Subject: Still Presumed Guilty: An Update

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 06:41:16 GMT

This afternoon, I went to my bank and on the way back to work, decided
to grab a sandwich at Rax.  I went through the drive-thru.  When I got
to the speaker, the guy taking the orders came on and said, "Welcome to
Rax.  What can we get for you on this lovely afternoon?"  My reaction
was to give him my order, but while doing so, think to myself, "Oh,
great, some phony friendliness.  That's all I need right now."  When I
pulled up to get my stuff and pay the man, he was just as cordial.  I
forget what he said to me, but it was way beyond the customary, "Have a
Nice Day!" bullshit.  In fact, as I pulled off, he said, "I hope you
have a wonderful afternoon" looking me right in the eyes and smiling.
I was overcome.  I looked back, smiled, and said, "I hope you have one
too."  His smile just beamed even wider.

Why would he do that?  Why would he try to spread "good will and
kindness?"  How can he possibly benefit from going out of his way to be
nice to others?  Could it be because he gets it back?

Of course.  He feels good making others feel good.  And frankly, I
needed it.

			*	*	*

Almost a month ago, I informed everyone in usenet in about 5 different
newsgroups that my ex2b had come up with allegations that I sexually
molested my oldest son, Alex (who is four-years-old).  She made the
allegations four days before we were to have a meeting with a guardian
ad litem in which he was going to put together a new schedule and rules
that both of us would have to abide by.  It would have been the first
time in over 8 months that she would have been answerable to anything,
and it would have given me standard visitation rights to see my sons.
If I did OK with that (and there is no reason to think that I
wouldn't), in two months he would have given me more time with the
kids, and recommend to the court that I get joint custody.  He truly
believed that my wife was lying to him, exaggerating about everything,
and he felt that I was very honest - in his mind, almost "too" honest.
He thought that - because I admitted my feelings to him and because I
told him the truth about mistakes I had made.  He was also starting to
agree with my sentiments that my ex2b was playing Meryl Streep (sp?).
In fact, in the mediation session we had with him about 5 weeks ago,
she lost her temper, threatened me (yelling at me about the child
endangerment charges that she had had filed against me for spanking my
sons, that the trial would take place, that I would be found guilty,
and that I would go to jail), cried and lied about "everything"
possible.  She even told the guardian who I had gone out with in
February, and what time I had gone home the night before.  (Only a fool
would assume that she has been having me followed.  NOT!)

So, she probably left that mediation session thinking that it didn't go
well for her.  Then, several days later she came up with the
allegations that I sexually molested my oldest son....

			*	*	*

About 10 days ago we had an emergency hearing for a change of custody,
due to her making false allegations of sexual abuse, her persistence in
trying to destroy my relationship with my sons, her final bid for sole
custody.  None of the "experts" investigating this case had completed
their investigations nor filed any reports.  We were in limbo.  My ex
had not taken the children to any mental health professionals, even
though she had been told to do so as soon as she came forth with the
allegations.  She had been to Children's Services with my oldest son -
twice.  We had no reports from anyone.

During the process of trying to gather as much information as possible
on false allegations of child sexual abuse that arise during
custody/visitation disputes, I got in touch with the executive director
of the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center, Kim Hart.  In
talking to Kim, I found out that her old attorney was my ex2b's present
attorney.  She said he is an extremely ethical man, but that he would
continue to represent his client.  More about him later, because he is
very interesting....

At that hearing about 10 days ago, we found out that my ex had
scheduled an examination/evaluation with Dr. Charles Johnson at
Children's Hospital.  All three attorneys in this case virtually
freaked.  The man's reputation is that he is a narcissistic asshole who
substantiates everything - I mean everything.  He has gone to a few
seminars on child sexual abuse, so he considers himself the
self-appointed expert of Franklin County.  And, of course, Children's
Services loves to refer people to him, because he substantiates - and
that is exactly what they want.  Doctors that don't substantiate, don't
get any more referrals from Children's Services.  Pretty cut and dry.
My attorney made a motion with the court that my ex2b not be allowed to
take my son to this doctor, because of his terrible reputation.
Instead, the three attorneys in this case would choose one that was
more objective - a real expert.  The referee in my case, Don Martin,
said that he did not have the authority to tell my ex2b what doctor she
could take the children to - he had no power in this regard.  My
attorney corrected him, but to no avail.  So, she filed a motion for
another emergency hearing to take place this last Monday, to get a
court order to have the examination/evaluation videotaped, and to hear
testimony on contamination and coaching, and how three- and
four-year-olds were especially susceptible to their mother's influences
of getting them to lie.

