Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
REPORT NO. 6
A Report by the
1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury
June 23, 1992
"THE CASE OF ALICIA W."
INTRODUCTION
By the time the Grand Jury became aware of this case, it had
been in the Juvenile Court for more than two and a half years.
The case of Alicia W. was unique in two significant aspects.
1
First, there was physical evidence to prove that the father did
not rape his daughter, and second, there was physical evidence
which clearly implicated a stranger to the family did. (After
the Grand Jury became aware of this case, the criminal court
handed down a finding of true innocence.) Despite the existence
of new evidence, the Department of Social Services, through its
counsel, the Deputy County Counsel, fought efforts to delay the
hearing which would terminate the parental rights of Alicia W.'s
mother and father. The Juvenile Court had already refused on two
occasions to grant such a continuance while new evidence was
being tested.
2
and the leadership in the Department of Social Services for
responding. County Counsel saw no reason why there needed to be
any hurry to return this child to her family. Months later the
Deputy County Counsel assigned to this case offered many
scenarios for how the father "could" have been involved and
refused to acknowledge outright evidence of the innocence of
Alicia's parents.
While the errors and mistakes which plagued this case are
tragic, more disturbing is the fact that the system appears
designed to create or foster them, to leave them untested and
uncorrected, and ultimately to deny or excuse them, all in the
name of child protection.
3
uncle also has one kidney. Both suffer from chronic problems.
The uncle has now received a donor kidney from his sister. Her
mother will need a donor kidney soon. (This history was well-
documented in the medical records the family provided to the
Juvenile Court. Those original documents were never returned to
the parents despite several requests.)
The NAVCARE doctor called CPS. It took almost two hours for
him to reach CPS and for CPS to respond. CPS's report was time-
stamped at 11:03 AM. While waiting for CPS to arrive at NAVCARE,
the child appeared completely normal and unconcerned by what had
happened to her and her present condition. The parents held the
child in their laps during the period. The father called his
ship and advised he would not be returning to work that day.
4
risk to a daughter];
3. Father describes himself as a recovering alcoholic;
The Jury believes that this case was prejudged from the
beginning by either, or both, the reporting party or the person
receiving that report. For example, in the absence of any
positive evidence, the Child Protective Services form, processed
at 11:03 AM, May 9, reflected "reported abuser" as "father?".
The original reporting physician at NAVCARE is reported to have
said that he told the parents that Alicia had been molested, and
the father began to cry uncontrollably. Mother also cried. This
was not noted.
The SDPD dispatch operator who received this report sent the
Child Abuse Unit with the result that a unit which deals
primarily with familial or "in house" molest investigated the
case. The predisposition of this infortuitous response placed
the case on a track leading to a charge and assumption of "in
house" molest.
"I told Alicia that she must have been really hurt by
someone, and she then calmly replied that a man came
through her bedroom window and took her out and hurt
her."
6
quoted by the DSS CI, saying:
"she and the staff of CCP had already agreed that the
child was too traumatized to be interviewed . . . the
detective proceeded to question the minor. . . asking
the minor leading questions as to who the perpetrator
was . . . the police were in the process of
investigating other molest incidents and that the
questioning about an unknown intruder coming into the
house was a concept that the minor readily agreed to,
consequently, preventing the minor from further
disclosing actual events."
While the child was being prepared for surgery, and with no
explanation to either the child or the mother, the mother was
forcibly escorted by hospital security out of the hospital under
protest. Despite the mother's availability, medical history for
the surgery was given by Alicia, an eight year old child. The
mother testified that the surgeon expressed his outrage about the
mother's removal from the hospital, and thus the increased risk
to Alicia, when he called the parents with the results of
Alicia's surgery.
7
Of equal importance, this child endured a traumatic event,
surgery and hospitalization, without the solace of any member of
her family. Furthermore, there is no record in the logs of
Hospital or the social worker logs of anyone explaining to this
child why her parents weren't there. She had a nurse call her
parents, and, when her father answered, he had to hang up without
saying anything, because he was under orders from the DSS CI not
to speak to Alicia. After that phone call, the parents called
both the hospital and the DSS CI and asked that someone explain
the circumstances to Alicia and tell her they were sorry they had
to hang up and they loved her very much. There is no record of
anyone giving Alicia that message. There is a record of the
parents' calls and of Alicia crying for her parents. Given the
mother's agreement to be with Alicia with a nurse in the room and
not to discuss the rape, the Jury questions how anyone could
consider this action "in the best interests of the child."
