CONDUCTING A CHILD FORENSIC INTERVIEW DURING PROCEDURAL ACTIONS: PRACTICE, PROBLEMS, OBSTACLES

Abstract

This article introduces an audience involved in or concerned with conducting quality child forensic interviews (psychologists, investigators, prosecutors, judges, etc.) to the initial steps an interviewer takes to build trust with minors. It also addresses the challenges posed by the lack of adequately trained specialists who can participate in investigative actions involving children. The article includes illustrations to help readers understand how trust is typically established between the interviewer and the child, even in the most challenging cases. Examples of mistakes made by interviewers during investigative actions are also provided. The author argues that training child forensic interviewers is a process requiring intensive coaching under the supervision of an experienced mentor. It is a prolonged journey to acquire practical skills, as merely knowing the principles of proper interviewing does not ensure the ability to apply them. Poorly conducted interviews can result in the inability to use video recordings of such interrogations as evidence. Repeated interviews retraumatize the child and result in the loss of the initial informational layer critical for further psychological assessment of the recording. The interviewer’s role is likened to a surgeon’s first incision, where a second attempt will never achieve the same outcome. Although a registry of psychologists has been created and is operational, the quality of training among listed specialists remains very low. Internationally funded initiatives, such as the “Barnahus” project, have established numerous specialized facilities for interviewing children. However, Ukraine currently faces a significant shortage of well-trained professionals capable of conducting forensic interviews at a professional level. While Ukraine has a well-developed legal framework for protecting children’s rights, field experience (e.g., psychological assessments of video recordings revealing poor interviewer performance) suggests that the registry has not improved the child protection system. Instead, it has legitimized the work of untrained psychologists who often undermine the evidentiary value of interviews and traumatize children through inappropriate remarks, comments, touches, and other actions. Psychological practice in Ukraine is not licensed, unlike in European countries. As a result, psychologists listed in the registry vary significantly in professional qualifications. Unfortunately, professional competency was not a consideration during the selection process for the registry. The author emphasizes that projects involving psychologists in criminal proceedings with young children and minors, implemented through regional or interregional centers providing free legal aid, require significant refinement. This includes developing clear criteria for selecting psychologists, establishing a system for quality forensic interview training, and implementing strict admission criteria for psychologists participating in investigative actions after completing such training.