• Forty Years of Forensic Interviewing of Children Suspected of Sexual Abuse, 1974–2014: Historical Benchmarks. This article provides a good overview of the development of standards of care in forensic child interviews.
• The U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Forensic Interviewing: Best Practices (September, 2015). This publication provides an important, objective standard of care in forensic child interviews.
• The National Children’s Alliance Standards for Accredited Members (2017) also provides an important, objective standard of care.

Here are some of the issues that can be addressed.

A) Lack of Neutrality of the Forensic Interviewer:

In some outlying counties the investigating officer is also the forensic child interviewer of the complaining witness.  This violates the objective status of a forensic child interviewer.

The U.S. Department of Justice published Child Forensic Interviewing: Best Practices in September, 2015.  Page 2 of that document cautions:

A forensic interview of a child is a developmentally sensitive and legally sound method of gathering factual information regarding allegations of abuse or exposure to violence. This interview is conducted by a competently trained, neutral professional utilizing research and practice-informed techniques as part of a larger investigative process. 

Forensic interviewers should . . . be attentive to the possibility that their preconceived ideas may bias the information gathered—particularly if the interview is conducted in an unduly leading or suggestive manner—and should avoid such practices (Ceci and Bruck, 1995; Faller, 2007). Page 6.

The National Children’s Alliance Standards for Accredited Members (2017) also provides objective standards of care.

The purpose of a CAC forensic interview is to obtain information from a child about abuse allegations that will support accurate and fair decision making by the MDT within the criminal justice, child protection, and service delivery systems. Forensic interviews are conducted in a manner that is developmentally and culturally sensitive, unbiased, fact-finding, and legally sound. Page 20.

B) Multiple Interviews:

The National Child Advocacy Center is recognized as one of the best training programs in the United States.  On their website they prominently promote the standard of care created by the U.S. Department of Justice Child Forensic Interviewing: Best Practices (September, 2015).  This document includes cautions against multiple interviews of a child.

Multiple, Nonduplicative Interviews: One comprehensive forensic interview is sufficient for many children, particularly if the child made a previous disclosure, possesses adequate language skills, and has the support of a family member or other close adult (APSAC, 2002; Faller, 2007; London et al., 2007; NCA, 2011; Olafson and Lederman, 2006). The literature clearly demonstrates the dangers of multiple interviewers repeatedly questioning a child or conducting duplicative interviews (Ceci and Bruck, 1995; Fivush, Peterson, and Schwarzmueller, 2002; Malloy and Quas, 2009; Poole and Lamb, 1998; Poole and Lindsay, 2002). Page 11

The National Children’s Alliance Standards for Accredited Members (2017) also cautions:

The CAC/MDT must adhere to research-based forensic interview guidelines that create an interview environment that enhances free recall, minimizes interviewer influence, and gathers information needed by all the MDT members in order to avoid duplication of the interview process. Page 20.

The National Children’s Alliance Standards for Accredited Members (2017) instructs:

The CAC/MDT must adhere to research-based forensic interview guidelines that create an interview environment that enhances free recall, minimizes interviewer influence, and gathers information needed by all the MDT members in order to avoid duplication of the interview process. Page 20.

The CAC/MDT coordinates information gathering including history taking, assessments, and forensic interview(s) to avoid duplication. . . All members of the MDT need information to complete their respective assessments and evaluations. Whether it is initial information gathered prior to the forensic interview, history taken by the medical provider, or intake by the mental health or victim services provider, every effort should be made to avoid duplication of information gathering from the childand family members and ensure information sharing among MDT functions. Page 23.

The authors of “Tell Me What Happened” caution:

“However, repeated interviewing may also compromise the reliability of children’s accounts if errors reported during earlier interviews (either self-generated or in response to suggestive questioning) become incorporated into memory representations (e.g. Ceci, Huffman, Smith, & Loftus, 1994). Additionally, children may be exposed between interviews to information from other sources that is subsequently incorporated into their accounts (via source-monitoring errors or social pressure). Children may also produce inconsistent accounts in successive interviews, reflecting errors of both omission and commission (Peterson, 2011). . . Studies that examine repeated recall using optimal interviewing techniques (i.e., open-ended questioning) show that, as with other dimensions of eyewitness testimony, the length of delay and the question strategy employed are both influential (e.g., Goodman & Quas, 2008; La Rooy et al., 2009,m 2010). With short delays, reporting of increased amounts of information that is highly accurate is facilitated (i.e., by both reminiscence and hypermnesia: La Rooy, Pipe, & Murray, 2005; Quas et. al., 2007).”  Lamb, Brown, Hershkowitz, Obrach and Esplin. Tell Me What Happened: Questioning Children About Abuse.  (p.50, 2018)

