Personality Characteristics Of Falsely
Accusing Parents In Custody Disputes
Sixth
Annual Symposium in Forensic Psychology
HOLLIDA
WAKEFIELD and RALPH UNDERWAGER
Institute
for Psychological Therapies
ABSTRACT:
Files from contested divorce and custody cases where there were false
allegations of sexual abuse were reviewed. Compared to custody-only, falsely
accusing parents were much more likely to have a personality disorder. Most
of the individuals in the custody control group and in the group of falsely
accused parents were psychologically normal. A suggested typology of
individuals who make false accusation of sexual abuse in divorce and custody
disputes is discussed.
Child sexual abuse allegations have increased
dramatically in the past 10 to 15 years. Some authorities claim this is
caused by an increase in actual abuse of children and that we are in the
middle of an epidemic of child abuse. Others suggest that there may not be an
increase in abuse but rather an increase in reporting abuse. This is a more
hopeful view since the implication is that we are succeeding in our efforts
as a society to respond effectively to the reality that we brutalize and
savage our children.
False accusations are also increasing although
there is disagreement as to the frequency and nature of false claims.
Professionals agree that false accusations are most likely to occur in the
environment of vindictive and angry divorce and custody battles. Accusations
arising in divorce and custody disputes have received much publicity recently
and the there have been many articles about this in the professional
literature (Ash, 1985; Benedek & Schetky, 1985a & b; Bishop & Johnson,
1987a & b; Blush & Ross, 1987; Brant & Sink,. !984: Bresee.
Steartls. Bess. & Packer, Levy, 1989; MacFarlane, 1986; Murphy, 1987;
Ross & Blush, 1990; Schaefer & Guyer, 1988; Levy, 1989; MacFafiane,
1986; Murphy, 1987; Ross & Blush, 1990; Schaefer & Guyer, 1988;
Schuman, 1:986; Sink, 1988b; Spiegel, 1986; Underwager & Wakefield, 1989;
Wakefield & Underwager, 1988; Wakefield & Underwager, 1989; Yates
& Musty, 1988). Thoennes and Pearson (198.8) estimate that accusations of
sexual abuse are found in 2% to 10% of contested custody cases. There is not
agreement as to how many of these cases turn out to be false but most of the
estimates range from a third to four-fifths. Everyone agrees, however, that
the proportion of false allegations is higher when they arise in divorce and
custody disputes.
Out of over 400 cases in which we have provided
expert consultation involving sexual abuse in the past six years, 40% were
divorce and custody cases. [1 Line of text missing.] in that have been
adjudicated, for three-fourths there was no determination o[ abuse by the
legal system. Dwyer (t986) reports similar statistics. She states that 77% of
the divorce-linked sex abuse cases coming to the Human Sexuality Program at
the University of Minnesota have turned out to be "hoax" cases.
This is based upon the opinion reached by the system upon the individual
cases.
In our experience, accusations of sexual abuse
most often occur in a bitter and acrimonious divorce at all stages of the
process. Benedek and Schetky (1985a) report that they were especially common
in disputes about child custody that arise after a divorce has been granted
and center around issues of visitation. Wallerstein and Kelly (1975, 1980)
note that in a bitter divorce, not only is the child likely to undergo
significant stress, but the parents are likely to blame the child's anxiety
and distress on the other parent.
Most of the time the accusation is not a
deliberate fabrication on the part of the accusing parent. Many parents have
been influenced by the publicity about sexual abuse to make false accusations
based on misperceptions and false assumptions. However, in some cases a
parent can deliberately foster a false accusation as a way to get custody.
Thoennes and Pearson (1988) found that in 15% of the cases they studied, the
case worker expressed doubt that the report was offered in good faith.
As the system to respond to accusations of
sexual abuse has developed, it rewards the making of an accusation with all
manner of reinforcements. The person who is hated is punished. There is
social approval for accusing such reprehensible criminals. There is free
legal counsel, welfare payments, approbation and support from mental health
professionals, therapists, friends, family, neighbors. There is no response
cost for making an accusation. As Green and Schetky (1988) state:
A small number of parents caught up in custody
battles or visitation disputes have exploited the epidemic of sexual abuse by
using such allegations to promote their own interests at the expense of their
child and their former spouse. Allegations have become a surefire way of
getting a judge's attention and cutting off visitations. They have the same
emotional impact that issues of adultery once had in custody battles a decade
or more ago (p. 104).
