By Ellen P. Lacter, Ph.D., October 4, 2002
I. Problem: Lack of Protection for Victims of Ritual Abuse in San Diego County
Victims of ritual abuse in San Diego receive little or no protection due to problems in the functioning of the following public organizations, as described below:
A. District Attorney’s Office
B. San Diego Union-Tribune
C. Civil Grand Jury of San Diego County
D. Children’s Service’s Bureau and Treatment, Evaluation, and Resource Management Team
E. Law Enforcement
F. Family Court
A. District Attorney’s Office
The District Attorney’s office presently appears to treat all reports of ritual abuse as false and to have a policy of not investigating or prosecuting these cases.
Mark Sauer, in his September 21, 2002, article, “Abuse or Unfounded Fear” in the San Diego Union-Tribune, reported that he interviewed the present District Attorney, Paul Pfingst. Sauer reports the following statements by Paul Pfingst:
1. Pfingst: “This theory [ritual abuse] was completely debunked in the early ’90s”.
2. Sauer: “District Attorney Paul Pfingst expressed grave concerns that a widely attended and influential conference would feature workshops on ritual abuse, since he has seen no evidence that such cases exists” (Re: two workshops on ritual abuse and therapy with survivors being included at a large Family Violence conference in San Diego on September 25 to 28, 2002.
3. Pfingst: “If someone wants to go back to teaching that satanic ritual abuse claptrap, we’re going to have a serious discussion about whether law enforcement in San Diego should respond and expose it for what it is.”
4. Pfingst: “[T]he abuse conference as a whole looks like a well-put-together event. It’s unfortunate they have this ritual abuse stuff involved. I plan to have someone there monitoring those presentations and reporting back.”
Pfingst’s statements communicate that the official position of the current District Attorney’s office is to discount and discredit claims of ritual abuse. District Attorneys should not discount reports of any kind of crime. Ritual abuse laws and special ritual crime police units exist in other jurisdictions in the United States. District Attorneys should be interested in protecting crime victims and prosecuting criminals based on the evidence in each case. In cases of ritual abuse, Pfingst appears to be interested in protecting the perpetrators and prosecuting the victims and advocates.
There is no question that some child abusers use Satanic or witchcraft symbols and concepts to frighten children into submission and silence. There is also no question that some criminals worship Satan or witchcraft deities. There is a large body of psychological and criminal evidence of ritual abuse. Numerous court decisions (criminal, family, juvenile, and civil) have been based on findings of ritual abuse. One list is periodically updated and published on the world-wide web by “Karen Curio Jones” (http://www.newsmakingnews.com/karencuriojonesarchive.htm). In August, 2002, 65 cases were presented in this archive. Many cases are yet to be archived. And in many ritual crime cases, they cannot be archived, because prosecutors omitted the ritualistic components of the crimes to avoid defense claims that charges were based on religious intolerance.
The most recently documented ritual crime case may be that of Russell Smith. On September 4, 2002, United States Marshals in Oregon arrested Russell Smith, accused child rapist and self-proclaimed Satanist. He was wanted by the Prince William County Police Department in Virginia for rape and sodomy of a child. According to authorities, Smith convinced a young girl to become involved in satanic rituals, and part of those rituals involved having sex with her (http://www2.amw.com/amw.html). Police found in his basement a goat’s skull with a pentagram drawn on it, black robes, girls’ underwear, and ceremonial candles. His license plate read “100P666”. Smith was profiled on “America’s Most Wanted” on 8-31-02. The broadcast led to his arrest. Due to this evidence, the Satanic group he founded as Rev. Sorath, “Order of Perdition”, has since excommunicated him (Washington Post, 8-27-02, p. B03, 8-30-02, p. B01).
There can be no argument that reports of ritual abuse must be taken seriously. Yet, Paul Pfingst discounts them globally. If Russell Smith had been sighted in San Diego prior to his arrest, would Pfingst have instructed law enforcement to ignore the report?
