Retaliation Against ProfessionalsWho Report Child Abuse By Katherine Hine, J.D.

INTRODUCTION

Since before the time of Freud, professionals who report child abuse, especially child sexual abuse, have been subjected to various forms of retaliation. Although the 1970s produced federal and state legislation providing ostensible immunity to those who report child abuse, strong disincentives to reporting persist and new ones have emerged. Neither the 1970s statutory mandates nor First Amendment principles have prevented a substantial backlash against mental health professionals, attorneys, documentary participants, journalists, police officers, prosecutors, judges and child advocate volunteers. The nature of the retaliation is such that only a few individuals need be targeted before large numbers of professionals are silenced.

Historical Links Between Cycles of Child abuse Awareness and Professional retaliation

Reports of forensic writings concerning child sexual abuse date back to the 1550s in France, but cycles of professional retaliation repressing such information have also been in play for centuries.1 Harvard’s Judith Herman (1997) describes the ebb and flow of child abuse study and reporting as being “one of episodic amnesia.”2 Olafson, Corwin, and Summit (1993) likewise describe the cyclical suppression of public and professional awareness of child sexual abuse, noting that “information about the prevalence and impact of sexual abuse may constitute unwelcome news on all shades of the political spectrum.”3

Masson (1984)and others have described Freud’s turn of the century recognition of the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in his patients and his subsequent abrupt change of attitude. When Freud announced his “childhood seduction” theory recognizing the reality of parental abuse to the psychoanalytic establishment of Vienna, Freud’s colleagues threatened to destroy him professionally (Summit, 1989). Although his “childhood seduction” theory had deep roots in the writings of European physicians Tardieu, Bernard, and Lacassagne (Olafson, Corwin, & Summit, 1993), Freud, when faced with the threat of retaliation in his profession, realigned his thinking to conform to that of his colleagues–transforming his earlier position into one in which the responsibility for incestuous longings would fall squarely on the shoulders of the child, and in which actual adult-child sexual interaction would become merely a childish fantasy. Ferenczi (1955), one of Freud’s students, insisted throughout his life that Freud’s original theory had been correct. Freud not only continued to adamantly disagree, he joined his colleagues in casting aspersions both as to Ferenczi’s professionalism and his sanity (Masson, 1984).

Societal willingness to begin lifting the cloak of denial enveloping child physical abuse emerged in 1962 with the publication of”The Battered Child Syndrome” (Kempe et al, 1962) in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Previous work by physicians other than Kempe and his colleagues had raised the issue of an unexplained link between multiple fractures of the long bones and chronic bleeding under the skull in children, which in turn led to much speculation about how leg fractures could be a complication of subdural hemorrhaging. Few had dared to consider the obvious by looking to traumatic causation until the 1962 publication. In describing the newly coined term, “battered child syndrome,” Kempe noted that the phenomenon had likely remained unrecognized, undiagnosed and “inadequately handled by the physician because of hesitation to bring the case to the attention of the proper authorities.”4 There is also reason to believe that Kempe had first-hand experience of the reasons that a physician would have such hesitation.5

Existing Statutory and Constitutional Mandates do not Protect Speech or Other Activities on Behalf of Abused Children

In arguing the necessity for immunity for child abuse reporters, Paulsen (1966) described possible reasons why a physician might hesitate to report accusations.An abusive father or mother, facile with explanations, often escapes discovery… Some physicians have regarded reporting as a breach of the special confidential relationship between physician and patient, and still others have failed to report either because they did not know to whom to report, or because they had no reason to believe that reporting would result in benefit to the child.In recognition of the growing awareness of child abuse and problems associated with its reporting, Congress enacted the Child abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5101-5106).

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act provided in part that as a condition for receiving federal assistance, each state would be required to enact legislation mandating immunity for those who reported child abuse. In response, all states enacted immunity provisions for good faith reporting of suspected abuse.6 The burden was never said to be upon the reporter to prove the existence of the abuse, or even probable cause. By 1978, fears of being sued unjustly for libel or other sanctions were said to be groundless, as even without the federally mandated statutory immunity provisions the common law and all of our decisional authority already confers such immunity, and there is no American case that even suggests that there may be liability for a good faith report of the kind required by battered child statutes. (Besharov, 1978)

Apart from whether Besharov’s broad assertion was correct at the time, substantial recent anecdotal evidence, to be described herein, clearly refutes the notion that reporters of abuse are always safe from retaliation. Besides the problem of not knowing to whom to report–for example when government officials within the system are abusive to children,7 professionals and other reporters of the 1990s are now faced with the possibility of state misdemeanor prosecutions for reports deemed to have been made in “bad faith”8Related to concerns about liability for reporting specific instances of abuse are concerns about liability for simply discussing the issue as an intellectual pursuit. Although some might assume that the First Amendment provides absolute protections for all manner of free public and private discourse, such assumptions have historically proven to be erroneous, particularly when the topic of the speech is controversial or unpopular.9

Just as speech of certain types or by certain individuals has been historically susceptible to unlawful punishment by the states, there are emerging too many examples of such retaliation to ignore, suggesting that speech by child advocates has become an easy target during the 1990s.

Targets and Methods of retaliation

The longest-standing target of retaliation against professional child advocates appears to be the mental health professional. An understanding of how this retaliation developed requires a certain grasp of the reactions that began to take place as reports of children suspected of being abused or neglected increased twenty-fold, from approximately 150,000 to 3 million, between 1963 and 1993 — this increase occurring at the same time that adult victims of child abuse were seeking healing in support groups and in the offices of mental health professionals.10It is common and usual for any reform movement, after it achieves a certain measure of public support and sympathy (as did child protection during the 1970s and 1980s) to be subjected to an opposition movement. In the context of child protection, that opposition movement has come to be known to child advocates as “The Backlash” (Myers, 1994, Conte, 1994, Hechler, 1988).

As backlash movements do generally, the anti-child protection backlash presents itself as being unopposed to the publicly accepted goals of the reform movement. After all, it can be politically unwise to openly oppose the concept of child protection. Therefore, only the methods of child protection are said to be disputed by such backlash groups as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), the Children’s Rights Council, and Victims of Child abuse Legislation (VOCAL).

