![]()
SIX
Seen but not heard: the children of Cleveland
Heather Bacon
Editors' summary
This chapter contains excerpts from clinical psychology sessions with 40 children in Cleveland, details of which were submitted to the Inquiry. The children's ages ranged from 2 to 15 years. Nine were in Group A, the remainder in Group B (see Chapter 3). Some, especially older children, made clear disclosures of abuse. The utterances of some younger children, though less clear-cut and sometimes bizarre, were thought to be equally significant. Disclosure sometimes followed soon after a sympathetic medical examination, but more often it would only come when the child felt safe. The attitude of the mother, who often had a conflict of loyalties, was crucial. Sometimes a disclosure was made but then retracted. A number of children for whom there were other indications of abuse were unable to disclose at all and remained trapped in silence.
A child-centred approach to investigation must take into account before, above and beyond anything else, the context of the abusive relationship for the child concerned. (Corinne Wattam, 1989, p. 41)
The concept of the continuum of disclosure can help us understand the way individual children present. In practice children can be grouped into three categories, which form the basis of this chapter. First, where the initial presentation is via a purposeful disclosure from the child, second where a suspicion is raised in another way but the child can readily be enabled to disclose during the initial intervention, and third when there is a high probability of abuse but the child remains silent despite intervention.
This chapter is devoted to children's own words and experiences, in an attempt to understand them and relate this to their position on the continuum at the time of intervention and investigation. Listening to children shows us that disclosure is a process rather than an event, and that children may well have a completely different framework for thinking about and experiencing what we as adults call child sexual abuse.
The child is envisaged in the centre of a series of concentric circles, the innermost being the family, the next the social context and outermost the systems for intervening in the family, in particular the child protection agencies (see Figure 6.1).
Several boundaries have to be negotiated for children to register their plight. If this produces an unmanageable crisis, the family or other layers of the system will often be able to block the disclosure process. However, an advocate may be able to reach and listen to the child, and then provide a safe way for the child to negotiate the boundaries. Children may get stuck at any stage, but the advocate can guide them through the layers. If the child moves to a different position on the continuum of disclosure (Figure 5.1, Chapter 5), particularly by retracting the disclosure, the surrounding networks have to decide whether to support the change. If the child moves down the continuum the advocate may accept the child's denial and move with the child, or may stay in the original position, perhaps in disagreement with the child's wishes. The advocate may himself get trapped or be disempowered. We examine this further in Chapter 8.
Figure 6.1: The child's journey
Group 1: Pitfalls of permission
Definition of the group
Children in this group make a clear alerting statement which starts off the formal investigation, 'giving permission' for an adult to intervene. This corresponds to Sgroi's description of 'purposeful' rather than 'accidental' disclosure (Sgroi, 1982, p. 17). The child who reaches the top of the continuum without external help takes control of the first stage of the disclosure process by telling another person who can intervene. This is an established pathway to investigation, where medical findings (if present) may provide corroboration for the disclosure and will be seen as secondary to it:
The child's statement is the primary source upon which to assess whether the allegation is true or not ... all other information and findings may be considered as supporting the child's statement ... in years to come there may be more concrete findings from techniques of physical examination ... but at the time of writing these do not provide certainty. (Jones and MacQuiston, 1988, p. 43)
The process of moving up the continuum is clear in older children who decide to tell despite the pressures from years of abuse, and for younger less severely abused children who readily tell of a recent experience. Other children may inadvertently give permission for an intervention, by making a clear alerting statement without realizing its significance to an adult, or the events it will provoke. This would correspond to Sgroi's 'accidental' disclosure. The different practice dilemmas that arise may vary with the age of the child.
Examples of disclosures in Group 1
Girl, 15 years, who told her mother that her father was 'interfering with her'. At the police interview she said: 'He took his penis out and got me to rub it. It felt like jelly at first and then became big and hard. He had hold of my hand to rub; then sperm came out of it.'
Girl, 7 years, to her mother: 'he comes in my bed and kisses my tuppence.'
Girl, 3 years, to mother and police officer: 'Daddy wee-wees inside my fou-fou.' (What colour is the wee-wee?) 'White'.
