FC/S2C/RPM and False Allegations of Abuse

Today’s blog post is a continuation of a series I’m writing inspired by a reader’s question: How has FC changed since the early 1990s? I’ve put links to previous blog posts on this topic below. At the start of this series, I intended to do a side-by-side comparison of the 1993 documentary Prisoners of Silence and the 2023 film Spellers (see Katharine’s review here) but, as I started exploring the themes in Prisoners of Silence, I realized that those themes needed blog posts of their own. I will circle back to Spellers in a future blog post.

Title image from Frontline’s Prisoners of Silence (Frontline, 1993)

As I’ve written previously, false allegations of abuse have plagued FC since its inception and continue to this day. FC founder Rosemary Crossley and facilitators trained by her were involved with the first documented case(s) in Australia. (See Paul Heinrichs’ reporting of the Carla case—references below). Dozens of false allegation of abuse cases, including one I was involved with in the United States, necessitated studies into FC to rule in or rule out facilitator influence and control over letter selection. (see Controlled Studies)

Prisoners of Silence featured several cases of false allegations of abuse, including the Wheaton’s. I was one of the facilitators for that case—the only one who participated in double-blind testing—and stopped using FC once I understood that I, not my student, was controlling letter selection. The other facilitators believed they would have passed the blind testing. I sincerely do not think that is true. It would be interesting to know what happened to them and if they continued using FC.

Research into facilitator cueing indicates that facilitators are, largely, unaware of the extent to which they control letter selection—in part due to the ideomotor response, or non-conscious muscle movements (e.g., tightening or loosening of muscles to indicate which letter to touch, head nods, shifts in body weight, small movements of the board in the air) and in part because facilitators are multi-tasking (e.g., calling out letters, asking and answer questions) and cannot be conscious of their every movement. (See prior blog posts here and here). That is why reliably controlled testing is important in determining authorship (regardless of content).

While all accusations of abuse should be taken seriously, accusations generated by facilitators “supporting” their clients or loved ones with FC/S2C/RPM (or their variants) as the main source of communication raise unique issues and are troubling for a number of reasons:

1. Based on composite profiles from court documents, newspaper accounts, and firsthand accounts from Prisoners of Silence, there appear to be two main sources for FC-generated allegations of abuse: teachers/carers/education aids using FC with their client (sometimes without parental knowledge or consent) who believe “something might be happening at home,” and parents or family members using FC despite the reservations of other family members (divorcees who express doubt about FC are particularly vulnerable to allegations of abuse). (See the False Allegations and FC and the Legal System sections of this website).

2. In allegation of abuse cases (generated using FC/S2C/RPM), the facilitator acts as accuser (first in the initial “disclosures” of abuse, then as participant in Department of Human Services and/or police interviews), then as “witness” if the case goes to court, yet it cannot be presumed that the FC-generated messages are free from facilitator influence and control.

3. Many first responders (e.g., police, DHS workers, hospital personnel) are not aware that FC/S2C/RPM are facilitator-dependent techniques and are not considered legitimate forms of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). First responders may also be unaware that many organizations oppose the use of FC/S2C/RPM—particularly when making major life decisions (including allegations of abuse). (See Opposition Statements) Nor do they understand that the facilitators are influencing and controlling letter selection. To confound the problem further, proponents often disguise the fact they’re using FC by calling it something else (e.g., supported typing, letter boarding, typing with support) or claiming that they (the facilitators) are “interpreters” for the person with disabilities. I think it is also plausible that first responders may be afraid of seeming “ableist” if they don’t take the abuse allegations seriously. And, even if they have doubts about authorship (e.g., the person being facilitated isn’t looking at the board during letter selection but the facilitator is), they might be reluctant to express their concerns aloud.
   
   Note: interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing go through a rigorous training and certification process to qualify as court appointed interpreters. Knowing American Sign Language, for example, does not automatically qualify a person for these tasks. There is no commensurate certification process or national standards for facilitators. In addition, if FCed messages are “independent” (e.g., free from facilitator influence and control), then what, exactly needs to be interpreted?

4. Although there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the accused in these cases (frequently men and/or the fathers of the person being subjected to FC) are forced out of their homes and away from their families. Some are jailed without recourse, lose their jobs, and have their reputations sullied. Once that call is made to DHS or to the police, the person accused is treated as if the FC-generated messages are true. No one likes a person who abuses a child. No one likes a person who abuses people with disabilities. The accusations alone are enough to affect how the accused person is perceived by police, DHS workers, lawyers, judges, and community members even if in the end the charges are dropped, or the falsely accused is found to be not guilty by the courts. In some jurisdictions, even an accusation of abuse (though unproven) can prevent someone from passing a security check and/or holding certain jobs.

5. As mandatory reporters, teachers, carers, and other professionals are required by law to report even suspicions of abuse to DHS, police, or other officials. In most situations, a mandatory reporter is protected from legal repercussions should the allegations turn out not to be true. Facilitators may feel justified in moving forward with their suspicions without giving much thought as to what will happen to the people falsely accused. They may even feel emboldened to act after participating in FC workshops or reading FC literature that primes them to expect disclosures from FCed individuals.

   As James Todd wrote in a 2012 article: “… the FC zeitgeist is nothing if not a breeding ground for exaggerated claims of hidden abuse. The statement below is drawn from a book still sometimes found for sale at FC events and is consistent with what is talked about in some FC workshops…” he goes on to quote Nora Balderian who stated “there is better than 100 percent likelihood that a disabled child will be molested before he or she is eighteen. Facilitated Communication is confirming those statistics. We can safely assume that other forms of abuse are at least as commonplace.” (p. 14, Todd, 2012).

6. Facilitators are discouraged from testing authorship. They believe in FC because people being subjected to the technique say it works. Even though participating in double-blind testing could potentially prove that the FC-generated messages were produced without facilitator influence or control, most facilitators prefer to drop the charges than to participate in reliably controlled tests.

7. Although groups like the American Speech/Language Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) oppose the use of FC/S2C/RPM, proponents of the technique ignore the advice of these expert groups. Most organizations opposing FC/S2C/RPM cite lack of scientific evidence, facilitator influence/control, prompt dependency and potential harms (including false allegations of abuse). They caution against using FC/S2C/RPM for any major life decisions and, certainly, not any decisions that rise to the level of involving the courts (e.g. allegations of abuse, guardianship, medical decisions) (See Opposition Statements)

8. There are no facilitator-focused studies exploring why allegations of abuse are so prevalent in FC/S2C/RPM. However, it is plausible that facilitators are “primed” in FC workshops to believe disclosures are not only likely, but almost guaranteed. Not only is shocking, unexpected, or “cheeky” language (erroneously) considered by facilitators as “proof” that the messages are not originating from them, expressions of anger, sorrow, frustration and the like are considered “normal” by facilitators who believe their client or loved one is freely communicating their feelings for the first time.

As Todd suggests in his article, and I agree, abuse allegations originate from the facilitator’s belief system (as do all FC-generated messages, in my opinion, regardless of content). Perhaps the facilitator believes that anyone who expresses doubt about FC is ableist or doesn’t believe enough in individuals with disabilities. Perhaps the facilitator feels hurt or possibly threatened by the idea that their ability to “support” their client using FC/S2C/RPM is in question. Or, as in my case, the facilitator might believe “something is happening at home.” In the case of allegations of abuse, the facilitated messages, then, might shift in tone after a family member, carer, or educator expresses doubts about authorship. The facilitator-generated messages, then, might start with something relatively benign (e.g. “I’m so sad so-and-so doesn’t support me”) and, slowly, over time develop into full-blown accusations of abuse. I think people would be surprised to know just how little it takes for a facilitator’s thoughts to be transferred to the letter board.

In summary, I believe most facilitators are motivated by a desire to communicate with their client or loved one. Many of these people have turned to FC as a “last resort” (e.g., when legitimate, evidence-based techniques and methods have failed to produce the results they—the facilitators—want). Many leaders in the FC movement offer a 100% guarantee that FC/S2C/RPM will “work” for their client or loved one. Because these motivated facilitators are human, they (consciously or not) seek out information that confirms their belief in FC while rejecting disconfirming evidence. This is yet another reason why well-designed reliably controlled testing is needed to rule in or rule out facilitator interference with the communication process.

Note: To date, reliably controlled tests have only ruled in facilitator interference, not ruled it out. Facilitator-dependent techniques, by design, cannot lead to independent communication.

Note: The film “Tell Them You Love Me” was released in the United States at the end of last week. It features the Anna Stubblefield rape case. We’ll be doing a review of the film in an upcoming blog post. Here is a timeline of her actions I put together from newspaper articles about the case: At What Point Was Anna Stubblefield Culpable for her Criminal Actions?

---

References and Recommended Reading:

Controlled Studies
False Allegations of Abuse
Opposition Statements

Boynton, J. (2012). Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6:1, 3-13. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.674680

Geschke, Norman. (1993, May 10). Report on the Investigation of a Complaint of Unjust Dismissal Because of Allegations Made by Facilitated Communication. Melbourne: L.V. North, Government Printer.

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 16). Suffering at the Hands of the Protectors. The Sunday Morning Herald.

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 16). State 'tortured' family – 'tragic'. Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) Late Edition, pp. 1

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 23). 'Tortured' family may call for probe on facilitated evidence. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 8

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 23). More families take on CSV 'zealots'. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 7

Heinrichs, P. (1992, April 12). Taxpayers will foot bill for 'Carla' case. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 11

Heinrichs, P. (1992, May 17). US courts to rule on disability method. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 9

Heinrichs, P. (1992, May 31). 'Carla' case prompts overhaul of system. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 10

Heinrichs, P. (1992, September 6). New ordeal for 'Carla' family. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 7

Heinrichs, P. (1992, September 13). Carla payment hope. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 8

Heinrichs, P. US courts reject facilitated communication. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 7

Heinrichs, P. (1993, January 17). 'Carla' cost may force family to sell home. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 6

Mostert, M. (2012). Facilitated Communication: The empirical imperative to prevent further professional malpractice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.693840

Palfreman, J. (2012) The dark legacy of FC. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 14-17. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.688343

Sigafoos, J. and Schlosser, R. (2012) An experiential account of facilitated communication. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 1-2. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.710992

Todd , J.T. (2012) The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton's “Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator”. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 36-57. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.704738

Von Tetzchner, S. (2012) Understanding facilitated communication: Lessons from a former facilitator—Comments on Boynton. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 28-35. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.699729

Vyse, S. (2018). An Artist with a Science-Based Mission. Skeptical Inquirer.

Blog posts

From Eye Tracking to EEGs—anything but a simple message-passing test

Peripheral Vision: Perfect for detecting facilitator cues

Rationalizations abound: Stopping just shy of knowing

Reaction to a 1994 article I wrote about my experiences with FC

Response to reader question: Has FC changed since the early 1990s - Part 1
Response to reader question: Has FC changed since the early 1990s - Part 2