V Children’s disclosure processes

5.1 Patterns of disclosure: Delayed disclosures and recantations

Children’s disclosure patterns have largely been examined in terms of timing and consistency resulting in four broad disclosure patterns: disclosers, non-disclosers, delayed disclosers, and children who recant an earlier disclosure. Children’s reluctance to disclose (non-disclosers, delayed disclosers, and recanters) is often related to the dynamics of sexual abuse (e.g., Summit, 1983; Malloy, Lyon, & Quas, 2007).

Non-disclosure of abuse is common. For example, a survey of over 3,400 adults found that the majority of adults who reported experiencing sexual abuse as a child did not tell anyone during their childhood (74% of women and 78% of males; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1992). Delays in disclosure are also common among victims of substantiated abuse with longer delays being associated with the social and emotional factors related to the abuse (Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb, 2007; London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005; London, Bruck, Wright, & Ceci, 2008; Lyon, 2007; Lyon, Ahern, & Surich 2012 Malloy et al, 2007; Paine & Hansen, 2002). While some children disclose within months of abuse, many delay disclosure for years or even into adulthood (Miller & London, 2020; Read et al., 2006). In an analysis of Canadian criminal trials of child sexual abuse cases, the average delay between abuse and disclosure was 14 years (ranged from 2 to 48 years; Read et al., 2006). Interpersonal factors such as a closer or familial relationship with the perpetrator, less family support, or expecting a negative reaction from family members are all related to delays in disclosure (or non-disclosure) and higher rates of recantations (Easton, 2013; Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Herskowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb, 2005; Kogan, 2004; London et al., 2008; Malloy et al., 2007; Pipe et al., 2007). A child’s age at the onset of abuse has also been associated with disclosure timelines such that children who experience the onset of abuse at an older age are more likely to delay disclosure (Easton, 2013; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Kogan, 2004). Additionally, several abuse related characteristics have been associated with increased delays in disclosure including more severe and frequent abuse, perceived responsibility for abuse, and the use of strategies to induce secrecy (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2007).

Research on recantations has found that prevalence rates vary across studies (e.g., London et al., 2008; London et al., 2005; Malloy et al., 2007; Malloy, Mugno, Rivard, Lyon, & Quas, 2016). According to Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome theory, recantations are common and are attributable to the same influences that lead to delayed reporting (Summit, 1983; but see London et al., 2005; 2008; and London, Bruck, Miller, & Ceci, 2020 for a critique of this theory). Malloy and colleagues (2007) examined more than 250 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse and found that a quarter of children recanted at some point. A similar recantation rate was found in a lab-based study with 6- to 9-year-olds and, although there were no age differences in rates of recantation, 8- to 9-year-olds were more likely to maintain their recantation across interviews than younger children (Malloy & Mungo, 2016). To test whether recantations were signs of false allegations, Malloy and colleagues (2007) examined whether recantations were more common in cases without other evidence of abuse. They found that the rates were similar across both cases with and without other evidence, suggesting that recantations are not a sign of false allegations. Similar to delayed and non-disclosures, recantations are more common of victims of abuse whose family members were non-supportive or when visitations with the alleged perpetrator were recommended at the first hearing (Malloy et al., 2007; Malloy et al., 2016). Additionally, children are less likely to recant if they are initially removed from the home and separated from their siblings’ post-disclosure, and if family members support the child’s allegations (Malloy et al., 2016). Taken together, findings to date suggest that recantations occur and follow similar disclosure dynamics to delayed and non-disclosures. As such, recantation of an allegation should not necessarily be considered a sign of false allegations.

5.2 Barriers to disclosure

Several reasons have been identified for why children decide to disclose. Schaeffer and colleagues (2011) examined children’s reasons for disclosing (as reported during 191 forensic interviews of children 3 to 18 years of age) and found that children disclosed as a result of internal feelings or symptoms (e.g., feeling anxious, feeling guilty, wanting it to stop, realizing it was wrong, nightmares, headaches), external influences (e.g., another victim disclosing, the child being questioned, the perpetrator and parent divorced, the perpetrator confessed or left the home), or evidence of the abuse was discovered. While these factors supported the child in reporting abuse, there are also many barriers that often prevent children from disclosing (see also Alaggia, Collin-Vézina, & Lateef, 2019; Augusti & Myhre, 2024; Brennan & McElvaney, 2020).

Children’s expectations and reasoning about consequences have been found to be associated with disclosure timing (Alaggia, 2005; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Malloy, Brubacher, & Lamb, 2011; McElvaney, Greene, & Hogan, 2014). For example, Malloy and colleagues (2011) examined 204 forensic interviews of 5- to 13-year-olds and found that when children mentioned consequences of disclosure they most often noted physical harm to the child, negative emotions for the child, and jail time for the accused. When children expressed concerns of negative consequences for themselves or a family member they were more likely to delay disclosure (Malloy et al., 2011). Other common factors that deter disclosing sexual abuse include embarrassment and shame (Collin-Vézina, De La Sablonnière-Griffin, Palmer, & Milne, 2015; Fleming, 1997; McElvaney et al., 2014), worries of being blamed for the abuse or getting in trouble (Fleming, 1997; Schaeffer et al., 2011), fears of not being believed or negative reactions (Anderson et al., 1993; Fleming, 1997; McElvaney et al., 2014; Ullman, 2002), wanting to protect the abuser, fears of the abuser or of what would happen if they disclosed (Alaggia, 2005; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003, Kogan, 2004; Fleming, 1997), the use of grooming tactics (e.g., power dynamics, secrecy, trust building, Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Schaeffer, Leventhal, & Asnes, 2011; see Section 4.7), violence, drug use in the home, or dysfunctional home environment (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015), and a lack of understanding that the behaviour was inappropriate (Schaeffer et al., 2011). Given the barriers children face when deciding to disclose it is clear why non-disclosures and delayed disclosures occur so regularly. Given the consequences and barriers children face when disclosing, selecting an appropriate disclosure recipient is also an important decision.

