Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) in family law cases, such as child custody, child visitation, and child protection proceedings, present complex and sensitive challenges for legal and psychological decision-making. This scoping review synthesizes key findings from 47 empirical studies examining the prevalence, substantiation, and legal consequences of CSA allegations as well as typical case characteristics in this context. The empirical literature falls into three main clusters: Canadian studies using large national datasets from the late 1990s and 2000s; Australian court-based studies primarily from the 2010s; and U.S. research spanning several decades with diverse methodologies. Overall, we found a mean CSA allegation prevalence of 8.9%, and indications that CSA allegations occur less frequently than allegations of other maltreatment types. Substantiation rates vary across studies but average around 43%, with only marginal evidence suggesting slightly lower substantiation when only custody and visitation disputes were analyzed. Deliberate false allegations are seemingly rare; most unsubstantiated claims appear to arise from genuine but mistaken concerns. Limited findings on legal consequences indicate that substantiated allegations usually lead to suspended contact between the accused parent and child. When allegations lack sufficient clarity, courts respond more variably, sometimes restricting contact despite non-substantiation. Significant research gaps remain, particularly regarding the timing and context of allegations, the association of substantiation with legal outcomes, and specific allegation constellations within families. Further empirical research, especially from European and non-Western jurisdictions, is essential to informing evidence-based, child-centered practice.

Keywords

child sexual abuse (CSA)custody dispute visitation dispute child protection parental dispute divorce separation

Introduction

Child sexual abuse (CSA) and sexual violence against children pose a significant risk to children’s psychological development (e.g., Hailes et al., 2019; Maniglio, 2009). Due to the danger CSA presents to children’s welfare, CSA allegations are not only prosecuted under criminal law, but can also play a significant role in custody, visitation, and placement decisions in family court proceedings as well as child protection proceedings by authorities (Ackerman et al., 2021). To ensure child protection, CSA allegations against caregivers can therefore lead to a restriction of parental rights and access (custody and visitation proceedings) as well as a state intervention like the removal of the child from the family (child protection proceedings). Accordingly, family courts and child protection services (CPS) play a crucial role in determining the appropriate course of action when faced with CSA allegations in the given context. CPS are government agencies responsible for safeguarding children from abuse and neglect, whereas family courts adjudicate disputes over custody, visitation, and related family matters (Zumbach et al., 2022). CPS are often the first agency notified and may intervene in emergency contexts, while custody and visitation cases are generally initiated by one parent to challenge the other parent’s rights. In both child protection proceedings and custody or visitation disputes, CSA allegations can shape decisions about the child’s living arrangements, the restriction of contact with an accused parent, or the need for out-of-home placement. Because both systems must evaluate CSA allegations and make decisions that directly affect children’s safety and well-being, we include both types of proceedings in this review.

A central dilemma for both institutions arises from the fact that any misjudgment can compromise the child’s welfare. If the risk of ongoing sexual abuse is underestimated, the child may be exposed to further harm, with potentially serious consequences for their psychological development. Conversely, a decision to intervene, such as restricting contact with a parent, when such measures are not necessary for the child’s protection can also be detrimental to the child’s well-being (Bowles et al., 2008.; Death et al., 2019; Forslund et al., 2021; Lamb, 2012). Moreover, compared to other forms of child abuse, concerns about false allegations¹ arise more frequently in cases of suspected CSA within custody, visitation, and child protection proceedings. This discourse gained momentum in the 1980s amid growing awareness of intra-familial CSA and the expansion of prevention efforts, accompanied by reports of rising allegations and claims of high rates of falsity in custody disputes (Green, 1991). Debates persist today over whether false allegations are indeed more common in family law contexts or whether courts display disproportionate skepticism, particularly when mothers raise the concerns (Lapierre et al., 2026; Milchman, 2017).

However, the evidence base regarding how CSA allegations are handled in family law proceedings appears fragmented: much of the research comes from different countries with varying legal frameworks and professional practices. Also, the body of research spans several decades, which possibly limits the extent to which the documented findings reflect current practices and contemporary understandings of CSA. An existing review by Smit et al. (2015) focused on CSA allegations arising only during ongoing divorce proceedings, and did not include relevant empirical data such as prevalence rates. Thus, the current scoping review set out to systematically map the internationally dispersed and partly outdated literature, clarifies where reliable evidence exists, and identifies areas where updated empirical work is needed. By consolidating this knowledge, the review fills a critical gap for practitioners and policymakers who require an up-to-date, cross-jurisdictional foundation to inform decision-making, expert assessments, and child protection policies.

Specifically, we concentrated this review on several key areas of interest that align with broader debates in CSA research and family law policy. Understanding how frequently CSA allegations arise in custody, visitation, and child protection contexts is essential for evaluating claims about whether such cases are increasing in frequency and to estimate their significance within proceedings (Bala et al., 2007; Neoh & Mellor, 2009). Examining typical case characteristics may contribute to discussions about risk indicators and family dynamics when CSA is alleged (Faller & DeVoe, 1996). Investigating substantiation outcomes and how allegations are substantiated directly engages with debates about the prevalence of false allegations, quality of investigative procedures, and the contested use of concepts such as parental alienation (Death et al., 2019). Finally, exploring how substantiation relates to custody, visitation, and placement decisions addresses the key issue in these proceedings concerning the appropriate balance of child safety with procedural fairness (Neoh & Mellor, 2009). These considerations motivated the following research questions, which structure the scope of the review:

(1) How often do allegations of CSA occur within child custody and visitation proceedings as well as child protection proceedings?

(2) What are the typical case characteristics when CSA is alleged in child custody and visitation proceedings as well as child protection proceedings?

(3) How are allegations of CSA substantiated in these cases?

(4) Among the reported decisions, to what extent are the allegations of CSA considered substantiated, unsubstantiated,² unverifiable,³ or not specified in these cases?

(5) What custody/visitation/placement decisions are reported in these cases and how does the substantiation of allegations of CSA relate to the custody/visitation/placement decisions made by authorities?

(6) What is the relationship between the substantiation of allegations of CSA and typical case characteristics?

Although some of these research questions are sufficiently specific to be addressed within a systematic review, we adopted a scoping review approach since, at the time of planning this review, the knowledge base regarding the research questions was unclear. Thus the primary aim of this review was to map the existing evidence and identify gaps in the literature, rather than to generate specific guidelines for practice (Munn et al., 2018).

Methods

This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis recommendations for scoping reviews provided by the JBI (Peters et al., 2020) and the PRISMA-ScR Checklist for scoping reviews. The literature search strategy and review protocol of this scoping review were preregistered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) on June 12, 2024, to ensure transparency and prevent bias (link to anonymized registration: https://osf.io/vzrt7/?view_only=4da63ca9124b44ec85d34aec20a1fd0f). This review was carried out as a part of a larger research project funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth/the Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues.

Article Search

The systematic literature search was carried out in the electronic databases PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. To find relevant preprints and dissertations, we also searched the Web of Science Preprint Citation Index and the Web of Science ProQuest™ Dissertations & Theses Citation Index.

The search was conducted between June 12, 2024, and July 19, 2024. We focused on articles published in English and German. Although this choice may limit the diversity of the review, it was necessitated by resource constraints. Due to an assumed scarcity of research, we used query strings to maximize the number of relevant sources found, and entered as many relevant terms as possible. The query strings used both in German and English in all databases were as follows:

Set 1: Sex* AND (Abuse* OR Violen* OR Victimiz* OR Offence OR Crime OR Harassment OR Molestation OR Maltreat* OR Assault OR Rape OR Exploitation OR Allegation OR Susp* OR Accus* OR Assertion OR Investigation)

Set 2: AND (“Family law” OR “Family court” OR “Child protection” OR “Child welfare” OR “Youth welfare” OR Divorce OR Separation OR Dispute* OR Custody OR Visitation OR “Access arrangements” OR “Termination of parental rights” OR Alienation OR “Parenting plan” OR Placement OR Removal)

Screening, Inclusion Criteria, and Exclusion Criteria

The identified studies were imported into Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), a browser-based software for conducting systematic reviews. After deleting duplicates, the screening was conducted in three steps, using the Covidence software: Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and extraction. The title and abstract screening were independently conducted by JS and JO, whereas the full-text screening was independently conducted by JS and AS. Screenings were based on a priori defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies in screening decisions were discussed and resolved through consensus. After the initial screening was completed, the reference lists of the included studies were reviewed to identify any additional relevant publications not captured in the original search. The screening process was based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

− Study type: We included original quantitative and qualitative studies. Reviews and meta-analyses were excluded as well as gray literature (i.e., reports and policy documents from governments or organizations) to maintain a focus on sources that meet established standards of scientific rigor.

− Publication type: We included empirical and peer-reviewed studies as well as dissertation theses and preprints. Conference abstracts and presentations as well as books and book chapters were excluded.

− Language: The publications had to be written in English or German.

− Allegations: The included studies had to investigate CSA allegations concerning children and adolescents under the age of 18.

− Context of allegations: Studies were only included if they investigated CSA allegations within child protection proceedings and/or parental disputes after separation (visitation and custody disputes).