Gardner (1986) also notes that an accusation of
sexual abuse is a powerful Weapon in a divorce and custody dispute. The
vengeful parent may exaggerate a nonexistent or inconsequential sexual
contact and build up a case for sexual abuse. The child, in order to
ingratiate himself with the accusing parent, may go along with this. He
describes a "parental alienation syndrome" in which the child
identifies with the vilifying parent and communicates absolute hatred toward
the other parent. A false accusation of sexual abuse may develop in this
situation (Gardner, 1987a).
Gardner (1986) also observes that in some cases
a mother who is obsessed with hatred toward the father may bring the child to
the point of having paranoid delusions about the father. A "folie â
deux" relationship may evolve in which the child acquires the mother's
paranoid delusions (Ferguson, 1988; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1981; Rand, 1990).
Green (1986) states that such women are usually diagnosed as histrionic or
paranoid personality disorders, or paranoid schizophrenics.
Blush and Ross (1987) and Ross and Blush (1990)
have reported on the personality characteristics of the parties involved
arising in the context of unresolved custody and visitation. They gathered
social, psychological, and legal data from allegations arising in a family
services clinic of a circuit court setting in Michigan. They report that
information from several years of such cases provides suggested patterns
characterizing accusations that are more likely to be false. Variables
important are the escalation and timing of the cases, the personality
characteristics of the adults involved, and the behavior of the children
involved. They termed the typical pattern when the allegations turn out to be
false the SAID (Sexual Allegations in Divorce) Syndrome (Blush & Ross,
1987).
1. The accusations surface after separation and
legal action begins.
2. There is a history of family dysfunction with
unresolved divorce conflict and hidden underlying issues.
3. The female (accusing) parent often is a
hysterical or borderline personality or is angry, defensive and justifying.
4, The male (the accused) parent is generally
passive, nurturing, and lacks "macho" characteristics.
5. The child is typically a female under age
eight.
6. The allegations surface via the custodial
parent.
7. The mother takes the child to an
"expert" who confirms the abuse and identifies the father as the
perpetrator.
8. The court reacts to the expert's information
by terminating or limiting visitation.
Ross and Blush (1990) describe three personality
patterns they have observed in falsely accusing parents.
The first is the histrionic personality.
This individual appears anxious, concerned, and nervous and presents herself
as victimized by her estranged spouse. She describes herself as manipulated,
coerced, and physically or psychologically abused by this spouse and
perceives her child as now in danger of victimization from him. Her interpretation
of her child's behavior appears to be an extension of her own feelings, with
the result that she develops unusual and inappropriate sexual concerns about
her child. She may regularly examine her child's genitals, take the child for
repeated medical exams, or interrogate the child about possible sexual
activity.
The justified vindicator
is a variation of the histrionic personality. This woman initially offers an
intellectually organized, assertive, and justified agenda which many facts,
figures, and opinions supporting her evidence. She presents herself as
justifiably outraged and concerned by the behavior of her spouse. However,
when clarification is sought concerning the details, she becomes hostile,
resistant, and passive-aggressive. She will argue and counter even carefully
framed questions, is likely to discontinue contact with the evaluator who
challenges her statements, and may threaten to sue or make ethical complaints.
The borderline personality,
by virtue of a basic propensity and the stress of the divorce, functions in a
highly dysfunctional way and may lose contact with reality. This person may
be most readily identified by peculiar and bizarre descriptions of events in
her history.
We have also observed that parents who make
false accusations of child sexual abuse in acrimonious custody situations are
likely to have significant psychopathology. We therefore have been engaged in
an ongoing study of the personality characteristics of the parties in false
accusations of sexual abuse in divorce and custody disputes. To date, files
from over 165 cases of accusations of sexual abuse arising in an acrimonious
divorce and custody dispute have been reviewed. In many of the files, there
is sufficient information from professional evaluations to form an opinion
about the individual's personality characteristics.
In conducting a systematic analysis of the
psychological information in the files, we predicted that compared to parents
in custody disputes without sexual abuse accusations, parents who make false
accusations of sexual abuse during a divorce/custody battle will be more
likely to have demonstrated psychopathology in the course of an evaluation.
We also predicted that individuals who had been falsely accused would not
have more psychopathology than those in the custody control group.