Characteristics of children in Group 1
A developmental model such as that proposed by Baker and Duncan (1989) suggests an age-related progression of emotional reactions to abuse which leads to symptom formation. The earlier emotions remain but are overlaid at each stage. The progression is from anxiety (pre-school) to guilt (six years onwards) then justifiable anger (8 years on) to grief and desolation (12 years). In this model, each emotion may generate denial, which emerges as the most important internal coping mechanism for the child, or outward expression of the feelings in characteristic symptoms. Baker suggests that the stage most likely to result in disclosure is that of anger and injustice. The child may exhibit antisocial behaviours, such as violence, promiscuity, minor crime, running away, wetting and soiling, or may direct the emotion against herself, in such forms as parasuicide, secret self-destructiveness, drug dependency, or depression. We suggest that an emotional shift, similar to that seen with age, will accompany a move in the child's position on the continuum. Helping the child to move from an internalized coping mechanism, namely denial, to an externalized one where disclosure is possible, will involve gaining access to a wider range of feelings.
Older children subjected to prolonged abuse
This model is helpful in understanding the complex inner world of children, usually approaching puberty or already adolescent, who manage to reach the top of the continuum after a long period of abuse. Of the few children in Cleveland who made a disclosure before the formal investigation, the majority were in the older age group. Older children may survive by accommodating (Summit, 1983) and suppressing or dissociating from the experiences of earlier childhood, parts of which may remain inaccessible to the child despite a decision to tell. This could be why some children focus on one recent episode, insisting this is all. A fifteen year old girl first told a teacher about a single event, being raped by her father one night whilst her mother was out. She did not describe a more gradual approach, beginning with suggestive teasing, progressing to touching her breasts and so on, until she felt sure that her social worker believed her and had assured her that she was not to blame. Her initial story of rape could have been dismissed as it does not fit in with the currently accepted model that most intrafamilial perpetrators carefully groom the victim, creating complicity in order to ensure secrecy (Christiansen and Blake, 1990).
Problems of credibility in turn lead to management dilemmas. In particular, less pressure can be brought to bear on the perpetrator if the disclosure is incomplete. Older children, with compound reactions, are often very confused about blame, responsibility, and the part played by their own sexuality. These factors can prevent a full disclosure. The child may be heavily burdened with her compliance and active participation, or her failure to disclose and prevent the abuse in the past. She may then censor the disclosure, limiting both the nature and extent of what has taken place, especially if the interviewer emphasizes that what happened was wrong. A sensitive approach can help the child by 'assuming' and thereby giving permission to the child to tell of, a much wider involvement, whilst avoiding statements about blame. Reassurances that the child was not to blame only apply to what is told: what was not told will remain the part for which the child feels responsible. A further reason for incomplete disclosure is that the child may have tried to tell earlier and been met with disbelief. If the child tries again it is likely to be by presenting a small piece of information, carefully observing how this is received (MacFarlane and Waterman, 1986).
Protecting the perpetrator
Children often seem to discredit themselves in their attempts to conceal the perpetrator's identity. One 6 year old told of being looked after on a particular night by a relative who had an alibi. The girl gave small details such as the television programme they had watched. The details of the abuse tallied with her later disclosure about her father, but the investigation foundered because her story had been transposed into a different context. Older children may draw attention to intrafamilial abuse by signalling distress about some other sexual experience. A 12 year old disclosed intercourse with her 17 year old boyfriend. Following the police interview she expressed her fear that the police 'might think it was her stepfather who had abused her.' On further questioning it turned out that the girl had regularly been shown pornographic material during access visits to her natural father. Investigation of a story of rape by an unknown perpetrator should always include questions designed to probe whether the child could be covering up for another abuser. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to convey disbelief and prevent the child revealing the true picture.
Many abused children love and want to protect the perpetrator, and desperately fear losing the good parts of the relationship. They may eventually move beyond this by becoming angry on their own behalf, perhaps with the dawning realization that their experience is not a normal part of childhood, or that the emotional closeness with the abuser was gained at too great a price. This healthy anger may at last prompt a disclosure, but the child will be devastated when the perpetrator denies the abuse and angrier still if the helpers to whom she has entrusted herself fail to intervene effectively. A child who has come this far on her journey towards potential healing may then move back down the continuum, turning her anger inwards because it is denied outward expression. This can result in self-destructive behaviour such as overdosing, arm cutting, solvent abuse and promiscuity.
