Justice Professionals’ Lens on Familial Trafficking Cases
Article by Jeanne Allert.
Of the 30+ forms of human trafficking that exist worldwide, family-facilitated trafficking of minors receives little attention in the United States. This original research study sought to identify the prevalence, characteristics, and challenges associated with familial trafficking cases as experienced by justice professionals in the areas of case identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim services. The study included a survey and in-depth interviews leading to recommendations for increased training, improved data collection and reporting, heeding minors’ testimony, and expanding our victim service options.
The Albuquerque Journal headline reads: “Father gets 20 years for neglect.” James Stewart was found guilty on three counts of human trafficking for forcing three of his children to panhandle to support his drug habit (Barnitz, 2019), and yet the story behind the headline is not so straightforward. In 2017, the 7-year-old daughter of James Stewart and Teri Sanchez went to school with blood-stained underpants and once discovered, disclosed to school staff that she and her mother would “hustle.” This led to an investigation that resulted in charging Stewart with intoxicating and prostituting his elementary-age child at a local strip club (Associated Press, 2018). That case ended in a mistrial based on prohibited testimony. Later, both parents were charged with two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor involving yet another child, their older daughter.
The United States has formally recognized the commercial sexual exploitation of minors as sex trafficking since 2000 with the Trafficking in Persons Protection Act. The law made it clear that a minor engaged in commercial sex was not a criminal but rather was to be considered a victim under the law. Anti-trafficking advocates decry: “no child wakes up and wants to become a prostitute.” The phrase is intentionally jarring, to force us to think—and respond—differently. While strides have been made in thinking differently about victims, one might argue that much of today’s sex trafficking awareness programming limits our understanding of perpetrators. The Modern-Day Slave Master has too often been drawn as a cunning and patient outsider, an in-the-shadows manipulator, able to exert control through promises, money, drugs, and romance. Now, 20 years into the anti-trafficking movement within the United States, another reality is to be confronted: that sometimes the perpetrator is not an outsider but rather a threat residing within the home and heart of the victim.'
In 2005, the National Juvenile Prostitution Study interviewed over 2,600 law enforcement professionals to ascertain their experiences of cases dealing with juveniles involved in prostitution.1 Among the findings were that 12% of juveniles were exploited by a family member (Mitchell et al., 2010). The 2019 Data Report from the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline reported that familial relationship was the second most common form of induction into commercial sex (Polaris, 2019).
Screening tools do not necessarily ascertain the relationship of the perpetrator to the minor victim (Raphael, 2019), and it is well established that children who are sexually abused in the home, including those who are victims of incestuous abuse, are less likely to report (Herman, 2000; Raphael, 2019; Schlesinger, 2019). Therefore, we rely on frontline responders, who are both trained and experienced in human trafficking cases, to shed light on this form of sexual exploitation of children. The limited research on this topic suggests that cases of familial exploitation are rarely identified, but those that have are more often discerned by healthcare providers, child welfare workers, education providers, or law enforcement professionals (Sprang & Cole, 2018). This study selected law enforcement providers as the survey population because of their longitudinal relationship to a case and the likelihood of their involvement across various phases of a case including identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim services. Therefore, this study seeks to add to the literature about what is known on the prevalence, characteristics, and challenges of familial sex trafficking of minor cases in the United States, as experienced by justice professionals across those phases.
Literature Review
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ, 2020), 34% of child sexual abuse is inflicted by a family member. Ninety-four percent of sex trafficking survivors from one shelter program reported childhood sexual abuse, 70% by a family member (The Samaritan Women, 2021). Familial trafficking, like intrafamilial sexual abuse (or incest), is an unspoken, yet distinct, form of abuse against children (Ford & Courtois, 2020). Federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 1591 outlines the legal elements of a child sex trafficking crime:
it is a federal offense to knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a minor knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor and would be caused to engage in…any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person. In other words, it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors, or some other kind of benefit. When the victim is a minor, Section 1591 does not require proof that the defendant used force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion, or any combination of those means, to cause the minor to engage in a commercial sex act. (U.S. DOJ, 2020)
One study contrasting intrafamilial to extrafamilial child sexual abuse found that verbal threat was the significantly more common form of coercion in intrafamilial cases and physical threat in extrafamilial (Magalhães et al., 2009). Dr. Judith Herman (2000) argues that “the question of whether force is involved is largely irrelevant, since force is rarely necessary to obtain compliance. The parent’s authority over the child is usually sufficient to compel obedience” (p. 27).
There is no legal distinction for when the commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is at the hand of a related party; however, child abuse and incest literature offer considerable argument that the psychological, relational, and spiritual effects on the child are more acute when the perpetrator has the unique access, power, confinement, and the emotional tie of a familial relationship. (Boon, 1986; Cook et al., 2017; Gekoski & Broome, 2019; Herman, 2000; Koçtürk & Yüksel, 2019; Silbert & Pines, 1983; Sprang & Cole, 2018).
Prevalence
To date, there has been inadequate research on the topic of familial sex trafficking (sometimes referred to as family-facilitated trafficking). The scant collection of studies on familial trafficking suggests a wide prevalence range, from 3% to 44% of child trafficking cases (Raphael, 2019). Two studies of child sex trafficking cases in Kentucky yielded that 61.9% of cases (Cole & Anderson, 2013) and over half the cases in the past 5 years were familial (Middleton et al., 2019). While the prevalence numbers on cases of familial trafficking are difficult to derive, we must anticipate that the current conditions of our world (lockdowns, unemployment, children not in school, etc.) lend fuel to the possibility of more cases. According to the Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities and the National Center for Fatality Review and Prevention, prominent risk factors for child deaths include social isolation, financial insecurity, familial stress, parents with untreated mental health and substance abuse disorders, and domestic violence in the home—all of which are on the rise as the nation copes with the government-imposed mandates to isolate and lockdown. These elevated risks weigh heavily, knowing that child maltreatment already claims the lives of thousands of children every year (Bunn & Harfeld, 2020).
