DIFFICULT CASES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CHILD ABUSE

Öz

The assessment of child abuse allegations is very difficult and complex. However, due to many confounding factors, the assessment of abuse allegations sometimes becomes more difficult. Young children, children with special needs, children caught in the middle of parental disagreements, children who withdraw their statements, children who are victims of domestic abuse are some of these cases. Experts should consider all possibilities when evaluating allegations of abuse and carefully examine each case. Conducting the evaluation process by multidisciplinary teams within the framework of certain rules can reduce the complexity of these cases, increase appropriate decision-making and protect the best interests of children. With this article, it is planned to examine the difficult cases encountered in the evaluation of child abuse allegations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Child abuse
• Difficult cases
• Evaluation of allegations of abuse

Çocuk İstismarının Değerlendirilmesinde Karşılaşılan Zorluklar

Öz

Çocuk istismarı iddialarının değerlendirilmesi oldukça zor ve karmaşıktır. Ancak karıştırıcı pek çok etken nedeniyle istismar iddialarının değerlendirilmesi bazen daha da zorlaşmaktadır. Yaşı küçük çocuklar, özel gereksinimli çocuklar, ebeveyn anlaşmazlıklarının arasında kalan çocuklar, ifadelerini geri çeken çocuklar, aile içi istismar mağduru çocuklar bu olgulardan bazılarıdır. Uzmanlar istismar iddialarını değerlendirirken bütün olasılıkları göz önünde bulundurmalı, her vakayı dikkatlice incelemelidir. Değerlendirme sürecinin multidisipliner ekipler tarafından belli kurallar çercevesinde yapılması bu olgularla ile ilgili karmaşık durumları azaltabilir, uygun karar vermeyi, çocukların yüksek yararını korumayı artırabilir. Bu makale ile çocuk istismarı iddialarının değerlendirilmesinde karşılaşılan zor olguların incelenmesi planlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çocuk istismarı
• Zor olgular
• İstismar iddialarının değerlendirilmesi

Kaynakça

1. Akbaş, S., Turla, A., Karabekiroğlu, K., Pazvantoğlu, O., Keskin, T.ve Böke, O.(2009). Characteristics of sexual abuse in a sample of Turkish Children with and without mental retardation, referred for legal appraisal of the psychological repercussions. Sex Disabil, 27(4), 205–13.
2. (APSAC) American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (2002). Practice Guidelines: Investigative interviewing in cases of alleged child abuse. https://www.apsac.org. (Erişim Tarihi: 05.08.2021).
3. Asnes, A.G., Leventhal, J.M. (2010). Managing child abuse: general principles. Pediatr Rev.;31(2):47–55
4. Bernet, W. (1993). False statements and the differential diagnosis of abuse allegations. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 32(5), 903-10.
5. Besharov, D.J. (1994). Responding to child sexual abuse: The need for a balanced approach. The Future of Children, 4(2),135-155.
6. Bilginer, Ç., Güllü, B., Orhan, G., Kalaycı, B.M., Erden, G. ve Koçtürk, N. (2021). Türkiye’de cinsel istismar mağduru çocukların beyanlarında ölçüt bazlı içerik analizine göre değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik. Turkish Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 28(1), 52-59.
7. Bow, J.M, Quinell, F.A, Zaroff, M.(2002). Assemany assessment of sexual abuse allegations in child custody cases. Prof Psychol Res, 33, 566-575.
8. Brooks, C.M., Milchman, M.S.(1991). Child sexual abuse allegations during custody litigation: conflicts between mental health expert witnesses and the law. Behav Sci Law, 9, 21-32.

