“Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse in Georgia Have a Rare Legal Champion”, The Imprint
Emma Hetherington, clinical associate professor and director of the Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation Clinic, in the hallways of the University of Georgia. Photo by Andrew Davis Tucker/UGA.
By the time clients seek out attorney Emma Hetherington, it’s already been a long fight.
As child survivors of sexual abuse and trafficking, they’ve escaped the cycle of violence and coercion that kept them trapped for so long. They’ve spoken out to authorities who too often dismiss them as willing sex workers or troubled runaways, Hetherington said.
To then seek justice through the court system presents its own challenges, often forcing survivors to recount their abuse in painful detail in a prolonged process.
But Hetherington knows why clients still pursue their case.
“The number one reason that survivors will say they want to file a civil claim is not for money, but it’s for their access to justice, for healing, to have their voice heard,” Hetherington said.
As director of the Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation Clinic at the University of Georgia, Hetherington leads the first legal clinic in the country dedicated to providing civil representation and advocacy for survivors of child sexual abuse. Since 2016, Hetherington and her law students have offered direct legal and social work services to more than 300 people who were abused, exploited or trafficked as children.
“NINETY PERCENT OF THE TIME, A CHILD WILL KNOW THEIR ABUSER. IT MIGHT BE A CAREGIVER OR SOMEONE THAT THEY LOVE. THEY’RE AFRAID OF LOSING THEM, OR THEY’RE AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR FAMILY.”
—EMMA HETHERINGTON
Outside the courtroom, Hetherington conducts research and testifies in front of state and federal lawmakers to change policies, particularly around reforms to statutes of limitations on civil claims for child sex abuse.
Most recently, she offered her expertise on what is now being considered a historic case in her home state of Georgia. It was the first time a jury has found a third party, in this case a hotel chain, civilly liable for participating in a trafficking venture, Hetherington said.
The 2020 lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in northern Georgia, was brought by a young woman, identified as “J.G.,” who alleges she was lured into the sex trafficking trade at the United Inn & Suites in Decatur. Hetherington said J.G. had run away from foster care.
As a teen, she was forced to engage in sex with numerous adult men between 2018 and 2019, according to the suit. There were days where more than 10 buyers allegedly visited her room.
Studies suggest that between 100,000 and 300,000 children are commercially exploited in the United States each year, but the true scope is unknown due to underreporting, Hetherington said.
The recent suit accused Northbrook Industries of knowingly profiting from this kind of abuse at its hotel, and, specifically, in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
Enacted 25 years ago, the federal act bolstered funding for anti-trafficking programs and made the crime easier to prosecute — and with harsher penalties. The law has been expanded several times over the years, including a significant 2008 amendment that allows victims to bring civil claims against third parties, such as hotels and motels, that ignore or enable their trafficking.
That’s what J.G.’s lawsuit zeroed in on. The complaint described ways traffickers were allowed to carry out their crimes “openly and brazenly” at the long troubled hotel, wrought with hundreds of safety citations and a “sordid reputation” for sex crimes.
After five years of litigation, a federal jury awarded J.G. $40 million in damages earlier this month — a verdict believed to be the largest of its kind.
Hetherington hopes the ruling sends a message: Businesses that choose profit over children’s safety can, and should be, held accountable.
“ALL OF THE CLIENTS I’VE HAD, WHETHER THEY’VE DONE A DEPOSITION OR TESTIFIED IN TRIAL IN A CIVIL CASE, HAVE COME OUT FEELING STRONGER AND FEELING LIKE THEY CAN FACE THEIR PERPETRATORS OR THEIR TRAFFICKERS OR ABUSERS.”
—EMMA HETHERINGTON
In an interview with The Imprint, she reflected on her work advocating for child survivors, and the importance of J.G.’s case as an inspiration to others.
Your speciality is legal representation and advocacy for survivors of child sexual abuse in the civil and juvenile courts. Can you start by taking a step back and telling our readers your best understanding of how often children are sexually abused?
The most commonly cited statistics are one in 10 children under 18 will be sexually abused. Typically, one in six boys, one in four girls. This is potentially a very low estimate, considering that we know that only about a third of children ever disclose that abuse during childhood. There are a number of reasons for that — fear, intimidation.
Ninety percent of the time, a child will know their abuser. It might be a caregiver or someone that they love. They’re afraid of losing them, or they’re afraid of losing their family.
How about the commercial sexual exploitation of children, how common is that?
