Loudoun CPS – The typical poorly trained social worker


The infamous Benjamin Smith exemplifies the type of social worker that Dr. Richard Gardner describes in the following article.   The point cannot be stressed enough that the social workers for Loudoun County are poorly trained. Dr. Gardner is correct in using the tern abuse validators instead of investigators, from the article.

“Most sex abuse workers operate in the context of a government agency, referred to in many states as the Child Protection Team (CPT) or Child Protection Service (CPS).  Many unashamedly refer to themselves as “validators.”  Those who utilize this term make no secret of the fact that the vast majority (if not all) of the children they have evaluated have been sexually abused.  As implied in their name, they are merely there to “validate” what everybody knows happened anyway.  Otherwise, why would the child be brought forth?”

In the case of Benjamin Smith and I cannot fail to mention Sandra Glenny, they are abuse validators not investigators.

Dr. Gardner nails the processes and procedures of CPS , a few are listed below.

  • In order to justify and advance their prediction that the child will be found to be abused, they espouse the dictum that “children never lie” on all issues related to sex abuse.  The reasoning goes that a young child, having had absolutely no exposure to or experience with sexual encounters, must be telling the truth if such an encounter is described.  A related slogan is “believe the children.” 

Ascertaining Whether the Child Can Differentiate Between the Truth and a Lie

  • Early in the interview these examiners first satisfy themselves that the child can differentiate between the truth and the lie.  In many states, the judge, lawyers, and all other investigators are required by statute to submit to this requirement before proceeding with the substantive issues in the interview.  For example, when examining children in the three-to-five year age level, a typical maneuver in the service of satisfying this requirement is for the examiner to point to a red object and say to the child, “This is red.  Is that the truth or a lie?”  If the child answers that the examiner is being truthful (“That’s true”), the examiner may then proceed by pointing to something that is green and saying, “This is black.  Is that the truth or a lie?”  If the child then states that the examiner is “lying,” the examiner may then proceed to a series of other equally asinine questions in order to demonstrate that the child knows the difference between the truth and a lie.


  • When a knowledgeable evaluator hears that a child is masturbating, the examiner will make detailed inquiry about the frequency, the time of onset, the circumstances under which it occurs, and whether the child masturbates to orgasm.  All this information is useful in ascertaining whether the masturbation is related to sex abuse.  Typically, validators do not make such inquiries.  They hear the word masturbation and that is enough to prove that the child has been sexually molested.


  • Generally, these evaluators do not even conduct detailed inquires with the adult accuser (most often the child’s mother).  They take at face value her accusations and do not consider the possibility that they may be fabricated or delusional.  Rather, they do the opposite, namely, take any shred of information that might support the conclusion and use it in the process of “validation.”  As mentioned, they will consider normal childhood behaviors as manifestation of sexual abuse, e.g., nightmares, bedwetting, temper tantrums, mood swings, and, of course, masturbation. 
Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *