Whether the progression from common to uncommon allegations by children occurred because the events actually occurred as alleged, and/or because something went wrong in the child abuse investigative process, could not be fairly determined through this review. The investigative process was not documented well enough to allow OFCO to ascertain whether investigative mistakes occurred that led to factual distortions. Of particular significance was the lack of documentation by CPS social workers detailing how the investigative interviews of possible child sexual abuse victims were conducted. The quality of child interview documentation is essential to the ability of OFCO, or any other entity, to conduct meaningful reviews of CPS child abuse investigations. Therefore interview documentation is a major focus of this report.

The two other issues of major focus in this review are child interview practices and cross-discipline collaboration. Child abuse investigations virtually always require child interviews, and interaction among professionals from various disciplines. Researchers and practitioners agree that skilled interviewing practices and effective cross-discipline collaboration are critical to enhancing the accuracy and completeness of children’s reports of abuse. They are also critical for minimizing the risk of factual distortion.1 We cannot know for sure whether CPS social workers engaged in skilled interviewing practices, or whether skillful interview practices were employed in joint CPS/police interviews. Nor can we know for sure whether workers engaged in effective cross-discipline collaboration in Wenatchee. However, because experts agree that these issues are critical to effective child abuse investigations, they also are a major focus of this report.

In this section OFCO sets forth its observations and findings on the following issues:

• Child Interview Documentation
• Child Interview Practices
• Cross-Discipline Collaboration

OFCO’s observations consist of documented or alleged events in which CPS social workers were directly involved. They also consist of events involving others who interacted with potential child sexual abuse victims. OFCO’s observations do not constitute findings of any kind. Rather, they are a neutral presentation of events as they were documented or alleged by others. In most instances the events are disputed by other participants or witnesses. Without attempting to resolve these factual disputes, OFCO presents these events because they are representative of investigative activities that were frequently documented or alleged in Wenatchee, and that experts agree can increase the possibility of factual distortion.

OFCO’s findings represent its independent assessment of current law and the current policies and procedures of the DSHS Children’s Administration (CA) with regard to these major issues. In contrast to the disputed events in Wenatchee, state law and the CA’s policies and procedures can be clearly established. Accordingly, they have been analyzed for the purpose of determining whether they are sufficient to:

1. Ensure that CPS child interviews are documented in a manner that permits meaningful oversight and external review.
2. Provide CPS social workers with specific guidance and training for implementing effective child interview practices and cross-discipline collaboration.

INTERVIEW DOCUMENTATION

Child abuse investigations depend in large part on obtaining accurate and complete information from the child. Child Protective Services (CPS) social workers must gather facts to assess the safety of children and protect them. Child interviews are virtually always necessary to gain needed information. Research has shown, however, that child interview questions carry different risks of influencing answers.2 Accordingly, to assess the presence or absence of improper interviewing techniques and the corresponding risk of factual distortion, it is necessary to know an investigator’s specific questions and children’s specific responses.

In 1994 and 1995, CPS social workers employed three basic methods of documenting case events, activities and contacts:

• Service Episode Record (SER): Workers recorded information on these standard forms and placed them in the child or parent file See Appendix D;

• Case and Management Information System (CAMIS): Workers entered information into the state-wide automated case management system of the DSHS Children’s Administration; and/or

• Handwritten Notes: Workers took handwritten notes on any type of paper and placed them in the child or parent file.

Child interviews were documented using these three methods. With regard to these documentation methods, OFCO observed that:

• Interviews of Wenatchee children were never documented in a format that indicated exactly which questions were asked, in what order, and what exact answers were given to the questions.

• Interview documentation often did not indicate who asked the questions; nor did it indicate whether the child wished for a third party to be present for the interview, or whether reasonable efforts had been made to accommodate the child’s wishes (these efforts are required by RCW 26.44.030(10)).

• The detail of interview documentation in Wenatchee varied widely from interview to interview and social worker to social worker. For example:
  • One SER entry consisted of only a one-sentence notation that an interview had occurred and that the child had reported sexual abuse by his parents and other third parties. While in another SER, an interview was documented in a narrative format in nine pages of notes (though they did not contain any of the questions asked and neglected to name anyone present at the interview, including the note taker).
  • There are no SERs or notes of the interview that the detective and CPS social workers conducted with the child who originally implicated the church pastor in sexual abuse activities at the church. The CAMIS entry contains a one-line entry that merely indicates that the social worker and the detective traveled to another city to interview the child, and that they spent the day there. There are no substantive comments about the interview itself.

• Interview documentation often did not include information about the length of the interview such as start time, stop time, and breaks.

• The documentation sometimes lacked information about who else was present in the interview.

• Documentation of pertinent interviews was sometimes missing altogether. For example, there is no CPS documentation of a particular interview conducted by Detective Palmer and a CPS social worker at the detective’s home. According to a police report, the Everson girl in that interview alleged that group sexual abuse of children took place at the home of Mr. Duvall, her former foster father, and that CWS social worker Gallagher was involved.

Washington State law and the policies and procedures of the DSHS Children’s Administration (CA) provide CPS social workers with little guidance on expectations and procedures for documenting child interviews. Specifically, there is no express requirement that social workers document child interviews. Nor is there any formal guidance as to the purpose, form or content of interview documentation, or whether it must occur contemporaneously with the interview. As a result, interview documentation practice varies among social workers.