Also, at that hearing, because none of the "reports" were in, we asked
for visitation - supervised.  My ex2b would not agree on the times, so
the referee had to "decide/contemplate/think about it for a while."  He
said he would try to get his decision out as soon as possible.  It has
been almost 10 days, and I have still not been notified of his
"decision."  My attorney hadn't either - as of yesterday.  I have not
seen my children for over a month.

Finally, at this first hearing, while in conference with the referee in
chambers, my attorney, the guardian ad litem, and even my ex2b's
attorney all expressed that they were extremely skeptical of these
allegations.  That and a quarter would buy a cup of coffee with Referee
Don Martin.  He wanted to know what my lie-detector results were.  My
attorney told him that I hadn't taken one.   She also told me that she
told him something like, "Now, Don, you surely don't mean to suggest
that lie-detector test results mean anything, do you?"  His response
was something like, "Well, when I was an attorney, I would send my
clients to have them done and they would confess."  (He hasn't
practiced as an attorney for 9 years - and only practiced for 5 or 6
before he became a referee.)  My attorney told him that I would NEVER
confess to something I didn't do.

Move forward to the second hearing.....

At this second hearing, the referee still had not finished his ruling
on my visitation - apparently he was too busy (except his docket was
empty everyday - he had no cases scheduled).  But he did enter a ruling
on our motion to have the examination/evaluation at Children's Hospital
videotaped - he made the ruling - they had to videotape.

That was Monday.  On Tuesday, my attorney contacted Dr. Charles Johnson
and told him that she had a court order for him to videotape the
interview/examination/evaluation of Alex Hoffmeyer.  Dr. Charles
Johnson told my attorney that he refused to comply with the court
orders.  He didn't want to be second guessed, having to justify why he
was moving forward when he asked one question and moving backwards when
he asked another.  In fact, he said he had hard scientific
recommendations that such proceedings should not be videotaped - said
it was damaging to the kids.  Well, this conversation between my
attorney and Dr. Charles Johnson virtually turned into a shouting
match.  Dr. Charles Johnson was right, nobody could tell him what to
do, and that was that.  He even "produced" his expert documentation
that videotape should not be used in such interviews.  It was written
by an assistant prosecuting attorney in California - a wee youngster.
When my attorney told him that Dr. Richard Gardner, Dr. Ralph
Underwager, Karol Ross, Kim Hart, Dr. Lawrence Spiegel, Dr. Hollida
Wakefield, Dr. Elissa Benedek, Dr.  Gordon Blush, Dr. Alayne Yates,
Dr.  LeRoy Schultz, Dr. Lee Coleman, Dr. Timothy Campbell, Dr.
Margretta Dwyer, Dr. Domeena Renshaw, Dr.  Arthur Green, Dr. Diane
Schetky, Dr.  Lawrence Spiegel, Dr. Daniel Schuman, and Dr. William
McIver - all nationally recognized experts on false allegations of
child sexual abuse that arise during custody and divorce disputes - all
agree that such interviews should be videotaped - well, that and a
quarter would buy a cup of coffee with Dr. Charles Johnson.  He was
right, everyone else was wrong.

Dr. Charles Johnson did tell my attorney that, had he known from the
outset that these allegations came up during a custody/visitation
dispute, he would not have taken this case.  But now, since he was
already in it, and because he saw what this poor woman (my ex2b) was up
against (my attorney), he had no choice but to go through with it.

