child witness support and preparation: are parents/caregivers ignored?

Child Witness Support and Preparation 243

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 15: 243–256 (2006)DOI: 10.1002/car

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 25 May 2006

Child WitnessSupport andPreparation: AreParents/CaregiversIgnored?

Over recent decades research has confirmed the sensible belief that toparticipate in criminal proceedings (that were designed for adults) childwitnesses may benefit from support and preparation. This is so evenin countries where special measures have been introduced to makeit less arduous for children to give their testimony (e.g. closed circuittelevision to allow children to testify away from the actual courtroom;video recorded evidence-in-chief). Indeed, it could be argued that asmore and more children provide testimony (e.g. as alleged victims orwitnesses), the more comprehensive should be preparation and supportprogrammes for them.

However, while in some countries preparation and supportprogrammes are now offered to such children, the needs of thesechildren’s (non-offending) parents/caregivers seem to be ignored. Thispaper contends not only that these adults need preparation and supportbut also that the provision of this is likely to benefit child witnesses.Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: witness; support; children; parents

When witnesses testify in court their evidence is requiredto demonstrate completeness, coherence and accuracy

(Reid Howie Associates, 2002). Such competencies can bedifficult for some adults to achieve and this is even more sofor many child witnesses. A plethora of research has docu-mented the difficulties that young witnesses face, not onlyin the courtroom, but also in processes before and after thetrial (Aldridge and Freshwater, 1993; Murray, 1995, 1997;Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001, 2004; Westcott et al., 2002).Over the last ten years there has been a concerted effort tobridge the gap between what is required of child witnesses andwhat their abilities enable them to achieve. This is reflected

Emma CrawfordRay Bull*University of Leicester, Leicester,UK

∗ Correspondence to: Prof R. Bull, Forensic Psychology Section, Univ. of Leicester,Leicester LE1 7RH.E-mail: [email protected]

Child Abuse Review Vol. 15: 243–256 (2006)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.946

‘The needs of thesechildren’s (non-offending) parents/caregivers seem tobe ignored’

244 Crawford and Bull


in articles 12 and 13 of the UN convention on the rights ofthe child:

‘There is an obligation not only to hear a child witness but to free thechild from any constraints or fear, anxiety or distress which inhibit hisevidence.’

Davies and Westcott (1995) suggested that there are twoapproaches to facilitating children’s testimony. The ‘protec-tion school approach’ (p. 201) is systems based and highlightsthe potential of technology such as live television links. Recentlegislation has begun to address such changes. For example,in England and Wales the Youth Justice and Criminal EvidenceAct 1999 gives automatic eligibility for such special measuresto witnesses under 17 years and to those over that age ifthey are vulnerable and if the quality of the evidence to be givenby them is likely to be improved (Bates, 1999). Similar pro-visions are provided by the Vulnerable Witness (Scotland) Act2004.

The second approach identified by Davies and Westcottis the ‘empowerment tradition’ (p. 201) which is more childfocused and aims to strengthen children’s ability to copewith the demands of the trial. One way to achieve this isthrough the provision of child witness support and pre-paration which will be the main focus of this paper. Murray(1997) suggests there are two main objectives of pretrial pre-paration, namely to reduce system related stress and toenhance competency to testify. Consequentially, providingsuch preparation can be seen to benefit not only children butalso the justice system by ensuring that child witnesses giveas accurate and complete an account as they can. A numberof factors can influence children’s testimony including theircommunication, memory, social, cognitive, and emotionalabilities (Saywitz and Synder, 1993) which preparationprogrammes aim to address. As Murray (1997) suggests,‘the necessary skills and confidence are unlikely to developnaturally’ (p. 18).

There is no one model used in the preparation and sup-port of child witnesses within the UK and there is consider-able variation on a national and local level. Despite this,individual programmes do follow a similar pattern, even ifthe approach and focus may differ. Freshwater and Aldridge(1994) provide a useful summary of the components ofpreparation programmes. These are assessment, educationand information, giving testimony, enhancing emotionalresilience, involvement of the carer, liaison, and practicalarrangements and debriefing. The NSPCC/Childline booklet,

‘An obligation notonly to hear a childwitness but to freethe child from anyconstraints or fear,anxiety or distress’

‘There is no onemodel used in thepreparation andsupport of childwitnesses withinthe UK’



Preparing Young Witnesses for Court (1998) reiterates thesecomponents and provides a useful guide for child witnesssupporters. The NSPCC principles state that preparationshould be independent and child focused, taking account ofindividual variations and differences. As the name suggests,however, this is only a guide and how much it is adhered tois unknown.

