I have posted this one before, but it seemed very appropriate in light of this week's posts:
Judge: (To young witness) Do you know what would happen to you if you told a lie?
Witness: Yes, I would go to hell.
Judge: Is that all?
Witness: Isn't that enough?
From: Say What?
Here is another study adding to the literature documenting the correlation between family violence and PTSD. The study has its limits, but is in line with other recent research.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued an interesting opinion, looking at what formalities are required to accept children as witnesses. In the Matter of Welfare of J.J.W., No. A09-639 (Minn. App. Feb. 9, 2010) involved a four-year-old child's testimony about sexual abuse by a 16-year-old relative.
The judge swore the child in based on the following exchange: "[T.B.], you have just the cutest smile, [T.B.]. You going to tell us the truth today. Yes? All right. The record should reflect that she shook her head yes."
The defendant quite naturally challenged that oath as insufficient. The appellate court affirmed, noting that earlier, the judge had asked numerous questions to establish the child's competence as a witness:
She told the judge her name and age, who did her hair, corrected the judge when he misstated her date of birth, told the judge that she went to a preschool which was not close to her home, that she watched Barack Obama on television, what toys she received for Christmas, and that it snowed the previous day. She also identified the gender of the judge and mother, and corrected the judge when he asked if it would be a lie to say mother was a boy. However, she could not recount what she had eaten for breakfast, whether she watched television, identify her favorite beverage, recall whether she celebrated Christmas, or name the president.
The judge found that she was "able to recall facts . . . to distinguish between what is true and what is not true within her age and limited capacity," and therefore was competent. The appellate court found no reason to reverse that decision.
Although the opinion is unpublished, and therefore not binding, it offers an interesting illustration of how to lay the groundwork for a deposition of a child.
Hat tip: EvidenceProfBlog
I ran across this study, from Clinical Pediatrics, analyzing injuries to children from furniture tip-overs. The researchers found a significant increase in injuries in the last 18 years, with televisions being the most-common furniture to tip over.
I have seen a lot of news reports of children being seriously hurt by falling televisions in schools or day care centers. In some cases, the staff apparently was not properly supervising the children, and in others, the center might not have properly secured the television.
Consumer Reports has an article with some excellent suggestions for protecting children around televisions, including:
• anchoring the furniture holding the television
• keeping toys, food, and other temptations off the top of televisions and other tall furniture
• watching for recalls of carts and furniture that you may be using for your television
The Daytona Beach News-Journal has an excellent article about Florida's review of its policy regarding the prescription of psychotropic drugs for children in foster care. It notes the side effects of such drugs, such as depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as the difficulty of knowing how to best help children who cannot seem to control their behavior without medication.
Hat tip: Florida Child Injury Lawyer Blog
The San Diego Union-Tribune tells the story of a school lock-down when administrators panicked over an 11-year-old student's home-made motion detector. The device, a Gatorade bottle with electronic components attached, apparently looked enough like a bomb to panic clueless administrators.
If my child were at this school, I would be very concerned that administrators at a self-named tech magnet school think an 11-year-old can make a bomb out of a Gatorade bottle. If I were a taxpayer, I would be irate that it took the fire department three hours, a robot, X-rays and a search of the parents' garage to decide that it was not a bomb.
The final irony is the statement by the fire department spokesman that the authorities are recommending counseling. Counseiing?!! But of course. We don't want to encourage experimentation or independent thinking, do we? Especially in a school dedicated to technical creativity and experimentation.
I ran across an interesting entry at Scientific Blogging, explaining a study in Developmental Neuroscience. The study's authors compared images of the prefrontal cortex of spider monkeys, and concluded that those monkeys who had been through mildly stressful experiences showed an increase in certain brain cells, which cells in turn enabled them to deal successfully with stressful experiences later in life. The study's authors noted several limitations, such as that the study was skewed toward female subjects. And, of course, the findings would not hold true for major emotional trauma. Still, it is a very interesting study about the inoculative effect of new and mildly stressful experiences.
To quote the blogger, Andrea Kuszewski, who reviewed the study,
Even as children, being faced with challenging situations is a good thing. We learn to problem-solve, think for ourselves, and build resilience to protect us from harm in future unexpected events. As an added bonus, dealing with stress early on helps us to develop emotional stability as well.
This is one of those studies that reinforces what experienced youth service workers already know -- encouraging children to take on new challenges is good for them. Learning to master skills, whether it is speaking in front of a crowd or camping or sports, is a necessary part of becoming a well-adjusted adult.
A recent project led me to an interesting study in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology looking at what factors influence the opinions of clinicians about whether child sexual abuse occurred in a given case. It should come as no surprise that the study found that even expert clinicians are human, with many unexamined biases.
What I did find disconcerting was the study's conclusion that the clinicians noticed leading questions, but not other suggestive techniques. The study included interviews that, in addition to leading questions, used (a) inducing stereotypes ("he is bad"), (b) statements that assume abuse ("don't be afraid to tell"); and (c) praise or criticism for certain disclosures from the child. Although experienced clinicians were more likely to note the leading questions, few of them noticed the other three suggestive techniques.
As the study's authors noted, this finding "is surprising as there is ample evidence that a number of suggestive interviewing techniques apart from leading questions may affect children's testimony in a negative way. This is an alarming finding because if the clinicians do not recognize such influences as harmful, it would not be possible for them to take steps to avoid such influences when interviewing children themselves."
The authors recommended more training about suggestive techniques and pre-existing beliefs, as well as (of course) more studies on the subject.
In a rare demonstration of common sense, Texas legislators recently enacted a law requiring school administrators to consider several mitigating factors in determining punishment for students. The hope is that administrators will start to differentiate between Cub Scout camping utensils and dangerous knives. This USA Today article also highlights Florida's new law following the same trend.
On the other side of the pond, adults are headed the opposite direction. The UK Scout Association has advised that Scouts no longer bring their knives on camping trips "unless there is a specific need." Because we all know that campers never need knives, and boys never need to practice new skills.
![]("http://www.youthserviceslitigation.com/uploads/image/HandWash.jpg" )
Our recent bout with swine flu (well, technically "flu-like symptoms ") made this new study catch my eye. Researchers publishing with the American Society for Microbiology found that hand sanitizers are less effective at killing the Norwalk virus than antibacterial skin cleansers.
Hat tip: Food Poison Journal
Enter keywords:
