Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    The rule of thumb I was taught is that if a child claims abuse and
    incest, it is true.  That no child lies about such a thing.
    
    I am less sure about the adult, however.  Inclination is still to
    believe the allegations: I don't think any mother would set her
    daughter up to get the scars it is claimed Nicole now has.  Those
    scars would have to come from somewhere, and no matter how crazy
    Virginia is or isn't I don't think she helped put them there.
    
    Lee

    I haven't seen or heard all the facts but there must have
    been a damn good reason for that woman to go to jail.
    Especially the Framingham one!
    

    re -1
    don't bet on it.

    re .2:
    
    "contempt of court". When ordered by the court to produce the child,
    she refused, disobeying a lawful court order for which the punishment
    is usually confinement until willing to comply with the order. (or,
    in this case, until the issue becomes moot; the child has been
    recovered).
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    I believe that at least one Social Worker in Mass. confirmed the
    abuse charges be*fore* the mother and daughter ever left the state.
    The judge went against the Social Worker's recommendations in allowing
    the father continued visits with the daughter.  (At the very least,
    the judge could have ordered only supervised visits while the matter
    was under investigation.)  It was only after the system failed,
    that Virginia fled with her daughter.  I suspect that we will see
    more and more of these kinds of cases unless the courts start doing
    a better job of handling child custody issues.  Children are often
    left in abusive situations even when social workers have warned
    the courts of the danger to the child.  I applaud the mother's courage
    in protecting her daughter from further abuse.
                                                  
    Justine

    I meant a reason as in why she refused to obey-not the
    process.
    

    Interesting about 'Contempt' issues .....  Susan Wornick [ Channel
    5 reporter ] is ordered to jail for not informing the court of her
    confidential source on a story.  She is applauded.  A Boston Herald
    reporter went througha similar scenario a few years ago.  He was
    generally praised.
    
    Virginia LaLonde stands up to the court and the system that she
    believes failed her and her daughter.  She spends significantly
    more time in jail than either ms. Wornick or Paul Corsetti [
    Herald reporter ].  Stories in the Globe and Herald provide
    opinions from 'experts' that either support or criticize the
    jailing of Virginia LaLonde - depending on the feelings of the
    experts.
    
    As Lee T. says, ... it is pretty hard to understand why the child
    and mother would continue take the stand they do without some
    reason..............
    
    People protest and suffer the consequences thereof generally when
    there is a strong principle and issue worth the protest.  I do
    not know the full facts;  however, I am in full sympathy and empathy
    with Virginia LaLonde.
    
    
    The judges [ there have been several in the variety of hearings
    ] have not taken sufficent control of the case - other than to stand
    behind administrative procedure.  Virginia was jailed; Nicole was
    hiding and living in fear.  Stephen was living unfettered in his
    own independenty way ......  
    
    
    
                 Too much pain here than necessary ...  and a little
    lopsided.
    
    
    
    ].  
    

    	I (like everyone else) am unsure as to what exactly went
    	on. My first reaction was that maybe Virginia was just
    	trying to put the hurt on her husband. Subsequently
    	I've decided that she really has grounds for what she
    	did (she's proved that by going to jail and being
    	separated from Nicole). The callousness of the judges
    	in this case is disgusting. Nicole will suffer the
    	most. It's real tough when you're 8 years old.
    
    	Scott

To correct a tidbit or 2:

	Nicole LaLonde was found in Durham, N.C.

	I believe the first discussion was with a social worker
	with Nicole, who believed there had been abuse, and
	turned over the matter to DSS, who also believed there
	had been abuse.

	Now the issue that really galls me throughout the 
	whole mess is, "If there are <N> parties who support
	the claim that Nicole has been abused, why not charge
	someone (the female LaLondes claim is was Stephen) 
	with child abuse or whatever charges may be appropriate 
	and let the issue be fought out in front of a judge (and jury)?"

	WHY VICTIMIZE THE VICTIM? (Yes, I'm shouting.)
	
	I read somewhere that the Essex (?) County DA did not
	want to press charges in the case. 

	Sam (sorry, this whole affair has been a real "hot-button"
	for me recently)
	 

    	I heard on the news this morning that Stephen LaLonde
    	is supposed to have some sort of press conference or
    	arena whereby he will make a public statement. According
    	to the news, he has a tape that proves he did not
    	molest his daughter. 
    
    	I'm interested in what this tape could contain that is
    	so definitely in his favor.
    
    	Scott

    There is a contributor to some of the Conferences who has, in his
    personal profile field, the words (and I'm probably paraphrasing):
    "The Law, Hell, Give Me *Justice*".
    
    This statement is apropos of this case; indeed, too many cases,
    where people come before the Courts expecting the "right" thing
    will be done, only to find that the "right" thing too often is at 
    odds with the concept of: "We are a Nation of Laws, not of Men (or
    of Women)".
    
    I'm really not sure what to make of the LaLonde case. Combatants
    (and that's the most descriptive word) in child custody cases
    are often out for each other's blood. In many cases, the child(ren)
    is a helpless pawn in an elaborate game of charges and countercharges,
    made by the attorneys of the parents. At times, the child is subtly
    coached by each of his/her parents (I'm not saying this is the case
    here).
    
    Then we have the contradictory testimony of so-called "expert wit-
    nesses". It's sort of like taking polls. One can always find an
    "expert" to testify whatever one wants. 
    
    There was a case, somewhat similar to this one, last year in New
    Hampshire. The mother was asserting that both her children, a boy
    and a girl, had been molested by her ex-husband, their father. She
    brought in an "expert" witness, Dr. Muriel Sugarman, a psychologist
    from Mass General Hospital, who had interviewed the children and
    claimed that their responses were consistent with those of children
    who had been sexually abused.
    
    The father, in turn, produced his own "expert witnesses" who refuted
    the testimony of Dr. Sugarman. Indeed, even the various court-appointed
    attorneys, speaking on behalf of the children, contradicted each
    other's claims.
    
    What I'm trying to say is that I do not know how to balance the
    concepts of: A person is innocent until proven guilty versus the
    rights of "alleged" victims not to remain in situations which
    continue to put them "at risk".
    
      Alan  
                                           

    agreed Alan.  Even I wonder if the whole thing is a sham.  Is she
    crazy enough to do all this for a lie?  But, what if it isn't a
    lie?
    
    My instinct is to take the girl away from BOTH parents, get her
    into a good home where she will be safe.  But if she has been telling
    the truth and unjustly loses BOTH parents, what damage will that
    do?  Will she ever believe a grown-up again??
    
    If it is all a lie, I'll bet there are a lot of our male contributors
    who would empathize VERY strongly with Steven LaLonde.
    
    If charges are finally brought against him, I sincerely hope I will
    not be part of that jury: won't be pretty or clear-cut.
    
    Lee

re: .12
    
    If it is all a lie, I'll bet there are a lot of our male contributors
    who would empathize VERY strongly with Steven LaLonde.

If Mrs. LaLonde's charges are, indeed, lies, I would hope that our
female contributors would also emphathize VERY strongly with Steven
LaLonde.

Martin.

    re .12
    
>>  If it is all a lie, I'll bet there are a lot of our male contributors
>>  who would empathize VERY strongly with Steven LaLonde.
    
    If it's a lie, I would hope that a lot of contributors of both sexes
    would empathize with Steven LaLonde.
    
    	bruce

    The entire case is a mess, with the child being the biggest loser.
    She is being used as a weapon by both parents, and is being knocked
    around like a tennis ball.
    
    The legal and social establishments have acted cruelly, and have
    done nothing either to find out the truth or establish justice. If 
    evidence exists one way or another, it should have been brought
    out. 
    
    A few asides:
    
    After all this time, unless there was extreme physical damage that
    has not completely healed, it is doubtful if a physical examination 
    will reveal a thing. It will just add more mental scars. (And, if
    there are physical scars, they won't show who or what caused them.) 
    
    Re: .1
    
    Children can and do lie about abuse and incest. I used to be director
    of admissions at a state mental hospital, and was a psychiatric social 
    worker before that. I heard plenty of tales that never checked out
    (and, sadly, plenty that were true). Maybe years ago children didn't 
    make up incest and rape stories, but now when they routinely see and 
    hear about them on TV and newspapers, and openly discuss them among 
    themselves, they can lie about them, too. In addition, when they
    have been questioned about it so many times over such a long time
    period, (and perhaps coaxed by the interviewer) the child may have
    difficulty separating the truth from the fantasy. 
    
    I'm not saying this is true here, but the child certainly has had
    good training in lying and deceit in this case.  
    
    -bs

    re .13, .14
    
    Yep you're right.  I goofed.  Apologies all around...
    
    re .15: children lie about "these" things
    
    Say what?  All the studies I have seen claim this is not the case.
    Admittedly, I have not had extensive experience with it but still...
    
    While I do not wish to challenge what you say (read: NOT trying
    to say that your experiences are false, NO snub intended), if you
    know of any studies done in the past decade or so which supports
    the idea that children can be coaxed to falsely claim incest, I
    would like to know of them (reprints if they are papers, titles
    if they are books, etc).
    
    Lee

    
    A thought ....  Since it is not really possible to 'prove' via
    examination that Stephen LaLonde abused his daughter;and, moreover,
    it is really one party saying one thing to be refuted by the other,
    perhaps it might be useful to have professional people review with
    the Lalondes [ separately and together ] the circumstances under
    which they decided to conceive a child [ Nicole ].  That is, was
    the birth an event anticipated and planned by both?  Was the
    event an accident ?  How was the relationship going with them
    at the time?  
    
    
    Given some inkling in the above, perhaps there can be some better
    correlation then with the more recent events...  One's behavior
    is usually consistent with historical antecedents - except in
    highly improbable and volatile situations....  The3 complications
    here are enormous.  
    
    Yet, I still think knowing more about how Virginia and Stephen
    related to each other would help the couts know something about
    how the parents related to Nicole...  and what might have been
    possible ....  or not possible ..
    
    
    
      

    I feel confusion about this case. Was the abuse issue documented
    prior to the custody battle. Was it the issue that tore this family
    apart.  I am so afraid that parents will use the sexual abuse issue
    to gain custody of their children.  That abuse to the child and
    the system is a diffucult call.  Within the past several years at
    least two men I know of were found to be unjustly accused of child
    abuse of their children.  In each of these cases the child was coached
    by the mother and lawyer to lie to the judge....what is the world
    coming to.  The issue of fair child custody is to diffucult to judge in
    and of itself without incest accusations being hurled at mothers
    or fathers.
    