It has been suggested that an evaluation of such initia-tives is needed (G. Sattar, unpublished PhD thesis, 2000).Such an exercise would highlight the components that aremost effective. It is from Sattar’s recommendation that thefocus of this paper emerged. A full and detailed evaluationof each component would be too extensive for this paper.Instead, it will focus on the involvement of parents and/orcaregivers. The child witness or victim is always the priorityin preparation and support research and literature (NSPCC/Childline, 1998). Such a position is unquestionable. However,while the child must remain the top priority, it is importantto remember that the trauma and stress involved impactsnot only on the child but on the family as a whole. Whilethe research and literature examined does appear to focuson the maternal relationship and for that reason featuresheavily in this paper, it is important to stress at the onsetthe need for non-abusive fathers, siblings and extendedfamily to be included in any discussion around support. Bytheir very nature, families are complex and idiosyncraticand as a result such people can often be heavily involvedand affected by court proceedings. In addition, going to courtfor a young person in any capacity (i.e. as a victim, witnessor bystander) can be equally stress provoking and for thatreason this paper hopes to address the needs of all childwitnesses and not solely those who have been a direct victimof child abuse.

This paper therefore proposes to examine more closely thepsychological literature that supports the involvement ofparents/caregivers and what psychological and emotionalbenefits this may bring. A brief overview of what the situationis at present for parents and caregivers of child witnesseswill be given and then future needs and crucial issues will beconsidered.

Parental Attachment

The area of attachment is vast and complex and a fulloverview is not appropriate here. However, it is important tohave some understanding of the role of attachment, with a

‘The need for non-abusive fathers,siblings andextended family tobe included in anydiscussion aroundsupport’



particular focus on how this may influence or affect the childwitness. Of particular interest within this paper is the role thatparental attachment can play in children’s ability to cope withstress and how it links with their memory for events. Suchfactors play a key role in the quality of young witnesses’ testi-mony and are important considerations for preparation andsupport (Reid Howie Associates, 2002).

Bowlby’s attachment theory is an amalgamation of ecologi-cal and developmental psychology (Howe, 1995). His earlierwork focused on how infants experience considerable anxietywhen separated from their primary caregiver. He concludedthat this response was due to an innate system designed toencourage proximity between vulnerable infants and theirstronger caregivers. How this is expressed depends to a greatextent on the infant’s history of interactions with attachmentfigures (Rholes et al., 1998). Going on from this, Ainsworthet al. (1978) identified three fundamental patterns of attach-ment behaviour: anxious-ambivalent, avoidant and secure.Infants who have anxious-ambivalent relationships with theircaregivers often fear abandonment and rejection and makeconflicting attempts to get their support. This behaviour is saidto reflect their uncertainty about the caregivers’ availability andwillingness to provide support. Infants who develop avoidantrelationships demonstrate a discomfort with close relationshipsand do not actively seek support from their caregivers whenthey are distressed. Finally, infants who are considered to havesecure relationships with their caregivers use them as a sourceof comfort and support to control feelings of distress (Rholeset al., 1998).

Attachment theory centres on the fundamental role thatrelationships play in understanding personality formation,emotional development and interpersonal behaviour (Howe,1995). While attachment behaviour is most evident in earlychildhood when the infant is particularly reliant on thecaregiver, such behaviour is said to be sustained and ‘held tocharacterize human beings from the cradle to the grave’(Bowlby, 1988, p. 28). Adults rely on their attachmentsystems in stressful and threatening situations and thesecontinue to influence their behaviour in key roles, such asadult interpersonal relationships (Rholes et al., 1998) andrelationships with their children (Weede-Alexander et al.,2002). There is increasing evidence that there is an inter-generational transmission of attachment patterns (Goldberg,1999) such that parents’/caregivers’ reactions, coping re-sponses, and interaction patterns affect how children learn toreact to their own experiences and consequentially their attach-ment status (Weede-Alexander et al., 2002).