POLICE INVESTIGATION
8
Alicia's clothing would not come until late July, more than two
months after the rape. This was a procedural breakdown which
seriously handicapped the defense in Juvenile Court. The delay
in obtaining these results is professionally inexcusable and the
determination that there was no semen when, in fact, there was,
is professionally unconscionable.
The DSS CI, who was from the Court Investigative Unit, was
assigned to Alicia's case on the morning of May 10. The evidence
indicates that she believed that this was incest (or "in house"
molest) from the moment she received the case. She remained on
this case until the end of December. DSS Procedure dictates that
the Court Investigative SW should stay on the case through the
dispositional phase and then transfer the case to the Maintenance
and Reunification Unit. However, it required a court order some
six weeks after disposition for DSS CI to be removed from
Alicia's case.
9
untrue. These letters overreached the reasonable, objective,
professional standards expected of an organization that has great
power and influence in the field of children's issues.
On July 17, Alicia saw her father for the first time since
the rape. (She was already in therapy with a therapist who
believed the father was guilty and had told Alicia it was OK to
tell that Daddy did it). The visit was supervised by DSS CI and
observed through a one-way mirror by father's attorney. The
child ran to her father, sat on his lap, and was very reluctant
to leave. DSS CI reported this very positive encounter,
The Grand Jury has already expressed its concern about the
role of the Court Investigative Social Worker (Grand Jury Report
#2, "FAMILIES IN CRISIS", p. 29). This social worker is placed
in the untenable position of both acquiring evidence for the
"prosecution" of a child abuse case and providing necessary
services to a family that does not trust her/him.
For some reason, all assumed from this statement that Alicia
was saying she had been raped outside on the ground. Alicia never
said that she was taken out of the car. An 8/9/89 letter from
the CCP MD DIR states, "If she was taken outside and raped, why
were there no signs of an outside environment such as dirt,
grass, or twigs on her clothing"?
day of the rape and who decided that the police detective was
"leading" the child. Alicia was finally interviewed on May 15,
and Nicole S. was interviewed May 13. Alicia said in her
interview that she knew her assailant was a man, "I could tell by
his face," and that she had seen his face in her brother's
window. The CP SWl did not follow up these statements with any
questions. Nicole S. stated, "he grabbed me on the bed. The
stranger grabbed me. I thought it was my daddy, but it was this
stranger." The child indicated that the stranger who had removed
her from her bedroom had a "white truck". Nicole S. described a
"white truck." In fact, she was taken in a white truck. This
seemed to contradict Alicia's statement about a green car and
might lead one to believe that these were not connected. In
fact, Carder did have a green car at the time of Alicia's rape.
He reported to the police on May 23 that the green car was
stolen. This information was almost immediately known to the Sex
Crimes detectives investigating the assault of Nicole S.
Unfortunately, that stolen-car report was never passed on to the
Child Abuse detectives, and they apparently never ran a DMV check
on Carder.
12
operation" of these events. Negligently, the detective did not
follow through to connect Nicole S.'s perpetrator as the
perpetrator of Alicia W.'s rape.
16
her. After more than a year of therapy and isolation from her
family, Alicia finally "disclosed" that her father had raped
her. She was again taken to the Center for Child Protection and
interviewed. This interview was very disturbing. Alicia was
barely able to say the words of accusation. She refused to
elaborate. She laid on the floor and almost assumed the fetal
position. She kept trying to change the subject. Her statement,
nevertheless, was taken as the truth, because it was what her
listeners had waited so long to hear.
The second social worker (DSS SW2) on this case wrote in her
transfer notes: "Alicia's therapist absolutely believes that the
father is the perp [perpetrator]. At this point if Alicia could
suddenly identify another perp [perpetrator] I'm not sure that
she would hear her." The truth of this observation was verified
when the therapy notes were eventually "discovered" by the
family.
Board of FMS Foundation includes twenty Professors of Psychology
and Psychiatry from the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, UCLA,
Stanford, John Hopkins, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University.
The Foundation is deeply concerned about the growing phenomenon of
false accusations coming out of therapy. The Foundation is
concerned that this dangerous phenomenon will ultimately impact the
profession's credibility. Already they attribute inappropriate
therapy with destroying families and creating abuse in the minds of
children and adults.
