HRH so. 1552 ll: 13PM STATE o; WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Box (3-930 12. 19000 - 33rd W2. - Washington 98036 March 30, 1992 Sigurd J. Hansen c/c David J. Drdell, Attorney at Law Suite 401 Hogs Building 705 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 93104 Lisa c/o Peter D. Francis, Attorney at Law 1800 Seattle Tower 1218 Third AVenue Seattle, Washington 98101-3030 RE: CPS Investigations Concerning Lisa Hansen Dear Mr. Hansen and Ms. I learned from Lynda Bridges that Judge Steers is rendering his decision concerning twisted},r and visitation provisions for Melissa Hansen. I understand that Judge Steers was not presented with the findings of the Child Protective Service (CPS) investigation. To ensure all parties are aware of this information, including the process by which CPS came to these conclusions, I am writing this letter. If any of this information has not been presented to Judge Steers, I hope it is not too late to do so. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter, necessary to include all the information we have. CPS received its first referral on March 28, 1990 from Ms. She stated that Melissa put her finger in her "pee pot" when her maternal grandmother changed her diaper following a visit with Inn: father. Melissa said. "Daddy do that." Melissa was reported to seem preoccupied with touching her vagina and showed fear of baths, regression in toilet training, and a desire to sleep with her mother upon return from visits with her father. Though this was the mother's statement, she did not report to the investigating social worker, Diana Chesterfield, that she believed 13.92 Ill-Ir". L??ll Melissa Hansen Summary Page 2 the child had been sexually abused. Ms. reported that a medical exam of Melissa did not reveal medical evidence of sexual abuse. Ms. was referred with her daughter to counseling for the child. When Ms. failed to re?contact CPS, the investigation was closed in June, 1990. The second CPS referral came on July 9, 1990 from Dr. Paula Lozano, Harborview Emergency Room physician. This referral was assigned to lerry voie. The referral stated Melissa told Ms. that "Daddy put his finger in her potty this weekend during visit." Dr. Lozano noted redness in the vaginal area and Melissa's anus was dilated more than normal. Susan James, therapist, reported that. Ms. doubted. the child was sexually abused, not believing Hr. Hansen could do this to his daughter. Detective Jones, Edmonds Police Department, also expressed.concerns about the mother's willingness to follow through in protecting the child. Melissa disclosed sex abuse by her father to Edmonds Police interview specialist Cindy Long. In addition, Dr. Mary Gibbons confirmed Dr. Lozano?s initial diagnosis in her colposcopy exam (#9090264). Her findings stated: IMPRESSIDN: Tanner State I female with an abnormal genital exam in that there is significant erythema, particularly posteriorly of the vulva, which would certainly be consistent with irritation from some things such as labial intercourse. The anus does appear quite unusual with significant dilation and angulation of the margins, although measurement woold not be obtainable from the photographs. This would certainly be suggestive of some anal penetrating trauma, but not diagnostic of the same. Mr. Hansen was arrested for the sexual abuse of his daughter. Howevar, charges were not County Prosecutor. Mr. Voie's determination was that the sex abuse allegations concerning Mr. Hansen were founded. However, as his contact with the child was to be supervised and it was understood Family Court had intervened to protect the child, no further action was deemed necessary by CPS. The third CPS referral was made on October 25, 1990. Lynda Bridges, the child's therapist, reported that Melissa.told her that her father hurt her with his "weinie" between her legs. Melissa demonstrated with the anatomically correct dolls the male doll's penis pushed against the anus of the female doll. Melissa also said, "Daddy wet on my legs.? Although Melissa's visits with her father were to be supervised, Ms. Bridges (as Mr. Voie had before r. VII-EH Ji?r lfj?jd Melissa Hansen Summary Page 3 her} wondered if the paternal grandmother was, indeed, supervising. This referral was assigned first to Diana Chesterfield and, subsequently, to Joan Green Ferguson. Based on the child's disclosures and the evidence contained in the case file, the child was placed in the custody of the Division of Children and Family Services by law enforcement {case 3436). Ms. Chesterfield placed the child in the mother's physical custody Inn: canceled the scheduled contact with the father. A dependency petition was filed on October 30, 1990. Judge Rudder found