METHOD
Subjects
Files from 165 cases where there have been
sexual abuse allegations during a divorce and custody dispute were reviewed.
In many of the files, there was sufficient information (from medical and
psychological reports, therapy and hospital records, test results, etc.) to
form an opinion about the individuals' personality characteristics. In some
of the cases, we had performed the evaluation, in others, the data was
obtained by other mental health professionals and was reviewed by us. We
limited the information we used to that given by physicians and mental health
professionals.
The criteria to select the cases of false
allegations were (1) the accused continued to deny the charge, (2) we
concluded, from our review of the entire file, that the accusation was likely
false, and (3) there had been no finding of abuse by the justice system. The
falsely accusing parents were compared to two groups--a group of parents in
contested custody cases in which there were no allegations of sexual abuse,
and a group of falsely accused parents. All cases had come into our private
practice clinic over the past five years. Some of the sample included both
parents in a case, but in others, we only had sufficient information about
one.
We found enough information in the 165 files to
include 64 falsely accusing parents (60 females and 4 males) and 97 falsely
accused parents (4 females and 93 males). There were 64 parents in a custody
control group (29 females and 35 males). The mean age of the accusing females
was 33.6; the falsely accused females 33.0; and the custody only females
32.3. The mean age of the accusing males was 36.3; the falsely accused males
37.0, and the custody only males 34.5.
Procedure
The available information was carefully reviewed
and a diagnosis was assigned to the person on the basis of the information.
The amount of information varied from case to case. In some of the files, the
persons had been interviewed and given multiple psychological tests by two or
three evaluators. In a few, the only information was a letter from a
therapist or physician giving observations or opinions about the person but
not a formal diagnostic statement. However, most of the files included
clinical interviews and testing. When the diagnosis was given by the
evaluator, this was used. In the instances where an actual diagnosis was not
given by the evaluator, we selected a diagnosis on the basis of the
information in the file. We also compared MMPI profiles in the subjects who
had MMPIs in the files.
Both of us reviewed the Psychological data and
assigned diagnoses when they were lacking. When we disagreed, we discussed
the case until we reached consensus. However, there was initial disagreement
on only a few of the cases because the information in the file was generally
detailed enough to arrive at a diagnosis with a reasonable degree of
confidence.
The subjects were then classified according to
the diagnoses. We combined persons who were given an adjustment reaction
diagnosis and persons who were seen as psychologically healthy or
"normal" for whom no psychiatric diagnosis was warranted. We did
this for two reasons: First, this adjustment reaction diagnosis was made in
terms of the person's reaction to the
disorder diagnosis may sometimes be used to meet
the third party payment requirement for persons who are essentially normal.
After assigning the diagnoses we then compared the groups.
Information on the actual MMPI profiles were
available for 59 of the custody only, 40 of the accusing, and 92 of the
accused parents. In most of these, we had the actual profile; in a few we had
specific information about profile validity or high points without the actual
profile. We used the available information to compare the groups on raw and T
scores on the validity and basic clinical scales.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the diagnoses given to the falsely
accusing females compared to the custody only females:
Table 1
Diagnoses of Falsely Accusing
Females
and Custody Only Females
|
|
No Diagnosis
Warranted
|
Personality
Disorder
|
Other
Diagnosis*
|
|
Accusing
N=60
|
17 28%
|
42 70%
|
1 2%
|
|
Custody
N=29
|
18 62%
|
10 35%
|
1 3%
|
X2
(2, N = 89) = 10.16, p < .01
|
Compared to the
custody only, the falsely accusing females were significantly more likely to
have a personality disorder diagnosis, 70% as compared to 35% Only one person
in each group was given a diagnosis other than one of the personality
disorders--in each case it was an alcohol use disorder.
The four falsely accusing males were all
diagnosed as having personality disorders.
Table 2 shows the diagnoses given to the falsely
accused males compared to the custody only males:
Diagnoses
of Falsely Accused Males
|
|
No Diagnosis
Warranted
|
Personality
Disorder
|
Other
Diagnosis*
|
|
Accused
N=93
|
65 70%
|
24 26%
|
4 4%
|
|
Custody
N=35
|
24 69%
|
7 20%
|
4 11%
|
X2
(2, N = 128) = 2.44,p < .30 >.20
*Custody
other: bipolar disorder, alcohol use disorder,depression (2)
Falsely
accused other: alcohol use disorder, depression (3)
|
There was no
significant difference between the falsely accused males and the custody only
males. In both groups most of the persons (69% and 70%) were seen as having
no psychopathology while a much smaller proportion (20% and 26%) were
diagnosed with personality disorders. Only a few persons were given other
diagnoses. In the two groups combined, there were five persons who were
diagnosed as neurotic depression, two alcohol use disorder, and one bipolar
disorder.
