Basic Investigative Protocol for Child Sexual Abuse.

Few crimes elicit such moral outrage and desire for social retaliation as the sexual abuse of a child. As with many other crimes, most experts would say that this occurs with far greater frequency in our society than what official statistics reflect. Estimates from independent research vary considerably, not only because of the covert nature of the crime but also because of variations in methodology, definitions, and sampling techniques.

Some experts estimate that 20 percent of girls and 9 percent of boys are sexually abused during childhood(1) and that one person in three is a victim of that crime before the age of 18.(2) In short, child sexual abuse occurs with alarming frequency.

Largely due to increased activism by former victims, a growing appreciation exists for the need to enhance law enforcement's capability for recognizing and properly investigating these crimes. In aiming to accomplish those objectives, most states now require that police and child protective service (CPS) agencies conduct joint investigations of child abuse. Unfortunately, the idea has not gained universal acceptance. One possible drawback stems from conflicting philosophies that sometimes exist when the police work in partnership with outside social service agencies. The lack of resources needed to provide essential joint training for police and CPS investigators presents another problem. Consequently, some joint investigative approaches become so informal and methodologically flawed that they can actually compound the harm to the family already caused by the criminal act. In the worst-case scenario, police may incarcerate the wrong person, while the child remains accessible to the real perpetrator.

Ultimately, police administrators should recognize that the basic rules of criminal investigation are not optional; they must be applied in conjunction with a multidisciplinary approach. If this is done, the model will serve as an excellent blueprint for avoiding tragic investigative mistakes.

THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

In 1995, the state of Oklahoma adopted a multidisciplinary team approach for investigating reports involving sexual abuse or severe physical abuse and neglect of children under Chapter 71 of the Oklahoma Child Abuse Reporting and Prevention Act. Section 7110 of the act mandated that each district attorney convene a meeting of a coordinated multidisciplinary team. Each team would consist of at least the following members:

* a licensed mental health professional or counselor;

* law enforcement officers with experience or training in child abuse investigations;

* medical personnel with experience in child abuse identification;

* CPS workers within the department of human services;

* a multidisciplinary team coordinator or child advocacy center director; and

* a district attorney or designee.

The teams would perform the following functions:

* review investigations, ensure the child gets needed services, and facilitate efficient and appropriate disposition of cases;

* develop written protocols for conducting investigations and interviewing victims;

* prepare a written agreement, signed by all members, specifying the role of the team;

* increase communication and cooperation among law enforcement, medical, and counseling professionals;

* eliminate duplicative efforts;

* identify gaps in service and seek additional resources within the community that can provide services to the victim and family;

* encourage discipline-specific and cross-discipline training of investigators;

* formalize a case review and case-tracking process; and

* standardize investigative procedures.

The model adopted by Oklahoma parallels similar approaches used by many other states. In fact, by the early 1990s a majority of states had either mandated or authorized multidisciplinary teams for investigating child abuse. The federal government also has required that states establish such teams if they receive federal funds through the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974.(3)

Undoubtedly, the success of this model depends on adequate training of the investigative team. In fact, many police departments rely on an on-the-job training approach to teach officers about child abuse investigations. Officers are frequently moved directly from patrol duties to a position within a specialized unit. Managers expect them to know the basics of investigation from their academy experience and from serving on patrol. Managers may send the new officers immediately for specialized training, but this represents the exception rather than the rule. Most often, administrators assign a more experienced investigator with an officer for training purposes, and while many officers have acquired excellent investigative skills in just this fashion, some have not. Unfortunately, many departments become either unable or unwilling to spare the resources needed for additional education beyond on-the-job training. Unless new specialists engage in self-development, they risk inheriting bad investigative habits from their peers.

In addition to mandating joint training, a correctly implemented team approach incorporates a written protocol to guide the conduct of the investigation. This establishes a common reference point and mutual understanding that will enable team members to avoid or effectively deal with conflicts that might arise when agency philosophies clash. For instance, police officers might be more interested in building probable cause for an arrest, while CPS workers remain more concerned with preserving families. Joint training and established protocol can serve as reminders that the welfare of the child remains the absolute first priority.

