Repressed Memory Therapy

As an attorney involved in representing victims of childhood sexual abuse in civil cases for money damages against the offender, I was very interested in the outcome of the case in Napa concerning alleged false memories of childhood sexual abuse. False allegation of childhood abuse is something I take very seriously in my practice. The Times editorialized that perhaps new laws need to be enacted to ensure allegations of childhood sexual abuse are based on true events rather than implanted memories (May 22). Your readers may be interested in learning there is already a bill introduced in the state Legislature which would help a lot in reducing the number of repressed memory cases.

Because of a recent court decision, if one is over the age of 21, absent certain exceptions, the only way one can bring an action based on alleged childhood sexual abuse is to allege he or she totally repressed the memories of the abuse until now. AB 2846, introduced by Assembly Member Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame), would declare that a party up to the age of 26 may sue for childhood sexual abuse without alleging delayed discovery of the abuse. After the age of 26, a party has three years from the time he or she discovers that the injury or damages he or she sustained were caused by the abuse. The bill also contains requirements that before the action is commenced, a judge must review declarations from an attorney and a mental health practitioner stating the action has merit.

The issue of false memories of childhood sexual abuse deserves attention. AB 2846, while not the answer to all of the concerns, is a step in the right direction and deserves everybody’s support.

THOMAS EDWARD WALL

Culver City

*

* Your editorial “Fictitious Memories?” clearly overstates the “message” sent by the jury in the Ramona vs. Isabella lawsuit in the Napa Superior Court. As one of the trial lawyers in that matter, I can assure you that ambiguous instructions, and general confusion by the jurors, resulted in a compromise verdict that warrants no hysterical calls for “tighter regulation in the psychotherapy community.” The jury clearly did not determine that the memories of the young woman involved were false. Furthermore, they did not determine that any of the memories were implanted by the defendants.

What they did determine was that there was negligence in reinforcing memories and that the psychiatric professionals involved were too ready to accept these assertions by their patient without doing additional work to confirm or to deny those memories. What in essence they bought into was the proposition that a clinician must act in a forensic manner in treating a patient.

Keep that in mind the next time you see a psychological professional complaining of depression and that individual responds that he or she does not believe you, or “prove it.” How easy it is to criticize a profession for showing compassion to patients. How dangerous it is to empower a non-patient to attack psychological professionals for the propriety of the treatment rendered to their patients.

I would caution against giving too much credence to the decision in the Ramona matter. The brave new world envisioned by those who would overly emphasize the decision by 12 jurors in Napa may be one populated solely by forensic psychologists and by individuals who are dangerously ill, with no one who will listen to them.

EDWARD R. LEONARD

Orange