‘Such factors playa key role in thequality of youngwitnesses’testimony’

‘Adults rely on theirattachment systemsin stressful andthreateningsituations’



Attachment, Stress and Memory

Research into the relationship between attachment, stress andmemory has often utilised early medical experiences, whichcan be both unfamiliar and stressful. Weede-Alexander et al.(2002) interviewed 51 children between three and seven yearsabout a vaccination they received two weeks previously.Using measures of parental attachment style and children’sstress levels they found that parental attachment anxiety andthe interaction between parental avoidance and children’sstress predicted children’s memory for the inoculation.Memory measures were found to be largely unrelated to chil-dren’s stress until parental attachment was considered.

However, although this experience was stressful to anextent, it lasted only five minutes. Goodman et al. (1997)tested memory for a more stressful medical test. Voidingcystourethogram fluroscopy (VCUG) is a procedure thatinvolves the patient being catheterised through the urethra andexamined. Goodman et al. suggest that this approximates insome respects to sexual assault due to the penetration andtouching of genital areas and is an experience that is stressful,painful and embarrassing. While there are clearly limitationsin drawing this comparison, which will be discussed later,this procedure offers an ethical viable opportunity to examineissues related to memory and stress in children. Their resultsshowed that as well as children’s age, parental attachmentscores were significantly related to children’s level of distressduring the procedure, and to their memory for that procedurea number of weeks afterwards. Children of more securelyattached parents made significantly fewer memory errors thanthose of insecurely attached.

How does Attachment influence Stress andMemory?

Weede-Alexander et al. (2002) suggest that parental attach-ment may influence how parents react during a stressful event,thereby influencing how the child interprets that event, andwhat the child focuses on to remember of that event. It alsoinfluences how parents communicate and interact with theirchild which impacts on how children narrate emotional events(Goodman et al., 1997).

Insecure parents may respond negatively to emotional situa-tions, dismissing them or avoiding discussing the issues aroundthem. This may therefore limit their children’s opportunityto rehearse the information that may well strengthen their

‘Parentalattachment scoreswere significantlyrelated to children’slevel of distress’



memory of an event (Weede-Alexander et al., 2002). Further-more, if parents are overwhelmed or anxious they will be lessable to provide emotional support to their child (Davis andSiegel, 2000), give physical comfort and attend to their child’sreactions (Goodman et al., 1997). Conversely, secure parentsmay enhance a child’s processing capabilities and memorythrough open discussion of stressful experiences. Goodmanet al. (1997) found that secure mothers provided more physi-cal comfort and emotional support.

Relevance to Child Witness Support andPreparation

There are limitations when trying to generalise from theresults of such studies to the area of child witnessing. It isimportant to highlight these concerns at the outset beforedemonstrating their relevance to child witness support andpreparation.

Firstly, the context and environment in which the abovestressful experiences occurred is probably different from thatexperienced by many victims or witnesses of a crime. Whilemedical procedures such as vaccinations may be stressful,they are both short term and socially sanctioned. Similarly,although the VCUG procedure studied by Goodman et al.(1997) was no doubt stressful, painful and embarrassingto a greater extent than an inoculation, it took place underconsiderably less traumatic conditions than sexual or physi-cal abuse. For the majority of children, this procedure wascarried out only once and thus was not the often longterm catalogue of traumatic events that some abused childrensuffer.

The questioning of the child regarding their memory for theevent was also different from a forensic investigation with achild witness. There was no suggestion that medical staff mayhave done anything wrong or any accusations that the childmight not be telling the truth.

Lastly, a notable difference is the nature of parental involve-ment. In medical procedures, such as those studied, theparent is a bystander. In contrast, the (non-abusing) parentof a child witness may be more heavily involved and affectedby the events and its outcomes. The legal process can take asubstantial emotional toll on parents and other family mem-bers (Murray, 1997). Also, they may, for example, have arelationship with the perpetrator or be a victim themselves.