In 1988, Dr. Anna Salter, a renowned clinical psychologist, received a grant from the New England Commissioners of Child Welfare Agencies to study the research methods and conclusions of often-quoted apparent backlash psychologists Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefieid.11 When Salter published her treatise entitled “Accuracy of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual abuse Cases,” about Underwager and Wakefield’s scientific methods (or lack thereof), Salter made very specific and detailed findings indicating that Underwager and Wakefield cite research that “simply does not say what they say it does,” maintain positions as factual “when there is no research evidence to substantiate their claims,” “simply ignore contrary evidence,” “make numerous logical errors,” and use citations that “are so filled with errors it is difficult to find many of them.” Worse, she found that “the inaccuracies were uniformly in the service of strengthening Underwager and Wakefield’s case against children who report child sexual abuse” (Salter, 1988).

Wakefield complained about Salter’s study to the Ethics Committee of the American Psychological Association which voted unanimously in July 1989 to dismiss the complaint against her “as entirely without merit” (Salter, 1998).

Underwager and Wakefield then filed a defamation suit in United States District Court against Salter and others who had “come to believe” that “Underwager is a hired gun who makes a living by deceiving judges about the state of medical knowledge and thus assisting child molesters to evade punishment” (Salter, 1998, p. 20)12

The District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for Salter et al.(Attorney Patricia Toth, a co-defendant in this case was then director of the National Center for Prosecution of Child abuse, a project of the American Prosecutors Research Institute.)Dissatisfied, Wakefield and Underwager appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In April 1994, the court affirmed the decision of the District Court, noting that Underwager and Wakefield’s work has “not been well received in the medical and scientific press.” The Seventh Circuit further ruled that Underwager and Wakefield would not be allowed tosilence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. (Salter, 1998, p. 120)

Despite their lack of success in silencing Salter and her co-defendants, Underwager and Wakefield, and others like them, are frequent paid presenters at continuing legal education and other programs for professionals? in fact, their views may be the only ones on the topic of child sexual abuse ever heard by some attorneys and judges. In any event, for reasons that go beyond the scope of this article, there always seems to be an audience for statements that minimize the seriousness of child sexual abuse.Increasing hostility to those who advocate for children, or Who simply study or discuss the credibility of children,w5 began to be observed in the media (American Psychological Association, p. 1) in the early 1990s as the FMSF began to enjoy considerable success in influencing media coverage of child abuse issues (Stanton 1997).

In 1991, the year before the formation of the FMSF, more than 80 percent of news coverage in the popular press about child sexual abuse was weighted toward histories of survivors and the nature of childhood trauma. However, by 1994 more than 80 percent of news coverage had begun to focus on “false” accusations and the newly coined concept of “false memory syndrome” (Stanton, 1997).Mental Health professionals By the late eighties and early nineties, a new wave of attack upon mental health professionals began. The identified abusers of adult victims of child abuse began to avail themselves of new third party liability theories upon which they based litigation against their adult children’s therapists.16 17 Bowman and Mertz (1996) describe with alarm the recent emergence of these increasingly novel legal theories formulated specifically for use in lawsuits in civil court seeking damages against therapists treating adult child sexual abuse survivors — patients who are, for the most part, satisfied with the targeted therapist. The intensity of the attack on mental health professionals escalated in 1997 with the bringing of federal indictments against Houston mental health professionals Judy Peterson, Ph.D., Richard Seward, M.D., Gloria Keraga, M.D., Sylvia Davis, M.S.W., and hospital administrator George Jerry Mueck, CPA. The defendants faced possible sentences of life imprisonment without parole apparently because the government disagreed with the diagnosis and treatment of seven patients who claimed to have been falsely convinced that they had been victims of childhood abuse. Following five months of testimony in 1998 and 1999 by 33 government witnesses and dozens of audio and video tapes offered in evidence, a mistrial was declared in February, 1999 after the dismissals of all but 11 jury members. The results of an informal jury poll showed that, despite the fact that the defense had not yet presented its case, the jurors were strongly inclined toward acquittal.18 On March 1, 1999, the government dismissed all charges against the five defendants. However, the legal costs for the defendants and the government were staggering.19

Pennsylvania clinician Jim Singer was stripped of his professional license in apparent retaliation against his efforts to assist a 15-year-old suicidal child who had disclosed incidents of sexual abuse. His suit against various entities in the State of Pennsylvania instrumental in the removal of his license at one time reached a federal Court of Appeals.20

Singer’s case prompted then Congressman (now Governor) Tom Ridge to comment in a letter asking U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to address Singer’s case:Dr. Singer has been labeled a criminal. He has lost his license, and he has spent thousands of dollars pleading his case, thus depleting his resources. This case is a perfect example of what is quickly becoming a national problem. Child advocates have stated that although child abuse continues to increase, the number of cases reported has decreased. The reason is simple. Mandated reporters fear retaliation, and their fear is legitimate enough that they are willing to risk children’s lives by ignoring the abuse.21Although an ethics complaint filed with the American Psychological Association was dismissed, Singer continues, as of this writing, to be unable to practice as a clinician.Other clinicians against whom apparently spurious civil suits have been filed include: Dr. Kathleen Failer22 a well-known researcher and co-author of a judicial training curriculum sponsored by the American Bar Association and the National Organization of Women Legal Defense Fund; Memory and abuse author Dr. Charles Whitfield23 former Treating abuse Today editor, David Calof.24 and Dr. Laura S. Brown, former professor of clinical psychology at the University of Washington.25Those clinicians who testify, especially if they do so repeatedly in family court, have become equally vulnerable to litigation; e.g., Linda Palmer26 and Cecilia Owens-Beckham of Oklahoma27 and Dr. Mary Froning of the District of Columbia28 Even making a report apparently too favorable toward the credibility of the abuse disclosing child can provoke retaliation; i.e., Dr. Pamela Hall of New Jersey29 Dr. Leslie Rudy of Ohio,30 Susan Jones, formerly of New Hampshire,31 Dr. Virginia Humphrey of California,32 and Dr. Daphne J. Timmons and Dr. J.W. Scott Wallace of North Carolina33 Although Drs. Timmons and Wallace were vindicated, Christopher Barden, an attorney who has filed many suits against therapists, states that such victories are rare.34Attorneys In her 1992 testimony to Congress about the desperate need for judicial training on child sexual abuse, Attorney Joan Pennington, director of the National Center for Protective Parents in New Jersey, mentioned attorneys Garnett Harrison and Alan Rosenfeld as having either lost their licenses or been subjected to severe disciplinary sanctions in connection with representing parents trying to protect their children from child sexual abuse.35

The Oklahoma Supreme Court in April of 1997 issued a public reprimand to this author, then legal advisor for Stop Child abuse Now (SCAN), for alleged “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”36 in connection with her activities as a citizen child advocate. The United States Supreme Court summarily denied certiorari in October 1997.37 The child, on whose behalf this author had acted with “altruistic motives,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court,38 was held to have been sexually abused, and as of December 1995, was not required to visit his abusers or their sympathizers except under supervision.39