Current Expectations: Washington law requires DSHS to maintain written records of reported child abuse and neglect and of child abuse and neglect investigations.3 These records are required to be accurate and reasonably complete, although those terms are not defined.4 The issue of interview documentation in child abuse and neglect investigations is not directly addressed in Washington law.

The expectations of the CA regarding interview documentation are contained in the CA Operations Manual and the DCFS Cases Services Policy and Practices and Procedures Guide. The CA Operations Manual requires "ongoing narrative" to be documented in the SER.5 For each case event, activity or contact, the SER recording must include its purpose, when and where it occurred, who was present, and a description. The SER may also include an assessment of the event, activity or contact, together with supporting facts or evidence that led to the assessment. The SER must be entered in CAMIS within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days. SERs may be entered into CAMIS either individually as each event occurs or as a summary of events.6

Other than these general expectations, there is no specific requirement for CPS workers to document investigative interviews.7 Nor is there any requirement that the documentation of interviews be contemporaneous.8 The CA Operations manual does require that workers who take handwritten notes during a child or collateral interview transcribe them into CAMIS and retain the notes in the case file.9 However, this requirement was rescinded in an October 15, 1998 directive from the CA Assistant Secretary. This directive instructed workers to discard their handwritten notes following their transcription into CAMIS. In a November 30, 1998 letter, an assistant attorney general advised the CA Assistant Secretary that child interview notes should be retained in the case file following their transcription into CAMIS. CA administrators have indicated to OFCO that they are continuing to review and clarify this policy. In the meantime, most workers have been trained to discard their handwritten child and collateral interview notes.

CA administrators and social workers interviewed by OFCO have expressed differing views of the CA’s expectations with regard to interview documentation format and timing:

• A CPS social worker indicated that she understands it to be the role and responsibility of interviewers to take thorough notes during an interview, word for word if possible.

• Another CPS social worker said that verbatim or near verbatim documentation was not a requirement in 1994 or 1995 but that it is now.

• Another CPS social worker indicated that taking notes during an interview is distracting and disrespectful. Accordingly, this worker keeps note taking to a minimum during the interview and then documents the interview afterward in CAMIS.

• A CPS supervisor said that whether or not social workers are required to take notes during an interview depends upon whom you ask. This supervisor indicated that there are a variety of suggestions and guidelines about how to document interviews, and they are not consistent.

• CA administrators said social workers are required to document interviews, but that they are not required to take contemporaneous notes. According to these administrators, some university social work programs discourage note taking during interviews, while others training programs encourage verbatim note taking.

Although there are different views on documentation format and timing, CA administrators and social workers appear to agree on the difficulty associated with taking verbatim notes:

• One social worker said she has tried to take verbatim notes during interviews but that it is impossible. She said that she generally remembers what questions were asked when she later reviews her notes, and that she is more concerned during the interview about the child’s responses.

• When asked about the interview guidelines developed by the Harborview Sexual Assault Center (SAC) in Seattle, CA administrators said that verbatim documentation is an unreasonable expectation of social workers. The SAC guidelines provide as follows: "Document accurately and completely; verbatim documentation of questions/answers regarding specific abuse questioning is desirable.10

Current law and CA documentation policies are not sufficient to ensure that child interviews are documented in a manner that allows for meaningful external review. They do not require that child interviews be documented contemporaneously or pursuant to a standard format. Without contemporaneous verbatim documentation of child interviews, it is not possible for external reviewers such as OFCO to assess the presence or absence of improper interviewing techniques, and the corresponding risk of factual distortion in child sexual abuse investigations. Such an assessment requires knowing exactly which questions were asked, in what order, and what exact answers were given to the questions. Because they do not contain this information, even highly detailed narrative summaries are insufficient in this regard.

Furthermore, it is difficult to ascertain how CA administrators and managers can, absent verbatim documentation, provide effective oversight and monitoring of this critical function to ensure accountability and continuous quality improvement. Earlier this year, CA administrators commissioned a comprehensive internal record review of the Wenatchee cases to identify potential practice problems. This review found no significant problems with regard to the CPS investigations. While it is laudable that this review was conducted, it is difficult to determine how the department could meaningfully assess the Wenatchee cases without knowing more about what occurred in the child interviews.

Skilled interviewing practices are critical to enhancing the accuracy and completeness of children’s reports of abuse. Significant factual errors may occur when the interviewing consists of many risky practices. There is general agreement among researchers and practitioners that the competent implementation of certain interview principles increases the probability of eliciting complete and accurate information from children.11

An extensive body of research and literature exists on children’s memory, suggestibility and proper interviewing techniques. In January 1997, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) published a report summarizing that research and suggested practices (hereinafter referred to as the WSIPP report).12 The WSIPP report indicates that a consensus exists among researchers and practitioners on general principles that investigators should apply when interviewing children. The Harborview Sexual Assault Center in Seattle summarized the main interviewing principles in the document "Principles for Legally Sound Interviewing.".13 As of August 1994, those principles were designated as follows:

• Specifically state:

1. The importance of telling the truth
2. That it’s okay to say, "I don’t know" and,
3. That the child can ask if he or she does not understand a question.

