A Map of the World - Jane Hamilton [197]
“First of all,” she said in a loud, clear, unfaltering voice, “I always err in favor of the child. What do I mean by that? I don’t think that children are capable of lying about their feelings. In other words, I always believe a child’s feelings. It is essential to listen very carefully to a child, but it is just as important to be sensitive to details, to be aware that children often mix fantasy with fact. I have myself seen children, in my own practice, elaborate and get carried away with details, especially as they get further from the incident. I have seen child protection workers get into trouble because of various approaches that are still advocated and widely used, and which often mislead a victim.”
“Could you describe those approaches, Mrs. Collins, which you believe mislead children.”
“The dictum ‘Children never lie’ is often taken to extremes. I have found, in my practice, that children are often fanciful, that they sometimes say outrageous things that I’m certain have no basis in fact. In courts of law we often establish that the child can distinguish between the truth and a lie. But that is a very different issue from whether or not the child will actually lie or embellish.”
I had never seen Theresa before in her professional capacity. She was capable, articulate, and impassioned without appearing rabid. “One of them mind doctors,” I heard Dyshett say. “Tell me your dreams and all that cockshit.”
“Second,” she went on, “anatomically detailed dolls sometimes startle a child because of their unusual genital features. They invite a finger into their gaping holes. Give a child a wooden donut and he will invariably place his fingers in the holes. I have seen professionals jump to conclusions based on a child’s natural curiosity. The child often senses the importance the examiner places on the doll. He or she wants to please or possibly get a reaction from the examiner.
“Third, there is a real problem, in spite of the fact that we know we should not, of the examiner asking leading questions. I myself have been guilty of asking specific questions, such as, ‘Does your daddy put his fingers in you just like that?’ ”
“What she talkin’ about?” It was Dyshett again, zinging through my mind. “What this motherfuck lecture?” I had tried to tell Theresa, that day at the A&W, that the girls in my pod had gotten inside of me, that they were real now, more real to me than they had ever been in jail, in person. And there wasn’t much good in feeling that I was one of them, from a distance, from the safety of the outside world.
“Fourth, there is a danger that the examiners selectively ignore the impossible. Let me give you an example. If the child says, ‘My uncle abused me,’ we say, ‘Oh my!’, and we probe and set the wheels in motion to charge the uncle. If the child then says, ‘My uncle abused me during a family outing on the picnic table where everyone was eating,’ we, as examiners, tend to say, ‘Oh, Sally’s tired out. We’ll let her rest.’ ”
“So in your opinion examiners hear only what they want to hear,” Rafferty said.
“I’m saying that’s a danger, yes. Another typical problem in the field is the failure of the child protection worker to interview the accused or the adult accuser. We tend to take at face value the accusations, and we do not consider that there may have been fabrication. We think we do not need to hear another point of view because the child has told us everything. That is not always the case.”
“Mrs. Collins, there is, in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a list of telling characteristics of what is known as the unattached child, or the character-disturbed child. Another name for the disorder is the antisocial-personality disorder. Could you give us a profile of the character-disturbed child?”
“A young child with APD will not look you in the eye. The only time such a child has normal eye contact is when he is trying to manipulate and when he is angry. Character-disturbed children are quick to tell