In any court situation, a witness is called upon to testify according to firsthand knowledge of an event or series of events. Some witnesses may have special education, experience or skills that are valuable in a child abuse or neglect case. These witnesses contribute either to the defense or to the prosecution or are important in terms of general edification of the court. This type of witness may be asked to comment upon details of the case and to give an opinion based on the specialized training or background he or she has in a specific area. In this situation, the witness is called upon to do more than simply state facts as seen or heard. Some expert witnesses in child abuse or neglect cases are physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers.

Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases: What Can and Should Be Said in Court (American Psychological Association, 1998) is a book that describes the many problems and pitfalls surrounding therapists who act as expert witnesses. For example, a therapist who has been counseling a child may see him or herself as the child's advocate and thus objectivity may be problematic.

Another problem may be that the therapist is unfamiliar with the current research on the subject. Richard Lawlor, an author in Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases is particularly condemning of psychologists acting as expert witnesses and said,

A significant portion of what passes for expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases is poorly grounded in the psychological research literature, reflects a lack of the knowledge of this constantly expanding literature, and often demonstrates a significant role confusion on the part of many experts who testify in court. Even psychologists, who presumably have both a research and clinical underpinning to their testimony, seem to be prey to the same difficulties as most other expert witnesses in these cases. Of even more concern is the fact that much of the investigation done in cases of child sexual abuse appears to be done by the least trained professionals and paraprofessionals, without adequate knowledge, skills, experience, training, and sometimes even motivation to apply the knowledge and skills that they have been taught.

Lawlor also said some techniques used to determine whether child sexual abuse had occurred could actually result in an iatrogenic effect--meaning that a child who was not abused could begin to believe in imagined abuse and could also exhibit clinical symptoms of distress that were not present in the recent past. Lawlor stated that children who may have been abused but who do not display emotional distress should not be referred to a therapist for investigative purposes.

Another concern has been with the techniques of investigative experts; for example, with using anatomically correct dolls, children's drawings and so forth. Lawlor and others contend that these techniques have not been scientifically validated as indicative of child abuse. In fact, in one of the few controlled studies of the drawings of children who were known to be sexually abused, only 10% (five of 52) drew genitalia in their pictures of people. This 10% was more than the 2% of non-abused children who drew genitalia but it was not statistically significant enough to draw conclusions of evidence of abuse.

In some cases, individuals have been convicted of child abuse primarily on the basis of an expert witness. For example, in a 1986 New Jersey case, Margaret Kelly Michaels was convicted of 155 counts of child sexual abuse on children who had attended the Wee Care Nursery School. The chief prosecution witness was a psychologist who testified that the children exhibited "child sexual abuse syndrome" based on her interviews with them and their behavior. This conviction was reversed in 1993 by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, which found that the expert testimony was inadequate and stated, "Unquestionably, this erroneously admitted evidence was capable of producing an unjust result and thus requires the reversal of defendant's convictions."

This does not mean that expert witnesses are never useful nor does it mean they are always wrong. Experts report that expert witnesses can be very helpful in explaining facts about child abuse that the jury may not understand; for example, that not all child abuse victims will sob on the stand and in fact, some may behave very stoically. Depending on the state and the jurisdiction, they may also be able to talk about common behaviors of children who have been sexually abused.

Some therapists who have served as witnesses have been accused of overzealously leading children toward the finding that the therapist wants--for or against child abuse. One problem is that the therapist may have uncovered real child abuse, but if a videotape appears to be leading to a judge or jury, they may be unable to find that child abuse occurred.

The main criteria for a good expert witness are knowledge of the topic, an ability to be objective and neutral during the interview(s) with the child and also the capability of reporting any factual data about the child which has been learned and which indicates abuse, particularly data that can be corroborated.

Reference: Ceci, Stephen J., and Helene Hembrooke, eds. Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases: What Can and Should Be Said in Court. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1998.

Free term papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom written research paper, term paper, or essay on Child Abuse at affordable price. CustomTermPapers is the best solution for those who seek help in writing term papers, essays, and research papers related to Child Abuse and other relevant topics.