For decades, Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) has shaped how courts and therapists interpret children’s behavior in abuse cases. Originally introduced to help professionals understand why victims might delay or deny abuse, it was never meant to prove guilt. Yet, over time, it became a powerful—and dangerous—courtroom tool. Today, psychologists and legal experts increasingly view CSAAS as junk science, responsible for unfair prosecutions and wrongful convictions.
CSAAS was first described in 1983 by Dr. Roland Summit, a California psychiatrist who observed patterns of behavior in children who had reportedly experienced sexual abuse. He proposed five behavioral stages—secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed disclosure, and recantation—to explain why victims might remain silent or contradict themselves.
Dr. Summit designed CSAAS as a clinical observation model, not as a diagnostic or forensic tool. The five stages of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome were intended to help therapists empathize with children’s emotional responses, not determine whether abuse actually occurred.
Unfortunately, these good intentions were soon distorted when prosecutors began citing CSAAS to explain any child behavior that didn’t fit expectations of “typical” victims.
By the late 1980s, prosecutors and child advocates began calling CSAAS “scientific” proof that a child’s inconsistent statements still indicated abuse. Expert witnesses testified that denial, recantation, or delayed reporting were signs of trauma. The theory became self-reinforcing—no matter what a child did or said, it could be interpreted as evidence of guilt.
This shift allowed juries to convict even without physical evidence, trusting the expert’s psychological interpretation over the facts.
Modern psychology and legal research have exposed the fundamental flaws in CSAAS. It has failed to meet scientific standards and has repeatedly been shown to bias juries.
CSAAS was never supported by rigorous research. Dr. Summit’s original paper relied solely on personal observations—there were no control groups, testing procedures, or statistical data. Later studies found that:
Without empirical evidence, CSAAS became a theory of interpretation rather than investigation.
Prominent psychologists like Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Dr. Lee Coleman have long challenged CSAAS for confusing explanation with evidence. They note that memory is flexible and suggestible, and that therapy techniques can unintentionally implant ideas rather than uncover truth.
Legal scholars also point out that CSAAS lets “experts” comment on credibility—something juries should decide. By framing doubt as denial, CSAAS testimony can unfairly push jurors toward conviction even when proof is lacking.
In recent years, appellate courts have begun rejecting CSAAS testimony as unscientific. Judges now recognize that such evidence:
This shift marks a growing awareness that legal decisions must rely on data, not psychological trends.
CSAAS spread rapidly during the child protection movement of the 1980s and 1990s, when society believed that children never lied about abuse. This mindset fostered groupthink—a culture where professionals reinforced each other’s beliefs rather than questioned them.
Together, these roles created a closed loop of confirmation bias—where every detail fit the presumption of guilt. As Patrick Clancy of the Innocence Legal Team has argued, this mindset led investigators to “replace evidence with ideology.”
Because CSAAS was treated as fact, investigators often neglected objective evidence. Interviews became suggestive, steering children toward expected answers. Jurors, hearing expert testimony on CSAAS, assumed that hesitation or denial was itself proof of abuse. As a result, innocent people were convicted not on what happened—but on how psychology said a victim should behave.
The consequences of CSAAS misuse have been profound. Countless men and women were convicted based solely on behavioral “symptoms” that experts claimed aligned with the syndrome.
Appellate courts have overturned several convictions that relied heavily on CSAAS testimony. In People v. Acero and People v. Diaz, the California appellate courts found that expert testimony about CSAAS unfairly influenced juries, substituting speculation for evidence. These rulings established that CSAAS should never be used to prove abuse occurred, only to contextualize testimony if necessary.
Defense teams succeeded by:
Attorneys from the Innocence Legal Team continue to challenge CSAAS in appeals, advocating for defendants convicted on unverified psychology rather than factual proof.
The decline of CSAAS marks progress toward evidence-based justice. It reminds us that compassion must never replace critical thinking in law or science.
The decline of CSAAS represents a critical turning point in how justice and psychology intersect. By demanding real evidence instead of relying on unproven theories, courts and experts are restoring fairness to a system once driven by fear and assumption. True progress means protecting both victims of abuse and those falsely accused—ensuring that compassion never replaces objectivity and that science, not speculation, guides every verdict.