    I'm not sure what the truth is in this case.  I just know that the
    child is the victim, and there are no easy answers.
    
    Incest and child sexual abuse are very diffucult issues and the
    courts, and psychologists are not sufficiently trained to determine
    these cases but they are all we have at the moment.  I wish I had
    an answer for cases of this type...sadly I don't and I am not sure
    others do either.
    
    
    MaggieT

Re: .16 - Children telling the truth

Lee, I can't cite you any studies - I'm no longer in that field 
(thank the goddess), so all I can do is tell you about personal 
experience. Go to a library and look things up.

Children do not always tell the truth. They have fantasy lives. 
They imagine there are monsters under the bed, and that daddy 
bought them an airplane. 

Sex is no different than any other fantasy. The child can invent all 
types of sexual fantasies involving themselves, their parents, 
and others. These can be based in limited knowledge or pure 
imagination.

In addition, adults can encourage children to lie. In messy 
relationships one parent can use the child as a tool against 
the other. In extreme cases the child can be taught or coaxed by 
one parent to make sexual allegations about the other. When the 
case comes to light, the prosecutor, judge, or social worker can 
lead the child on to give the answer the questioner is seeking, 
whether it is true or not.The child may be eager to please, or 
eager to end the ordeal, or hate the other parent, and give the 
answer he or she thinks the questioner wants. 

If a case drags on (and most do) the child is repeatedly questioned, 
and may have difficulty separating out what is real and what isn't. 

Skillful, compassionate, and professional interviewing will help to reveal
the truth. The involved adults (both accuser and accused) should definitely
be interviewed. The relationship between the two, how they get on together
(or don't), what they think of each other, and what they think of the child,
are very important.

Lee, I have included 2 explicit examples where young children claimed they 
were sexually assaulted. In one case, there was an actual assault; the other
case was the child's fantasy. This follows the form feed, so nobody has to 
read this who doesn't want to.

-bs
                             CAUTION 

EXPLICIT SEXUAL LANGUAGE AND EXAMPLES FOLLOW THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO 
SOME. 

PRESS NEXT REPLY OR NEXT UNSEEN IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CONTINUE.



A 6-year-old boy who told the social worker that "Daddy put his 
finger in my bum." When this was investigated, it turned out that the child
had witnessed two teenagers about to have sex. It scared the boy, and he
ran off. The story was fantasy.

In another case, a 5-year-old girl said that "Daddy put his wee-wee in my
thing." Investigation showed that the girl had been sexual assaulted. The 
father confessed and was convicted.

    re .16
    
    The Village Voice just published an article about the prosecution
    of two Texas (?) women for child abuse at a day-care center where they
    worked.  Investigators in the case asked leading questions of the
    children and often manipulated them in order to prompt answers in
    keeping with the desired results.  The women are now in prison.
    Are they guilty?  Only they and the children know, but the article
    makes it clear that the hysteria that often surrounds cases like
    these makes it difficult if not impossible for defendents to get
    impartial investigations or fair trials.  I believe it is widely
    acknowledged that abuse charges are now being thrown around rather
    indiscriminately in cases involving child custody.
    
    Unfortunately, I've no easy answers (no hard ones, either).
    
    	bruce

    re: all the discussion about whether the LaLonde child is lying
    or not.
    In last night's interview on Ch 5 news, Stephen LaLonde said that
    when his daughter was questioned, she said she was NOT sexually
    assaulted, and the social worker said that denial was a symptom
    of abuse, so...concluded that Nicole *had* been abused.
    
    I haven't been following the details that closely...did Nicole ever
    say she was abused?  If what her father said is true (the reporter
    did not say to him, "We heard Nicole said she WAS abused") then
    it's not a case of whether the child is lying, but the adults.
    
    Just trying to sort out the facts...I don't know WHO to believe.
    
    Lynne
    

    re .19 (i think -- bsloane's reply)
    a small point:
    but if the child "hates one parent", shouldn't that be taken into
    consideration when deciding who gets custody? 
    
    liz

    liz,
    
    Of course it should!
    
    Bruce

    There is an article in the September 1987 issue of _New Woman_ magazine
    that claims that this seems to be the latest thing in mud hurling
    against spouses during a divorce and child custody hearings.  It
    goes on to describe how children are coached and rewarded (sometimes
    the parent doesn't realize he/she is rewarding the child for lieing).
    
    An example they used was a child going from rough-housing with some
    new stepbrothers, to them throwing the child accross the room, and
    down the stairs.  The truth was that the children were playing.
    As the child told and re-told the story, he found he could get lots
    of simpathy, love, and attention from the parent if would tell
    outrageous things that happened during visits.
    
    I've still not heard or read anything that says that children have
    sexual fantasies, that aren't at least somewhat based in truth.
    Normally, children don't know anything about sex.  Also, in the
    case in question, if medical examinations are finding some sort
    of damage that was caused by molestation, the damage certainly wasn't
    made up.
    
    Quite frankly, in these cases of both parents lieing about the other
    to prove unfit parenthood, perhaps both parents should be believe,
    and the children taken from *both* parents.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    As for whether children can lie about sexual abuse, it depends on
    the age of the child and the coaching s/he received.
    
    A young child cannot make up details about sexual abuse.  They can,
    however, be taught what to say, or can be asked yes/no questions
    which tells them what to say.
    
    A good examiner who uses anatomically correct dolls should be able
    to quite easily tell whether a young child has been abused or not,
    providing that the child has not been coached.
    
