stating that they will lead to a flood of complaints and further over burden an already over burdened child protection system. They fear that the system will become over intrusive and apprehend children who should not be apprehended. Yet, this report shows that without methods to demand institutions and individuals to do the right thing, many will not.

This avoidance of doing the right thing is not unique to child protection. We need only look at yet another series of banking crises emerging in both the United Staes and the United Kingdom to see that.
We have also seen multiple examples of institutions who avoid accepting the responsibility that comes with managing people who abuse children - Mount Cashel Orphanage in Canada; the Roman Catholic church with their priests and brothers in many countries; the Boy Scouts in Canada; The churches who ran the Residential Schools throughout North America and so on.

Thus, we do need government to legislate and regulate as it seems too many of its citizens and institutions aren't willing to do the right thing.

Let the Sandusky convictions mean something

Throughout North America, if not in many parts of the world, the case of former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky was followed closely. There may well have been a sigh of relief at his conviction on 45 charges. Some will think justice has been done and with Sandusky, maybe it has. But little such satisfaction should exist.

The larger question is how does a Sandusky come to exist for so long in society without intervention. His is hardly the first such case. Indeed, in the same week that Sandusky was convicted, Monseigneur Lynn was convicted in Philadelphia for assisting in the cover up of abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic Church. CNN is reporting  that Penn State not only likely knew what he was doing but chose to not report it.

Then there are other cases in Canada such as Graham James who sexually abused minor hockey players for years. There was the Mount Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland where the Christian Brothers of Ireland physically and sexually abused boys placed in their care. Canada also saw the rampant abuse of children in the Residential Schools, with the last one closing as recently as 1996. The impact on Aboriginal families in Canada was profound. Many have yet to recover both from the abuse and the extensive fracturing of family systems.

If society truly wishes to see the end of these horrific stories of abuse, then it must be willing to open the proverbial Pandora’s Box and talk about what has and is going on. Sandusky is a high profile case in which some of his former victims found the strength to come forward and tell their story. As so often happens, their disclosures come years after the abuse occurred. Victims routinely fear disclosing because the perpetrators often occupy positions of power over the child – be it a parent who threatens harm if they disclose or a person in authority such as Sandusky whose position is such that victims typically feel they will not be believed. Many victims mistakenly feel that the abuse was somehow their own fault.

The recent report on the failure by the Boy Scouts of Canada to properly address the issues of sexual abuse perpetrators amongst their midst shows that one of the solutions is better institutional policies and responses. Without them, sexual abusers remain hidden to carry on.

Secrecy is one of the most potent tools that abusers have in order to keep abusing.  To change this, we need to allow children to tell their story with confidence that they will be believed. But we also need institutions that are willing to hear those children.

Most children who are being abused will not have their situation brought to anyone’s attention. Thus, it is up to ordinary Canadians to decide that abuse should stop and be willing to speak up when they see it. Failure to do so, is to give it tacit approval.

Cases like Sandusky serve a purpose. They create conversation and awareness. These high profile cases are rare. It is the far less visible cases that require us to act. Sandusky could get away with it because, like so many abusers, he was in a position of power. Why are we so willing to turn a blind eye to such people whether they be coaches, priests, teachers or other professionals and carers for children? The tide will start to turn against sexual abuse when we call out the powerful people in children’s lives who break the trust granted them with our children. 

As Eldridge Cleaver said, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Become part of the solution. As a nation, we need to raise awareness of the impact of abuse and help to create solutions. We can stop abuse by supporting families so that their children are safe. Families that need help will need to be able to find it in communities across the country. If abuse occurs outside the family, we can make it safe for our children to tell. You can do this by hearing the voices of children and making sure that a child who discloses is given a safe place to tell their story. You might be that person.

Why Sandusky matters

The conviction of former Penn state coach Sandusky matters a great deal for child protection. And no, it should not act as the basis for fear mongering that it will lead to more unwarranted apprehensions of children by child protection. Such a suggestion is based upon the notion that child protection workers are incapable of critical thinking when considering cases.

The fear might be that politicians will now try to gain political capital by making pronouncements that they will enact laws that will ensure that there will never be another Sandusky on their watch. That is politics and bad policy.

But Sandusky does matter because it sends to society some very powerful messages. To begin with, it means that the powerful who abuse can be held accountable. It means that the stories of abuse in the past can still be brought forward and the abuser convicted. It means that systems keeping these dirty little secrets should no longer be tolerated in society and that those systems should be held accountable.

Sandusky's defence lawyers argued that one of the motivations for the victims was to be able to sue and gain money. Yes, Sandusky and Penn State should be held accountable and that might mean paying money as a form of restitution. But there is no amount of money that will make up for the permanent, negative impact that sexual abuse will have on a child. There is no mistaking that such abuse creates life long changes that affect all aspects of a person's life.

