Toward the Best Interest of the Child – the Children´s House: Multiagency and Interdisciplinary Approach to Child Sexual

1. Save the Children, Copenhagen, October 2002 Toward the Best Interest of the Child – the Children´s House:Multiagency and Interdisciplinary Approach to Child Sexual Abuse Bragi Guðbrandsson, Gen. Director, The Gov. Agency for Child Protection, Iceland

2. Outline • The value of international cooperation • The situation in Iceland prior to the “Children´s House” • Research findings on child sexual abuse and intervention by the authorities • Defaults in work procedures, lack of competence and violation of children´s rights • Towards solutions: the missions of the Children´s House • How does the Children´s House work? • Positive experiences and issues of concern

3. Social awareness • Stage of denial • Stage of admittance • Stage of recognition

4. International cooperation • World Congress 1996 • European Union • Council of Europe • Regional cooperation • “Children at risk” in the Baltic states • Childcentre.baltinfo.org

7. A study on the prevalance/intervention of child sexual abuse in Iceland • intervention in CSA by public agencies. • data collected from the CPS, the Police, the Prosecution and the Courts. • individual cases were studied and traced on different levels • lessons learned

8. Number of cases 1995-1997 • Total number of cases 369 which involved 368 children • Average of 123 cases a year.

9. Victims by sex • During the three year period girls were 80,4% and boys 19,6% of alleged victims

10. Victims by age

11. Age of the offender

12. Did child know offender? Child knew offender 216 76,3% Child did not know offender 18 6,4% Not known 49 17,3%

13. Duration of abuse One incident 56,0% Few months 16,7% A year or more 17,9% Data missing 9,5%

14. Tracing of cases

15. Tracing of cases cont.’d Total number of cases 369 CPS 281 77% Referred to police by CPS 84 30%

16. Case assessment by CPS • Substantiated cases 51% • Unsubstantiated cases 32% • Data missing/unknown 18%

17. An Overview of the Findings: Procedural defaults • Lack of coordination/cooperation between the different agencies involved; CPS, Police, Prosecution, Medical profession • Lack of an interdisciplinary approach. • Absence of appropriate guidelines in work practices • Lack of personell with special training and specialization, especially in conducting investigative interviews

18. The Findings cont´d: Violation of the child’s interests • Investigation often generated painful experiences for the child victim

19. The Findingscont´dThe child was subjected to: • repeated interviews • by many interviewers • in different locations: dep. of social services, the police station, the hospital, private practice, the court etc. • revictimisation –retraumatization • discrepancies in disclosure • lack of appropriate assessment, support and treatment for the child victim • lack of counselling and support to the victims family

20. The preparation of the Children´s House – primary guidelines • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 3.1 • “In all action concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration”

21. Multiagency Collaboration • The Gov. Agency for Child Protection • The State Police • The State Prosecution • The Police Dep. in Reykjavik • The University Hospital – Dep. of Pediatrics and Dep. of child Psychiatry • Association of the Directors of Local Social Services • The Child Protection Services in Reykjavik

22. Missions of the Children’s House • to facilitate collaboration and coordination of the CPS, Police, Prosecution and the Medical profession in the investigation of child sexual abuse • to provide a child friendly setting for joint investigative interviews and medical examination • to ensure professional implementation of investigative interviews

23. Missions of the Children’s House cont.’d • to ensure that the child victim and his/her family receives appropriate assessment, treatment and support • to establish professional work practices and guidelines by interdisciplinary cooperation • to enhance specialized knowledge on child sexual abuse and to mediate that knowledge as appropriate to professionals and the public alike

24. The creation of the Childrens’ House • The Children’s Advocacy Model: Multiagency and interdisciplinary collaboration under one roof • The preparation phase: awareness raising, training etc. • The operation started 1st of November 1998 • Serves the whole country: instructions by the State Police • Changes in the legal framework after eight months operation

25. Children’s House (Barnahus)

26. Basic functions A: Investigative interviewsThe Joint Investigative Interview • The Court Judge is in charge of the procedure • The Prosecution • The Police • The CPS representative • The Child’s Legal Advocate • The Defence • The Alleged Offender(exceptional in reality)

27. Basic function A:The CPS preliminary interview • At the request of the CPS • Disclosure is absent or very weak/ambigous • Offender has not been identified • Offender is below the age of criminal responsibility(15 years)

28. Basic function A: Investigative Interviews • The importance of a “child friendly” setting • The specialised interviewer: a psychologist, a social worker, a criminologist • The interview protocol(to avoid suggestibility and increase reliability) • Specially designed interview room(closed circuit television) • The video tape: used for different purposes: medical exams, assessment and therapy • IT-link to the courthouse

32. Children’s House (Barnahus)

33. Basic function B:The Medical Examination • At the request of the Police, the CPS, the Child or the Parents • Implemented by experienced paediatrician and a gynaecologist • A child friendly examination room • The use of “video-colposcope” and it´s therapeutic value • Anaesthetization exceptional

35. Children’s House (Barnahus)

36. Basic function C: Victim therapy and family counselling • The child and the non-offending parent(s) receive (legal) counselling immediately after the investigative interview • Victim therapy can start soon after • The videotaped child´s disclosure is used for initial assessment and treatment plan • Cognitive-behavioural therapy – group therapy not yet established • The therapist is most often important witness in court proceedings

38. Children’s House (Barnahus)

40. Almost four year experience : A. Statistical data November 1998 – October 2002

41. Investigative interviews: implementation

42. Almost four year experience: Signs of progress • Efficient, professional and child – friendly work procedures and case management • End to revictimization of the child victim • Appropriate therapeutic services secured • Mutual professional trust among the different agencies • Assimilation of knowledge and experience • Increased public awareness and confidence in the authorities

43. Almost four year experience: Problems in implementation • Controversial changes in the legislation • The principle of “evidential immediacy” • The principle of “adversarial procedure” • The Court Judges´ discretion: • where and how totake the child witness statement • if a specialised interviewer is applied