• Elicit information in an open-ended fashion initially. (e.g. "Tell me more about that.") Proceed to more specific questioning only when the open-ended approach is no longer productive.
• Once the child has described an experience, clarify the information with the child to ensure an accurate understanding.
• Do not ask suggestive questions which contain an expected answer. (e.g. "Your dad touched your pee pee, didn’t he?")
• Avoid repeated questioning when questioning is unproductive or the child is resistant or denying abuse.
• Use a non-coercive environment and approach; never pressure, intimidate, or offer rewards in order to obtain a response.
• Have no preconceived assumptions; consider and explore all possible explanations for concern about possible abuse.

In addition to interview techniques during child interviews, there are also circumstances outside the interview room which investigators should be aware of and manage because they risk distorting the information that is provided during the formal interview.14 These include:

• Role conflict: Where a person in a caretaker or trust relationship with a child attempts to determine whether sexual abuse took place (e.g., when foster parents or treating therapists assume investigative roles.)

• Cross contamination: Where witnesses to an event receive information about the event from outside sources.

The following are examples of interview errors that are either documented or alleged to have been made in the Wenatchee investigations. The interview errors fall into two categories: 1) errors of technique during the interviews themselves; and 2) errors of milieu, i.e., circumstances outside the interview room that could negatively affect the interviewing process.

Whether CPS social workers in Wenatchee actively engaged in, or observed appropriate or inappropriate interviewing practices is a matter of vociferous debate and extensive litigation. In depositions, trial testimony and interviews, the CPS social workers who were present in most of the joint interviews with Detective Palmer have maintained that they neither engaged in nor observed inappropriate leading, suggestive or coercive interviewing practices. Of further debate is whether any failures in the implementation of recommended interviewing principles produced false reports of abuse. Recent court cases have addressed these issues with varying results and we anticipate that additional court cases will also address them.

Interview Techniques
Leading and Suggestive Questioning: Questions are leading or suggestive when they imply an expected answer or introduce previously unmentioned information. Police reports and some CPS reports from the Wenatchee investigations document a great deal of leading questioning in joint interviews involving CPS social workers and Detective Palmer. Leading questioning tends to occur when investigators believe they already know, from another source, what has happened.

• According to police and CPS records, Detective Palmer asked the Hull girl in a joint police/CPS interview if she had had any problems with Mrs. Grant. When the girl did not answer, the detective told her that Mrs. Grant had already confessed to "certain things." In a later joint interview, Detective Palmer also told the girl that other children had already talked to them about Mrs. Grant. Still later, after the Everson girl made the allegations about numerous sexual abusers throughout the city, Detective Palmer and a CPS social worker discussed a list of suspects with the Hull girl and she was told that they already knew what had happened.

• According to police and CPS records, the older sister of the Everson girl was questioned by both the detective and a CPS social worker about abuse by her parents in a joint interview. When the 11-year-old denied abuse, Detective Palmer told her that they already knew about the abuse by her parents because her sister had told them. Later in the interview, the CPS social worker asked the girl specifically if "secret touching" was going on in her home. When the child nodded yes, the social worker asked her if it was someone in her family. The notes say, "no nod." The social worker then asked her if it was her father, her mother, or her brother. In response to each question, the child nodded, "no".

• According to police and CPS records, the 14-year-old brother of the Everson girl denied any abuse by his parents in a joint police/CPS interview. His denial came after Detective Palmer told him that his sisters and mother had all already acknowledged that sexual abuse took place. When he was shown his mother’s confession, the boy told the detective that his mother wouldn’t have signed the confession because those things didn’t happen. He also stated that she could hardly read or write, and the statement "did not sound like her."

• According to police and CPS records, the 9-year-old daughter of Mrs. Grant was questioned in a joint police/CPS interview. The police report indicates that Detective Palmer asked the child whether "she could tell [him] about any problems she had been having with her mother." When the child answered that her mother spanked her, Detective Palmer told her that her brother and other children had already told him about the "touching problems" she had been experiencing with her mother.

• According to CPS records, a CPS social worker told a 12-year-old child in a joint interview with police that the social worker already knew much about what had occurred at Mr. Duvall’s foster home. She told the child that there were "no more secrets" about it. She went on to ask the child whether she ever saw anyone being touched in a sexual manner, and whether the child had ever been touched in a sexual manner while at the foster home. When the child said no to each of the questions, the social worker told her that she did not think the child was being "totally honest." When the child did not respond, the social worker stated while "these things" were embarrassing and hard to discuss, it was important to "get up enough guts to talk about it anyway." Later in the interview, the worker told the child that she knew from other adults and children about what happened at Mr. Duvall’s home and that it was important now for the child "to be truthful about the things that happened there." She then asked the child if she ever went to church. The records do not indicate how the social worker introduced the topic of abuse at a church, but they do indicate that the child denied being abused or witnessing abuse at a church.

• In an interview with OFCO investigators, the son of the Dodges said that Detective Palmer and the CPS social worker assumed that he had greater knowledge about sex than he did when they interviewed him at age 14. The boy said he "didn’t have any idea about a lot of what they were saying. … They said something about penetration. And I was, like, ‘What are you talking about?’ I don’t even know . . . I didn’t even understand what they were saying . . .And they said, ‘Partial, full,’ you know… I just picked one out of the list." The boy said doing this "got me in a lot of trouble because I didn’t know what I had been saying to them. And then it turns out that it was way farther than anything that had actually happened."

