PRINTABLE PAGE

Recantation in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

By Margaret Rieser
Originally published by Child Welfare; Nov/Dec 1991

This article pulls together coherently a rather sparse literature on children's not infrequent retraction of their earlier disclosure of having been sexually abused. Evidence to date indicates that very few originally lied. The pressures and circumstances that underlie recantation are multiple, and suggestions are made for mitigating them.

An 11-year-old girl who reported being repeatedly sexually abused by her grandmother's boyfriend over a four-year period wrote the following note to him when he was in jail awaiting trial:

Dear Mr. Sam: How are you doing? I'm sorry what I did to you, but don't worry, we will be getting out soon as we go to court. I hope you are not mad. I'll get you out, don't worry. I don't know what was going through my mind when I said that.

For practitioners working with children who have been victims of sexual abuse, the problem of recantation—a child revealing that she has been sexually abused and then later stating that she was lying in her earlier admission—is agonizing. Questions about the child's health and safety arise. Has this child been sexually abused? If so, why is she changing her story? If no sexual abuse took place, why did she initially claim that she was abused? How can we protect the child from further abuse, as well as provide her and her family with the help they need, if the child testifies in court that nothing happened?

Although there are few statistics on the frequency of recantation in child sexual abuse cases, the phenomenon is not uncommon. In one review of 630 cases of alleged sexual abuse, recantation occurred in 22% of the cases [Sorerisen and Snow 1991]. Russell [1986] conducted a study in which a random sample of more than 900 women were questioned regarding sexual abuse experiences. She found that 16% of the women had been incestuously abused as children. Two percent of those cases were reported to the police; what happened in the other 98% of the incest cases? Russell's subjects reported numerous reasons they never told anyone about the abuse: they were afraid, they didn't think anybody would believe them, they didn't want the abuser to go to jail. Stories were also recounted in which the child did tell someone, and that person, or a person in a position of responsibility, did not believe the child.

Recantation can take place before a case is reported to law enforcement and other professionals, or after a report has been made. This article focuses on incidents of recantation that take place subsequent to a formal report of abuse, since there is no awareness by professionals of sexual abuse incidents prior to reporting. The reasons recantation happens and its negative effects are explored. Finally, techniques for preventing recantation are discussed.

Why Do Children Recant?

False Allegations

Do children recant because they were lying about the abuse in the first place? Although defendants and defense attorneys involved in trials where children have recanted would like judges and juries to believe children lie about such things, lying appears to be quite rare. In a study reviewing 576 child sexual abuse complaints Jones [ 1987] found only eight fictitious allegations, or 1.4%. Several studies of child sexual abuse reports that were conducted in Denver and Boston found that only 2% to 4% of the allegations were false [Crewdson 1988]. Almost all of the false allegations came from older teenage girls.

[F]abrications are not only few in number, they are usually easy to detect. Most children are awkward liars to begin with, and a child who can sustain a false accusation over weeks of interviews with police and prosecutors is probably seriously disturbed. [Crewdson 1988]

The potential for false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce and custody cases, where a parent's vindictiveness may lead to prompting a child to lie about sexual abuse by the other parent, has become a growing concern. No evidence has appeared so far, however, that false reports are more likely in this context. BulkIcy [1988] mentions recent surveys of domestic court personnel that indicate that false allegations, while they do exist, are exceedingly rare.

Secrecy

Child sexual abuse is characterized by secrecy. Studies both by Russell [1986] and Finkelhor [1979], in which adult survivors of child sexual abuse were interviewed, reveal that most victims never tell anyone. "Most ongoing sexual abuse is never disclosed, at least not outside the immediate family. Treated, reported, or investigated cases are the exception, not the norm" [Summit 1983]. Maddock [1988] discusses the function of secrecy by describing the family in which incest takes place as having rigid boundaries between itself and the outside world. This creates an exaggerated feeling of family loyalty and "trap[s] the victim in a web of secrecy." Disclosure of the sexual abuse by the child is then-aberrant behavior. Following the act of disclosure and its consequences, the child tries to return to the earlier, and seemingly easier stance, which is secrecy.

Denial

Denial, a defense mechanism against the emotional pain and cognitive dissonance of the abusive event and the subsequent disclosure, is frequently employed by children and may also be a factor in cases of recantation [Maddock 1988]. Sorensen and Snow [1991] report that denial was a component in 72% of the 630 sexual abuse cases they studied. In these situations the inability to recognize consciously certain feelings or experiences may defend against the experience of disclosure, the abuse experience itself, or both.

Lack of Support and Pressure to-Recant

The third and perhaps greatest factor that may lead child victims to recant is that they are not getting enough support from those responsible for their health and safety or that they are under direct pressure to take back their admission.