In 1997, Georgia attorney Laura Burton, on behalf of a client, filed a federal claim against various government officials including a state court judge alleging 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and RlCO Act violations arising from a child custody case in which the identified child abuser received custody.40 Since that time she reports having been threatened with prosecution for wiretapping, found in contempt for publicly quoting from a public court order, assessed fines aggregating close to $100,000, and, as of this writing, is facing professional disciplinary action.41Documentary Participants Attorney Randy Burton, president of the Texas-based child advocacy organization Justice for Children, along with others including HBO, was sued in the early nineties for his role in a documentary entitled “Women on Trial.”42

Produced by actress Lee Grant, the film suggested that there was corruption among Houston family court judges who frequently changed custody of allegedly abused children to their identified abusers.Journalists Michele Landsberg, a Toronto Star columnist who has declined to write sympathetically at the behest of individuals claiming to have been falsely accused of child abuse, has written columns criticising the scientific claims of backlash spokespersons. Possibly because her newspaper supports her, she does not characterize her experiences as “retaliation,” but indicates thatthe Freyds43 and other lovely people have attempted to bombard my paper with frequent, verbose, obsessive complaints, and their Canadian counterparts have done the same. At times, they’ve threatened to take me to the Ontario Press Council (a voluntary non-judicial tribunal for complaints against the press) but have not actually succeeded in doing so … despite some typically false information that the Freyds attempted to spread on the Internet.44Katy Butler, a free-lance writer who covered the Ramona v. Isabella trial for the Los Angeles Times and a contributing editor for Family Therapy Networker, was asked by Newsweek to write a story about the backlash. Butler was subjected to such “a we!l-organized action”45 by FMSF proponents to block the story, that Newsweek ultimately declined to have Butler do the piece.The Southeast Oklahoma News reported extensively on events leading up to and including the aftermath of the March 5, 1995 murder of two-year-old Ryan Luke, the grandson of Don Luke, a rival newspaper editor. The death of the child quickly became a high-profile story throughout Oklahoma and continued to be so, even after the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing.46

News editor/publishers Kathy and Steve McGilberry found that they could no longer tolerate being boycotted by their advertisers, the pre-April 19, 1995 bomb threats to their facility, and other threats of violence they began receiving following their reporting. As they continued reporting on the trials which involved missing DHS records, alleged witness tampering, and grand jury investigations connected with Ryan Luke’s death, the McGilberrys ultimately experienced pressure of such a level that by the end of 1997 they discontinued their newspaper.47

Police Officers Police officer Art Acevedo suffered damage to his career due to another 1995 ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Court’s opinion made it clear that other interests outweighed Art Acevedo’s First Amendment rights to expose and to try to rid the Department of a child molesting officer, as well as other corruption he allegedly found in the Muskogee Police Department.48

(AUTHOR NOTE: The unusual degree of danger associated with exposure of corruption in law enforcement precludes the citing of further examples.49)

Prosecutors Woody Allen, whose sexual abuse defense apparently employed many typical backlash strategies, brought a grievance against prosecutor Frank Maco due to Maco’s press conferences and a letter Maco had faxed to judges presiding over the Mia Farrow/Woody Allen custody/visitation proceedings. On July 17, 1997, following several years of disciplinary proceedings in which prosecutor Maco had been charged with violations of Rule 8.4(d) of the Professional Responsibility Code (“conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) a Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee voted 12 to 1 to dismiss the complaint.50

However, even though Maco was vindicated and although backlash litigation and/or grievances against professionals who are financially able to defend themselves zealously rarely win … it is still costly to defend a court action even when you are innocent. In addition, this type of strategy has a chilling effect on all of those who would like to help the protective parent, but are afraid of the expense of defending in a civil lawsuit. 51

Other prosecutors have not fared as well. A Michigan prosecutor gave a newspaper interview toward the end of a criminal trial in which he criticized a judicial decision excluding expert testimony about child sexual abuse and other evidence. Although the prosecutor had reason to believe the interview would not be published until after the jury came to a verdict, and although a hearing panel dismissed the complaint against him, he was ultimately subjected to a reprimand by his disciplinary board.52

Judges In Ohio, as recently as June 1999, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Judge Robert A. Ferreri was suspended from the practice of law and removed from the bench immediately and without pay for his public criticism of two court administrators who had allegedly lied about the success of a juvenile detention program, and for his disclosure during a television interview that the county juvenile detention center was allegedly routinely covering up beatings.53

In Connecticut, a convicted child sexual abuser accused Judge Charles Gill of being in violation of a judicial canon requiring him to disqualify himself in situations “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned?4 The alleged basis of the bias was Judge Gill’s status as co-founder of the National Task Force for Children’s Constitutional Rights and his service on the Connecticut Bar Association Crime Victims Committee. After a thorough analysis of every aspect of the sexual offender’s argument; the appellate court concluded that there was no reason to question Judge Gill’s not disqualifying himself on the basis of alleged bias. In Belgium, where the function of magistrates is more investigatory than purely adjudicatory, the efforts of popular Magistrate Jean-Marc Connerotte were crucial in finding alive two girls who had been abducted by convicted rapist Marc Dutroux. (The bodies of 2 other young girls murdered by Dutroux had previously been found.) in 1996, the Belgium Supreme Court removed Magistrate Connerotte from office, purportedly for attending a fund raising dinner for the families of the murdered girls.55Volunteers Private citizens who act in a volunteer capacity as child advocates as well as professionals who act purely as private citizens when advocating for children are also vulnerable to retaliation.56

Civil suits against citizen organizations involved in court watching activities, particularly where the proceedings being watched involve allegedly abused children or children from violent homes, are far from unknown.57 Instances of retaliation against foster parents who become overly critical of the child protection system are usually only documented privately,58 but at least one newspaper has reported on this phenomenon.59

CONCLUSION

Retaliation against those who report incidents of child abuse is nothing new. However, since the early 1990s, retaliation against mandated reporters and those who advocate for children in other arenas appears to be on the increase. These accounts of retaliation establish that the immunity statutes and strategies that were once the cornerstone of child abuse reporting legislation contain serious flaws. The fact that substantial numbers of careers in child protection have been destroyed or cut short has repercussions beyond the individual lives affected. The “chilling effect” upon speech that is a frequent subject of legal opinions about the First Amendment, may be best expressed by the testimony of child advocate and protective mother, Dianna Carroll, referring to attorneys who try to assist child advocacy organizations.They come under fire very frequently. We have attorneys holding seminars on how to defend a pedophile, which includes how to dissect the child on the stand. And nobody touches them with a ten-foot pole. However, if someone tries to come forward in behalf of children, they get their hands slapped, forewarned. It’s just not worth it. 60

About the AuthorKatherine Hine, J.D., is a family law attorney licensed in Ohio and Oklahoma. She is a board member of the Ross County Network for Children, the Ross County Family Violence Council, and Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation. She has published articles on the child protection system, prepared amicus curiae briefs, conducted custody trials involving allegations of abuse, and argued appeals in family violence cases affecting children. She is a single mother of four children, two of whom still live with her at home in Chillicothe, Ohio.