My attorney called me and told me to prepare for a substantiation -
Dr.  Charles Johnson is one of the truly low people on this planet - an
insecure asshole.

Wednesday - D-day.  I got the report yesterday from my attorney.  This all
came from my ex2b's attorney....

Apparently Andrea (my ex2b) showed up with "both" of my sons at
Children's Hospital - everyone there thought it strange, but she told
them that they both were now saying that their daddy had sexually
abused them.

Rewind.  The police detective, a Detective Kramer with the Columbus
Police, who has been investigating these kinds of cases for 15 years,
talked to my attorney several days ago.  He has been extremely
skeptical from the word "go" on this case - and for good reason -
everyone - including my ex2b's attorney, has told him to be skeptical.
His experience tells him to be "very" skeptical.  He told my attorney
that the children have been examined twice so far in this case - by
Children's Services.  My attorney wanted to know - why twice?  At the
first visit, Alex was taken away from Andrea and asked all "those"
questions by Children's Services - a social worker named Angela
Rodebaugh (why do they always have names like Angie, Dodi, Marty?).
Alex would NOT substantiate anything.  When Ms. Rodebaugh told my ex2b,
she was pissed.  She said he must have been too nervous.  Several days
later, she contacted Ms. Rodebaugh again and told her that Alex was
still telling everyone that it happened - neighbors, daycare workers,
etc. etc.  Could he have another shot at it?  

Sure.  Bring him in.

Well, isolate Alex from mom again and he once again says it didn't
happen.  They go out and tell Andrea.  She says, he must be nervous.
Let her in there with them and he might do "better."  So, they're curious
(and skeptical) - why not?  So mom goes in with Alex.  Once again he
says, "No."  But now, mom corrects Alex.  "Now, Alex, that's not what
you've been telling everyone one else.  Tell the truth.  Did Daddy do
that to you?"  Alex agrees with mom shaking her head up and down.

That's how Detective Kramer told it to my attorney - Angie told it that
way to him.

Detective Kramer also talked to my ex2b on Monday.  He had scheduled an
interview with Alex for Tuesday of this week - but after finding out
that Alex had already been interviewed twice on this case, and that he
was going to Children's Hospital on Wednesday, he called to tell Andrea
that he would just be at Children's Hospital on Wednesday, and there
was no reason to interview him another time.  Well, my ex told him that
he had only been interviewed once so far, that it hadn't been traumatic
for him at all, and offered, "What can I offer you to get you to come
out and interview Alex?"  Detective Kramer was flabbergasted at
that statement.  He refused to do an additional interview.

Fast Forward.  Wednesday.  Andrea shows up at Children's Hospital with
"both" boys.  It seems that Adam is now saying he was abused by his dad
too (although that was not the case when she talked to Detective Kramer
a few days earlier).  They take Alex first.  "Isolate" him from his
mom.  In reality, Andrea gets to observe from an ante-room with the
door open, behind a one-way mirror (I think - that is how they
typically do it).  Once again, he says, "No."  Then they talked to
Adam, who is three-years-old.  Adam says, "Yes."

Fast forward.  Andrea calls her attorney later that day.  "Alex didn't
do well," she says of the interview.  But Adam pulled through.

"Adam?" queried her attorney. 

"Yes, Adam is now claiming that Aaron abused him too."

She said that Adam told Dr. Johnson enough that he was going to
substantiate the abuse.  Detective Kramer, who was present, told Andrea
that he was NOT going to file charges against me.  According to Andrea,
he said there was not enough evidence.

So, that brings us almost to the present.  We really don't know what
Dr. Johnson "believes."  We got the word from Andrea.  I didn't talk
to my attorney today.  I don't know if Detective Kramer taped the
examination.  We asked him to.

			*	*	*

Almost six weeks ago, after we had our first mediation session with the
guardian ad litem, I called up Andrea's sister, told her that the
library books and toys I had checked out for the boys were due on that
day.  Could she please call Andrea and tell her to leave them on the
porch?