Characteristics
Studies suggest that children trafficked by family members are exploited at a younger age (Magalhães et al., 2009; Middleton et al., 2019) and endure a higher number of sexual abuse transactions (Gragg et al., 2007; Raphael, 2019). The Sprang & Cole (2018) study found the average age of a victim of familial trafficking in the United States to be 5 years old, with some children victimized as early as infancy. In intrafamilial sexual abuse cases, the perpetrator is more often the biological father, stepfather, or mother’s paramour (Koçtürk & Yüksel, 2019; Magalhães et al., 2009; Silbert & Pines, 1983). In the commercial sexual exploitation of children by family members, the biological mother was the perpetrator in 63%–64.5% of cases (Reid et al., 2015). In another study in which all traffickers involved were family members, nearly 65% were the mother of the victim and 32% were the victim’s father (Sprang & Cole, 2018).
An important distinction between incestuous child abuse and familial child sex trafficking is the presence of an economic exchange, regardless of the form of commerce. The most common motive for familial trafficking is financial gain (Reid et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2019). Estes and Weiner (2001) identified four economic categories of sexually exploited children living at home: (1) those who are exploited to raise money to support drug habits, (2) those who use commercial sex to buy more expensive consumer goods, (3) those who engage in prostitution with their own peers, and (4) those whose exploitation is approved by the child’s parent(s) as it contributes to the household economy. Raphael (2019) argues that our tendency to fixate on an immoral or demonic characterization of the parent buries the monetary motivation and obscures the organization of the sex trade in the United States that encourages these acts.
Some think of familial trafficking as occurring only within the home, but the location is not the distinctive element. Children exploited by family members may be abused within the home, driven to buyer locations, and taken to parties and venues where sexual abuse of children is a part of the experience. With the ubiquitous and private nature of video recording technology, the proliferation of pornographic websites, image-swapping communities, and the Dark Web, there is also a disturbing ease by which family members can exploit children in the home to manufacture pornography, which provides another income stream. The U.S. Federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children explicitly states that any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in…any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided. The Eastern District of Virginia indicted Hooper, a 53-year-old man, for producing child pornography of two children, ages 14 and 15. He paid a woman to transport the children to him, to secure specific clothing, and take photos of the juveniles in simulated sex scenes. The woman in this case was the mother of the 15-year-old girl (Hamilton, 2020). Hooper received a life sentence for sexual exploitation of a child under the manufacture and distribution of pornography (Wavy, 2021). The mother was charged with sex trafficking a minor.
Challenges
There is a shroud of secrecy that insulates a child from disclosure or from outsiders catching suspicion (Ford & Courtois, 2020). In the Silbert and Pines (1983) study, 63% of the intrafamilial abuse victims never told anyone about their lives at home and the abuse they suffered. The emotional proximity between the victim and abuser and the high threat level make disclosure from the victim and detection by a third party more difficult (Katz & Field, 2020; Magalhães et al., 2009). James Stewart’s crimes against his daughter were only uncovered because a schoolteacher was observant and trained enough to ask questions. Crimes occurring within the home and the confines of the family system are more difficult to detect. According to the Polaris (2017) Project Typologies of Modern Slavery report, residential (in the home) trafficking tends to more often involve minor victims and include coercive components such as confinement, drugs, threats of harm, or threats to the familial relationship. There is often a desire in the child victim to protect the perpetrator (Koçtürk & Yüksel, 2019) or at least protect the family system. Comparing the perception of threat in familial trafficking to that of incest, we consider that “no matter how miserable the daughter may be, she is likely to remain silent as along as she fears that a word from her will loose the full vengeance of the law upon her parent, her family, herself” (Herman, 2000, p. 163). As noted by Katz and Field (2020), “there is a world and a reality that the child shares only with his/her abuser, which is why s/he may feel their abuser is the only one who truly knows them” (p. 5). In a child’s economy, the risk of losing this primary relationship is more devastating than the abuse they must suffer to keep it (Herman, 2000). Additionally, almost 60% of familial trafficking victims have ongoing contact with their trafficker, making it exceedingly difficult for children and youth to remove themselves from harmful situations and protect themselves—both physically and psychologically (Sprang & Cole, 2018).
Familial trafficking may also be one of the most underdetected crimes because society is either ignorant to the fact that families profiting from the exploitation of children is trafficking (Smith et al., 2009) or we do not want to believe that a parent or close relative would perpetrate such abuse against a child and for commercial gain. The bias of belief can have a powerful effect on what we allow ourselves to see. Salter (2003), expert on sexual predators, points out: “[Personal bias does] half the work for the offender. If you have an unconscious bias toward discounting the accusation, you will look for signs that bolster your belief, not for signs that challenge it” (p. 204). Idealism about family or parenthood may cloud one’s perception of these cases and color our systems of response.