ENDNOTES

1. ARCH Advocate (1993) Dr. Karel Pyck, Chair of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Leuven, Belgium is quoted on p. 5 of the Summer, 1993 newsletter, back issues of which may be ordered through ARCH (Alliance for the Rights of Children), P. O. Box 3826, Merrifield, Va. 22116. 2. Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. Herman goes on to explain that controversy inevitably follows the study of psychological trauma, particularly trauma caused intentionally by human agents, because, “[l]t is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering.” And so it seems, that “After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened, the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail.” (Herman, 1997, pp. 7-8) 3. Olafson, E. Corwin, D. & Summit, R. (1993). Modern History of Child Sexual abuse Awareness: Cycles of Discovery and Suppression. Child abuse & Neglect, 17, pp. 7-24; p. 19. 4. Siegel, B. (1991). A Death In White Bear Lake. New York. Bantam Books. pp.202-212. 5. David Chadwick, M.D. (1994) reports that Dr. Kempe was initially criticized quite harshly for his child abuse work, as were such notables as Roland Summit, Richard Krugman, Christopher Hobbs, and William Hart. Dr. Chadwick also notes that he has himself been criticized and that “it is likely that men who engage in child abuse work will often encounter criticism along with their more numerous and (often) less powerful female colleagues” (p. 130). Chadwick, D. (1994) A Response to “The Impact of ‘Moral Panic’ on Professional Behavior in Cases of Child Sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual abuse, 3(I), 127-131. 6. A typical statutory grant of immunity is expressed by Oklahoma’s I 0 Ok. St. Sec. 846(G), which refers to the good faith, and 10 Ok. St. Sec. 7105 which promises professionals and other reporters “immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Any such participant shall have the same immunity with respect to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from such report.” 7. Gill, C. (1991) Essay on the Status of the American Child, 2000 A.D.: Chattel or Constitutionally Protected Child-Citizen? 17 Ohio Northern L. Rev. 543-579, 552, 555. Judge Charles Gill has noted that in his home state of Connecticut “[i]t is conceded that sixty percent of such calls [regarding child abuse] are not afforded any response” and ‘[n]ot only are child abuse and neglect wrong, but the nation’s lack of an effective response to them is also wrong. Neither can be tolerated. Together they constitute a moral disaster.” 8. Washington, D.C.-based National Clearinghouse on Child abuse and Neglect Information reports that, except for Arizona, which enacted such legislation in 1989, the post-FMSF 1990’s have seen the following states criminalize child abuse reports that are “knowingly” “false”: Arkansas (1997); California (1998); Colorado (1997); Delaware (1995); Florida (1993); Idaho (1997); Illinois (1997); Indiana (1996); Iowa (1994); Louisiana (1995); Massachusetts (1993); Michigan (1997); Minnesota (1998); Missouri ( 1996); North Dakota ( 1997); Ohio ( 1996); Oklahoma (! 998); Tennessee (1996); Texas ( 1998); Virginia (1997); and Washington (1998). Before much of this legislation was enacted, attorney Sherry Quirk warned in the American Coalition for abuse Awareness, now One Voice, Position Paper on CAPTA that “bad faith” is so vague and ill defined that such statutory efforts at apparent retaliation will effectively stop much child abuse reporting. She further stated that: “CAPTA should not single out mandated reporters of crimes against children for possible retaliation by alleged criminals or other members of the backlash. No other crime legislation imposes similar risks of legal retaliation, loss of license, or harassment as does [sic] the proposed changes to CAPTA. Few professionals can risk the legal expenses or loss of livelihood that accused perpetrators and other backlash representatives have already imposed despite current protections.” Position paper available through ACAA/One Voice, 1835 “K” St. NW Suite 960, Washington, D.C. 20006. 9. E.g., DeJonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 255 (1937)(the state had, in violation of the First Amendment, punished speech during a Communist Party meeting that was critical of jail conditions, during a time of often overzealous anti-Communist sentiment); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (the state [Alabama] had in violation of the First Amendment punished lawyer speech informing African Americans of their civil rights). Political climates change, however, and courts have, for example, more recently been able to acknowledge the First Amendment right to speak out against racism without the speaker being deemed to have violated his professional code. For example, the Oklahoma Supreme. Court acknowledged the right of an attorney to be free of bar discipline under Rule 8.4(d)’s “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” after the attorney gave a newspaper interview in which he referred to a federal judge as a racist. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n. v. Porter, 766 P2d 958 (Ok. 1988). The same Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to even acknowledge the existence of a First Amendment issue in State ex tel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Hine, 937 P2d 996 (Ok. 1997) where the speech involved allegations that a state agency was failing to protect an allegedly abused child. The Oklahoma court imposed sanctions for Hine’s speech under Rule 8.4(d), as is noted herein below. Although one of the justice’s opinions in Porter indicates that the First Amendment protects such speech even if it had been proven that attorney Porter’s “remarks were false in fact” [Porter at p. 970], the Oklahoma justices in the Hine opinion never address the truth or falsity of Hine’s statements, even though the Hine trial panel had found that Hine “had a good faith belief in the truth” of her statements. State v. Hine, Trial Panel report, Professional Responsibility, Tribunal, OBAD # 1240, SCBD #4155 (I 996). 10. U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, report No. 104-117 to Accompany S. 919, i 04th Congress, 1st Session, Calendar No. 149, legislative day, July 10, 1995, p. 13. 11. Underwager and Wakefield are known for their longstanding practice of giving testimony exclusively on behalf of accused pedophiles as well as for their roles as national spokespersons for organiStions whose goal appears to be the silencing of child abuse reports. Underwager received considerable notoriety upon the publication of an article that appeared in 1993 in a Dutch pedophilia journal. Underwager was quoted as saying, when asked whether pedophilia is a responsible choice for an individual, “Certainly it is responsible… Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people.” (Paidika, 1993) In the same interview, Wakefield opined that “It would be nice if someone could get some kind of big research grant to do a longitudinal study, of, let’s say, a hundred twelve-year old boys in relationships with loving pedophiles. Whoever was doing the study would have to follow them at five-year intervals for twenty years.”

