As a therapist and psychologist assessing and providing therapeutic intervention programmes for adults who sexually abuse children, I have consistently encountered assumptions made about perpetrators which are at best inaccurate and at worst dangerous to children, writes Joe Sullivan
For example, the premise that people who download child pornography are not a risk to children is an assertion which is often, on more detailed assessment, found to be incorrect. This is because the underlying sexual interest in children which motivates their behaviour is a factor which increases their risk. Similarly erroneous is the hypothesis that men sexually abuse children because they are unable to have sexual contact with consenting adults. Some of those who work with sex offenders have been able to undertake research and clinical studies with this group. The results of such investigations challenge some of the myths which persist and, which can, in some cases, undermine the protection of children.
In 2004, along with Prof Anthony Beech of the University of Birmingham, I published the findings of research on professionals who sexually abuse children with whom they work. The study of 41 male professionals included 23 Roman Catholic priests and religious brothers. In addition to their religious roles, 14 of those also worked in teaching and three had primary care responsibilities with groups of children, either in residential homes or boarding schools.
It was found that the professional perpetrators were more likely to be accused of sexual abuse by boys (73 per cent) than other men who sexually abuse children (21 per cent). However, this was only part of the story regarding the extent of their sexual interests, as 44 per cent indicated they had sexual interest in both male and female children and 76 per cent reported they also had a sexual interest in adults. The fact that more than a quarter of the priests also indicated that they took advantage of vulnerable adults whom they met through their ministry, suggests there are adult victims whose experiences have not fallen within the terms of reference of child sexual abuse inquiries.
Some 58.5 per cent of the study group said they were aware of their sexual arousal to younger children by the age of 16, and 92.5 per cent said they were aware by 21. This is not unusual for child sex offenders. The vast majority will indicate, post-treatment, that they were aware of their sexual interest in children before they reached 18. One teacher convicted of downloading child pornography said: "I'd already thought of myself as a paedophile when I was 13. I'd seen that word used or heard the word used on news items and looked it up and thought, 'Oh that's me'. So the decision to coach younger boys was taken when I was 16. Moving towards [ 18 years old] I was thinking, 'Well what am I going to do work-wise, and I thought well, teaching is the best opportunity to be around young boys'."
In addition, 51.2 per cent said they had already committed a contact sexual offence against a child by age 21. The mean number of victims for the group was 48, although it should be noted that some admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while others admitted to fewer than 10 victims.
Their early awareness of sexual arousal to children raises the issue of their true motivation for working with children. Of those studied 15 per cent said they chose their profession exclusively to provide them with access to children to abuse. A further 42.5 per cent said that while abusing children was not their primary motivation for working with children, it formed part of their motivation.
An order priest in the survey said: "I lived two separate lives in two separate compartments. I made what I did with children okay because what I said was it's all that I do [ wrong], it was almost an entitlement because I wasn't married, I worked awful hard. I knew it was wrong; I justified it because that's all I asked for in life. I gave no thought to the effect that it had on children."
The study also provided some insight into the manipulation techniques used by professional perpetrators to identify and isolate children and to disguise their behaviour from others who might have protected the children. The following comments were made by a diocesan priest convicted of sexual assault and buggery of children in his parish.
"Practically every single day I was involved with children one way or another. I was chaplain to one of our schools and spent every day in the playground, playing 'fighting', seeking out those on their own - getting bullied or picked upon - and would go over to them, talk to them, put my arm around them and give them a hug. I would do this in front of everyone else - including dinner ladies and teachers and soon a reputation built up - which followed me over the years - 'look how good he is with the children, see how they love him."
Isolating children was an important part of the manipulation process: 77.5 per cent of the professional perpetrators said they arranged to meet children outside work for the purpose of facilitating the sexual abuse of that child. In total 67.5 per cent of the study group said they took children away overnight to facilitate sexually abusing them.
Typically, these trips were educational or recreational and involved other professionals accompanying the children, although some were private arrangements with parents. To avoid detection in their country of origin some professional perpetrators said they chose to travel abroad to abuse children. Some 52.5 per cent of the study group admitted sexually abusing children abroad, although only 40 per cent travelled abroad with the specific intention of sexually abusing children.
However, some professional perpetrators were so confident of their position of power that they sexually abused children in front of their parents. This account comes from a priest who was responsible for vocations and whose work brought him to many schools.
"I would visit the child in his home, and the parents would be present nearly always. I would always address the parents cordially and hope that I would gain their friendship. If a parent would ever reproach me for anything that I would have done to his/her child I would acknowledge the reprimand and apologise. I have never at any time asked any parents not to tell on me." In addition, 41.5 per cent of the study group said they knew they had a reputation amongst the children for behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner.
A faith community leader from another Christian faith, who was married and had sexually abused his daughter, spoke of how he silenced the child: "I manipulated [ her] by living a double life, maintaining a 'godly' image. Creating confusion in the mind of [ the child] who saw a father full of compassion and caring but with a sinister streak. [ She] was possibly afraid and ashamed to speak to anyone - who would believe?"
The psychological profiles of the professional perpetrators were compared with child sex offenders who abused their own children and others who sexually abused outside the family. This demonstrated some differences; however, the professional perpetrators are not easily distinguishable from the other child sex offender groups.
While not a popular use of resources, given the real need for increased funding of victim services, providing programmes for the assessment and treatment of sex offenders is vital at several levels. Firstly, assisting offenders who want, and have the ability, to control their sexual urges will protect children in the future. Secondly, such serviceswill facilitate the identification of the most risky offenders and enable the targeting of child protection and criminal justice resources more efficiently.
Thirdly, developing assessment and therapeutic intervention services for offenders will facilitate the future study of the perpetrators which is critical to our understanding of the risks they pose. Without accurate information about the nature of the problem the secrecy within which abuse thrives will persist and our response will continue to be inadequate.
Finally, it is important that we do not perpetuate another myth by believing that institutional child sexual abuse, having been exposed, will now disappear. What we have learned from working with child sex offenders is that those who are determined will adapt and become more sophisticated.
Joe Sullivan is a psychologist and director of Mentor Associates, a child protection and sex crime consultancy. Since 1986 he has been involved in providing risk assessment and therapeutic intervention services for adults with a sexual interest in children