Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

The increased utilisation and integration of communication via online communication technologyFootnote 1 in society has facilitated opportunities for individuals to gain access to children for sexual abuse.Footnote 2 This chapter analyses the growing recognition of the prevalence of online child sexual groomingFootnote 3 in a context that explores how online communication can accelerate progression through the grooming stages, with a view to establishing to what extent these forms of communication have increased the potential risk of harm to children. Ultimately, this chapter demonstrates that online technology makes it easier for individuals to groom children and thus increases the chances of successfully grooming a child, i.e. gaining access for sexual abuse.Footnote 4

In the early 2000s, the phenomenon of ‘grooming’ attracted much attention in the UKFootnote 5 following calls from child protection agenciesFootnote 6 for legal acknowledgment of the significant risk of harm posed to children by grooming online in particular. The increased societal awareness of grooming was further reflected in judicialFootnote 7 recognition of the associated ‘harms’ of grooming behaviour, leading to the announcement and enactment of an offence related to grooming under Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA). The principal aim of this chapter is to explore the current limitations of Section 15 offence in relation to grooming. The analysis will emphasise that the exemption of the early stages of the grooming process from the offence’s scope has exacerbated the lack of clarity and understanding about this phenomenon.

The chapter will also consider two particular examples of grooming, which fall outside Section 15’s scope. First, the discussion will focus on ‘third party grooming’. This term is employed to refer to a ‘form’ of grooming arising where the grooming is directed at a child (B) with intent to subsequently facilitate a meeting with another child (C), for example, B’s younger sibling or a friend, in order to commit a sexual offence against C. Section 15 fails to address this situation, recently highlighted by the UK’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP),Footnote 8 in which children are targeted and groomed in order to gain access to other children for sexual abuse.

The second example relates to an arrangement to meet a child in the ‘virtual world’. For instance, a groomer may gain the child’s trust by befriending him/her, which could then result in an arranged virtual meeting via webcam. This chapter will consider the potential risk of harm these virtual meetings pose to children, whilst also drawing attention to the possibility of this grooming behaviour being caught by other statutory provisions under the SOA. It will be argued that judicial support for the utilisation of other offences under the SOA for targeting grooming behaviour underplays the government’s rationale for and relevance of Section 15 offence in providing a greater level of protection to children from grooming behaviour.

2 The Phenomenon of Online Child Sexual Grooming

Understanding of the grooming process and the ability to identify sexual grooming behaviours is crucial, not only if children are to be protected from child sexual abuse, but also to gain an increased understanding of what has so far been shown to be a rather complex and misunderstood phenomenon. Whilst grooming is an increasingly discussed issue within society, there is still little legal and societal understanding about this phenomenon as a ‘distinct behaviour type’.Footnote 9 Importantly, child sexual grooming is not a ‘modern’ concept, nor is it limited to the use of online communication. What is clear is that grooming is a necessary prerequisite in many cases for child sexual abuseFootnote 10; an opportunity to sexually abuse a child is more likely to emerge following a period of sexual grooming.Footnote 11

Grooming is the preparatory act that will allow an individual to gain access to a child with the intent of committing sexual abuse. Ost argues that ‘like child pornography, “sexual grooming” is a label that has very broad application’ therefore, ‘[a]ny behaviour that is designed to build up a relationship of trust with a child with the longer-term goal of [sexually abusing her/him] could constitute grooming’.Footnote 12 Thus, it is important that grooming is conceived as a ‘process’ rather than a singular event, although defining this process is problematic since it is not possible to identify exactly where grooming begins or ends,Footnote 13 nor is it possible to illustrate the fluidity of grooming behaviours within one precise ‘model’Footnote 14 of offending behaviour. Craven et al. explain that there are three types of sexual grooming present in the literature: self-grooming; grooming the child; grooming the environment and significant others. The term ‘self-grooming’ is problematic when discussed in relation to grooming that occurs online, since the analysis provided by Craven et al. seems to be specifically directed at grooming that occurs face to face. Self-grooming can be said to relate to the justification or denial of offending behaviourFootnote 15 and although this may be the case for some individuals, justification and denial is by no means a straightforward linear process. Indeed, not all groomers may progress through this stage during the grooming and/or abuse.Footnote 16