Repeated Questioning: Questions can be repeated within an interview or by conducting serial interviews. According to the WSIPP report, research on repeated questions within or across interviews has produced mixed results. If the original report is correct, repeated questioning can render a report more complete. On the other hand, repeated questioning can also cause error. Asking the same question more than once is a risky practice because it can communicate that previous answers are not acceptable, and children may change their answers if they assume they answered incorrectly. The WSIPP report indicates that some evidence exists that repeated questioning about events that have not occurred can lead some children to give detailed accounts of these non-events.15

Because of the aforementioned documentation problems, it is impossible to tell how many times in a given interview a particular question was asked of a particular child. However, the police records make it clear that investigators often asked questions again when children failed to disclose or denied abuse.

• According to a police report, when Detective Palmer and a CPS social worker interviewed the Everson girl’s older sister about abusers other than her parents, the detective told the child that her little sister had told him that she had problems with their older half-sister. Detective Palmer asked the then 12-year-old child "if she had ever had any problems with the older half-sister and she said, I don’t remember anything about [the half-sister] doing any touching to anyone." The child "then denied that [the half-sister] touched any of the other kids." His police report indicates that "at this point she hid her face behind her hands" and did not look at the detective or the social worker. The report indicates that she "just burrowed deeper behind her hands and huddled in her chair" when she was asked additional questions. The detective then asked her again if she had witnessed problems with her older half-sister and the child started to cry. The detective notes that this behavior was consistent with an earlier interview with her. Detective Palmer then told her that "her little sister … had been able to tell what happened and was being protected."

The numbers of times particular children were interviewed varied depending on the number of times independent cases were investigated, whether the allegations of abuse expanded over time prompting additional interviews, and the number of prosecutor and defense interviews required. It is clear from police reports that children were subjected to as many as 13 investigative interviews, for example, especially as the Everson girl continued to make new abuse reports.

• At one point, a prosecutor requested that the court dismiss criminal charges against the defendant. One reason for the prosecutor’s request was that one of the child witnesses had "suffered emotional distress due to the strain of the numerous interviews" and was no longer available as a witness.

Threatening, promising and coercive questioning: According to the WSIPP report, "coercive, insistent questioning or the use of bribes or threats to secure answers is never justified, no matter how strong the suspicion or how urgent the situation. Even if children are telling the truth, confidence in the results is completely undermined."16 There are many allegations of coercive questioning in the Wenatchee investigations. These allegations are disputed. Examples include:

• As mentioned earlier, the foster parent Mr. Duvall was accused by a foster daughter of sexually molesting her. The next day the foster daughter recanted her statements to Mr. Gallagher, a CWS social worker, saying that Detective Palmer had pressured her into making the allegation. According to a police report, Detective Palmer in a joint CPS/police interview later told the girl that "if the statement she had given to [him] in August was a lie, [he] would send a report to the prosecutor for him to consider the filing of charges for false reporting." The CPS social worker who was present in this interview later testified that she did not think this statement was coercive.

• The 14-year-old Everson boy said that his interview with Detective Palmer and the social workers turned into an argument. At a court hearing, the boy testified that Palmer said, "You’re lying and I know it;" and, "We’ll put them [the parents] in prison with the others;" and "Your brothers and sisters are counting on you to back them up."

• As described earlier, the Dodge family came to the attention of police and CPS because the parents reported that they had found out that their 14-year-old son had molested his sister. When interviewed by Detective Palmer and a CPS worker, the boy admitted the sexual contact with his sister but denied any sexual abuse by his parents. At a later time, the detective and social worker interviewed the boy again. According to the boy, they told him that his sisters had already told the detective that his parents had abused them. The boy told OFCO investigators that the detective threatened to send him to jail, accused him of lying, and scared him. He said that he thought that the interview was not going to end until he said what they wanted to hear, so he told them that his parents abused him.

• Detective Palmer and a CPS social worker then traveled to California to talk to the Dodge girls, age 16 and 14. The older girl says that she told the detective and social worker immediately that her parents had not abused her. She said the detective, in the presence of the social worker, told her, "You know your dad raped you, why don’t you admit it." The younger girl indicates that, during her interview, she was crying most of the time and the detective kept telling her he knew what the truth was, and that everyone else had already disclosed the abuse. She indicates she was crying too hard to say anything. She says he kept saying that her parents had abused everybody and that they knew it happened. She said he told her that he had all today and all night and almost all of tomorrow to sit here and wait until she told him the truth. The detective has indicated that he did say something to that effect, but that it was intended to show that he would be patient with her.

• In June 1996, the Everson girl’s older sister ran away from her foster home to her grandparents’ home. While she was on "runaway" status, she recanted all allegations of abuse that she had made against anyone. This recantation was videotaped by a reporter and the pastor who had been acquitted of criminal charges. She said she made the accusations because she had been pressured into doing so by Detective Palmer. After she recanted she was returned to the custody of the state and then retracted her recantation. However, a judge later found that her recantation was believable.

Interviewer Bias: The WSIPP report stresses the importance of the interviewer having an open mind to all possible explanations for children’s reports and to exploring alternative hypotheses regardless of case circumstances. The report states, "Interviewers who have a preconceived idea of what may have happened to children can inadvertently create the conditions where children incorporate false information into their accounts or acquiesce to suggested information."17

In the Wenatchee investigations, there is nothing in the DCFS case files to indicate whether CPS social workers considered alternative hypotheses as to why the children were making the ever-expanding allegations, denials, and recantations. There is some documentation indicating that some CPS social workers believed that children had been abused before the children themselves had disclosed, and that other workers were explicitly not open to considering alternative hypotheses rather than abuse.

