Because of mandatory reporting laws for counselors and other professionals, part of the process of getting help for my son involved dealing with Child Protective Services. This aspect of the abuse brought us into a whole other arena. Suddenly, we found ourselves dealing with the police and the Family Court System.
The first dilemma for me as a parent was concern about
re-traumatizing my son by exposing him to the legal process which would
require him to tell his story time and time again. I felt torn in two directions.
One part of me didn't want him to go through this; the other side wanted
justice for my child Our family was giving us no satisfaction in addressing
the issue; perhaps the courts would provide for us what the family would
not.
Our expectations of the police and the court system made us believe that justice would be served. We followed the recommendations of Child Protective Services by cooperating with their investigation. We allowed our child to be interviewed by the detectives from the Special Victims Unit and the Assistant District Attorney at Bronx Family Court. We were never permitted to be present during their interrogations. Each person who interviewed him verified that my son was bright and articulate. From what was said to me by people from Child Protective Services, the police, the Assistant District Attorney, and counselors at the Stern House, my son has been able to describe what transpired between him and the respondent in this case and his statements have been clear and consistent.
I believe that the people who worked with my son were sensitive to his needs and for that I am grateful. However, from the start the police and the ADA were pessimistic about prosecuting the case and told us that five year olds do not make good witnesses in court when undergoing cross examination by a hostile attorney. I questioned whether my son could have an advocate speak for him in court and was told this was not an option. I then asked if we could use the expert testimony of his counselors or the people from Child Protective Services and was told that it would not be advisable because it would violate my son's privacy and confidentiality.
I was angered by this information. What this meant was that a crime could be committed against a young child and the perpetrator could walk. The ADA assured me that she would do all in her power to get the perpetrator's parents to agree to court-mandated counseling. This was as far as the case would go and would have to satisfy any craving for justice. At minimum I felt the perpetrator would not go free without some form of retribution as the courts would monitor him while at the same time getting the professional help he so desperately needed.
A couple of months passed after my son gave his statement to the ADA; we received no information from the courts about the case. My calls were not returned. The counselors from the Stern House intervened and placed a call on my behalf. They were able to reach the ADA and were told that the case would progress no further.
After several attempts and many months of waiting, the courts finally issued a clear statement as to the disposition of the case. The case had been closed. The ADA said the respondent was going through therapy and was told to stay away from my son; however, there was no mention that the courts were monitoring him in any way. In addition, the ADA stated that since they were unable to file a case before the court, it would be impossible for them to get my son an order of protection.
They ended saying "due to your son's inability to relate the events that took place in a legally sufficient fashion, this office is unable to prosecute the respondent and has closed out the case." It took me seven months to get this information only to find out from the courts that from a legal stainpoint, they did not consider my son a victim. Justice has not been served.