It can be argued that if attachment plays a key role inthe emotional and psychological well-being of children in

‘Secure parentsmay enhance achild’s processingcapabilities andmemory throughopen discussionof stressfulexperiences’

‘Was not the oftenlong term catalogueof traumatic eventsthat some abusedchildren suffer’



daily and occasional stresses (Valiente et al., 2004), thenits importance in a highly stressful event in which both theparent and the child are affected is even greater. Murray(1997) states that children’s psychological reactions to thewitness role are, among other factors, influenced by theirparents’ reaction and support. Runyan (1993) noted a signifi-cant relationship between maternal support and children’sdepression and self image scores in abuse cases, to the extentthat mothers who showed low support had children withsignificantly poorer scores on each of these factors.

Such findings advocate the need for a family systemsapproach to child witness support and preparation (Murray,1997). In the same way that Howe (1995) suggests that it isthrough gaining an understanding of an individual’s socialenvironment that their psychological development and attach-ment style can be comprehended, an understanding of thatenvironment can facilitate an appreciation of the specific needsof child witnesses and their families. As Murray (1997, pp. 9–10) succinctly acknowledges:

‘just as children’s competence and credibility as witnesses cannotbe considered apart from the adult environment in which statementsand testimony are given, child victims’ mental health is best understoodif their experience as witnesses is seen in the context of life outside thepolice station, the prosecutor’s office and the courtroom’.

The family can be a very important resource to the child(Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001). It is they who often have themost sustained contact with the child, who can know theirchild best, and who have to deal with the long term conse-quences of the court process. Also, they are what remain whenthe court experience is over. It may be potentially detrimentalto offer support and preparation to the child in isolation fromthe parent. For example, adults have been shown to have alack of understanding and knowledge about the court process(Aldridge and Freshwater, 1994; Flin et al., 1989) and suchmiscomprehension is easily transmitted to the child. Teach-ing a child relaxation and anxiety management techniques willprobably be largely fruitless if they return to a house wherethere is a highly stressed parent. Providing preparation andsupport to both could give some sense of continuity. Equip-ping parents with the skills to help support and prepare theirchildren can strengthen and extend the work undertaken bychild supporters. Providing support to them and their childrencan be of benefit throughout the trial and beyond, and aidthe long term psychological adjustment of both. The sup-port of the mother has been found to be one of the most

‘Such findingsadvocate the needfor a familysystems approachto child witnesssupport andpreparation’

‘The support of themother has beenfound to be one ofthe most significantfactors regardingthis adjustment’



significant factors regarding this adjustment (Dezwirek-Saset al., 1993).

In intra familial abuse loyalties can often be strongly divided(Runyan, 1993). This may result in the child being blamed orisolated from the family. If parental support and attachmentare as influential as research suggests, such reactions can in-tensify the stress and anxiety experienced by the child witness.Runyan (1993) suggests facilitating the process of developingthe (non-abusing) mother’s empathy and support for her child.Cognitive behavioural approaches could also be used withparents and children.

It is under such circumstances that child witnesses couldespecially benefit from external support to assist both them andtheir family. It may also be the case that his/her relationshipwith the family is such that the child does not wish forthem to be involved. Extra support would be needed bychild witnesses in such circumstances to counterbalance thelack of parental support available (e.g. from witness supportschemes).

Such interventions require time and resources that maynot be readily accessible in the current climate of prepara-tion schemes. However, a big impact can be made simply fromkeeping families informed and providing support. For childwitness supporters, an awareness and appreciation of the im-portance of parental support and attachment is an importantfirst step. Gaining an understanding of the child’s family situ-ation and identifying any potential issues can allow the sup-porter to tailor the support and preparation they give.

Relevance to the Courtroom

While this paper is focused mainly on the support and prepara-tion of child witnesses before and after the trial, the issue ofattachment also has important implications within the court-room which should be touched upon. There is continuingdebate over who should support and accompany the childwhen they go to court and testify (Plotnikoff and Woolfson,2001). Attachment research indicates that in such stressful andunfamiliar circumstances, the presence and support of anattachment figure could be highly beneficial to the youngperson. Such a provision is often difficult to put into practice(Reid Howie Associates, 2002), especially in cases where theparent is also required to give evidence and contaminationis a concern. However, it does give weight to the use of asupport person who is at least familiar to the child and notsimply an available court room usher (Davies and Noon,

‘A big impact canbe made simplyfrom keepingfamilies informedand providingsupport’



1991). This reiterates a point noted by Myers (1996) thatdespite high tech solutions like video links, a great deal morecan be accomplished with the low tech solution of afamiliar face. In the UK court-based ‘witness supporters’ arebecoming more widely available, but guardians (and similarothers) could play such a role.