− Study design: The processing of CSA allegations had to be investigated by case file analyses (i.e., family court files, case files from CPS, and clinical case records), surveys, and/or interview studies among professionals (see restrictions with respect to the included populations). Deviating from the preregistration, we excluded vignette studies involving professionals, as we decided to focus the review as closely as possible on real cases, procedures, and the actual behavior of parties involved in legal proceedings, particularly since hypothetical scenarios may bear only a limited resemblance to real-world behavior (Eifler & Petzold, 2019).

− Participants/Population: If studies involved participants, they had to belong to the professional groups relevant to the processing of CSA allegations in child protection proceedings (i.e., family court judges, lawyers, administrators, mediators, counselors, evaluators, social workers, psychological, and psychiatric expert witnesses). Studies focusing on lay persons in the context of the specified child custody and visitation proceedings as well as child protection proceedings (i.e., interviews/surveys with parents, other family members) were excluded.

− No specific inclusion or exclusion criteria for the case characteristics measured in the various studies were specified, as a wide range of case characteristics were relevant to our posed research questions.

Figure 1 displays a PRISMA diagram of the complete study selection process.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram for the scoping review process.

Extraction

We used a preregistered spreadsheet for data extraction (see online supplemental materials). JS and AS independently extracted the data. Any discrepancies during extraction were discussed in detail by JS and AS and resolved by consensus. Metadata encompassed information such as authors, publication year, the publication type, and the country in which the study was conducted. Method data encompassed study aim, design, sample size, sample characteristics, and analysis methods. Information relevant to the research questions included various variables such as case characteristics (e.g., information on the accused, child variables), frequency of CSA allegations, the evaluation of CSA allegations, and documented decisions regarding custody, placement, and visitation. Whenever associations among substantiations and case characteristics or documented custody, placement, and visitation decisions were reported, these were extracted as well.

Synthesis

The tabulated extracted data were descriptively mapped and narratively synthesized, based on the review’s research questions outlined above. This process was based on the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews by Popay et al. (2006). The data presentation also involves frequency counts and graphical mapping. The PRISMA-ScR Checklist for scoping reviews was followed when reporting the results. Not every information to extract was covered in all of the included studies. Consequently, missing data was expected but did not pose a problem because of the scoping review methodology we employed in this analysis.

Results

While the dataset is extensive and varied, this article prioritizes the most salient findings. The complete extraction sheet can be found in the online repository (https://osf.io/hf7jb/?view_only=683d40c5d7e94bcf9510d8c8b521130b).

General Information on the Studies Included in the Review

A total of 47 studies (1983–2024) was reviewed (asterisked in the reference list); 46.4% were published in 2000 or earlier and 69.4% in 2010 or earlier. This limits the contemporary validity of the review’s findings, given the significant developments in CSA discussions and legal frameworks over recent decades, as well as the need for current evidence to inform policy and practice (Spratt et al., 2015). Of these 47 studies, 41 were peer-reviewed journal articles, two were non-peer-reviewed academic journal articles included for their legal scholarship value, and four were doctoral dissertations assessed by academic committees. No relevant preprints were found. Regarding study design, 39 studies presented quantitative data analyses, five employed qualitative methods, and three used mixed-methods approaches.

Sample Sizes

The included studies reported on a total of N = 80,343 cases. Sample sizes varied greatly with a minimum of n = 1 (case study; Brooks & Milchman, 1991) and a maximum of n = 15,980 (Black et al., 2016). The median sample size was n = 188. However, sampling strategies varied substantially, hence the reported total sample size should be interpreted as a broad indicator of the database.

Geographic Distribution

Most studies were conducted in North America: 28 in the United States (59.6%), nine in Canada (19.2%), and eight in Australia (17%). Only two studies originated from Europe – one from the United Kingdom and one from Germany (2.1% each). When looking at case counts rather than number of studies, 65.8% of all 80,343 included cases were from Canada, followed by the United States with 28.7%. Although Australia was the source of eight studies, these accounted for only 1.8% of all cases. In contrast, the single German study contributed 3.6% of cases. Only 0.1% of cases were from the United Kingdom, specifically a sample of Scottish court decisions (MacKay, 2014). Thus, this review’s findings primarily reflect Western contexts and therefore have limited cross-cultural applicability. These jurisdictions share modern rule-of-law frameworks, liberal family norms, relatively strict legal definitions of CSA, and longstanding public debates on CSA and its sequelae, all of which may differ more or less from the cultural and legal settings in other regions, where norms surrounding family, marriage, and even the meaning of CSA may vary (Dubowitz, 2017; Sanjeevi et al., 2018).

Data Sources

Data sources across the 47 studies fell into three categories: child protection agencies, courts, and clinical institutions. Twenty-two studies (46.8%) used child protection data (three also drew on court data, one on a clinical source); 19 (40.4%) relied on court records (three also included child protection data, one a clinical source); and 12 (25.5%) used clinical data (one each also included court or child protection data). Most studies (n = 32, 68.1%) were based on case files, sometimes supplemented by interviews (e.g., with professional stakeholders), including records from child protection agencies, courts, clinical institutions, and sometimes independent expert witness reports. Judicial decisions were specifically analyzed in 10 studies (21.3%). The remaining five studies used written surveys or interviews with professionals (n = 4, 8.5%) or with children directly (n = 1, 2.1%).

Summary

Overall, three main clusters of research can be identified. First, Canadian studies based on large, representative Canadian Incidence Study (CIS) datasets, which draw on CPS data from the late 1990s and 2000s, account for more than half of all participants across the selected studies. Second, Australian studies focus on court cases, primarily from the Federal Court of Australia in the 2010s; these studies are more recent but involve small samples, representing roughly 2% of participants. Third, U.S. studies are more heterogeneous, drawing on clinical, court, and CPS samples and covering both recent and older periods.

Research Question 1: How Often Do Allegations of CSA Occur Within Child Custody and Visitation Proceedings as Well as Child Protection Proceedings?

Thirteen studies reported frequency estimates from non-preselected samples,⁴ yielding a total of 17 frequency estimates, as four studies reported multiple values. These estimates are presented in Table 1 in the supplemental materials. When each of the 17 estimates were treated as a single data point,⁵ the mean frequency of sexual abuse allegations was 8.9% (SD = 10.31; min = 0%, max = 39%; Md = 6%). Notably, only six of the estimates exceeded 10%, while 47% (n = 8) were 5% or lower.

Table 1.

Overview of the Studies Included in the Analyses of CSA Allegation Frequencies and Substantiation Rates.

