The Free Market in Child Pornography

More than six years after the international law enforcement community began desperately searching for the child pornography victim known as the Disney World Girl, justice remains allusive for Masha Allen. Despite two Congressional investigations in 2006 and pressure from Nancy Grace and Oprah, none of the perpetrators involved with her international adoption have been brought to justice.

Despite the involvement of almost 30 lawyers since Masha was rescued from Matthew Mancuso in 2003 (including the prosecutor and lead investigator in the much-hyped Caylee Anthony investigation), not one of the many child welfare institutions and organizations who were involved with Masha's international and domestic adoptions have paid one dime for her care and recovery.

And despite a federal law named for her, not one case has been brought on her behalf under Masha's Law which guarantees $150,000 from each of the thousands of child molesters who collect and trade her images each year.

Neither a high-profile 2008 exposé in Wikileaks nor aborted investigations by ABC News in 2009 and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2010 have been able to shed any light on the abject failure of the American justice system to vindicate the rights of one of the most notorious victims of child trafficking in this country's history.

Ms. Allen will turn 19 in just a few days. With each passing year, her ability to collect anything from anyone diminishes substantially. The tolling she enjoyed as a minor under the Pennsylvania statute of limitations ended when she reached legal adulthood last year. Law suits for intentional torts typically must be brought within a year. Claims for fraud, personal injury or professional malpractice must be brought before Masha turns 20. This includes a lawsuit under the Notice of Claim relating to her failed domestic adoption by Faith Allen which we filed back in 2007.

Masha's millionaire father also has somehow escaped civil liability for what he did to Masha. And while other victims are collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory restitution in the federal courts, Masha has sought and received nothing.

Now Masha's Law itself is under attack. In 2009, Jesse Walker, the influential editor of Reason magazine (which espouses "free minds and free markets"), wrote an editorial entitled The Blurry Boundaries of Child Porn. Walker correctly summarizes Supreme Court jurisprudence which makes child pornography outside the scope of First Amendment protection when he recognizes that "[t]he viewing [of child sex abuse images], in this analysis, is itself a perpetuation of the abuse."

Walker continues:

Such arguments undergird Masha’s Law, named for Masha Allen, a Russian orphan who was held prisoner, raped repeatedly on camera, and advertised in the kiddie porn world as “Disney World Girl.” The measure, which became law in 2006, allows adults who were victimized by pornographers as minors to sue people who download the resulting images.

Emotionally, it’s a compelling concept. And where invasion of privacy is the concern, civil remedies certainly make more sense than criminal prosecutions. But the idea opens a can of worms. If the issue is privacy, shame, and being haunted by ineradicable images, wouldn’t the same argument apply to the abused prisoners photographed at Abu Ghraib? To hostages filmed by their captors and aired on the news? To anyone humiliated in front of a camera? Should an inadvertent Internet celebrity, deeply embarrassed that people are chuckling at a clip of his light-saber dance, have standing to sue the viewers?

That last example might seem absurd, but it actually veers close to the pornography debate. Because the child porn laws set the age of maturity so high, they cover not just the victims of coercion but exhibitionists who voluntarily put photographs of themselves online. There also are people who post pictures that are salacious but don’t include the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” invoked by the law. They do not necessarily intend for anyone but their friends to see the photos. But the Internet doesn’t always work that way.

After analogizing Masha's child sex abuse images to teen-aged girls in bikinis and equating them with a video clip of a "light-saber dance," Walker declares "Is it the role of the government to preserve her peace of mind? … I’m not convinced that’s reason enough to punish the people who merely see those recordings, as opposed to the people who actively participate in the abuse of prisoners like Allen."

Perhaps what Walker desires is a "free market" in child pornography which will "free the minds" of the tens of thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who actively collect and trade child sex abuse pictures and videos.

Walker's vision, however, is hardly "free" or fair to the victims. Until the legal system insures that victims like Masha Allen can recover for the very real harms caused by the horrific abuse inflicted on them by the production, distribution and collection of child sex abuse images, the "market" is neither free nor fair.

And as we've seen in the Masha Allen case, if Congress, Oprah and 30 lawyers can't bring justice to one victim, then deregulating the market for child pornography is hardly the answer. Sadly, Walker's unfettered "free market free mind" is currently much closer to reality than the victims' "peace of mind." Unfortunately, for Masha Allen and thousands of other victims of child pornography, justice remains long in coming.

DOJ Video - Sexual Exploitation of Children

More PR than facts, this Department of Justice video discusses the Department's national strategy to prevent and combat the sexual exploitation of children. (For some bizarre reason, the video's imagery exclusively shows Black males as offenders. In reality, the vast majority of defendants who produce, distribute and collect child pornography are White males between the ages of 35 and 60. The video also mixes child prostitution, the online solicitation of children, and child pornography; they are all very separate problems with different perpetrators and victims.)