for continued shelter care status on October 31, 1.990, placing the child with the mother. He ordered no contact with the father and that the paternal grandparents' bathing and examination of the child step. In reviewing the reocrd.of this investigation, there is strong concern expressed about the Guardian ad Litem for the child, Vic Larson- Prior to the CPS investigation, Mr. Larson expressed to Dr. Lozano, Detective Jones (Edmonds Police Department), and Larry Voie that rho. Hansen could not have sexually abused his child. Even if there was medical evidence of abuse, Mr. Larson said, it would have been committed by Ms. family. Even after the child's disclosures and Dr. Gibbons' report, Hr. Larson continued to express this opinion to Diane Chesterfield. I have never seen such concern expressed Inf so 'many professionals that another professional was unwilling to consider evidence and had pro?judged a situation. Judge Rudder, in this Snohomish County dependency action, appointed another Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of the child given the questions of Mr. Larson's objectivity. On November 27, 1990 an Order on Preliminary Hearing was signed Judge Thibodeau. This order stated, "Visitation is suspended as a matter of law and fact for paternal grandparents." The dependency petition was dismissed on March 22, 1991 by motion of Lichtenberg, Assistant Attorney General. In her motion, Ms. Lichtenberg states, "King County Superior Court is the most convenient forum in which to have the visitation and custody issues decided.? The investigation which followed the last CPS complaint reviewed the information already supplied by Mr. Vole. In addition, a decision was made to base the investigation only upon statements made by professionals, the child, and those made by the parties (including the grandparents} for which there was no self? serving motive apparent. Thus, all of the statements made by the mother were discounted until they were verified by the paternal grandparents. CPS found again that the child had been sexually abused and that Hr. Hansen was the perpetrator of that abuse. U4 MHH it'l- l'j'dr.? Melissa Hansen Summary Page 4 These findings were based on the following evidence not already described: DISCLOSURES er THE CHILD: All individuals describing Melissa's statements stated they were spontaneous and were consistent (given the child's verbal and cognitive development during this time]. Lynda Bridges found the disclosures remarkable for their detail in a child this young and demonstrated the child had knowledge beyond what would be expected for a preschool age child. On March 23, 1991, Ms. Bridges reported that Melissa stated, "Daddy stuck his finger in my potty happened in the doesn't have a petty pot he has a wet on Cindy Long, police interviewer, did not believe the child's disclosures were couched because the answers were difficult to get in the interview. The disclosures to Dr. Dunne {then recanted) contained in his November 26, 1990 assessment report were also spontaneous. Marilyn Leibert, R.N., documented the child saying "Daddy is bad.? (then recanted) and that he urinates on her. She also documents, "when Missy uses potty chair she occasionally lets urine dribble down her legs and then 'Daddy did it,? but when questioned again, she either repeats accusation - or - denies accusation by saying, 'Daddy didn't I did.'" If a child this age is coached to give a description of sexual abuse, one would expect to find the child stilted in her statements and using the same words repeatedly. She would not be able to answer questions. She would not be able to provide a variety of detail. Lying about such events is difficult for a child this age in that they do not have the knowledge of sexual acts, do not have rote memory capability over long periods, and do not hold the motivation to lie about the sexual abuse. Melissa's statements were spontaneous and detailed, in trusting situations she was able to answer questions, and her statements were consistent over time. That Melissa spontaneously made statements to people she saw as allied with her father contradicts the theory she was coached to make these statements. Melissa's subsequent reoantation of her disclosures is expected given the circumstances- Mrs. Hansen stated that, when the child told her she did not like her father, Mrs. Hansen dissuaded her from those comments rather than asking her for more information. Melissa's recantations came only in the Hansen household and in Dr. Dunne's office as she was headed out the door to meet her father. Because of the torn loyalties, pressure from Fido HRH SE: 1992 Melissa Hansen Summary Page 5 family members, the dramatic effects of their statements, and the