Publication	Publication type	Country	N	Sample type	Investigator	Study context	Sampling time	CSA frequency*	CSA substantiation*
Bala et al. (2007)	Journal article	Canada	11.562	CIS-2003	CPS	CP VCD	2003	6%*	Overall: 26%; With VCD: 11%
Black et al. (2016)	Journal article	Canada	15.980	CIS-2008	CPS	CP VCD	2008	4.3%* (With VCD: 4.1%; without VCD: 5.3%)	–
Brown (2003)	Journal article	Australia	Study 1: 150 Study 2: 100	FCoA cases (residence/contact disputes with abuse allegations)	Court	VCD	Study 1: 1994–1996 Study 2: 1998–2000	–	Study 2: 45%*
Buisson et al. (2024)	Journal article	Canada	104 children from 92 decisions	Decisions of the Youth Court of Quebec	Court	CPS	2016–2022	–	85.6%*
Busse et al. (2000)	Journal article	Germany	2852	Files drawn from Family Courts in Berlin, Germany	Court	CP VCD	1988; 1993; 1995	3.2%* (Visitation conflicts: 3.3%)	Court: 28%* (Parent vs. Parent: 15.8%) CPS: 38.2%* Clinical: 13.6%*
Cross et al. (2015)	Journal article	USA	2910	National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (CPS reports)	CPS	CP	February 2008 to April 2009	10%*	–
Eckenrode et al. (1988)	Journal article	USA	1874	New York State Child Abuse and Maltreatment Register (CPS reports)	CPS	CP	April to August 1985	–	39%*
Everson and Boat (1989)	Journal article	USA	1249 CSA cases reported by 88 CPS workers	Survey with CPS workers from Social Services in North Carolina	CPS	CP	Prior year	–	56%*
Faller (1991)	Journal article	USA	136	Case files of CSA allegations during divorce referred to Project on Child Abuse and Neglect for diagnosis/treatment	Clinical	VCD	–	–	77%*
Faller and Devoe (1996)	Journal article	USA	215 allegations from 174 children	Case files of CSA allegations during divorce referred to a university-based clinic in the Midwest for evaluation	Clinical/Court	VCD	15 years	–	Clinical: 72.6%* Court: 35.3%*
Ferguson et al. (2018)	Journal article	Australia	156	Decisions of the FCoA regarding parenting disputes when CSA allegations are made	Court	VCD	2013–2015	–	10.3%*
Haskett et al. (1995)	Journal article	USA	175 most recent CSA cases reported by 20 CPS workers	Interview with CPS workers from Florida and North Carolina		CP	–	–	66.9%* With custody dispute: 14.3%Without: 71.4%
Hutchison (1988)	Dissertation	USA	228	Screening forms based on maltreatment reports	CPS	CP	Summer 1987	19.3%*
Jaffe et al. (1987)	Journal article	Canada	68	Cases referred from lawyers or judges in custody and/or access disputes for assessment (n = 34) or mediation (n = 34) to London Custody and Access Project	Clinical	VCD	1980–1986	CSA mentioned by 7%* of mothers and 0%* of fathers
Jaudes and Morris (1990)	Journal article	USA	180	Documentation of all children admitted to La Rabida Children’s Hospital, Chicago, because of suspected CSA	Clinical	CP	1979–1986	–	77%*
Johnston et al. (2005)	Journal article	USA	120	Parents in custody dispute referred from family courts in San Francisco Bay Area for evaluation or counseling	Clinical	VCD	1989–2002	Against mother: 6%* Against father: 23%*	9%*
Jones and McGraw (1987)	Journal article	USA	576	Reports of suspected CSA made to Denver Department of Social Services	CPS	CP	1983	–	53%*
Levine et al. (1998)	Journal article	USA	293	Randomly selected maltreatment reports received by a New York County Department of Social Services	CPS	CP	July to December 1993	15%*	12%*^a
MacKay (2014)	Journal article	UK	107	Court records regarding children who were subject of contested family law cases (contact or change of residence)	Court	VCD	2009–2013	15.8%*	–
McGraw and Smith (1992)	Journal article	USA	18	Cases of CSA allegations revolving around divorce and custody disputes investigated by the Boulder County (Colorado) Sexual Abuse Team	Clinical	VCD	March 1986–July 1987	–	44.4%*
McIntosh and Prinz (1993)	Journal article	USA	603	Family court cases of divorcing families with children and post-divorce cases pertaining to child custody or access in the surrounding county of a medium-size southeastern city	Court	VCD	1987	0.008%*
Moloney et al. (2007)	Journal article	Australia	300	Files of cases from FCoA (n = 150) and FMC (n = 150) where parenting matters were in dispute	Court	VCD	–	General litigants:FCoA: 2.8%* FMC: 2.6%Judicial determination:FCoA: 39%FMC: 0%*
Oates et al. (2000)	Journal article	USA	551	Case records of all CSA reports investigated by Denver Department of Social Services	CPS	CP	1992	–	43%*
Paradise et al. (1988)	Journal article	USA	30	All children between 4 and 12 years of age seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for a medical examination due to alleged CSA by a parent (n = 24), and cases from the clinical practice of the first author (n = 6)-	CPS	CP	June 1984 to March 1986	–	Without custody dispute: 95%* With custody dispute: 73%*
Ramsey-Klawsnik (1985)	Dissertation	USA	139	Records of Care and Protection Petitions from a district court of Massachusetts	Court	CP	1980–1983	–	19%*
Saini et al. (2013)	Journal article	Canada	11.562	CIS-2003	CPS	CPVCD	October to December 2003	Without custody dispute: 6%With custody dispute: 5%	–
Smith et al. (2006)	Journal article	USA	76 with n = 61 CSA cases	All CSA and serious physical abuse allegations reported to CPS in a mid-south rural county	CPS	CP	August to October	–	23%*
Thoennes and Tjaden (1990)	Journal article	USA	9000	Court-based mediators and evaluators at eight domestic relations courts completed a data collection form each time they encountered a custody or visitation dispute with an allegation of sexual abuse	Court	VCD	6 months in late 1986	1.9%*	50%*
Thompson (2010)	Dissertation	USA	183	Children less than 3 years old who were examined for CSA concerns in a pediatric evaluation center, 89 were evaluated by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services	CPS	CP	1999–2007	–	29.3%*
Trocmé and Bala (2005)	Journal article	Canada	7672	CIS-98	CPS	CP	October to December 1998	10.4%*	38%*
Trocmé et al. (2009)	Journal article	Canada	11.562	CIS-2003	CPS	CP	October to December 2003		20.3%*
Webb et al. (2021)	Journal article	Australia	521	FCoA judgments involving an allegation of CSA	Court	VCD	June 7, 2012–May 31, 2019	–	Fully contested cases: 14%;Allegation abandoned: 1%;Uncontested cases: 73%*

Note. In case the studies did not report frequencies directly but provided the necessary absolute frequencies, the percentages were computed by the authors. When no frequency or substantiation rates are reported, they were either not reported in the study, or selective and/or unclear sampling methods were reported.

CP = child protection; CPS = Child protection service; CIS = Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, examines the representative incidence of child maltreatment reports in Canada by randomly sampling CPS cases from selected welfare service sites; VCD = Visitation/Custody Disputes; FCoA = Federal Court of Australia; FMC = Federal Magistrate Court.

value included in overall mean computation.

weighted frequency.

Custody/Visitation Disputes

The mean frequency of CSA allegations was slightly lower (M = 7.9%; SD = 11.04; min = 0%, max = 39%, Md = 3.7%) when the analysis was restricted to cases involving ongoing custody/visitation disputes (n = 9).⁶ It should be noted, however, that most studies did not distinguish whether abuse allegations were already known or raised before the parental separation, or whether such allegations emerged during the custody or visitation proceedings (Faller, 1991; Faller & DeVoe, 1996). Two studies analyzed CIS data directly comparing cases with and without custody/visitation disputes, and found only small differences (Saini et al., 2013: 5% vs. 6%; Black et al., 2016: 5.1% vs. 4.3%). Both found that other maltreatment types were far more frequently alleged than CSA, both in cases involving custody disputes and in those without (i.e., Saini et al., 2013 reported physical abuse at 32% vs. 28%, and emotional maltreatment at 20% vs. 14%).

Research Question 2: What Are the Typical Case Characteristics When CSA Is Alleged in Child Custody and Visitation Proceedings as Well as Child Protection Proceedings?

Affected Children and Adolescents

Gender

Twenty-three studies⁷ reported on the gender of the children and adolescents allegedly affected by CSA. From 20 studies⁸ with quantitative data, an average of 27.2% of affected children were boys (SD = 12.72%; min = 12%, max = 56.07%), and 71.7% were girls (SD = 13.37%; min = 43.93%, max = 88%).

Age

Twenty-three⁹ studies provided age-related data for the children. From 11¹⁰ out of these 23 studies providing quantitative mean data, an average age of 7.8 years was calculated (SD = 1.84; min = 6, max = 11.9).

Medical/Psychological Condition

Six studies¹¹ reported medical and/or psychological data of the affected children. For example, Busse et al. (2000) reported “severe behavioral abnormalities” in about half of the children and developmental delays as well as learning difficulties in 18% of cases, respectively. Jaudes and Morris (1990) found that 15% of children had developmental delays, with these children being significantly younger than those without delays. In the clinical sample analyzed by Hlady and Gunter (1990), 70.6% of children exhibited behavioral issues, including sexualized behavior (35.3%), nightmares (26.5%), anxiety (17.7%), enuresis/encopresis (14.7%), and withdrawal (8.8%).

Accused Individuals

Twenty-two studies¹² provided information on the identity of the accused person. In the studies naming (biological) fathers, their average proportion was 60% (SD = 22.96%; min = 30.1%, max = 100%).¹³ In the nine quantitative studies reporting cases in which the mother was identified as the accused, mothers accounted for an average of 5.5% of accused persons (SD = 1.9%; range = 2.9–8.4%). Eight studies¹⁴ identified the mother’s new partner or the stepfather as the accused party at least once, with an average prevalence of 21.89% (SD = 13.67%; min = 3.2%, max = 52%).

The Accusing Individuals

Among the 23 studies¹⁵ providing information on the identity of the accusing party, 9 studies¹⁶ included only cases in which accusations originated from parents against parents (involving visitation/custody disputes) with two reporting quantitative data that identified the mother as the most frequent accuser (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990: 94.4%; Webb et al., 2021: 89.3%). From seven studies providing quantitative data that did not restrict their sample to accusing parents,¹⁷ the average prevalence of mothers as accusing individuals was 76.7% (SD = 8.01%; min = 64%, max = 89.25%). For fathers, the average prevalence was 14.5% (SD = 11.75%; min = 4%, max = 40%). Meier (2020) and Silberg and Dallam (2019) analyzed only cases involving accusing mothers. However, large CIS data analyses found that even in the context of parental separation, only roughly half of the CSA allegations were made by (non-)custodial parents (Bala et al., 2007).

Other accusing individuals or institutions were professionals (4–29%; Bala et al., 2007; Trocmé et al., 2005), medical personnel (11.4%; Levine et al., 1998), child protection agencies (60%; Faller & DeVoe, 1996), youth welfare offices (8%; Faller, 1991; and 30.8%; Thompson, 2010), other authorities or the courts (20%; Faller, 1991), police (8.2%; Thompson, 2010), schools (11.4%; Levine et al., 1998), grandparents (4–16%; Foote, 2006; and 2.2%; Thompson, 2010), and the children themselves (3.3%; Busse et al., 2000; and 22%; Faller, 1991).