When no adult intervenes to acknowledge the reality of the abusive experience or to fix responsibility on the offending adult, there is a reinforcement of the child's tendency to deal with the trauma as an intrapsychic event and to incorporate a monstrous apparition of guilt, self-blame, pain, and rage. [Summit 1983]

Discussing such a painful experience is difficult for everyone, but for children it is almost impossible if they are not getting support for telling the truth from a parent or caregiver. Because the sexual aspect of the experience can cause a great deal of fear, guilt, and confusion in children, recantation-an attempt to make the whole thing go away—would be an inviting option even when children are getting support for the admission.

Adults have many ways to resolve disharmony in their environment, but children tend to feel rather powerless over their own discomfort. In addition to the absence of control, the fact that children operate in a time frame very different from that of adults means that a month of having one's mother furious at one for disrupting the family may be experienced by a child as unbearable. Options such as leaving home, or reasoning that even though it is painful right now in the long run things will be better, are not available to young children.

Qualities that tend to be present in incestuous families, such as strict control by the father, isolation, and lack of control on the part of the children, also contribute to the pressure on the victim to recant.

Having been raised in a family system that emphasizes paternal authority, she is now caught between conflicting authority figures and, once again, can become a victim in a situation over which she has little or no control. … Outsiders question her closely about her experiences, with one or both parents disputing her recollections. She must now snuggle with the discrepancies between her representations of experience and the representation of the same persons who have been most influential in teaching her how to map reality-an enormously stressful situation that she cannot avoid except by recanting her story. [Maddock 1988]

Children may also be under direct pressure from family members to recant [Sgroi 1982]. Emotional dependence and the loss of financial support caused by the incarceration of the abuser are frequently motives for pressuring children to recant.

Dependent on the family in almost every way, children who have revealed that a member of their family, frequently a stepfather or father, is a child molester are in a critical position. As Summit explains, "[w]hatever a child says about sexual abuse, she is likely to reverse it, … Her father abandons her and calls her a liar. Her mother does not believe her or decompensates into hysteria and rage" [Summit 1983]. Finding themselves in a situation seemingly worse than the one they were in before their disclosure, children may try to return to the earlier state of relative peace by recanting.

Societal Attitudes

Why is it so difficult for adults to believe that children are telling the truth when they admit that they are victims of sexual abuse? Why is so much time spent wondering if they are lying? Many adults admit to being shocked that child sexual abuse is as widespread as we are discovering it is: "How could someone do a thing like that to a child?" Secrecy and concomitant fear on the part of children and adult survivors of sexual abuse to talk about their experiences are other sources of adults' disbelief [Finkelhor 1979].

Freud's positing of the oedipal theory, that children fantasize sexual relationships with their parents, contributes to children's allegations of sexual abuse not being taken seriously [Quinn 1988]. When Freud first encountered patients who admitted to being sexually abused by their fathers he was surprised but did report his findings as what he called the "seduction theory"-that fathers did sometimes "seduce" daughters. Freud's colleagues did not accept his theory, and Freud, in order to regain professional respect, withdrew his findings and developed the oedipal theory as an alternative explanation [Masson 1984]. According to some theorists, this ideology, which includes denying the abuse and blaming the victim, has been the most serious impediment to gaining a real understanding of child sexual abuse [Finkelhor 1979]. It should be noted, however, that controversy has raged for years over Masson's work on Freud.

Societal attitudes toward children also suggest that children are not credible witnesses. Historically, in the United States, children have had far fewer rights than adults. Following the well-publicized outcomes of the Jordan(Minnesota) and McMartin Preschool cases, where the prosecutions were unable to prove that the children's allegations were true, a backlash reaction occurred. Some adults, such as members of the group VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws), claim that they must protect themselves against seductive or vindictive children [Summit 1983]. Claims have been made, especially in the McMartin case, that children were brainwashed by parents and therapists into believing that they were sexually abused. Recantations are used to support the assertion that children do make up stories of sexual abuse.

In recanting, a child usually tells a nonabusing family member that she was lying. She will present a motive to explain why she ever made such an allegation, such as: "I was angry at my father because he put me on punishment." "This simple lie carries more credibility than the most explicit claims of incestuous entrapment. It confirms adult expectations that children cannot be trusted" [Summit 1983].

