Carol Hopkins
San Diego Reader
Reader Editors:
September 3, 1998Thank you for writing the story about Carol Hopkins, who has done so much for those falsely accused of crimes against children.
After having the bad fortune of being falsely accused, at least the parties in the Wade and Akiki cases had the good fortune to be vindicated by exculpatory evidence.
Too many other adults are just as innocent, but have not had the good fortune to have evidence that would clear them brought to light.
The Wade and Akiki travesties opened our eyes to outrageous behavior in the juvenile dependency system. Many of the same practices and indeed many of the same practitioners (lawyers, social workers and psychologists) continue to make a fat living in the Family Court system. Here, the injustices are arguably less outrageous because adults are not often going to jail, but instead are being cut off from their children and cheated out of their life savings by a subculture that rewards the manufacture of conflict.
How, we ask, can apparently sane and rational, apparently trained and "respected" practitioners make themselves believe bizarre, incredible, clearly impossible stories such as those that are told in the so-called ritual abuse cases? Simply put, it is because it profits them to do so!
All of the professionals involved were being paid, and some were clearly charging outrageous amounts for their "expertise". By warping their belief systems to make the impossible seem possible, they all cashed in. Some are even now building massive bureaucracies, monuments to their own self-importance, such as the supervised visitation institutes that are becoming popular currently.
The process is facilitated by the way they can isolate themselves in a subculture that rewards and/or reinforces them when they err in favor if more therapy and more litigation.
I think that we are indoctrinated in our faith in democracy to at least want to believe that our democratic structures are immune to the type of corruption represented by warped belief systems. But it is not so.
The warping of belief systems to justify reprehensible behavior is nothing new. Noam Chomsky summed it up fairly succinctly in an interview in the movie "Manufacturing Consent": "
"Yeah. That's right. Because most of them completely believed. That's the way systems work. In fact, the way belief systems form, really, if you think about it, is --we even know this from our personal lives -- you sort of decide to do something for whatever reason. And then you create a system of beliefs that justifies it and says "I was right." Well, the end effect of this is the people who function within a system of power and authority, whether it's an editor of Pravda or an op-ed writer for the Times or a concentration camp guard...they're usually quite sincere about it. And they have worked up a system of beliefs that says, "Yes, this is just and right and I am completely free and independent." If they couldn't have that system of beliefs, they couldn't continue....I agree with you when you say it's a tight-closed system of beliefs. It's a kind of fundamentalism, which means you simply cannot hear critical analysis and it's interesting to see what in the United States can't be heard."
Why must every malicious vindictive false allegation be taken seriously? No matter how frivolous? No matter how obvious it is that the false allegations are "the neurotic response of a litigant filled with rage and hate for the other parent"(Judge James W. Stewart, California Divorce Handbook, 1993)?
Because there is an avalanche of money triggered by doing so! A false allegation can be far more lucrative than a true one, since in Family Court, if the falsely accused vigorously defends himself, there are two lawyers being paid.
It is appalling how the practitioners (who grow rich by bleeding the falsely accused until they are bankrupt) continue to resist sensible measures such as videotaping all interviews with children. Failure to record interviews has denied many who are falsely accused access to exculpatory evidence. Leading and forced-choice questioning techniques can be hidden from skeptical eyes.
An example is of a child saying "I got this bruise from my daddy.....and I know my daddy did it because my mommy told me so." A tape of such an interview would make it perfectly clear what is going on here. But with no tape, an unscrupulous practitioner can choose to ignore and suppress the second part of what the child says. And extend the "cashing-in" process for months or even years.
Practitioners who resist objective methods of documenting interviews with children should be reviled, not respected.
The Coalition of Parent Support works to bring fairness to the Family Court System. Call them at (619) 465-2328.
Sincerely,
Henry Gamboa