Research Question 3: How Are Allegations of CSA Substantiated in These Cases?

Among the studies that mentioned sources of substantiation, not all reported specific information on how professional opinions were formed. For example, Thoennes and Tjaden (1990) reported that only the CPS worker’s opinion (20%), only the custody evaluator’s opinion (47%), or both (33%) were available. The next section details the main substantiation methods used in the included studies.

Physical/Medical Evidence

McGraw and Smith (1992) specified that physical evidence includes any indications of ejaculation, sexually transmitted diseases, or physical trauma. Across the studies reporting physical evidence, it was a relatively rare form of evidence (i.e., Ferguson et al., 2018: 3.8%; Hlady & Gunter, 1990: 17.6%). In their interview study with CPS workers, Haskett et al. (1995) found that a medical consultation occurred in 66.9% of cases (see also Smith et al., 2006).

Expert Testimony

In a relevant number of studies, mostly drawing from court samples, expert testimony was an important source for substantiation. However, the involvement of experts and the qualifications required for them vary considerably across countries, which may limit the comparability of findings. Haskett et al. (1995) found that U.S. CPS workers used medical (66.9%) and mental health experts (19.4%) in the process of substantiation. Smith et al. (2006) reported medical exams in 57.1% of cases examined in a Child Advocacy Center in the United States. While Busse et al. (2000) reported that psychological expert witnesses were involved in approximately one-third of the examined German court cases, Webb et al. (2021) and Schindeler (2019) found in their analyses of judgments by the Family Court of Australia that independent expert opinions from various professionals (psychologists, social workers, medical experts) were heard in the vast majority of cases. Schindeler (2019) highlighted the lack of standardized qualifications for expert witnesses in Australia, noting conflicting conclusions between treating psychologists and non-treating experts, as well as courts’ skepticism toward reports based on biased data or questionable indicators (e.g., behaviors, drawings). Similarly, Busse et al. (2000) identified major methodological flaws in some German reports, particularly the absence of child interviews and inadequate assessment of suggestive influences which in many cases is considered an important scenario to be investigated (Laajasalo et al., 2018).

Testimonies and Interviews

One of the most frequently relied-upon forms of evidence is the testimony of the children involved. In studies focusing on clinical assessments, Jones and McGraw (1987), McGraw and Smith (1992), and Everson and Boat (1985) listed several aspects of a child’s statement as relevant for the substantiation process (i.e., details, expressed emotions, consistency).

Child interviews and their evaluations were important factors in court- and CPS-related studies as well. For example, Busse et al. (2000) reported that child interviews were conducted in 58% of cases. Haskett et al. (1995) found that all children were interviewed, with additional interviews conducted for siblings (n = 41, 23.4%), the nonoffending parent (n = 135, 77.1%), and the alleged offender (n = 34, 19.4%). Ferguson et al. (2018) found that substantiation was primarily based on reports from alleged abusers and children (substantiated cases: 68.8%; unsubstantiated cases: 58.4%), with eyewitness accounts playing a lesser role. Schindeler (2019) highlighted that children were often interviewed multiple times and discussed potential harm for children due to multiple interviews.

Child’s Behavior and Other Problematic Indicators

Several studies also reported that substantiation relied on the child`s behavior as well as other indicators that can be considered problematic. As already mentioned above, some expert witnesses in the court case sample collected by Schindeler (2019) seemed to interpret emotional reactions and drawings of the child involved. Other studies listed the children’s use of toys and drawings as well as the behavior of the child during the period of the abuse as relevant indicators (Jones & MacGraw, 1987; McGraw & Smith, 1992). Similarly, Haskett et al. (1994) named anatomical dolls (21.7%) and drawings (11.4%) as interview aids, and mentioned behavioral and emotional indicators to be used as factors of substantiation (fear of offender/retaliation: 18.8%; distress during interview: 10.3%; disturbances: 9.4%; depression: 9.4%). This contradicts established assessment standards, which highlight the suggestive nature and limited reliability of interpreting such “signs.” Drawings and many behavioral indicators are ambiguous, easily misinterpreted, and can arise from numerous causes unrelated to abuse; therefore, current guidelines advise against using them as evidence of CSA and instead recommend a combination of socio-emotional support and focusing on open questions (Korkman et al., 2024; Lamb et al., 2007).

Research Question 4: To What Extent Are the Allegations of CSA Considered Substantiated, Unsubstantiated, Unverifiable, or Not Specified?

Twenty-three studies reported 29 eligible CSA substantiation rates from unselected samples¹⁸ (see Table 1). The average across these 29 reported substantiation rates was 42.8% (min = 1.0%, max = 85.6%; SD = 26.0%; Md = 41.0%). On average, clinical institutions (n = 6; M = 48.9%) and CPS (n = 13; M = 45.1%) substantiated more often than courts (36.1%, n = 10).

However, there was a wide variation in reported frequencies especially in court samples. For example, Buisson et al. (2024) analyzed n = 92 decisions from the Québec Youth Court (Canada) between 2016 and 2022 involving children aged 12 or younger in non-settled cases. In this sample, 85.6% of mostly intra-familial abuse allegations involving 104 children were substantiated. By contrast, Ferguson et al. (2018) analyzed n = 156 decisions of the Family Court of Australia from 2013 to 2015 regarding parenting disputes when CSA allegations were made, and found a substantiation rate of 10.3%. Webb et al. (2021) reported substantiation rates separately for contested, uncontested, and retracted allegations, with a very low substantiation rate of 1% for the last group, but higher rates for the other two (uncontested: 73%; contested: 14%).

Differentiations of Non-Substantiated Cases

Only a minority of the studies further differentiated non-substantiation. Overall, these studies mostly found that non-substantiated claims were very rarely intentional lies and seldom initiated by the children themselves. Instead, they were primarily made by adults, usually without any intention to fabricate allegations.

Lies

Eight studies¹⁹ reported frequencies of intentional false allegations, whether made by adult caregivers or children. On average, these studies reported that 7.0% (min = 1.6%, max = 16.8%; SD = 4.8%; Md = 6%) of all substantiation decisions involved allegations judged to be intentionally fabricated.²⁰ Again, estimates varied widely but the rates of intentionally false allegations were consistently much lower than the non-substantiation rates.

Unresolved/Not Determined

The category unresolved or not determined was reported in 10 eligible studies using 13 estimators.²¹ This included cases where suspicions remained, but a final decision could not be reached. On average, 16.9% of cases fell into this category (min = 3.3%, max = 41%; SD = 9.6%; Md = 17%).

Details About False Allegations

Some studies reported more detailed information about the nature of false allegations. Ferguson et al. (2018) listed insufficient evidence (41.6%), the reporting individual (14.2%), or the child being viewed as unreliable (10.5%). In 6.3% of cases, the reporting parent was believed to have coached the child or the child was thought to have made a deliberate false allegation. In 4.2%, mental health issues or inconsistencies in testimony were noted. In 23.9% of unsubstantiated cases, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was mentioned. In their review of 551 child protection case files from Denver involving suspected CSA, Oates et al. (2000) found that 17.3% of the non-substantiated cases (n = 185) involved exaggerated concerns by a parent or relative, and 16.2% were based on unconfirmed reports from laypersons (11.3%) or professionals (4.9%), while in 4.8%, an adult was believed to have fabricated the allegation. In only 2.5% of all cases (n = 14), children were believed to have made false accusations. Similarly, both Jones and McGraw (1987) and McGraw and Smith (1992) found that fictitious accounts from children were noted less often than those from adults (1% vs. 5% and 5.5% vs. 11%, respectively). Finally, Schindeler (2019) reviewed contested custody dispute cases from the Family Court of Australia, and reported that in 40% of all n = 93 cases, evidence for parental coaching was found. In n = 10 cases (10.8%), such coaching was classified as a deliberate attempt to support a false allegation by the child.

Custody Dispute Context

When only cases with custody/visitation disputes between parents were included, the substantiation rate was slightly lower than the overall substantiation rate reported above (M = 35.5%; min = 1.0%, max = 77.0%; SD = 27.0%; Md = 35.3%). Within the CIS-2003 from Canada, Bala et al. (2007) also found that substantiation rates were lower in a subsample of cases involving parental separation (n = 69; 11% vs. 26%). Similar results were reported by Paradise et al. (1988) (custody conflict: 73%;. no custody conflict: 95%) and Haskett et al. (1994) (custody conflict: 14.3%; no custody conflict: 71.4%), although their samples especially of custody-related cases were quite small (n = 11 vs. n = 14). Busse et al. (2000) reported a lower substantiation rate when one parent accused the other (n = 19) compared to the overall rate (15.8% vs. 28%). Therefore, individual studies reported larger differences between substantiation rates in custody-related versus non-custody-related cases than those observed in the aggregated findings; however, these results were generally based on small samples, making their reliability uncertain.

