The two points that are most significant here are, first, that work with pre-school children must take their multidimensional developmental process into consideration and, second, “If ‘adult’ interests or specifically ‘sexual’ content is present, a specialized consultation is indicated to assess possible sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual experience.”
The same point can be made somewhat differently. If there is specifically sexual content in a pre-school child’s behavior, including what he or she says, sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual experiences should be suspected, since the behavior is unusual in pre-school children. The child is exhibiting behavior that is developmentally beyond his or her physical, emotional, social, sexual, and cognitive level and should be outside his or her experience. Importantly, to “suspect” sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual experiences does not, in any way, suggest that one assumes that these events have occurred or that the investigation process is intended to support prior beliefs. Rather, it means that one is endeavoring to account for the sexual content in the child’s behavior, since it would not normally be present. Sexual abuse and inappropriate sexual experiences are among the possible explanations.
The process of making judgements about whether a pre-school child has been sexually abused or exposed to inappropriate sexual experiences must, then, be pursued carefully and sensitively, with focus on “what accounts for” the abnormal sexual content in the youngster’s behavior. This process includes one or more interviews with the child, interviews with significant adults who may have relevant information or perspectives, and may include interviews with other children if their experiences are potentially relevant. These interviews may be held privately with one individual or may include two or more people, if their inclusion may contribute substantively to the process.
It is also important to understand that the child’s initial disclosure or denial of sexual abuse or of inappropriate sexual experiences are not necessarily valid or reliable. “The first thing the child says” may or may not be true. First, the youngster may have misunderstood or misinterpreted events or the behavior of others. Second, the child may be reporting something he or she was told or something he or she imagined. Third, when children are sexually abused by adults or by older children, there is most always an element of coercion and an element of threat. i.e., the child is threatened that if he or she tells, something very bad will happen. The first comments, descriptions, and reports of the child, then, serve as data in the total process and are compared to other data (comments, descriptions, and reports) that are received during the investigation.
The data gathering process must, then, be subjected to further analysis. Since the data was mostly gathered through interviews with children and adults, one must make judgements about the validity of the data. At a minimum, one must make judgements about the reliability of the people who provided the data and about the circumstances in which it was provided. For example, did they influence each other to say things that may be distorted or incorrect. Children are especially vulnerable to this type of influence. At a minimum, this means that more weight is given to some data and less to other comments, descriptions, and reports. Also, one must make judgements about the consistency of the data. Does it fit together consistently and coherently when all the data is considered?
The above activities lead to two quite separate outcomes. The first outcome relates to the safety of the child; and the second outcome relates to responsibility. With respect to the first outcome and based on the analysis of the data, one makes a judgement about the level of risk for the youngster. Is it likely that he or she was sexually abused; and if so, what if any measures are necessary to assure his or her protection from further abuse or exposure to inappropriate sexual experiences? The answers that develop here determine what action is taken to protect the child. With respect to the responsibility outcome, the data is turned over to law enforcement officials for their analysis and for whatever action is determined to be appropriate.
Returning attention to the original question about whether pre-school children can tell us when they have been sexually abused and whether what they tell us can be believed, the conclusion is that, if there is reason to suspect that a child may have been sexually abused or exposed to inappropriate sexual experiences, what the child reports is taken into consideration within the context of all other comments, descriptions, and reports related to the events and circumstances. This is done through a complex process that includes more and less reliable data and a combination of careful judgements that are made by different people based on their particular training and expertise. If indicated, action is taken to protect the child; and further action may be taken to present the data to citizens who will make the ultimate judgement about what is true or not true.
There is also another truth that must be understood. Young children are sexually abused and exposed to inappropriate sexual experiences; and these events are perpetrated by people who are and should be culpable. Most often, the first indication of this is seen in the abnormal behavior of the child and in what he or she says. If these potential indicators are not taken seriously, the child cannot be protected from further abuse. Taking a child seriously means that a very complex process is initiated that requires full consideration of the youngster’s multidimensional development and includes several professionals who bring their varying training and expertise to the process.
Is the child believed? The far less than simple answer is that believing the child is not the issue. Rather, the task is to fully consider whatever the youngster says within the context of the total picture that includes many other comments, descriptions, and reports as well as whatever objectively verifiable data may develop throughout the process. This is why actions taken to reasonably assure the safety of the child are based on the collective judgement of the various child protection professionals who have followed the process described above. It is, in turn, why actions to assign culpability are similarly based on that complex process and why the ultimate judgement is made by citizens who apply their collective wisdom to the decision.