If a child can recall the family violence memories which happened in past, definitely it makes harm on their mind. so try to remove these memories from their life & make them happy and confident for bright future.

But social workers who are investigating risk are obliged to ask these questions ...

I cannot say whether it is unethical or not as such; I think that it depends largely on the way that you ask the questions, on the care you take for the traumatized child and on what you do with the information that is disclosed. 

I cannot say whether it is unethical or not as such; I think that it depends largely on the way that you ask the questions, on the care you take for the traumatized child and on what you do with the information that is disclosed. 

I am not sure I understand the reason that you would want to ask a child to recount the details. If a child is troubled by the incident it should become evident through the treatment process by means of play, creative mediums and so on. As issues come up it then becomes part of the therapuetic process processed accordingly.

I am not sure I understand the reason that you would want to ask a child to recount the details. If a child is troubled by the incident it should become evident through the treatment process by means of play, creative mediums and so on. As issues come up it then becomes part of the therapuetic process processed accordingly.

I work with adult survivors of childhood violence (experienced and witnessed) whose adult experiences have triggered unprocessed trauma memories.  As Crystal implies, in ideal situations any storytelling by the child should be led by them and facilitated in a child-centred environment appropriate to the child's developmental abilities (there are techniques that therapists can usefully employ here including aspects of EMDR) though, as Tony makes clear, the ethical issue here is the tension between the immediate needs of the child and the possible future damage (to child and others) from the perpetrator.  There are no easy answers here as ethics is contingent on unique situations.  It may be useful when considering the options in these situations though to keep in mind that making sense of experience is what enables us to develop self-sufficient identity and independence as human beings within society.  By facilitating the child to explore the reality of what has happened, and their survival through it, may ... may ... inoculate the child against future symptoms of posttraumatic stress - asking the child to recount the details of a traumatising experience does not inevitably have to be damaging, and there is even the possibility of posttraumatic growth.

If the questioning is part of a social inquiry process where the ultimate goal is the protection of the child from further harm and violence then it does become necessary to ask the child certain questions. Having said that, it is understood that interviewing the child will be undertaken in a way that respects the child's decision to talk or not about his/her experiences. Further, that this interview would be conducted in a safe, non-threatening environment which helps the child to deal with the trauma should also be a central goal of the intervention.  It is also important to note that children develop resilience as a coping strategy. If as Mike Gallant has stated that they are facilitated to explore what happened in the context of a therapeutic relationship with the social worker, then the chances are that this will strengthen their capacity to deal with the trauma. The child's readiness to talk about the trauma should also be an important consideration when deciding to interview the child.

my original motivation for raising this, was a memory of reading some guidance, perhaps from a UK report on child protection procedures (Munroe or similar) that to ask a child to recount details of abuse while still living with an abuser is unethical. On the other hand social workers are required to get to the bottom of what is going in an a family, and the referral they have been given. Thank you all for jogging my memory. On that first visit, a social worker can have a conversation with the child, but not necessarily probe directly into suspected abuse, (such as being forced to live with violence between parents, for example). Ideally then that conversation can turn into a therapeutic relationship, and lead to appropriate exploration of any challenges to development or risks to the child's safety.

However what social work department encourages child protection workers to build that kind of relationship with each child referred to them? Is it not usually the case that workers have a large case load, and attempt to close or refer cases onward on the basis of one visit, maybe two? They are therefore forced to plow in and ask those blunt questions very early on, sometimes on the first and only visit?

I'd still love to find that report which talked about the dangers of diving in and talking directly about traumatic events.

In my opinion and based on the results of the Epidemiological survey we have conducted recently focusing on child abuse and the encouraging vs discouraging factors to disclose (12000 children and youth between the ages 11-17), therapists and practitioners should ask direct questions. The participants stressed that direct question regarding all forms of abuse including witnessing domestic violence, allows them to shre their experience with adults.

Thanks Rachel. Have you got a link to that article?

If this is a question about research, I'm not clear on whether the threat of further trauma means participating in the study would be traumatic, or if the subject might be exposed to further trauma by the perpetrator. If it is the former, my university's ethics board would not let such a study go forward if there was no plan for addressing the possibility that disclosing abuse would be traumatic. Most likely, the Investigator would have to include in their research design some form of counseling, or at the very least advice on where to obtain counseling.