Very few studies included differentiated data on non-substantiation in cases involving a custody dispute. For example, only two studies reported intentional false allegations in the context of custody disputes (McGraw & Smith, 1992: 16.5%; Faller, 1991: 2.2%). Bala et al. (2007)²² found that the overall rate of intentional lies was much higher when only the context of parental separation was considered (5% vs. 18%). However, with a rate of 36% accusations classified as unsubstantiated but made in good faith were twice as common.

Research Question 5: What Custody/Visitation/Placement Decisions Are Reported and How Does the Substantiation Relate to the Custody/Visitation/Placement Decisions?

Of the 47 studies included in the literature review, only six reported a direct association between substantiation decisions made by an institution and the resulting family law outcomes. Busse et al. (2000) found that in 45 German custody/visitation cases, the abuse allegations influenced only 19 decisions. Even when allegations, mostly against the fathers, were considered unsubstantiated (n = 8), visitation was restricted in some cases due to residual doubts or conflict concerns while in custody cases with unfounded allegations (n = 7), the accused parent kept or was granted custody in five cases. Substantiated allegations (n = 3) always led to visitation suspension or custody removal. Faller and DeVoe (1996) studied 215 CSA allegations arising in the context of separation (174 children, 1976–1991) and found that courts denied unrestricted access to children more often in likely than in unlikely cases (60.3% vs. 37.2%). Such decisions were associated with abuse severity, conviction, confession, or professional corroboration. The court’s substantiation rate (35.3%) was lower than the overall rate of protective action (53.5%), suggesting that courts considered more factors than substantiation alone. Buisson et al. (2024) found that in 27% of cases with substantiated allegations from the Family Court of Quebec, the children were removed from the home, although 87.5% of removals occurred before the hearing. Ferguson et al. (2018) provided data from a sample of court rulings in the Federal Court of Australia on substantiation rates and whether the mother or father was granted residence or responsibility. However, the study did not indicate which parent was accused or whether the rulings altered existing custody arrangements, leaving the impact of the allegations on parental rights unclear.

Court Studies Involving PAS Claims

Meier (2020) analyzed 4,338 U.S. family court decisions (2005–2014). Custody never transferred to the father in substantiated CSA allegations by the mother (n = 27). When mothers reported CSA (alone or with physical abuse) and fathers claimed PAS, the mother lost custody in 56% of instances (n = 26/46). Courts accepted PAS claims in 25 cases, which often corresponds to non-substantiation of abuse allegations, and in 76% of these cases (n = 19), the mother lost custody. Similarly, Meier and Dickson (2017) found in a U.S. family court decision sample (n = 238, from 2002 to 2013) that 6% of CSA allegations with PAS claims were substantiated; in 95% of these cases, custody transferred from the mother to the father.

Summary

Overall, these findings suggest that substantiation is an important but not the only decision-making factor, as placement and visitation restrictions usually occur more frequently than formal substantiations, and courts sometimes impose protective limitations on a parent even when allegations cannot be confirmed. In the United States in particular, PAS appears to play a notable role in interpreting non-substantiated CSA claims. However, research remains scarce and often lacks the detailed data necessary to fully understand the dynamics of allegations and court decision-making, both in cases with and without PAS claims.

Research Question 6: What Is the Relationship Between the Substantiation of Allegations of CSA and Typical Case Characteristics?

A total of 21 studies²³ provided various findings regarding case-level variables associated with substantiation rates. We summarize the most important results.

Child-Related Variables

Some studies examined the role of age in substantiation outcomes, mostly identifying a positive association between the child’s age and the likelihood of substantiation (Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990; Eckenrode et al., 1988; Oates et al., 2000; Haskett et al., 1995; Thompson, 2010; no age effect found by Buisson et al., 2024). By contrast, Oates et al. (2000) found that children who made false allegations were significantly older than those in the comparison groups. Two studies investigated gender and found higher substantiation rates for cases involving female children (Eckenrode et al.,1988; Faller & DeVoe,1996). Several studies suggested that verbal disclosures or specific information provided by the child were positively associated with substantiation (Thompson, 2010; Faller & DeVoe, 1996; Haskett et al., 1995).

Variables Related to the Accused and the Accuser

Faller and DeVoe (1996) reported a higher likelihood of an allegation being rated as “likely” if the accused had made a confession. With respect to the accuser, there were some indications that false allegations may be more common among individuals with personality disorders (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990), and that substantiation rates tended to be lower when the accusing party was the child’s mother (Ferguson et al., 2018). In their sample of U.S. court decisions with unclear search strings, Meier (2020) reported lower substantiation rates in cases where Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was alleged (2% vs. 15%; see also Meier & Dickson, 2017).

Other Case Variables

Several studies found that the presence of testimony from other witnesses (Faller & DeVoe, 1996; Thompson, 2010; see also sibling interviews in Haskett et al., 1995), other forms of evidence (e.g., medical examinations; Faller & DeVoe, 1996; Haskett et al., 1995), and indicators of investigative intensity or authority involvement (such as professional sources of suspicion, number of contacts with affected individuals, duration of the investigation, and legal action following disclosure; Eckenrode et al., 1988) were positively associated with substantiation. Similar associations were observed for abuse characteristics such as the frequency of abuse or prior abuse history (Faller & DeVoe, 1996; Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990), and abuse severity (Haskett et al., 1995).

Discussion

This preregistered scoping review addressed the current state of scientific knowledge regarding allegations of sexual abuse within the context of family court and child protection proceedings. The key results are summarized in Table 2. Overall, the empirical literature can be grouped into three clusters: Canadian analyses of large national datasets from the late 1990s and 2000s; Australian court-based studies from the 2010s; and U.S. research spanning several decades with varied methodologies. Across studies, CSA allegation prevalences averaged 8.9% and were less frequent than other maltreatment allegations, with most – but not all – cases involving mothers accusing fathers. Substantiation rates averaged 43%, with only slight, if any, reductions in custody and visitation disputes. Most unsubstantiated claims reflected genuine but mistaken concerns. Though many studies did not specify the evidence, substantiation appears to have relied mainly on testimonies from children, other witnesses, and expert evaluations. However, potentially problematic indicators, such as behavior, may also still play a role. Evidence on legal consequences is limited, but substantiated allegations typically led to restricted or suspended contact, while unsubstantiated or unclear allegations elicited more variable judicial responses, sometimes including restrictions despite non-substantiation.

Table 2.

Critical Findings.

State of Research	− 47 studies (1983–2024), mostly pre-2010 and thus, outdated.− Dominated by North America and Australia; European data largely absent, no non-Western perspectives.− Three main clusters: • Canadian CIS studies (large samples, 1990s–2000s), • Australian court-based studies (small samples, 2010s), • Heterogeneous U.S. studies from courts, CPS, and clinics.
Prevalence of CSA in custody/visitation and child protection	− Average rate: 8.9% (SD = 10.31; min = 0%, max = 39%; Md = 6%).− Custody/visitation proceedings: 7.9%, but no differences in studies using direct comparisons.− CSA less frequent than other maltreatment types.
Case characteristics	− Mainly female victims and accused men.− Fathers and stepfathers make the largest group of accused.− Mothers most often, but not exclusively, reported as accusers; substantial number of allegations made by professionals.
Means of substantiation	− Focus on medical examination, witness statements, and expert witnesses.− Witness statements and their assessment by expert witnesses play key role.− Indications for methodological flaws in some expert witness reports.
Substantiation	− Average rate: 42.8% (min = 1.0%, max = 85.6%; SD = 26.0%; Md = 41.0%).− CPS: 45.1% (n = 13); clinical institutions: 48.9% (n = 6); courts: 36.1% (n = 10).− Intentional lies: 7% (n = 8); Unresolved/Not determined: 16.9% (n = 10).− Average of custody/visitation proceedings: 35.5% (min = 1.0%, max = 77.0%; SD = 27.0%; Md = 35.3%).
Relationship between substantiation and legal outcomes	− Substantiated cases usually led to restricted or suspended contact with the accused parent.− Unsubstantiated cases showed varied outcomes: restrictions, custody transfers, or no change. → Substantiation not the only important factor
Relationship between case variables and substantiation	− Substantiation more likely with older children, female victims, detailed disclosures, corroborating witnesses, medical evidence, and severe/frequent abuse.− Investigative intensity (e.g., number of interviews, professional involvement, legal action) was also linked to higher substantiation.

Note. CIS = Canadian Incidence Study; CSA = Child Sexual Abuse.

