Impact of Family Therapy on Members

Vulnerable Children & Families

Part 1

Interrogation Vs. Trauma-Informed Therapy Session

1. Compare and contrast three differences in the two interviews.

· The police officers were dismissive and unempathetic, while the therapist was empathetic and respectful of the victim.

The police officers seemed to care more about the differences they had uncovered in her statement to them and others, and they never seemed to care about how her trauma could be impacting her memory of the events. The therapist was categorical that whether her statement was true or not, it did not matter, displaying empathy and understanding. She focused on solving her trauma and did not care about her incorrect or different statements. Since there were different reports regarding the day’s events, the police officers dismissed Marie’s rape report and accused her of lying based on the victim’s past. The therapist did not focus on her lying aspect, and she was welcoming of Marie by encouraging her and showing her that it was not her fault.

· The police officers were victim-blaming Marie, and the therapist tried to exonerate her.

Victim blaming turns things around, and the victim becomes the suspect or becomes accused of bringing the events of rape upon herself. For Marie, the officers accused her of feeling isolated and lonely, and she came up with the story of rape as she was seeking attention. The police officers failed to take her seriously and only accused her of trying to satisfy herself. The therapist believed Marie from the start, and she did not blame her. Instead, she tried to understand who Marie is and believed she could not make up a story like that not unless there were some truths.

· The therapist did not act superior or condescending to the victim as the police officers did.

A therapist should not act superior or be condescending to the client, and the therapist ensured she stayed neutral and was understanding of the ordeal Marie went through. She reassured Marie that her story might not be entirely factual, but there is some truth to it, and due to the torture she had undergone, she carries burdens. The police officers acted superior to Marie by showing her how they could uncover things from her past and interview other people to find out who Marie was. They could have asked her as the therapist did, but they needed to intimidate her into submission. The police officers patronized Marie since they considered her inferior.

2. What did the police officer say and do to revictimized Marie?

The police officers first uncovered past information that they used against Marie. Since she had lied in the past, they assumed she was still lying, revictimizing Marie. The police officers seemed to blame Marie and tell her they had found inconsistencies in her statement and that of other witnesses. It is shocking that there would be other witnesses when she was being raped, and the witnesses did not try to assist Marie. From this statement, the police are putting the honors on Marie to defend herself and demonstrate that her story is correct, yet she is the victim of rape. Bringing up past information was pushing the blame on Marie, making her look like the victim again. Marie might have gone through a tough time in her past, and there was no correlation between her past and the rape ordeal she underwent. Using Marie’s past information is revictimizing her, and the police officers had a hard time believing that bad things only happen to Marie. The officers believe Marie must have done something or she has a vulnerability, making them go to the DCFS and search for her file.

The police officers were looking for an excuse to justify being raped. Marie was revictimized through the officer showing how she might have made up the story, and she was accusing someone f something he did not do. They brought about information showing she was lonely and she was seeking attention. While they might not have been aware of the impact of their actions, it ended up making Marie a victim again since she had to prove to the officers she was not lying about her rape, and she was not looking for attention. There was a failure by the officers to take her accusations seriously, and they only sought to punch holes in her statement. By demonstrating how her statement to them and the one she said to Connor was different, they put her on the stand and made her the victim.

3. What did the therapist say and do to provide a trauma-informed environment for Marie?

The therapist wanted to know more about Marie, and she did not focus on the accusations of lying or why Marie keeps lying. She created a safe space for Marie to open up by building trust and ensuring Marie felt she was secure and she could be vulnerable. The therapist informed Marie that she did not care if she lied or not, and she was sure that a person does not lie about something like that unless there is some truth in it. Indicating to Marie that she believes her story and there is some truth to it, reassuring Marie the therapist understands and acknowledges her feelings. The therapist created a comfortable place for Marie to open up by indicating that she is Willig to assist Marie to lay down her burdens, and she would love to listen if Marie has something she would like to talk about, giving Marie a chance to talk about her ordeal in her terms.