Experts agree that adequate training and written agreements are significant in police joint investigations. For instance, one criteria for joint investigations might be keeping interviews to a minimum. This means that representatives from both police and CPS agencies should attend or observe the session. Moreover, the best-trained person available should conduct all interviews.(4) Although team members should, at a minimum, receive joint training in interviewing child victims, they should know when it becomes appropriate to graciously defer to greater expertise and experience. Interviewers must remember that the welfare of the child must prevail.

If possible, prosecutors and other members of the multidisciplinary team also should observe the interviews. To ensure greater coordination and collaboration, the teams should formalize pre- and postinterview conferences and case-review meetings. In fact, administrators should encourage the careful monitoring of all aspects of the investigation by adopting a formal, standardized investigative protocol.

A police department may find a well-structured, multidisciplinary approach quite beneficial, and especially safer, due to the continued monitoring by other professionals. This approach proves efficient because all involved continue to maintain contact and share pertinent information and ideas. Investigators receive continued input and support from other professionals, reducing serious mistakes. In effect, if applied correctly, this method virtually guarantees a quality investigation. In fact, a more formal, adequately trained team with a structured protocol and a cross-disciplinary review mechanism may result in a flawless investigation. Problems can emerge, however, when informal alliances form in the absence of a structured multidisciplinary model.

Child sexual abuse falls under the jurisdiction of CPS agencies, which conduct civil investigations, and law enforcement agencies, which conduct a criminal investigation. Because these investigations overlap, the two entities must communicate and share information, even in an informal process. This remains especially true in the absence of a standardized protocol because one agency might defer to the presumed expertise of the other and fail to independently verify crucial information. For instance, police officers might opt for the shortcut by simply accepting, at face value, the conclusions drawn by CPS workers during their investigation.

In the academy, all new officers are taught the concepts of criminal investigation. These basics should be retained and applied in practice. They are, after all, merely commonsense rules to guide any investigation. They certainly could be applied to child abuse cases.

THE COMMONSENSE RULES OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Know Investigative Responsibilities

An ethical component to criminal investigation that should remain deeply imbedded in the psyche of all officers is their responsibility to the lives affected by the crime and its aftermath. The effects of being wrongly accused of child abuse and taken into custody for such a crime prove almost as heinous as the crime itself. The accusation alone attaches a stigma that remains difficult, if not impossible, to lose. The responsibility for protecting innocent people from this kind of victimization rests squarely on the shoulders of the investigator. As with all criminal investigations, when inquiring into allegations of child molestation, the investigator must exercise sound judgment. If the police arrest or falsely accuse an innocent person, no number of apologies or retractions can undo the irreparable damage suffered to that person's reputation. In order to protect the innocent by arresting the true offender, officers must act with restraint and investigate only the facts, rather than how they perceive them.(5) A good investigator never forgets this foundation when conducting investigations.

Do Not Rush

Police should quickly apprehend a predator who targets children. However, an overzealous pursuit represents a dangerous way to perform police work. Police must conduct an investigation meticulously and in a timely manner. The investigator who operates predominantly on the basis of speed runs a high risk of contaminating the case by missing evidence, overlooking additional leads, and perhaps even providing the perpetrator with a greater opportunity to cause additional contamination. Investigators should not begin an investigation before considering the dynamics of the situation and the relationships of the people involved. While flexibility remains essential for gathering information and evidence as they become available, the general conduct of the investigation should be well thought out in advance. Identifying individuals whom officers should question certainly is a prerequisite; however, the order in which the officers question those people might have a significant bearing on the quality and amount of information obtained. The criminal investigation is not a static process. Officers must continue to adapt and even change the course of the investigation as additional information emerges. Often, the perpetrator and others involved intentionally lie and attempt to hamper the process. This remains especially true in incestuous child sexual abuse cases involving several family members. By moving too fast, the investigator may miss some vital clues.