Paul Pfingst abuses his power as District Attorney by stating that he will have law enforcement “respond” and “monitor” the conference presentations and “report back”. The District Attorney’s office has no jurisdiction to monitor professional education. Pfingst’s comments appear to be thinly veiled threats of action by law enforcement against psychotherapists who treat and teach about treatment of victims of ritual abuse. He implies that there is something illegal about teaching about treatment for ritual trauma. His comments demonstrate a lack of interest in protecting the right of free speech of psychologists, therapists and ritual abuse survivors who wish only to share their knowledge of how to assist these crime victims. There is no place for the District Attorney or law enforcement in matters of free speech or academic freedom, except to enforce the constitutional right of everyone to express their views.
It has been suggested by some that Paul Pfingst is actually concerned about ritual crime, but has been affected by pressure to “look the other way” due to tremendous influence by the media (next section) and expensive civil judgements and prior failed prosecutions of ritual abuse.
San Diego County has paid large financial damages in cases in which ritual abuse was alleged and later judged to be unfounded. The criminal prosecution of Dale Akiki, his acquittal, and subsequent lawsuits against numerous agencies and parties, cost San Diego County in both financial damages and public censure of the District Attorney and Child Protective Services.
David Icke (http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/usa-reno.html) provides the following details on the Akiki case and lawsuits: Dale Akiki was charged with 35 counts of child abuse and kidnaping in 1991. Akiki and his wife acted as volunteer baby-sitters at the Faith Chapel in Spring Valley, California. On Sundays, they watched the children while their parents were attending services next door. Many children who were baby-sat said that Akiki had killed animals and drunk their blood in front of the children, and engaged in other satanic and sexual rituals. Akiki was acquitted of all charges in November, 1993. It was the longest and most expensive trial in San Diego history, costing millions. Carol Hopkins (more on her later) testified for Akiki and was among those who called for the ouster of District Attorney Ed Miller (Los Angeles Times, 11/30/93) http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/cases/akiki.htm). Six months later, Miller was turned out of office after receiving only 11% of the popular vote. Public backlash over ritual abuse cases has been blamed for his defeat. Akiki’s acquittal prompted a grand jury inquiry into the investigatory methods employed in the case. In September 1994, Akiki and his wife filed suit against prosecutors, therapists and the church. Akiki claimed emotional distress, slander, libel, false imprisonment, professional negligence and civil rights violations. The county and other defendants eventually settled the suit and Akiki received over $2 million. The Religious Tolerance web-site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_akiki.htm) provides the following additional information: “Dale and Sharon Akiki’s [sic] brought a civil lawsuit against San Diego County, Faith Chapel Church, 9 therapists, Children’s Hospital, businessman Jack Goodall, and his wife Mary Goodall. The action was settled out of court in 1995-JAN. The county’s share of the settlement, which is believed to be less that 40% of the total award, was 768,750.”
Everyone is very sympathetic to San Diego County wishing to avoid 1) prosecution of innocent people, 2) expensive lawsuits, and 3) embarrassment to public agencies. False accusations of child abuse wreak emotional devastation on the accused and the children. No one wants the county to waste money, when there are so many deserving people in need of services. And it is to everyone’s advantage when public agencies perform their functions well and are trusted by the community.
However, there is no question that many reports of ritualistic abuse are founded. There will come a day when law enforcement investigators, psychotherapists, and child protection workers can share their information, with no fear of reprisal, with an Interagency Investigative Team trained in the special considerations involved in investigation and prosecution of ritual abuse, and protected by legislation to carry out its work. (For an analysis of the special considerations involved in these investigations, see “Forensic Considerations in Ritual Trauma Cases, by Sylvia Lynn Gillotte, Attorney-at-Law, http://www.iccrt.org/articles.asp?article=15 ) When the truth about ritual abuse is publically exposed, San Diego’s leaders and citizens will be moved to action to protect its victims.
B. The San Diego Union-Tribune
The San Diego Union-Tribune is, by far, the most widely circulated newspaper in San Diego County.