­Francey Hakes, National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, talks a lot about prevention, hyping the oft-lauded "public-private" partnerships as a "solution" to these problems. I have yet to see any peer reviewed studies of programs or initiatives which can hinder or stop an adult pedophile child molester from raping and sexually abusing a child (often to produce child pornography).

In answering the question, "can we persuade them not to do this sort of stuff," Dr. Michael Bourke, U.S. Marshals Service Chief Psychologist, provides the most honest assessment when he states "I think the answer is fairly multifaceted, but the short answer is that there is no cure for pedophilia, there is no cure for these fantasies and these drives per se. There is however, for any of these individuals, a possibility of managing that behavior …"

In response, the moderator declares "so treatment does work, that's one of the things I did want to get across, treatment does work … treatment does work! We can meaningfully intervene." In response, Bourke explains "Right, well there are individuals who with those proper things in place, have a choice not to re-offend."

Sounds like a successful strategy to me. If you carefully consider Bourke's words: pedophiles cannot be cured, some of these guy might be able to manage their illicit behavior, and some of these might choose not to re-offend. Note he said "re-offend." Given the secretive nature of this crime, just how many of these perpetrators will get caught? And who would ever advocate or accept that an "incurable" murderer be released with the hope that they will successfully "manage" their homicidal urges?

Perhaps Ashley Natoli, Community Supervision Officer in the DC Sex Offender Unit, says it best when she notes that "a lot of these offenders, they are masters of manipulation and deception, and that's, in most instances, in a lot of instances, how they ended up offending in the first place, because they have an incredible ability to groom these victims and they have mastered the art of manipulation."

Thank goodness the probation officers get it.

Unfortunately most of federal judges don't. Each year thousands of white middle-aged men who produce, distribute and collect child pornography are arrested and sentenced in the federal court system. (Almost 100% plead guilty.) Most of these men will eventually be released. And most of them will not receive any peer reviewed treatment for their incurable pedophilia. Some of these men will be monitored at various levels by probation for a few years or for life.

The outcome of this social policy is untested and impossible to predict. Unfortunately, however, the federal justice system regards a few years of incarceration along with a determinate period of probation supervision as a "solution" for the child molesters and pedophiles who appear before them daily. And incredibly, there is a vigorous effort happening right now before the United States Sentencing Commission to REDUCE sentences for child pornography.

In truth, it's not really the judges' fault. There is scant information about these offenders and treatment in peer reviewed journals. (Unfortunately what few studies exist are often overlooked or ignored.) The "lock-up, release and monitor" paradigm—which is the only real option right now—is untested and unchallenged. Until we have more data and better answers on recidivism rates, treatment methodology and peer reviewed outcomes, the federal justice system will continue to engage in a dangerous social policy with offenders who everyone agrees are incurable.

The 'Secret' - the key to understanding child sex abuse

The 'Secret' is the bond established by the abuser with the child victim. It ensures that nobody knows of the abuse other than the abuser and the abused. It is kept in place by embarrassment, fear or respect.

Embarrassment that friends or family will find out what happened. An emotion sometimes secured with photographs.

Fear for the safety of the child and their family should they disclose anything - fear that the abuser will inform - parents - friends, about the behaviour their child has been pulled into and subjected to.

Respect or love for the abuser - strange as this may seem - for the attention and concern that they have shown the child that the child craves and does not receive at home. Over time, absent a good relationship between child and parents,
the abuser seduces the child, earning their trust and friendship.

For this reason the child will keep the secret intact out of a need for the attention received from the abuser and the fear of losing a friend should the abuser be caught.

Check out AbuseWatch.eu for more information on how to understand and stop child sex exploitation.

The NEW Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), written in 1960, has long set the standard for ensuring the safe and stable placement of children across State lines. Enacted by all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the ICPC determines who is legally and financially responsible for a child placed in another State and establishes supervisory requirements for foster care and adoption services to the child and family. Since 1960, major changes in child welfare practice, technology, and society have made the original version increasingly difficult to implement. In March 2004, the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) began an effort to rewrite the ICPC to more closely match today's foster care and adoption practices. Throughout the rewriting process, APHSA relied heavily on the input of key stakeholders such as State administrators, Federal partners, and related national child welfare organizations.

The new ICPC, renamed the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children, makes numerous improvements to more efficiently place children across State lines and increase accountability in the ICPC process. One major improvement aims to reduce confusion concerning private custody matters by clearly stating the new ICPC applies only to children in foster care or children being placed for adoption by a public agency. Other key areas of improvement include:

• A secure system for collecting and sharing case information


• Required timelines for the approval of placements


• An option for States to purchase home studies from licensed private agencies


• Procedures for administrative review of decision-making in cases when requested


• The establishment of an Interstate Commission to enforce and oversee the administration of the ICPC

The language in the new ICPC requires that 35 States must adopt it before it can go into effect. To date, 12 States have adopted it, and legislation has been introduced in another 2 States. Once the new ICPC becomes effective, the Interstate Commission will begin a collaborative process to develop rules and administrative procedures for all member States to follow. Although some States are concerned about the potential financial burden of the new ICPC or doubt its ability to significantly improve interstate processes, compact administrators highlight safeguards to address spending and to ensure State authority and involvement in the rulemaking process. APHSA emphasizes that the most important improvement in the new ICPC is the ability to hold States accountable through stronger rule enforcement, which will ultimately improve outcomes for children placed with families across State lines.