                      Carol

	It seems to me that the play 'The Crucible' could be updated
	for todays audience by changing the charge of wicthery to sexual
	abuse. It told of the Salem witch trials where several hysterical
	girls begin accussing half the town of practcing witchcraft. 
	
	I believe children can lie and will. I also believe some parents
	abuse their kids. What I can't believe is our judicical system
	finding out the truth in this case. Could this be the new standard
	for child custody cases? How long can a person tell a lie before
	even they believe it? liesl

    re .22:
    
    > but if the child "hates one parent", shouldn't that be taken into
    > consideration when deciding who gets custody? 
      
    Of course it should be taken into consideration, but isn't it also
    true that a child may grow to "hate" the absent parent for no other
    reason than because she/he is away, i.e. because the child feels
    that the parent has abandoned him/her? All I'm saying is that it
    must be discovered WHY the child hates one parent.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    What follows is my own opinion-gut level.
    
    After watching both the people on TV I got a feeling that the
    woman was telling the truth and idi what she had to do to protect
    her child even though it meant great sacrifice to her(both in 
    terms of being in jail and being away from her child).
    
    After hearing the other side-I got the distinct feeling that he
    
    was lying. Remarks made by him such as "I don't know where that
    woman is coming from -don't know what's in her mind" gave me the
    feeling of verbal abuse that is quite often backed by physical
    abuse.
    
    Remember-my opinion gut level only.
    
    I want to see the facts in this case but wonder if we ever will.
    

    re .26:
    
    I thought that the "young girls" who accused people of witchcraft back
    in the 1600s, Salem, Ma. were actually in their teens (14? 15? 
    I'm not sure).  That's very different from a 5 or 6 year old that
    claims sexual abuse.  From everything I've heard, children just
    *don't* "make it up".  *However*, parents coaching their children
    on the right terms adds a terrible problem into the whole mess,
    and I can't see how you can tell who's telling the truth and who's
    lieing unless you bring in unbiased psychologists (*not* hired by
    either of the parents' lawyers), and even then you'd have to bring
    in several and get a consensus.  Just an idea - court-appointed
    psychologists.
    
    	-Ellen

    re .29
    
    Great idea, but how do we find enough "unbiased" psychologists?
    How do we define "unbiased."  And, all psychologists never agree
    on anything... so do we want a simple majority?  2/3?, or if we're
    in a court of law, 12 out of 12 (or 6 out of six)???

    In _Glamour_ magazine about six months ago was a disturbing article
    about a woman who worked at a day-care center who was dismissed,
    then prosecuted for child abuse.
    
    One of the little girls in the day-care center was weepy and fearful
    and when questioned about it she tearfully said "Jackie touched
    me."  The day-care center worker's nickname was Jackie and she was
    immediately dismissed, written up in the worst possible terms in
    all the newspapers, and as a result got death threats over the phone,
    obscene invasions of her privacy, etc.  When the case was brought
    to court, with some experts experienced in examining children 
    disproved the idea that this woman had been the one to abuse the
    child.  The newspapers, who had had a headline field day with the
    case while it was in its "accusatory" stage printed the news of
    Jackie's acquittal in a few-line item on a back page.
    
    Now the interesting thing was that this woman (whose reputation
    and life may be permanently ruined, at least as long as she lives
    in that town) did not think that the little girl was lying.  In
    fact, she was concerned that something indeed _had_ happened, and
    that the questioners were not being careful enough to find the true
    culprit.  She was shocked that upon the simple statement "Jackie
    touched me" they never asked "Who's Jackie?"  They simply assumed
    it was her and threw her to the wolves, so to speak, without even
    bothering to examine the other people who the girl was with on a
    daily basis.  The woman knew of a somewhat older boy at the center,
    also called Jackie, who she had had to watch because of his tendency
    to bully and abuse the younger children.  But when she suggested
    this possibility to the center's management, it only convinced them
    that she was the true abuser ("What?!  How dare you say that this
    innocent little boy would do such a thing, you lying slut!"  the
    "you deny it, therefore you're guilty" school of inquisitional
    reasoning).
    
    So no, I do not think children lie.  But the interpretations
    that _adults_ place on the truth that children tell--that's a horse
    of a completely different color.  And if a powerful adult seizes
    on the meaning (s)he thinks (s)he hears in a child's words and pounds
    that meaning into the child's head, that child is going to come
    to believe it after awhile, if only to get adults to stop their
    pounding.
    
    I mean, something like this happened to me!  I'd been trying
    to play with the next-door neighbor's cat, who was an irascible
    old tom, and I got scratched.  When my mom saw my face, she threw
    a nutty; I was rushed to the doctor's for an immediate tetanus
    shot, which hurt like a b****.  And on top of the pain (of the shot;
    the scratch I hardly noticed) I remember my mother pounding me with
    questions about the encounter with the cat: "Did it attack you??
    What happened??  _TELL ME!_"  That kind of emotional intensity was
    terrifying to 4-year-old me and rendered me completely incapable
    of giving any coherent answer.  I suspect that mom decided that
    my terrified incoherence was due to fear of the dreaded cat.  I
    don't know what she told the Godfreys, but I never saw the cat again.
    Did they have it destroyed?  I don't know.  All I know was that
    I was ready to do anything to get my mother to stop coming at me
    like a hurricane.  She's intense and passionate, my mom, and she
    was truly frightened for me.  But passion is a very adult emotion,
    and a child (at least yours truly when she was one) can easily
    interpret passionate concern as rage.  It looks the same, sounds
    the same, feels the same.  A thing to be avoided at all costs.

