Early draft of an article entitled "When to intervene in cases of suspected incest," by Aaron Noah Hoorwitz, copyright 1982 by Family Service Association of America, published in the journal Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, Volume 63, Number 6, June 1982, pp. 374-375.

When to Intervene in Cases of Suspected Incest
Aaron Noah Hoorwitz

This brief article questions a position taken by Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert J. Solnit in their recent book Before the Best Interests of the Child (1979).Their thesis is that a criminal conviction or an acquittal on the basis of insanity should constitute the only grounds for state intervention in cases of suspected sexual involvement betweeen a parent and child.  Although the authors acknowledge the harm done to a child's development by sexual involvement with a parent, they believe that this damage is exacerbated by subjecting the family to an investigation and the possibility of a placement process. They argue that the harm caused by intervention can be greater than that caused in the absence of intervention.  Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit further contend that there is no justification from the child's point of view for making the suspected involvement a public matter because "no consensus exists about the proper treatment or about what disposition would be less harmful." These restrictions on state intervention cease to apply following a conviction or an insanity acquittal, either of which will have satisfied a "high standard of evidentiary proof."

The conflict with which Goldstein wrestles in arriving at his proposal is one of balance between the preservation of family integrity and the child's need for normal development.  This problem is the same conflict facing many children who are involved in sexual relationships with their parents and are reluctant to report it to anyone.  Often, these cases come to the atttention of mental health workers following requests by either Family Court or the Department of Social Services to provide recommendations.  Initially, suspicion of abuse is reported through a child abuse hotline to the Department of Social Services, which investigates each case and brings some of them to court.  In certain sitations, children are temporarily removed from their homes.  Although the referral for evaluation and recommendation by the worker is sometimes made during either the precourt investigation or during the court process, usually it is requested before a determination of abuse by the court. Obviously, the sooner the incest is stopped, particularly prior to adolescence, the less the harm done to a child and the more successful the outcome (Kempe & Kempe, 1978).  However, it is likely that early intevention would be impossible in most cases if it were necessary to first establish a criminal conviction.

Protecting the Best Interests of the Child

Although the proposal by Goldstein and colleagues is intended to prevent harmful intrusion by workers in cases in which suspicions of sexual offense may ultimately prove unwarranted, it leaves children in one of two extreme positions. Either children would be exposed to the full weight of state intrusion in instances in which the evidence justified criminal proceedings or they would be left unprotected.  In addition, children could be left unprotected in all those suspected incest cases which, due to legal technicalities, progress at an extremely slow pace, are dismissed, or are never initiated.

Detrimental Situation

Although the evidence and information revealed in an evaluation may not warrant criminal conviction of the parent, it may be sufficient to suggest strongly that a child is being used by a parent to meet the parent's sexual needs in a manner which is detrimental to a child's development.  Detrimental situations are distinct from those which are not in a child's best interests. These detrimental circumstances are the only ones in which state intrusion upon a family appears to be justified, not those situations which fall short of best interests but which are not harmful to the child.  If state intervention undermines parents in detrimental situations, it also serves, however, to assist children by conveying that what their parents taught them is incorrect.  A child who has been at the mercy of a detrimental situation is not guaranteed a less detrimental alternative as a result of the intrusion, but this intervention does give him or her reason to question any sense of guilt, worthlessness, or other reactions to a detrimental family experience.

Prior Investigation

An investigation prior to a criminal proceeding may be intrusive to family integrity, but it can be less so than an investigation which aims at establishing guilt or innocence in an adversarial proceeding.  The latter is likely to present greater stress to a child than careful, sensitive interviewing by those who are concerned with normalizing his or her development rather than with finding a criminal. In the absence of a policy of noncriminal investigation, a child of an innocent parent will have to suffer exposure to a criminal proceeding in order for suspicions of incest to be ruled out.  In addition, a criminal investigation is unlikely to give systematic consideration to whether less detrimental alternatives exist for a child and his or her family.

A prior investigation by a mental health worker may also be of particular value when suspicion for abuse rests primarily on a child's sexual preoccupations.  Any mental health professional who has interviewed sexually preoccupied children knows that the causes of these preoccupations are various, most of them having nothing to do with actual sexual involvement between parent and child.  Much of the time, clear determinations of cause do not emerge, even following psychological testing, interview, doll play, drawing, or other methods of evaluation.

When an investigation leaves no reason to believe that a sexual offense has occurred, there is no reason to pursue the matter, although the parents might be asked if they desire treatment for any other problem that may have been noted.  However, in other instances, findings obtained from a child and from other sources may converge to suggest a high probability of sexual offense, even though it may be questionable whether these findings are sufficient to convict his or her parent as a criminal. These latter instances are analagous to those in which children are appropriately placed away from abusive or neglectful parents whose parental rights remain extremely difficult to terminate.

Another Alternative

If the proposal by Goldstein and his colleages were followed, clinical intervention would reach only those cases which were extreme or clear enough for sufficient evidence to exist for criminal conviction.  An alternative approach described by Ruth S. Kempe and C. Henry Kempe (1978) does intrude upon family integrity but provides the family with clinical intervention and the chance to regain its privacy, autonomy, and family integrity.  In this approach, criminal charges are filed but prosecution is deferred until clinical treatment fails.  Although a significant number of families cannot and should not be reunited despite treatment, reunion has occurred in at least 70 percent of the families with whom the Kempes work.

The Kempes believe that it is less important to make a convicted criminal of a parent than to address the needs of the victim and the victim's family.  When these needs can be adequately addressed without a criminal conviction, there is a chance that some degree of family integrity may be regained.

This article has questioned that a criminal conviction or an acquittal on the basis of insanity should constitute the only grounds for intervention. Although any intervention entails a violation of family integrity, the need exists for a policy of intervention which both protects the child's family from unwarranted intrusion and provides the opportunity for helpful intervention.

References

Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert J. Solnit, Before the Best Interests of the Child (New York: The Free Press, 1979).
Ruth S. Kempe and C. Henry Kempe, Child Abuse (Camridge, Mass.:Harvard Univesity Press, 1978)