More information can be found in Dallam, S.J. (1997). Unsilent witness: Ralph Underwager and the FMSF. Trauma (Treating abuse Today), 7(1), 31-39. 12. Underwager v. Salter, 22 F3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994). 13. Underwager’s 1995 Vita claimed presentations to at least twelve attorney associations between 1987 and 1995 in the states of Minnesota, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Kentucky, North Dakota, New York, Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana, and Nebraska, as well as in Australia, apart from numerous presentations to media, law enforcement, and legislative bodies. He and Wakefield also presented a “Child abuse Sex Crimes Seminar” in Oklahoma City, OK. on October 26, 27, and 28, 1995, although professional continuing education accreditation was withdrawn for child abuse professionals other than attorneys. 14. Successful techniques of the FMSF and its members include providing public lectures, scientific conferences, on-line discussion groups, presentations to bar associations, a newsletter, and an 800 number. Actions taken by members include picketing clinicians’ offices and homes, and the filing of defamation suits, grievances and ethics complaints against attorneys and clinicians advocating for children. 15. Freyd v. Whitfield D.C. Md., No. L-96-627 Memorandum opinion of Judge Benson Everett Legg entered July 18, 1997, at p. 2. Similar harassment of clinician David L. Calof, former editor of the journal, Treating abuse Today is described in Calof’s 1998 article in Ethics & Behavior. 16. On page 2 of”Issue 12: Should Practitioners Be Concerned About Legal Risks When They Work with Family Violence?” the APA Presidential Task Force states, “At least one advocacy group is known to have mounted a campaign to promote lawsuits against psychotherapists by providing instructions and supportive materials for initiating legal action…” 17. E.g., Ramona v. Isabella, No. 61898 (Ca. Super Ct. May 13, 1994). 18. McGonigle, H. (1999, July 14). One Voice Update, P. 5. 19. Since this was a criminal trial, legal costs were not covered by the defendants’ insurance carriers. Legal costs for the 5 defendants amounted to nearly $3,500,000. The government’s costs to prosecute this case very likely exceed this amount. 20. Personal communication with Edward D. Martino. (July 23, 1997). Citizens Commission on Crime, 5010 Horseshoe Pike, Honey Brook, Pa. 19344. 21. Letter dated April 12, 1994 from Congressman Tom Ridge to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. 22. Kathleen Faller, the University of Michigan Family Assessment Clinic and several other members of its staff were targeted with a series of lawsuits filed by the same attorney due to plaintiffs’ being unhappy over the Clinic’s work and conclusions in connection with forensic child abuse assessments. According to Detroit defense attorney, Gregory Curtner, only one of the cases proceeded to trial: Champney v. Faller, Case No. 95-4760CK, consolidated with Ct./Claims Case No. 95-15781CM in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan, with judgment rendered in favor of the defendants. The remaining cases were dismissed at the pre-trial level. 23. Freyd v. Whitfield, id. 24. In addition, to going after his daughter’s therapist, Chuck Noah along with other Seattle FMSF members mounted a picketing campaign against David Calof, Editor Emeritus and founder of Treating abuse Today. “Although Calof, never treated Noah or his child, he was targeted as a subject of attack because of his writings. Noah and others local members of FMSF repeatedly harassed Mr. Calof, his staff and his clients. Calof’s attorney A. Stephen Anderson went to court numerous times to obtain and enforce protective orders to try to prevent Calof’s practice from being destroyed and protect client access to his services.” Dallam, S. j. (1998). The criminalization of psychotherapy. Treating abuse Today, 8(5), 15-27. For more information see Calof, D. (1998). Calof has also been harassed through attempts to depose him in cases in which he has no connection. See: Boone v. Olsen, & Calof (June 12, 1999) Case No. 44203-1-L, Ct./App. State/Washington, Div. 1. 25. See: Symposium: Science and Politics of Recovered Memories. (1988). Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 2. In addition to her extensive publishing, Dr. Brown also practices clinical and forensic psychology in Seattle, Washington and has been instrumental in the development of theory in feminist psychotherapy. Brown’s office has been picketed by a member of the FMSF. 26. Personal communication with Linda Palmer. Formerly of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Palmer is a licensed professional counselor and a highly-skilled and experienced child sexual abuse clinician, evaluator, and expert witness qualified in several states who has persuasively testified on behalf of the prosecution in child abuse cases. Palmer has given opinions about child sexual abuse that differ from that which was desired by the attorney or client who hired her, and has been known to testify on occasion that particular child abuse allegations seem improbable. She is also known not to hesitate to testify on behalf of a child’s credibility when the allegations appear to be probable and consistent. Palmer, like other children’s clinicians who testify in domestic relations cases in which the abuse of her patients is an issue, began to find during the mid-1990s that cross-examinations of her had become increasingly personally insulting, more invasive of her personal life and had at times consisted of veiled threats to her license. Palmer also began to accustom herself to vicious stalking and death threats by the identified perpetrators themselves and decided to become armed. She began to be aware that unnamed persons were accusing her of professional misconduct, but that Michael Blazi, of the Oklahoma I.p.c Board had, on occasion, concealed from her, the nature of these complaints, if any, that were supposedly lodged against her. Follow-up letters from her attorney produced no further information. Palmer was eventually told that there were no such complaints, but the facts had little to do with the courthouse rumor mill, and for the first time, two judges in two different counties within a six-week period disqualified Linda Palmer as an expert on child sexual abuse. Palmer has weathered savage false rumors that she is a lesbian, her vehicle has been tampered with, and her guard dog was mysteriously injured. When Palmer testified on behalf of a child, it was not unusual for her to be subjected to disciplinary complaints initiated by the alleged child-abusing parent against whom she had testified. Palmer has found on occasion that when she testifies on behalf of a child’s credibility, that other identified sexual offenders from other cases in which she has testified, are present in the courtroom–glaring at her during her testimony. As the judiciary began for the first time in 1997 to refuse to allow Palmer to testify as an expert, it became apparent by 1999 that continuing to practice in Tulsa was no longer an option, as the backlash had systematically destroyed her practice. 