To better educate the States about the need to make the new ICPC effective nationwide, APHSA offers an extensive website that includes such helpful materials as:

• A history of the ICPC and description of the rewriting process


• A side-by-side comparison of the old and new ICPC and highlights of the revisions


• Frequently asked questions about the new ICPC and its effect in specific practice areas

Visit the APHSA website for more information:

www.aphsa.org/Policy/icpc_rewrite.htm

In addition, the following APHSA website compiles State ICPC contacts and websites and summarizes State ICPC laws, practices, and procedures:

http://icpc.aphsa.org/Home/states.asp

Reprinted from the Children's Bureau Express.

Adoption Tax Credit Update

The IRS recently posted new language regarding eligibility for adoption assistance or subsidy agreements. The IRS clarified the documentation required for claiming the Federal Adoption Tax Credit for special needs adoptions. The official language indicates that Adoption Assistance or Subsidy Agreements are acceptable documentation of special needs. Visit the IRS website to learn more.

According to Voice for Adoption, the Federal Adoption Tax Credit is now refundable. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) made significant, short term, changes to the adoption tax credit. The credit per-child is now $13,170 for adoptions finalized in 2010. It also made the tax credit refundable. This means that families can claim a refund even if they owe no taxes. Families who adopt a child with special needs from foster care can claim the credit without needing to incur or document expenses. Visit VOA's website for further information.

Caylee Anthony - killed for child pornography?

Child advocate Wendy Murphy has a compelling blog entry about the Casey Anthony acquittal entitled "Not Guilty Verdict is the Right Result - But We're Not Done Yet."

Murphy argues that "Justice for Caylee is still possible, notwithstanding the acquittal, if people call for full disclosure of the entire investigative file - including an unsealing of the evidence thus far hidden from public view. Release of the photographs of Caylee that were seized from the Anthony home and placed “under seal” by the court would be a good place to start."

Law enforcement may have discovered "sexualized" images of Caylee on the Anthony family computers which were placed under seal to avoid prejudicing the jury. Murphy believes that "The style of Caylee’s death was more mob hit than parental homicide."

Murphy's most powerful argument for the Caylee Anthony child-sex-ring-victim theory is:

In fact, while a child might die after having her mouth taped shut, the most rational view of the duct tape evidence suggests the child died before the duct tape was applied and that the tape was meant only to hold in decomposition fluids. When a dead body beings to decompose, fluids emanate from places like the nose and mouth, and they emit putrid odors. The best way for a killer to delay detection is to seal the nose and mouth.

It’s certainly possible that at age 19, a high school dropout like Casey with no experience as a killer, nonetheless knew how to seal a dead body like a master murderer. And it’s true that her failure to report Caylee missing for more than a month is powerful evidence of her consciousness of guilt. The question is - guilt about what? It’s just as possible Casey did not kill her child; that she was afraid to call the cops - and that her fear was related to those sealed photographs.

As Casey’s brother Lee testified at trial, Casey was told that Caylee was taken from Casey to “teach her a lesson”. If, as I wrote in an earlier column, Casey knew the people who had Caylee, and stayed quiet in the hope they would give her child back, her failure to report Caylee missing makes sense.

Child pornography can be a big business which is much cheaper and safer than drug smuggling or human trafficking. A vulnerable mother with a drug debt and a small child is the perfect target for child pornography producers. There are hundreds of cases in which parents "sell" their children for drugs or cash. The children of prostitutes often end up involved in prostitution and child pornography. It's tragically easy to dispose of the "evidence" in a country where hundreds of thousands of children go missing each year.

Murphy has surprisingly taken some heat for her theory, but anyone who knows the reality behind the sordid world of child pornography and exploitation will find her analysis neither far-fetched nor hyperbolic.

In an interesting aside, the prosecutor in the Anthony case is also the prosecutor who vowed to send Masha Allen's rapist, Matthew Mancuso, to the Florida death chamber. Mancuso initially faced eight counts of capital sexual battery which could have made him eligible for the death penalty. Despite the fact that there were pictures of him raping his 10 year old adopted daughter at Disney World, Mancuso was allowed to plead guilty to attempted sexual battery. According to Florida law, "criminal attempt" means a person who attempts to commit an offense but fails in the perpetration of that offense. Inexplicably, Mancuso was allowed to plead down from a death sentence to just 14 years in prison.

The Mancuso case also contained controversial sealed evidence in the form of two highly unusual video-taped depositions of Faith and Masha Allen. Shortly after the depositions, the Florida state's attorney agreed to the lowest possible plea. Maybe having pictures as evidence doesn't matter after all.