New research suggests that family court judges are more likely to award custody of a child to a parent after they make an allegation of parental alienation in cases where the other parent brings up an allegation of child sexual abuse.

Professor Joan Meier’s and Sean Dickson’s research published in 2017 found that family courts only believe a mother’s claim of a child’s sexual abuse 1 out of 51 times (approximately 2%) when the accused father alleges parental alienation.

The investigation also discovered that in cases where alienation is not mentioned, family courts only believe mothers’ claims about child sexual abuse 15% of the time.

Professor Meier, who is a nationally recognised expert in the US on domestic violence and the law told Forbes in August 2018 that a lack of belief in mothers’ claims impacted the way custody decisions were made.

Meier noted that mothers lost custody of their children 28% of the time when they alleged child sexual abuse, with mothers losing custody of their children more than half the time (56%) when alienation was mentioned in the decision.

Meier told Forbes, “Once again we have found that child sexual abuse allegations brought by mothers and children against fathers are almost never credited… In addition, the data confirms what we have seen in the courts — that rates of mothers losing custody to alleged abusers are at their highest when the mothers allege child sexual abuse.”

A report from Court Watch in 2014 also highlighted concerning practices around domestic violence cases in Montgomery County, which Forbes also mentions. The report notes that judges “sometimes appeared to second guess the mother’s description of risk to herself and her children… At times, the manner of these judges appeared highly skeptical, incredulous, even trivializing of the petitioner’s claims.”

Professor Meier has been the national lead on several domestic violence projects in the US, has co-written several important pieces of federal and state legislation, and also trains attorneys, judges and a range of professional organisations.

Sean Dickson is the Senior Manager of Health Systems Integration at the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors.

Useful links:

• Mapping Gender: Shedding Empirical Light on Family Courts’ Treatment of Cases involving Abuse and Alienation (Meier’s Research)
• Bitter Custody – Podcast mentioning Meier’s research
• How family courts treat abuse and accusations of alienation – Radio interview with Professor Meier

Baroness Doocey, a Liberal Democrat peer and Chair of the House of Lords Finance Committee, asked the government to make breast ironing a standalone criminal offence on Tuesday, in a written question to the Home Office. The government rejected the call.

Breast ironing, which is sometimes also called breast flattening, involves pounding and massaging of a pubescent girl’s breasts, using hard or heated objects, to try to make them stop developing or disappear. The ritual is often associated with honour-based abuse.

Last month the Home Office vowed to address the practice and advised the police to prosecute offenders under assault laws, but Baroness Doocey would like the government to implement legislation which would make the ritual a separate criminal offence.

Replying to Baroness Doocey, The Minister of State, Home Department, Minister for Equalities Baroness Williams of Trafford said:

“Breast ironing is child abuse and it is illegal. The Government is committed to challenging the cultural attitudes that underpin so called ‘honour-based’ abuse (HBA), as set out in our cross-Government Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published in 2016.

The Government is committed to ensuring that front-line practitioners who may encounter women and girls who are at risk of, or who have undergone, breast ironing, are aware of this issue and have the confidence to tackle it.

Border Force Officers at UK ports and airports are trained to look for those at risk of HBA and conduct regular joint operations (‘Operation Limelight’) with the police at airports across the country to raise awareness with potential victims of HBA, including breast ironing. A specific briefing on breast ironing has also been shared with regional Border Force Safeguarding and Modern Slavery leads.

In addition, the following documents provide advice and support for professionals in respect of safeguarding children from abuse, including HBA:

• Keeping Children Safe in Education (p.80-82): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education–2

• Working Together to Safeguard Children: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children–2

• CPS Legal Guidance on Honour-Based Violence and Forced Marriage: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/honour-based-violence-and-forced-marriage

The police have a range of offences at their disposal to deal with any cases of breast ironing they encounter, including common assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. There are also specific offences of child cruelty and causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm, both of which carry a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. As such, the Government does not have plans to introduce a stand-alone criminal offence.

No assessments have been made of the prevalence of breast ironing in the UK.”

The news in September that councils are set to use people’s data to detect child abuse has caused a stir, but councils in London have been piloting predictive analysis models across their child protection services for the last three years. And it’s not just councils – the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions have been using predictive technology for some time.

A September 2017 article in Apolitical, describes how councils in London have been applying data analytics to try to identify children at risk of harm since 2015. It also suggests that the predictive model used in one council had an 80% success rate, though it’s not clear from the article exactly how success rates were measured. What’s interesting about this article is that it highlights the financial advantages to councils, of using data in this way. The article tells us:

“Councils are expected to save over $910,000 for early targeted interventions, $160,000 by replacing human-conducted screenings with an automated system, and $193,000 for improving access to multi-agency data.”

The article says that the company responsible for creating this predictive model is called Xantura, and their pilot inside the child protection sector has been running since 2015. The cost of the software is an eye watering $1.25 million, and was launched in January 2015.