For the past ten years, reporters Mark Sauer and Jim Okerblom have written a series of articles for the Union-Tribune discrediting victims of ritual abuse and their advocates, including therapists treating ritual abuse victims and patients with recovered memories of childhood abuse, professional organizations advocating for victims of ritual abuse, police officers investigating reports of ritual abuse, legislators who have tried to introduce anti-ritual crime legislation, and now, professional education about ritual abuse. This biased reporting has greatly contributed to convincing a good portion of the San Diego community that ritual abuse does not exist, has exerted tremendous political pressure on public agencies and political candidates, and has had a devastating impact on victimized children and adults, resulting in their not being believed by many mental health professionals, and reduced protection by law enforcement and the courts. Due to this media blitz, and the parallel media campaign of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), some therapists discount histories of ritual abuse provided by their clients, and diagnose these clients as delusional rather than as having a trauma disorder. Incorrect diagnosis results in the provision of the wrong psychiatric medication and the wrong type of psychotherapy, exacerbating, rather than ameliorating, the abuse survivor’s psychological pain.
Sauer’s Union-Tribune article of September 24, 2000, “A Web Of Intrigue” may be the best example of his strange agenda to discredit victims of ritual abuse and their advocates. Sauer paints “Karen Curio Jones”, who researched the ritual abuse archive discussed above, and who has posted her concerns about ritual crime on the internet, as a dangerous “cyberstalker”. Yet, Sauer quotes Detective Susan McCrary about “Jones”: “She hasn’t made any physical threats. Everything’s been done in a public forum” (San Diego State Police Department). Sauer writes, “Who is Curio and why is she saying such nasty things about us on the Internet?” “Us” refers to:
1) Mark Sauer
2) Carol Hopkins, Deputy Foreperson for the 1991-1992 San Diego Grand Jury Report No. 8 “Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues”. That report was criticized in the 1992-1993 San Diego Grand Jury Report as not being “in the best interest of threatened children”, as misrepresenting facts, and as having caused a dramatic decline in the number of children removed from abusive and neglectful homes in San Diego County, while these numbers climbed in other California counties.
3) Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., an outspoken proponent of the “False Memory Syndrome”, which is not recognized as a disorder by the majority of mental health professionals. Two formal complaints were lodged with the American Psychological Association (APA) in December, 1995, against Loftus alleging that she deliberately misrepresented facts in her published statements about two legal cases involving delayed memories, a serious breach of professional ethics. Loftus resigned from the APA a month later, claiming her resignation was unrelated to the complaints.
4) Michael Aquino, publicly self-proclaimed Satanist and founder and high priest of the “Temple of Set” (official website at: http://www.xeper.org/). In 1987, Aquino was investigated by the United States Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) in a case of alleged child abuse at the Child Development Center at the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco. CID issued a report, titled it, and admitted to the record. Michael Aquino sued the army, “seeking to amend the Army’s criminal investigation report and recover damages”, contending that decisions “were tainted by consideration of the irrelevant factor of his Satanist religious beliefs” (this example illustrates why allegations of ritual abuse are generally omitted from charges and prosecution of child abuse, as explained above). The court denied Aquino’s motions to amend the files, concluding that “there was sufficient evidence from which the Army decision-maker could determine that probable cause existed to believe that [Aquino] committed the offenses” (reference: Aquino vs. Stone 768 F. Supp.529; and p. 4. Other Altars: Roots and Realities of Cultic and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder, 1993, Minneapolis, Minnesota; CompCare Publishers).
An August 20, 1998 “San Diego Reader” article, “The Memory Wars”, describes a social relationship between Mark Sauer, Carol Hopkins and Elizabeth Loftus. Sauer should not publish articles such as “A Web of Intrigue” when he feels personally attacked by one of the players, and is on a friendly basis with her opponents. He cannot be unbiased, and in so doing, he fails in his responsibility to the public and abuses his power as a reporter.