I went over to my old apartment, but one of the books and one of the
toys were missing.  I knocked on the door.  She opened it.  I asked
about the missing book and toy.  She said she couldn't find them.
Rather than look, she got a $20 from her purse and gave it to me (the
toy was $38 and the book $13).  I thanked her.  Then I asked her how
she felt about this mediation stuff.  She said, "Well,  we'll just have
to see how it goes."  Then I made my mistake - I asked her if she had
been informed of the progress in the child endangerment case.  She
said, "Not for a few weeks." (She has always claimed that she was not
the one pushing for me to be prosecuted - that it was Children's
Services and the police detective involved.  The prosecutor doesn't
quite agree with her statement though.  He basically says that she
wants it prosecuted.)  I told her that the Ohio Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers had filed a friend of the court brief on my behalf that
the charges be dismissed.  I told her that the judge didn't want to
hear my case - she has expressed this.  I told her that the prosecutor
really doesn't want the case, and the assistant prosecutor thinks the
case is a joke.  With that I could see the anger on her face.  Just
then, my sons, who were standing on the porch with us, took off around
the corner.  She chased after them.  But as she was running away, she
grimaced back at me and shouted, "You just fucked up Mr.  You're going
to get it now!"  My ex2b is slow, so it took her about a minute to
catch my sons.  When she got back, she was cruel in her language, but
not as angry.  "You just messed up.  That's all I'm going to say."

A week later she threatened me in the guardian's office - that I would
go to jail for spanking my sons.  Four days later, she accused me of
sexually molesting them....

			*	*	*

A few tidbits:

My ex2b's attorney is an ethical man.  He hates this case and has
expressed to my attorney that he doesn't like representing his client.
But he also believes that if he stays on the case, I will have a better
time of it.  If she gets some unethical, scumbag attorney, I could end
up crucified.  He used to live across the street from my ex2b's
parents.  He sort of knew my ex2b.

He has defended many people from false allegations of sexual abuse,
even during divorce custody and/or visitation disputes.  But he has
never been on the side of the person making the false allegations.  So,
because of his ethics, he is doing some things....  He is deposing Dr.
Charles Johnson and he and my attorney will rake him over the coals.
He has told my attorney that he has a defense trial for a man who was
falsely accused of sexual abuse later this month.  He wants my attorney
to go watch some of the tactics he uses.  He is also helping my
attorney find some local experts, because he knows that I don't have
the money to bring in the big guns.

I know who they are, but at $2500 per day, I can't get them until it
looks like they are my last hope.  Then I'll probably have to convince
one of my step-parents to get a second mortgage - neither of my parents
owns a house anymore - they divorced about 18 months ago - right before
my divorce started.

Kim Hart has agreed to testify in my case at no charge.  She knows I'm
innocent, and she likes me.  She thinks I might do more to correct this
problem than just about anyone has to date.  She really wants my case
to become the anti-Morgan_vs._Foretich case.  We need to let people
know this is a problem.

				*

So what about the future?  We have to find a "real" expert who will do
a real investigation - one that turns over more stones than `did the
three-year-old tell the good Dr. what his mommy told him to?'  That
will cost.  I owe my attorney $6000 and it (the bill) will grow by
leaps and bounds this summer.  Even if I am completely vindicated, and
I prove that she did all this maliciously, the final determination of
custody of my children rests with the domestic relations court.  Don
Martin.  Referee Lie-Detector.

				*

It was agreed in court last week that my ex2b pay half of the cost of
my supervised visitation.  I contacted the supervising agency that
supervised my visitation earlier in this case - well, I tried - they
are no longer in business.  So when my attorney told my ex2b`s
attorney, my ex2b offered to supervise my visitations.  My response:
"I don't want to be up on rape charges too."

				*

My attorney found another supervising agency.  She contacted my ex2b's
attorney.  According to my ex2b, the boys now have chicken pox.  The
supervisor has not had chicken pox.  According to my ex2b, the boys will
not be out of "quarantine" until June 24th - the date of my next hearing.
So I can't see the boys for two more weeks.  My attorney told me that if
my ex2b does not have a written doctor's note saying that the boys
definitely do have chicken pox, and that they will be contagious until
the 24th, we will file contempt charges.  But, if you are familiar with
contempt charges, they are only valid when filed by a woman.