Towards the end of the session, the therapist asks Marie if she might take anything of value from the ordeal. By telling her that it will not be the last time for Marie to be mistrusted, it indicates that people will find it hard to trust her based on her past, and the situation she faced with the police officers will likely be repeated. Therefore, Marie should think about managing if the injustice happens again. The therapist tried to increase Marie’s ability to adapt her behavior when faced with the same adversity. The therapist did not re-traumatize Marie and only encouraged her to talk if she was willing. Therefore, Marie did not undergo any further trauma of the events. The focus of the therapy session was on the individual and not her actions until Marie asked if she was not curious. Since Marie had brought up the subject, it was easy to get her to speak about the ordeal she underwent instead of trying to force it out of her.

Part 2

• What is your initial reaction to this case?

It is shocking how the evidence demonstrates that the accused individuals were innocent, but the case was pushed forward due to media and public sensationalization. There was no tangible evidence to support the accused had performed any illegal acts, and the children were coached and subtly encouraged to lie about what had happened. Starting with the letter sent by the Police Chief to the McMartin preschool parents. The letter mentions the accused and indicates the police are conducting an investigation (Linder, 2003). The letter creates preconceptions in the parents’ minds, creating bias in the investigation. The preschool children interviewed by MacFarlane from CII were biased too, and they encouraged or coerced the children to speak about something they were unaware of to receive rewards. Therefore, the interviews could not be relied upon since the children were coached and asked leading questions.

Judy Johnson, the initiator of the accusations, was never questioned regarding her mental capability. The reports she made to the police were nonfactual, and she did not present any evidence to support them. The son of Judy Johnson could not identify Ray from photos presented to him, indicating Ray was not a familiar face to him. Also, there was no evidence to show the boy had suffered sexual abuse. With all the signs showing there is no case, it is insane how so much money was used to prosecute an innocent person. What comes to the fore is that when there is enough pressure and assumptions made, a person can be pronounced guilty for a charge without any evidence.

The mistakes made from the start should not have been allowed to continue. Accepting that a mistake was made would have saved the government money and not ruined the reputation of Ray. In the end, the person who initiated the claims was dead, and no one was found guilty.

• What impact did the role of the forensic interviewer have in this case?

The role of forensic interviewer played a crucial role in this case in that it offered most of the evidence needed to confirm the children were abused. If the forensic interviewer had not confirmed the children were abused, there would not have been any case against the accused individuals. The children had never indicated they were abused, and there was no evidence to indicate abuse was taking place in the school. The police did not uncover any evidence to show the accused had abused the children. Even after the forensic interviewer provided information about where the abuse took place, no secret room was found, and no photographs of children were discovered (Linder, 2003).

The forensic interviewer’s role was relied upon to confirm if the McMartin preschool children had been abused since no child had confirmed to the parents they had been abused. The forensic interviewer was the only person with the skills to uncover if there was anything the children were hiding. However, the forensic interviewer did not follow the interviewing principles where she was not allowed to ask leading questions. Asking the children leading questions allows them to lie about what was happening easily, and telling them that other children had confirmed the same makes them want to conform to their peers.

Since there was no supporting physical evidence of the child abuse on any of the children, the prosecutors and investigators relied on the report made by the forensic interviewer that 384 students had a diagnosis of sexual abuse. The forensic interviewer convinced the parents their children were abused, which made them push harder for the prosecution of the accused. Without the push from the parents and the media based on the reports by the forensic interviewer, there would not have been a case to pursue. Had the interviewer reported the correct findings, the parents would have been confident their children had not been sexually abused and would not have pushed for prosecution of the accused.

• Why is it important to talk about it/what can we take away from this case?