27. Following her testimony supportive of the credibility of two reportedly severely abused children, the Oklahoma Supreme Court attacked the professional integrity of Cecilia Owens-Beckham at least partially on the basis of a supposed inconsistency in her belief that the children were both ritually and sexually abused and her reported refusal to turn over videotapes of her child patients to the children’s attorney who did not believe the children. Kahre v. Kahre, 916 P2d 1355 (Ok. 1995) The Oklahoma Supreme Court then removed the children from the custodial parent and returned the Kahre children to the person whom they said had terrorized them. Owens-Beckham is not believed to do therapy with children any longer or to testify on their behalf. Witnesses reported that sheriFf’s deputies were needed to physically “reunite” the children with their alleged abuser at the time that Judge Charles Humble turned custody over. Dianna Carroll reports that approximately 500 citizens signed a petition or grievance letter alleging improprieties in this case allegedly committed by Judge Humble. No official action was ever taken to discipline Judge Humble in any manner as a result of the petition or grievance of the citizens. 28. August 6, 1999 interview with Mary Froning. Dr. Froning, the mental health professional who treated the daughter of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, reports that Erich Foretich, the identified abuser of the daughter [Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F2d 941 (4ti’ Cir. 1988)], initiated a civil suit in 1990 against Froning and others in the amount of approximately $175 million dollars. The suit was dismissed on April 8, 1993 (Foretich v. Froning, Case No. 90-0466, U.S. Dist. Ct./Dist./Columbia). Foretich persisted with licensing board complaints against Froning in the District of Columbia, Maryland and through the American Psychological Association. The complaints in D.C. and Maryland were found to be without merit, but the APA reprimanded Froning for publicly discussing the case, though with permission from the custodial parent. 29. August 5, 1999 personal communication with Dr. Pamela Hall. After having reported apparent anal penetration of a child by a mother’s police officer boyfriend to New Jersey’s DYFS, Dr. Pamela Hall reports that the Court in the custody case took custody from the mother despite a psychological evaluation done by a court appointed expert indicating that the child’s main problem was not the alleged anal sodomy, but that his parents did not get along. Following her loss of custody the mother reported Hall to the New Jersey Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association, alleging that Hall had made an improper custody recommendation. Hall was censured and ordered to practice for a period of time only under supervision of a psychologist having no expertise in her sub-specialty. Hall reports that she then sought a review of the censure, and in a 2-1 decision, was successful in having the censure and restrictions removed. She reports being unwilling to again be involved in a child abuse case, at least on the “front line.” 30. November 11, 1997 personal correspondence from Dr. David J. Tennenbaum to Dr. Leslie Rudy, who had recently prepared a report to an Ohio court expressing her belief in the credibility and basic consistency of a child who had disclosed alleged sexual abuse by his father. Dr. Tennenbaum was the court-appointed psychologist in the same case, and although a well-known and respected pediatrician and child sexual abuse expert had previously also given testimony that the same child was credible and consistent about the alleged abuse and had suffered physical trauma consistent with sexual abuse, Dr. Tennenbaum’s letter accuses Dr. Rudy of having “discount[ed] the entire known history; it is this blatant appearance of being a ‘hired gun’, disregarding alternative hypotheses, that constitutes, in my opinion, unprofessional conduct …. Please be advised that I have offered comments regarding your report to [the identified perpetrator’s] attorney, having taken the liberty of forwarding a copy to the Guardian ad Litem, and have suggested to [the identified perpetrator’s] counsel that your approach in this matter warrants review by the State Board of Psychology, having suggested also that malpractice issues deserve consideration.” Unlike Dr. Tennenbaum, Dr. Rudy is a published researcher in the area of the suggestibility of children’s disclosures of abuse. Although she appears to have an easy rapport with children, Dr. Rudy has recently decreased the amount of time she devotes to individual therapy with children. Dr. Tennenbaum also initiated an unsuccessful professional grievance in Ohio against this author because he objected to a closing argument she had made in her role as attorney for one of the parties in the case. 31. Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A2d 478 (N.H. 1998) appears to be the latest in a series of lawsuits and appeals occasioned when the father of one of Jones’ adult patients became aware that he was being accused of child sexual abuse. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire determined that a clinician owes a duty to family members of patients, even though the clinician may not know them and have treated them. The New Hampshire Supreme Court had earlier affirmed the trial court’s decision refusing to admit the testimony of Jones’ patient (Hungerford’s daughter) that the allegations of abuse were true. State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 134, 697 A2d 916, 930 (1997). 32. Shea v. Humphrey, Case No. 667 330, San Diego Superior Ct. A jury verdict was reportedly entered on August 28, 1996 for compensatory damages in the amount of $1.2 million, “the largest in the state in a case in which a clinician was sued over false allegations of molestation” (San Diego Union-Tribune). The Krueger article also reported that the jury was still deliberating on the issue of punitive damages. Sheav. Humphrey was filed after years of litigation with the allegedly abused child’s mother who ultimately lost custody to the identified abuser. The child had recanted during in-court testimony and various newspaper accounts described proceedings in which a congressman and other influential persons appeared during court proceedings to show support for the allegedly abusive father. See: San Diego Union-Tribune (November 15, 1992) Lowery Role at Hearing according to Anne Krueger’s “Dad Wins Award over Sex Charges” reported in the August 29, 1996 Challenged. 33. Charlotte Observer (1998, August 20, p, lC). A Mecklenburg, North Carolina jury found Tiimmons, a psychologist, and Wallace, a psychiatrist, not liable, following a seven-week trial for malpractice in Greene v. Wallace, a suit brought by attorney Christopher Barden. 