				*

My attorney has really got it out for this Dr. Charles Johnson.  She
wants to prove that he is incompetent, to get, at the very least, the
court to rule that he can NEVER, EVER do one of these evaluations
again.  He is an incompetent.  She is considering filing a malpractice
suit or tort against him.

				*

Has any man ever successfully defended himself in a case like this?
All I've ever heard of is Dr. Lawrence Spiegel, who had all the
resources and all the money, and they didn't do anything to his ex-wife
in his case, although he did prove that the allegations were malicious.
All I keep hearing is that about the best any man has done is get back
to square one - after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.

				*

My attorney mentioned the lottery to me on the phone yesterday.  I told
her that I bought several tickets on Wednesday (the jackpot was $24
million).  She bought some too.  I told her that if I had won, I would
devote a major portion of the winnings towards helping people who are
in my shoes, righting the injustices of the judicial system, getting a
documentary done on this subject.  She told me that if she had won, she
would quit her practice and devote all of her time to helping people
like me - people that are dealing with these false allegations.  We
both feel that there can be nothing more unethical or heinous in all of
domestic relations law.  The worst part - maybe as many as 80% of these
allegations are blatantly false - but the court presumes guilt until
the accused can prove that they are innocent beyond a shadow of doubt,
that the accuser made the allegations maliciously, and even then, you
are still guilty.  Hardly ever does the accused get sole custody
because of the allegations, hardly ever is a normal relationship with
his children restored.

				*

How do I feel about all this?  It sickens me.  But I can't quit, I
can't give up, I can't get depressed and not take care of myself.
Often, unless a man has an attorney who is willing to go to any
length to defend his/her client against such allegations, they lose.
Many are in jail right now.

I talked with Christine Cook earlier this evening (a local VOCAL
representative that has stirred up a lot of dust over false sexual
abuse allegations).  She told me that a man had contacted her last
night.  His ex has accused him of sexually molesting his children.  He
retained an attorney for $5000.  His attorney made him go take a lie
detector test.  He failed.  The attorney advised him to plead.  He did,
on his attorney's advice.  But he called Christine and said, "I didn't
do it.  I didn't know what to do.  I've already pleaded to a lesser
charge.  What can I do?"  Christine asked me what he could do.  I said,
"He pleaded.  That's an admission of some kind of guilt.  Even if it was
crappy advice from a scum-bag attorney and he didn't do it, he's
fried.  He has no recourse.  He can try, but he won't get anywhere.
The best he can hope for is to get pseudo-normal visitation restored at
some point with his children.  To get that, he has to go through the
social system's obstacle course.  He will never get custody.  He will
never get his name cleared.  He will never be able to resume a normal
relationship with his children."

The most compelling example I heard recently came from a Mr. David
Pohlschneider.  He attended a local fathers' rights group meeting several
months ago.  The guest speaker was one of the judges from the Franklin
County Domestic Relations Court.  He asked the judge what he could do
about his ex-wife making allegations that he sexually molested his
children.  The judge told him he needed to get a good attorney and tried
to end it with that.  But David had driven 150 miles to our meeting.  He
had sent out letters to every fathers' rights group that he could get
information about east of the Mississippi - over 50 groups.  We were the
only group that answered.  He was not about to be put off that quickly.
He told the judge that he made minimum wage at a part-time job and had no
money for a lawyer.  He said his ex-wife had not made the allegations
formally, just told everyone and had threatened him that if he tried to
see the children, she would go to the county agencies and make the charges
formally.  She is refusing to allow him to see his children.  One of his
daughters is three, the other is five.  If he files to get his
visitation restored, his ex has threatened to go ballistic, and then he
would have to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars that he
doesn't have to fight her.  The judge told him that he had to utilize the
system, file for his visitation, then fight her allegations of abuse.  A
practical member of the audience told him to find some way of bribing her
to see his children.  It would be less expensive, he would at least have a
chance, and maybe, eventually, she would lighten up.  Fighting in court
would be disastrous - he had no chance.  It's a sad commentary on the
system when the practical advice, the real, "good" advice, is to take your
lumps and stay out of the system - the system will bleed you dry and
you'll lose EVERYTHING.  Well, if you're a man.