    I share everyone's concern about this case; what is desperately
    needed is the truth, but I sadly feel that we won't find it out
    now.

    Marcia

After publishing a number of articles sympathetic to Virginia LaLonde,
the Globe has published several telling Steven LaLonde's side of the
story.  (It may be recalled that Steven had been abiding by the terms
of the court's "gag order" while his wife and her lawyer had been
openly defying it.)

According to him, he was accused of abusing his daughter during his
visits.  One of them he had videotaped, another was with a guardian
who, according to Steven LaLonde, never left him alone with his child.

There are many victims in this case.  In addition to the child and
both her parents, I would add the judge who must decide who, if anyone,
is telling the truth and, even harder, what is right for the child.

Furthermore, I would add to the list of victims any child who has been
abused -- and is now doubly fearful of what might happen if the facts
become known -- and any adult accused of abuse.

Martin.

PS: there is another literary reference that might be interesting:
the play Rashoman that tells the story of a rape from seven different
viewpoints.

RE:.28
	We too, my wife and I, when listing to just T.V. news several
months ago got the impression that Steve LaLonde might be guilty. In the 
past several weeks there has been a lot of 'factual' articles written
in the Boston Globe, Newsweek, etc. While I Steve LaLonde might be still be
guilty, I find it very difficult to believe in Virginia story. Below is a
listing of the facts that I can remember from the various articles I have
read. This list is open to any additions, corrections or comments, (I don't
claim to have all the answers).

1. 	This is the second marriage and custody battle that Virginia has
been involved in.  In her first marriage she had two sons. She was given
custody of only the older one. The court felt that because she had to
work that the father's mother could better take care of the younger son.

2.	Virginia has brought her case before six judges (including the
current one. Two of those judges were women. 

3.	About a month after Steve was given "partial" custody Viginia
went to child services claiming that Nicole was abused by her father.
Child services investigated the charges only by interviewing the mother
and child. The case was not brought any further because the department
supervisor dropped the case. After losing a second custody round in court
she went to a child protection group which then went back to the state
and got the department to ask the district attorney to press charges. I am
not sure if there was an investigate at this point but the DA "found no
evidence to file charges".

4.	At this point Viginia, in another court appearance, brought the
subject before a judge for the first time. In all her other court appearances
the seems to be no mention of child abuse ( I might be wrong at this point).
This judge, a female and one with experience in child abuse cases, appointed
a psychologist to question Steve LaLonde and Nicole. I believe one Globe 
article also stated that the judge ordered a physical exam for Nicole but I
can't state that as fact. After finding that "there was no evidence" the
judge stated that the right to "full visitation" and could take her on a
three week vacation. Viginia appealed the decision through two appeals
courts and lost each time. It was at this time she left with the child.

5. 	When she was brought before the current judge she was asked to produce
evidence as to the charge of child abuse, she refused. only then did the judge
asked her to produce Nicole. Again she refused. He continued the case for 
several weeks to allow Viginia to consult with her attorneys. When she returned
to court the judge offered to have the child placed in a neutral site. She 
refused. The judge offered to have her placed in Children's Hospital and
examined before either parents could have unsupervised visitation rights. Again
she refused. The judge had little chose but to take custody away from Viginia.

6.	During the time she was in jail the judge informed her that she had
the right to appeal his contempt charge and another judge could let her out
on bail. Again, according to the Globe, she refused. 

7.	While Nicole was out of state she was examined by a doctor connected to
a child protection group and, several years after the fact, was found some
physical damage. While the doctor made the medical condition known to the
news media, as near as I can tell he has not made any records or himself 
available to the court. Had the doctor done so Viginia would have legal
grounds to be let out on bail, while the subject of child abuse "HAD TO
BE REVIEW" being that it was the only prime evidence rejected in the contempt
charge.

	While there are too many cases of child abuse that go unpunished,
at what point should a person be accused in the media without evidence. If
there is ""any"" evidence then Steve LaLonde should be charged. But if
Viginia is just using the media and the courts just so that she doesn't
lose another child to an ex-husband, it will be Viginia that has abused
the child by taking away part of her childhood.

FINAL COMMENT:
	Child abuse is a terrible thing done by both sexes, not just one.

    I think it's naive to assume that children don't lie about sexual
    abuse.
    
    I think that happy, well-adjusted children from stable homes are
    unlikely to lie about sexual abuse.
    
    But children who are forced to use their wits to survive become
    emotional "street kids".  Children from alcoholic homes relate stories
    of learning to lie very young and not even knowing that they were
    lying because it was safer to lie than tell the truth.
    
    Children like attention, and will probably lie to get it in proportion
    to how desperately they crave and need it.  Some children who have
    not been abused per se have been treated meanly by some adults in
    their lives--sometimes it's a fine line.  How tempting it would
    be to "get back" at the adults involved.  Remember Lillian Hellman's
    play "The Children's Hour"?  Mary, the child in that play, accuses
    her two teachers of lesbianism, and essentially ruins their source
    of livelihood and their lives.  She is believed because "she couldn't
    have possibly made it up otherwise".  
    
