Program Aims at Putting End to Families’ Cycle of Abuse

“Your signature and the signature of legal counsel . . . constitute a waiver of time for trial. . . .”

“You acknowledge, without reservations of any sort, by your signature on this document that you are responsible for sexual acts with. . . . “

“Should I be excluded from this program, the district attorney may, at his option, immediately initiate or reinstate criminal proceedings. . . . “

Over the last seven years dozens of Sacramentans have signed beneath these sentences.

By doing so, they have escaped prosecution for sexual abuse of children, acts society rates among the most heinous.

But they have not exactly escaped punishment. They have bought up to five years of emotional bludgeoning, acts of catharsis and contrition, episodes of depression and despondency.

Their signatures have locked them into the Sacramento Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program, one of the first efforts in the nation to minimize trauma to the victims of intrafamily child abuse by saving their families.

Participants Help Pay

The program, authorized by state law, began treating families in 1978 and was a national demonstration project in 1979, funded by the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect.

It operates on a budget of about $700,000, funded by a variety of county, state and federal grants, as well as payments from the participants.

Only intrafamily abusers--most participants are fathers--may take part. Deputy Dist. Atty. Jan Hansen, head of the prosecutor’s child abuse unit, emphasizes that they must meet stringent criteria.

“Because of the number of people involved in molestation,” she said, “we limit participation to families that want to be reunited and really function as a family unit.

“If a natural parent was involved in molestation but was separated from the family, he would not be referred.

“The whole family must participate. Unless the family wants that, diversion is not a possibility.”

No Criminal History

Further, Hansen said, participants must have no history of criminality and there must have been no violence in their crimes against children. Molesters whose activities have extended beyond their families are not eligible.

“Basically, they must give a complete confession,” she said. “If they’re willing to accept responsibility, it indicates they are treatable, but referral is not guaranteed.”

She noted, for example, that those who deny responsibility until virtually the last moment are unlikely candidates.

“Their sincerity will be severely questioned if they wait until after the preliminary hearing,” Hansen said, referring to the judicial proceeding that determines if a suspect is to face trial.

Hansen said that as an alternative to prosecution, the program acts as a kind of extrajudicial probation, with terms that may be more severe than a judge might impose.

To begin with, the offender must remove himself from the home, gradually working his way through supervised visits to an unsupervised return.

“If there is a failure,” Hansen said, “we will prosecute.”

The program protects victims not only from further abuse, but “from the trauma of testifying against someone they love,” Hansen said.

“I am more in favor of prosecuting because it is a crime with very serious consequences,” she said. “But, basically, we recognize the dynamics of the situation, the ties and bonding aspect. (A trial) may have a traumatic effect on the victim.”

Victims Reluctant

Further, she said, “in a love-hurt situation, where there may be a refusal by the victim to testify, you can at least gain something by diverting.”

Hansen also emphasized the long-term effects, which she regards as a success:

“Intrafamily molestation is cyclical, passed from generation to generation. If you treat a whole family and break the cycle, you’ve eliminated future victims to a certain extent.”

Hansen recalled only two cases in which the molester committed new crimes, although others failed for other violations and were prosecuted.

“Some got probation, but some got state prison,” she said.

Sandra Baker views the Sacramento Child Sexual Abuse Training Program as a means of helping young victims of molestation around a legal system that “can do more damage than the abuse itself.”

Child Better Protected

Baker, who has run the program since its inception, said: “The system was not protecting the child when the only alternatives were to prosecute or drop the case.”

She noted that in referring offenders to the training program, “the justice system is taking a chance. At stake is the protection of the child.”

But she said the hovering presence of potential prosecution helps keep molesters in line as they progress, learning about their motivations and how to control their impulses.

“We don’t have any way of making people do what they don’t want to do except through the criminal justice system,” she said.

Immediate prosecution punishes the offender, but it often leaves the molester without a job and puts additional strain on his family, she said.

Family Preserved

“Why aim all your procedures at the worst possible case?” she asked, adding that it is better to “treat the problem than amputate the family.”

According to Baker, the treatment program forces participants to confront their crimes.

“It may be possible to hide as an individual,” she said, “but it’s tough to do that in a group where others--family members and other offenders--can spot it.”

Offenders learn that the motivation for their molestation may not be basically sexual.

Baker said: “Most intrafamily molesters are not pedophiles. With them, sexuality and aggression are confused; sexuality and dominance--proving they are in control--are confused; sexuality and self-esteem, sexuality and affection are confused.”

Behavior Learned

As most offenders are molestation victims themselves, she said, “to a certain extent, it’s learned behavior. Nobody ever showed them how to be affectionate without taking something sexually from them.”

In an incest family, she said, “you have all the usual family dynamics, but they are magnified.”

For example, she said, victims in particular have learned from their molesting parents to get what they want through sexuality.

By treating the entire family, Baker said, the children learn proper family roles.

“Treating the family makes it easier for family members to confront the (improper) behavior and makes it harder for it to occur in the future,” she said. “Almost none of the children who stay in the program have the problems of drug abuse, violence and of other difficulties that are common to other abused children.”

Suicide a Consideration

As offenders come to understand the magnitude of their crimes, Bakers said they often consider suicide.

“If they reach the realization of what they’ve done without a support system, they are suicide risks,” she said. “There also is a suicide risk associated with fear of public disclosure, loss of self-esteem and loss of family.

“Many are so incredibly dependent on their family, fear of the loss of it is life-threatening.”

To counter the threat, she said, the program helps “them apply what is good about themselves, to make them feel good about themselves.”

However, Baker said, the goal of the program is not to eliminate guilt.

“If they felt no guilt for what they had done in the past, they would be a risk for the future,” she said. “I wouldn’t encourage them to reach a point where they don’t feel guilty.”

Public Is Ambivalent

The Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program operates in an undistinguished, warehouse-style building in an industrial area, maintaining a low profile that Baker said is necessary because of public ambivalence about child abuse.

“The public is really inconsistent,” she said. “There are people who, when they hear about (child sexual abuse), get very angry. But when they find out the offender is somebody they know, they think it should be handled discreetly.

“We have groups that think we’re too punitive because we work with prosecutors and law enforcement.

“We have others who think we’re anti-family because we require the fathers to live outside the home, and others who think we aren’t protecting victims.”