Turning to grooming the child, as will be shown, the groomers’ victim selection has been reported to often include targeting children who have particular vulnerabilities, such as low confidence, emotional deprivation or a broken family background.Footnote 17 The grooming process can be directed by the offender to create an impression that it is a mutually enjoyable ‘relationship’ or ‘courtship’ between the victim and the perpetrator. The emphasis on the ‘exclusivity’ of the relationship helps create ‘distance’ between the child and their parents/carers, making it less likely that the latter will discover the individual’s communications with the child and report their suspicions to the police. Further to this, the use of threatsFootnote 18 or bribery could maintain a child’s compliance and secrecy in order to continue and develop the abusive cycle, for example, encouraging victims to send explicit images or exposing themselves online.Footnote 19 Arguably, the use of threat and bribery to exploit children in these ways exceeds online grooming and could even lead to the production and distribution of indecent images of children.Footnote 20

By grooming ‘significant others’, groomers who target children offline or who use both online communication and face-to-face contact to groom a child, can integrate themselves within the family or those who have care over the child. Research has shown that child sexual offenders will often select single parent families,Footnote 21 allowing groomers to gain the parent’s/carer’s trust and, therefore, encouraging unsupervised contact with the child to give groomers an opportunity to introduce sexual activity.

Besides the groomer directly grooming the child’s family, particularly in cases of face-to-face grooming, the community in which the individual belongs may also be groomed. Research suggests that some groomers assess what the community needs and what they can offer in this regard,Footnote 22 thereby placing themselves in close proximity to children whilst also creating the perception within the community that they are trustworthy, allowing for increased contact with children without raising concerns. What should thus be apparent is that the way in which a groomer can manipulate the child, himself/herself, the parent, the community and the environment adds to the complex nature of grooming.

Developing a greater understanding of the opportunities presented by online communication and the subsequent use of this form of communication within the grooming of children should at least result in a better awareness of how to protect children from this particular risk of harm.Footnote 23 The aim of the following section is to illustrate the specific opportunities that online communication provides within the grooming process.

3 Grooming via Online Communication Technology

The ‘dangers of the Internet’ and the associated risk of harms posed by grooming are reiterated frequently in the media.Footnote 24 Online communication has revolutionised the way in which individuals can target and groom children for sexual abuse. There are a number of ways in which the relative anonymity afforded to groomers makes it easier for them to befriend a child from a relatively safe distance by concealing their ‘true identity’, thus minimising the chances of detection and assisting them to successfully achieve their ultimate goal. Groomers can withhold their identity until the later stages in the grooming process, when their ‘relationship’ with the child is strong enough to withhold such a discovery,Footnote 25 increasing their chance of success. Moreover, it is not uncommon for online groomers to target several children at once,Footnote 26 allowing them to perfect their grooming technique in order to progress quickly through the grooming stages. Contact with multiple children online also ensures that if one child disengages, others are readily available.Footnote 27

Being able to conceal their identity by, for example, posing as someone who is of similar age to the victim could enable the groomer to convince the child to meet them in person. Groomers can utilise the child’s greater willingness to meet another ‘child’ rather than an adult to their advantage. In R v. Gray,Footnote 28 the 52-year-old defendant posed on the Internet as ‘Robbie’, a 17-year-old boy. The effective use of online communication to arrange a subsequent ‘offline’ meeting, particularly when the groomer poses convincingly as a child, ultimately puts children at serious risk of sexual abuse. Recent studies have shown how online groomers can use online gaming platforms to make contact with young boys,Footnote 29 concealing their identity by using online ‘Avatars’Footnote 30 and gaming profile names.Footnote 31

Indeed, this method of grooming is an ongoing concern for CEOPFootnote 32 and, as part of the effort to tackle grooming and the risk posed to children by grooming, researchers have recently developed a tool, which enables law enforcement to detect adults posing as children in chat rooms.Footnote 33 The increased societal awareness of this danger has led to classes promoting safe use of online communication in high schools across the UK.Footnote 34 However, whilst steps are thus being taken to respond to this particular form of grooming behaviour, concealing identity is not the only way in which a groomer can develop effective online grooming techniques.