Purpose of the Study
This descriptive research study sought to add to the scant literature on familial trafficking and specifically, to develop an understanding of these cases through the lens of the justice professionals in the United States. The research question guiding this study was: What can we understand about the prevalence, characteristics, and challenges associated with the domestic familial trafficking of minors, as experienced by justice professionals? The intent of this descriptive research was to produce statistical information that would inform our understanding of how familial trafficking presents and provoke further study. As such, observations and recommendations are organized around the phases of the justice process including identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim services and conclude with recommendations and a discussion on the impact of these cases on the professionals who work them.
Method
Institutional review board approval for this descriptive study was obtained from Regent University. A 31-item survey instrument was created from observations presented in the Raphael (2019), Sprang and Cole (2018), and Reid et al. (2015) studies. The survey was issued to justice professionals nationally using email invitation to a web-based survey tool and open for response during the period of September 28, 2020, through December 19, 2020. Emails were sent to Offices of the Attorney General in every state and to contacts in state- or city-level human trafficking task forces listed with the DOJ or the Department of Health and Human Services. The International Association of Human Trafficking Investigators also helped to promote the survey opportunity. Responses were confined to justice professionals engaged in human trafficking cases, namely, law enforcement, attorney/court professionals, and social workers/victim advocates. Forty professionals responded to the survey. Responses were configured to be anonymous, with the respondent’s option of voluntarily providing contact information at the conclusion of the inquiry.
Seven justice professionals were interviewed subsequent to their survey participation. Semistructured interviews were conducted using videoconferencing with recording and transcription, or via telephone only, as the interviewee preferred. Interviewees represented the states of Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Each interview was 75–90 min, and participants were provided with questions in advance. The purpose of the interviews was to provide context and thick description to their survey responses. Interview transcripts were then analyzed and coded for central themes.
Results
Forty responses were received within the survey period. Two responses were from nonjustice professionals and were omitted from the analysis, leaving a final data set of 38 responses. This sample represented 17 different states, with Wisconsin offering the most responses at seven and Kentucky and Florida at five respondents each.
Twenty-seven percent of the respondents’ case jurisdictions was national. Thirty-seven percent handled cases only at a state or multistate level. Twenty-four percent of respondents had jurisdiction limited to a single county, city, or town. These professionals tended to work cases for all ages of victims (83%) and all citizenships of victims (63%). Very few justice professionals specialized by victim demographic.
The largest percentage (33%) of respondents represented local or state police agencies; however, many indicated that they were also deputized by federal agencies (Federal Bureau of Investigations or Homeland Security Investigations) and/or served as a member of a federal task force which expands their case reach. Most of the respondents (52.6%) were investigators or department directors over the unit responsible for trafficking crimes. The sample also included prosecuting attorney (10.5%), forensic interviewer (8%), and victim advocate (6%). Their combined years of experience handling domestic human trafficking cases totaled 305 years (M = 8.02 years).
Prevalence
The survey asked respondents to confine their replies to cases of sex trafficking handled within the past 3 years (2018–2020). Within that boundary, this sample represented 1,696 cases of sex trafficking. There were two outliers in terms of total number of cases. Those two respondents reported 300 and 600 trafficking cases since 2018, leaving 36 respondents who were responsible for 796 cases (M = 22.10). Eight respondents did not indicate how many familial trafficking cases were included in their caseload over the past 3 years. Thirty reported 156 cases that were distinctly familial trafficking. It is worth clarifying that the analysis in this report will reflect the full data set of 38 responses, as several justice professionals reported that the distinction of a familial case is not as clear as we would like for statistical purposes. There is not a discrete charge for familial trafficking, and cases that involve familial perpetrators can end up being recorded as child abuse, child endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, sexual assault, coercion and enticement (18 USC 2422), or other types of crimes, thereby making this an inexact accounting exercise. As one survey respondent noted:
the child is not made aware of the exchange of goods/money/something of value and the case is recorded as child sex abuse. The child victim witness is unable to testify to the commercial exchange because they [sic] did not witness it.
Despite how these cases may have been resolved in (or out) of court, is valuable to learn from the experiences of these professionals and the confounding issues associated with these types of cases.
Characteristics
Victims
Of the 1,696 trafficking cases represented in this sample, 502 minor victims were encountered. Of those, 307 were reported as involved in familial cases. Eighty-four percent of those minor victims were between the ages of 14 and 17, 13% between the ages of 10 and 13, 0.03% between the ages of 6 and 9, and less than 1% between the ages of 1 and 5. Ninety-three percent of minor victims were female and 7% were male. This study did not inquire as to the age of the child at first commercial exploitation but only reflects the age of the child when encountered by a justice professional.
The following risk factors (Table 1) were identified by the justice professionals as present in all or most of the cases referenced in this study. It is important to caveat that these factors may have existed but may not have been readily apparent during the judicial process.
Economics
The economic strategies used in all or most of the cases included sex acts with the minor exchanged for cash 51.3% (M = 2.78, SD = 1.56), sex acts with the minor exchanged for material goods or services (e.g., rent) 30.3% (M = 3.49, SD = 1.56), and sex acts with the minor exchanged for drugs 20.6% (M = 3.50, SD = 1.37). In the current study, two of the write-in comments offered other forms of criminal conduct, such as individuals coming across (the border) claiming children as their own, when they were not.