And that, my friends, is what America HAS become.

			*       *       *

My attorney has told me that it is time to tell the world.  This is a
serious problem - false allegations of child sexual abuse that arise
during divorce and custody disputes.  It is getting worse.  Because she
wants me to tell everyone about it - including posting here - I have
contacted a local TV station, the local city paper, and Inside
Edition.  Next week, I hope to contact 60 Minutes, 48 Hours and 20/20.
The local TV station wants to develop my story into a series.  The
local city paper is assigning a reporter to my case.  Inside Edition
will be here next week to talk to me (and others).

There is a prevalent attitude that where there is smoke, there must be
fire.  The presumption of the guilt of the accused is the rule - for
the sake of the children.  Yet, in divorce custody/visitation disputes,
the system is erring totally in one direction - in favor of the
allegations.  The statistics on false allegation that arise during such
situations range from 33% of them being blatantly false to 80% (from a
paper by Dr. Hollida Wakefield and Dr. Ralph Underwager).  Wakefield
and Underwager feel that the false reports are probably even higher
than the 80% figure.  Very few of these cases are ever prosecuted - but
the domestic relations courts and juvenile courts rarely back away from
their initial presumption of guilt.

Quoting Underwager and Wakefield:

	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 it
	indicates that we are succeeding in our efforts to respond
	effectively to the reality of child abuse.

	There is considerable confusion about the relationship between
	incidence and prevalence estimates of child sexual abuse.  The
	most recent incidence estimate reported is in the National
	Center for Child Abuse and Neglect Second National Incidence
	Study (1988) suggesting an incidence rate for sexual abuse of
	children at 2.5 per 1000, depending upon the definition used.
	The actual prevalence rate cannot exceed a multiple (years of
	childhood) of the actual incidence rate, so the most likely
	prevalence rate is around 4% [for all children from newborn to
	age 18].  This is considerably less than many suggested
	prevalence rates, which range from 3% to 62% in different
	surveys and average 20 to 30%.

	Prevalence estimates are most often based on retrospective
	memory surveys of adults about their childhood experiences
	[wherein a disproportionate number of those responding to the
	surveys WERE abused].  Retrospective memory involves
	reconstruction rather than recall and may be inaccurate since
	we often make up stories about our past in order to make sense
	of our present (Dawes, 1988).  Prevalence surveys do not
	attempt to relate the prevalence estimate to the incidence
	rate.  One of the more carefully conducted surveys that did not
	use retrospective reports, however, reported a prevalence rate
	of 5.3% - which is closer to what the incidence rate suggests.
	(Siegel, Sorenson, Golding, Burnham, & Stein, 1987)

	False accusations of sexual abuse are also increasing although
	there is a disagreement as to the frequency and nature of false
	claims.  However, many professionals believe that false
	accusations have become a serious problem in vindictive and
	angry divorce and custody battles.  Consequently, such false
	accusations have received much publicity and there have been
	many articles about this in the literature [long list of
	authors and dates].

	It is difficult to determine how often sexual abuse accusations
	occur in custody and visitation disputes.  Theonnes and her
	colleagues (Theonnes & Pearson, 1988a & b; Theonnes & Tjaden,
	1990) attempted to get information on the incidence and
	validity of sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody
	cases.  [I have those reports.]  [Brief explanation of how
	Theonnes & Co. collected their data.]