17
The appropriateness of a therapist and social worker having
so much control over the access to a primary witness to a crime
should be examined. These two controlled all access to Alicia
for a year and maintained that Alicia was "blocking", while she
persisted in trying to convince her therapist of her description
of the perpetrator right up to the "disclosure" that it was her
father. The only other persons who had contact were the foster
parents. Any information they reported back to the therapist or
social workers was treated as objective and factual.
18
"Session w/Alicia. Talked w/FO MO - after session
w/Josh Alicia had a nightmare (first since November -
always Mo/Alicia/Josh dies in gruesome manner). This
one Alicia dreams her dad falls off a ladder on his
ship and drowns. [FO MO] is concerned about impact of
visits on Alicia.
19
Alicia might have been drugged and that this could have been the
reason for her failure to respond appropriately at the time of
the rape and on the morning after. He knew that there was blood
on the clothing, and he contacted the SDPD criminalist to
determine whether a toxicology screen could be done on the blood
stains. Some days later, the DEP DA CRIM called the lab, and the
criminalist told him that while testing the clothing, she had
found semen using a piece of equipment purchased after the
original testing had been done. (Note: Semen could have been
found using the LAB equipment in place during May, 1989.)
When the first set of results from DNA testing showed that
the father was not the perpetrator and that the incarcerated
perpetrator of the other molests was a highly likely suspect, and
after the involvement of the Grand Jury, a meeting was held with
the foster parents, the Deputy D.A., minor's counsel, a DSS
representative, and father's counsel. At that time, and in other
contacts, the foster parents continued to insist that the father
was involved. The foster parents told the DDA CRIM that Alicia
had had no urinary or bladder infections since she had been in
their home and that she wanted to be adopted by them. (The
implication of the cessation of the urinary/bladder infections
was that these can be associated with molest.) There was no
20
effort made to ever check the veracity of that statement. The
Deputy County Counsel, the Deputy D.A., and the foster parents,
without a shred of confirming evidence, developed an implausible
scenario that the rape could have involved both the father and
another man and that the rape story was a cover for an ongoing
molest.
Two SDPD detectives from the Child Abuse Unit (SDPD Det.
1 & 3) were sent to interview the serial attacker in prison. He
told both of them that he always "worked" alone. He further told
them that he did not know Mr. W., and that Mr. W. had nothing to
do with the rape of his daughter. He did not confess to the rape
but wanted to meet with the D.A. The detectives reported their
clear impression that he wanted a plea bargain. Even after this
interview, the "no-contact" order was not lifted even for
purposes of allowing the father to attend joint-therapy sessions
with Alicia.
21
to endure for so long. The Jury was concerned that the attitude
of the office of the District Attorney appeared inconsistent with
its charge to represent the people. While it is the job of the
D.A. to prosecute cases, it is also his job to exercise sound
prosecutorial discretion to prevent such awesome power from being
misapplied. There had been no attempt, even when the existence
of semen was discovered, to look for evidence exculpatory to the
father. When the semen proved to be a third party's, there was
an effort made to connect that person to the father.
The Jury recognizes that some of the "facts" could not have
been known to the D.A., and some of the "facts" were erroneous
assumptions made by various child abuse investigators. It is
hoped that this chronology will be used to help the District
Attorney, the SDPD Child Abuse Unit, and particularly the SDPD
Criminal Lab to take a closer look at procedures to ensure that
these same errors are not repeated in the future.6
DETENTION
22
physical harm inflicted non-accidentally upon the minor
by the minor's parent or guardian, in that: on or about
May 9, 1989, said minor suffered and was discovered to
have a detrimental and/or traumatic condition/injury
consisting of, but not limited to, perineal tear,
lacerated fourchette, and fresh tears in the rectal
canal. Such a condition/injury would not ordinarily
occur except as the result of the unreasonable and
neglectful acts and omissions by the mother, who had
the care, custody, and control of said minor, and said
minor is in need of the protection of the Juvenile
Court."
At the May 12, detention hearing, the parents and the minor
were appointed counsel. The court ordered that there be no
contact between the minor and the parents until after the
evidentiary interview, which was scheduled within the week, and
that the Department of Social Services would subsequently have
the discretion of allowing only supervised visits. The court
also ordered that Alicia immediately be placed in counseling with
a therapist "well versed" in issues of sexual molest. A May 24
date was set for a Readiness Hearing.