Venues
Most minor victims in this sample were in the 13–17 age range. If we acknowledge that some children in their teen years may present as older than they are, this may help to explain how these crimes were able to operate in a pseudo-public nature. Forty-two percent of the minor victims were transported to a hotel/motel, nearly a third (28.6%) were transported to the buyer’s location and 22% were transported to another location. These public venues suggest the possibility that there could have been witnesses to these crimes. Is the public not trained to see this activity or are we blinded by a lens of bias or indifference? Was there not a single person in the strip club in Albuquerque who observed the presence of a 7-year-old girl and thought that was worth reporting? Much smaller percentages in this sample were the child victims exploited under a shroud of complete secrecy: in the child’s home with parent(s) present (11.4%), in a vehicle (8.3%), and in the child’s home with parent(s) absent (3%). Intrafamilial secrecy was noted as a significant issue. Forty-seven percent of survey respondents reported that their investigation was aggravated by either the victim or the other family members’ unwillingness to speak up. One interesting observation about challenges that may be unique to familial cases is how sex with the child may be marketed. An officer reported that in his cases, the child is not being advertised on the internet, but by word of mouth, making detection of the crime even more difficult.
Perpetrators
Consistent with extant literature, the most common perpetrator of familial trafficking in this sample was the child’s biological mother (66%). Other common perpetrators included biological father (50%), stepfather/mother’s boyfriend (45%), and uncle (42%). As one Texas investigator noted, “The mom’s role is almost always overt if the child is being sold. If there’s porn being produced, that’s usually a male in the home.” Female sibling was reported in one third of the cases which may be related to the phenomenon of an older sibling involved in trafficking or prostitution recruiting a younger sibling. A foundational distinction of familial trafficking from nonfamilial is that the family-based perpetrator has unique (and often continuous) access to the child. The external predator must conjure channels of contact to groom and solidify a relationship with the child that will not only allow the abuse to occur but also reduce the likelihood of disclosure (Salter, 2003). Trauma bonding, or a keen identification with the perpetrator, need not be as intentionally manufactured (Hooper, 2016), and yet it is inherent in the familial structure and dynamic.
Discussion
The following frames some of the observations, challenges, and recommendations associated with case identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim services as identified in this study.
Identification
For justice to have an opportunity, there must be disclosure of a breach in the law and evidence sufficient to prove the offense. That is challenging in familial cases as there are a myriad of covert dynamics at play. One comparative study on intra- versus extrafamilial child sexual abuse offers some conclusions that may parallel familial trafficking cases. The researchers found that familial cases included mostly younger victims, abusers with histories of sexual crimes, low visibility (committed at home), less physically intrusive abuse, more emotional violence, more delay between abuse episode and presentation to a medical setting, and fewer physical signs or trace evidence (Magalhães et al., 2009). In the United Kingdom, one report suggests that (intrafamilial) abuse is never formally reported to statutory agencies, leading to underestimations of the real scale of the problem in crime statistics and official figures (Gekoski & Broome, 2019). In the Sprang and Cole (2018) study, 82% of the familial cases used drugs as the currency of trade, which may distract case attention toward drugs and away from issues of abuse.
As many survey respondents noted, there is pressure within the family to keep quiet. This can be more than grooming or indoctrination. Sometimes the child is reared in a family where abuse is generational and enculturated. The unique context of incestuous abuse is that it is embedded in the normal family lives of child victims; it is deeply grounded in a normal, daily context (Katz & Field, 2020). As one survey respondent noted, there is a resistance for the victim to talk to police. Even more so than a nonfamilial case. Another wrote: [there are] difficulties in “breaking through barriers” with victims, which is much more highly complex than with adult victims, caused by manipulations of offenders.
Studies have reported that a key impediment to identifying these cases is that the child’s testimony is not believed (Melkman et al., 2017). Several respondents commented on the challenge of finding credible witnesses or corroborating evidence given the protective nature of the family dynamic and the secrecy of the criminal acts. One investigator who was interviewed exhorted other mandated reporters, “it’s not your job to test the voracity of the child’s testimony; just believe the kid and report it.”
Survey respondents and interviewees suggested that a “lack of experience, training, expertise and willingness of street level officers to recognize the situation” contributes to what they assume to be a high number of overlooked cases. Respondents lamented not having sufficient resources and training in forensic interviewing to get the victim to articulate what has occurred or that social services do not assist as they should. More specifically, one survey respondent wrote, “[we need] child protection and law enforcement understanding the differences between sexual abuse and trafficking and the role of consent when it relates to commercial sexual exploitation of minors.” Several commented that they believe their incident of familial cases to be much higher than reported: “familial trafficking happens but it’s either happening in a location where the locals don’t report it (for whatever reason) or where we simply don’t have sufficient law enforcement investigative resources to find the cases.”
Investigation
The survey asked how many of the familial trafficking cases ended in arrest of the familial perpetrator (M = 4.16, SD = 1.98). The most common response was none (32.4%) or some of them (21.6%). Respondents rated all or most only 21.6% of the time. Lack of cooperation in the investigative process was mentioned by several of the respondents, whether that was cooperation of the victim, relatives, or other parties. A few respondents indicated that there are very few—if any—tips related to familial cases, and because they do not have explicit categorization of these cases as familial, it is difficult to learn from them. This comment supports this report’s recommendation that we need to see an improvement in how we understand and record the relationship between trafficker and victim. One respondent suggested that the political leanings of the elected officials weighed heavily on whether these crimes had priority—or were addressed at all.
Exploited minor victims, many who come from dysfunctional family systems and/or those who have prior criminal interactions with the law (Sprang & Cole, 2018) can be uncooperative with the legal process. “We have a hard time getting the families to follow through on appointments and bring the child to court,” reported one professional. A veteran investigator from Texas offered, “Adult [victims] are just easier to keep track of. They are more likely to take the offer for services. Kid are always running.” Silbert and Pines (1983) found that running away was often the only way a child victim could escape abuse at home, but they also run from services. As one respondent noted, “In all trafficking cases, it is difficult to prevent the victim from returning to her abuser and becoming uncooperative during the investigation.” A minor trafficking shelter in the South reports that in over 8 years of service, they have a 100% AWOL rate. “We’re not a lockdown facility, and running is the only tool in their toolkit,” reports the shelter director (L. Tolar, personal conversation, 2020, Rescue1).
