Diagnostik und Signifikanzbeurteilung bei Verdacht auf sexuelle Gewalt im Kindes- und Jugendalter

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Hintergrund Sexueller Missbrauch ist bei Kindern schwierig zu diagnostizieren und stellt eine erhebliche Herausforderung für alle beteiligten Fachdisziplinen einer medizinischen Kinderschutzambulanz dar. Die vorliegende Arbeit zeigt Fallkonstellationen und die zu verwendende Diagnostik, um ein Verdachtsmoment zu erhärten oder nachzuweisen.

Patienten und Methode Die Studie erfolgte retrospektiv anhand der Patientendokumentation von 210 Kindern und Jugendlichen im Alter zwischen 4 Monaten und 18 Jahren, die mit Verdacht auf sexuellen Missbrauch im Zeitraum von 2010 bis 2015 in der Kinderschutzambulanz Frankfurt am Main vorgestellt wurden. 173 Fälle wurden detaillierter analysiert. Mit Hilfe von standardisierten Erfassungsbögen wurden die Fälle analysiert und die Verdachtsmomente bezüglich ihrer Signifikanz beurteilt.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 173 Kinder und Jugendliche mit Verdacht auf sexuellen Missbrauch detailliert analysiert. Der Großteil dieser Kinder und Jugendlichen war weiblich und unter 10 Jahre alt. Häufig wurde der Vater des Kindes im Rahmen von Trennungssituationen oder Sorgerechtsstreits der Eltern des sexuellen Missbrauchs beschuldigt. Vor allem die eigenanamnestischen Angaben der Patientinnen und Patienten hatten in 60% für die Erhärtung der Verdachtsmomente Bedeutung. Die Einschätzung gelang umso sicherer, wenn der mutmaßliche Täter nicht dem engen Familienkreis angehörte und wenn andere Formen körperlicher Gewalt assoziiert vorlagen.

Schlussfolgerung Die Studie zeigt, dass der gynäkologische bzw. anogenitale Untersuchungsbefund relativ wenig Bedeutung für die Erhärtung eines Verdachts auf sexuellen Missbrauch hat. Viel mehr unterstreichen die Ergebnisse den Stellenwert weiterer diagnostischer Maßnahmen, insbesondere die anamnestische und psychologische Evaluation.

ABSTRACT

Background Child sexual abuse is difficult to diagnose in children and it is a challenging task for all involved medical disciplines of a medical child protection unit. The present study describes the factors that led patients to be presented to a child protection unit under the suspicion of sexual abuse and the diagnostic instruments which were used in order to substantiate or prove suspicious fact.

Patients and Method This study was conducted retrospectively on the basis of 210 children and adolescents ranged in age between 4 months and 18 years, who were presented to the medical child protection unit of Frankfurt am Main with suspected sexual abuse in the period from 2010 to 2015. 173 cases were analyzed in more detail. The cases were analyzed with the help of standardized documentation sheet and suspicious facts were evaluated with regard to their significance.

Results A total of 173 patient records were analyzed in more detail containing cases of suspected child sexual abuse. The majority of the children and teenager were female and younger than 10. Often the father was accused of sexual abuse and parents were separated or in custody battle. The patient's statements were crucial for substantiation of suspicious fact in 60% of the cases. The assessment was more certain if the alleged perpetrator was not part of the close family and if other forms of physical violence were associated.

Conclusion The study shows that gynecological respectively anogenital findings do not represent the key evidence for the substantiation of sexual abuse allegations. Instead, it underlines the significance of further diagnostic methods, in particular the psychological and anamnestic evaluation.

Schlüsselwörter

Kinder und Jugendliche - Sexueller Missbrauch - Kinderschutzambulanz - Diagnostik - Verdachtsfälle

Keywords

Children and adolescents - sexual abuse - child protection unit - clinical diagnostics - suspicion cases

