Accusations of Abuse, Guardianship, and Community Response

Recently, the story of Sharisa Joy Kochmeister has been the focus of much attention in the advocacy community.  And I’ve stayed silent on it, because, frankly, I don’t know the facts of the situation.  But I can’t keep doing that.

My understanding of the background of this – which is open to any and all corrections people may have – is:

  • Sharisa is a 30-something adult
  • From a Denver Post opinion piece (not an investigative article), “The ordeal began in March when her father was accused of abuse when he was seen in a Denver hospital using his finger to clear his daughter’s throat after she had vomited. She kicked him. He pushed her and it was caught on video.”
  • The father was accused of Manchausen by Proxy. This basically means that Mr. Kochmeister was suspected of making Sharisa ill.
  • While the father has not been charged with a crime, the county where Sharisa lives has kept Sharisa’s parents (and indeed most other people) from visiting her.
  • Sharisa is unable to communicate without her father or sister being physically present and possibly facilitating (through actions such as holding a communication device).

Most of the comments, petitions, and advocacy pieces I’ve seen publicly start from the assumption that the abuse allegations are false, for several reasons:

  • People personally know the parents and think they are good people.
  • That accusations of Munchausen by Proxy are often wrong (For instance, in Where is Sharisa Joy Kochmeister, there is a section on false allegations of Munchausen by Proxy with the leading sentence in bold saying, ”Beware the accusation of Munchausen by proxy”).
  • That criminal charges have not been filed against the father.

I’m uneasy with this logic, and I want to explain why. So let me go through each of these three points.

Her Parents are Good People

Perhaps.  I don’t know them, and I’ve known some people I thought were wonderful that turned out to have some really awful, evil parts of themselves.  For instance, one of my best friends in college was recently found guilty of molesting his daughters.  I never would have predicted that, but the evidence was extremely strong and convincing, and I’m glad his daughters are no longer in his care (he is currently serving a long prison sentence).

So I can’t comment on whether or not the parents are good people. I will say that I’m concerned and saddened that any disabled person can communicate only through a very small number of people (or, in the worst case, one).  I am concerned that Sharisa is unable to communicate through anyone but her father, for reasons I’ve written about in general terms elsewhere – how do you report abuse if your abuser is always there when you communicate?

I’m not dismissing her ability to communicate.  But I know that influence, particularly in abuse, and particularly when it’s done by someone who has the potential to do great harm in retaliation, is a powerful thing. And I also know that the vast majority of abuse victims, when asked why they didn’t report that abuse, say the same two things: either they felt they wouldn’t be believed (because the abuser is respected or seen as a wonderful person) or that the abuser can make things worse for them.  We’ve seen both with Cosby’s accusers, who felt they wouldn’t be believed and that Cosby could retaliate and essentially keep them from their dreams in modeling or show business. If this is hard for women who are, in some cases, thousands of miles away from their abuser, imagine what it’s like if that separation isn’t possible.  It’s also not just abuse – imagine other decisions, such as becoming sexually active, deciding whether or not to seek an abortion, or discussing treatment options for STDs – would you want to have those conversations with a parent in the room?  Unless you have a particularly unusual relationship with your parents, probably not.  We are all influenced by people we are around, and that influences what we do and don’t say. It’s one of the reasons it has taken me so long to write this – but it has become too important not to.

When my wife was hospitalized a couple years ago, I remember how I was asked to leave the room for a few minutes, being told they needed room to transfer my wife into the bed. I asked her they did while I was gone, and she said that, yes, they did transfer her to the bed, but that they also asked her if her relationship with me was good and if she wanted me to be there – she was kind of surprised by the questions (I don’t think there was any suspicion of abuse by me, I believe this was asked to nearly all patients). I’m not offended by that in the least – for some abuse victims, the only time they have the chance to be protected from their abuser may be when they are hospitalized, and I thought it was one of the excellent things the hospital does – if it gives just one abuse victim the courage to speak, it is an awesome way of doing business. It is absolutely something a hospital should do. Likewise, it’s important for abuse victims to have means of communicating that don’t involve their abuser’s presence or (real or imagined) control.

Accusations of Abuse are Often False

This simply isn’t true, but even if it is, it does not mean that real abuse doesn’t exist. Too often we hear about children (I’m not implying Sharisa is a child, but most of the time we hear about state-investigated abuse, it is regarding children) that were inadequately protected by the state after abuse allegations were made.

There are cases where Munchausen by Proxy is real – we should not dismiss this as merely claims that the evil state makes against parents of disabled kids. There is evidence that it may be over-diagnosed in cases where the caregiver is not the cause of the illness, and there is a real illness, albeit likely a hard to treat one.

But, there are also real instances where people are harmed by fictitious disorders imposed on them.  According to the Cleveland Clinic, approximately 1,000 cases of reported child abuse per year are related to this.

It is irresponsible for advocates to say that abuse did not occur when they do not have the full evidence. Abuse can happen to anyone, and abusers come from all social strata, all races, all sexes, etc.  It is not uncommon that abusers are well regarded and seen as “the least likely person” to abuse another. So all allegations of abuse must be taken seriously.  In fact, this is something the FC (Facilitated Communication) community has been stressing – while there was controversy regarding apparently false reports of abuse by facilitated communication users, there were also real cases of abuse that were investigated and found to be true, backed up with evidence in addition to the victim’s own words. Allegations of abuse must be investigated, and anyone that says otherwise is not an advocate for vulnerable people.

SOME PEOPLE USING FACILITATED COMMUNICATION HAVE MADE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE. SOME HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED.

Some individuals have made allegations of abuse, but there is no evidence that the numbers of allegations by individuals using facilitation is proportionally different than the numbers of allegations made by speaking people. In a survey made at the SUNY Health Sciences Center, it was found for a given time period that of 6 case in which individuals alleged they had been sexually abused, for 4 of them there was physical evidence they had been abused (Botash, 1993). Cases can lead to court convictions (Randall, 1993) and/or confessions by the accused. As with allegations made by the nondisabled population, some allegations may be unfounded and others simply impossible to prove.

The above is from Douglas Bilken, a leading FC proponent, writing “Facts about FC“.  Full citations are available in the link.

Regardless of your views on FC, allegations of false abuse don’t mean that real abuse doesn’t happen. For Munchausen by Proxy, in particular, what is important is whether or not incidents of more severe sickness are associated with the presence of the accused. So there is one question that is relevant here, but which the answer is not known: Have any of Sharisa’s medical conditions improved with the absence of her family? That alone doesn’t prove that abuse occurred, but it can help substantiate that the family is not the cause of any of the symptoms if all the symptoms continue despite the absence of family.

Likewise, I would think it inappropriate to say that Sharisa’s parents did abuse her – most of us (and everyone I’ve seen speaking publicly, with the exception of Sharisa’s family and Sharisa in the presence of her father) don’t have enough knowledge of the situation.  And we should see false allegations of this kind or terrible. Instead, I believe we should say what is logically required: We don’t know.

Criminal Charges have not been Filed Against Sharisa’s Father

This is true – there are no publicly known charges against Sharisa’s father, and is important for everyone to remember. That said, even charges don’t prove someone’s guilt – that’s why we have a trial system. But the American justice system is designed to only convict people when the judgement is that they are “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”.  Thus prosecution may not occur in all cases where a crime has been committed, particularly if a prosecutor believes it is unlikely a jury would agree “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a crime has occurred.

That said, there is a court process that determined Sharisa’s current placement and prevented Sharisa’s family from visiting freely.  We don’t have the information of what was presented at those hearings, so it is irresponsible for us to confuse lack of criminal charges with lack of a crime. Again, we simply don’t know. It could have been a huge miscarriage of justice against Sharisa and her family, but it also might have been justified in light of the evidence. We don’t know.

What Needs to be Done

So, we don’t know if abuse occurred or not. If it did, she should not be forced to live with her abuser. But her opinion still must be respected. People who are competent are allowed to make bad choices.

If it didn’t occur, where should she live? Where she wants to, clearly.

Unfortunately, the county believes she isn’t competent, thus someone else gets to make decisions like where she lives. On top of that, she is only making statements about where she wants to live in the physical presence of someone that may or may not have abused her. This makes it very hard for the county or anyone else that wants what is best for her, and doesn’t know if abuse occurred or not, to know what she truly wants.

I wish she could communicate without a family member in the room. If she could, and the family’s statements are correct about this not being a case of abuse, this issue would likely be resolved.  If she could communicate without a family member in the room, and was as courageous as I believe her to be,  she could affirm or deny abuse allegations. I have long believed that the primary goal for an autistic person’s communication should be that they are able to communicate in a variety of situations, with a variety of other people around, and using a variety of techniques. I stand by that.

But of course it’s not always possible. What is best is not always what happens. Clearly this is one of those cases, and someone’s ability to live where they want to is on the line. If you can’t communicate (which is what the county clearly believes), you can’t direct your life.

She was placed in a nursing home for a while. Nursing homes aren’t the right choice for anyone. I could write more on that, but other advocates have written plenty if you want to know why.

The county must expend the resources necessary to provide an environment as conducive as possible to communication. This means she needs the electronic devices she uses to communicate to be available and maintained. She needs to be assessed by experts who have a presumption of competence. She needs to be listened to when she communicates with ways other than language.

Last week, Disability Law Colorado (the P&A agency for Colorado) issued a statement that said that this is happening, and that the situation is more complex than media and many advocates have said it is. Of course they could be wrong, lying, or have a grudge against Sharisa or her parents.  But they also may be right.

That doesn’t mean we should just trust them and remain silent. We should demand that Sharisa can fully participate in the community and that the State ensures that everything possible is done to allow her to communicate.  The abuse allegations should continue to be investigated: in particular, has any part of Sharisa’s medical conditions shown improvement since her removal from her family? Was the video evidence so strong that it, by itself, justifies removal of Sharisa from her family?

There are lots of questions. And this is not a case of child abuse. When a crime is committed against an adult, and is not a sex crime, the public does generally have the right to know the details, so that we can make informed opinions.

Regardless, our advocacy must be first and foremost about Sharisa and her desires. Not the state’s. Not her parent’s. One side says that her communication desiring to be back at home is either not hers or is influenced by her father. The other side says she wants to be home. What Sharisa wants is what is important – not what her father wants, and certainly not what the county wants. And our advocacy should be focused on making sure she has as much of an opportunity to voice her views without a shadow of influence as possible. I fear that may not be possible, but I really don’t see any other way to get the resolution that Sharisa needs while her communication is being dismissed, as it is now. Lack of apparent influence is important (and I use the term in the general sense – the same thing would likely happen if a person speaking with their vocal cords only talked with someone that was considered a potential abuser in the room – it might even strengthen the case that abuse is occurring). I hope it’s possible and we need to advocate that she be given every opportunity to communicate this way. Starting with 24×7 availability of devices she’s used in the past to communicate and support people that are not making presumptions about her parents. Most of all, they must not presume that she is not competent.

Certainly if you have other evidence that the rest of the community does not have, absolutely use that in your decision making. But the rest of us need to be responsible and to use the evidence we have, realizing we don’t know several really critical pieces of this story. I am not saying her parents have done any wrong. Nor am I saying they haven’t. Because I don’t know, beyond saying we need Sharisa’s voice a lot more than mine in this discussion.

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Accusations of Abuse, Guardianship, and Community Response

  1. Emily says:

    The county has allowed one visit to Sharisa by friends and her father, and I believe another was scheduled for today. Sharisa said during the visit last week that she wanted to be home with her father, and that she will only type when he is there. She also said she wanted to attend local GRASP meetings.

    I can’t remember if I had mentioned that to you or not when we talked; if not, I am sorry you may not have known that. But I think we discussed it?

  2. Kerima Cevik says:

    Thanks for writing this. I am the author of the Autism Wars blog. It is my opinion that if Jefferson County adult services wished to present a case against Sharisa’s father for what was recorded on camera per the Denver Post Op-ed and that is their concern, that is what they should be doing. But Munchausen’s by proxy is a false diagnosis that has been repeatedly abused in its use to gain custody of vulnerable patients and those were the cases I cited. I presume the innocence of anyone accused of anything until they are given their day in court. That being said, it is extremely concerning to me that Mr. Kochmeister was videotaped placing his finger in his adult daughter’s throat in a hospital setting where help could come quickly, then pushing her when she kicked him, which anyone would consider a defensive response on her part.