The importance of providing support to parents has notbeen totally overlooked in some of the child witness prepara-tion literature. For example, the NSPCC/Childline (1998)handbook for supporters reiterates the importance of involv-ing the child’s parent or carer and provides guidance on whatthe supporter’s role should be. How much this is adhered toin practice is not clear. A review of practices is beyond thescope of this paper. However, a number of reports and sur-veys have been carried out within the UK which can offer someindication of the current situation for both child witnessesand their families (Murray, 1997; Reid Howie Associates,2002; Sattar and Bull, 1995; Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001).Overall, the general impression from these reports is thatchild witness support and preparation is ‘ad-hoc’ (Murray,1997, p. 25). It therefore comes as no surprise that thesupport given to parents and caregivers follows a similar, ifnot more sporadic pattern. Difficulties in providing supportand preparation to child witnesses mean that availableresources and efforts are concentrated on them. Providingsupport to parents is an added bonus. An inconsistency inservices to child witnesses therefore automatically precludeseffective service to parents.

Obtaining the opinions and experiences of parents and childwitnesses provides an opportunity to gain a realistic perspec-tive on the support and preparation they receive (Plotnikoffand Wolfson, 2004). Murray (1997) interviewed child wit-nesses and mothers as part of an evaluation study into the useof a live television link in Scottish courts which gave her anopportunity to explore their anxieties about the court case andtheir opinions of the support offered. Murray found that fewparents received support although many would have valuedthe opportunity. Those who did receive support benefited fromthe presence of well-intentioned individuals who often wentbeyond their job descriptions. Unfortunately, such help wasnot uniformly available, with some mothers making a fruitlesseffort to find a support group. A lack of information regard-ing the trial and its outcomes was identified as frustratingboth pre and post trial. Aldridge and Freshwater’s (1993)pilot project to develop a preparation programme for childwitnesses received positive feedback from mothers, althoughthe majority proposed the development of a parallel

‘A lack ofinformationregarding the trialand its outcomeswas identified asfrustrating both preand post trial’

‘A great dealmore can beaccomplishedwith the low techsolution of afamiliar face’



programme for themselves. Clearly the demand for parentalsupport is there.

A support and preparation pilot undertaken in Glasgowprovides a suitable illustration of the benefits of a scheme thatincludes parents (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001). One of thekey principles highlighted was that ‘those preparing the childmust work in partnership with non-abusing parents and carers’(p. 34). The objectives of the pilot were to provide supportand information to carers and to help both the child and thefamily cope with stress and anxiety. An independent childwitness officer (CWO) provided practical guidance andfactual information to parents, helping to demystify the pro-cess. It is important to note that such information is availablethrough leaflets, for example NSPCC literature. However, itcould be argued that, as with children, parents reading suchmaterial may not be enough particularly under stressful cir-cumstances when their comprehension may be reduced. It isdifficult to know how many parents actually read such mate-rial and research into this would be helpful.

In addition, a successful part of this pilot was the emotionalsupport given to parents. Plotnikoff and Woolfson (2001)suggested that parents often demonstrate reluctance to expresstheir feelings for fear of upsetting their child. Murray (1997) alsofound that parents were unlikely to look to friends or neighboursfor support because of the perceived stigma or resulting gossip.

Studies such as these demonstrate that involving the par-ents is not only possible but may well be beneficial to bothchildren and their parents.

Barriers to Parental Involvement

Despite numerous recommendations, there is no single statu-tory body that oversees child witness support and preparation.Instead, police, social work, the Procurator Fiscal, the CrownProsecution Service, charities and voluntary organisations canundertake the role. This results in wide discrepancies in theinitiatives used. As Hallet (1992, p. 141 cited in Murray, 1997)acknowledged:

‘different professionals and agencies have different knowledge base,different techniques of intervention, different operational priorities inrespect of abused children, differing degrees of professional freedom orbureaucratic control and different time scales’.