As stated above, research suggests that groomers appear to target children with obvious vulnerabilities.Footnote 35 The unique way of sharing information via online communication allows groomers to easily locate vulnerable children by simply browsing children’s personal profiles and status updates on social networking sites.Footnote 36 Groomers can become adept at quickly identifying vulnerabilities that make certain children more susceptible to grooming and they could then manipulate their grooming technique in a way that is tailored to meet a particular child’s needs.Footnote 37 This could result in a child having a sense of a more exclusive, reliant bond with the groomer, making it easier for the groomer to ‘control the child’,Footnote 38 and therefore increasing the likelihood of subsequent sexual abuse.

Even if a child appears to have no obvious vulnerability, the open nature of sharing information via ‘personal profiles’ means that groomers are presented with a catalogue of information that allows them to target a child’s particular interest(s) in order to strike up initial conversations. Groomers who use social networking sites to identify and befriend victims can thus readily appear as if they know or share common interests with the child, even before any form of communication is exchanged,Footnote 39 rapidly moving from being ‘strangers’ to online friends.Footnote 40 Furthermore, some children post photographs on social networking sites/personal profiles, sometimes of a provocative nature,Footnote 41 thereby enabling groomers to identify a child who is perhaps more naive. And concerns have been raised about the use of social networking sites to post images with ‘geo-tagging’Footnote 42, which provides the geographical location at which a photograph was taken which, when combined with information such as ‘taken at his favourite park’, could be used to identify children even from their parents’ profiles. Similarly, the use of ‘Foursquare’Footnote 43 and other location based servicesFootnote 44 can create networks for rapid identification of potential victims, including other children that the groomer could gain access to, for example, a sibling or a friend of the child that the groomer is communicating with.Footnote 45

Webwise have revealed that adolescents adopt more risky behaviour when using online communication and have demonstrated a culture of acceptance, along with a degree of expectation, of receiving sexual communications whilst using the Internet.Footnote 46 Moreover, some adolescents seek (virtual) adult-like relationships.Footnote 47 Indeed, Salter refers to the grooming process as ‘emotional seduction’,Footnote 48 illustrating that forming the illusion of an intimate relationship is one of the most effective ways to manipulate adolescents. In some cases, this might lead to a child acquiescing in explicit conversations,Footnote 49 taking and/or sending explicit images.Footnote 50 These images could then be used to reinforce the ‘adult-like’ relationship whilst desensitising the child to sexual activity,Footnote 51 or could be used as a threat in order to ensure further compliance.Footnote 52 Sexting can be used as a ‘tool of coercion, threat and power’Footnote 53 within the grooming of children means that more young people are being encouraged to send and receive explicit images and messages because they believe their groomer is in fact their boyfriend. Adolescents who perceive their grooming as ‘analogous to adult courtship’Footnote 54 might believe they are a ‘consenting’ partyFootnote 55 to the relationship, which could prevent them from recognising and disclosing the nature of their abuse.

Another way in which grooming is facilitated is by the use of 3G technology, which can enable a more rapid progression through the grooming stages than if a groomer had more limited contact with a child.Footnote 56 Whilst parents may have become more vigilant about the dangers posed to adolescents accessing the Internet on home computers through public education programmes,Footnote 57 the added risks of 3G technology may be overlooked. Recent newspaper reports have commented on the way smart phone features such as ‘BBM’Footnote 58 have been used by groomers to ‘summon friends to join in’Footnote 59 with the abuse. It is thus important to recognise the risk of harm to children that can be facilitated by online communication, not only in terms of the grooming process but also their continued abuse and exploitation.

Whilst the above discussion has made reference to instances where groomers seek to identify and communicate with children whom they have never met, this is not the only way that the opportunities presented by online communication can be exploited. Academic literature has emphasised the importance of recognising that children are more likely to be groomed and abused by someone they know rather than a stranger.Footnote 60 Groomers who already have access to a child, e.g. through employment or family/friends, can complement the grooming that they have already implemented by using online communication. They can become proficient at communicating with the childrenFootnote 61 using various forms of communication, which could rapidly ensure and bestow a great level of trustFootnote 62 by maintaining constant communication. This could increase the likelihood of sexual abuse at a much earlier stage in the grooming process, far more quickly than could be achieved offline.Footnote 63

Given these risks of harm that grooming poses, the legislative response in England and Wales has been to create an offence directed towards online grooming in particular. However, as will now be discussed, the ambiguity created by the offence related to grooming could be argued to place children at further risk of harm.