There is also the good news in the conviction of Msgr. William J. Lynn. He is also in Pennsylvania. He was convicted for assisting the Catholic Church in covering up the sexual abuse by priests. This also opens the door for further accountability by institutions and systems for what goes on by those they supervise.

These convictions will not stop sexual abuse. They are public pronouncements that society is one step closer to taking strong stands that it is wrong and it will be something that society will take on stand on and send messages that it should not be tolerated. I should say will not be tolerated but I worry that there are still elements of society where it is going and the systems have yet to take the needed stand. Maybe this will crack open some of those doors.

Maybe also, these convictions will make it easier for other victims to step forward and tell their stories.

Mandatory Reporting Laws

There is often debate about whether mandatory reporting laws should exist. Should mental health, medical, education and other professionals be required to report cases where they suspect that child abuse is occurring? There have been many examples in the media where mandatory reporters have over reacted to information. In Canada, there is the recent case in Ontario where a child drew a picture of what was thought to be her father holding a gun. This resulted in an over reaction even to the point of the father being arrested.

What does a professional do when an older teenager discloses abuse in a session and then insists that the case not be reported? The child makes a cogent case that reporting will make things worse - what then? These are difficult ethical dilemmas for many professionals.

A court in the United States has shown the damage that can be done when a report is not made. While the case from Oklahoma shows that there were many errors including purposeful deceit, it does make the point that it is up to the child protection authorities to decide on a case, not the mandatory reporter.

In Florida, partially in response to the high profile Sandusky case one suspects, the legislature has now made it possible to levy serious fines on universities for failure to report. The Florida bill goes further according to Tampa Bay Online :

Additionally, the bill makes it mandatory for everyone to report suspected child abuse or neglect, even if the alleged perpetrator is not the child's caregiver. Previously, the public only was required by law to call in a report if a caregiver was responsible. 

 Opponents of mandatory reporting laws feel that they lead to an over reporting of cases and that pressure to err on the side of protecting the agency leads to unnecessary and intrusive actions by child protection authorities. They feel that it results in children coming into care who do not need to be there and thus, destroying families as well as dispersing resources that can be better spent on families that really are abusing their children.

This of course begs the question - if nobody is required to report, then how will cases get known to child welfare? Where is the balance?

Sandusky - A socially skilled child molester?

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published a recent article looking at the apparent ability of now accused child sexual abuser Jerry Sandusky to ingratiate himself into lives of children.  As the paper notes:

Long before his arrest this month on 40 charges related to child sex abuse, Sandusky successfully navigated the system's various background checks to become the adoptive father of five sons and a daughter, a foster parent, a host for a half-dozen Fresh Air Fund children from New York City and a congressional honoree as an "Angel in Adoption."

As the article points, no system is perfect but Sandusky appears to have managed to keep a profile as the helpful and supportive person who was there for many children. His behaviour should cause professionals to revisit the work of Carla van Dam, PhD and her 2006 book The Socially Skilled Child Molester. In it, she speaks of the ways in which people like Sandusky become trusted and, even more important, how they continue to get away with it. She notes that information remains buried in one of three ways:


1. Nothing is ever reported;
2. The information is reported but ignored, discounted, discredited and then discounted; or
3. The information is actively suppressed to protect the organization's reputation and the good name of the alleged offender.


The third will seem all too familiar in cases of church abuse, the recent allegations involving the Boy Scouts in Canada and the United States as well as the allegations surrounding Sandusky.


Van Dam speaks of 6 levels that organizations can fall into. They seem helpful as a way to approach organizations and help them to be better prepared to think about the possibility that an abuser could become part of their world. Individuals, organizations and communities can be at these places: 


1. total secrecy - stuck at the level where there is total denial that this could happen and they are naive to the practices of groomers. These are dangerous places for children as groomers may find entry much easier. Even when there are suggestions that something might be going on, it is easier for the groomer to deny, claim it was all a misunderstanding, there is a conspiracy against them, it was all innocent play, it was just poor judgment, there were medical concerns that were being addressed, it was part of parenting, helping out with hygiene or bathing, it was all just an accident or even that in some way the child was the offender or why would that child be believed because the child has problems.


2. Shock and disbelief that leaves the organization immobilized leaving them willing to accept alternative explanations because they don't want to believe that this could happen.


3. Street knowledge in which there is acceptance that molesters exist but not amongst anyone they would know.


4. Complaints are made and believed but they are seen as isolated and can be managed internally.


5. Allegations are taken to the police because there is recognition that even known and well liked people can be involved in molestation of children.


6. These are vigilant groups who recognize the need to be open and talk about what might be happening.


It is never to say that we want to create panic or extreme paranoia - only honest and open awareness. Since no system is perfect, communication, openness and a willingness to accept the possibility of sexual abuse will help to limit what a perpetrator can accomplish.


Reference:


van Dam, C. (2006). The socially skilled child molseter: Differentiating the guilty from the falsely accused. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.


Tonight there is the Bernie Fine case from Syracuse that is reported in the New York Times which tends to illustrate some of these points.