The prosecution had a problem with its case against a roving pedophile whose most recent gig occurred at a tutoring center. The child he was tutoring, and also grooming, caught on quickly to his real intentions when he began touching her thigh and chest, making her uncomfortable. Her complaint sparked an investigation, which turned up another little girl at the center so reporting his interest in her thighs and breasts. In this case, her resistance led to threats of harm if she told anybody.
An investigation ensued that led to criminal charges of attempted sex abuse and coercion.
The State's problem was to prove criminal intent since quick thinking by an intended victim had foreclosed any further opportunities for contact by the defendant. The State produced for its case several adult women who related being molested as children by the defendant many years earlier. The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimony of a clinical psychologist whose specialty was treating sex offenders. He testified about the seduction ritual known as grooming, the goal of which is the sexual victimization of a child.
The psychologist further testified in response to a hypothetical question, that the defendant's offending history, along with his recent behavior including his choice of occupation, interaction directed to relaxing the child's defenses and inappropriate escalating physical contact, established the grooming pattern.
Holding: The Court affirmed the conviction, dismissing the argument that the psychologist had testified to a scientific theory that was not established as valid through scientific testing and general acceptance among scientists. The Court held that the psychologist's opinion was not unlike the testimony of other professionals such as police officers and social workers. These experts are permitted to present opinions based on "technical and other specialized knowledge," which, considering the years of experience this witness had observing human behavior, was sufficient to establish its legitimacy.
The reasoning utilized by the court attempting to distinguish between scientific theory and expert knowledge was not, however, embraced by the majority. The majority agreed with the result, but several felt uncomfortable with a rule that would allow such exotic concepts as the grooming rituals of the American pedophile into evidence without first establishing the scientific validity of the concept.
HOW GROOMING TRANSPIRES
- Behavior to Gain Trust
- Reassuring to the Family
- Gradual Erosion of Boundaries
- Construct Secrecy With Child
- Working to Secure Compliance
| Lloyd Sinclair, MSSW Midwest Center for Psychotherapy and Sex Therapy |
Mr. Sinclair comments: In the context of the sexual molestation of children, the term grooming may seem incongruous. Yet the closest familiar analog to grooming is the common ritual of courting.
How do child molesters groom potential victims? Like the man engaged in courting, the child molester behaves in ways to promote trust; and since the victim is often a part of a family, he will also try to gain the trust of the child's parents or care-providers. Child molesters often select their potential victims carefully, typically targeting the child who is seeking adult attention. Most often there is some period before the molester engages in any inappropriate behavior. During this time, the molester presents himself positively to the child, exhibits interest, is complimentary, and behaves in exemplary ways to reassure anyone who may be suspicious of his motives.
Once trust is accomplished, the child molester will begin to test and erode typical boundaries to sexual behavior. He might suggest that the child and he sleep in the same bed, be nude together, or he may touch the child near the genital area to test the child's reaction. He may suggest that the child engage in non-sexual inappropriate behaviors such as drinking alcohol, in order to make the child fearful that he or she will be in trouble if their activities together are discovered.
If the child does not appear overly upset or report these boundary violations to others, then the molester might escalate the intrusiveness of his sexual behaviors. Ultimately, the goal of grooming is to obtain compliance so the child will be available for sexual abuse.
For example, the child molester frequently will tell the child that touching between them is good, that it is an indication of their special relationship, and that if the child reports the behavior they will no longer be able to be friends. Some molesters threaten, and tell the child that by not complying with the touching the child, or some person important to the child, will be harmed.
If a man is interested in having sex with a woman, he knows success is unlikely if he simply approaches her and suggests sex. Instead, he will present his positive attributes and himself as someone interested in her. Often he will seek to gain the trust and approval of her friends and family. Frequently the courtship process is reciprocal, each actively courting the other.
Similarly, grooming behaviors employed by sex offenders are intended to increase the likelihood of success in engaging a child in sexual behavior. Of course, preventing the child from telling someone is one goal not generally related to adult courtship.
The fundamental distinction, however, between child molestation and courtship is that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults. The legal bar to a child's consent is recognition of the lack of information and power a child has in a sexual relationship with an adult. Therefore, there can be no reciprocity.
In courting behavior, the intended target of the sexual behavior has equality of knowledge and power with the person who is seeking to have sex. Grooming a child, on the other hand, is manipulation of an uninformed relatively powerless victim. Children are especially at risk due to their lack of understanding about the motives behind the acts of adults directed toward sex. Children's lack of understanding renders them extremely vulnerable to adult advances.