Ellen Lacter, Ph.D., submitted an opinion piece to the San Diego Union-Tribune on September 29, 2002, objecting to the premises in Sauer’s September 24, 2000, article, “A Web Of Intrigue”. The newspaper did not respond and the opinion piece was not published. It is posted on the world-wide web at: http://truthbeknown2000.tripod.com/Truthbeknown2000/id2.html
Similarly, on June 16, 1994, the San Diego Union-Tribune published an article entitled; “Chasing Satan in Sacramento”, blatantly ridiculing legislation proposed by California State Senator Newton Russell, SB 1997, which “sought to add three years to the sentence of anyone convicted of molesting a child “as part of a ceremony, rite or any similar observance.” This law was scaled down and became law in 1995 as section 667.83 of the California Penal Code, and was subsequently repealed. Ellen Lacter, Ph.D., immediately wrote a letter to the Editor of the San Diego Union Tribune objecting to Sauer’s article. Her letter was not published. There was no response from the newspaper except a letter from Mark Sauer disagreeing with her points.
On September 21, 2002, the San Diego Union-Tribune published another Sauer article, “Abuse or Unfounded Fear”, with his typical agenda of arguing that ritual crime does not exist. Sauer objected to two workshops on ritual abuse being included at a Family Violence conference in San Diego on September 25 to 28, 2002 with over 150 presentations.
At least 18 people wrote letters to the Editor of the San Diego Union-Tribune providing the “Ritual abuse exists” perspective. None of the articles were published. Many of these letters were diverted to Sauer, who responded with his typical points. It is unknown whether the letters editor read either the many writer’s letters or Sauer’s responses.
In theory, there should be an ethical wall between the editorial function of the newspaper and the news function. This was breached by referring the letters to the editor to Sauer. The writers did not address their letters to Sauer and did not intend for him to read or respond to them. The writers intended the letters to be considered by the editorial department for publication. The writers did not wish to engage in a dialogue with Sauer. Rather, they wished to engage in a public dialogue concerning ritual abuse in a letters-to-the-editor section of the newspaper.
Some of the letters to the editor were critical of Sauer’s impartiality regarding the subject of ritual abuse, and were written to draw this to the attention of the editors. To refer the letters to Sauer for a response, rather than investigating and acting on the complaints of biased reporting, is an abdication of responsibility. It is the duty of the newspaper to publish unbiased accounts of the news. Where bias occurs, the newspaper must take steps to eliminate it.
The Union-Tribune’s long history of suppressing views of ritual abuse that differ from those of Mark Sauer is very troubling. We live in a diverse community where people have different views on many matters of public interest. One of the main forums for discussion of differing views is the letters-to-the-editor section of the newspaper. In San Diego, the newspaper market is dominated by the Union-Tribune. When the Union-Tribune refuses to permit expression of differing views on controversial matters, it is not fulfilling an important part of its mission. Sauer is not entitled to express his views free from scrutiny and public comment. By refusing to print any of these letters to the editor, the newspaper is allowing Sauer’s views to go unchallenged. This failure takes on great importance in subjects such as ritual crime, which effect the safety of the public.
Many of the letters to the editor in September, 2002, were critical of comments made by Paul Pfingst, incumbent District Attorney who is being challenged for office in the November election in what appears to be a close race. Pfingst’s comments appear to be thinly veiled threats of action by law enforcement against psychotherapists who treat and teach about treatment of victims of ritual abuse. The Union-Tribune should have expressed grave concern that a candidate for District Attorney implied that there is something illegal about teaching treatment for ritual trauma. Instead, the Union-Tribune remained silent. What is worse, they permitted Pfingst’s comments to go unchallenged by failing to print the many letters to the editor which disagreed with Pfingst. It is not responsible journalism to publish statements by a candidate for public office as news, and then not permit opposing viewpoints to be published as well.
C. Civil Grand Jury of San Diego County
Two reports by the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury have also had dire consequences for victims of ritual abuse.