34. Barden, who claims to use a technique called “Science Intensive Litigation,” is quoted on the Internet: “in fact, ‘science intensive litigation’ is highly successful. In each and every Daubert/Frye hearing where SIL methods have been used – – we won. In every family case where SIL methods have been used – – we won. In every criminal case where SIL methods have been used – – we won. Of the 50 some civil cases in which SIL methods have been applied we have lost only one (being [allegedly] outspent $1.2 Million to $40,000 in that lone case).” (E-mail message from rcbarden@aol.com forwarded to the author on 8/4/99) 35. Pennington, J., August 6, 1992 testimony before the Judicial Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The disbarment of Garnett Harrison was in connection with Harrison’s representation of a protective parent in Newsome v. Newsome, 557 So.2d 511 (Miss. 1987). 36. Oklahoma Rules/Professional Conduct 8.4(d). This is the same Rule 8.4(d) used in Connecticut against prosecutor Maco in Allen v. Maco cited previously. The New Jersey Supreme Court has observed that Rule 8.4(d)’s prohibition against “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” has so many vagueness problems that it should only be used when there is at least another ethical violation. In re Hinds, 449 A2d 483, 498 (N.J. 1982) l-line was accused of having communicated accurate information that a state judge’s supervised visitation order in LeFlore County, Oklahoma was being ignored to the state trial judge who issued the order. Declining to address or even mention the First Amendment issues that were raised, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion indicated that even though the judge had testified he was not prejudiced by Hine’s actions and needed to know the information that Hine had provided, that Hine should be publicly reprimanded for speaking the truth and should have know!~ that only her silence would serve the interests of justice in that particular case. State of Oklahoma ex tel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hine, 937 P2d 996 (Ok. 1997). 37. Hine v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, USSC Case No. 97-140. 38. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hine, 937 P2d 996, 999 (Ok. 1997). 39. Perry v. Perry, Dist. Ct./LeFlore County, Ok. Case No. JFD-91-619. 40. Wrightson v. Shingler et al., Case No. 1:97-CV-0466-JEC, U.S. Dist. Ct./Northern Dist./Ga., Atlanta Div. 41. Personal correspondence, Victoria Pierce and Laura Burton, July 27, 1999. 42. Huckabee v. HBO, Inc., No. 93-00116, Harrison v. HBO, inc. No. 93-052010, and Hebert v. Grant, No. 93-041705, 127th Jud. Dist. Ct./Harris County, Texas. The first two suits resulted in summary judgment at the trial level. Hebert was settled. When the aggrieved plaintiffs appealed, in Ct./App. 14th Jud. Dist. , Houston, Tx. [Case Nos. 14-96-01528-CV and I 14-96-01529-CV, respectively] the summary judgments granted in favor of the free speech rights of the defendants were affirmed in both cases. The plaintiff in Huckabee has continued appealing and the Texas Supreme Court is, as of this writing, considering whether to allow submission of the plaintiff’s petition for review. 43. Pamela and Peter Freyd, after being made aware by their daughter, a respected University of Oregon psychologist and researcher, that Peter had committed sexually inappropriate behaviors, became two of the founding members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (founded on March 1, 1992). They were also unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit against Dr. Charles Whitfield referred to hereinabove. 44. Personal correspondence from Michele Landsberg to author, August 5, 1999. 45. Stanton, M. (1997, July/August). U-Turn on Memory Lane. Columbia Journalism Review, pp. 44-49. 46. During 1995 through the present there has been extensive press coverage of the Ryan Luke murder and its sequelae in the Tulsa World, Oklahoma Observer, and the Daily Oklahoman. The circumstances of Ryan’s death led to resignations of various public officials (including an assistant district attorney), an extensive grand jury investigation of official misconduct attributed to various public agencies and officials including attorneys and a judge, several prosecutions for murder, and extensive child abuse reform legislation. The Southeast Oklahoma News was the only publication known to have published the documentary evidence suggesting an apparent connection between the exposure of misconduct in connection with Ryan Luke’s death and the Oklahoma City bombing. The Southeast Oklahoma News, in a June 16, 1995 article titled “April 19 Call: ‘Look What You Made Us Do'” published a copy of a telephone bill showing a call made to a prominent spokeswoman about the Ryan Luke case, from a Rubbermaid Specialty Products plant located near a highway running between Junction City, Kansas and Perry, Oklahoma, believed to have been the route of the truck containing the Oklahoma City bomb. The article states that the spokeswoman, Catherine Tyler, reported the call which allegedly threatened retaliation for her having spoken out on the morning of April 19, 1995, to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation an hour or two prior to the bombing. 47. Personal communication on August 13, 1999, with Catherine Tyler, of McAlester, Oklahoma. 48. Acevedo v. The City of Muskogee 897 P2d 256 (Ok. 1995). 49. New York City police corruption exposed by Frank Serpico in the 1970s and Joe Trimboll in the late 1980s and 1990s, is described in McAlary, M. (1994). Good Cop, Bad Cop. New York: Pocket Books. McAlary also offers disturbing criticisms of the Knapp and Mollen commissions charged with investigating the corruption. 50. Allen v. Maco, Grievance Complaint No. 93-0322. 51. Pennington, 1992. 52. Grievance Adm’r v. Riley, No. 94-185-GA (Mich. A.D.B., 5/21/97), also reported in the September/ October, 1997 Ohio Municipal Service, Vol. 9 Issue 5. 53. Bradshaw, J. (1999, June 10). Comments Cause for Suspension. Columbus Dispatch. 54. State of Connecticut v. Robert Montini, 52 Conn. App. 682, 694-696 (! 999). 55. Maclean’s, (October 28, 1996) Anger Engulfs Belgium’s Child-Sex Probe. Vol. 109 No. 44, p. 33. Judge Conerotte is said to be “widely praised as the sole shining light in a discredited justice system.” Gino Russo, father of one of the murdered children is quoted as saying in reference to the removal of Magistrate Connerotte, “This decision is like spitting on the tombs of Julie and Melissa.” 56. E.g., Hine cited hereinabove. 57. E.g., Thompson v. Cargyle, Case No. A 97-05642, Ct./Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio (defamation suit naming Lea Webb, president of the Cincinnati Chapter of the National Organization for Women, dismissed at the trial court level on the basis of summary judgment (currently on appeal); Aylward v. Alliance for the Rights of Children, Case No. IP 95-0595-C-T/G (U.S. Dist. Ct./So. Dist/ lndiana, indianapolis Div.) (suit against the Virginia based child advocacy organization ARCH, that had formed in response to the incarceration of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, dismissed at the trial court level). 58. Personal communication on August 3, 1999 with Catherine Tyler regarding the removal of a foster child from the home of model foster mother, Linda McDaniel, following McDaniel’s activism in the Ryan Luke grand jury proceedings. 