4 Limitations of the Offence Relating to Grooming

Prior to the SOA 2003, no specific offence existed under English lawFootnote 64 directed towards the grooming of a child. The inclusion of such a specific offence in the 2003 legislation was a significant development in child protection, designed to allow intervention at an earlier stage in the preparatory process of gaining access to children for sexual abuse.Footnote 65 However, as the analysis will show, the limitations of the ‘so-called’ grooming offenceFootnote 66 have further exacerbated the lack of clarity and understanding of grooming.

Section 15 offence (as amended)Footnote 67 provides that

an individual aged 18 and over (A) commits an offence of ‘meeting a child following sexual grooming’ if:

  1. (a)

    A has met or communicated with another person B on at least two occasions and subsequently

    1. (i)

      A intentionally meets B,

    2. (ii)

      A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or

    3. (iii)

      B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,

  2. (b)

    A intends to do anything to or in respect of, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,

  3. (c)

    B is under 16, and

  4. (d)

    A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.

Despite claims that Section 15 offence would make it a crime to groom children under 16 for sex,Footnote 68 it is notable that the offence only targets the arranging of and/or meeting a child, with the coupled intent, following a period of grooming. Although Section 15 is rather misleadingly headed ‘meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.’,Footnote 69 there is no requirement that the grooming behaviours employed by a groomer are sexual in nature.Footnote 70 Rather the word ‘etc.’ in the title indicates that communication should not be excluded from the offence if seemingly innocent in nature.Footnote 71 It could be argued that the section’s misleading title could result in some instances of grooming being overlooked if they contain no sexual content. Moreover, ambiguity could also arise as the title of the section makes it unclear that the act of arranging a meeting falls within Section 15’s scope.Footnote 72

Evidence of ulterior intent to commit a relevant offence could be derived from the surrounding circumstances,Footnote 73 including any transcripts of online conversations, prior convictions or items found in the groomer’s possession.Footnote 74 Ost correctly states that such evidence is unlikely to be available in all cases, since groomers could be aware of what would be deemed ‘incriminating evidence’.Footnote 75 Potentially, ‘savvy’ groomers who use online communication could ensure that most, if not all, of their communications are specifically non-sexual, or have at the very least a deniability element to them.Footnote 76 This might provide groomers with a sense of security, a security gained through an awareness of the difficulty of establishing a harmful interior intent for the purposes of the offence. It will be argued in the remainder of this section that two specific forms of grooming that fall outside the ambit of Section 15 add to the current ambiguity surrounding the offence.Footnote 77

4.1 Third Party Grooming

The notion of a third party being involved within the grooming process has received little attention by the academic or awareness-raising literature and thus, rather unsurprisingly, is not a situation currently covered by Section 15. In a study of children and the Internet, CEOP found that over 25 % of children met up with someone they met online, with 8 % taking someone along with them.Footnote 78 This illustrates the possibility that groomers could target third parties: they communicate with children online, and subsequently arrange to meet them as well as another child whom they actually intend to sexually abuse.

As part of the EU Safer Internet Day campaign in 2009, CEOP released a thought-provoking advert, ‘Where’s Klaus?’,Footnote 79 to raise parental awareness of the dangers of children communicating online. The advert highlights the situation where an adult communicates with a child online (B), but has the intention to target another child (C) for sexual abuse. Online communication could thus provide groomers with a way of targeting children who are, for example, too young to communicate online or have no access, by encouraging older children to introduce them or bring them along to pre-arranged meetings. A groomer could then employ grooming techniques towards this child, establishing a relationship of trust, which could lead to the child acquiescing in sexual activity.