1. 1991-1992 Grand Jury Report No. 8 “Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues”. This report, for which Carol Hopkins was Deputy Foreperson, states that, “The Jury found that there is no physical evidence of satanic ritual child abuse in San Diego County. There is evidence and considerable professional testimony that the existence of satanic ritual abuse is a contemporary myth perpetuated by a small number of social workers, therapists, and law enforcement members who have effected an influence which far belies their numbers”. The report also states; “The Grand Jury is aware that the Department of Social Services has reevaluated the investigative protocols on ritual and satanic abuse. The social worker who investigated in this area has been reassigned and the Ritual Abuse report is no longer being distributed by the Commission on Children and Youth. This is as it should be.” (see: http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/safety/grand/reports/report8.html)
A 1992-1993 (June 29, 1993) San Diego Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “Protect the Child, Preserve the Family Report”, strongly criticized the 1991-1992 Grand Jury Report No. 8 as not being “in the best interest of threatened children”, as misrepresenting facts, and as having caused a dramatic decline in the number of children removed from abusive and neglectful homes in San Diego County, while these numbers climbed in other California counties. The 1992-1993 report also cited preliminary evidence of an increase in infants’ and children’s deaths caused by abuse and neglect in San Diego County following the 1991-1992 Grand Jury report, although the numbers were too small for statistical analysis.
2. June 1, 1994, Grand Jury Report No. 7a; “Analysis of Child Molestation Issues”. This report is prefaced with a letter to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors that begins with, “In December of 1993 the 1993/94 San Diego County Grand Jury received a number of requests to investigate the prosecution of the Dale Akiki case. One of these requests was from a member of the Board of Supervisors and subsequently caused the entire Board of Supervisors to unanimously vote to appropriate a supplemental budget for the Grand Jury to prepare a report on child molestation prosecutions within the criminal justice system.” This Grand Jury investigation “found no evidence of satanic ritual child molestation in San Diego County.” It concluded; “There is no justification for the further pursuit of the theory of satanic ritual child molestation in the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse cases.” Among the recommendations to the District Attorney’s office are:”94/47: “Discontinue the use of the Interagency Investigative Team Protocol developed by the MV/MP Ritualistic Abuse Task Force in December 1990”, and, “#94/50: Refrain from the use of the theoretical concept of satanic ritual child molestation as the basis of criminal prosecutions.” http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/safety/grand/reports/report7a.html
Mark Sauer refers to the findings of the 1994 report in his article, “Chasing Satan in Sacramento”.
Early in the summer of 2002, the San Diego Civil Grand Jury web-page listed all reports since 1997 or 1998, and only a few prior to 1997. The earlier reports included the two reports arguing against the existence of ritual abuse, that is, the 1991-1992 Report No. 8 “Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues”, for which Carol Hopkins was Deputy Foreperson, and the June 1, 1994, Grand Jury Report No. 7a; “Analysis of Child Molestation Issues”.
The Grand Jury website did not list the 1992-1993 Grand Jury Report, “Protect the Child, Preserve the Family Report”, that strongly criticized the 1991-1992 report, “Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues” as not being “in the best interest of threatened children”.
Ellen Lacter, Ph.D. telephoned the Grand Jury phone number posted on the web-site in late Spring, 2002, and spoke to a woman who said she was the head of the Grand Jury. Dr. Lacter explained her concern about 1991-1992 Report No. 8 being included on the site, while the 1992-1993 report critical of that report was omitted. The individual she spoke with was very receptive and said she would look into this. Dr. Lacter re-checked the site in September, 2002. Sadly, the 1991-1992 Report No. 8, “Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues”, remains published:
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/safety/grand/reports/report8.html, but the 1992-1993 report is nowhere on the site.
This selective posting of these Grand Jury reports suggests that individuals with influence within the Grand Jury or other County agencies continue to support both the 1991-1992 report and its foreperson, Carol Hopkins, in spite of the fact that the Grand Jury itself determined in 1992-1993 that the 1991-1992 report misrepresented the truth and posed a danger to children.