Councils using Xantura’s software have been slow to trust the model, which is not completely effective, or accurate, though social work teams may be more concerned about the threat the software poses to jobs inside the sector. That councils will have to pay for the software out of their own budgets is perhaps another reason the uptake on the model has been slow.

Xantura is adamant that their software will save councils money in the long run, and some local authorities are getting on board as a result. According to Apolitical, Xantura’s “Early Help Profiling System” (EHPS) uses data from multiple agencies, which includes information about school attendance and educational attainment, families’ housing situations, and economic indicators. The model then takes those statistics and turns them into risk profiles for each family.

The now infamous Troubled Families Programme, hides a Big Data secret of its own. The programme made the news after a whistle blower exposed the project’s fraudulent activity, which included using stale data to assess families. Members of the team also massaged the figures to engineer outcomes so that they could cover up the programme’s failure and make it look like a success. What nobody mentioned, or knew at the time, was that they used big data, too.The software the programme used was called ClearCore, and it was developed by UK based company, Infoshare. That was as long ago as 2013.

Technology offers benefits when it is accurate and effective, but the government’s drive to use predictive analytics inside the child protection sector, knowing these models do not deliver robust results, makes the software’s predictions highly dangerous, and the government vulnerable to costly litigation. 

Previous attempts at using this kind of data to try to predict child abuse took place as early as 1991. A paper produced by researcher Mark Campbell and published in The British Journal of Social Work in June 1991, looks at an experiment carried out within one local authority. The paper was entitled, “Children At Risk: How different are children on Child Abuse Registers?” 

The experiment included a checklist with 118 items on it, which was created to see if it could identify children at risk of abuse and neglect. The checklist was applied to 25 different families, who were attending local authority centres at the time. Of those families, nine had children on the local child abuse register. The checklist scores of the families on the register were compared with those that were not, in the control group.

The research discovered something fascinating. There was little difference in the factors studied between the two groups. The report offered one of two reasons for the finding: either there was little real difference between the characteristics of abusing and non-abusing families, or the registration process was controlled by events which were not solely related to the characteristics of the families involved in the study.

Other countries around the world have also been exploring ways in which Big Data could be used to detect child abuse. In 2015, a call centre dedicated to child welfare concerns in New Zealand decided to collate data on families that called through, to see if it could spot patterns that might predict child abuse before it happened. This pilot used 131 indicators, including the ages of mothers on benefits, the dates of their first benefit payments and the types of family units they came from. 

Although predictive models like these claim to have success rates anywhere between 76-80%, families could be being exposed to analytics that stereotype individuals and create unhelpful biases. One year after New Zealand’s pilot at the call centre, another call centre, this time in America, tried a similar experiment. The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) child neglect and abuse hotline in Pennsylvania, collected information from the county, sourced also from 131 indicators, to see if the Office could detect child abuse before it happened, or escalated. The predictive analysis model they used was called The Allegheny Family Screening Tool. 

What the experiment revealed was unsettling. The problem, which was initially raised by a 2010 study of racial disproportionality in Allegheny County CYF, was that the vast majority of disproportionality in the county’s child welfare services stemmed from referral bias, rather than screening bias. The research confirmed that people reporting child abuse called hotlines about black and biracial families three and a half times more often than they called to report on white families. 

The implications of the findings for child protection services in the UK, and predictive models being used inside the sector, are enormous. Tensions between social workers and single mothers are at an all time high, with research being produced by groups like Legal Action For Women, which suggests that social workers already have an inbuilt bias towards poor single mothers, who in turn feel they are being targeted due to their economic circumstances. Where bias and prejudice may already be built in to a system, and data offers part of a picture but may not be able to factor in nuance, predictive models as they stand today may just be automating inequality. 

This article is adapted from a post Researching Reform published in September, 2018.

A new study from Harvard University and the University of British Columbia suggests that people who experience abuse as children may carry imprints of that trauma inside their cells, leaving ‘molecular scars’ on its victims.

The study, which is entitled “Exposure to childhood abuse is associated with human sperm DNA methylation”, was published today in Translational Psychiatry. The research team assessed the DNA of 34 men, and found significant differences in methylation between victims and non victims.

Methylation is a biochemical process which acts in part like a dimmer switch on genes, affecting the extent to which a particular gene is activated or not. Epigenetics, or the turning on and off of genes, is a growing area of interest for scientists, who believe the process is influenced by external forces, such as a person’s environment or their life experiences.

The researchers decided to look for methylation in sperm cells, as they suspected that childhood stress could lead to long-term physical health problems not only in the immediate victims, but also in victims’ offspring, which had been demonstrated in previous experiments involving animals.

Though the study was not able to confirm whether these differences were responsible for long term health problems sometimes present in child abuse victims, or whether the methylation patterns could survive the process of fertilisation and pass down to a person’s children, the findings are being viewed as a potential source of evidence for family and criminal courts when trying to establish allegations of child abuse.