If the problem is possible exposure to further abuse then both ethically, and in my jurisdiction (Ontario) by law, the researcher is required to report the possibility to the appropriate authorities.

As well, there is the problem of informed consent. One might expect a 'child' of sixteen to be able to assess the risks of further trauma and decide to participate on the basis that they are willing to taccept possible negative outcomes. However the same cannot be said for a 4 year old. Then again, I'm sure in most jurisdictions there is also the question of parental consent. This requirement presumably depends upon both jurisdiction and the age of the child subject.

If, on the other hand, this is a general question outside the research environment then my advice is 'don't start what you can't finish'. If you think asking the question may do harm, then either don't ask, or be sure to stay around until the trauma has passed or is at least under control. In my experience, once the genii comes out of the bottle, it's very difficult to get it back in.

The precautionary principle, "First do no harm," should be the overarching guide. Consider the benefits and risks. What benefit could possibly outweigh the preventable risk of further traumatizing an already known victim of child abuse?! David Gil and I surveyed non-institutionaiized adults 21 years old or older about public knowledge, attitudes, and opinions about physical child abuse in the US in the late 1960s. We made no attempt to obtain from respondents personal disclosure either as a victim or perpetrator of child abuse. 

Article Public knowledge, atitudes, and opinions about physical chil...

If this is a clinical setting, than your profession or your affiliated clinic or institution should have guidelines about asking questions regarding abuse.  You should be properly trained in how to assess for abuse and trauma - if you're not, you need to get that training before you attempt this. 

If this is a research setting, you should get guidance from your local or university human subjects panel. They will need to know exactly what you intend to ask and how you will assess for trauma and offer subjects the support and treatment they may need.

Finally, in either setting, professionals in the US are mandated reporters, meaning that any report of abuse must be reported in turn to child protection authorities.  We do not have a choice in this matter. 

You're correct in that this shouldn't be done lightly or carelessly!  Make sure you get the training and supervision you need, either way.  

There is great caution needed in doing so.  I recommend an article by Michael White (2005), entitled "Children, trauma, and subordinate storyline development."  I have added the article as a pdf file as an attachement.  He explores this question in depth.

If you are asking a question of a child exposed to family violence then you are asking a child who has been abused through emotional abuse (witnessing the violence) if not physical violence.  Questions asked of a child in this context should be put to the child by a properly qualified evidential interviewer and videotaped. There are appropriate protocols for safe interviewing in this context.  I suggest you get hold of the book "Children as Victims, Witnesses, and Offenders: Psychological Science and the Law" edited by B.L. Bottoms, C.J. Najdowski & GS Goodman. (2009) Guildford Press: New York and read Part 1. You need to be appropriately trained and supervised to do this work and the agency supporting the interviewing needs to have the appropriate safety protocols in place.

see also , the same question asked previously on researchgate

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Research_and_practice_in_child_interviewing_Implications_for_children_exposed_to_domestic_violence

Tony,

My response to the original question was based on the context of doing research, not providing professional services. As a former child welfare service provider, of course  it was necessary to investigate as part of intervention with all due care against inflicting additional trauma. Research has a lower value status than clinical intervention--at least in my hierarchy of values. Ethics is all about choosing trade-offs among competing values . . . never easy in my personal experience. My take is that research is discretionary while intervention is not in cases of child abuse. I say this as one whose career left direct provision of services for policy research and analysis. I've never abandoned my primary grounding in the ethics of providing direct services.

Tony, very few children's social work departments, in England, investigating instances of child abuse, have the time or resources to build the therapeutic relationship and to carry out the therapeutic care the child needs/deserves. Such cases are usually passed on to child & adolescent mental health services, for that therapy (unfortunately, CAMHS engagement takes many weeks to secure). In the meantime, the child protection social worker will have a limited amount of time to assess the safeguarding situation and minister to the child's and families emotional/psychological needs. The primary focus will be assuring that the child is in the safest place available to them, within the family or out with. If the questioning of the child is evidentiary the child protection social worker should have Achieving Best Evidence training. If the questioning is therapeutic, the worker must ensure that they are appropriately skilled to provide that care. In each instance the professional ethical standards for social work promote 'best interests' of the child and 'do no harm'.

thanks Richard. The first few lines of your answer are what really interests me about this question. I am also aware that child protection workers do not have the time to build a relationship with each child they visit - they just go ahead and ask the questions - and this is the problem that I was trying to get some clarity around - ethically speaking isn't it wrong to do this? Firstly, how likely are you to get a useful answer? without having a relationship of sorts. Secondly, isn't the context wrong, the child protection worker is investigating, while the CAMHS worker you mentioned is in a therapeutic environment?

Putting aside the fact there are not the resources to do this properly, I am wondering what the process would be like, if it was done properly?

I just read your interesting debate. I agree with Vasintha Veeran: "If the questioning is part of a social inquiry process where the ultimate goal is the protection of the child from further harm and violence then it does become necessary to ask the child certain questions. (...)." Of course social workers should ask in a way that is least painful, but in fact pain is not totally preventable. The care we are able to provide for a child is composed from pieces (offered from various profesionals). While therapist can build therapeutic relationship with a client, s/he has less possibilities to intervene out of therapeutic room. Field worker does not have so much time for showing empathy and treating wounds, but can contribute to the adoption of practical measures for preventing further harm. Multidisciplinary approach can lessen the pain to the lowest possible level.

Recalling my childhood and experiences of extreme violence at the hands of my stepmother - the lack of help by those supposedly there to help was keenly felt as an abandonment. Below are my thoughts from my childhood experiences.

If you aren't there to help, why bother talking about it - it is just voyeuristic and tokenism. Or worst case - it could be considered by a child that the inquirer is seeking information for the professional's self-promotion.

What can you do to help - say it up front and act on it, or join the ranks of those colluding in the abuse.

Empathy and listening, followed by no action reinforces an impression of betrayal, voyeurism, collusion etc and will just weaken any trust for a child.

If you cannot do anything immediately, but need the child's testimony to act, then tell the child that, be truthful. Possibly discuss ways a child can self-protect if possible.

Sorry to sound so bleak, and maybe as a kid I was plain suspicious of so called helpers who were all talk and no action, even colluding with the perpetrator to further diminish my sense of safety and self-worth.

Not sure if this helps but children's voices need to be considered even in esoteric discussions ...

"What can you do to help - say it up front and act on it, or join the ranks of those colluding in the abuse.

Empathy and listening, followed by no action reinforces an impression of betrayal, voyeurism, collusion etc and will just weaken any trust for a child."

Thanks for that Loraine. I suppose child protection agencies would hope that they are working in this way. But I have not seen it put as clearly and succinctly as in the above quotation. I doubt this premise is as central as it should be across child protection work.

Lorraine, yours was a very thought provocing narrative, and Ibam humbled that you were able to share your experiences.

From a practice perspective, social workers will, generally, believe that their engagement will lead to action to the benefit of the victim, involving other agencies/practitioners to remove, minimise or ameliorate the threat, wherever possible/practicable.  However, there is always the resource availability conundrum, the delay in providing 'wrap around care'. While social workers will always aspire to safeguarded the victim, the delays in support will often appear, to the victim, that the professionals are doing nothing, colluding or disbelieving the situation. It is no excuse, even the most proactive care system is reactive, in individual cases. Time constraints, too often, prevent the social workers providing follow-up support until the continuing care can engage with the victim. Systemic improvement is urgently needed, finances act against this.

Life as an adult has been good for me, but my memories of childhood remain.They do not haunt, but can easily be recalled. This question bought them to mind.

If sharing my experiences of my younger self can improve the help young people get today, by promoting thought in helping professionals and their educators - it is well worth it.

In my case, if some person in authority had taken a stand, pointed out possible consequences to my stepmother, with possible actions to take if she got into one of her violent rages, the violence may have stopped. At least the physical violence. After all, like many kids I just wanted the violence to stop.

Those with the power to act who knew of the violence, did nothing.

Please don't feel sorry for my younger self, instead get angry, determined to not repeat the same.

I suppose the real issue is an individual one. Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

It's a great question, and I think it's important that anyone involved in work with children considers it.

As an investigating officer of child protection matters, my primary goal in asking children to recount instances of violence is not to cause further trauma, or put them at further risk. We do not engage in this work out of some sadistic pleasure that comes out of asking individuals and families to become vulnerable with strangers. 