The Current State of Empirical Research

First, with fewer than one-third of the 47 studies published after 2010, much of the research may be outdated. Since then, custody practice has evolved through new forensic guidelines, ethical standards, and evaluator expertise (Ackerman et al., 2021), alongside greater awareness of CSA, trauma-informed approaches, and shifts in societal attitudes. Legal standards, safeguards, and institutional responses have also changed, meaning older studies may no longer reflect current legal, clinical, or social realities, limiting their relevance for today’s practice and policy. Second, while the field’s Western roots explain the dominance of studies from North America and Australia, the near absence of European studies is striking and difficult to justify. European child protection and family law systems differ in important ways, for example, responsibilities for conducting assessments vary, and custody/visitation evaluations and child maltreatment assessments are often less clearly separated than in North American contexts, with direct practical implications (Zumbach et al., 2022). Also, the USA, Canada, and Australia rely on mandatory reporting of suspected abuse (although there are differences concerning which cases should be reported to whom; see Mathews & Kenny, 2008). This feature is not shared by all European systems and likely influences which cases enter official processes. As a result, the lack of evidence from Europe may have had a major influence on the results. Moreover, incorporating non-Western perspectives on family law, abuse, and custody would also add valuable insights by highlighting cultural and legal approaches that may differ markedly from those in Western contexts. While the language constraint of the current review may have influenced the findings, there is evidence that addressing CSA as both an individual and societal issue presents distinct challenges across cultures and regions. Many of these challenges are not unique to particular cultures but occur in diverse contexts worldwide, such as patriarchal norms, conservative family values, and limited recognition of children’s rights. Yet, their expression and impact vary and are shaped by cultural contexts. These factors can make it particularly difficult to discuss CSA, especially when it intersects with family matters such as separation or divorce (i.e., Attrash-Najjar & Katz, 2023; Sanjeevi et al., 2018). Third, in light of the complexity of decision-making in family law proceedings, especially those involving CSA, there is a lack of in-depth qualitative research exploring how judges assess and evaluate such cases (for exceptions see Higgins, 2010, and Buisson et al., 2024). Finally, key questions remain underexplored, particularly how substantiation outcomes relate to custody or placement decisions. Little data exists on specific accusation constellations (e.g., mother vs. father, father vs. mother, or professionals vs. parents), and how these compare with one another in relation to substantiation and subsequent custody or visitation rulings. Similarly, most studies did not provide systematic information regarding whether the allegation was made prior to parental separation, potentially contributing to the decision to divorce, or after custody proceedings had commenced (for an exception, see Faller & DeVoe, 1996). This is a notable gap given the frequently voiced concern that CSA allegations, particularly those raised by mothers, may be strategically motivated to influence custody outcomes (for a critical perspective, see Milchman, 2024).

Based on the current state of research, we propose a research agenda to address existing gaps. Future work should adopt mixed-methods designs that integrate quantitative estimates with qualitative analyses examining how substantiation relates to custody, placement, and access decisions, as well as how the constellation and timing of allegations shape outcomes. Cross-national comparisons, particularly in Europe and non-Western contexts, are needed to capture legal and cultural variation. Ideally, longitudinal designs would follow cases across the entire decision-making process, allowing closer analyses of influencing factors and the longer-term consequences of placement and access decisions for affected children.

Findings on CSA Allegations in Family Law Proceedings

With the shortcomings of the current state of research in mind, the reviewed data allow for some cautious conclusions.

CSA Allegations May Not Be Overly Prevalent in Family Law Proceedings

Although often the subject of intense public and professional debate, and unquestionably of critical importance when they arise, CSA allegations appear to occur only in a small minority of family law and child protection proceedings, and less frequently than other forms of maltreatment mirroring general prevalence rates reported by large studies (Stoltenborgh et al., 2015). When restricting the analysis to studies specifically focusing on custody or visitation disputes, we observed a slightly lower average prevalence of CSA allegations compared to the global average. However, due to substantial methodological variation across studies, including differences in case selection, definitions, and data sources, this mean estimate should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, large-scale Canadian studies that directly compared the frequency of CSA allegations in cases with and without custody disputes found, at most, negligible differences. Thus, we found no evidence to support the sometimes voiced assumption that CSA allegations occur particularly frequently in custody proceedings.

Rare False Allegations, Moderate Substantiation Rates, and Complex Decision-Making

The brief overview of the substantiation methods we provided shows the complexity of decision-making in CSA cases. Given that sexual abuse often leaves no physical evidence, child interviews remain the most critical source of information. This highlights the importance of adhering to established, evidence-based guidelines for forensic child interviewing (Korkman et al., 2024). Such interviewing includes the use of socio-emotional support and primarily relies on open questions (Lamb et al., 2007). It also encompasses awareness of the suggestive potential of closed questions, the ambiguity of children’s behavior and drawings, and the risk of eliciting false allegations when using facilitators such as anatomical dolls. Given the core ethical challenge to protect children from abuse while preserving family integrity by avoiding false accusations, it is imperative for investigators to closely follow these evidence-based interview guidelines.

The mean substantiation rate of 43% should be interpreted with caution as it treated all rates equally, although key features such as sample sizes varied significantly. Nevertheless, this number is consistent with substantiation rates documented in international studies (e.g., Laajasalo et al., 2018). Although there are some indications of lower substantiation rates in custody disputes and parent-against-parent accusations, the evidence is too inconsistent to support claims of significant differences. Thus, we found no clear evidence to support the often voiced concern regarding an overly skeptical stance toward CSA allegations raised in custody proceedings. However, the relatively low substantiation rates highlight persistent challenges in confirming CSA allegations regardless of the proceedings type while our data do not allow us to determine whether this reflects a genuinely higher incidence of false allegations, or simply the limitations of available means of substantiation.

Cases were more likely to be substantiated when the child provided detailed and specific accounts of the alleged incidents, when the allegations involved multiple and severe instances of abuse, when additional forms of corroborating evidence were available, when the alleged perpetrator confessed, and when child protection and investigative authorities were consistently and actively involved before and during the proceedings (for similar variables in criminal proceedings involving CSA, see Duron, 2018, and Joki-Erkkilä et al., 2018). These findings underscore the need for authorities to become involved early and proactively with affected families, ideally supported by a well-functioning prevention network. They also highlight the importance of collecting evidence carefully, potentially in collaboration with police investigators, while adhering to established child interview standards (see above). The lower average substantiation rate in court-based studies (36%) should be interpreted cautiously, as some studies report higher rates (e.g., Buisson et al., 2024) and court cases likely represent a preselected, more complex, and contested subset of allegations.

The current review also showed that when institutions do not substantiate allegations, this should not be equated with assuming intentional deception. In the few studies that explicitly reported on the frequency of deliberate fabrication, confirmed false allegations were found to be exceedingly rare. This underscores the challenging role of institutions handling CSA allegations, which must make complex decisions amid heightened societal awareness, potential consequences, and the risk of false or inconclusive claims. All the more, careful communication of non-substantiation decisions, particularly to the alleging parent, appears crucial for supporting subsequent custody and access proceedings, as well as for maintaining parental cooperation and trust in the legal system.

When Substantiation Matters – and When It Doesn’t: Legal Responses to CSA Allegations

Available evidence suggests that courts adjust their decisions based on the substantiation of CSA allegations. When substantiated, contact with the accused parent is often restricted or suspended. In unsubstantiated or unclear cases, outcomes vary: contact may still be limited, custody may transfer, or arrangements may remain unchanged. This highlights the central role of substantiation, while also showing that additional factors, such as the accusing parent’s response or the child’s welfare, can influence decisions. U.S. data indicate that assumptions of PAS may also affect rulings, though further research is needed. It must be stressed that, especially in an emotionally challenging situation such as a divorce, false suspicions can lead to often unintentional suggestive questioning of a child by their parent (O’Donohue et al., 2010; Principe & London, 2022). At the same time, the concept of PAS has been criticized for making overly strong claims and being unscientific (Meier et al., 2022; Neustein & Lesher, 2009). This makes the uncritical use of its claims and terminology unwarranted; nevertheless, any potential suggestive influences must still be examined with particular care. Future research may examine the use of PAS more closely, particularly with respect to potential gender asymmetries in its application and the judicial biases that may accompany it.

Implications of This Review for Future Practice, Policy, and Research

The implications of this scoping review for practice, policy, and research are summarized in Table 3. Overall, practice implications highlight the central role of child interviews, underscoring the need for evidence-based forensic protocols, as questionable indicators still influence decision-making. Moreover, decision-making authorities must carefully communicate substantiation decisions and ensure cooperation of all persons involved. At the policy level, inconsistent legal responses, sometimes restricting contact even in unsubstantiated cases, highlight the need for clearer, evidence-informed guidelines that protect children without unfairly penalizing parents. Such guidelines should also communicate that, while many cases may not be substantiated, they are nevertheless not intentionally fabricated. In terms of research, much of the literature is outdated, and European evidence is almost entirely absent despite the issue’s global relevance. Key gaps include the timing of allegations, comparisons across different accusation constellations, and especially studies providing non-Western perspectives. We call for a research agenda that not only addresses these gaps, but ideally incorporates mixed-methods longitudinal designs and enables cross-cultural comparisons.

Table 3.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research.

Practice	− Substantiation often hinges on child statements, yet children may be interviewed/evaluated with questionable indicators (drawings, behavior).→ Reliance on evidence-based forensic interviewing protocols is essential.− Professionals must balance risks: avoiding both dismissal of genuine allegations and undue restrictions from unsubstantiated but good-faith concerns.− Training and standards for professionals involved should be strengthened.
Policy	− Legal outcomes can vary even when allegations are unsubstantiated; clear guidelines could help reduce inconsistency.− Policies should reflect that deliberate false allegations are rare, ensuring that non-substantiation is not equated with fabrication.− Given CSA’s rarity but gravity in family law, legal systems need safeguards that both protect children from abuse and prevent unjust custody losses based on weak evidence.
Research	− More research is needed • reflecting current legal standards and custody evaluation frameworks • broadening the geographic and cultural scope toward Europe and non-Western perspectives • ideally based on longitudinal designs.− Key gaps include • How substantiation relates to custody/placement decisions. • Comparative analysis of accusation constellations (mother vs. father, professionals vs. parents, etc.). • Timing of allegations (before vs. during custody disputes).