Get Both Sides of the Story

Investigators often find that collecting information from all parties may be the easiest rule to learn and retain. New officers usually appreciate the significance of this rule after their first domestic disturbance call. All investigators should realize that even when dealing with minor disputes, getting only one side of the story and acting on it can have dire consequences.

In virtually every case of child sexual abuse, someone will attempt to deceive investigators. Therefore, investigators must avoid the temptation of accepting initial statements at face value, regardless of how sincere the source appears. One example includes a case where the parents of an abused child are involved in a bitter divorce. Obviously, strong motives may exist for one parent to accuse the other of sexually abusing the child. Investigators must remember that young children exposed to severe family conflict remain susceptible to parental influence; therefore, children can be repeatedly coached to doubt their own perceptions. In discussing incidents of false accusations, consider the following example in which a parent used coaching.

A 5-year-old girl repeats and matter-of-factly volunteers a litany of complaints against her father but becomes evasive when pressed for specifics and shows no sexual themes in her play. She is later overheard in the waiting room telling her mother, "I told the doctor all the things you told me to - aren't I a good girl?"(6)

In addition to coaching, unresolved posttraumatic stress symptoms can lead a child to initially accuse the wrong person. For this reason, investigators should not use the data from the observation of a child with an allegedly offending parent to validate a complaint of sexual abuse.(7)

Child abuse investigations can become a perilous process if officers do not maintain self-discipline. Investigators must resist the temptation to draw conclusions and take sides before exploring all available sources of information.

Conduct Well-Planned Interviews

Investigators must contact every person who might have relevant information about the case and conduct a meticulous interview. The interview should be

individual, private, and uninterrupted to gain as much information as possible.

In order to properly prepare for an interview, investigators should plan the session far enough in advance. They should try to learn as much about the subject's background as possible and prepare general questions before the session. Simply spending a few minutes with one person out of a group of individuals called in for an interview will not result in information of any appreciable quantity or quality. In fact, such a style might actually endanger the case - if the perpetrators are among those interviewed, they might benefit by learning the course of the investigation and what they can do to further contaminate it.

Investigators do not know how long a well-planned and properly conducted interview may take because new questions might emerge during the process. The fact that others wait nearby for an interview simply distracts the process and possibly may even rush the session. Even the most knowledgeable criminal investigator has limitations and can damage a case right from the start by ignoring this fact.

A primary objective of the multidisciplinary approach is ensuring that the most qualified investigator interviews an abused child as few times as needed, ln child sexual abuse cases, quantity becomes detrimental to quality. Preferably, the interviewer should have formal education or specialized training in early childhood development and forensic interviewing. If possible, the investigator should videotape the entire session for later review.

Interrogating the suspected child molester requires particular expertise because when questioned by the police, suspected molesters typically offer lies and excuses that border on pathological. These explanations may appear logical, and a less experienced officer may believe the suspects' replies or forceful denunciations of their accusers.(8) A novice interrogator may find difficulties with a suspect who is skilled in the art of deception and who has little empathy for the victim.

Experts have observed that if the evidence rules out total denial, pedophiles may switch to a slightly different tactic - attempting to minimize the crime. These offenders often know the law and might admit to lesser offenses or misdemeanors.(9)

Eliminate Tunnel Vision 

Investigators should concentrate on building the strongest case possible; however, they should not focus exclusively on one suspect as the only likely perpetrator. Experts often refer to this as tunnel vision. An officer who falls into this mindset tends to conduct an inflexible, linear investigation and ignore other possibilities in the process.

This mistake may prove especially tragic in cases of child sexual abuse. The longer perpetrators go undetected, the more likely they can access and manipulate a victim child not in protective custody. Furthermore, the target of the investigator's bias will suffer considerable emotional stress merely from being labeled as the suspect in such a repulsive crime.