In terms of responding to cases involving child abuse and neglect, it is important that these questions only be asked in a manner and environment which allow for ongoing safety of the child, whether this occurs at the initial stage of investigation, or whether the child is placed in a safe household (institutional care or kinship care being the two predominant options) before those questions are asked. There are so many options that can allow this to take place. Informal care agreements with parents, safety plans, allowing the parent to request another family member or other significant adult to be present during the interview... all of these options should be considered. 

At least in Queensland, our legal system requires adequate evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt, but still a significant level) before any serious action, such as applying for custody of the child, can take place, so from an investigative point of view, we need to ask these questions. However there has been plenty of evidence to support asking them in ways that do not harm the child further, and only going as far as the child is willing and able to go. Police stations across Queensland now have child-friendly interview rooms, and Child Safety Service Centres have interview rooms with couches and carpets, toys and games, so that there can be time spent acclimating the child to the physical environment and allowing a sense of comfort and safety. Furthermore, ensuring that the child has access to therapeutic support as soon as possible after the interview has taken place can mitigate the trauma associated with recounting abuse or neglect. 

Thank you for your responses to this question - as I read the initial question I'm wondering if the purpose for asking children about their experience is related to research, and the threat of further trauma is about their environment (rather than effects such as PTS, etc).

If so, then I would assume there is an ethical obligation on the researcher to respond in a way that seeks support for the child's safety. Interviewing and then having a child return to an unsafe context is unethical, and potentially very dangerous for the child - especially if it became known to the abuser that the child had spoken to someone about the abuse.

Where research might involve interviewing children who are now in safe living contexts, and a question is whether interviews may re-traumatise, I recommend reading the work of Neerosh Mudaly. see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neerosh_Mudaly 

in particular:

The Ethics of Involving Children Who Have Been Abused in Child Abuse Research

ARTICLE in THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHILDREN S RIGHTS 17(2):261-281 · APRIL 2009 with 43 DOWNLOADS

Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia, Monash University

DOI: 10.1163/157181808X389920

THE TITILLATION OF CHILDREN'S SUFFERING. Lorraine Muller's interesting responses make me think about the issue of professionals asking more questions than they need to, because the answers are interesting to them (give them a kick). For instance, in the U.S. system, child protection workers need MINIMAL FACTS about sexual abuse to make their determinations, and the detailed recounting of sexual (and sometimes physical) abuse is usually done within the context of a Child Advocacy Center where a skilled professional forensic interviewer conducts a gentle interview that is usually videotaped for use in court. Unfortunately I have seen far too many situations where teachers, principals,school nurses,  police officers, guardian ad litem, CASA volunteers, CPS workers, family members, clergy, attorneys, and others have asked more questions than they needed to, because they found the answers titillating in some way.

I have also seen researchers who were interested in a particular thing (let's say foster care placement) ask more questions than they needed to about the abuse itself, perhaps for similar motives.

Muller's posts remind us that when we ask about abuse, a child has the expectation that some relief will result. And if it doesn't, we are reinforcing the child's perspective that adults don't care and the world is cruel, etc.

Very wise words, Lisa. Thank you.

Paul, from a research position, the ethical conundrum must always side with the 'do no harm' argument and, if harm arises, have support on hand to minimise any damage.

Giving this some thought - if you wonder what effect interviewing a child on issues of abuse has, the Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse currently underway in Australia shows that such abuse continues to be extremely distressing for adults decades later.

Yes but....even if recalling something is "distressing" that doesn't mean it is bad. The research on the effects of participating in research on trauma for the most part do not show that people are sorry they participated or thought it was bad for them, even if it was difficult. I'm sorry I don't have any citations on hand. I discuss some in my piece on Ethical Issues in Family VIolence Research, in my profile here, but there are more recent pieces on this, too.

In this discussion we are conflating research with children and professional "helpers" asking children questions....

I think when it is done for research purposes and it has been through the ethics approval process, it is fine, for adults. For children? I'm not sure children have been asked about the abuse they have suffered purely for research processes - I can't see how that would get past an ethics committee. Such studies generally draw on in-situ data (like case files) - please correct me if I'm wrong. (PS - the original question was about practice, not research.)