On July 25, 2002, Carol Hopkins, filed a formal complaint to the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury “regarding any County funds or support for the 7th International Conference on Family Violence” due to the inclusion of presentations on ritual abuse, dissociation, and parental alienation syndrome.
In her complaint, Carol Hopkins presented her views on the issue of ritual abuse. She accused Dr. Lacter, a presenter for the workshop, “Psychotherapy with Ritual Abuse Survivors” of participating in “a shared delusion”. Hopkins, referring to Dr. Lacter’s website, wrote; “This is homegrown hysteria, promulgated by Ellen Lacter but fed by county dollars” (Dr. Lacter’s website is http://truthbeknown2000.tripod.com/Truthbeknown2000/index.html). Hopkins ends her letter stating, “It is my belief that if you consult the FBI or district attorney Paul Pfingst he will confirm the fact that there have been no confirmed cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse either in San Diego County or elsewhere”.
On September 12, 2002, the conference main sponsor (the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute (FVSAI)) informed the ritual abuse workshop presenters that San Diego County Grand Jury members had contacted them to request passes to the 7th International Conference on Family Violence and would be attending the two workshops on ritual abuse to “check them out”.
Grand Jury members did attend these two workshops on September 25, 2002.
The Grand Jury “checking out” these two workshops raise a number of concerns:
1. The Grand Jury has very questionable jurisdiction over workshops presented at an international conference. The San Diego County Grand Jury website states that it is “to serve as a sentinel a group of impartial citizens that can review the methods and operations of the County of San Diego” (http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/safety/grand/goals.html). This conference is not a county function. The county does not fund this conference.
2. The Grand Jury has no grounds to interfere with academic freedom and free speech.
3. The Grand Jury should question the motives of a complaint by Carol Hopkins, since the Grand Jury report for which she was Deputy Foreperson (no. 8 in 1991-1992) was found to misrepresent the facts in a subsequent Grand Jury report (1992-1993).
4. Carol Hopkins, in her complaint to the Grand Jury, states, “It is my belief that if you consult the FBI or District Attorney Paul Pfingst he will confirm the fact that there have been no confirmed cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse either in San Diego County or elsewhere”. Hopkins suggests interested parties contact Paul Pfingst (as she did in the summer of 2002 when she attempted to interfere with San Diego Pastoral Counseling Center providing a class, “Ritualistic Abuse: The Healing Journey with Survivors of Ritualistic Abuse”). Hopkins freely bandies Pfingst’s name around as an ally. Has Pfingst abused his political power to pressure the Grand Jury to “check out” these workshops? The Grand Jury is not an arm of the District Attorney’s office. In fact, the Grand Jury has the authority to investigate the functioning of the office of the District Attorney.
Interest in protecting San Diego County financially may have influenced the Grand Jury to “check out” these classes. As discussed above, San Diego County has had a huge price to pay in financial damages for its prior involvement in claims of ritual abuse. But, of course, safety of crime victims cannot be sacrificed to these concerns. And good public policy, protocols, and legislation can be established to reduce the risk of lawsuits.
D. Children’s Service’s Bureau and the Treatment, Evaluation, and Resource Management (TERM) Team
Many Children’s Services Bureau (CSB) (formerly Child Protective Services) social workers and investigators know that ritual abuse occurs and are appropriately concerned in response to reports of suspected ritual abuse. Reports to the Children’s Services Bureau are automatically filed with the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, since the mid-1990s, reports of suspected ritual abuse to CSB by mandated child abuse reporters have tended to be discounted or not investigated by CSB and law enforcement. In some cases, mandated reporters have been harshly criticized for making these reports. No additional detail can be provided here due to concerns for therapist-patient confidentiality, concerns for the safety of the ritual abuse victims, and the desire for anonymity by the reporting therapists.
Pressure to avoid reports of suspected ritual abuse has been brought to bear on CSB from the San Diego County Grand Jury reports (no. 8 and 1994), negative reports on CSB from the San Diego Union-Tribune, and from County agencies that seek to avoid financial losses stemming from lawsuits against the County based on County responses to ritual abuse cases.