Familial trafficking cases can be much more complex given that the entire family system is often affected, if not complicit. The Fedina et al. (2016) study found the average age of initial sex trafficking in familial cases to be younger (11.5 years) in contrast to those exploited by nonfamily members (14.7 years). Sprang and Cole (2018) found familial threats, intimidation, and parental authority—including bribes, force, and use of weapons—as the means of coercion in all cases. Childhood emotional abuse, running away, and survival-based exchanges of sex were significantly associated with the commercial sexual exploitation of girls younger than age 18, while childhood emotional abuse contributed to predicting a younger age of entry into prostitution (Roe-Sepowitz, 2012). In the Koçtürk and Yüksel (2019) study on intrafamilial sexual abuse, 90.2% of the cases included the familial risk factor for economic problems.
In the Stewart case, all the children were subject to some form of abuse. What is to be done with the mother who accompanied the child and father to the strip club and who was equally guilty of her neglect? What of the Hooper case, where the individual who reported the mother’s trafficking of her daughter was the victim’s older sister? What remains of the family unit if anything?
Intra-familial violence…“is perpetrated in the traditionally sacrosanct privacy of the individual home. Intimate violence is therefore qualified violence. That is, the qualification domestic serves to make a privileging distinction between the gravity of public and state violence, and the notion of a lesser, somehow more deserved private violence, perpetrated by powerful family members upon less powerful family members. “In other words, family violence still pervasively remains viewed as a domestic, private matter outside of the governmental control.” This privatization of family violence results in a perception of mitigating causes that is beneficial to the perpetrator, rather than a focus on the unmitigable unacceptability of violence inflicted in the bosom of the family” (Wilson, 2008, p. 99).
Prosecution
A third of the familial trafficking cases referenced in this sample (Table 2) ended in conviction of the familial perpetrator (M = 4.46, SD = 2.18). The survey asked whether these justice professionals felt that justice was served in the cases they handled. Just under half (15 agencies or 39.5%) indicated that they have not experienced any convictions to date in their career, and the same number indicated that they have seen justice served in all or most cases. A deeper examination of responses did not indicate a state-level distinction for those who expressed a favorable rendering of justice. It would be worth further study to determine how these justice professionals determine a successful outcome.
One head of special investigations offered,
there’s a gap in the identifying circumstances, familial trafficking being seen as child exploitation or child abuse. The cases are still being prosecuted but not with the full depth and breadth that they could be, and often not inclusive of the commercial component of the crime.
Labeling these offenses as child sexual abuse may allow parents to be charged with lesser penalties (Sprang & Cole, 2018).
Of the few reported cases of familial trafficking that have been heard in court, the challenges to prosecution have been many. Most keenly, the survey respondents conveyed that there are often evidentiary issues: a lot of testimony and a little evidence. In close to half of the cases (39.5%), justice professionals said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Aggravating factors in a case may include the children having been rendered intoxicated by the adult and having no clear memory of the abuse. The investigation is unable to secure corroborating evidence or there is collusion among family members. Often, according to these respondents, victims may be reluctant to testify or present a confusing picture to the jury by conveying affection for the perpetrator(s). As one investigator put it, “the victim’s mindset is too immature. They actually believe it was a choice.” Regardless of what the law dictates, the child will act out of that mindset. “We have to keep in mind,” added a federal law enforcement professional, “that the child’s sense of safety is with the parent, not with a stranger or a service provider. Children don’t often cooperate for their own best interest, but for the interest of preserving the family”—even at their own peril.
Undesirable cases
There is also the challenging reality that court can be a negotiation of what is “win-able?” Survey respondents conveyed several concerns with the system, such as:
•“Prosecutors don’t want to pursue charges.”
•“Prosecutors plea bargain everything.”
•“We need to educate the juridical system in combating human trafficking. Some still do not understand trafficking.”
•“…from a LEO perspective, [these cases] are hugely resource intensive, there’s a lower chance of conviction when compared to other, simpler matters (drug cases, simple assaults, etc.), and the maximum penalty someone might face for HT1/ST1 is 20 years in jail unless we get lucky and they are trafficking someone under the age of 20.”
•“Bail reform has allowed offender(s) out while they can continue exploiting the victim or others.”
Victim Services
The question of what to do with the exploited minor victim presents many challenges for justice professionals. The most common lament among those interviewed was their inability to secure sufficient time and distance needed to do the job right. The distance sought is the emotional/psychological separation between the victim and the abusive family system. “We don’t have access to the child without them being [continually] psychologically adulterated by the adult in the home,” says one investigator. It is not just the perpetrating family member, but the entire family is infected by the familial system of abuse (Ford & Courtois, 2020; Katz & Field, 2020). From this sample, what can we learn about options available to justice professionals to align services with child victims?
Law enforcement laments the lack of reliable and supportive options for temporary placement of the child. Table 3 reflects the victim outcomes for the cases represented in this sample. Several of the survey respondent comments are recorded here to not only understand the challenge but also to hear their frustration. “The CINS [child in need of services] statute is not effective,” laments one investigator.
We can’t legally detain the child and CPS [child protective services] is not really a lock-down option. We have no provision by which to hold the child. Could we get some kind of mental health warrant to at least buy time to have the child assessed?