59. “Retaliation Code”. (1995, August 28). Indianapolis Star. This editorial opinion critical of Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration (FFSA) included the following statement. “If you know someone who is a foster parent in Marion County, you’ve probably heard about the retaliation code. lt’s not in writing, but it goes something like this: Don’t make waves and you’ll get along fine. Cause problems and you’ll receive no more foster kids. lt’s what keeps foster parents in line, suppresses their criticism…” 60. Transcript of the June 19, 1996 testimony of Dianna Carroll before the Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal in Hine cited hereinabove. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.REFERENCESAmerican Psychological Association. Issues and dilemmas in family violence. Issue 12: Should practitioners be concerned about legal risks when they work with family violence. Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. Http://www.apa.org/pi/ pii/famvio/issue 12.html.Anger engulfs Belgium’s child-sex probe. (1996, October 28). Maclean ‘s, 109(44), 33. April 19 call: “Look what you made us do.” (1995, June 16). Southeast Oklahoma News.ARCH Advocate. (1993, Summer), p. 5. Alliance for the Rights of Children (ARCH), P.O. Box 3826, Merrifield, VA 22116.Besharov, D. (1978). The legal aspects of reporting known and suspected child abuse and neglect. 23 Villanova Law Review, 445,475.Bowman, C. & Mertz, E. A. (1996, Jan.). Dangerous direction: Legal intervention in sexual abuse survivor therapy. Harvard Law Review, 109, 549.Bradshaw, J. (1999, June 10). Comments cause for suspension. Columbus Dispatch, 8C.Calof, D. (1998). Notes from a practice under siege: Harassment, defamation, and intimidation in the name of science. Ethics & Behavior 8(2), 161-187.Chadwick. D. (1994). A response to “The impact of ‘moral panic’ on professional behavior in cases of child sexual abuse.” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 3(1), 127-131.Charlotte Observer. (1998, August 20), p. 1C.Child Abuse and Neglect State Statutes Series, 1(5). National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, 330 “C” Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20447.Conte, J. (1994, Summer/Fall). Child sexual abuse: Awareness and backlash. The Future of Children, 224-233.Ferenczi, S. (1955). Confusion of tongues between adults and the child: The language of tenderness and passion. In M. Balint (Ed.) Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-analysis. London: Hogarth Press, pp. 156-167.Gill, C. (1991). Essay on the status of the American child, 2000 A.D: Chattel or constitutionally protected child-citizen? Ohio Northern Law Review, 17, 543.Hechler, D. (1988). The Battle and the Backlash: The Child Sexual Abuse War. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.Kempe, C.H., Steele, B.F., Silverman, F.N., Silver, H.K., & Droegemueller, W. (1962, July 7). The battered child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association.Krueger, A. (1996, August 29). Dad wins award over sex charges. San Diego Union-Tribune.Lowery role at hearing challenged. (1992, November 15). San Diego Union-Tribune.Masson, J. (1984). The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory. New York: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux.McAlary, M. (1994). Good Cop, Bad Cop. New York: Pocket Books.McGonigle, H. (1999, July 14). One Voice Update.Myers, J. (I 994). The Backlash, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Olafson, E. Corwin, D. & Summit, R. (1993). Modem history of child sexual abuse awareness: Cycles of discovery and suppression. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 7-24.Geraci, J. (1993). Interview: Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager. Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia, 3, 2-12.Paulsen, M. (1966). The legal framework for child protection. 66 Columbia Law, Review, 679, 710.Pennington, J. (1992, August 6). Testimony Before the Judicial Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.Quirk, S. Position Paper. American Coalition for Abuse Awareness (ACAA)/One Voice, 1835 “K” St. NW Suite 960, Washington, D.C. 20006.Retaliation Against Professionals Who Report Child AbuseReport No. 104-117 to Accompany S. 919. (1995, July 10). U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 104th Congress,1st Session, Calendar No. 149, p. 13.Retaliation Code. (1995, August 28). Indianapolis Star.Salter, A. (1988). Accuracy of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A Case Study of Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield. New England Commissioners of Child Welfare Agencies.Siegel, B. (1991). A Death in White Bear Lake. New York: Bantam Books.Stanton, M. (1997, July/August). U-Turn on memory lane. Columbia Journalism Review; 44-49.Symposium: Science and politics of recovered memories. (1998). Ethics & Behavior, 8(2).CASELAWAcevedo v. The City of Muskogee, 897 P2d 256 (Ok. 1995).Allen v. Maco, Grievance Complaint No. 93-0322. July 1997, Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee.Aylward v. Alliance for the Rights of Children, Case No. IP 95-0595-C-T/G (U.S. Dist. Ct./So. Dist./Indiana, Indianapolis Div).Boone v. Olsen, & Calof (1999, July 12). Case No. 44203-1-L. Ct./App. State/Washington, Div. I.Champney v. Failer, Case No. 95-4760CK, consolidated with Ct./Claims Case No. 95-15781CM, Circuit Court/Washtenaw County, Michigan.Dedonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 255 (1937).Foretich v. Froning, (U.S. Dist. Ct./Dist./Columbia) No. 90-0466.Freyd v. Whitfield, Case No. L-96-627, D.C. Md.Grievance Adm ‘r v. Rile;}’, No. 94-185-GA (Mich. A.D.B., 5/21/97), also reported in the September/October, 1997 Ohio Municipal Service, 9(5).Harrison v. HBO, Inc. No. 93-052010, Ct./App. 14th Jud. Dist. Case No. 114-96-01529-CV.Hebert v. Grant, No. 93-041705, 127th Jud. Dist. Ct./Harris County, Texas.Hine v. State of Oklahoma ex tel. Oklahoma Bar Association, USSC Case No. 97-140.Huckabee v. HBO, Inc., Harris County Dist. Ct. Case No. 93-00116, Ct./App. 14th Jud. Dist Case No. 14-96-01528.Hungerford v. dories, 722 A2d 478 (N.H. 1998).In re Hinds, 449 A2d 483 (N.J. 1982).Kahre v. Kahre, 916 P2d 1355 (Ok. 1995).Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988).NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).Newsome v. Newsome, 557 So.2d 511 (Miss. 1987).Perry v. Perry, Case No. JFD-91-619, Dist. Ct./LeFlore County, Ok.Ramona v. Isabella, No. 61898 (Ca. Super Ct. May 13, 1994).Shea v. Humphrey, Case No. 667 330, San Diego Superior Ct.State of Connecticut v. Robert Montini, 52 Conn. App. 682, 694-696 (1999).State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hine, 937 P2d 996 (Ok. 1997).State v. Hine, Trial Panel Report, Professional Responsibility Tribunal, OBAD # 1240, SCBD #4155 (! 996).State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 697 A2d 916 (1997).Thompson v. Cargyle, Case No. A 97-05642, Ct./Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.Underwager v. Salter, 22 F3d 730 (7th Circ. 1994).Wrightson v. Shingler et al., Case No. 1:97-CV-0466-JEC, U.S. Dist. Ct./Northern Dist./Ga., Atlanta Div.STATUTES10 Ok. St. Sec. 846(G)10 Ok. St. Sec. 710542 U.S.C. Sec. 198342 U.S.C. Sec. 5101-5106) Section 4(b)(2)Rule 8.4(d) Rules/Professional Conduct