One case of alleged ritual abuse resulted in a judgment for $750,000 against the city of Escondido (San Diego County). The Escondido police took two children into protective custody following a suspected report of ritual abuse. The children’s parents filed a lawsuit in 1992 against Escondido police, county social workers, and a physician for violating their constitutional rights to be free from “unreasonable intrusions on their privacy, person and home.” On November 2, 2000, Mark Sauer wrote in the San Diego Union-Tribune that the children’s parents won a judgment against the city of Escondido. A lawsuit remained against the three individual police officers who picked up the children (Article: http://www.holysmoke.org/wicca/san-diego.htm)
This judgment against the city of Escondido binds the hands of CSB. Cities and CSB are placed at significant financial risk every time parents can make a case in court that a child taken into protective custody was probably not abused. To guard against financial damages from lawsuits for taking children into protective custody in the case of false positives (findings of abuse when no abuse occurred), no action will be taken to protect children in thousands of cases of false negatives (findings of no abuse when abuse is in fact occurring)! CSB experiences the greatest pressure to avoid false negatives in cases of the most controversial form of abuse; ritual abuse.
In September of 2000, an important official at Children’s Services Bureau (name withheld) said; “Years ago, we had a lot of stuff written about it [ritual abuse]. Right now, we have nothing. I think what happened with the county was that there was a big lawsuit about a ritual abuse case. We had a person considered an expert, but she left the agency.” This official also said that clinicians in the community no longer make reports of ritual abuse to the Child Abuse Hotline.
Between the mid-1980s and late 1994, the San Diego County Juvenile Court served the function of approving therapists to treat Juvenile Court Dependency cases. The June 1, 1994 San Diego County Grand Jury Report recommended that the Juvenile Court; “Monitor all CAPF therapists to guard against possible liability suits due to their culpability in administering care.” (CAPF stands for “court-appointed, publically funded therapists”).
In late 1994, the County Board of Supervisors transferred responsibility for monitoring CAPF therapists from the Juvenile Court to a “Treatment, Evaluation, and Resource Management (TERM) Team. The TERM Team was essentially mandated to perform two functions that are sometimes in conflict; 1) Ensure good practice by clinicians treating and evaluating Juvenile Court cases, and, 2) Ensure clinicians do nothing that could result in lawsuits or embarrassment to county agencies. The greatest risk of embarrassment and lawsuits exists in treating and evaluating cases involving possible ritual abuse. In one case, a mandated reporter came under intense scrutiny of the TERM Team simply for making a report of suspected ritual abuse and trying to get law enforcement to take the report seriously.
Therapists treating victims of ritual abuse are in a terrible bind. They can choose to report suspected ritual abuse and face harassment by CSB, the TERM Team, the District Attorney’s office, the Grand Jury, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and also risk possible complaints by public agencies to their licensing boards. Or, they can not report the suspected abuse and thereby violate the Child Abuse Reporting Law.
CSB also unfortunately appears to have colluded in a serious conflict of interests in early 1996 with Carol Hopkins, Deputy Foreperson for the strongly-criticized 1991-1992 No. 8 Grand Jury Report, as follows.
In the mid-1990’s, Hopkins created what she called “the Justice Committee”. Under these vague auspices, she interjected herself into the Wenatchee, Washington, sex ring case to organize multiple protests on behalf of parents convicted of sex crimes against their own and other children, including an apple boycott of Washington in 1995 and a candlelight vigil in Salem, Massachusetts in 1997.
After the apple boycott, Hopkins obtained guardianship in her San Diego home of “Sam” Doggett, teen-age daughter of Mark and Carol Doggett, both convicted at trial of sexual abuse of Sam’s younger sister in the Wenatchee case. Moving a child from Washington to the San Diego home of someone attempting to overturn the parents’ convictions is a dangerous conflict of interest that should not have been permitted by San Diego CSB.