Local schemes can differ greatly depending on factors suchas who the lead agency is, their funding, and what resources

‘Practical guidanceand factualinformation toparents, helping todemystify theprocess’



they have in terms of time and personnel. It may be the casethat restrictions in these areas mean that parental involve-ment cannot be a priority. Research has suggested that thereis often confusion over who is ultimately responsible for thepreparation and support of young witnesses, which may alsoextend to confusion over who informs or supports parents(Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001).

Even with the diversity of agencies available, assistance isstill determined more by case characteristics than by the needsof individual children and this in itself results in a number ofwitnesses and their families receiving little or no support. Forexample, young people who are a victim of assault outside thefamily can be deemed to be beyond the remit of social serviceassistance, the agency most often involved in child witnessissues (Sattar and Bull, 1995). Other groups that are lesslikely to receive adequate support are those involved in lessserious cases and bystanders (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001).An unsettling example of this suggested by Plotnikoff andWoolfson could be a young person who witnesses a homicidereceiving little or no support.

A very real concern for those working with young witnessesis a fear of coaching (Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 2001). Inother words doing anything to prepare the child that may beconstrued as rehearsing their evidence. Such actions couldhave a detrimental effect on the court case, providing defencelawyers with ammunition to exploit issues of suggestibilityand may lead to the eventual collapse of a case. Preparationliterature strongly states that the child’s evidence shouldnot be discussed or rehearsed (NSPCC/Childline, 1998).However, a lack of externally provided support may inadvert-ently lead to ‘coaching’ by parents of child witnesses in thatparents may be unaware of the potential implications oftheir actions. Preparation and support can play a key rolein informing parents who may not otherwise know of suchdangers.

Clearly, adequate training is needed for supporters to en-sure that coaching does not occur. At the same time it is alsoimportant to inform and educate judges and lawyers about theaims of preparation programmes to ensure their perceptionsare accurate (Murray, 1997). This is hindered to some extentby the diversity of preparation schemes mentioned above. Aunified preparation programme would make this task a greatdeal easier. Differences across countries in the court systemsin which children actually testify should not unduly constrainsuch developments, nor should the fact that children rarelytestify in civil proceedings preclude support for their parentswho customarily do testify.

‘Assistance isstill determinedmore by casecharacteristics thanby the needs ofindividual children’

‘Adequate trainingis needed forsupporters toensure thatcoaching doesnot occur’



Conclusion

In some countries the situation for child witnesses has im-proved over the last 20 years and preparation and supportprogrammes have played a part in this progression. However,Saywitz and Synder (1993, p. 119) rightly caution:

‘preparation alone will not eliminate the mismatch between the require-ments of the system and the capabilities, limitations and needs of youngpeople’.

Nevertheless, this should not detract from the benefits thatadequate preparation and support can bring to the childwitness, their family, and the justice system as a whole.

The challenge remains to provide a consistent service to allchild witnesses and their families. A systematic and unifiedapproach to preparation and support programmes is needed.This would also facilitate comprehensive evaluations of whatis and is not working. At present, the patchwork of prepara-tion programmes not only means that evaluation is difficult, italso makes it difficult to relate the findings from evaluationsof one programme to others, a point raised over ten years ago(Mellor and Dent, 1994). The concern is that a continuationof this disorganised pattern will result in the same commentbeing made ten years from now.

This paper contends that parental involvement should beaccounted for in the preparation and support given to youngwitnesses. While the focus has been on the maternal relation-ship it is important that non-abusive fathers, siblings andextended family are not excluded. By their very nature, fami-lies are complex and idiosyncratic and as a result it may notalways be clear how supporters can respond. Clearly, trainingon such matters is important.

References

Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S. 1978. Patterns of Attach-ment. Erlbaum: Newark, New Jersey.

Aldridge J, Freshwater K. 1994. The preparation of child witnesses.Journal of Child Law 5: 25–27.

Bates, P. 1999. The youth justice and criminal evidence act – theevidence of children and vulnerable adults. Child and Family LawQuarterly 11: 289–303.