Child and Family Interaction with Professionals

Although the number of child sexual abuse cases not reported to child welfare officials and the police is not known, those that are reported follow a similar course. Pursuant to a report, children are taken to the hospital where they are interviewed and examined by a doctor. They are then interviewed by one or more police officers. Next, social workers from the child protective services agency are required to interview the child. Sometimes, if the protective services agency determines that the child is not safe in her home, she may be placed in a foster home or other protective setting. At this point the trauma is far from over. The child must then testify at a preliminary hearing and will be questioned and prepared to testify by the district attorney. Family members may be subpoenaed to testify as witnesses for either side. Finally, up to one or two years later, the child will probably be called on to testify at the abuser's trial. At the trial she will have to testify about her sexual abuse in front of a judge and possibly a jury, while the defendant, who may be a close relative, is present. She will also have to undergo cross-examination by the defendant's attorney [Bulkley 1988].

With the system functioning at its best, it is not difficult to understand why a child might want to withdraw her admission of abuse when she realizes what she must undergo. It is also easy to understand why a parent, even a supportive one, might encourage a child to recant under these circumstances. If one or more of the professionals with whom the child and family must interact is less than sensitive or understanding about the needs and feelings of those with whom she is working, what might have been simply a painful and prolonged experience is now a further source of trauma.

Intervening Events

It is not unusual for a year or more to pass before a trial is held in cases that are prosecuted. Faced with disruptions and delay, children and families are often in crisis during this time. One of the family members, either the abused child or the abusive adult, may have been removed from the home. The child victim may be living with a relative who does not take good care of her or is even abusive. The family may sustain a financial loss, making them even more economically dependent on the abuser. In short, as more time passes between the child's initial report of the abuse and the judicial resolution of the case, the risk of recantation increases.

Case Example

In Jordan, Minnesota, in 1984, charges were dropped against 21 defendants who had been accused of sexually abusing children in their small community. The victims, who originally disclosed complex and horrifying events, were interviewed by both the police and therapists. After months of interviews, foster care placements, trial delays, harassments by members of the community, and several of the children being severely cross-examined in the first case that came to trial, some of the children said that they had lied about some of the things that they had reported earlier. Even though medical and other physical evidence existed that supported the children's initial accounts of what happened, the district attorney determined that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the other trials. The children were returned home to parents who had been arrested for sexually abusing them.

This example illustrates a number of elements common to recantation cases, such as removal of the children from their families, harassment by the community, multiple interviews, cross-examination, and lengthy trial delays.

The Problem with Recantation

Why should we try to prevent recantation? Some might argue that retraction by' children :is their way of asserting that they want the charges against the abuser dropped. Children have this right in cases in which they are the victims. One might even argue that recantation is simply an expression that they made up the story and their statement that they were lying should be taken as the truth. Given what we know about the dynamics of child sexual abuse, especially in the family (where the phenomenon is most likely to occur), recantation is a problem. A child's testimony is very often the only evidence upon which a child sexual abuse case is prosecuted. Rarely is there physical evidence or an eyewitness.

First, children will not be able to process what has happened to them if they are not able to talk about it. Talking about traumatic events is widely recognized as an effective way to come to terms with what has happened [Patten et al. 1989].

Second, if no prosecution takes place, or if it cannot be proved that the alleged perpetrators did in fact sexually abuse the children, the victims may return to living in the abusive situation with no protection. They are very likely to be reabused. If family members do offer protection, other children, both inside and outside the family, are likely to become victims of abuse.

Third, recantation offers victims a short-term resolution to some of the pressure they are experiencing, but in the long run it is likely to lead to even greater trauma because the children must now continue to lie and to live with the fact that they are lying. For children, even more than adults, who become experts at rationalizing untruthful behavior, this can be very stressful and lead to problems such as nightmares, bedwetting, illness, and inability to concentrate in school. Furthermore, if a case is brought to trial, the judicial process will bring the recantation to light and can make the trial process even harder on the child.

Finally, when children recant their revelations and the criminal charges are dropped, other perpetrators of child sexual abuse may be reinforced in the perception that as long as the child can be manipulated into recanting, their actions will have no negative consequences. Especially in widely publicized cases, the problem of recantation can have far-reaching negative effects on children and society.

Responses to Recantation

Although there is no way to guarantee that children who have admitted to being sexually abused will not recant, there are ways to diminish the possibilities. Early interventions can be made by social workers and those working directly with the children and their families. Summit [1983] suggests that children be provided with special support following an admission of intrafamilial sexual abuse. He further calls for "immediate [clinical] intervention to force responsibility on the father."

Quinn [1988] recommends exploration during the early assessment phases of the case for motivation on the part of children to make false allegations. Questioning children about this early on might make it less likely for them to suggest later that they made up the allegations.

Skilled clinical treatment for both children and perpetrators of sexual abuse can also prevent recantation. If a clinician is helping children to face the trauma that they have undergone, as is suggested by Patten et al. [ 1989], the possibility that they will recant will be greatly reduced. If family members can be included in treatment, they may be less likely to encourage children to recant their disclosure, since they are receiving support in their own processing of the experience. When perpetrators also undergo treatment soon after the disclosure of the abuse, less family trauma and less pressure on the child to recant may result.