Sauer documented in a San Diego Union-Tribune article on 6-18-96 that once Sam Doggett resided with Hopkins, 17-year-old Doggett joined Hopkins, Akiki, and others in multiple media events, claiming her parents were innocent and touting the positions of Hopkins’ ‘Justice Committee’. The convictions of Mark and Carol Doggett were later successfully overturned.
On Dr. Lacter’s website, “Karen Curio Jones” writes the following; “Ms. Hopkins then claimed [in 2000] on the Witchhunt list that Ivory Johnson, the ex-director of Child Protective Services in San Diego County, personally monitored this placement, and Ms. Hopkins refused to have a home study” (see: http://truthbeknown2000.tripod.com/Truthbeknown2000/id4.html). The “Witchhunt List” is an e-group: Witchhunt@egroups.com
A home study is an evaluation of the suitability and safety of a family and home as a foster-placement. There is no justification for the then-director of Child Protective Services (now CSB) to dispense with the normal procedure of a conducting a home study of a placement of an out-of-state child, especially in a case involving such a serious conflict of interests. Important questions must be asked about how this was allowed to occur.
E. Law Enforcement
Law enforcement officers are generally very committed to their work, and are particularly devoted to protecting abused children. Most law enforcement officers in San Diego and elsewhere acknowledge on a one-to-one basis that they have investigated crimes with occult elements and have encountered ritual crime victims and scenes.
Yet, law enforcement agencies in San Diego experience the same types of pressure as child protective agencies to side-step reports of suspected ritual abuse. Great pressure has been brought to bear from the aforementioned San Diego County Grand Jury reports (no. 8 and 1994) and lawsuits, as in the costly suit against Escondido described above. Local law enforcement detectives and higher police officials have stated that they “cannot investigate” reports of ritual abuse “because of Akiki”.
Law enforcement is also affected by negative media attention on officers investigating occult crimes. In Mark Sauer’s September 21, 2002 article, “Abuse or Unfounded Fear”, he ridicules “two San Diego police detectives, who also subscribed to the ritual-abuse theory, that the murderous cult was operating out of a Clairemont area church.”
Sauer also stated in the same article; “The detectives requisitioned bulldozers and prepared to excavate church grounds before police brass stepped in and halted the unlikely investigation.” Detectives can have no incentive to investigate reports of ritual crimes when their superiors halt their investigations.
F. Family Court
Family court judges, Family Court Services, mediators, attorneys, and psychologists performing custody evaluations, have all been affected by negative media attention and political pressure to avoid reports of ritual abuse. Protective parents who have reason to believe that a co-parent ritually abused their children are routinely advised by their attorneys to say nothing about this to the court or evaluators or they run the risk of being viewed as crazy and losing custody of their children. Custody has been lost on this basis in the San Diego Family Court.
II. Goal: Call for Policy to Increase Protection for Victims of Ritual Abuse
The San Diego public, ritual abuse survivors, the mental health community, child protective agencies, law enforcement agencies, the district attorney’s office, the Grand Jury, and legislators need to work together to create a county and state where victims or ritual crime can begin to be protected. There is no ritual abuse law on the books in California now. Laws will be needed to adapt to the special circumstances in investigating and prosecuting cases of ritual abuse and to protect individuals and agencies from lawsuits as they do this work.
Four critical starting points toward these objectives in San Diego County are:
1. A county policy that reports of ritual abuse will be investigated by San Diego County law enforcement agencies, Children’s Services Bureau (CSB), and the District Attorney’s office.
2. A county policy that the District Attorney’s office, CSB, and the TERM Team, will support mandated reporters in filing Suspected Child Abuse Reports of ritual abuse.
3. A San Diego county policy of not interfering with the academic freedom to teach about ritual abuse and treatment of ritual trauma.
4. The convening of a task force to study the problem of ritual crime and to develop an interagency coordinated response.
It is time for San Diego County to review its position regarding reports of ritual abuse. To accomplish this, many segments of the community must join together and support each other in much-needed reform.