History and Analysis of Delayed Discovery Statutes of Limitations in Adult Survivor Litigation

Summary

In this chapter, attorney Mary R. Williams examines how while Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) cases share many of the types of facts for which delayed discovery, mental incapacity, equitable estoppel and other legal statutes of limitations doctrines were created, the combination of factors of CSA cases, including unusual social dynamics and long-term psychological effects, does not fit exactly with any of these legal doctrines. She explores the historical development of delayed discovery statutes of limitations, evaluates the different types of statutes and case law, and analyzes the problematic use of the concept of repression in legislation. This chapter interprets her ground-breaking state-by-state tabulations of delayed discovery statutes of limitations and reported appellate decisions on limitations in CSA actions, published in this volume as appendices A, B, and C.     

On the assessment of the test–retest of Riding’s CSA: A commentary on Peterson, Deary, and Austin

Peterson, Deary, and Austin (2003) considered the reliability of the Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) (Riding, 1991). The CSA seeks to assess an individual’s position on each of two fundamental style dimensions – the Wholist-Analytic and the Verbal-Imagery dimensions. It presents a series of simple cognitive tasks, which the subjects may choose to process according to their preferred style. Performance on these test items is in terms of response times. The CSA comprises 40 items to assess the Wholist-Analytic and 48 for the Verbal-Imagery and typically takes 15–20 min to complete. It is intended to be suitable for a wide age and ability range, and applicable to a variety of contexts and cultures.The most important characteristic of any test of cognitive style is its temporal stability. Studies which attempt to establish test validity without definitive evidence of test reliability are lacking a basic foundation. Riding has not published any statistical data on the test–retest reliability of the CSA.Peterson et al. (2003) and Peterson (2003) claim to have carried out the primary evaluation of the CSA’s reliability. However we were the first to publish accurate test–retest reliability data on Riding’s CSA (Redmond, Mullally, & Parkinson, 2002).This brief report addresses the issue as to who initially established the unreliability of the CSA in the first place and why Peterson, Deary and Austin’s claims are misleading and unsubstantiated.     

Judges' views of child sexual abuse: Evaluating beliefs against research findings in a Finnish sample

Beliefs impact our decision‐making and different professionals have been shown to have beliefs about child sexual abuse (CSA) that do not coincide with scientific findings. In the present study, judges' beliefs regarding CSA were explored. Finnish judges (N = 104) answered a questionnaire about CSA related issues as well as questions regarding their professional experience of CSA cases. The judges held both correct and incorrect beliefs; while their CSA prevalence estimates were rather well in line with research findings, half of the participants estimated that no professionals use suggestive methods when interviewing children and more than 40% thought suggestive methods can be useful when trying to get a child to tell about real events. Judges correctly assumed symptoms cannot be used to assess a CSA case, however, the majority thought play observations were appropriate means for evaluating such suspicions. Experience seemed to lead to more confidence in their own expertise but not in an actual increase in knowledge, namely, judges thought themselves more expert when more experienced although their expertise as measured by the questionnaire did not improve. Overall, the judges had both correct and erroneous beliefs but while experience did not improve the situation, gaining information about CSA did. More research about the beliefs of judges and how such beliefs impact legal decision‐making is needed.     

Analyzing feature distinctiveness in the processing of living and non-living concepts in Alzheimer’s disease

The conceptual structure account (CSA) is a model specifying the role of the living and non-living domain dichotomy in the structure of semantic memory. According to this model, feature distinctiveness and the perceptual–functional inter-correlation of concepts are assumed to play a major role in impairing the ability to discriminate between living and non-living concepts in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The hypothesis was tested in this study by using naming and sorting tasks traditionally considered as assessing distinctiveness, and a property verification task where distinctiveness and perceptual–functional inter-correlation were objectively controlled against norms especially created for this purpose. Alzheimer’s patients (n = 59) with minimal, mild or moderate dementia and normal elderly adults (n = 31) participated in the study. Overall, the findings did not support the CSA predictions. They revealed a distinctiveness effect on response accuracy with shared features dominating distinctive features regardless of domain. They also revealed more difficulties in the tasks involving effortful processes. The results stress the need to consider both cognitive demands of tasks and structural aspects of knowledge in the evaluation of semantic memory in AD.     

Sexual Abuse Litigation

Summary

Practicing psychologist Janet Sonne and attorney Julian Hubbard illuminate how the different aims and languages of psychotherapy and law can be either an asset or a liability in the emotionally-charged environment of sexual abuse litigation. Properly understood, these differences can optimize the ability of each professional to assist their common client, the sexual abuse survivor, in the litigation process and beyond. Dr. Sonne reviews the psychological and behavioral sequelae of childhood sexual abuse and identifies six elements of the client's psychological functioning key to the litigation process, as well as posing questions for the attorney's self-evaluation for the unique demands of sexual abuse litigation. Mr. Hubbard then addresses what survivors and therapists need to know about the litigation process, exploring dynamics of legal strategy that can exacerbate the client's psychological problems. In the final section, both offer tips to enhance professionals' focus on education and communication as a means to better serving the sexually abused client.     

Couples Therapy with Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors (CSA) and their Partners: Establishing a Context for Witnessing

This article proposes a clinical practice for therapy with couples in which one partner suffered sexual abuse in childhood. Such couples often encounter unique difficulties with physical contact, intimacy, sexuality, communication, and trust, and their relationship dynamic may be marked by reenactments of past traumatic relational patterns. This clinical practice is founded on the assumption that establishing the witnessing lacking during the traumatic event in childhood can break the traumatic reenactments in adulthood, and spur recovery. The suggested practice may facilitate twofold witnessing: the couple's therapist witnesses the reenactments of the trauma in the couple's relationship; and the survivor's partner witnesses the trauma's effect on the survivor's personal life and relationship. Twofold witnessing can help break the cycle of traumatic reenactment and help the survivor integrate the events of her life into a more coherent, continuous narrative. The partner's presence also facilitates acknowledgement of what happened to the survivor, and helps the survivor elaborate on her stories of resistance, survival, and strength. Finally, each of the partners is able to appear more wholly and fully, and together to tell the preferred stories of their life as a couple, replete with the multiple relational patterns they wish to live, which may contradict the characteristics of the original trauma.     

Celebrating a common finding: Riding’s CSA test is unreliable

This paper is a reply to Redmond and colleagues’ brief report that argues we (Peterson et al., 2003a) were not the first to establish the unreliability of the computerised cognitive styles analysis (CSA) test because we used a copy of the test rather than the original. We refute this suggestion and argue that we have already defended our approach to testing the CSA’s reliability (Peterson et al., 2003b) and that our method is entirely appropriate and transparent. Rather than argue over who was the first to test the CSA’s reliability, we believe we should celebrate the fact that we both found the same result, regardless of the method used.