It is essential to talk about this case to ensure the same is never repeated. Confirmation bias is demonstrated when everyone involved is processing information by looking for what they believe. The forensic interviewer believed the children had been abused, and she was determined to uncover the abuse (Linder, 2003). Therefore, she pushed and asked leading questions to the children to confirm what they believed. The result was that peoples’ reputations were ruined and money was wasted pursuing a non-existing case. We should continue to talk about the case to ensure that other investigators do not allow their bias to impact their investigations. Evidence indicates the accused had not abused the children, but people did not want to believe. The forensic interviewer had a chance to confirm and reassure the parents that children had not been abused. However, she allowed her bias to interfere with her work, resulting in skewed results that had no evidence to support.

It is possible to influence people to believe something based on the person communicating and appealing to their emotions. The letter by the Police Chief to the parents influenced the parents’ thoughts and opinions of Ray Buckey. With all the information offered, the parents could not believe their children could be victims of the acts described in the letter. Therefore, they pushed for the prosecution of the accused even though there was no evidence to confirm he did anything indicated (Linder, 2003). Before the investigations had begun, Ray had already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, and nothing would change this fact. Professionals should avoid such biases to ensure the accused person receives a fair trial and the collection of evidence is done fairly. The lives of children were damaged due to an overzealous forensic investigator who pursued personal interests. The case indicates how easily something can be blown out of proportion and the impact of such misinterpretations.

Part 3

Discuss creative ways to translate linear explanations into circular or systemic explanations.

Family issues will mostly show up when there has been a disruption in routine, like was the case with their dad losing his job. The family’s changes will unravel issues that were mostly overlooked in the past. Understanding the underlying cause of some of the issues will be difficult since they are coming to the fore after the job loss. Therefore, the tendency by most family members will be to associate the issue with their dad losing his job. From a linear perspective, dad losing his job is seen as the cause of the problem or problems since they have manifested after the job loss. However, these issues could have been with the family all along, and they were mostly hidden since there were tensions and everyone was happy. The changes in the status quo mean that some changes have to take place, like reducing the household budget, dad is mostly at home now, and he can see what everyone does with their time and the lack of freedom either for the wife or children. Frustration develops because the family does not have the luxury it had before, and with budget cuts, there is reduced wastage and only purchases of necessary items.

With a circular explanation, dad losing his job might cause problems to be uncovered, and with the uncovered problems, they impact their dad in terms of being angry or disappointed, further aggravating the initial issue and making the situation worse. A circular explanation of problems will follow this pattern X influences Y, and Y influences X (Choi, 2020). It differs from a linear explanation that follows this pattern: X influences Y, but Y does not influence X. Therefore, from a linear explanation, X causes Y. For example, with dad losing his job, the family has to reduce its expenses, forcing the family not to buy everything they want, the children end up being frustrated since they cannot get what they want, making them angry with their father, increasing their dad’s depression or anxiety. The children’s response to not getting what they want makes them angry leading to dad getting angry too. Dad’s anger heightens the children’s anger, which increases his depression and anger more. The family finds itself in a troubling family system dynamic.

The circular explanation reveals that while their dad losing his job might negatively affect the family, the family is also contributing due to their failure to understand the current financial situation of the household. When the children get angry, it pisses their father off since he is trying to ensure the family has all it needs until he lands another job. With their dad’s anger, he might start screaming at the children, increasing their anger and heightening his anger. To assist the family in seeing how the problem is evolving, we should expand the problem dynamic by asking questions like:

· How did dad address the loss of his job to the family?

· What is the relationship between the family members?

· What efforts are being made to solve the problem?

· How supportive are the family members of their dad?

These questions move from the linear to the circular explanation of the problem, allowing everyone to see how they contribute to the family’s issues. The family might have been struggling with communication in the past, and since dad had a job, he rarely cared about the problem. However, now that he is jobless, he struggles to pass on information to the family. The family could be finding it hard to communicate with their dad since he has always kept to himself and rarely talks about household and work.

The job loss brings to the fore the issues that have been overlooked and how the family links them to their dad’s job loss.