A family-centered option for dealing with intra-family sexual abuse

Reprinted in full with permission.

By John Ulrich . . . Kristen Burgess took a courageous step forward (Record-Eagle, Jan. 5) to shed light on the community’s response to intrafamilial sexual abuse.

When I started my career in 1987, there were “family-centered” programs for parents who decided not to divorce after intrafamilial child sexual abuse. Families were ordered into long-term programs supervised by the Family Courts. Offenders served time in jail and were slowly reintegrated into the family if agreed upon by all involved. As research demonstrated the impact of child sexual abuse on victims in adulthood, the state prohibited funding these programs.

Policymakers also believed that people who commit sexual offenses will inevitably re-offend. Therefore, any of the children wanting a relationship with an offending parent needed protection through parental incarceration. Long prison sentences for abusing parents, insistence on divorce or removal of children, counseling for the children, and barring parents who committed the abuse from the home became the new “victim-centered” model. There is no apparent risk of harm to children in this model.

There are three problems: (1) The assumption of high sexual re-offense rates is inaccurate and makes this model extremely expensive with little added public safety and directs funds away from other child-wellbeing programs. (2) The long-term incarceration of a parent is known to harm children. (3) A one-size-fits-all and we-know-best model deprives victims and families of self-determination causing further victimization.

Beginning in 1999, research found that 85-95 percent of men convicted of sexual offenses do not commit new detected offenses.

There is now a five-level classification to predict risk for re-offense.

After five years in prison, Mr. Burgess will turn 60. He will be in the lowest-risk classification, where the predicted recidivism rate is two percent. In other words, 98 out 100 men in this category will not be charged or convicted of a new sexual offense. The cost of housing him after 60 until his earliest release date costs $250,000 — $1 million if incarcerated all 30 years.

While data is sparse regarding which model is better for children long-term, data from the CDC-Kaiser Permanente Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study demonstrates that, as the number of adverse experiences accumulate, so does adult onset of chronic disease, depression, suicide, being a victim of violent crime and being violent.

A score of four or more is extremely dangerous. Childhood sexual abuse is one point. Divorce is one. Incarceration of a parent is one. Long incarcerations increase the risk of maternal depression, emotional neglect, and poverty since an incarcerated parent cannot pay child support. Potentially three more points. These are invisible risks to children in the victim-centered model with long parental incarcerations.

Counties’ responses to victims of intrafamilial sexual abuse vary considerably.

The public must hear from families like the Burgess’ to decide if their county’s practices are informed by the science behind risk prediction, the hidden long-term costs to children, the wise management of tax dollars, and the importance of giving families’ agency. Only then will we truly be able to provide them the help they need.

John Ulrich is a licensed psychologist in Traverse City, MI. A portion of his 33-year practice has always included adults and adolescents who have engaged in problematic or illegal sexual behavior.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #68935 Reply
      William Overton

      So difficult seeing the price. Loads of nare intentioned do well. Socially, the money-bag. signed labored

    • #69298 Reply
      Tim in WI

      As incarceration and victimization becomes more profitable in capitalist systems they each naturally expand. Without fiduciary accountability the natural existing limits on expansion evaporate and fail to check growth. War, for instance, used to be limited somewhat by societal unhappiness, as young men die families are a imparted grief which in turn naturally leads to political complaint to leadership by the grieving families. As war tech grew, need for boots on the ground was decreased thus less family loss and no growing base of complaints. This natural human path explained drone use in warfare.
      Some experts now claim jet fighter pilots are obsolete! How many war drones can fit in an aircraft carrier? BONZI!

      Inherently a family centered approach seems the proper way to cope with the societal Ill that is child molestation. A child’s molestation is an unhealthy interpersonal interaction or set of interactions. It is the perceptions of the interaction in question that skews societies ability to diminish the unwanted behavior. One thing is for certain, a database will not fix violence nor vigilance.

Viewing 1 reply thread
Reply To: A family-centered option for dealing with intra-family sexual abuse
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">