• When Mrs. Grant’s eldest daughter denied abuse by her mother, her CPS social worker indicated in a SER that the child seemed "to be w/holding -- dissociating as defense." The social worker also prepared a report to the court in which she indicated that "[t]he children in these cases were coached and directed about how to perform during the sexual abuse rituals while being filmed with a video camera. [The eldest child] has yet to acknowledge that she was part of the abuses, when investigators know for a fact that she was, there is too much proof." The girl’s mother was later convicted of child sexual abuse that involved neither her own children, nor videotaped or ritualistic abuse.

• One CPS social worker made documented references to individuals that did not believe the sexual abuse allegations as "non-believers" or "non-believing."

• When contacted by Detective Palmer and a CPS social worker, the eldest Dodge sister denied abuse by her parents. Shortly after her placement in foster care, in January 1995, DCFS referred her to a psychiatric hospital where she was admitted for treatment. According to hospital records, a CPS social worker contacted hospital staff to relate that the girl’s younger siblings "had reported incest among siblings and guardedly were beginning to disclose incest with parents also, plus involvement in a multi-family sexual sharing group that may have all belonged to the same church." OFCO has been unable to identify any documented reports of multi-family abuse or abuse at a church by the girl’s siblings.18

An important feature of the Wenatchee investigations that may relate to the issue of interviewer bias is the fact that about 17 alleged abusers confessed to sexual abuse of children. CPS social workers were aware of these confessions at the time. Those confessions have since been the subject of extensive litigation.19 Moreover, some of the medical examinations of children conducted at the time resulted in findings that were suggestive of sexual abuse. Some of these findings were called into question by later medical examinations that resulted in findings that were not indicative of abuse.

Role Conflicts: In the investigation and management of child abuse cases, it is essential that each participant be clear about, and remain within the boundaries of his or her role. When the boundaries of these roles become confused, it can inadvertently create pressure on children and increase the risk of factual distortions.20

It is the role of the police to investigate child abuse allegations for the purpose of obtaining evidence for criminal prosecution. It is the role of foster parents to nurture and care for the child. While the child may make abuse reports to a foster parent that should be communicated to law enforcement and CPS, it is exceptionally risky for the foster parent to become an investigator. Children are in a vulnerable position of feeling that they must please their caregivers. If they come to believe that their caregivers want information about abuse, the risk of factual distortion can be increased.

Likewise, the role of the evaluating forensic therapist is to gather and weigh information regarding possible sexual abuse. A therapist assessing possible sexual abuse interviews the child using careful questioning techniques. The role of the treating clinical therapist is to treat the child rather than to investigate or evaluate whether sexual abuse took place. A treating therapist might listen, reflect the child’s feelings, and focus on helping the child with behavioral difficulties. After a child has disclosed abuse, a therapist might, as part of the therapeutic process, encourage the child to talk about what happened and what it meant. The role of the treating therapist is to convey to the investigator the child’s statements regarding allegations, but it is not the therapist’s job to elicit such statements, or to make a determination of whether the alleged abuse occurred. Children are in a trust relationship with their treating therapists. If they come to believe that their therapists want information about abuse, the risk of factual distortion can be increased.

OFCO’s review has indicated that some role conflicts were documented or alleged to have occurred in the Wenatchee investigations. While we are unable to say definitively that these role conflicts did cause factual distortions, they are certainly the types of conflicts that present a risk of doing so.

The Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed the 9-year-old Everson girl into the home of Detective Palmer in March 1994, three months after he became lead sex crimes detective for the city of Wenatchee. While living in the Palmer home, the Everson girl made the first allegations of abuse by her parents (September 1994), then later expanded the allegations to include additional families (the Hulls, the Tobins, and Mrs. Grant--January 1995), and then eventually further expanded the allegations to include 56 people at 23 locations and organized sexual abuse at a church (March 1995). Most of these allegations were initially made to the detective at home rather than in formal interviews.

There has been considerable litigation about the issue of whether the allegations made by the Everson girl were made either to please her foster father or to be allowed to remain in the foster home or to gain attention. In particular, interest has centered on the timing of the allegations. For example, the child made the first allegations about her parents in September 1994, a time when the court was reviewing the permanency plan to reunite her with her family. She made the allegations about the Hulls, the Tobins and Mrs. Grant at a time when the Palmers were documented as considering whether to move her temporarily to another foster home, and when the Hulls, the Tobins and Mrs. Grant were already receiving publicity for allegations that they abused their own children. The concerns that have been raised are that Detective Palmer’s role conflict provided the Everson child with motive to create allegations, and made it more difficult for the detective to objectively evaluate the child’s credibility.

Police reports document other instances of foster parents stepping into the investigative role. In one instance, a foster mother helped a 13-year-old child prepare a list for the police of the people who had molested her. Later the child told a detective that a couple of people on the list had not abused her but that she had added their names because of "the pressures of the case."

DCFS records indicate that state-contracted treating therapists sometimes assumed, or were placed in the role of investigator:

• In one case, for example, a child told his therapist that he was "mad." With no apparent reason to do so, the therapist asked the child if he was mad "because they touched your private parts?" The child answered yes. The therapist then asked another "yes" or "no" question and the child identified his dad as someone who touched him.

Records also indicate that therapists sometimes did not accept children’s silence about abuse, or statements that retracted or denied abuse.

• In a letter to the CWS social worker of a child who had consistently denied that he or his family had been involved in intra-familial or group sexual abuse, the child’s therapist wrote that he hoped "after the last of the sex ring cases has passed through the system that [the boy] may be better able to confront the truth of his own abuse and participation in sexual activities with adults and younger children." The therapist indicated that if the present form of therapy did not result in the boy breaking "through this impasse that it may be necessary to adopt another form of therapy" and to pursue "a more perpetrator oriented form of therapy."

• A therapist reported to DCFS that a child who would not talk about abuse had "suppressed most memories of sexual abuse."

• Several children who denied abuse or said they had "blocked out" abuse or childhood memories were given dissociation and/or post traumatic stress disorder diagnoses. Based on a review of DCFS records, OFCO is concerned whether these diagnoses were clinically appropriate.

Concerns have been raised that the referrals of some children by DCFS social workers for admission to inpatient mental health treatment and the treatment provided by the staff of a psychiatric hospital in Idaho were not clinically appropriate. The concerns are that the referrals and treatment were intended to pressure children into making disclosures of sexual abuse. DCFS records indicate that the referrals for admission by DCFS social workers were clinically appropriate.21 OFCO investigators could not locat relevant treatment records because the Idaho hospital has since filed for bankruptcy and is no longer in operation. As a result, OFCO was unable to evaluate the appropriateness of treatment provided by hospital staff.

Cross-Contamination: Cross-contamination occurs when witnesses to an event receive information about the event from outside sources. The danger of cross-contamination is that a witness will inadvertently, or even intentionally, incorporate a third person’s information about the event into the witness’s own version, thus causing factual distortions. Experts indicate that in multiple victim and multiple perpetrator cases, it is imperative to try to control contamination and to interview potential victims as soon as possible.22

In the Wenatchee cases, many of the witnesses knew each other as family members, friends, house mates, school mates, neighbors, or church members. While it is impossible to completely control for cross-contamination under such circumstances, it is still important to make an attempt. Experts suggest that special investigative techniques be used to control cross-contamination in multiple victim/multiple perpetrator cases (see section on Cross-Discipline Collaboration, below). At a minimum, witnesses can and should be advised of the importance of not discussing the case with each other. Also, investigators can and should take cross-contamination into account when developing hypotheses about why a child is making abuse reports.

In the Wenatchee investigations, there is no documented evidence indicating whether police or CPS social workers attempted to control cross-contamination of witnesses. There is contrary evidence that indicates they actively participated in giving witnesses information about what other witnesses were saying (see Leading and Suggestive Questioning, above). Moreover, records indicate that children’s therapists routinely brought in siblings or other family members so that one child heard the allegations of another.

• In one joint CPS/police interview, the Everson girl’s older sister was interviewed while the Everson girl was present. According to CPS records, the Everson girl was "present for support."

Currently there is no statutory requirement that state professionals involved in child abuse investigations, including CPS social workers, receive specialized or on-going training in investigative and interviewing techniques. Current CA training requirements do not include specialized or ongoing child interviewing training for all social workers. This means that CPS social workers with only minimal training in investigative and interviewing techniques are allowed to perform these challenging functions.

Furthermore, there is no requirement that therapists with whom the CA contracts, including those therapists who evaluate sexual abuse allegations, have specialized or on-going training about sexual abuse issues. This means that state-contracted therapists with no or minimal training in sexual abuse issues are allowed to evaluate sexual abuse allegations, and/or treat sexually abused children.

Current Requirements: RCW 43.101 270 requires the Criminal Justice Training Center to offer a self-supporting multidisciplinary training session on investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases each year. Other than this provision, which directs the commission to make training available, there is no statutory requirement that state professionals involved in child abuse investigations receive specialized or ongoing training. Executive Order 98-02, which was signed by Governor Gary Locke on June 11, 1998, directs the Department of Personnel to establish and implement a state investigator training program, including standards for training programs that are provided by state agencies for their own investigators. This effort is currently underway, but standards have not yet been established.

The CA requires all DCFS social workers to complete basic training provided through the CA Academy before assuming their duties. This training includes one day of general information on sexual abuse and the process of sex abuse investigations, with some information on interviewing. In September 1997, the CA implemented additional mandatory training requirements for new workers. CPS social workers hired on or after September 22, 1997 must attend two days of sex abuse and child interview training within the first year of employment. These requirements do not apply to workers who were hired before this date.

Professionals who are involved in child sexual abuse cases agree that acquiring and maintaining the expertise necessary to conduct skilled interviews with suspected child abuse victims, as well as effective overall investigations, requires specialized training that is ongoing. According to the WSIPP report, Washington State professionals who were interviewed stressed the value of training focused on forensic interviews. In addition, because of developments in the research literature on children’s memory and suggestibility, as well as effective interviewing and investigative techniques, they also emphasized the importance of advanced training.23

According to the WSIPP report, effective training on child interviewing should cover research about child’s memory and suggestibility, patterns of disclosure and reporting, and recommended interview techniques. In addition, it should include opportunities for students to practice interviewing skills and receive feedback from experts. Finally, training about interviewing should occur in the context of training about the overall investigation. According the WSIPP report, the CA Academy "is not considered the best place for CPS workers to absorb detailed information on sex abuse investigations and interviewing."24

Like child abuse investigative and interviewing techniques, the evaluation and treatment of trauma is an emerging area of practice. However, state-contracted therapists who conduct sexual abuse evaluations for the CA or who treat sexually abused children in state care are not required to have any specialized or on-going education or training about sexual abuse.

Analysis/Conclusions
Currently there is no requirement that all CPS social workers receive specialized training on effective child sexual abuse investigations and interviews. In addition, although there are continuous additions to the research on effective investigative and interviewing techniques, there is no requirement that CPS workers receive advanced or ongoing training so they can keep abreast of new developments. Without the benefit of specialized and on-going training, social workers are at risk of making investigative and interview errors that can lead to factual distortions. Moreover, unless they are provided with such training, CPS workers cannot be reasonably or fairly held to high standards of performance.

Current contracting requirements are not adequate to ensure that children under state protection due to sexual abuse issues are being evaluated or treated by therapists with specialized training in these issues. Without specialized and on-going training, state-contracted therapists are at risk of making errors that can lead to factual distortion in the investigative and interview process.

Appropriate cross-discipline collaboration can be an effective factor in reducing factual distortions in child abuse investigations. Child abuse cases involve legal, social and psychological issues that must be addressed by a variety of professionals ranging from prosecutors and law enforcement personnel to CPS workers, therapists and physicians. Widespread consensus exists that effectively addressing issues of child sexual abuse requires the efforts and coordination of many agencies and disciplines.25 In their book, "Team Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse: An Uneasy Alliance".26 Donna Pence and Charles Wilson note that cross-discipline investigations can:

• Maximize skillful interviewing
• Reduce the number of child interviews
• Eliminate duplication of efforts
• Improve evidence collection; and
• Reduce secondary trauma and inconvenience to the child and the child’s family.

Reduction of the number of times a child is interviewed, besides reducing possible trauma to the child, also reduces the risk of factual distortions that may arise from repeated interviews. Other practical advantages follow from the use of a collaborative approach:

• Collaboration may balance and offset strong personalities.
• A person from another discipline may see the "big picture" of a case or set of cases when the individual social workers and law enforcement officers may be too immersed in detail or overwhelmed by handling the investigation.
• The expertise of various disciplines can contribute to assessing the case. For example, a physician may have information on how to interpret the physical findings.

Membership and Structure
A wide variety of disciplines may be involved in the cross-discipline approach to investigations. Generally, law enforcement and child protective services as well as prosecutors are involved. Physicians, therapists and attorneys general may also be part of the collaborative team.27 Moreover, different models of cross-collaboration exist, ranging from professionals at different locations who coordinate their activities, to child advocacy centers with staff from various disciplines in the same central facility.28

Whatever its organizational structure, effective cross-discipline collaboration has in common certain qualities and components:

• Diverse professional expertise
• Written protocols that set forth expectations regarding collaborative investigations, such as: who is responsible for interviewing, how investigative and case decisions are made, the extent of information that may be shared among participants, and any special types of procedures such as those involving multiple victims and perpetrators 25
• Documentation of collaborative activities
• Intra-agency supervision of each participant
• Clear understanding of each discipline’s role, perspective, and goals
• Ability to remain within one’s own professional role, and respect for the roles of others
• Good communication among collaborative participants
• A method to resolve conflicts among participants that works effectively enough to allow individual members to express disagreement without fear of retaliation
• A system for creating checks and balances on the collaborative relationship that makes participants open to external input and consultation

When cases involve potential multiple victims and multiple perpetrators, experts suggest that investigators use special investigation techniques. Pence and Wilson recommend that the original team should request additional personnel as soon as the possibility of a multiple victim and multiple perpetrator case arises. They recommend that new investigators be formed into investigative teams and briefed on the case, except that the teams should divide into separate units and act as separate cells with absolutely no direct exchange of information among the different cells. Central team leaders should be assigned to coordinate the overall investigation and the work of each cell. Various jurisdictions have adopted specific protocols to address investigations of multiple victim and multiple perpetrator cases.30

The WSIPP report also states that investigations of multiple party cases require a special response because they are they high profile, time consuming, and require quick response time. It suggests the following actions for responding to a multiple party case:31

• Identify cases as "multiple party cases" at the earliest possible point in the investigation.
• Gather the investigative team and make a plan.
• Identify a prosecutor as the central coordinator at the outset.
• Ensure that more than one investigator is involved in the investigation to avoid cross contamination and tainting.
• Document interviews and investigations carefully.
• Designate a single spokesperson to communicate with the media.
• Establish a support network for suspected child victims and their families.
• Smaller jurisdictions should request immediate assistance. The message that it is "okay to ask for help" needs to be disseminated.

The formal collaborative relationship that was in effect in Wenatchee in 1994-95 cannot be established.32 In addition, because it was not consistently or completely documented by DCFS social workers, the extent and character of the cross-discipline collaboration in the Wenatchee investigations cannot be determined. However, based on our review of documents and interviews of DCFS staff, we make the following observations regarding cross-discipline collaboration in the Wenatchee investigations:

• The collaboration was primarily between CPS social workers and police investigators until later in the investigations, when prosecutors appeared to play a greater role.

• The same CPS social workers and WPD police detectives continued to investigate the cases, even as they evolved into allegations of multiple victims and multiple perpetrators at various locations. Other detectives became involved in the Douglas County investigations in late March 1995.

