Subject: Another Extraordinary Case

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 04:55:39 GMT

In the case of James W., Columbus, Ohio.

The following is a summarization (written by me) of a case involving a
man living in Columbus, Ohio who came to me about seven months ago
asking for help.  Last June his wife, who had been trying to get him to
move out of his house (a house he owned before they met), and
relinquish custody of their daughter, in an amicable disolution, her
mother and his daughter went on vacation without him for a week on the
east coast.  When they returned from their vacation, they took the
daughter to the family doctor and told the doctor they felt, because of
statements the child made while on vacation, that the daughter had been
sexually abused by the father.

The doctor originally did NOT confirm any indication of sexual abuse.
The father had NO knowledge at the time of the mother taking the child
to this doctor.

In the next week, the mother took the child to Children's Services.
Children's Services talked to the girl and after 5:00 pm, took the girl
to Children's Hospital where the child was examined by another doctor
who stated that the opening in the girl's hymen was 3mm x 7mm --
without measuring.  Abuse was not substantiated, according to the
written report--the section to fill out for substantiation was NOT
FILLED OUT.  The report states that the size of the opening of the
hymen is large and that the doctor was concerned.  The size of the
opening for a three-year-old girl, according to their charts, was
supposed to be 3mm x 5mm.  Never mind that this girl is big for her
age.

The police investigated this case and found little or no evidence and
did NOT pursue a criminal case.

The mother made statements over a period of months that this little
three-year-old girl had peed her pants several times that summer --
something she, and the social workers and doctors in this case, thought
was an indication that she had been sexually abused.

At first this mother made statements that she believed the father had
put "his thing" inside the little girl.  She later changed that to "his
toy."  Still later she changed her story to "a crayon."  (Look at a
ruler and see of a crayon will fit through an opening that is 3mm x
7mm.)

Children's Services filed for a no-contact order and for termination of
parental rights after the doctor performed the examination at
Children's, using the report of the examination as a part of that
filing.  The father was thrown out of his house, and was restrained
from taking his own money out of his account.  No provision was made
for him to see his daughter until several months later.

Soon thereafter, the mother filed for divorce.

The mother and Children's Services subsequently sent that report to two
more doctors who wrote up reports substantiating sexual abuse based on
the physical examination performed at Children's Hospital.  Neither of
these doctors ever saw the alleged victim.

The father was eventually granted supervised visitation, one hour per
week, at Children's Services, in the presence of a social worker.

After months of virtually nothing happening in this case, the father
asked me for help.  I directed him to a good trial attorney and to
national experts in this phenomenon.  The attorney handed the case off
to one of his associates.

The father took a lie-detector test at the behest of his
attorney--before he talked to me about it.  The results were NOT good
for him.  The attorney seemed to lose faith in this man's innocence.
Over a period of several months, nothing much happened in this case,
despite numerous hearings in both the juvenile and domestic relations
courts.  Through persistent education of his attorney about false
allegations of child sexual abuse made as part of divorce custody and
visitation disputes, the attorney slowly started to come around.  After
several months, the attorney was keyed on defending this client.

About that time, a second Guardian Ad Litem was appointed by the
court.  The first GAL had been selected by the juvenile court and
wanted the father's right terminated with a permanent no-contact
order.  The new GAL offered a compromise solution.  The gist of the
compromise was that the mother would be sole custodial parent and that
the father would have indefinite supervised visitation, but the
juvenile action against him would be stopped.

The father, who had stashed a substantial amount of money away in the
bank just months before this whole thing started, refused the offer at
my encouragement.

The father contacted national experts of false allegations of child
sexual abuse, and retained Dr. Gordon Blush and Karol Ross to examine
the records , possibly examine the child, and testify in this case.  He
also had a gynecologist ready to testify on hymenal openings.

The case was pushed to trial in Juvenile Court last week.  The
prosecution over a period of four days called several doctors, social
workers and the mother and grandmother of the little girl to the
stand.  The director of the child abuse examination program at
Children's Hospital told the litigants that he had fired the doctor who
wrote the original report, one of two doctors who had examined this
child.  The family doctor, who had originally examined the child,
testified that he now believed the child had been abused, and, through
tough examination, admitted he knew little about how to examine a child
for signs of abuse, and had "stuck his little finger" up inside her to
measure the hole.  His testimony also asserted that he believed, based
on this examination, that the child's hymenal ring opening was "5mm."

The doctors whose written verifications of what they believed was a
report of substantiation by the doctor at Children's Hospital were not
called.

When the mother testified in court, she was "obviously" pregnant.
Apparently the father of the unborn child is a married man (not the
father of the first child).

After four solid days of the prosecution presenting their case (at
times the prosecution consisted of two attorneys for the state, the GAL
and the attorney of the mother (and even the referee)), the referee in
the case, who had backed the prosecution on most points during the
trial, and thwarted the efforts of the defense, dismissed the case
(Thursday, March 19, 1993).  The prosecution had not revealed evidence
that the child had been abused (after four days and piles of taxpayer
money).

The defendent was given no opportunity to call any witnesses to testify
on his behalf.  The court has yet to write up any findings of fact.
The defendent spent over $12,000 on his legal counsel for this case,
and retained experts paying over $7000.  All legal fees for the
prosecution were paid by the taxpayers, hit-men for the mother at our
expense.

After the dismissal, the defense approached the GAL and asked that
something be set up ASAP for the defendent to start getting
visitation.  The GAL expressed his belief that such visitation should
be in the presence of a witness, or supervisor.  The juvenile court
has, of yet, made no recommendations for modification of the visitation
orders or custody.

Obviously, this case goes on.  The next hearing is scheduled in
domestic relations court on April 8, 1993.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer 
[email-masked]