“[We need to be able to find] a secure facility that the victim can stay and not feel like they are in custody.” Still another noted: “90% of the time a child is recovered and placed with CPS and typically is gone the next day.” Several of the interviewees conveyed a wish that they could have the authority and available services to place a child outside of the abusive home, “at least long enough to give the child a chance.” One of the biggest concerns from these professionals is the propensity of child victims to run: “Juveniles are difficult to retain in a secure facility unless they have a high enough JAC [Juvenile Assessment Center] score. We rescue them and they are released back to other family or foster care and are gone again ASAP.” However, this challenge begs the question, given what we might understand about the entrenched familial bond, would any amount of time be sufficient? Further study should be done to determine whether there is an optimal set of conditions and time that is effective for giving abused children that “chance” at a different way of relating.
Residential treatment homes for trafficked minors are few. According to The Samaritan Women—Institute for Shelter Care (2020), there are 60 residential programs in the United States that specialize in trafficked minors, equating to about 757 beds. Law enforcement knows this service deficit only too well: “there are very limited, specialized services available for minors in our state who have experienced exploitation of this kind or therapeutic placements which (1) have space and (2) feel confident in addressing this type of trauma.” There are not only too few options, but justice professionals have their hands tied when the victim or custodial parent refuses to accept services. In some cases, judges will place child victims in juvenile detention centers as their only option.
Perhaps the greatest challenge with victim services expressed in this survey points back to outsider bias. Society wants to believe that family is safe and family is best. Respondents recognized this challenge: “[we have a] well-intended but misguided focus on reunification.” “Our systems are negligent. The consensus is reunification.” Or “…we see judicial leanings towards premature reunification. This could be liability deflections, or parental victimization. If we paint the parent as a victim, we may hasten the reunification.” All the interviewees agreed that these types of cases take a much longer time to investigate and prosecute. In 1993, the Special Agent in Charge at the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations wrote: “defendants’ advocates have embraced the concept of family unity, not because it would benefit children, but because it would benefit those who commit the abuse” (Pence, 1993, p. 104).
For an older minor, it may be best to consider emancipation from parental authority, but the pathway to that freedom often requires parental agreement or, as one justice professional conveyed,
emancipation is next to impossible for these kids coming out of dysfunctional family systems. They haven’t been prepared for “normal” life, and to be considered for emancipation [in our state] the child has to show that she can take care of herself.
Given the amount of trauma, that may be less likely. How we see—or want to see—the familial dynamic can influence the judicial process and social services. In some cases, perhaps a tempered hope and focus on present reality is warranted. As one seasoned law enforcement professional recommends: “Attempts to realistically appraise birth parent conditions and our abilities to influence positive, long-term changes to benefit the child should replace our feeble ‘give them yet another chance’ mode of operation” (Pence, 1993, p. 107). Ford and Courtois (2020) admonish that “without effective intervention, abusive/incestuous families tend to return to their known interactional patterns without change, and abuse may resume or even worsen” (p. 461). The New Mexico case referenced earlier may well attest to that assertion.
Impact on Justice Professionals
Interviewees were asked to speak to the personal impact of the cases they handle. “It’s soul-crushing just to go to work” reported a Pennsylvania juvenile defense attorney that specializes in child trafficking cases. “You have to develop thick skin,” reported an investigator, “you are going to see the worst of the worst in these cases.” Some reported satisfaction in arresting perpetrators but live with the unanswered question of what becomes of the victims.
In terms of what has been the most helpful to justice professionals in identifying, investigating, and prosecuting these cases, the most common response was having a collaborative approach across a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Specific members of that team noted as valuable were social service agencies, child advocacy centers, victim advocates/guardian ad litem, victim service providers, and interaction with other law enforcement agencies. One investigator offered a pragmatic view, “CPS has more ways of getting inside the home, but there’s not much collaboration. We need to work better together.” The formation of MDTs can prove to have multiple benefits to the case and the victim. In traditional structures, justice professionals and child welfare workers gather information independently and seek different types of information. This can be time-consuming and detrimental. When MDTs are in place, victims and witnesses may be interviewed once by representatives of the MDT, obtaining information that is criminally, legally, and therapeutically pertinent. This approach is not only more efficient, it can also lessen the secondary trauma on the witnesses and potentially increase conviction rates by minimizing contradictory statements or interpretations (Skibinski, 1995).
Study Limitations
One of the challenges to this study was the lack of recorded data about familial sex trafficking cases and dearth of studies on this topic. Justice professionals and the tools that are in place may fail to record the familial nature of the perpetrator or the economic component of the child abuse activity. While the 156 cases represented in this sample is an increase over prior studies (Reid et al., 2015 = 19 cases; Sprang & Cole, 2018 = 31 victims), it may be beneficial to expand the sample size of the survey and interviews and address other case characteristics such as geographic, demographic differences, and role of technology in the exploitation. Concurrently, the Sprang and Cole (2018) study found that familial trafficked children were less likely to be identified by law enforcement and more likely by a healthcare provider, schools, or child welfare. Among the top six most common characteristics identified in these cases (Table 1), only neglect has the potential for a criminal charge. Therefore, professionals who intersect with at-risk (but not criminally identified) families may have a greater opportunity to identify familial trafficking cases. A similar study should be done within related fields to build a more comprehensive understanding of the prevalence of familial trafficking or the prevalence of indicators that might suggest child exploitation is taking place. Similarly, there was no comparison group to this study, only the contrasting experiences of these professionals as they have encountered a wide variety of trafficking cases.