• Interviews with CPS social workers and CA administrators indicate that the Wenatchee investigations were not staffed by a team, either internally or externally. According to one social worker, there was some staffing of cases when a case was about ready to go to trial, after the interviews and during the trial preparation phase.

• Interviews with CPS social workers and CA administrators indicate that CPS social workers are expected to cooperate with law enforcement, and are trained not to interfere with a police investigation. According to a CPS supervisor, police investigators usually take the lead in a joint interview because they have the higher burden of proof.

• With respect to remaining in one’s professional role and respecting the role of others:
  • DCFS records document Detective Palmer’s request to a CWS social worker in October 1994 that the Everson children "stop seeing counselors at […] immediately." The children had been in treatment with these counselors since 1992. According to Detective Palmer, the therapists would not be "strong witnesses in court because not believing seriousness [sic] of the [sexual abuse] that was going on." Moreover, he thought the therapists had a conflict of interest because they had treated the children’s parents in the past. A CWS supervisor instructed the social worker to terminate the services the next day "and to say that we work cooperatively with police." The next day the social worker informed the treating therapist that the children would have to be seen by other therapists because "police requested counseling to occur elsewhere ASAP."

  • In January 1995, a DCFS worker documented her concerns to a CA administrator that CPS social workers were assisting law enforcement officials in investigating potential suspects "without any specific allegations of abuse let alone known child victims." (A CA administrator told OFCO investigators that he looked into the matter and concluded that CPS assistance was appropriate.)

  • According to DCFS records, a social worker complied with Detective Palmer’s instructions to warn a church pastor that the pastor would be arrested for witness tampering if he tried to contact an alleged child victim who denied being abused by his parents. The pastor was a friend of the child’s and the child’s family.

  • According to DCFS records, medical staff in one psychiatric hospital honored Detective Palmer’s request that a child not be allowed to have visits from her guardian ad litem.

  • According to DCFS records, a treating therapist recommended that a child not be returned to his mother’s care "because it might confuse these children and their ability to disclose further or new information."

  • According to DCFS records, a treating therapist recommended to a CWS social worker that the parents not be allowed to visit the children. She also wrote to the judge and recommended that the parents not be allowed to remain in the community pending appeal.

• Depositions, interviews, and trial testimony indicate that, while the social workers involved in most of the interviews with Detective Palmer did not have concerns about his interviewing techniques, two social workers raised concerns to their supervisors and others about his approach. One of these social workers was subsequently arrested for witness tampering, charged with obstructing a police officer, and later accused by Detective Palmer’s foster daughter and others as being a participant in group sexual abuse.

• CA administrators and CPS social workers report that some efforts were made to obtain outside expert consultation about the investigations. Documentation of those consultations is not in individual case files and may in part be protected by attorney-client privilege. Although interviewees could not specifically recall when outside consultation was sought and obtained, their general recollection was not before the Spring 1995.

• Interviews with CA administrators and CPS social workers indicate that local administrators and workers did not necessarily welcome offers of assistance or outside review. One interviewee told OFCO that there had been some discussion of assistance from another region, but that this individual did not believe that outside assistance was necessary.

• A CA administrator described the difficulty of providing CPS workers with joint training on cross-disciplinary collaboration due to the lack of resources and high staff turnover.

Findings
CPS social workers are provided with minimal direction or training in effective cross-discipline collaboration. As a result, CPS social workers are left to establish and work within collaborative relationships with law enforcement and other disciplines without the benefit of specific guidance or formal training on the goals, expectations and limitations of cross-discipline collaboration.

Current Expectations: Washington law requires DSHS and law enforcement agencies to coordinate child abuse investigations and keep each other apprised of each other’s progress.33 It also requires DCFS to establish and maintain one or more multidisciplinary teams in each region. These teams are to be available for consultation on placement issues in cases involving serious risk of harm to a child.34 Other than these provisions, there is nothing in Washington law that addresses cross-disciplinary collaboration in child abuse investigations.

The CA Practices and Procedures Guide states that DCFS staff is expected to allocate time to the development and maintenance of written operating agreements and collaborative working relationships with law enforcement and other disciplines.35 Stating that social workers "shall work cooperatively with law enforcement," the guide specifically requires each DCFS office to develop a written working agreement with each law enforcement agency in its catchment area.36 These agreements must detail local mechanisms for handling mandated child abuse reports and criminal background checks, and for requesting law enforcement assistance.37 In addition, they may provide that someone other than the DCFS social worker interview the child or alleged perpetrator.38 The manual provides no further guidance on cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Cross-disciplinary training is not easily accessible by Washington professionals involved in child abuse investigations. According to the WSIPP report, more opportunities are needed within the state for comprehensive and multidisciplinary training.39

Analysis/Conclusions
Current state requirements and training opportunities regarding cross-disciplinary collaboration should be upgraded to ensure that child abuse investigations are carried out in a coordinated and effective manner. Local jurisdictions are not currently required to develop written agreements or protocols. Moreover, joint operating agreements between local DCFS offices and law enforcement agencies do not necessarily contain the elements that are recognized by experts as being essential to effective cross-disciplinary collaboration. These include guidelines for the formation and function of multidisciplinary teams, procedures for forensic interviewing of children, and special procedures for multiple victim/perpetrator investigations. Without specific guidance and appropriate training in cross-discipline collaboration, CPS social workers and others professionals are deprived of important tools that experts agree can help reduce factual distortion in child abuse investigations.