Cardinal Principles to Consider: The Rationale for Implementing Therapeutic Jurisprudence with Youth Manifesting Sexually Abusive Behaviors.

This article brings attention to cardinal principles to consider when implementing the multidisciplinary approach with youth who are manifesting sustained coarse sexual improprieties and come to the attention of the judicial system. The obstacles of implementing therapeutic jurisprudence with this population include the persistent reliance of researchers on adult paradigms for risk assessment tools, along with treatment models that are not developmentally and gender sensitive, nor empirically supported for youth. Adherence to the scientific method is essential when constructing risk assessment tools that meet forensic standards.

Setting the Record Straight Regarding Tools That Assess Risk for Youth with Sexually Abusive Behavior.

This critique alerts practicing professionals of the multiple misleading statements in the recently published article entitled, "A compendium of risk and needs tools for assessing male youths at-risk to and/or who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors." This critique corrects the erroneous information contained in Jung and Thomas' article, providing current accurate information related to the important distinct differences of available standardized risk assessment tools used in forensic settings with youths who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors. Erroneous statements by other researchers and authors in the field are also discussed.

The Unpopular Victims: Individuals Who Are Sexually Abusive - The Black Swans.

This article contends that youth who engage in persistent coarse sexual improprieties and/or, sexually abusive behaviors are too often viewed primarily through a criminological lens, regardless of their age, gender, judicial status, and/or experiences of past trauma/victimization. Such a posture likely falsifies the clinical perception of the individual referred for "treatment." Assessment and interventions for these youth must be holistic and idiosyncratic, considering numerous multiplex developmental variables (i.

We are Adult Convicted Sex Offenders; We are Your Youth! the Call for Developmentally-Gender Sensitive Assessment of Youth Who are Sexually Abusive.

This article renews the call by Chaffin and Bonner in 1998 to cease treating youth who engage in sexually abusive behaviors like adult male convicted sex offenders. The author urges that professionals cease imposing an adult-centered convicted sex offender paradigm in assessment and treatment. A new paradigm is advocated that considers sexual developmental and gender issues, along with judicial status in all areas of intervention (i.

A Critical Assessment of the Youth Needs and Progress Scale.

Evaluated is a recently developed tool, the (). Reported is the surprisingly palpable lack of adherence to scientific standards. A demonstrable absence of attention and accordance to scientific methods related to research and developing psychometrics is evident, that is, taking a when constructing the tool.

Contemporary Risk Assessment Tools: Should We Use Them for Sexually Abusive Children Ages 4 to 12 Years?

Empirical findings are reported on an age group of sexually abusive youth (4-12 years) not commonly studied. Findings are from major studies employing the ecologically framed risk assessment tool: ( 3901 [1979-2017] (Miccio-Fonseca , 2018a, , 2018b) and ( 2717). Samples consisted of male, female, and transgender-female, ages 4-19 with coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive youth, including youth with low intellectual functioning.

Tool: An Analysis of "Risk/Treatment Needs and Progress Protocol" by Kang, Beltrani, Manheim, Spriggs, Nishimura, Sinclair, Stachniuk, Pate, Righthand, Prentky, and Worling (2019).

A new risk/treatment needs protocol for assessing "juveniles with sex offenses" operationalized in the Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (TNPS) was recently introduced, prompting quick embrace before any serious examination. This article critiques the proposed protocol and TNPS. Highlighted are misleading statements, substantial omissions related to review of research, and significant margins of TNPS underpinnings that cause considerable pause.

: Empirical Findings on the Preternatural: Sexually Violent and Predatory Sexually Violent Youth.

Applied are empirical findings from two major studies employing the ecologically framed risk assessment tool: ( 3901 [1979-2017] (Miccio-Fonseca 2017a, d) and ( 2717). Samples consisted of male, female, and transgender-female sexually abusive youth, ages 4-19, including youth with low intellectual functioning of borderline or low average. Findings further support a previously presented nomenclature identifying two subsets overlooked by most contemporary risk assessment tools: sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth (Miccio-Fonseca and Rasmussen , 106-128, 2009, 2014).

Scientific Evolution of Clinical and Risk Assessment of Sexually Abusive Youth: A Comprehensive Review of Empirical Tools.

Risk assessment of sexually abusive youth is a specialty, which ideally includes a clinical assessment (e.g., psychological evaluation) utilizing a validated risk assessment tool.

Family Lovemap and Erotically Related Protective Factors.

The article provides a conceptual framework of variables likely interconnected to protective factors for sexually abusive youth associated with the Family Lovemap Aggregate of , a risk assessment tool for sexually abusive youth. Family Lovemap Aggregate is composed of the ingredients family's familial bio-physio-neuro-psycho-sexio-social history and culture including transmissible predispositions related to erotic development. Intimacy deficits are discussed, specifically their association to erotically related protective factors extrapolated from a variety of data points and sources.

Response to Ross's Comment to Miccio-Fonseca and DeFeo.

Response to Ross on his comments regarding my purported misunderstanding of Ross's article and the DSM-V (Ross, 2015). Although Ross claims he offered no personal opinions of any kind in his commentary, undeniably there were two separate and independent comments in (Miccio-Fonseca (2015) and DeFeo (2015) addressing similar issues. Is this coincidental? This author maintains the stance expressed in the cited commentary.

Response to Ross's "Commentary: Problems with the sexual disorders sections of DSM-5".

The recent commentary by Ross (2015) addresses concerns regarding the newly created Paraphilic Disorders section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, and "inconsistencies." The author's statements reflect notable confusion regarding issues related to human sexuality and the categories thereof in the DSM-5 (e.g.

MEGA ♪ --Empirical Support for Nomenclature on the Anomalies: Sexually Violent and Predatory Youth.

Applied are empirical findings supporting the authors' previously presented nomenclature identifying two subsets of sexually abusive youth overlooked by most contemporary risk assessment tools: sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth. The cross-validation findings on an ecologically framed risk assessment tool, MEGA (♪) (Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive Children and Adolescents [Ages 19 and Under]) (N = 1,056 male and female sexually abusive youth, ages 4-19, including youth with low intellectual functioning), from the United States, Canada, England, and Scotland, were utilized. Findings provided normative data, with cutoff scores according to age and gender.