Breaking Barriers to Justice
not end when the threat does. The nervous system is still managing, still appeasing, still trying to neutralize the danger. The employee who attended the company holiday party two weeks after the harassment began, sat two seats from the person who had been assaulting her, and said nothing for another three months — not because nothing happened, but because her livelihood was on the line and she was calculating, as people do, whether coming forward was survivable. ·The patient who cannot tell you whether it was a Tuesday or a Wednesday, cannot tell you in what order the events occurred, but can describe the water stain on the ceiling tile in precise detail. That is not inconsistency. That is exactly what trauma memory looks like: peripheral detail gone, sensory core crystalline, chronology fractured. ·The client who continued requesting the same aide who had assaulted her — not because she wanted him there, but because singling him out felt dangerous in an environment where she had no mobility, no voice, and no power. None of these are credibility problems. They are predictable outcomes of how the brain responds to threat. During an acute traumatic event, the prefrontal cortex — responsible for logical reasoning, sequencing, and language — goes largely offline. The body redirects its resources to survival. The hippocampus encodes the experience not as a linear episodic memory, but as fragmented sensory and emotional data: vivid in some places, absent in others, and fundamentally non-narrative in structure.
This is why a survivor can describe the smell of the room and the color of the wall but not the order of events. Beyond the freeze and fawn responses, there are dynamics that go even deeper — and that require a genuinely different evaluative lens at intake. In institutional settings, accommodation syndrome develops when a person in a power-imbalanced environment normalizes ongoing abuse as a condition of surviving within it. In grooming relationships, the manipulation is so systematically designed to feel like connection that the victim's apparent participation is not evidence of consent — it is evidence the grooming worked. And in therapeutic relationships, transference adds a layer that is uniquely disorienting: the harm is engineered to feel like the relationship deepening. The late-night conversations, the shared confidences, the attention and gifts — these register as care. The therapist is supposed to be a trusted figure. When that trust is exploited rather than honored, the client experiences the escalation not as misconduct but as something she wanted. Her inability to name what is happening is not a credibility problem. It is proof that the exploitation worked exactly as intended. California courts have recognized the problem. People v. Bledsoe, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, established that Rape Trauma Syndrome evidence is admissible to rehabilitate a survivor's credibility when the defense argues that post-incident conduct is inconsistent with having been assaulted. People v. McAlpin, (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289, extended this to Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome in cases involving minors. Jennifer K. v. Shane K., (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 558, reversed a civil trial court that treated a survivor's delay in reporting as evidence of fabrication — holding that assumption reflected impermissible stereotyping, not evidence analysis.
54
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs