Evidence of ‘ fraud’ in sex abuse case: judge

Testimony of witness questioned

VANCOUVER• A“highconflict” matrimonial battle centred on allegations of child sexual abuse has taken a startling turn, with a B.C. Court of Appeal judge acknowledging this week that an expert witness — whose testimony helped brand a father of four as an incestuous child molester — might be a “fraud” who relies on “debunked and inadmissible scientific theory .”

Claire Reeves, 74, gave testimony on behalf of a Vancouver-area woman who alleged her former husband had sexually abused their four children. The couple separated in 2009 and the father was granted supervised access to the children later that year.

A child custody trial was held in B.C. family court in early 2012; it led to the father, who can only be identified by the initials B.G., losing access to all four children.

B. G. denies having sexually abused anyone. He has not been criminally charged. But Justice Paul Walker determined t hat based on evidence he heard at the 2012 custody trial, B. G. did sexually abuse three of his children, while exposing them to “sexualized knowledge” and physically assaulting them and their mother, who is identified as J.P.

The judge accepted expert witness testimony from Reeves, whom he described in his 2012 decision as “a prominent clinical counsellor practicing in the United States who specializes in the treatment of victims of sexual abuse.”

Some of the testimony Reeves gave at trial was based on her interpretation of a theory called“child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome,” which was popularized in the 1980s and 1990s.

But according to a followup decision delivered Wednesday by B.C. Court of Appeal judge Elizabeth Bennett, the same theory “was discredited as a diagnostic tool by the doctor who advanced (it) in the first place, and has not been admitted into courts as proof of sexual assault for decades.”

Lawyers acting for B. G. went before Madam Justice Bennett to request a “time extension” allowing them the opportunity to appeal Justice Walker’s fouryear- old decision. Bennett granted the “extraordinary” request, based on concerns the lawyers raised about Reeves, whose professional credentials were also brought into question.

Among the expert qualifications Reeves presented at the 2012 custody trial were a Doctorate in Clinical Counselling, a Masters of Science in Clinical Psychology, Bachelor of Science in Family Mediation, and a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, according to court documents.

B. G.’s lawyers claim the degrees were obtained from dubious “diploma mills,” rather than recognized universities.

As well, “other evidence was led to demonstrate that Claire Reeves was allegedly not truthful with respect to her employment, expertise and experience in court,” Madam Justice Bennett wrote in Wednesday’s decision. “For example, despite saying that she had testified in multiple cases in the United States, she does not appear on a United States expert witness database, nor does she appear in any case af t er an extensive search. ... In other words, there is strong evidence to support the allegation that a fraud has been committed on the court.”

Reeves did not respond to an interview request Thursday.

J. P. and B. G. have been battling over their children in various B.C. courts since their separation. At one point, B. G. complained to police about J. P.’s allegedly “bizarre and irrational” behaviour. As a result, he caused her “to be falsely arrested” and briefly incarcerated, according to Justice Walker’s 2012 decision.

According to Justi c e Walker, B.G. behaved badly at the custody trial, where he r epresented himself without lawyers. He “used profanities i n answering questions, engaged in obfuscation, and mocked J. P. and her counsel,” reads Justice Walker’s decision. “His evidence was marked by internal inconsistencies and obscured by deflection and half- truths ... B.G. is quick to anger, and has openly bragged that he can easily kill young children and women if his temper is unchecked. He has also made threatening remarks towards counsel.”

The judge reviewed statements from the estranged couple’s three eldest children and found them be- lievable; the children had not been “coached” by their mother, as B.G. had alleged.

J.P.’ s testimony was lengthy and graphic. She testified that when she first asked her two oldest children if their father had ever touched them, “disclosures of sexual contact by B. G. came pouring out of their mouths,” according to the 2012 decision.

J. P. alleged that her children depicted sexual acts which they said they performed with their father. These included depictions of oral, vaginal and anal penetration. A family doctor also testified that two of the children had described to him sexual acts with their father.

J. P. took her concerns to Vancouver police and to government social workers, but B. G. was not charged. While the children were placed in temporary foster care, the parents’ battle continued to escalate. When Justice Walker ordered B.G. not to have any contact with his four children, he awarded J.P. sole custody.

But with testimony from a dubious expert witness calling into question that decision, and with B.G.’s appeal in the works, this devastating family fight seems sure to continue.

SHE DOES NOT APPEAR ON A UNITED STATES EXPERT WITNESS DATABASE.