Replies to '11/06 The Lie Detector'

Overall, many message board writers have written in to say that they think Dad is lying...that they believe he may be guilty of the allegations of molesting his 3-year old daughter.  But then, many of you also go on to admonish Mom and Grandma's behavior, including Dr. Phil to a degree.

Unfortunately, this is how a lot of people think.  It's dangerous thinking. If you truly believed in your heart of hearts, that your 3-year old child was being molested, as her mom, what is appropriate behavior to protect your child from further abuse when your complaints have been dismissed?

Should they remain silent? Should a family therapist be brought in to "calm everyone down" and mutually resolve a potential abuse situation by giving everyone a script on how to act and how to react?  How do they sit down and "work it out"?

 If abuse is occuring, do we really expect that a compromise or rationale talk can get to the root of the problem and there be a calm settlement to end the molestation?  Do we expect that the alleged offender will admit to any abuse? Do we expect that the alleged offender would be capable of stopping or agreeing to supervised visitation because he really cares about his child, if he is molesting her?

As a protective parent, it is VERY appropriate to make a stink and draw attention to a situation and offense that you believe is traumatizing your child. It doesn't get much worse than being molested from your own flesh and blood.

 In Kaylee's case, the first suspicion of possible abuse was raised by CPS after Father took Kaylee to the hospital with a vaginal tear.  Mom didn't raise the allegations.  Prior to the allegations, mom was allowing visitation...and encouraged it...even though Dad was out of the picture and didn't visit his child in some time.  There was no custody or visitation battle going on. 

Child abuse investigators should ALWAYS error on the side of safety and caution of the child, especially when they are the first ones to raise the flag.  I believe they dropped the ball here, folks.

People need to put themselves in the same shoes...and consider what an uphill battle it is for any protective protect to try to safeguard their child from a family member who may be molesting their child.  Our safety mechanisms and laws are very much stacked against protecting children from incest. 

Below is a short article written by Andrew Vachss, a New York attorney and writer who specializes in child sexual abuse.  This article appeared in Parade Magazine in March 29, 1998 as part of a feature article called Our Endangered Species:  A Hard Look At How We Treat Children.

The article below is an excerpt from his main provocative article and is enlightening and frightening:

"Why It Takes A Whole Village To Rape A Child

A classic illustration of devolution is our laws against incest. What is the difference between sex with a child of another and a child of one's own? We all know—and the data prove—the truth. When a male (note: I do not say a "man") has sex with a neighbor's child, prison is a likely possibility. But should such a creature have sex with his own child, we euphemistically deem it "family dysfunction" and call in the therapists.

Incest laws were enacted to prevent the birth of biogenetic defectives. But why do such laws apply to children? Children do not have the biological capacity to reproduce. Laws prohibiting sex or marriage between closely related adults protect the species. But incest prohibition as to children has no such value.

Simply put, we as a nation consider children to be the property of their parents. And we provide a special immunity to sex offenders who grow their own victims. Which is more destructive to our species: the random sexual assault of a child or the sexual assault of a child by the very individual whom all laws command to protect that child? What is the moral, social or ethical justification from distinguishing sexual assault by blood relationship of the victim to the perpetrator? We can come to but one conclusion: The laws against incest exist not to protect children but to protect predators.

Yes, our human race remains the only one that tolerates nonprotective parents and same-species predators. The incest laws make that point, written in the blood of innocents. This is the question about incest laws for every legislator in the land: Explain it or change it. And unless we, as a society, start asking that question, we will continue our "evolution" until we have lost our humanity."    -  written by Andrew Vachss.