This study informs the next line of research by adding to the scant literature on this topic and through the unique lens of justice professionals. Future studies are needed in a variety of areas. A case series would be useful to better understand the characteristics and progression of these cases through the judicial system. We lack studies that explore the phenomenology of the familial victim as well as perpetrator which may shed light on how victims might better be identified and served, as well as why this problem exists. Correlational studies between discrete sociological factors (poverty, substance abuse, domestic violence, and generational sexual abuse) and familial trafficking of minors may also help to refine our understanding of causal factors. The manufacture of child sexual abuse images should also be further explored as a reverse gateway to identifying familial actors who are exploiting these children. Future research should delve into the legal statutes and processes that are in place which may lead to familial sex trafficking cases being filed as other offenses or settled out of court. Phenomenological or narrative studies on how justice professionals mentally, emotionally, and spiritually cope with these cases would also be beneficial. In short, the field of study on familial exploitation is replete with opportunity for academic engagement.
Recommendations
Training for Frontline Responders
As one Texas investigator acknowledged, “we don’t have a lot of statistics on familial trafficking, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” What this research concludes is that there is a discrepancy between what seasoned human trafficking professionals believe is happening with familial cases and what their caseloads suggest. This delta in familial trafficking case identification may be attributed to any of these three factors: that investigative personnel nationwide may not have the training to distinguish between child abuse/child endangerment cases and child sex trafficking, there is a greater shroud of secrecy insulating familial trafficking from detection, and the commercial component of the child’s abuse make these cases especially difficult to discern. Yet, the most-cited challenge in this study for the justice response to familial trafficking—by significant margin—was that minors are unwilling to testify against offending family member(s). That pattern of the victim protecting the perpetrator is consistent with other forms of intrafamilial child abuse (Koçtürk & Yüksel, 2019). Therefore, to understand familial sex trafficking cases, we must learn to account for the uniqueness and power of the familial bond.
Improve Data Collection and Reporting
Ongoing training and improved screening for both justice professionals as well as allied fields is needed. The Sprang and Cole (2018) study found that while the children in that study were more often identified by nonlaw enforcement, none were identified by child protection as having been commercially exploited. It was the parental drug addiction (not the neglect or abuse) of the child that brought about the legal investigation that led to discovery of the trafficking. The Estes and Weiner (2005) study also suggested a lack of detection of child maltreatment by child protective services. Child welfare and educators should be welcome members of local/state human trafficking task forces and required to complete training in human trafficking identification and referral. They can prove to be an important frontline for identifying these cases sooner.
Heed Minors’ Testimony
Far too often, these professionals experienced cases where there was not enough evidence to prosecute (39.47%), the minor’s testimony was not believed (36.84%), and they had no adequate options for alternative placement for these minors (31.58%). What is worth our pause and consideration is that at least two of these challenges could be readily addressed. We cannot produce evidence and we may or may not be able to create a space safe enough for children to testify, but we can—with will and intention—train and support professionals who believe their testimony. A seasoned human trafficking investigator in Kentucky shared that by believing the testimony of one child’s abuse, that child led him to 14 other children who were being similarly exploited.
Improve Victim Service Options
We can also build up community-based services that understand the trauma and familial bonds associated with this form of abuse. As one justice professional made clear:
…if the only solution is to take a minor to a non-custodial facility just so they can recruit other minors or just walk away after the police transports them there, is hard. Law enforcement feels this is a revolving door and does not allow the minor to make good sound judgement because the exploiter is still in the picture. So many times, we see this happen over and over.
Clearly, the social services landscape needs to be better equipped to meet the needs, but not only nongovernmental organizations and social services. “[We need] experienced, aggressive prosecutors (police and attorneys), and prolific victim services agencies” and we may have to think outside of our current biases and systems on how best to support familial victims.
Concluding Thoughts
The professionals in this sample represented a significant base of experience in the work and commitment to this mission. Their responses have helped to bring a clearer description to the issue of domestic familial sex trafficking in terms of its prevalence, characteristics, and challenges. They have also offered insight into the impact these cases have on them as professionals. Despite the emotional toil of the work and their frustration with elusive evidence, uncooperative witnesses, inadequate systems, and resources, this study offers us hope that there are credible and committed individuals seeking to make right this wrong.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Jeanne L. Allert https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7794-1122
Footnote
1. Even though the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act identified that anyone under the age of 18 involved in commercial sex was a victim, not a prostitute, that language did not become commonly adopted until around 2010. Today, it would be incorrect to use the term “juvenile or child prostitute.”
References
Associated Press. (2018, May 3). New Mexico man accused of prostituting 7-year-old daughter. Las Cruces Sun News.
Barnitz K. (2019, December 30). Father gets 20 years for neglect. Albuquerque Journal. https://www.abqjournal.com/1405244/father-gets-20-years-in-panhandling-case.html
Boon C. (1986). Betrayal of trust: Father-daughter incest. In Schlesinger B. (Ed.), Sexual abuse of children in the 1980’s: ten essays and an annotated bibliography (p. 80). University of Toronto Press.
Bunn N., Harfeld A. (2020, April 18). Coronavirus’ collateral damage: abused and neglected children. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/492646-coronaviruss-collateral-damage-abused-and-neglected-children
Cole J., Anderson E. (2013). Sex trafficking of minors in Kentucky. Center on Trauma and Children Reports. University of Kentucky. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ctac_reports/2
Cook A., Spinazzola J., Ford J., Lanktree C., Blaustein M., Cloitre M., DeRosa R., Hubbard R., Kagan R., Liautaud J., Mallah K. (2017). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390–398.
Estes R. J., Weiner N. A. (2001). The commercial sexual exploitation of children in the US, Canada, and Mexico. School of Social Work, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, University of Pennsylvania.
Estes R. J., Weiner N. A. (2005). The commercial sexual exploitation of children in the United States. In Estes R. J., Weiner N. A. (Eds.), Medical, legal and social science aspects of child sexual exploitation: A comprehensive review of child pornography, child prostitution, and Internet crimes against children (pp. 95–128). G. W. Medical Pub.
Fedina L., Williamson C., Perdue T. (2016). Risk factors for domestic child sex trafficking in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(13). https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/0886260516662306.
Ford J. D., Courtois C. A. (Eds.). (2020). Treating complex traumatic stress disorders in adults. Guilford Press.
Gekoski A., Broome S. (2019). Victims and survivors’ own stories of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gragg F., Petta I., Bernstein H., Eisen K., Quinn L. (2007). New York prevalence study of commercially sexually exploited children. New York State Office of Children and Family Services.
Hamilton S. (2020, September 16). Hooper trial underway in Richmond. Gloucester-Mathews Gazette-Journal. https://www.gazettejournal.net/hooper-trial-underway-in-richmond
Herman J. L. (2000). Father-daughter incest. Harvard University Press.
Hooper E. (2016). Polyvictimization and developmental trauma adaptations in sex trafficked youth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 10, 161–173.
Katz C., Field N. (2020). Unspoken: Child–perpetrator dynamic in the context of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/0886260520943723
Koçtürk N., Yüksel F. (2019). Characteristics of victims and perpetrators of intrafamilial sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 96, 104122.
Magalhães T., Taveira F., Jardim P., Santos L., Matos E., Santos A. (2009). Sexual abuse of children. A comparative study of intra and extra-familial cases. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 16(8), 455–459.
Melkman E. P., Hershkowitz I., Zur R. (2017). Credibility assessment in child sexual abuse investigations: A descriptive analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 67, 76–85. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.027
Middleton J., Edwards E., Ayala R. (2019). Project PIVOT: Prevent and intervention for victims of trafficking: A preliminary report of child trafficking in Kentucky. University of Louisville Human Trafficking Research Initiative. Louisville, Kentucky
Mitchell K. J., Finkelhor D., Wolak J. (2010). Conceptualizing juvenile prostitution as child maltreatment: Findings from the National Juvenile Prostitution Study. Child Maltreatment, 15(1), 18–36.
Pence D. (1993). Family preservation and reunification in intrafamilial sexual abuse cases: A law enforcement perspective. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2(2), 103–108.
Polaris. (2017). The typology of modern slavery: Defining sex and labor trafficking in the United States. Polaris Project.
Polaris. (2019). 2019 Data report: U.S. national human trafficking hotline. https://polarisproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Polaris-2019-US-National-Human-Trafficking-Hotline-Data-Report.pdf
Raphael J., & DePaul University College of Law. (2019). Parents as pimps: Survivor accounts of trafficking of children in the united states. Dignity: A Journal on Sexual Exploitation and Violence, 4(4). https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.23860/dignity.2019.04.04.07
Reed S. M., Kennedy M. A., Decker M. R., Cimino A. N. (2019). Friends, family, and boyfriends: An analysis of relationship pathways into commercial sexual exploitation. Child Abuse and Neglect, 90, 1–12. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.01.016
Reid J. A., Huard J., Haskell R. A. (2015). Family-facilitated juvenile sex trafficking. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(3), 361–376.
Roe-Sepowitz D. E. (2012). Juvenile entry into prostitution: The role of emotional abuse. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 562–579.
Salter A. (2003). Predators—Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders. Basic Books.
Schlesinger B. (2019). Sexual abuse of children. University of Toronto Press.
Silbert M. H., Pines A. M. (1983). Early sexual exploitation as an influence in prostitution. Social Work, 28(4), 285–289. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1093/sw/28.4.285
Skibinski G. (1995). The influence of the family preservation model on child sexual abuse intervention strategies: Changes in child welcome worker tasks. Child Welfare, 74(5), 975–989.
Smith L., Vardaman S. H., Snow M. (2009). The national report on domestic minor sex trafficking: America’s prostituted children. Shared Hope International.
Sprang G., Cole J. (2018). Familial sex trafficking of minors: Trafficking conditions, clinical presentation, and system involvement. Journal of Family Violence, 33(3), 185–195. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1007/s10896-018-9950-y
The Samaritan Women (2021, February). Human trafficking in America presentation.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2020, May 28). Citizen’s guide to U.S. federal law on child sex trafficking. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-sex-trafficking
Wavy. (2021, May 3). Mathews County yacht owner sentenced to life in prison in child pornography case. Channel 10 Wavy. https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/mathews-county-yacht-owner-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-child-pornography-case/
Wilson J. (2008, December). Domestic Violence as Human Rights Abuse: Reframing Intra-Familial Violence against Women and Children. In Activating Human Rights and Peace: Universal Responsibility Conference 2008, Conference Proceedings (p. 99). Southern Cross University.
Biographies
Jeanne L. Allert is the founder and executive director of The Samaritan Women—Institute for Shelter Care, a national anti-human trafficking agency that conducts industry research, trains and mentors residential service providers, and advances improvements in care for survivors of domestic sex trafficking. She holds a master’s in education, a master’s in divinity, and is finishing a doctorate in counseling and psychological studies with a focus on familial trafficking.