9. Campis, L.B., Hebden-Curtis, J. ve Demaso, D.R. (1993). Developmental diffrences in detection and disclosure of sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 920-924.
10. Carnes, C.N., Nelson-Gardell, D. ve Wilson, C. (2000). Addressing challenges and controversies in child sexual abuse ınterviewing. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2(2), 83-103.
11. Cooke, P. ve Standen, P.J. (2002). Abuse and disabled children: Hidden needs? Child Abuse Review, 11, 1-18.
12. Cederborg, A.C. (1999). The construction of children's credibility in judgements of child sexual abuse, Acta sociologica, 42,147-158.
13. Dağcı, T., İnancı M.A. (2011). Hastane Temelli Çocuk Koruma Merkezleri için Başvuru Kitabı: İstismar ve İhmale Uğrayan Çocuğa Bütüncül Yaklaşım. Ankara: Fersa Ofset Matbaacılık; 2011.
14. Davies, G.M., Westcott, H.L. ve Horan, N. (2000). The impact of questioning style on the content of investigative interviews with suspected child sexual abuse victims. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 6, 81-97.
15. Derdeyn, A.P., Poehailus, A., Seigle, E.(1994). Adequate evaluation of divorce-related child sexual abuse allegations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 22, 279-287.
16. Ersoy, E. (2006). Çocuk cinsel istismarı vakalarında adli görüşme: Günümüz teknikleri ve gelecekteki yönelimler. Türk Psikoloji Bülteni, 12(39), 57.
17. Eyüpoğlu, A. (2012). Cinsel istismar mağduru çocuk ifadelerinin ölçüt bazlı içerik analizi (CBCA). Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 1, 1-22.
18. Faller, K.C. ve DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 1-25.
19. Faller, K.C. (1991). Possible explanation for child sexual abuse allegations in divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 86-90.
20. Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T. ve Diener, C. (1994). The professional response to child sexual abuse: Whose interests are served? Family Relations, 43, 244- 254.
21. Finkel, K.C. (1994). Sexuel abuse and incest. Can Fam Physicians; 40, 935-944. Fischer, D.G. ve McDonald, W.L. (1998). Characteristics of intrafamilial and extrafamilial child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl, 22, 915-929.
22. Green, A.H. (1986). True and false allegations of sexual abuse in child custody disputes. Journal of the American Academy of child Psychiatry, 25(4), 449-456.
23. Gudjonsson, G.H. ve Henry, L. (2003). Child and adult witnesses with intellectual disability: the importance of suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 241–252.
24. Goodman-Brown, T., Edelstein, R., Goodman, G., Jones, D. ve Gordon, D. (2003). Why Children Tell: A Model Of Children’s Disclosure Of Sexual Abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(5), 525-540.
25. Gönültaş, M.B. (2013). Çocuğa Yönelik Cinsel Şiddet Olaylarında Olay Kurgusunda ve Şüpheli Ifadelerindeki Ortak Özelliklerin İncelenmesi (Doktora Tezi), İstanbul Üniversitesi, Adli Tıp Enstitüsü.
26. Gönültaş, M.B. ve Akduman, İ. (2016). Çocuklara yönelik cinsel istismar vakalarında mağdur bildirimlerinin önemi: Suç soruşturması bağlamında. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(23), 274-289.
27. Güler, G., Yıldırım, V., Kütük, Ö.M. ve Toros, F.(2016). Adli Psikiyatrik Değerlendirme ve Çocuk ile İletişim. Adli Tıp Bülteni, 21(2), 98-106.
28. Gümüş, A.E. (2017). Çocuk cinsel istismarı şüphesinin bildirimi öncesinde çocukla yapılacak ilk görüşme. Klinik Psikiyatri, 20, 45-58.
29. Haskett, M. E., Wayland, K., Hutcheson, J. S. ve Tavana, T. (1995). Substantiation of sexual abuse allegations: Factors involved in the decision-making process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 19-44.
30. Hornor, G.(2001). Repeated sexual abuse allegations: a problem for primary care providers.Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 15(2), 71-76.
31. Huffman, M.L., Warren, A.R. ve Larson, S.M. (1999). Discussing truth and lies in interviews with children: Whether, why, and how? Applied Developmental Science, 3, 6-15.
32. Johnston, J.R., Lee, S., Olesen, N.W. ve Walters, M.G. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43(2), 283– 294.
33. Jones, L., Bellis, M.A., Wood, S., Hughes, K., McCoy, E., Eckley, L., et al. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet, 380(9845), 899–907.
34. Kalaycı, B.M. ve Foto Özdemir, D.(2016). “Görünenin Ardındaki Tehlikeli Sır” 25 Olgu 25 Çözümleme Olgu Kitabı. (Ed) Neslihan İnal Emiroğlu, Birleşik Matbaacılık, İzmir, s:199.
35. Karanfil, R., Akçan, R., Orhan, Ö. (2011). Çocuğun cinsel istismarı ile ilgili asılsız iddialar ve paranoid bozukluk: İki olgu sunumu. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 22:53-7.