However, another crucial concern may plague the police: if the investigator does have a strong case against an individual, the possibility remains that more than one perpetrator may exist. This reinforces the premise that investigators should identify and carefully interview everyone who has had access to the child. Tunnel vision refers to the kind of closed-minded thinking that causes an officer to overlook such an obvious possibility.

Tunnel vision also can prevent investigators from following important leads. Regardless of how insignificant a potential new lead might seem, investigators must follow it. Some experts consider this an ethical responsibility that the investigator owes to the victims and their families. Those seemingly insignificant matters have a way of ambushing the prosecutor at trial. If a defense attorney can demonstrate that a lead that went unfollowed would have cleared the defendant, the blame quickly will shift to the officer who had the time, resources, authority, and responsibility to follow it.

Additionally, investigators should seek second and third opinions. Another investigator might suggest additional leads never considered. Although any officer may develop some degree of tunnel vision, especially when focusing on a likely suspect, a fresh perspective might help the investigator to refocus and possibly point out potential problems with investigative protocol.

Understand Probable Cause

Investigators should exercise particular caution when deciding whether adequate probable cause exists to make an arrest in a child molestation case. A premature arrest can result in the loss of key evidence that a more thorough investigation may discover. Furthermore, investigators must remember that they may have only one chance to bring the perpetrator to justice. A case may be lost due to insufficient or illegally seized evidence (i.e., because of insufficient probable cause).

An ethical component of criminal investigations exists that cautions against relying upon unfounded suspicion and conjecture to justify an arrest. When the source of information seems unworthy or where additional information about a serious charge would be readily available, an investigation remains incomplete. Additional factors relevant to determining probable cause in such instances may include the reputation of the accused, whether police afforded them an opportunity to offer an explanation, and the need for prompt action by officers. Especially in a child sexual abuse case, investigators should consider strongly whether an immediate arrest proves warranted or necessary.

Keep the Case Open

Although a child sexual abuse case might be closed officially when cleared by arrest, the investigator's job is far from complete. Continued monitoring of a child sexual abuse case remains absolutely essential. Simply, this means that the investigator must apply the principles of the multidisciplinary approach proactively by maintaining open communication channels with other professionals involved in the case, as well as with the victim's family. The investigator must keep abreast of any further developments that might indicate a problem with the case. Finally, the investigator should answer all questions before considering the case closed.

CONCLUSION

Building a case against a child sexual abuser can be a difficult task for any investigator. Although some individuals consider any crime serious, most believe that child molestation is the most contemptible of crimes. This fact alone might make these predators cover their tracks more carefully. It also should make investigating officers more eager to conduct thorough investigations.

If investigators have followed basic investigative rules and present well-prepared cases at trial, essentially, they have implemented the multidisciplinary method, even if their department has not formalized the approach. Yet, investigators still hold the responsibility to apply basic investigative principles to each case.

Like many complex cases, those involving child sexual abuse require the efforts and expertise of a number of professionals. By using this approach, investigators can help victims and society as they uncover and punish offenders.

Endnotes

1 K.P. Hymel and C. Jenny, "Child Sexual Abuse," Pediatrics in Review 17, no. 7 (July 1996): 236-250.

2 H. Vanderbilt, "Incest: A Chilling Report," Deviant Behavior: Annual Editions 96/97 (Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown and Benchmark Publishers), 64-76.

3 D.L. Sheppard and P. Zangrillo, "Coordinating Investigations of Child Abuse," Voices, March-April, 1996, 21-25.

4 Ibid.

5 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Management and Operations Division, Criminal Investigation: Specific Offenses (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1975).

6 E. Benedek, "Uncovering a False Charge of Child Sex Abuse," in John H. Stuemky's "Identifying Cases of Abuse and Neglect: Materials from Child Abuse Manual," Section of General Pediatrics, June 1997.

7 K.M. Quinn, "The Credibility of Children's Allegations of Sexual Abuse," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 6, no. 2 (1988): 181-199.

8 Supra note 5.

9 W. Bennett and K. Hess, Criminal Investigation, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1994).