Affidavit of Ralph Underwager, Ph.D.
Licensed Consulting Psychologist
(Sample: Deals with Motion for Videotaping all Contacts with child)

I, having been duly sworn upon oath and under penalty of perjury, depose and state the following as true and accurate.

I have prepared this affidavit at the request of attorney --------------------

I. (Biographical data updated to provide basis for expertise and opinions.)

II. Mr. ---------- asked for my professional opinion on the advisability and possible effects of videotaping all interviews of children in a specific case where there is an accusation of child abuse. We have not yet been furnished any documents about this specific case nor do we have any information about the particulars of the case and the accusations against the parent. Therefore my opinion is limited to the general issue of videotaping interviews.

My opinion is based on my training in psychology, my personal experience in videotaping or audiotaping all evaluations and interviews I have done with children, and my knowledge of the research literature and professional literature relating to child abuse and within that body of knowledge material relating to the issue of videotaping.

My personal experience with videotaping or audiotaping interviews of children includes approximately a hundred children whom I have evaluated or conducted therapy with in instances of alleged child abuse. Many of these instances have been by court order. In the majority of those the court also ordered that the sessions be videotaped. In my judgment only one child produced any behavior that may suggest the act of videotaping the interview caused any distress for the child. In this one instance the child appeared severely neurotic and influenced by the mother to expect the interview to be difficult and frightening so that it may well not have been the videotaping itself that caused the child's difficulty. Even in this instance the child completed the interview without needing to terminate it because of her stress response.

I have reviewed over 1000 hours of videotapes of interviews with children from all over this country. These videotaped interviews have been done by law enforcement personnel, child protection workers, social workers, psychiatrists, and psychologists. The ages of the children have ranged from two to seventeen years. Most of them have been under six. While adult behaviors in the interviews are problematical because of their highly leading and coercive behaviors toward the child, the act of videotaping itself does not appear to have generated stress for the children nor to have unduly interfered with the process.

Research on interviewing using electronic recording equipment shows that it does not interfere with the process of the interview. Persons, including children, readily adapt to the presence of equipment and appear to forget it is there. It is best if the equipment is relatively unobtrusive and that no operator be present. This situation is easily created and an interview can be managed by remaining within the range of a camera set up to cover most of the interviewing area.

At least eleven states now have legislation mandating videotaping of initial interviews of children when there is an accusation of child sexual abuse. There has been no report of any trauma caused to children from the experience of these states. The study of the experience in Texas from 1983 - 1987 is typical (DeLipsey and James, 1988). There has been no difficulty experienced because of the act of videotaping.
Undoubtedly, the most distressing problems were the use of leading and suggestive questions and coercion to make the child confirm certain information. As professionals, we were challenged to evaluate our own credibility. . . .Our concern was that that these inappropriate interviewing techniques had been employed for some time but were not exposed until the statute was passed. We soon came to realize that the videotaped interview protected the rights of the accused as well (p. 238).
Following a review of several hundred videotaped interviews Slicner and Hanson (1989) describe as one of the many advantages of videotaping interviews the subsequent critical review of the interview. They found a consistent pattern of serious errors committed by numerous interviewers (p. 62).

Our own research involving scientific analysis of videotapes and audio tapes from 38 cases around the country demonstrated the high level of adult behavior toward children that is coercive, leading, and contaminates the information gained from an interview (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988; Underwager and Wakefield, 1989)

Videotaping is done:
1) To protect the child from the harm generated by multiple interviews by different individuals

2) To maximize the reliability of the child's statements. Knowing that an interview is being videotaped is likely to improve the performance of the adults doing the interview.

3) To possibly submit the tapes as an exhibit to accused and defense attorneys as well as prosecution. This may prevent unnecessary litigation and spare a child the potentially negative consequences of involvement in lengthy proceedings.

4) To show that the alleged victim has not been subjected to coercive adult social influence that could shape a child into producing statements that are inaccurate and represent a fabrication of an account elicited by the adult behaviors.

5) To capture the demeanor of the parties to the interview and preserve variables such as tone of voice, nonverbal behavior, pauses, gestures, and other factors which may affect an interview but are lost unless there is a recording.

Videotaping or audiotaping an interview is necessary to assure accurate reporting of the interview itself. Several research efforts have shown that if there is no adequate and full documentation of an interview with a child, the interviewers' reports of the interview are inaccurate and misleading. Written accounts of an interviewer are not reliable (Herbert, Gram & Goranson; 1987; White, 1986; Wakefield & Underwager, 1988; Underwager & Wakefield, 1989; Raskin & Yuille, 1989).

The value and benefit of videotaping is not affected by whether or not the material is used in the courtroom as evidence. The admissibility of videotaped interviews is a separate question which is controversial and still being argued through the courts. However, the benefit to the child of having full and adequate documentation of interviews is not decreased if the material is not admitted as evidence. If such material is admitted into the courtroom the benefit to the child may be expanded but if it is not admitted the child still benefits in all the ways described here.

In summary there is no evidence that videotaping or audiotaping an interview is a negative experience for a child. There is substantial benefit to the child from providing full and complete documentation of all adult interviews with a child. There are no good reasons for not videotaping interviews with children, only bad ones.

It is the general agreement within the scientific community that videotaping all interviews with children is necessary to understand the adult behaviors toward the child and to provide the most reliable information possible. The general consensus document drafted recently by a world wide gathering of professionals makes this very clear (Lamb, 1994)

I declare the foregoing is true and correct.

Further your affiant saith not.


______________________________
Ralph C. Underwager, Ph.D.
Licensed Consulting Psychologist

Date: __________________________

References

DeLipsey, J. M. & James, S. K. (1988) Videotaping the Sexually Abused Child; The Texas Experience 1983-1987. pp. 229-264. In Vulnerable Populations, Ed. S. M. Sgroi. Lexington. D. C. Heath & Co.

Lamb, M. E. (1994). The investigation of child sexual abuse: An international, interdisciplinary consensus statement. Family Law Quarterly, 28(1), 151-162.

Slicner, N. A. (1989) Guidelines for Videotape Interviews in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7. pp. 61-74

Wakefield H. Z. & Underwager, R. C. (1988). Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse. Springfield. C. C. Thomas

Underwager, R. C. & Wakefield, H. Z. (1989). (In Press) The Real World of Child Interrogations. Springfield. C. C. Thomas.


IPT Home Page Up One Level

 
Copyright 1989-2014 by the Institute for Psychological Therapies.
This website last revised on April 15, 2014.
Found a non-working link?  Please notify the Webmaster.