C) Timeliness:

The passage of time between multiple interviews of a child is of deep concern.  Page 2 of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Forensic Interviewing: Best Practices (September, 2015) cautions:

Conduct the forensic interview as soon after the initial disclosure of abuse, or after witnessing violence, as the child’s mental status will permit and as soon as a multidisciplinary team response can be coordinated (APSAC, 2012; Saywitz and Camparo, 2009). As time passes, the opportunity to collect potential corroborative evidence may diminish, children’s fortitude to disclose may wane, and opportunities for contamination, whether intentional or accidental, increase (Johnson, 2009). 

The authors of “Tell Me What Happened” warn:

When the delay between interview is more substantial (6 months or longer), new information reported is often inaccurate, whereas information that is consistently reported tends to by accurate (e.g., La Rooy et al., 2005; Salmon & Pipe, 1997, 2000).”  Lamb, Brown, Hershkowitz, Obrach and Esplin. Tell Me What Happened: Questioning Children About Abuse.  (p.50, 2018)

D) Forensic Training: What is the interviewer’s formal, supervised training? The National Children’s Alliance Standards for Accredited Members (2017) cautions:

Quality interviewing involves an appropriate, neutral setting, effective communication among MDT members, and employment of legally sound interviewing techniques. 

CACs vary with regard to who conducts the forensic interview, but the role must be fulfilled by a selected, supervised, and appropriately trained professional. This includes a CAC-employed forensic interviewer, law enforcement officers, CPS workers, federal law enforcement officers, or other MDT members according to the resources available in the community. At a minimum, any professional in the role of a forensic interviewer must have initial and on-going formal forensic interviewer training that is approved by National Children’s Alliance (NCA) for purposes of accreditation. State laws may dictate which professionals can or should conduct forensic interviews.

The CAC/MDT’s written documents must include the general interview protocol, selection of an appropriately trained interviewer, specifications for sharing of information among MDT members, and a mechanism for collaborative case planning. Additionally, for CACs that conduct Extended Forensic Evaluations, a separate, well-defined protocol must be also be articulated. Page 20.

E) Place of Interview: As cited earlier, the National Children’s Alliance Standards for Accredited Members (2017) provides objective standards of care.

The National Children’s Alliance (NCA), as a part of its accreditation process, requires CACs to provide child- focused settings that are “comfortable, private, and both physically and psychologically safe for diverse populations of children and their non-offending family members” . . . Interview rooms come in all shapes and sizes, are often painted in warm colors, may incorporate child-sized furniture, and should only use artwork of a non-fantasy nature. The room should be equipped for audio- and video-recording, and case investigators and other CAC staff should be able to observe the forensic interview (Myers, 2005; NCA, 2013; Pence and Wilson, 1994). Although it is generally recommended that there be minimal distractions in the interview room (APSAC, 2012; Saywitz, Camparo, and Romanoff, 2010), opinions differ about the allowance of simple media, such as paper and markers. Page 6

1. 1. CAC/MDT protocol must reflect the following items:
   2. Case acceptance criteria
   3. Criteria for choosing an appropriately trained interviewer (for a specific case)
   4. Personnel expected to attend/observe the interview
   5. Preparation, information sharing and communication between the MDT and the forensic interviewer
   6. Use of interview aids
   7. Use of interpreters
   8. Recording and/or documentation of the interview
   9. Interview methodology (i.e., state or nationally recognized forensic interview training model(s))
   10. Introduction of evidence in the forensic interviewing process
   11. Sharing of information among MDT members
   12. A mechanism for collaborative case coordination
   13. Determining criteria and process by which a child has a multi-session or subsequent interview Page 21-22

Forensic interviews of children, as defined in the CAC/MDT’s written protocols, will be conducted at the CAC, where the MDT is best equipped to meet the child’s needs during the interview.

On rare occasions when interviews take place outside the CAC as determined and approved by the MDT, the agreed-upon forensic interview guidelines must be utilized. Some CACs have established interview rooms outside of the primary CAC such as at a satellite office. Page 22.

1. The CAC/MDT coordinates information gathering including history taking, assessments, and forensic interview(s) to avoid duplication. . . All members of the MDT need information to complete their respective assessments and evaluations. Whether it is initial information gathered prior to the forensic interview, history taken by the medical provider, or intake by the mental health or victim services provider, every effort should be made to avoid duplication of information gathering from the child and family members and ensure information sharing among MDT functions. Page 23.