The four women in the falsely accused group were
all seen as psychologically normal.
The 29 females and 35 males in the custody only
group were then compared to each other and there were no significant
differences between them (X2 [2, N = 64] = 2.67, p < .30 >.20).
Therefore, we then combined males and females
and compared all three groups in Table 3:
Diagnoses
of Falsely Accusing Parents, Falsely Accused
Parents,
and Custody Only Parents.
|
|
No Diagnosis
Warranted
|
Personality
Disorder
|
Other
Diagnosis*
|
|
Accusing
N=64
|
17 26%
|
46 72%
|
1 2%
|
|
Accused
N=97
|
69 71%
|
24 25%
|
4 4%
|
|
Custody
N=64
|
42 66%
|
17 26%
|
5 8%
|
X2
(4, N = 225) = 43.29,p < .001
|
Almost
three-fourths of the falsely accusing parents were assigned diagnoses of
personality disorder while only one-fourth were seen as normal. In
comparison, only one-fourth of the individuals in the custody control group
and the custody control group had personality disorders and most (71% and
66%) were seen as normal.
Most of the personality disorder diagnoses for
all three groups were mixed or unspecified. This is a diagnosis given when a
person does not meet the criteria for one specific personality disorder.
Nineteen of the 46 accusing parents with personality disorders were given
this diagnosis. Within the unspecified personality disorder category, 8 of
the 19 persons had histrionic personality features. The other personality
disorders for the accusing parents were histrionic (6), dependent (6),
borderline (5), passive-aggressive (5), paranoid (4), and explosive (1).
Eight of the 17 custody only parents with
personality disorders were diagnosed as unspecified. The remaining 9 were
distributed fairly evenly among other personality disorders.
Eleven of the 24 falsely accused parents with
personality disorders were diagnosed as unspecified. The others were
passive-dependent (5), passive-aggressive (3), anti-social (2), schizoid (1),
compulsive (1), and narcissistic (1).
Information on the actual MMPI profile was
available for 55 of the custody only, 27 of the accusing, and 82 of the
accused parents. We compared the groups on raw and T scores on the validity
and basic clinical scales. The mean profiles for all three groups were within
normal limits. Most of the individual MMPI's for all subjects were responded
to with mild to severe defensiveness. The mean raw score for K for the three
groups was accusing, 19.5; accused, 18.4, and custody only, 17.6.
The mean profiles for the accusing females did
not differ significantly (t test) on the clinical scales from the female
custody only group. However, the accusing females responded more defensively
to the test. Their L and K scales were higher, and their F was lower than the
custody only females. This reached significance (p = .047) on the F-K index
(-14 for the custody females and -17.3 for the accusing females).
There was no significant difference in
defensiveness between the custody only males and the accused males as
indicated by the validity scales. The F-K index was -14.5 for the custody
males and -15.0 for the accused males. On the clinical scales, the two groups
differed significantly on raw scores.
DISCUSSION
Falsely accusing parents were much more likely
to have a personality disorder, such as histrionic, borderline,
passive-aggressive, paranoid, or unspecified. Only one-fourth were seen as
without psychopathology. In comparison, most of the individuals in the
custody control group and the accused group were seen as normal. Of the
personality disorders in the falsely accusing parents, roughly one-third were
diagnosed as histrionic personality or unspecified personality disorder with
histrionic features.
Personality disorders are difficult and
frequently misunderstood, but at the same time relatively common (Fleming
& Pretzer, 1990). Individuals with personality disorders have personality
characteristics which cause distress and impairment in daily functioning. The
DSM-III- R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) defines personality
disorders as "enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking
about the environment and oneself" which "are exhibited in a wide
range of important social and personal contexts" (p. 335). Such persons
are likely to misperceive the behavior of others and to react to stressful
situations in maladaptive ways. Depending upon the specific personality
disorder, they are characterized by instability of mood, impulsivity,
inappropriate emotional overreactions, a need for approval and attention, and
difficulties handling anger and conflict.
