STUDY on RECANTATION

Take a look at this recent article from NCA’s CEO about recantation:

When a child recants an allegation

 As anyone who has worked in the field of child protection can tell you, one of the most frequently asked questions is whether a child is telling the truth. Of course, we cannot answer that question. We can discuss indicia of reliability, but where it really gets tricky is when a child recants an outcry. Does this mean the child was lying in the first place? While a recantation likely means we must re-examine the initial outcry, we also know it’s a lot more complicated than simply truth or lie.

A new study, published in the journal Child Maltreatment, examines the nuances between outcry and recantation. The study is entitled “Recanting Children’s Descriptions of Influences and Pressures to Recant Intrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse.”^[1] The researchers begin by noting that, although there have been numerous past studies examining children’s recantations, these studies have “exclusively focused on factors that can be externally measured rather than inquiries into what children report, including whether internal influences (such as guilt and fear) played a role in their decision to recant.” Id., p. 3. By contrast, the present study examines children’s recantations by analyzing the children’s own descriptions of “the influences and pressures they experienced following their allegations of child sexual abuse.” Id.

To do so, the researchers examined “53 forensic interviews with 4- to 15-year-old children who recanted allegations of sexual abuse during a forensic interview.” Id. The interviews were conducted between November 2007 and November 2021 by forensic interviewers at nine Child Advocacy centers in Los Angeles County. Additionally, “[i]n all but four cases (93%; n = 50) the sexual abuse allegations were substantiated by the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) investigation and a dependency petition was filed for the dependency court to take jurisdiction over the child.” Id.

In the initial disclosures of abuse, “[e]ighty-four percent of the victims alleged that they were abused by a father figure, with the suspect named as the father in 29% of all cases and the stepfather in 54%. The remaining allegations involved siblings (10%), grandfathers (2%), or other family members (4%).” Id., p. 4. In other words, every case that the researchers examined involved someone within the child’s family circle. This mattered to the researchers because of the unique pressures that children might face after having made an allegation against a family member, as opposed to a stranger.

The researchers categorized influences and pressures as follows: “we defined external influences as potential reasons for recantation emanating from the child’s relationship with and feelings about other people, pressures as statements and actions by others demonstrating disapproval of the allegation, and internal influences as the child’s emotions and cognitions that could motivate recantation.” Id.

Not surprisingly, the researchers found that “almost 90% of children disclosed one or more influences or pressures.” Id., p. 8. Fully 87% of children talked about potential influences on their decision to recant during the forensic interview. As they drilled down into the analysis, the researchers found that “about half of children mentioned their positive feelings for the suspect. About a third of children mentioned the negative consequences of their allegations for the suspect, about 30% disclosed that their siblings and their mother missed the suspect, and 30% described positive contact with the suspect.” Id. Additionally, about half the children mentioned separation from the family, and “[a]lmost 30% of children discussed negative consequences for the mother, and smaller percentages mentioned economic support from the suspect and negative consequences for the family.” Id.

Regarding pressures, surprisingly few – only 4% – mentioned pressure directly from the suspect. But over a third of children “disclosed family pressures, most often referring to a lack of maternal support, lack of family support, and less often, overt coaching by the mother to recant.” Id. Internal pressures were also significant: “Guilt was most common, expressed by about half of children, with over a third of children mentioning their failure to anticipate the consequences of their allegations or other negative emotion.” Id.

What does this mean for us, as CACs and MDTs? Apart from confirming much of what we already knew or suspected, the study has important implications for future practice. The researchers note that the study demonstrates that “recanting children can themselves be a source of information about influences and pressures, which will be particularly helpful when family members are unavailable, uncommunicative, or potentially dishonest about their beliefs and actions with respect to the allegations.” Id., p. 9.

The research also demonstrates that interviewers can – and, in many cases, should – explore the children’s “subjective reactions, the role of children’s emotions and beliefs and how they influence recantations….” Id. Importantly, the researchers note that, even in cases in which family members declare their support, “the child’s perception of support may be a better source of information in understanding the child’s decision whether or not to recant.” Id.

Finally, it is important in every case, but perhaps even more so in cases involving recantations, to explore the child’s emotions surrounding separation from the family. Although we might intuitively assume that “placement in foster care provides a strong motivation for recantation,” there are also many situations in which “children removed from the home were less likely to recant.” Id. (emphasis in the original). The research from the current study indicates that “the effects of removal on recantation depend on whether removal means separation from maternal influence,” which can be a double-edged sword: “on the one hand the child misses their family, but on the other hand the child is less likely to have been exposed to maternal pressure.” Id.

The researchers also acknowledge that we need additional research to understand these issues more fully, and that “[t]his study provides a first step toward understanding how best to question children who recant allegations of sexual abuse.” Id., p. 10. But even as a first step, this study is helpful in navigating the grey areas between allegation and recantation. As such, I urge you to download it and share it with your team members and colleagues, particularly those conducting forensic interviews. The better we understand children’s motivations for recanting, the better we will be able to understand what is really going on for our children, and the better able we will be to provide them with the help and support they need.

As always, I appreciate all your work on behalf of the children and families we serve.

Warmest regards,

Teresa