    Children can read many of the details in popular magazines and hear
    endless descriptions of sexual abuse on TV.  It's becoming part
    of the culture, unfortunately.  For a disturbed child, it is the
    ultimate "trump card" he or she could play against an adult with
    whom the child has a poor relationship.  Children often feel that
    they have little real power in a world full of powerful adults.
    In some cases they are incapable of understanding the impact that
    such an accusation could have on people's lives.
    
    At the same time, I believe that most children who have made public
    claims about sexual abuse have not been lying.  I sometimes wonder
    if people will shy away from teaching and daycare for fear of potential
    undeserved lawsuits?
    
    Holly
    
    

    re .34:
    
    Your note was very thoughtfully written, Holly, but I have one
    small problem - "The Children's Hour" was *fiction*.  You can't
    use it to defend the claim that children make these things up.
    
    	-Ellen

People who counsel abused children generally have a pretty good feeling
about what is true and what isn't.  Also, some physical evidence, such
as dilation or scarring of the vaginal or anal openings offers fairly
clear evidence of some forms of prior abuse.  (Of course, there are
many forms of child abuse that don't leave physical marks on the kid.)

    RE: .35
    
    There is a line that goes something like "Art imitates life".
    
    When someone writes a work of fiction, she/he draws upon emotions,
    actions, situations that we humans all can relate to in our own lives.
    
    Just because something is "fiction" doesn't mean it can't, and doesn't,
    occur in "real life".
    
      Alan
          

    
    I think we need to keep in mind that the number of children who
    might make up stories of sexual abuse (for whatever reason) is tiny
    in comparison to the number of children who are abused and never
    tell or who are not believed.  Might a child lie?  I suppose, in
    some rare circumstances, but I doubt that any child could tell a
    lie that would hold up to investigation by a trained professional.
    A child can't lie *in detail* about something he or she doesn't 
    understand.  If an adult coached a child to say that sexual abuse 
    had occurred, I'll bet it's pretty likely that a lot of details 
    would be missing or inaccurate.  If judges hearing cases involoving 
    sexual abuse of children were trained in the area of child psych. 
    (or if judges listened to the recommendations of professionals 
    trained in that area), I suspect that more children would be safe 
    from repeated assaults, and that adults would be accused unfairly.
                          
    I think that to spend so much of our time speculating about children
    lying about abuse is a real disservice to the countless children
    who are being abused but are silent because they fear they'll not
    be believed.  I think we can do a better job of protecting the rights
    of the accused without risking the safety and emotional well-being
    of children.
    
    Justine                                

    I'd like to encourge the readers of this notes to read note 60 to
    see an example of how family problems do affect others.  
    
    I agree with .38, I too doubt that any child could sustain a lie
    with such strong convictions under the scruity of trained
    professionals.
    
    

    re .36
    
>> People who counsel abused children generally have a pretty good feeling
>> about what is true and what isn't.  Also, some physical evidence, such
  
    I would hate for me (or even you, for that matter) to be convicted
    of anything based on someone's "pretty good feeling."  I believe
    that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is our current standard.
    
    Please search out the Village Voice article for a nightmare of
    injustice based on good feelings and a desire to convict, rather
    than discover the truth.
    
    	bruce

    Your point is well taken, Ellen.  I used the example because I knew it
    was familiar to many people, and I knew that I could use it without
    betraying anyone's confidentiality.  A similar situation
    occured in a girls' school in the midwest when I was in college,
    and it always made the story seem even larger than life for me. 
    I agree that people shouldn't use fiction to support an argument
    without at least saying that that is what they are doing.                   
    
    I'm a former teacher and a very strong advocate of children's rights.
    I've been involved in presentations in the schools about child sexual
    abuse.  (I was one of the ones who was abused as a kid, too.)  I hear
    that some people writing here are upset that we bother discussing the
    thought that children are sometimes capable of lying about these
    things. 
                                 
    I don't agree.  My work with kids has made me feel very strongly
    that the kindest and most loving approach to them is a realistic
    one.  I don't think that parents, teachers, and other adults should
    ever discount a child's story about being touched or hurt without
    listening carefully and getting professional help if it's needed.
    At the same time I'm surprised when adults believe that it's *impossible*
    for a child to lie about abuse, or embroider upon an innocent incident.
    It's not impossible even though it is a very small percentage of
    children who can lie convincingly over a period of time.
                                  
    There are lots of factors for skilled professionals to look at,
    and I'm grateful that they are capable of doing that work day after
    day.  I think in most cases they can sort out truth from untruth.
                                  
    There are some parallels with the issue of rape.   Very few women
    lie about it, but a few do.  I'd rather see any woman who says she has
    been raped get all the care and support she can use without anyone
    trying to sort out her story at that point.   At the same time, before
    a man's life is ruined, I would like to think that the legal system is
    going to do its best to sort out what happened.   
                                                           
    I don't think that it is unsupportive of our sisters and of the
    children in our society to try to look calmly at all possibilities
    when something we find appalling is said to have occurred.  In the
    long run I think it is the only way we can keep a pendulum effect
    from occurring where something like sexual abuse is a big issue,
    and the next thing you know society is practically immune to charges
    of it because it has been used unfairly while it had "sacred" status.
    
    But maybe I'm alone in believing that.
    