Several of the falsely accusing persons' level
of dysfunction was extremely serious, sometimes to the point of losing
contact with reality. Some believed they had rare spiritual powers and/or had
delusions concerning religion. One woman planned on traveling to Rome to
marry the Pope; another stated that she had gone to Switzerland to marry
Christ. One woman, a therapist, believed that she had exceptional empathic
powers that allowed her to sense who among her adult clients had been
sexually abused as children. Several were described as being highly unstable
and unpredictable, displaying hysterical and bizarre behaviors, and sometimes
failing to distinguish between fact and fantasy. The women with histrionic
personality diagnoses were described as displaying manipulative, flamboyant,
coquettish, or exhibitionistic behavior and being preoccupied with appearance
and attractiveness, along with having a tendency to distort events.
Several women were described as having symbiotic
relationships with their children and two were diagnosed as having developed
a folie â deux relationship with an older child, who also came to share the
beliefs about the abuse. In several of the cases, the behaviors Gardner has
described as the "parental alienation syndrome" (1987) were
evident. In such cases the child accepted and internalized an irrational
hatred of the father in the absence of any convincing evidence for such
hatred.
The falsely accusing parents were sometimes so
obsessed with anger towards their estranged spouse that this became a major
focus in their lives. Such persons were often described by the evaluators as
being} oppositional, hostile, negative, and resistant in the evaluation and
concern is expressed that the anger towards the former spouse supersedes the
needs of the child. One woman made frequent calls to her husband's job,
alleging that he was a pervert and a thief and should be fired. She also
tried to run down her husband's attorney with her car. Another called our
office to tell us that her husband was a deadbeat and would not pay his bill
with us. She also accused him of being involved in the Scott County sex ring,
an accusation that was simply impossible as the man was out of the country at
the time. Such women fit Ross and Blush's (1990) "justified
vindicator" that was described earlier.
Several of the women remained obsessed with the
suspicion that their former spouse was sexually abusing the child, even after
the case was dismissed or judged to be unfounded. Some took their young child
for multiple physical and psychological examinations and made repeated
accusations of abuse to child protection. A few regularly examined the
genitals of the child following visits. Some had been questioning the
children about possible sexual abuse for years.
A few, when the case was not substantiated,
moved to another county and started the accusations over, continuing this
pattern until a child protection worker was found who substantiated the
accusation. One woman arranged for a television station to interview her so
she could publicly accuse her husband of sexually abusing their child. This
included a videotape of the child.
What about the four men who made false
accusations? Although we cannot generalize from a sample of only four, these
men appear to be quite similar to the falsely accusing women. One
(unspecified personality disorder) was described by the evaluator as
extremely defensive, angry, hostile, hypervigilant, and lacking in accurate
perception of others. Another (dependent personality disorder) was seen as a
docile and passive man who had a Chronic behavior pattern of developing
dependent relationships. A third (unspecified personality disorder) was seen
to have characterlogical tendencies to be guarded and defensive and to deny
and repress his considerable anger, suspicion, and hostility. The fourth
(paranoid personality disorder) had gone through seven attorneys--they all
kept dropping him because of his manipulative, angry, suspicious, and hostile
behavior. In addition to accusing the teenage son of his estranged wife's
roommate of sexual abuse, he accused his present wife of physically abusing
their new baby.
In an acrimonious custody conflict, such persons
may be Primed to assume the worst about their estranged spouse and to jump to
conclusions when presented with minimal data. Any suspicious circumstances
may lead to suggestive interviews and reinforcement of a young child, and
statements about abuse may be unknowingly molded and developed. The
individual with a personality disorder, involved in a difficult and stressful
divorce, may be more likely to misinterpret, overreact, and come to a false
conclusion.
But the parent making the accusation does not
have to be histrionic, paranoid, or vindictive. Even normal individuals, in
the midst of an angry dispute over custody, may be ready to believe that
their spouse has sexually abused their children. Some parents may be
influenced by the campaigns about child abuse to make false accusations based
on misperceptions and false assumptions. They may then take their child to a
mental health professional who interviews the child with anatomical dolls and
assures them that the abuse is real. They may be told that a physical examination
"proves" sexual abuse. A social worker may threaten to place their
child in foster care if they don't believe that the abuse really happened.