	They report that the initial survey and interviews revealed a
	consensus that sexual abuse allegations in custody disputes
	occur in "a small but growing" number of cases.  They estimate
	that the allegations of sexual abuse are found in approximately
	2% of contested cases (the range across court sites was 1% to
	8%).  They state that there are one million divorces annually,
	and of these, about 55% or 550,000 involve minor children.
	About 15% of these result in court involvement due to custody
	and/or visitation disputes.  Their estimate of 2% of sexual
	abuse accusations in 82,500 custody disputes translates into
	1,650 cases of sexual abuse accusations annually with the
	environment of the divorce/custody dispute.

	We suspect this estimate is too low.  [Or they could have said,
	"Bullpuckey!"]   In addition to the 200 cases of sexual abuse
	allegations of divorce and/custody disputes in which we have
	been formally involved, we have informally consulted on many
	more.  We receive two to three calls or letters every week.
	[And more about how almost everyone knows someone that this has
	happened to and that even their colleagues have been accused in
	nasty divorces.]

	The large number of cases being seen by us and by others who
	have communicated with us suggests that the actual frequency
	may be higher than Theonnes and Pearson's estimate.  For
	example, many matrimonial attorneys report that they are now
	handling more custody cases with sexual abuse allegations
	(Fisk, 1989).

	There is no agreement as to how many of these cases turn out to
	be false, although most of the estimates range from one-third
	to four-fifths.  [Theonnes & Co. reported abuse was likely in
	50%, no abuse was likely in 33% and 17% were indeterminant.]
	However, the decision as to whether the abuse was factual was
	made by child protection workers, rather than by the justice
	system.

	Most professionals believe that the proportion of false
	allegations of child sexual abuse is highest in divorce and
	custody disputes.  Out of approximately 500 cases in which we
	have provided expert consultation in the past six years
	involving sexual abuse allegations, 40% were divorce and
	custody cases.  Of these divorce and custody cases that have
	been adjudicated, for three-fourths, there was no determination
	of abuse by the legal system.  That is, charges were dropped,
	never filed, the person was acquitted in criminal court, and/or
	there was no finding of abuse in family court.

	Dwyer reports similar statistics.  She states that 77% of the
	divorce-linked allegations of sex abuse cases coming to the
	Human Sexuality Program at the University of Minnesota have
	turned out to be "hoax" cases.

	In our experience, accusations of sexual abuse 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.

	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 of sexual abuse to make false
	accusations based on misperceptions and false assumptions.
	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 be blame the child's
	anxiety and distress on the other parent.

	However, in some cases a parent can deliberately foster a false
	accusation as a way to get custody.  Theonnes and Pearson
	(1988b) report 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 making the accusation.
	There may be 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 state:

		A small number of parents caught up in custody battles
		of visitation disputes have exploited the epidemic of
		sexual abuse allegations by using such allegations to
		promote their own interests at the expense of their
		child and their former spouse.  Allegations have become
		a sure-fire 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 of more ago (p. 104).

	Gardner (1986) notes that an accusation if 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.  On the basis of such observations, 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 a deux" relationship may evolve in which the child
	acquires the mother's paranoid delusions.  Green (1986) states
	that such women are usually diagnosed as histrionic or paranoid
	personality disorders, or paranoid schizophrenics.

	[They go on to state that 75% of the mothers making allegations
	of sexual abuse during divorce custody/visitation disputes are
	diagnosed as having personality disorders.  Only 25% of
	divorcing mothers who do not make allegations of sexual abuse
	are borderline, or psychotic personalities.  The rest of the
	paper is on the personality characteristics of mothers (and
	fathers) making false allegations of sexual abuse during
	divorce custody/visitation disputes.  In case you're
	interested, my ex2b seems to be:]

		The "justified vindicator" is a variation of the
		histrionic personality.  This woman initially offers an
		intellectually organized, assertive, and justified
		agenda with 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.

From "Personality Characteristics of Parents Making False Allegations
of Sexual Abuse in Divorce and Custody Disputes" - Symposium on False
Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Custody Disputes at the 98th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston,
Massachusetts, August 14, 1990 by Wakefield and Underwager, Institute
for Psychological Therapies, Northfield, Minnesota, (507) 645-8881.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[email-masked]