5.3 To whom children disclose

To whom a child discloses may influence whether they are believed, whether the case is reported to authorities, how recipients react to a disclosure, and how the report is perceived (Elliott & Carnes, 2001). Even young children are sensitive to adjusting their disclosure rates and recipients based on whether a parent or stranger is the transgressor. For example, Lyon and colleagues (2010) examined whether 4- to 9-year-old maltreated and non-maltreated children would support disclosing a parent or a stranger’s transgression to an adult (parent, police, or teacher). Children were more likely to support disclosing a stranger’s transgression than a parent’s transgression and they disclosed more often to a parent or police officer than a teacher. Similarly, studies have found that children who allege abuse are more likely to report to police when the accused is a stranger than a family member (Hanson, Resnick, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Best, 1999). Children’s sensitivity to the identity of the disclosure recipient is important. If the child discloses to someone who does not believe them or is not in a position of authority to protect the child, the child may remain in a vulnerable position. This may require the child to disclose multiple times before it is reported to authorities. In fact, most cases of abuse are never reported to authorities (Smith et al., 2000; Winters et al., 2020).

In an examination of forensic interviews (204 children between 5 to 13 years old; Malloy et al., 2013), 80% of children mentioned disclosing to one or more disclosure recipients with the average number of recipients being 2.13 (range 1 to 6 recipients). The number of disclosure recipients was found to increase with age. Additionally, the disclosure recipient has been found to vary by age. While younger children (5- to 9-year-olds) tend to report most often to their mothers, reporting to peers and teachers increases with age (10+ years old; Kogan, 2005; Schaeffer et al., 2011; Malloy, Brubacher, & Lamb, 2013). These findings suggest that children and youth often make multiple disclosures before an official report is made, and the increased disclosure to peers (who may not sufficiently intervene) during late childhood and adolescence means that victims are required to later disclose to an adult. However, recently conducted research suggests that many peer disclosure recipients do disclose the report to an adult (Bruer et al., 2024; Price, Evans, & Bruer, 2021).

Given the many barriers to disclosure (discussed in Section 5.3), such as not being believed, and the fact that not all disclosure recipients intervene or report to authorities, children often have to make multiple disclosures to multiple disclosure recipients prior to an official report being made.

5.4 Attitudes towards children’s disclosures

A child’s disclosure patterns not only influence whether someone intervenes and makes a formal report but can influence decision makers’ perceptions of the child’s disclosure. In terms of the timing of disclosure, adults typically demonstrate an understanding that child abuse victims may not disclose immediately (Kovera & Borgida, 1998; McGuire & London, 2017; Morison & Greene, 1992; Quas et al., 2005). In an examination of Canadian jury and bench child sexual abuse trials with delays between 2 to 48 years, it was found that verdicts did not vary based on length of time to disclosure (Read et al., 2006). However, more recent lab-based research has suggested that shorter delays to disclosure were related to guilty verdicts (Miller & London, 2022; Myers et al., 1999; Pozzulo et al., 2010). Time to disclosure has also been found to impact witness credibility. For example, Connolly, Price, and Gordon (2009; 2010) examined judicial decisions in Canadian trials of child sexual abuse and found that timely disclosers (i.e., when the victim was still a child) were perceived as more honest and less influenced by others, but less cognitively competent, compared to delayed disclosers (i.e., when the child victim was testifying as an adult). Similarly, in a lab-based study, when length of delay was shorter (i.e., 1-day) victims were perceived as more trustworthy, believable, and to have better memory compared to longer delays (10 months; Miller & London, 2022).

Similar to delayed disclosures, fewer guilty verdicts were made in a mock jury study when a child had previously recanted in a forensic interview compared to when no recantation was made (Campbell, Rivard, & Compo, 2016). Additionally, recantations of a child’s statements are often used as a marker of dishonesty and may reduce a child’s credibility (e.g., Leippe & Romanczyk, 1989; Zellman, 1992). In a lab-based study Dykstra and colleagues (2022) found that when children consistently disclosed an adult’s transgression across interviews with a peer and an adult recipient, the children were perceived as more credible compared to when they inconsistently disclosed across interviews. Taken together, these findings suggest that delays in disclosure and recantations can impact how child witnesses are perceived. However, the use of experts’ evidence-based testimonies can help buffer these effects. Denne and colleagues (2021) found that when experts provided evidence-based testimony about recantations, a guilty verdict was more likely to be rendered. These findings emphasize the importance of educating jurors and the court on the disclosure process.