And once an accusation is made, it becomes extremely difficult to retract
even when new evidence is presented.
In most of the cases we have reviewed, the
allegations do not appear to be deliberate fabrications made for the purpose
of obtaining custody. Instead, the publicity about sexual abuse, the frequent
publication of the so-called "behavioral indicators," and the
proliferation of prevention programs has resulted in many people becoming
hypersensitive to the possibility of abuse and unwittingly participating in
the development of a false allegation.
What about the men (and four women) who were
falsely accused of sexually abusing their children? These falsely accused
parents appear to be relatively ordinary persons. Ross and Blush (1990)
describe the men they have seen as unremarkable. They may be may be nurturing
and passive and unlikely to be socially aggressive or competitive. Our
finding support this. The mean elevations on scale 5 for both the falsely
accused men and the custody only men suggest that they are apt to be
sensitive, imaginative, caring, and somewhat passive in their personal
relationships. Those with personality disorders are likely to be diagnosed as
passive-dependent or passive aggressive. The accused men's slightly higher
elevations on scales 1 and 3 also suggest passivity along with a lack of
insight into their personal relationships. Some of these men, by virtue of
their sensitivity and caring, may be vulnerable to involvement with needy
women. Once involved, they may behave somewhat passively as they continue to
hope that all will work out.
Hatred
The behaviors, statements, and often written
material in the files we reviewed show an emotion which, though known to all
of us, is not often dealt with--hatred. As we worked with this material it
became evident that psychology as a science has little or nothing to say
about hatred. Nosologies of pathology have no classification for hatred. We
know of no psychological literature describing hatred, studying it, or doing
a research project on it. There is a large amount of material on anger but
anger is not synonymous with hatred. This lack of interest in hatred as a
psychological concept is surprising insofar as hatred is the obverse of love
and there is a high level of interest in love among psychologists.
Hatred has surely been known by thoughtful
persons for centuries to be closely connected to love. Love and hatred are
intertwined in a complex and little understood fashion. In secular Greek
literature from approximately Homeric times, the harpist Habrotonon says
"It seemed as though he loved me, but he hates me with a divine hatred
(Kittel, 1967, V. 4, p. 683)." In Hebrew literature (Old Testament) very
often a man hates or is tired of the wife he has lived with for years (Gn.
29:31, 33; Dt. 21:15; 22:13, 16; 24:3; Ju. 14:16; 15:2; Sir. 42:9; Is. 54:6;
60:15). "Then Ammon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith
he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her (2 S.
13:15)?
There may be an effect of a failed marriage,
which of necessity must be a failure of dreams, visions, aspirations, and
hopes, that generates the intensity of emotion and level of hostility that
can only be seen as hatred. However, hatred is not likely to show up on the
MMPI, the Rorschach, a sentence completion form, or even in a clinical
interview. Psychologists who are more accustomed to anger may simply miss the
pervasive, passionate, and driving force of hatred. Nevertheless, in our data
hatred appears as a construct and an emotion that may have a determining
effect on behavior to produce false accusations. Hatred is not necessarily
pathology. It may be ethically. constrained and valued negatively, but it
does not imply lack of contact with reality, neuroticism, or a defect in
character. Normal people may be moved to hatred. It may be that clinging to
hatred across time produces self-defeating behavior and pathology, an insight
found across all ages and cultures, but the experience of hatred is not
confined to disturbed or disordered individuals.
The role played by hatred in the development of
false accusations of child sexual abuse may As yet, there is no satisfactory
way to measure or assess the construct of hatred.
Ross and Blush (1990) note that the trend in
society to accept and to "decriminalize" divorce by enacting no
fault divorce may have contributed to this. The removal of the social stigma
and the sense of moral wrong from the divorce process eliminated the forum
whereby persons could prove their case against a spouse whom they believed
had done them wrong. The absence of this increased the unfinished business
between divorcing persons. The sense of unfinished business along with the
desire to be vindicated is likely to fuel the hostility and hatred and
contribute to the increase in false claims of sexual abuse in divorce and
custody disputes.
