Sunday, September 1, 2013
Statement Analysis in Protecting Children From Sexual Abuse
I have babysat them on a few occasions as they are well behaved and content with me. It bring s me back to when Christina and Sean were little.
Her children also have cousins of whom I have enjoyed playing with, on lunch hour, for example, of when I have had some free time. We throw a ball, or I organize games of tag, relay races or running bases. Since they are all boys, I recognize the definition of a boy:
A boy is " noise with dirt on it."
I love it!
I run them down until they are tired, and keep them away from their video games (which I believe is destroying an entire generation of children's reading ability, but that's for another article) and return them nice and tired...
tired boys are better behaved boys.
Recently, when offering to drive her boys somewhere, I offered to take the cousins, too. They would be well behaved for me and I had enough seat belts.
"Uh, well, its probably not a good idea", my friend said, looking a bit sheepish. "It's just that their parents don't know you."
Because of having spent so much time with our families, it did not dawn on me until that point and I was glad to hear it. Too many parents don't take such precautions.
Even if it is a short meeting, it is better than nothing.
Meet your children's teachers.
Meet your children's coaches.
Meet anyone who wishes to spend time with your child. Anyone.
Even a short meeting can let your parental instinct come into play.
You may consider me odd, and perhaps it is the literal thousands of interviews I have conducted, especially in the child protective services years, where I have had to ask, in each and every case, about possible sexual abuse.
How can you know if your child's coach is sexually attracted to your child?
This is the critical question and already, seasoned veterans of this blog know exactly where I am going. They know how to answer this question, without thought.
"Are you sexually attracted to children?"
Objection: This is ridiculously over-simplistic and naive.
Answer: Just like the Reliable Denial is ridiculously over-simplistic and naive, which is why it is so challenging to get law enforcement to listen.
How many times must a boy say "I didn't do it. I didn't kill my sister" before the idiots interviewing him believe him?
Better yet, how many times must the guilty avoid the Reliable Denial before the untrained or poorly trained recognize the failure to deny?
Listen to the answer. Listen carefully. Get him (or her) into the Free Editing Process. (For new readers, this is where one is choosing his own words, rather than entering in to your language, repeating back to you, your own words. In the Free Editing Process, it is extremely rare for someone to lie outright. For more on this, please read through various cases, and search on the blog on "Free Editing Process" as taught by Avinoam Sapir, www.lsiscan.com).
Now, given the context, it will likely be accompanied by some sensitivity indicators, unless, of course, you are able to bring up the topic (in a gentlemanly, but firm manner, dads, or a lady-like, but firm manner, moms) of protecting your children. In this context, asking,
"Are you sexually attracted to children?" will not have the accompanying shock where the sensitivity in the response is due to the surprise.
You will be able to learn much from the response. You also have the ability to post it anonymously here, and allow others' eyes to view it. Be certain to include context, so that we are able to know if the question, itself, was done in a shock.
I have asked the question, "are you sexually attracted to children?" many times, and each time where I heard "no", with little else, I have been confident in the safety of the child, and did not find new information that contradicted it. In each case where the answer had sensitivity indicators (plural), that alarmed me, subsequent information, including subsequent reports, confirmed for me the fear I had.
I even had one man pass a polygraph because he had never "molested" a child before. His statement clearly showed deception, but the polygraph results showed no deception.
When I compared the language, I learned that the polygrapher did not, in the pre screening interview, learn the subject's personal, internal and subjective language. He did not "molest", in his mind, he "tickled" the victim.
Subsequently, he was accused again, though I did not learn what came of the investigation. His written statement even showed the timing of the sexual abuse, and his statement matched the disclosure by the victim, precisely.
He knew that I knew.
A child can be sentenced to a life time of physical and psychological pain, medical complications, substance abuse, self-loathing and so much else, by a single moment of molestation.
In today's world where it feels that restraints of common decency are removed, and human sexuality is being reduced to amoral biology, parents cannot be too careful.