24
Father's counsel was a new attorney, and this was his first
juvenile trial. He was inexperienced at Juvenile Court, and only
mother's counsel seemed to tolerate him well. This is one of the
areas of the case study which is not solely dependent upon known
"facts" but is the result of deduction and anecdotal testimony.
The inexperience of father's attorney, the "old boy" collegiality
of Juvenile Court, and the personality clash/frustration the
judicial officer experienced with father's counsel certainly
contributed to the tragic decisions of this case.
DISCOVERY DIFFICULTIES
25
These discovery motions were addressed to the Deputy D.A. in the
Juvenile Dependency Unit. No information was made available to
him about either the neighborhood molests, the assault of Nicole
S. or the serial attacker's past history. The July 12
declaration by the Deputy D.A. prosecuting the serial attacker
and using Alicia's description was not given to him. In fact,
father's attorney obtained nothing prior to the dispositional
trial which gave him any leads to the identity of this man or the
facts related to the other neighborhood molests.
The DDA JUV's response to the discovery motion was the same
for almost all items requested: "This information is not
contained within the DSS file or the D.A. dependency file for
this case." Jury examination revealed that there were in fact
numerous entries in the social-worker logs relating to the other
molests and the ongoing investigation. There were documented
conversations between DSS CI and minor's therapist about the
other molests. Alicia was taken to a photo line-up where she
failed to identify the serial attacker. There were several calls
from one of the Child Abuse Unit Detectives which gave DSS CI
further information. None of this information was provided to
the father's attorney.
26
procedures were followed. It was DSS's policy, implemented by
County Counsel, to exclude what they determined to be unnecessary
information or information which indicated a conflict between
cooperating agencies such as CPS and the Center for Child
Protection, CCP or Naval Family Advocacy.
27
The District Attorney's office knew there was another
suspect in Alicia's case. The criminal Deputy D.A.'s declaration
of July Il is clear and convincing proof of that. Furthermore,
the Deputy D.A. who filed the July 12 Declaration called minor's
therapist on July 7, and told her that there was another suspect.
Despite the mounting evidence of another perpetrator, no one
provided any of this information to the family, despite numerous
legal requests.
Mr. and Mrs. W., while still in court, prior to the hearing
with the judicial officer, called Mr. W.'s mother in Missouri.
She was willing to come out immediately and serve as the third-
party caretaker. She had previously met and spent some time with
DSS CI in late May and no obstacles to her approval were
anticipated.
28
son. This is contradicted by DSS CI's notes in the log.
______________________
them the discretion of not having visits at all. Judicial
officers interpret this phrase as ordered weekly visits with the
time with the time and place to be negotiated with the social
worker.
29
The court had ordered a further hearing for July 21 in the
event that the Department had not yet approved a third-party
caretaker. From the July 13 date to the July 21 date, DSS CI was
orchestrating the results of that hearing as she had no intention
of seeing the deal executed. Her ally in this was the child's
court-appointed therapist.
Alicia told her second foster mother how much she wanted to go
home. Her foster mother was so moved that she conflicted with
DSS CI when she wished to testify in court that Alicia was
telling her about a man taking her through a window and that she
had no fear of her father. (DSS CI immediately moved Alicia out
of this home and reported this "infraction" to licensing.)
She continued:
30
outside of the household, it is someone she knew well
enough to follow, or if the identity lies within the
household, her natural instinct to trust was further
violated."
. . .
On July 28, all attorneys, Grandmother W., DSS CI, and the
parents were present in court. Because minor's therapist
was not in court that day, the various attorneys, the DSS CI, and
Grandmother W. had a telephone conference in the judicial
officer's chambers. The discussion centered around the minor's
therapist's opinion regarding a third-party caretaker. At no
time during this conversation was any question directed to the
grandmother by the therapist, social worker, minor's counsel, or
judge. In fact, no one spoke to her at all. The judge absented
herself from the chambers for most of the conversation, came
back
and rendered an opinion consistent with the result desired and
scripted by DSS CI.
32
Defense counsel wanted another psychological evaluation of
Alicia with a consideration toward a change of therapist. DSS CI
and Alicia's therapist presented a united front and successfully
delayed an additional psychological evaluation and blocked
discussion of a change in therapist.