private nature of these disclosures, children recent their statements approximately 20% of the time in cases of sexual abuse which are later documented to be founded. We can see these forces playing on Melissa and her recantations. Thus, although they are considered in the CPS investigation, they cannot override the other evidence of sexual abuse. EVIQENCE: Dr. Gibbonst and Dr. Lozano's medical findings were previously noted. Jriaddition, additional medical examination was conducted.by Dr. Gibbons subsequent to the third CPS referral. She reported that the anal findings were again consistent with sexual abuse. The labial findings were also not normal. The hymen was less swollen on follow?up. She had no qualms in stating there was medical evidence of sexual abuse, more than one usually sees. This concurs with the experience of CPS in investigation sexual abuse cases. . It is interesting to note that Marilyn Leibert, R.N., noted slight labial redness and a reddened rash?appearance to the anal area on September 27, September 30, October 2, October 4, October 9, October 11, October 14, October 13, October 23, and October 25. She states in her employment contract. with the Hansens, "My documentation is in no way PROOF of abuse or PROOF that abuse did not occur, as only thorough medical evaluation can determine this." GENERAL FINDINGS: Although the above disclosures and medical 'evidence were sufficient to make a finding of sexual abuse, CPS also looked for behavioral indicators of that abuse in both the child and her extended family. With tune mother, there were concerns about her ability to protect the child and her responsiveness to the child's initial disclosures. She appeared to need the backing of her extended family to affirmatively react to the child's disclosures. This is not at all unusual in cases of sexual abuse. Thus, her initial non?belief was seen by the investigating workers as normal denial and a of lack of assertiveness and seen as contradictory to the theory that she made up these accusations and put them in Melissa?s head. There were several concerns expressed concerning the extended family on the father's side. Remarkable was their lack of respect for the child's physical boundaries. They subjected the child to weekly Vaginal.exams and baths at the end of the visits. They made the child change her clothing upon arrival and departure from each visit. They did not allow the child to call her mother during visits though this is a normal request of a child in a custody situation. In addition, both Mr. Hole and Ms. Bridges expressed REE .Jldr l?j?dd llilDHF'l F. Melissa Hansen Summary Page 6 concern that the grandparents were not closely supervising visits as they were ordered to do. They admitted to one incident of this. They also admitted showing the child a video tape of her father when there was ordered to be no contact. During the CPS investigation we were not allowed contact with the father. We were never given his address and could only communicate through.his attorney. CPS arranged.for'a evaluation of the father with an evaluator agreeable to both CPS and Mr. Hansen's attorney. CPS agreed to fund half the $900 evaluation fee. Mr. Hansen did not follow through with the evaluation. Silva, the Guardian ad Litem for the child in the Snohomish County Juvenile Court action, concurred with the findings of CPS in this matter. In addition to the above information, her investigatitulrevealed a history of alcohol abuse and some violence in the father's history (exclusive of the domestic violence allegations made by the mother}. Finally, the reported improvement in the child's mental health and emotional adjustment after visits were terminated with the father would support the finding that the child was sexually abused by her father. In conclusion, as a supervisor with the Division of Children and Family Services for six years following an additional six years of front line work, I found this investigation to be thorough and conclusive of sexual abuse. The only perpetrator named by the child is Mr. Hansen. Her statements are made consistent with his access to the child. In addition. the medical findings corroborate the child?s statement. This letter is unsolicited by the parties involved in the Family Court matter. I have written this letter out of concern that both parents understand the extent of the CPS investigation and the evidence upon which our findings were made. This statement is made under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, and the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This statement is dated and SIGNED this 30th day of March, 1992 at Washington. .ag7 . Christihe Robinson, MSW Division of Children and Family Services El?