This situation is vividly described by 'Alison', an 18 year old who has given permission to quote her writing. Alison was taken into care when she ran away from home at 14. Whilst in the safety of a secure unit, she disclosed that her father had abused her from the age of 6 and had also abused her sisters. However, she was later returned home by social services because no appropriate placement could be found for her. Her story remained uncorroborated because her sisters who stayed in the family home denied that anything had happened to them. Alison found herself unable to prevent further abuse, and became understandably rejecting of the agencies which had failed her. She writes:
Inside I'm like a lock and key,
Shutting up everything inside of me
Not being able to understand
Why I let everything get out of hand.
When the anger builds up inside of me
I'm hurting one person and that's me
'Cos I know there's two choices I could do,
Cutting my arms or sniffing glue.
In Cleveland, few perpetrators admitted the abuse even when a clear and believable disclosure was made, for instance by an articulate adolescent. Children trying to break free from the secrecy of an abusive relationship which has entrapped them, depend initially on the presence of a non-abusing adult in the family who will believe them and intervene. Without such an advocate the family may negate the disclosure by rejecting the child, thus putting her in the role of double victim. Only an emotionally healthy child can choose self-preservation if it means leaving the family. Some children ask the intervening agency to provide protection until they reach adulthood, but may not wish to be placed in a substitute family. L. has also given permission to quote her poems which express a series of dilemmas, the consequence of disclosing that her father's escalating demands had resulted in intercourse with her at age 15. She was placed in a small care home. She describes a happy family: 'My life before was almost perfect — our house is filled with laughter — I'm the eldest of the children and I never expected to be parted from them all … why is love used in crime, I thought my love was forever.'
L. describes her confusion over who was to blame for the abuse:
Maybe I did something he didn't like much,
Maybe my body he wanted to touch;
Maybe he thought it the wrong thing to do
But he may have felt I wanted it too.
Maybe his love for me had to shatter;
Maybe my feelings didn't matter;
Maybe he couldn't help his desires;
Maybe his emotions caught on fire;
Maybe he forgot I was a child;
He let his emotions erupt and run wild.
She contrasts her real powerlessness in the face of repeated requests with her fear of the consequences of saying no:
No is the word he does not want to hear,
No is the word that grips him like fear,
No is a word that is often said
So why is it a word which will not leave my head?
No is the only word I need to say-
But would my problems mount up or would they go away?
During the investigation L. was confused by the imbalance of questioning which made her feel she was the guilty person:
Why is the truth hard for others to see?
Why do I feel I was to blame,
Why is my heart covered in shame?
Why is it me who must do all the talking?
Why from the truth is he running and walking?
Why do I not have any more clues?
Why is this battle one I'm meant to lose?
L's father denied the abuse. The family asked her to write a letter retracting her disclosure, then she could come home again. She writes:
Would things ever be the same?
Why should I have to clear his name?
I know what happened wasn't right,
I try to push it out of sight,
I can't go and turn my story back
My words and emotions are under attack.
She described herself as 'caught in a web of hate and blackmail, loving her father but not wanting to accept his evil ways'. She saw herself as engaged in a battle – in which she was strong enough to retain her integrity:
Who'll give in first,
Who has to retract?
Whose conscience is wearing thin?
Who needs to be matter of fact?
I'll carry on for as long as it takes,
Just accepting whatever life brings.
He is dreaming I hope he soon wakes,
There's nil on each side we go round in rings.
A case conference decided that the medical evidence available to support L's disclosure would not stand up in court, on the grounds that at 15 she was old enough to have had a sexual relationship with a boyfriend and she used tampons. The investigation ended. When L. realized this she wrote:
Proof is all they want to see
Proof does not matter to me
Proof it is not all intact
Why have proof when I have fact
Proofs what must be at the base
They need proof for a court case.
Proof is hidden out of sight
I don't need proof I know I'm right.
To a child in this position admission by the perpetrator may seem even more important than her own protection. L. wrestled with a further dilemma. Knowing that the parents had refused for her younger brothers and sisters to be involved in a family assessment or to be medically examine...