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Jonas Schemmel

Katharina Zell

Asne Senberg

Jana Otzipka

Renate Volbert

Jelena Zumbach-Basu

Ethical Considerations

Since no primary data involving human participants was collected, ethical approval was not required.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research grant by the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth/the Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data extraction table can be accessed online via OSF ().

Notes

Author Biographies

Jonas Schemmel, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in the Psychology Department at the University of Hagen as part of the Lab for Personality Psychology, Legal Psychology, and Psychological Assessment. His research focuses on credibility assessment in alleged sexual offence cases, the intersection of memory recovery and psychotherapy, and intimate partner violence. He serves as an expert witness specializing in credibility assessments.

Katharina Zell, MSc, is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, in the Department of Forensic Psychology. Her research focuses on child abuse and delinquent behavior, as well as on forensic psychological assessment. She serves as an expert witness for risk and credibility assessments.

Asne Senberg, MSc, is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapy trainee. Her research interests include credibility assessments, psychotherapy, and risk factors for child maltreatment, with a particular focus on emotional maltreatment. She works in both research and clinical practice contexts.

Anna-Luisa Sahlfeld, MSc, is a psychoanalyst and PhD candidate at the University of Cape Town. Her research focuses on forensic psychology, particularly in the context of family law, psychoanalysis, and neuropsychoanalysis. She serves as an expert witness specializing in family law matters.

Jana Otzipka, MSc, is a PhD candidate at Freie Universität Berlin and a research associate at Psychologische Hochschule Berlin. Her research focuses on credibility assessments, child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, wrongful convictions, and cognitive biases, with a particular focus on debiasing strategies in forensic and legal contexts.

Renate Volbert, PhD, is a professor of Forensic Psychology at the Psychologische Hochschule Berlin. Her research focuses on credibility assessment, suggestibility, and interviewing in alleged sexual offence cases. She serves as an expert witness specializing in credibility assessments.

Jelena Zumbach-Basu, PhD, is professor of Forensic Psychology at the University of Basel, Switzerland. Her research focuses on child abuse and neglect risk assessment, forensic psychology in family law, and aggressive and antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence. She serves as an expert witness in family law cases.

References

Ackerman

M. J.

Bow

J. N.

Mathy

(2021). Child custody evaluation practices: Where we were, where we are, and where we are going. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 52(4), 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000380

*Anderson

G. D.

(2016). Service outcomes following disclosure of child sexual abuse during forensic interviews: An exploratory study. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 10(5), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2016.1206505

Attrash-Najjar

Katz

(2023). Child sexual abuse studies in Arab societies: A systematic review and directions for future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1300–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211061773

*Bala

N. M. C.

Mitnick

Trocmé

Houston

(2007). Sexual abuse allegations and parental separation: Smokescreen or fire? Journal of Family Studies, 13(1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.13.1.26

*Black

Saini

Fallon

Deljavan

Wall

(2016). The intersection of child custody disputes and child protection investigations: Secondary data analysis of the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect (CIS-2008). International Journal of Child and Adolescent Resilience, 4(1), 143–157.

*Black

F. A.

Schweitzer

R. D.

Varghese

F. T.

(2012). Allegations of child sexual abuse in family court cases: A qualitative analysis of psychiatric evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.613905

Bowles

J. J.

Christian

K. K.

Drew

M. B.

Yetter

K. L.

(2008). A judicial guide to child safety in custody cases. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

*Brooks

C. M.

Milchman

M. S.

(1991). Child sexual abuse allegations during custody litigation: Conflicts between mental health expert witnesses and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370090104

*Brown

(2003). Fathers and child abuse allegations in the context of parental separation and divorce. Family Court Review, 41(3), 367–380.

10.

*Buisson

Poitras

Joyal

C. C.

(2024). Risk of child sexual abuse: A mixed-methods analysis of judicial decisions in the Youth Court of Québec. Children and Youth Services Review, 160, 107572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107572

11.

*Busse

Steller

Volbert

(2000). Sexueller Missbrauchsverdacht in familiengerichtlichen Verfahren. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 10, 3–98.

12.

Cross

T. P.

Chuang

Helton

J. J.

Lux

E. A.

(2015). Criminal investigations in child protective services cases: An empirical analysis. Child Maltreatment, 20(2), 104–114.

13.

Death

Ferguson

Burgess

(2019). Parental alienation, coaching, and the best interests of the child: Allegations of child sexual abuse in the Family Court of Australia. Child Abuse & Neglect, 94, 104045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104045

14.

Dubowitz

(2017). Child sexual abuse and exploitation—A global glimpse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 66, 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.011

15.

Duffy

Keenan

Dillenburger

(2006). Diagnosing child sex abuse: A research challenge. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2(2), 150–173.

16.

Duron

J. F.

(2018). Legal decision–making in child sexual abuse investigations: A mixed–methods study of factors that influence prosecution. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.022

17.

*Eckenrode

Powers

Doris

Munsch

Bolger

(1988). Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.1.9

18.

Eifler

Petzold

(2019). Validity aspects of vignette experiments: Expected “what-if” differences between reports of behavioral intentions and actual behavior. In Lavrakas

P. J.

Traugott

M. W.

Kennedy

Holbrook

A. L.

de Leeuw

E. D.

West

B. T.

(Eds.), Experimental methods in survey research (pp. 393–416). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119083771.ch20

19.

*Everson

M. D.

Boat

B. W.

(1989). False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(2), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198903000-00014

20.

*Faller

K. C.

(1991). Possible explanations for child sexual abuse allegations in divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079227

21.

*Faller

K. C.

DeVoe

(1996). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v04n04_01

22.

*Ferguson

Wright

Death

Burgess

Malouff

(2018). Allegations of child sexual abuse in parenting disputes: An examination of judicial determinations in the Family Court of Australia. Journal of Child Custody, 15(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1415776

23.

Fernandes

Gomes

J. P.

Albuquerque

P. B.

Matos

(2024). Forensic interview techniques in child sexual abuse cases: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 25(2), 1382–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231177317

24.

*Finkelhor

(1983). Removing the child—prosecuting the offender in cases of sexual abuse: Evidence from the national reporting system for child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(83)90071-6

25.

*Foote

W. L.

(2006). Child sexual abuse allegations in the Family Court. University of Sydney.

26.

Forslund

Granqvist

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Sagi-Schwartz

Glaser

Steele

Duschinsky

(2021). Attachment goes to court: Child protection and custody issues. Attachment & Human Development, 24(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762

27.

Green

A. H.

(1991). Factors contributing to false allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes. Child & Youth Services, 15(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1300/J024v15n02_11

28.

*Haskett

M. E.

Wayland

Hutcheson

J. S.

Tavana

(1995). Substantiation of sexual abuse allegations: Factors involved in the decision-making process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(2), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v04n02_02

29.

*Higgins

D. J.

(2010). “Sex, lies and videotapes”: Gathering and assessing evidence of child abuse in family law cases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17(3), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710903566938

30.

*Hlady

L. J.

Gunter

E. J.

(1990). Alleged child abuse in custody access disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(4), 591–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90107-5

31.

*Hunter

W. M.

Coulter

M. L.

Runyan

D. K.

Everson

M. D.

(1990). Determinants of placement for sexually abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(3), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90012-I

32.

*Hutchison

E. D. Z.

(1988). Factors which influence child protective screening decisions. State University of New York at Albany.

33.

*Jaffe

P. G.

Austin

G. W.

Leschied

A. D.

Sas

(1987). Critical issues in the development of custody and access dispute resolution services. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 19(4), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079997

34.

*Jaudes

P. K.

Morris

(1990). Child sexual abuse: Who goes home? Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90081-4

35.

*Johnston

J. R.

Lee

Olesen

N. W.

Walters

M. G.

(2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43(2), 283–294.

36.

Joki-Erkkilä

Niemi

Ellonen

(2018). Child sexual abuse—Initial suspicion and legal outcome. Forensic Science International, 291, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.032

37.

*Jones

D. P.

McGraw

J. M.

(1987). Reliable and fictitious accounts of sexual abuse to children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626087002001002

38.

Hailes

H. P.

Danese

Fazel

(2019). Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: An umbrella review. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(10), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30286-X

39.

Korkman

Otgaar

Geven

Bull

Cyr

Hershkowitz

Mäkelä

J.-M.

Mattison

Milne

Santtila

P. O.

van Koppen

Memon

Danby

Filipovic

Garcia

Gewehr

Järvilehto

Kask

Körner

. . . Volbert

(2024). White paper on forensic child interviewing: Research-based recommendations by the European Association of Psychology and Law. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2024.2324098

40.