Finally, clinicians who develop an understanding of, and a rapport with, a particular family, may be able to implement alternatives to prosecution that would result in safety of the child and treatment of the perpetrator without the destruction of the family that the child may be trying to avoid by recanting. The clinician must be able to present a convincing argument to the district attorney for nonprosecution.

No studies have yet been made of social work intervention to prevent children from recanting, but many suggestions have been made for court reforms that would make testifying in court a less traumatic experience for children. If stress and intimidation can be reduced, children may perceive court as a more inviting resolution than withdrawing the claim of abuse [Goodman and Helgeson 1985; Meyers et al. 1989]. Bulkley [1988] presents six innovative approaches to reducing trauma on children during the criminal court process. She suggests that cases be investigated by interdisciplinary teams, .maximizing the skills and minimizing the disruption to the child and family. Coordinating juvenile and criminal court proceedings is another way to reduce stress. Third, Bulkley calls for the appointment of a special advocate for the child. She suggests techniques such as videotaping interviews or employing one-way mirrors as ways to prevent multiple interviews and stress on the child. She also calls for special sexual abuse prosecution units so the same prosecutor can be involved in all stages of the case. Finally she states the need for alternatives to having a child testify in open court, such as using videotaping, closed circuit television, or screens to hide the defendant, and closing the courtroom to the public. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Maryland v. Craig [1990], held that the child's right to protection can be weighed against the defendant's right to face his or her accuser. Conte and Berliner [1981] encourage enlisting social work advocates for children who have been sexually abused. The advocates, among other activities, can educate court personnel about-developmental, psychological, and medical needs of their clients.

Videotaping a child's early statements about the sexual abuse has been debated for some time [Goodman and Helgeson 1985]. Many people hold that in the McMartin Preschool case it was the use of these tapes that led to the defendants' acquittal, since the tapes showed that the children had been asked leading questions in order to get admissions and testimony about the abuse. Much has been written about avoiding leading questions, and also on the uses of anatomical dolls with young children.

Attorneys and clinicans have called for the use of expert testimony as another way of dealing with recantation in court, and as a way to increase the credibility of the child's testimony. The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome has not been accepted as a part of medical terminology and thus its diagnosis cannot be testified to by expert witnesses [Vachss, as quoted in Hechler 1989]. The syndrome consists of five categories: secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed unconvincing disclosure, and retraction [Summit 1983]. He argues that while none of the behaviors are to be seen as definite signs that the child has been sexually abused, they are also not to be taken as indications that the child is lying. If children recant their disclosures of sexual abuse, the defense attorney can use this as a way to attack the reliability of their testimony. The prosecutor would then bring in a psyctfiatrist, psychologist, or social worker who could testify that the child's recantation is not an indication of her reliability [Bell 1988]. Although evidence of the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome has been admitted in some cases, it has generally been held inadmissible in court because it is not established as a "scientific fact" [Holmes 1989].

Conclusion

Recantation occurs when children admit that they were sexually abused and later state that their earlier admission was a lie. Children may recant for a number of reasons. They have accommodated to the secrecy surrounding the abuse and attempt to achieve the secrecy again. As a form of emotional protection, they may deny that the abuse took place. An absence of support for telling the truth or pressure to lie may also lead to retraction. Our society tends not to take children seriously, including their sexual abuse allegations against adults. Children or families may have a negative relationship with the professionals involved with the case, which may influence the children to try by recanting to make the case go away. Finally, if a long time passes between the original disclosure and the trial, there is a greater chance of an intervening event encouraging recantation.

The problem with recantation is that without prosecution of the case, these children and other children may not be safe. If children do not admit to having been sexually abused, they will not be able to overcome the trauma of the abuse. Furthermore, child sexual abusers may take less seriously the threat of prosecution.

Interventions can be made to prevent recantation and to minimize its effects. Victims of sexual abuse should have an advocate for them appointed early in the proceedings to provide them with early and continual support. Both children and abusers should receive mental health treatment directly following disclosure as another source of support for the children. Finally, judicial changes should take place so the experience of testifying and gathering evidence is less traumatic for children.

References

Margaret Rieser, M.S.S., M.L.S.P., is Social Worker, The Support Center for Child Advocates, Philadelphia, PA.

Address requests for a reprint to: Margaret Rieser, The Support Center for Child Advocates, 801 Arch Street, Suite 608, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Copyright of Child Welfare is the property of Child Welfare League of America
Source: Child Welfare, Nov/Dec91, Vol. 70 Issue 6, p611, 11p