36. Kuehnle, K. (1996). Assessing allegations of child sexual abuse. Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.
37. Lindahl, M.W. ve Hunt, L.A. (2016). Reunification in intrafamilial child abuse cases: A model for intervention. Family Court Review, 54(2), 288–299.
38. Magalhaes, T., Taveira, F., Jardim, P., Santos, L., Matos, E., Santos, A. (2009). Sexual abuse of children. A comparative study of intra and extra-familial cases. J Forensic Leg Med; 16:455-459.
39. Meadow, R. (1995). What is and what is not, “Munchausen syndrome by proxy”? Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 72, 534-538.
40. Nasıroğlu, S. (2014). Çocuk istismarında rehabilitasyon ve tedavi merkezleri. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 6, 67- 78.
41. Neoh, J. ve Mellor, D. (2009). Professional issues relating to allegations and assessment of child abuse in the context of Family Court litigation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16, 303–321.
42. Newton A.W. ve Vandeven A.M. (2010). The role of the medical provider in the evaluation of sexually abused children and adolescents. J Child Sex Abus,19(6), 669-86.
43. Özdemir, D.F., Gökler, B., Evinç, Ş.G. ve Odabaşı, A. (2013). Paylaşılmış ailesel psikoz kapsamında bir “bakım verenin yapay bozukluğu” olgusu. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 24, 275- 279.
44. Özdemir, D.F. ve Karadag F. (2010). Çocuk İhmaline ve İstismarına Psikososyal Yaklaşım. Katlı Pediatri Dergisi, 32(5), 553-558.
45. Paul, A. ve Cawson, P. (2002). Residential settings: What we know and what we don’t know. Child Abuse Review, 11, 262-281.
46. Polat, O. (2007). Tüm Boyutlarıyla Çocuk İstismarı. Seçkin Yayıncılık, 1.Baskı, Ankara,s,188.
47. Roland, J., Summit, M.D. (1983). The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Child Abuse Negl, 7, 177-192.
48. Saini, M., Laaiasalo, T. ve Platt S. (2020). Gatekeeping by allegations: an examination of verified, unfounded, and fabricated allegations of child maltreatment within the context of resist and refusal dynamics. Famıly Court Revıew, 58 (2), 417–431.
49. Santtila, P., Korkman, J. ve Sandnabba, N.K. (2004). Effects of interview phase, repeated interviewing, presence of a support person, and anatomically detailed dolls on child sexual abuse interviews. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 21-35.
50. Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455–469.
51. Sedan, M. (2004) Challenges of service evaluation in the Wynberg and Cape Town Sexual offences court and their related services. Sexual Abuse of Young Children in Southern Africa editör: Linda M. Richter, Linda Richter, Andrew Dawes, Craig Higson-Smit.shrsc press, Cape Town, 2004, s, 227.
52. Sheehan, E. (2019). Using rule 11 sanctions to punish accusers who make false allegations of child sexual abuse in custody and divorce cases. Family Court Review ,57(1),121-135.
53. Sjöberg, R.L. ve Lindblad, F. (2002). Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences were documented by videotape. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159 (2), 312–314.
54. Smith, D.W., Letourneau, E.J., Saunders, B.E., Kilpatrick, D.G., Resnick, H.S. ve Best, C.L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2, 273–287.
55. Sorensen, T., Snow, B. (1991), How children tell: the process of disclosure in child sexual abuse. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 70, 3-15.
56. Summit, R. (1983). The Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(2),177-193.
57. Ünver, H., Olgun, N.N., Şişmanlar, G.Ş., Coşkun, A. ve Biçer, Ü. (2015). Cinsel istismara uğrayan işitme engelli çocukların adli süreçte yaşadığı zorluklar: bir olgu serisi. Adli Tıp Bülteni, 20(1), 38-42.
58. Thoennes, N. ve Tjaden, P.G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 152–163.
59. TullyThe, B., (2002). Evaluation of Retractions in Sexual Abuse Cases. Child Abuse Review, 11,94–102.
60. Zarb, L.H. (1994). Allegations of childhood sexual abuse in custody and access disputes: What care is in the best interests of the child? Canadian Journal of Family Law, 12, 91–114.
61. Wakefield, H. and Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody disputes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9(4), 451-468.
62. Wissink, I.B., Vugt, V.E., Moonen, X., Stams Geert-Jan, J.M. ve Hendriks, J. (2015). Sexual abuse involving children with an intellectual disability: A narrative review and Research in Developmental Disabilities, 36, 20–35.
63. Wood, J.M. ve Garven, S. (2000). How sexual abuse interviews go astray: Implications for prosecutors, police, and child protection services. Child Maltreatment, 5, 109-118.