DISPOSITION
33
DSS CI's Social Study of August 31 concluded:
Dep. D.A. closes with the hope that the court heavily
weighs Dr. C.'s testimony. Evidence of the other
rapist is "red herring." DSS isn't recommending
termination of parental rights but only wants to ensure
minor's safety. Cited differences in impressions of
minor's demeanor. If parents are upset with the
system, how can they follow orders?
These arguments are given just as they were written by the court
officer in the court summary to both illustrate the importance
placed on the Center for Child protection letters and testimony
and to clearly show that "neglect" was not the issue at
disposition. Minor's counsel, as always, joined with the
Department's argument.
The true finding of October 30, 1989 made after the trial
was that "the minor has been sexually abused by a parent, a
member of the household, or someone known to the parents." The
36
court then made specific orders for the future. (Procedurally,
the case should have been transferred from DSS CI to a new social
worker in the Family Maintenance and Reunification division
immediately. This did not occur for two months and required a
court order to do so.)
37
case joined County Counsel at this time and was immediately
placed on the Alicia W. case. She remained on the case until
minutes before its termination in 1991. This attorney was aware
of Alicia's case while a District Attorney. She had written the
July 12 declaration to take the attacker's blood. On July 7,
1989, she contacted Alicia's therapist to tell her there was
another suspect in the rape and she was the prosecuting D.A. on
all of the neighborhood molests. She was involved in the
beginning stages of the prosecution for the sexual assault of
Nicole S. She and the Department were aware that Alicia's father
was still asserting his innocence and was frustrated in his
attempts to gather further information about the serial attacker.
38
ordered the matter continued to June. The court further ordered
that all therapists be present for this hearing and that the
minor be present to testify. She asked that the two children
have co-joint therapy with the brother's therapist.
39
Father's Attorney: And what did you get sick of
hearing, Alicia?
Alicia: Uh-huh.
Alicia: Yes.
Alicia: Yes."
40
Alicia, that Alicia was well-bonded with her mother and that long
term foster care placement or guardianship would be the permanent
plan. The foster mother testified that she had been led by the
Department to believe that this hearing would result in a long
term plan of adoption and that she was very bitter about the
outcome of the hearing.
42
Father's and mother's attorneys, in Juvenile Court, moved
repeatedly for continuances in the proceedings. The Department,
minor's counsel, and the special advocate all opposed.
Continuances were denied by the referee on the case. The defense
was reduced to fighting for time. Father's criminal attorney
substituted in as counsel in the juvenile case and asked for in
camera review of the entire file and social worker notes. This
was granted over the objections of County Counsel, minor's new
co-counsel, and the advocate. (It should be mentioned at this
point that minor's new co-counsel. who came on the case at this
time, was the same supervising D.A. who screened the case and
played a major role in the plea bargain.) Ten days later,
father's defense counsel submitted points and authorities in
support of review of therapy notes. The judicial officer granted
an in camera review of these notes over the same objections.
43
have resulted in a termination of parental rights and a freeing
of Alicia for adoption.
THERAPISTS
44
DSS CI. The social worker had prior contact with this therapist.
Given the complexities of the case, placing the child with an
M.F.C.C., as opposed to a psychologist, without any supervision
seems highly questionable. A more qualified therapist was
suggested early on in this case; certainly a highly qualified
psychologist should have been assigned.
The mother had a therapist prior to the rape. She was found
qualified by the court. There were several attempts to remove
her and replace her with someone who would be more amenable to
the Department's position. It was felt that this therapist
accommodated the mother's denial and was not being sufficiently
demanding that the mother accept the fact that the father was the
perpetrator. This pressure escalated after Alicia said her dad
was the perpetrator.
45
taught about masturbation without any parental input or any
apparent interest by the child. She was told about her mother's
alleged rape by the mother's father without a release from the
mother.
The handling of this case by DSS for two and a half years,
and in particular the involvement of the front end Court
Investigative Unit and the back end Permanency Placement Plan
Unit, was poor. However, it is important to also note that there
were two social workers from the Family Maintenance and
Reunification Unit who tried to get the case back on track. The
Grand Jury has already voiced its strong concerns about both of
the other Units in "FAMILIES IN CRISIS". Recommendations about
these units were made and most of these recommendations are in
the process of being implemented.
46
of the sexual assault of his daughter.
47
help this family reunify. These allegations are strongly
supported by the written record.
48
testing, in recognition that perhaps a grave injustice had
occurred, was insensitive both to the family and to the liability
of this County.
JUDICIAL OFFICERS
CONCLUSION
SI-HSS10
49