One of the senior authors of the study, Michael Kobor, who is a medical genetics professor at the University of British Columbia explains the correlation between methylation and detecting child abuse:

“Methylation is starting to be viewed as a potentially useful tool in criminal investigations – for example, by providing investigators with an approximate age of a person who left behind a sample of their DNA… So it’s conceivable that the correlations we found between methylation and child abuse might provide a percentage probability that abuse had occurred.”

A world famous scientist now working as an expert witness in court rooms around the world is using a theory he developed to disprove claims of non accidental injury in babies and children going through child protection proceedings.

Non accidental injuries, unlike accidental injuries, are deliberately inflicted by another person, and can include physical damage to children like bruises, burns, or fractures. These injuries are often considered to be synonymous with child abuse.

Dr Michael Holick is the Director of the Bone Health Care Clinic at Boston University Medical Center, and the leading authority on Vitamin D. In the last seven years, Dr Holick says he has consulted or testified as an expert witness in over 300 child-abuse cases in the US, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and Canada. And in almost every case, he has diagnosed the child in question with a rare genetic disorder called hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Considered to be one of the most prominent and sought-after expert witnesses in the US for the defense in child-abuse cases, Holick told The New Yorker that around 50% of the parents he helps have a positive experience, such as getting their children back or having abuse charges dismissed. Sometimes he claims a much higher success rate. “Before I started testifying in these court cases on behalf of the family 100% of these cases had been won by the prosecution…. Now that I am testifying on behalf of the family 90% of the cases have been won by the parents and their children have been returned to them without further incident.”

Holick says children with EDS have weaker bones which can fracture much more easily. He also believes that, “thousands, if not tens of thousands,” of parents around the world have been wrongly accused of fracturing their children’s bones. When he doesn’t diagnose a child with EDS, he concludes that the bone fractures are down to rickets or a Vitamin D deficiency. Holick also believes that in every case he has come across, not one child had been subjected to abuse. Crucially, he also says that parents who approach him for help have never tried to fake an illness in their children in order to avoid prosecution.

Not everyone thinks Holick is right. The National Institutes of Health estimates that EDS affects 0.02% of the population worldwide, at most, and so Holick’s near 100% diagnosis rate for the condition does not sit well within that mathematical probability of chance. That Holick often does not see the children he is diagnosing, choosing to attribute conditions over the phone instead, also gives his critics more leverage to query the accuracy of his findings.

A 2008 case Holick worked on, in which he diagnosed a baby who had sustained 26 fractures, with EDS, later led to the father being sentenced to 24 years in prison. Holick maintains that the sheer volume of fractures could not have been caused by external trauma without resulting in the baby’s death. The heightened levels of flexibility in small children too, make it much harder to diagnose EDS, and almost impossible to diagnose children under the age of five, according to other experts in the field.

There are four studies which Holick uses to support his conclusions, and while the authors of those studies say his approach is not backed by published scientific research, they are not entirely dismissive of his theory. Cristina Eller Vainicher, who is the lead author of one of the paper’s that Holick often references, told The New Yorker that “she can’t entirely discount his thesis, because some studies have suggested that a subset of EDS patients do experience fragility fractures during childhood. Still, she wrote in an e-mail, “This does not mean that we could state all children with hypermobile EDS are at high risk of fractures.””

The current scientific gaps in Holick’s theory have not prevented him from being deeply influential in non accidental injury cases, which is most likely down to his formidable reputation as the man who discovered the active form of Vitamin D, resulting in treatments for bone disease in kidney patients and for psoriasis. He went on to discover that orange juice helped the body absorb Vitamin D, and was invited to consult for NASA, who asked him to examine bone loss in space. That he was called a “legend” at the last annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists perhaps sums up his powerhouse status in America.

BAILII offers three public judgments in which Holick has been referenced, either as a consultant to the case or because of his 2017 research paper, entitled, “Multiple fractures in infants who have Ehlers-Danlos/hypermobility syndrome and or vitamin D deficiency: A case series of 72 infants whose parents were accused of child abuse and neglect.”

All the cases have been heard in family courts, with the first taking place in Northern Ireland at the end of last year: A Health and Social Care Trust v A Mother and A Father (In the matter of two children: Non-accidental Injury: Causation).

The second case published lists a hearing at the Family Court in East London in March: A, Re [2018] EWFC B34 (16 March 2018).

The final case mentioned, ES (A Child), Re [2017] EWFC B96 (03 November 2017), was heard in the Family Court at Milton Keynes.

His views don’t appear to be well received by judges in the above cases, with one judge even going so far as to say that Holick was unable to produce evidence of any prior cases he assisted on.

You can access Dr Holick’s research papers here, and follow him on Twitter @VitaminD_Holick and Facebook at  DrMHolick.

Dr Holick can also be contacted via his website (scroll down to the bottom to access the form) or emailed at mfholick@bu.edu.

Dr Michael Holick. Image Credit: Boston University.