Bowlby J. 1988. A Secure Base. Routledge: London.Davies G, Noon E. 1991. An Evaluation of the Live Link for Child

Witnesses. Home Office: London.Davies G, Westcott H. 1995. The child witness in the courtroom:

Empowerment or protection? In Memory and Testimony in the

‘A systematic andunified approachto preparationand supportprogrammesis needed’



Child Witness, Zaragoza MS, Graham JR, Hall GCN, Ben-Porath YS(eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, California.

Davis L, Siegel LJ. 2000. Posttraumatic stress disorder in childrenand adolescents: A review and analysis. Clinical Child and FamilyPsychology Review 3: 135–154.

Dezwirek-Sas LD, Harvey P, Hatch A, Malla A, Dick T. 1993. A longitudi-nal study of the social and psychological adjustment of child witnessesreferred to the Child Witness Project. Canada, London Family Court.

Flin RH, Stevenson Y, Daives GM. 1989. Children’s knowledge of courtproceedings. British Journal of Psychology 80: 285–297.

Freshwater K, Aldridge J. 1994. The knowledge and fears about court ofchild witnesses, school children and adults. Child Abuse Review 3:183–195.

Goldberg H. 1999. Recent developments in attachment theory andresearch. In Developmental Psychology, Slater A, Muir D (eds).Blackwell Publishers: Oxford; 360–374.

Goodman GS, Quas JA, Batterman-Faunce JM, Riddlesberger MM,Kuhn J. 1997. Children’s reactions to and memory of a stressfulevent: Influnces of age, anatomical dolls, knowledge, and parentalattachment. Applied Developmental Science 1: 54–75.

Howe D. 1995. Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice. MacmillanPress: London.

Mellor A, Dent HR. 1994. Preparation of the child witness for court.Child Abuse Review 3: 165–176.

Murray K. 1995. Live Television Link: An Evaluation of its Use byChild Witnesses in Scottish Criminal Trials. The Scottish Office:Edinburgh.

Murray K. 1997. Preparing Child Witnesses for Court: A Review of Litera-ture and Research. The Scottish Office: Edinburgh.

Myers JEB. 1996. A decade of international reform to accommodatechild witnesses. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23: 402.

NSPCC/Childline. 1998. Preparing Young Witnesses for Court. A Hand-book for Child Witness Supporters. NSPCC/Childline: London.

Plotnikoff J, Woolfson R. 2001. An Evaluation of Child Witness Support.Scottish Executive Central Research Unit: Edinburgh.

Plotnikoff J, Woolfson R. 2004. In their own words: The Experiences of50 Young Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings. NSPCC: London.

Reid Howie Associates 2002. Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses:Review of Provisions in other Jurisdictions. Scottish Executive CentralResearch Unit: Edinburgh.

Rholes WS, Simpson JA, Stevens JG. 1998. Attachment orientations,social support and conflict resolution in close relationships. In Attach-ment Theory and Close Relationships, Simpson JA, Rholes WS (eds).Guilford Press: New York; 166–180.

Runyan DK. 1993. The emotional impact of societal intervention intochild abuse. In Child Victims, Child Witnesses, Goodman GS, BottomsBL (eds). The Guilford Press: New York; 263–278.

Sattar G, Bull R. 1995. Preparing the child witness. Policing journal 11:155–170.

Saywitz KJ, Synder L. 1993. Improving children’s testimony withpreparation. In Child Victims, Child Witnesses, Goodman GS, BottomsBL (eds). The Guilford Press: New York; 117–146.

Valiente C, Fabes RA, Eisenberg N, Spinard TL. 2004. The relations ofparental expressivity and support to children’s coping with daily stress.Journal of Family Psychology 18: 97–106.



Weede Alexander K, Goodman GS, Schaaf JM, Edelstein RS, Quas JA,Shaver PR. 2002. The role of attachment and cognitive inhibitionin children’s memory and suggestibility for a stressful event. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology 83: 262–290.

Westcott H, Davies G, Bull R. 2002. Children’s Testimony. Wiley:Chichester.

child witness support and preparation: are parents/caregivers ignored?

Documents