    Holly
    

    Well spoken Holly, and no you are not alone in your opinions.
    Bonnie

    re. .41
    
    Holly, you are not alone.  What you said is well-spoken and expresses
    my viewpoints as well.  I have been in the position of knowing others
    who have been sexually abused, and also of knowing others who were
    accused of sexually abusing their children.  In the first case,
    it DID happen, and the affects of the abuse are disastrous.  In
    the second, nothing was ever proved, and again the results are
    disaterous(sp?).  We must give *some* credit to the experts and
    hope we can all keep the *system* working to sort out the facts
    from the fiction and take the appropriate action.
    

    
    I wouldn't want anyone to go to jail unless it were absolutely certain
    that abuse had occurred.  But when we talk about child sexual abuse
    cases being heard by judges, we're almost always talking about custody
    decisions not criminal charges.  Very few people go to jail for
    assaulting their children (or any member of their family) even if
    the judge decides to deny visitation rights to the offending parent.
    It would be awful for a parent to be unjustly accused and then lose
    visitation rights, but I think I'd rather see a parent have supervised
    visits with the child while the facts got sorted out than have a
    child living in fear that he or she is going to be assaulted again.
    
    I don't disagree with much of what's been said here, but I worry
    about the emphasis placed on lying children.  I feel like the issue
    of children who lie (and are believed!) about assault should appear
    as a tiny footnote in one chapter of a multi-volumed book on child
    sexual assault, and the notes here seem to be giving it much higher
    billing than that.
       
    Justine                           

    
    
    A child lying about sexual abuse is in the same catagory as a
    woman lying about rape - as far as I am concerned.  Some do lie
    but most don't even report it - in my opinion.  So there has to
    be a reason for them to say it - whether it is truth or fiction.
    That reason should be determined if they did lie.
    
    I have a bias in favor of the woman or child and feel that they
    should recieve support but I don't think that someone should go
    to jail because of a lie.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	Goddess I think I am confused again
    

    I agree with Justine.  My mother knew about my abuse by my father,
    and did nothing.  I lived in fear for the next 6 years of living
    with him.  Let's sort out the truth, but let's understand that the
    percentage of children lying about this compared to the percentage
    of children telling the truth is insignificant.  By giving the child
    the benefit of any doubt at first, and protecting that child, and
    THEN looking into the facts, we will do our children (and future
    adults) a world of good, without any harm to any innocent person
    who may be accused.
                               Carol

    	A couple of weeks ago, my gardening gloves disappeared, and
    for reasons not relevant here I was fairly sure that my younger
    daughter (8) had taken them and hidden them.
    
    	So I asked her where they were - interrogated her for several
    minutes - and was almost convinced she had nothing to do with their
    disappearance. No. She had no idea where they were. She had not
    taken them, and she had never seen them.
    
    	So I went and did some washing up.
    
    	And at the other side of the kitchen she interrogated the cat,
    just the same way as I had interrogated her, but slightly more
    skillfuly, since she was able to establish that the cat had *not*
    seen my gardening gloves going to a certain place under some bushes
    at the end of the garden either!
    
    	After that it was easy to retrieve them. I think she had decided
    it was time to allow me to have them back.
    
    	I do not think she would lie about sexual abuse, but I know
    she could lie convincingly about anything she was really interested
    in.
    
	But then maybe I am just not as good a questioner as some of
    these skilled social workers.

    I don't think that anyone is saying that children cannot lie.
    However, it is much easier for a child to say "no, I don't know
    about that" than to give details on something they are supposed
    to have experienced.  If your daughter was trying to convince you
    that she HAD taken the gloves, and had hidden them under a bush
    in your garden, and she had never seen gloves or a garden before
    in her life, then she would have a hard time trying to convince
    you, since she would not easily be able to describe what a glove
    looked like, or what your garden looked like, or the type of plant
    she hid them under.  If she could not even tell you accurately these
    things, I'm sure you would wonder why she had said that she had
    hidden them in the first place.
    
                  Carol

    re. 47.  The latter assumption is probably more correct.  Social
    workers, doctors, psychiatrists, and so forth are skilled questioners.
    Unfortunately, when the courts pit one skilled questioner against
    another skilled questioner we the people are at their mercy.
    
     re .47  well put.
    
    We all need learn to ask for a definition or description first before
    making generalizations, interrogations, conclusions, assumptions.....
     

    	I may be underestimating social workers, but I suspect you may
    be underestimating children.
    
    	My daughter would not be likely to lie about sexual abuse, since
    it is a subject of no interest for her, but she knows how adults
    make love, its connection with babies, and that they like it. If
    she chose to tell a story about it, it would be technically accurate.
    
    	She would probably not convince the first social worker, since
    I do not think it would occur to her to add elements of fear,
    embarrasment and pain to her story.
    
    	But she would learn more from the first social worker's questions
    and reactions to her answers than he would from her, and by the
    third social worker she would have it right.

    	The fact that the child tells such a story is incontrovertible
    evidence that she dislikes her father. The dislike may have been
    caused by real sexual abuse, and the significant chance that this
    is so indicates that the courts should not insist that he be left
    unsupervised with her.
    
    	On the other hand, I believe that an intelligent child with some
    motivation, and who might have been coached by her mother who certainly
    has some motivation, could deceive a social worker about the facts.

    How old is your daughter?
    
               Carol

    	The one I have been writing about is just 8. I also have a 14
    year old daughter (and a son who is nearly 18).