Research suggests that offenders will get victims to recruit other children by offering incentives, or by threats and by giving bribes and gifts to the children recruited.Footnote 80 Recent examples of groomers targeting children on the street and then grooming them onlineFootnote 81 highlight how vulnerableFootnote 82 children can be groomed in order to recruit other victims. Groomers who reward children with giftsFootnote 83 and flatteryFootnote 84 for bringing younger friends along to pre-arranged meetings for sexual abuse may be able to gain access to children who might have previously been unavailable.Footnote 85 This grooming technique is evidenced in R v. LB,Footnote 86 where the groomer abused his granddaughters and subsequently abused their younger school friend. The defendant supplied the girls with cigarettes and alcohol in order to maintain their secrecy and reward them for sexual activity. Section 15 could only apply in such a situation,Footnote 87 if the communication, the arrangement/meeting and the ulterior intent were directed at B. Therefore, in a situation of third party grooming, where communication with B is coupled with an arrangement to meeting with B and C for the purpose of committing a relevant offence against C, Section 15 offence does not apply.

It is possible that this form of grooming could be criminalised under Section 14 SOA,Footnote 88 which makes it an offence for an individual to intentionally arrange or facilitate any action which he intends to do or intends another person to do or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, if this action will involve the commission of a sexual offence. Despite the Court of Appeal previously referring to Section 14 as the ‘offence of grooming’,Footnote 89 the guidance, which accompanies the SOA makes no suggestion that Section 14 was intended to capture grooming behaviour within its scope. Importantly, under Section 14, similarly to Section 15, no offence needs to have been committed towards a child in order to satisfy the offence. Arguably, Section 14 is better able to capture instances of grooming since no arrangement to meet needs to take place before the offence comes into play. However, if Section 14 is used to prosecute third party grooming, it is arguable that this could seriously undermine the relevance of Section 15 and fail to recognise the harm that the sophisticated levels of grooming employed could have caused to BFootnote 90 in the commission of the relevant offence against C.

Despite the failure to recognise the potential existence of third party grooming within the victim selection/recruitment process, it is debatable whether third party grooming could ever be accounted for under Section 15 due the difficulty in gaining evidence of and differentiating ulterior intent between both B and C. But given that it was specifically targeted at online grooming,Footnote 91 it is worrying that Section 15 is limited to the communication and grooming of one child (B), despite the evidence that a groomer could groom one child online in order to gain access to another. If a groomer successfully recruits other victims through a third party, it is possible that this could reinforce offending behaviour,Footnote 92 allowing a groomer to further develop their technique and subsequently placing further children at risk of harm.

4.2 ‘Virtual’ Meetings

Despite the government’s acknowledgment of the dangers the Internet poses to children,Footnote 93 Section 15 seems to be limited and only provides protection from meetings, following a period of grooming that occurs face-to-face. Limiting the pre-emptive strike of Section 15 to face-to-face meetings arguably undermines the government’s aim to provide greater protection to children,Footnote 94 potentially failing to protect children from the risks of harm that meetings in the virtual world pose, risks which will now be discussed.

During a virtual ‘meeting’, the child may be exposed to sexually explicit communication or even pornographic images, which could desensitise her/him to sexual abuse and/or encourage her/him to become sexually explicit, and thereby form part of the grooming process.Footnote 95 Albeit not specifically in relation to grooming, research into child Internet-related experiences has found that 15 % of 11–16 year olds have received sexual messages and images of people engaging in sexual activity and 3 % have sent naked images to others online.Footnote 96 The concern is that such risk-taking activity could increase a child’s vulnerability to grooming behaviour.Footnote 97 Davidson et al. have proposed that groomers who use online communication are defined by their intention to initiate contact with a child online, establish a sexual relationship in order to engage in cybersex and/or offline sexual abuse.Footnote 98

However, it is important to recognise that online ‘meetings’ might not necessarily be sexual in nature. Yet even non-sexual meetings online could pose a threat by desensitising a child to the groomer, making it more likely that s/he will agree to meet the groomer in person.Footnote 99 Meetings could be arranged and occur through webcams and, more recently, through the use of ‘Skype’ on a mobile phone,Footnote 100 recordings of which could be posted on the Internet and shared with other abusers.Footnote 101 Furthermore, the problematic nature of obtaining forensic evidenceFootnote 102 of the content of Skype meetings may make this an even more attractive opportunity for groomers and could increase the likelihood of them avoiding detection.