A Suggested Typology
On the basis of our data, there appear to be
four overlapping categories of parents who make or encourage false
accusations of sexual abuse in divorce and custody battles:
1) The first type is the highly disturbed
individual with a personality disorder which interferes with her functioning,
judgment, and sometimes her ability to differentiate between fact and
fantasy. Such individuals often have a history of psychiatric involvement and
unstable relationships. They are often seen by others as unstable, moody,
impulsive, and overreactive. Under the stress of the divorce, they are apt to
overreact and misinterpret events and jump to conclusions about abuse.
2) The second type is the person (who may or may
not have a personality disorder) whose hatred and hostility towards her
estranged or former spouse has become an obsession with her. She tries to do
whatever she can to hurt him and their child may become a pawn in the ongoing
battle. She may call his friends, employer, or relatives in her attempt to
win them over to her side and hurt him. The welfare of her child is secondary
to the battle with the despised former spouse. The parental alienation
syndrome is found here.
3) In the third type, the woman is obsessed over
the possibility that her child has been or may be sexually abused. The woman
may have been sexually abused or raped herself or she may have just
overreacted to the media attention to abuse. In either case she is now
hypervigilant about the possibility of this happening to her child. She may
question the child repeatedly, examine her genitals following visits, and
take the child to doctor after doctor. In one case, the woman's suspicions
began when the father gave his daughter, then under a year old, a bath. The
woman was convinced that his desire to bathe his baby daughter meant he had
prurient interests in her.
4) In the fourth type, a woman reacts fairly
appropriately to an ambiguous situation by seeking guidance from therapist or
physician. The child may report that she has bathed with her father and
touched his penis or she may make a confused statement which sounds
suspicious. The woman, not wanting to handle this by herself, calls a
professional.
Sometimes, when there is no abuse, the situation
is clarified and eventually concluded. But the professional may come to
premature closure and tell the woman that her child has clearly been sexually
abused. She is told that she must believe that the abuse is real, visitation
with the father is cut off, the child is placed into play or group therapy
for the abuse and the story is supported and encouraged. By the time the
family has been involved in the system for several months it may become
extremely difficult to sort out the truth. In this fourth type, the woman
herself may be a victim of the system along with the accused and the child.
CONCLUSIONS
The increasing frequency of accusations of
sexual abuse in contested divorce and custody cases means that professionals
must be very cautious. It is necessary to remain open and objective, guard
against a presumption of guilt, and resist aligning oneself with the
reporting parent's agenda. Unfortunately, some professionals are ready to
come to premature closure with minimal information and leap to the conviction
that a child has been abused. Klajner-Diamond, Wehrspann and Steinbauer
(1987) say one of the four factors of adult influence suggesting a false
accusation is a professional committed prematurely to the math of the
allegation.
If a mistake is made and a false accusation is
judged to be true at any stage in the process, two people are hurt--the child
and the accused. The nonabused child has been subjected to a process of
interrogation and often to sexual abuse therapy that is confusing and
potentially iatrogenic. The falsely accused adult is likely to suffer
emotional and physical trauma, family breakdown, and economic hardship
(Schultz, 1989). His relationship with his child may be irretrievably
damaged.
All professionals should learn possible
indicators of a false accusation of child sexual abuse. When there are
factors understood to be associated with a false accusation, the possibility
should be examined and not dismissed out of hand. There are increasing
conceptualizations of indicators of false accounts, reports in the
literature, and some research projects beginning to collect empirical data
(Benedek & Schetky, 1985a; Berliner, 1988; Bresee et al., 1986; de Young,
1986: Faller, 1988 Gardiner, I987a&b,; Jones & McGraw, I987;
Klajher-Diamond, Wehrspann, & Steinhauer, 1987; Kohnken & Wegener,
1982; Mantell, 1988; Paradise, Rostain, & Nathanson, 1988; Quinn, 1988;
Raskin & Yuille, 1989; Rogers, 1989; Schetky & Green, 1988; Sink,
1988a & b; Steller, Raskin, & Yuille, undated; Wakefield &
Underwager, 1988; Wehrspann, Steinhauer, & Klajner- Diamond, 1987; Yates,
1988). These efforts should be supported and encouraged and the results
carefully and responsibly examined.
The personality characteristics of the parties
involved when accusations of sexual abuse surface in a bitter divorce and
custody should be considered in evaluating the allegations. in the absence of
corroborating evidence, when the parent making the accusation is disturbed
and the accused appears to be psychologically normal, the probability is
increased that the accusation is false.