Publication History

Article published online:
09 August 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Adams JA, Harper K, Knudson S, Revilla J. Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: it’s normal to be normal. Pediatrics 1994; 94: 310-317
• 2 Adams JA, Kaplan RA, Starling SP, Mehta NH, Finkel MA, Botash AS, Kellogg ND, Shapiro RA. Guidelines for Medical Care of Children Who May Have Been Sexually Abused. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 2007; 20: 163-172 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2006.10.001
• 3 Adams JA, Kellogg ND, Farst KJ, Harper NS, Palusci VJ, Frasier LD, Levitt CJ, Shapiro RA, Moles RL, Starling SP. Updated Guidelines for the Medical Assessment and Care of Children Who May Have Been Sexually Abused. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 2016; 29: 81-87 doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2015.01.007
• 4 Andrews SJ, Lamb ME. The structural linguistic complexity of lawyers’ questions and children’s responses in Scottish criminal courts. Child Abuse & Neglect 2017; 65: 182-193
• 5 Barth J, Bermetz L, Heim E, Trelle S, Tonia T. The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health 2013; 58: 469-483 doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1
• 6 Bode-Jänisch S, Voigt S, Günther D, Debertin AS. 2021; Clinical forensic examination findings and legal outcome in cases of suspected sexual child abuse. Arch Kriminol 228: 20-38
• 7 Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (2018) Verdacht auf sexuellen Kindesmissbrauch in einer Einrichtung - Was ist zu tun? http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Verdacht_Kindesmissbrauch_Einrichtung.pdf?__blob = publicationFile&v = 8 Accessed 29 Aug 2019
• 8 Davies EA, Jones AC. Risk factors in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2013; 20: 146-150
• 9 Devries K, Knight L, Petzold M, Merrill KG, Maxwell L, Williams A, Cappa C, Chan KL, Garcia-Moreno C, Hollis N, Kress H, Peterman A, Walsh SD, Kishor S, Guedes A, Bott S, Butron Riveros BC, Watts C, Abrahams N. Who perpetrates violence against children? A systematic analysis of age-specific and sex-specific data. BMJ Paediatrics Open 2 2018; e000180 doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000180
• 10 Faller KC. Criteria for judging the credibility of children’s statements about their sexual abuse. Child welfare 1988; 67: 389-401
• 11 Fegert JM, Hoffmann U, König E, Niehues J, Liebhardt H. Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Springer Verlag; 2015
• 12 Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015 2015; 64: 1-137
• 13 Herrmann B, Dettmeyer R, Banaschak S, Thyen U. Kindesmisshandlung. Springer Verlag; 2010
• 14 Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D, Lamb ME. Trends in children’s disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child abuse & neglect 2005; 29: 1203-1214
• 15 Hu M-H, Huang G-S, Huang J-L, Wu C-T, Chao A-S, Lo F-S, Wu H-P. Clinical characteristic and risk factors of recurrent sexual abuse and delayed reported sexual abuse in childhood: Medicine 2018; 97: e0236 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010236
• 16 Jänisch S, Meyer H, Germerott T, Schulz Y, Albrecht U, Schmidt A, Debertin AS. Analysis of clinical forensic examination reports on sexually abused children. Arch Kriminol 2010; 225: 18-27
• 17 Jenny C, Crawford-Jakubiak JE. The Evaluation of Children in the Primary Care Setting When Sexual Abuse Is Suspected. Pediatrics 2013; 132: e558 doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1741
• 18 Bowen K, Aldous M. Medical evaluation of sexual abuse in children without disclosed or witnessed abuse. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 1999; 153: 1160-1164 doi: 10.1001/archpedi.153.11.1160
• 19 Karayianni E, Fanti KA, Diakidoy I-A, Hadjicharalambous M-Z, Katsimicha E. Prevalence, contexts, and correlates of child sexual abuse in Cyprus. Child abuse & neglect 2017; 66: 41-52
• 20 Kellogg N. The Evaluation of Sexual Abuse in Children. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 506-512 doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1336
• 21 Lahtinen H-M, Laitila A, Korkman J, Ellonen N. Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse in a population-based sample. Child Abuse & Neglect 2018; 76: 84-94
• 22 Lippert T, Cross TP, Jones L, Walsh W. Telling interviewers about sexual abuse: Predictors of child disclosure at forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment 2009; 14: 100-113
• 23 London K, Bruck M, Wright DB, Ceci SJ. Review of the contemporary literature on how children report sexual abuse to others: Findings, methodological issues, and implications for forensic interviewers. Memory 2008; 16: 29-47
• 24 Rizzo A, Ricard D, La Harpe R, Fracasso T, Yaron M. Female Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Cases Reported at the Geneva University Hospitals Between 2006 and 2014: A Retrospective Study. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology 2020; 33: 260-263
• 25 Smallbone SW, Wortley RK. Child sexual abuse: Offender characteristics and modus operandi. Trends Issues Crime Crim Justice 2001; 193
• 26 Smith TD, Raman SR, Madigan S, Waldman J, Shouldice M. Anogenital Findings in 3569 Pediatric Examinations for Sexual Abuse/Assault. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 2018; 31: 79-83 doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2017.10.006
• 27 Stoltenborgh M, van IJzendoorn MH, Euser EM, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. A Global Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse: Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Around the World. Child Maltreatment 2011; 16: 79-101 doi: 10.1177/1077559511403920
• 28 Witt A, Brown RC, Plener PL, Brähler E, Fegert JM. Child maltreatment in Germany: prevalence rates in the general population. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 2017; 11 doi: 10.1186/s13034-017-0185-0