If the grooming is successful and the child acquiesces to sexual activity via a webcam, it is likely that this will reinforce the groomer’s perceptions of their behaviour, allowing them to develop their technique and potentially placing further children at risk of abuse. Furthermore, any recordings or pictures taken by webcam may be used as bribes or threats towards a child to ensure compliance and secrecy. This would increase the possibility that the grooming behaviour would not be detected until a sexual offence has been committed.Footnote 103 One victim of a virtual meeting described her ordeal as ‘Internet rape’,Footnote 104 a violation of her bodily integrity without any physical contact, demonstrating the level of control a groomer can gain over a victim without any physical meeting taking place.

The act of arranging a child to watch or perform a sexual act through the use of a webcam could be subject to other provisions within the SOA. Virtual meetings could be arranged and activity could take place, which would constitute an offence under Section 11 (engaging in sexual activity in a child’s presence), Section 12 (causing a child to watch a sexual act) or Section 10 (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity), if that activity was for the purpose of sexual gratification. However, it is concerning that neither of these sections protect children before any harm occurs. As already mentioned, it is Section 14 that allows the police to act before an arrangement to meet takes place, arguably providing a better level of protection to children. However, Section 14 could only be used to criminalise the arrangement of a virtual meeting that occurs following a period of grooming, if evidence was available to prove that the meeting would involve a Section 10 or a Section 12 offence. Moreover, the nature of ‘virtual meetings’ is that the abuse is likely to have occurred before law enforcement officials are notified, and thus before Section 14 can be utilised. Furthermore, Section 14 would not cover non-sexual meetings that occur in order to desensitise the child, even if these were for the purpose of encouraging the child to meet the groomer in person.

Section 15 was created to enable a pre-emptive strike, rendering behaviour that could lead to harm unlawful.Footnote 105 Its later amendmentsFootnote 106 potentially allow the police to intervene at an early stage, thus minimising the risk of a physical meeting and, subsequently, any abuse taking place. However, it seems that Section 15 offence was only designed to target specific sexual behaviour over the Internet and arguably offers limited protection to children who are groomed to meet with an adult over the Internet.

5 Conclusion

This chapter has analysed the risk of harm posed by grooming via online communication and the particular limitations of Section 15 offence in targeting online grooming. Article 1 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and AbuseFootnote 107 (the Convention) states that the Convention’s purpose is to ensure the prevention of and to combat child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is clear that the use of online technology for third party grooming could further advance the victim recruitment process for child sexual groomers, subsequently placing more children at risk of harm. Section 15 does not prevent the risk of harm to C following third party grooming, neither does Section 15 or any other provision under the SOA account for harm suffered by B either by third party grooming, or as a consequence of virtual meetings that form part of the grooming process. Thus, some child exploitation by way of grooming appears to fall outside the criminal law’s grasp in England and Wales.

Arguably, a greater level of protection would be afforded to children, if the actual grooming were criminalised rather than a subsequent (arranged) meeting. It could be argued that besides arranging to meet, meeting a child or travelling to meet a child, the ‘grooming itself should constitute an offence’.Footnote 108 However, it is acknowledged that this would be no easy task given the ambiguity and fluidity of grooming behaviour presented alongside practical issues surrounding evidence of ulterior intent. One option is to broaden Section 15’s scope in order to provide a greater level of protection to children from third party grooming and virtual meetings.Footnote 109 Further extending the scope of the offence would act to reinforce not only the preventative measures laid down by the Convention, but also the UK government’s rationale for implementing an offence related to grooming.

Admittedly, incorporating these forms of grooming into Section 15 could further complicate the offence, leading to greater ambiguity and failing to offer children any better protection from harm. Perhaps, therefore, Section 15 provides the best level of protection that is legislatively possible, despite the arguments made in this chapter. However, where grooming does come to the attention of prosecutors and Section 15 does not apply, they should ensure they make use of the other potential offences, such as Section 14, where applicable. Whilst the limitations of Section 15 are largely a result of the complexities posed by the phenomenon of grooming, it remains the case that Section 15 only targets certain abusive behaviours and largely excludes the use of online technology in the commission of sexual offences against children. This, it is suggested, is an oversight that will lead to further children being at risk of harm from sexual abuse.