以儿童为先:重申在儿童保护调查中准确发现儿童性虐待的普遍策略

D.J. Schnabel , S. Font , S. Miyamoto
{"title":"以儿童为先:重申在儿童保护调查中准确发现儿童性虐待的普遍策略","authors":"D.J. Schnabel ,&nbsp;S. Font ,&nbsp;S. Miyamoto","doi":"10.1016/j.chipro.2025.100151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To accurately detect child sexual abuse (CSA), universal investigative best practices require caseworkers to perform timely, thorough, and unbiased interviews utilizing evidence-based practices, synthesizing evidence gathered from medical forensic evaluation and assessment of caregiver and family dynamics, and knowledge of developmental nuances in the CSA disclosure process. Incomplete CSA investigations may lead to mistakenly classifying true allegations as unsubstantiated, leaving children at risk for re-victimization. This discussion paper focuses on a case review of 62 unsubstantiated CSA allegations in Pennsylvania, United States, to describe alignment with internationally-recognized investigative CSA best practices. We highlight three universal interrelated barriers to accurate CSA detection: 1) Untimely or absent forensic interviews and medical forensic examinations; 2) Failure to mitigate investigative interference of unprotective/nonbelieving caregivers; and 3) Biases in assessing child credibility, particularly in children with vulnerabilities. We use the highlighted investigative gaps in our review to reaffirm global CSA investigative best practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100237,"journal":{"name":"Child Protection and Practice","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting kids first: Reaffirming universal strategies for accurate detection of child sexual abuse in child protection investigations\",\"authors\":\"D.J. Schnabel ,&nbsp;S. Font ,&nbsp;S. Miyamoto\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chipro.2025.100151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>To accurately detect child sexual abuse (CSA), universal investigative best practices require caseworkers to perform timely, thorough, and unbiased interviews utilizing evidence-based practices, synthesizing evidence gathered from medical forensic evaluation and assessment of caregiver and family dynamics, and knowledge of developmental nuances in the CSA disclosure process. Incomplete CSA investigations may lead to mistakenly classifying true allegations as unsubstantiated, leaving children at risk for re-victimization. This discussion paper focuses on a case review of 62 unsubstantiated CSA allegations in Pennsylvania, United States, to describe alignment with internationally-recognized investigative CSA best practices. We highlight three universal interrelated barriers to accurate CSA detection: 1) Untimely or absent forensic interviews and medical forensic examinations; 2) Failure to mitigate investigative interference of unprotective/nonbelieving caregivers; and 3) Biases in assessing child credibility, particularly in children with vulnerabilities. We use the highlighted investigative gaps in our review to reaffirm global CSA investigative best practices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child Protection and Practice\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child Protection and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193825000580\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Protection and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193825000580","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了准确地发现儿童性虐待(CSA),普遍的调查最佳实践要求个案工作者利用循证实践进行及时、彻底和公正的访谈,综合从医疗法医评估和照顾者和家庭动态评估中收集的证据,并了解CSA披露过程中的发展细微差别。不完整的儿童安全调查可能导致错误地将真实的指控归类为未经证实的指控,使儿童面临再次受害的风险。本讨论文件侧重于对美国宾夕法尼亚州62起未经证实的CSA指控进行案例审查,以描述与国际公认的调查CSA最佳实践的一致性。我们强调了准确检测CSA的三个普遍相互关联的障碍:1)不及时或缺乏法医访谈和医学法医检查;2)未能减轻无保护/不相信看护者的调查干扰;3)评估儿童可信度的偏见,尤其是对弱势儿童的评估。我们利用审查中突出的调查差距来重申全球CSA调查最佳实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Putting kids first: Reaffirming universal strategies for accurate detection of child sexual abuse in child protection investigations
To accurately detect child sexual abuse (CSA), universal investigative best practices require caseworkers to perform timely, thorough, and unbiased interviews utilizing evidence-based practices, synthesizing evidence gathered from medical forensic evaluation and assessment of caregiver and family dynamics, and knowledge of developmental nuances in the CSA disclosure process. Incomplete CSA investigations may lead to mistakenly classifying true allegations as unsubstantiated, leaving children at risk for re-victimization. This discussion paper focuses on a case review of 62 unsubstantiated CSA allegations in Pennsylvania, United States, to describe alignment with internationally-recognized investigative CSA best practices. We highlight three universal interrelated barriers to accurate CSA detection: 1) Untimely or absent forensic interviews and medical forensic examinations; 2) Failure to mitigate investigative interference of unprotective/nonbelieving caregivers; and 3) Biases in assessing child credibility, particularly in children with vulnerabilities. We use the highlighted investigative gaps in our review to reaffirm global CSA investigative best practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信