Laajasalo

Korkman

Pakkanen

Oksanen

Tuulikki

Peltomaa

Aronen

E. T.

(2018). Applying a research-based assessment model to child sexual abuse investigations: Model and case descriptions of an expert center. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 18(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2018.1449496

41.

Lamb

M. E.

(2012). Critical analysis of research on parenting plans and children’s well-being. In Kuehnle

Drozd

(Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 214–243). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199754021.003.0008

42.

Lamb

M. E.

Orbach

Hershkowitz

Esplin

P. W.

Horowitz

(2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11–12), 1201–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021

43.

Lapierre

Ladouceur

Abrahams

Vincent

Frenette

(2026). Abused women as “alienating” mothers and violent men as “good” fathers: Double standards in child protection and child custody proceedings. Child & Family Social Work, 31(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13260

44.

*Levine

Doueck

H. J.

Freeman

J. B.

Compaan

(1998). Rush to judgment? Child protective services and allegations of sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(1), 101–107.

45.

*MacKay

(2014). False allegations of child abuse in contested family law cases: The implications for psychological practice. Educational and Child Psychology, 31(3), 85–96. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2014-44218-009&site=ehost-live

46.

Maniglio

(2009). The impact of child sexual abuse on health: A systematic review of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(7), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.08.003

47.

Mathews

Kenny

M. C.

(2008). Mandatory reporting legislation in the United States, Canada, and Australia: A cross-jurisdictional review of key features, differences, and issues. Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559507310613

48.

*McGraw

J. M.

Smith

H. A.

(1992). Child sexual abuse allegations amidst divorce and custody proceedings: Refining the validation process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v01n01_04

49.

*McIntosh

J. A.

Prinz

R. J.

(1993). The incidence of alleged sexual abuse in 603 family court cases. Law and Human Behavior, 17(1), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044539

50.

*Meier

J. S.

(2020). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: What do the data show? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1701941

51.

*Meier

J. S.

Dickson

(2017). Mapping gender: Shedding empirical light on family courts’ treatment of cases involving abuse and alienation. Law & Inequality, 35, 311–334.

52.

*Milchman

M. S.

(2017). Misogyny in New York custody decisions with parental alienation and child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 14(4), 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1416723

53.

Milchman

M. S.

(2024). Oversimplified beliefs about child abuse allegations in custody cases with alienation rebuttals—Review of empirical data. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, 21(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2024.2307612

54.

*Moloney

Smyth

B. M.

Weston

Richardson

Gray

(2007). Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children’s proceedings: Key findings of Australian Institute of Family Studies Research Report No. 15. Family Matters, 77, 8–15.

55.

Munn

Peters

M. D. J.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

56.

Neoh

Mellor

(2009). Professional issues related to allegations and assessment of child sexual abuse in the context of family court litigation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710902852883

57.

Neustein

Lesher

(2009). Evaluating PAS: A Critique of Elizabeth Ellis’s “A stepwise approach to evaluating children for PAS.” Journal of Child Custody, 6(3–4), 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379410903084715

58.

*Oates

R. K.

Jones

D. P. H.

Denson

Sirotnak

Gary

Krugman

R. D.

(2000). Erroneous concerns about child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00108-8

59.

O’Donohue

Benuto

Fanetti

(2010). Children’s allegations of sexual abuse: A model for forensic assessment. Psychological Injury and Law, 3(2), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-010-9075-y

60.

*Paradise

J. E.

Rostain

A. L.

Nathanson

(1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835–839.

61.

Peters

M. D. J.

Marnie

Tricco

A. C.

Pollock

Munn

Alexander

McInerney

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

(2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167

62.

Popay

Roberts

Sowden

Petticrew

Arai

Rodgers

Britten

Roen

Duffy

(2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme. Version 1. London: Institute for Health Research.

63.

Principe

G. F.

London

(2022). How parents can shape what children remember: Implications for the testimony of young witnesses. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000059

64.

*Ramsey-Klawsnik

(1985). Child abuse, class issues and state intervention: A study of court-ordered child removal from abusive parents. Boston University.

65.

*Saini

M. A.

Black

Fallon

Marshall

(2013). Child custody disputes within the context of child protection investigations: Secondary analysis of the Canadian Incident Study of reported child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare, 92(1), 115–137.

66.

Sanjeevi

Houlihan

Bergstrom

K. A.

Langley

M. M.

Judkins

(2018). A review of child sexual abuse: Impact, risk, and resilience in the context of culture. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(6), 622–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1486934

67.

*Schindeler

(2019). Assessing allegations of child sex abuse in custody disputes. Children Australia, 44(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2018.50

68.

*Silberg

Dallam

(2019). Abusers gaining custody in family courts: A case series of over turned decisions. Journal of Child Custody, 16(2), 140–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1613204

69.

Smit

Antokolskaia

M. V.

Bijleveld

(2015). Between Scylla and Charybdis: A literature review of sexual abuse allegations in divorce proceedings. Psychology, 6(11), 1373–1384. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.611134

70.

*Smith

D. W.

Witte

T. H.

Fricker-Elhai

A. E.

(2006). Service outcomes in physical and sexual abuse cases: A comparison of child advocacy center-based and standard services. Child Maltreatment, 11(4), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559506292277

71.

Spratt

Nett

Bromfield

Hietamäki

Kindler

Ponnert

(2015). Child protection in Europe: Development of an international cross-comparison model to inform national policies and practices. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(5), 1508–1525. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu109

72.

Stoltenborgh

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Euser

E. M.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

(2015). The prevalence of child maltreatment across the globe: Review of a series of meta-analyses. Child Abuse Review, 24(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2353

73.

*Thoennes

Tjaden

P. G.

(1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90026-P

74.

*Thompson

P. L. Z.

(2010). Predictors of sexual abuse investigation and substantiation by child protection services involving children less than three years old. College of Social Work, University of Utah.

75.

*Trocmé

Bala

(2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.016

76.

*Trocmé

Fallon

MacLaurin

Neves

(2005). What is driving increasing child welfare Caseloads in Ontario? Analysis of the 1993 and 1998 Ontario incidence studies. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 84(3), 341–362. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2005-05592-001&site=ehost-live

77.

*Trocmé

Knoke

Fallon

MacLaurin

(2009). Differentiating between substantiated, suspected, and unsubstantiated maltreatment in Canada. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559508318393

78.

*Wakefield

Underwager

R. C.

(1990). Personality characteristics of parents making false accusations of sexual abuse in custody disputes. Issues in Child Abuse Accusation, 2, 121–136.

79.

*Webb

Moloney

L. J.

Smyth

B. M.

Murphy

R. L.

(2021). Allegations of child sexual abuse: An empirical analysis of published judgements from the Family Court of Australia 2012–2019. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.171

80.

Zumbach

Brubacher

S. P.

Davis

de Ruiter

Ireland

J. L.

McNamara

October

Saini

Volbert

Laajasalo

(2022). International perspective on guidelines and policies for child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations: A preliminary comparative analysis across selected countries in Europe and North America. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 900058. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.900058

Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody,Child Visitation,and Child Protection Proceedings: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Article Search

Screening, Inclusion Criteria, and Exclusion Criteria

Extraction

Synthesis

Results

General Information on the Studies Included in the Review

Sample Sizes

Geographic Distribution

Data Sources

Summary

Research Question 1: How Often Do Allegations of CSA Occur Within Child Custody and Visitation Proceedings as Well as Child Protection Proceedings?

Custody/Visitation Disputes

Research Question 2: What Are the Typical Case Characteristics When CSA Is Alleged in Child Custody and Visitation Proceedings as Well as Child Protection Proceedings?

Affected Children and Adolescents

Gender

Age

Medical/Psychological Condition

Accused Individuals

The Accusing Individuals

Research Question 3: How Are Allegations of CSA Substantiated in These Cases?

Physical/Medical Evidence

Expert Testimony

Testimonies and Interviews

Child’s Behavior and Other Problematic Indicators

Research Question 4: To What Extent Are the Allegations of CSA Considered Substantiated, Unsubstantiated, Unverifiable, or Not Specified?

Differentiations of Non-Substantiated Cases

Lies

Unresolved/Not Determined

Details About False Allegations

Custody Dispute Context

Research Question 5: What Custody/Visitation/Placement Decisions Are Reported and How Does the Substantiation Relate to the Custody/Visitation/Placement Decisions?

Court Studies Involving PAS Claims

Summary

Research Question 6: What Is the Relationship Between the Substantiation of Allegations of CSA and Typical Case Characteristics?

Child-Related Variables

Variables Related to the Accused and the Accuser

Other Case Variables

Discussion

The Current State of Empirical Research

Findings on CSA Allegations in Family Law Proceedings

CSA Allegations May Not Be Overly Prevalent in Family Law Proceedings

Rare False Allegations, Moderate Substantiation Rates, and Complex Decision-Making

When Substantiation Matters – and When It Doesn’t: Legal Responses to CSA Allegations

Implications of This Review for Future Practice, Policy, and Research

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Notes

Author Biographies

References