The Boston Globe reported today that the Cambridge Hospital team that
evaluated Nicole LaLonde found that she had "genital scars 'consistent
with sexual abuse or trauma' and should be 'returned to the physical
custody of her mother, Virginia LaLonde.'"

Also, from the front page article,

  "Stephen LaLonde denies that he sexually abused the child, and the report
  ... made no explicit finding of whether he abused his daughter or not.

  "Instead, the team reported that the physical evidence and the child's
  story are consistent with sexual abuse and that 'there is no evidence'
  Nicole was abused by anyone other than her father.

  "Psychologist John Baker wrote in the report that Stephen LaLonde's
  relationship with Nicole 'is a highly romanticized and erotic relationship.
  The physical intimacy he described, although not illegal, is not
  conductive to healthy development in a child.  Mr LaLonde's inability
  to perceive these behaviors beyond the average is of great concern.'"

The hospital team recommended that DSS keep custody of Nicole while
they help the parents, "who were divorded in 1983, 'solve co-parenting
issues on their own.'"

  "... [Psychiatrist Elizabeth] Liao concluded that 'There was no
  indication that [Virginia LaLonde] instigated her daughter to
  produce' the allegations.  "Mrs. LaLonde seeks no revenge and
  wants to have Nicole to have contact with her father, but only
  after he acknowledges the alleged abuse and gets help.'"

Martin.

"quotes from the article"
'quotes by the Globe from the report.'

    Thanks, Martin.  I heard a condensed summary on the news on my way
    in and was hoping that someone (I thought of you particularly ;-)
    would put in the update.
    
    Poor Nicole, how rotten all of this must have been for her.  One
    wonders what the future holds for her; some scars can never be wholly
    obliterated.  I'm bloody glad her mum is strong and sensible. 
    
    						=maggie

    Help please:  I don't watch TV!  [I plan to continue not watching
    TV -- what I want help with follows  ;-) ]
    
    Yesterday afternoon, circa 3:15 - 3:30, there was a press conference
    at the Eastern Terminal at Logan.  TV camera crews, reporters
    scribbling with pens and little pads.  It was clearly about the
    Lalonde case.  Was that Mr. Lalonde and his lawyer?
    
    Whoever it was...WHAT DID THEY SAY?
    
    Many thanks,
    		Penelope

I watched all three Boston 11pm newscasts looking for reaction to
the LaLonde case.  However, with the new fad of multiple homicides
(two in Southern NewHampshire), an MBTA crash, and other random
stuff, the LaLonde case was pushed aside.  There was a brief
comment from a psychiatrist (consultant to Mrs. LaLonde) and a three
second denial by Mr. LaLonde that I thought was a teaser, but turned
out to be the "balancing" viewpoint to the psychiatrist.

This morning's Globe moved the story to the front page of the Metro
section, without shedding any new light.  Mrs. LaLonde's consultant,
Dr. Muriel Sugarman, condemned the visitation recommendations of
the Cambridge Hospital team.

The Globe summarized that the report found "evidence consistent with
sexual abuse or trauma and noted that Nicole consistently accused
her father of abusing her."

Martin.

    Here's a related tangent, typed in without permission...
    ........................................................
    
    "Study: Abuse claims in custody cases mostly true"
    John H. Kennedy
    Boston Globe, Friday 22 Jan 1988
    
    	"A public perception that women often fabricate charges of sexual
    abuse against their former partners in child custody cases is
    contradicted by a recent study, a pediatrician and assistant professor
    at Harvard Medical School said yesterday.
    
    	"Dr. Jan E. Paradise, a staff pediatrician in the child protection
    program an Children's Hospital in Boston, discussed research she
    performed in 1985-86 in Philadelphia to a panel of the Gender Bias
    Study, which conducted its second public hearing to consider testimony
    about gender bias in the judicial system.
    
    	"Paradise said the perception persists that women frequently
    invent child abuse charges to gain an advantage in custody cases.
    'If you look at real cases in real life, it doesn't bar that out,'
    she said after her testimony.  In her research, she reviewed 162
    cases involving sexual abuse at The Children's Hospital of
    Philadelphia, in addition to some cases from her own practice.
    
    	"She found 31 cases in which sexual abuse was alleged against
    a parent, usually by the mother.  From those she compared the frequency
    in which the allegations were substantiated in the 12 cases that
    also involved a custody dispute against the 19 in which custody
    was not an issue.                                 
    
    	"Her research, she said, revealed that abuse was substantiated
    in two-thirds of those that had custody disputes, and in 95 percent
    of those that did not.  Based on the number of cases examined,
    statistically, the figures reflect 'no clear-cut, true differences'
    between the two groups of cases.
    
    	"The Gender Bias Study was commissioned by the state Supreme
    Judicial Court to determine whether gender bias exists in the system
    and, if so, make recommendations to remedy it.  The third public
    hearing is scheduled for March 23 in Worcester."
    

RE: .57

""Her research, she said, revealed that abuse was substantiated in two-thirds of
those that had custody disputes, and in 95 percent of those that did not.  Based
on the number of cases examined, statistically, the figures reflect 'no
clear-cut, true differences' between the two groups of cases."

If the difference between 66% and 95% is not statistically significant, then the
entire study is insignificant.  

A second problem is that "the allegations were substantiated", if it is easy to
falsely accuse abuse, might it also be easy to falsely 'substantiate
allegations'?

Jim.