We don’t know, and I think one of the reasons we don’t know the scope is because a lot of people don’t understand the definition of what commercial sexual exploitation of a child is. When a child is under the age of 18, if they exchange a commercial sex act for anything of value — whether or not there’s a trafficker involved, whether or not there’s someone else facilitating it — that is commercial sexual exploitation of a child.
You’ll hear a lot of times, you know, people say, ‘Oh, they were, you know, engaging in prostitution.’ Children legally cannot be prostitutes under federal law, under state laws. When our systems don’t recognize children as victims, it’s pretty hard to quantify the scope.
What percentage of those cases ever reach the civil or criminal courts?
A very, very small percentage. You have this ability to file a civil claim under the law. I think a lot of people either don’t know, or don’t know until it’s too late and the statute of limitations has run out. They may have been justice-involved in some way, shape or form when they were younger. They’re probably more likely to be seen on the defense side of the table in a criminal case or in a delinquency case. They are less likely to be seen as victims.
And they often are not believed. They are seen as willing participants in their victimization.
Can you share some of the most meaningful ways your clinic has improved outcomes for survivors?
In terms of outcomes, you can say, ‘We’ve spoken to this many survivors, and we’ve done this many cases, and we’ve gotten this much money for survivors.’
But to me, the more important outcomes are where we have survivors who are just happy to have someone believe them, to have a sounding board, someone to listen to, someone to tell them the truth, someone to be transparent with them.
Another that I can see is the impact the clinic has made for our former students. I got to go watch a former student of mine prosecute a trafficker a month ago. I have other ones who are suing child service organizations. I have others that have gone and are now working in juvenile court as child attorneys or parent attorneys. That is also a major way I can see the impact of our work here — that we are inspiring future lawyers.
J.G. v. Northbrook Industries was the first civil case of its type to receive a jury verdict. What made this case stand out?
It’s been very difficult for these cases to get to a jury. Most of them settle early on, or they’re dismissed early on for various reasons. There’s some appellate cases that are looking at what participation in a trafficking venture means. Is participation just renting room to the traffickers, or is it something more? And how much more does it need to be? There’s been a lot of fighting in the courts across the country on this and circuits can be split a little bit.
In this case what was really compelling to the jury was that they had a lot of evidence. There were emails written to the hotel from the DeKalb police department saying, ‘Hey, we think you need more security. We think that this is happening on your property.’ There was another email that was presented in evidence where the county police department said, ‘We know the trafficking is happening at your property, and we want to help you. What can we do to help?’ And those emails went unanswered.
Particularly, for J.G., there was what’s called a BOLO, or a ‘Be on the Lookout’ notice, that was issued in the county where she was from. She was a missing child from foster care. There was an email then saying that this child specifically was at that property, too. So it was really, really hard for this property to say, ‘Well, we had no idea.’
There was testimony in this case questioning why the victim did not simply leave her situation or abuser. In your work, how do you help juries, and the public, understand the control tactics traffickers use?
Humans have needs, whether it be food, clothing — and when you have those vulnerabilities, then you have someone who is easier to be preyed upon. Traffickers, they are predators. They seek out kids who don’t have their parents, who have financial insecurities, so they can fill those voids.
A lot of times, when you talk to survivors of trafficking, they will talk about their traffickers more in terms of an intimate partner relationship. That was my boyfriend, and we started dating, drawing that bond, that loyalty. ‘They fed me and they cared for me and they loved me, and they provided me these things that I didn’t have before.’
Now the trafficker is going to ask you, ‘OK, well, I did all these things for you. I need you to pay the rent this month,’ and it spirals from there.
You have the vulnerability. You have the grooming process. You’re reeled in, and then you are trapped. Once you are trapped, there is fear.
J.G.’s case took five years to reach trial. What approaches can be taken to help avoid retraumatizing survivors during the legal process?
The number one thing I always tell attorneys that are representing children is that there is not a way to prevent all re-victimization or re-traumatization. It’s going to occur. So in a prosecution, if the victim doesn’t want to testify, they can be subpoenaed and forced to testify.
One of the things that is great about civil lawsuits — as opposed to criminal cases or juvenile cases — is that in a civil case, the survivor is in the driver’s seat. They get to make more decisions.
In a civil case, you’re the one filing it. It could also be several years that they are likely going to have to testify in a deposition and in a deposition, attorneys can ask you anything. We always give advice about doing practice depositions or practice testimony with survivors, so that they can feel the heat.
I’ve never had a client who has said that they regret doing it. All of the clients I’ve had, whether they’ve done a deposition or testified in trial in a civil case, have come out feeling stronger and feeling like they can face their perpetrators or their traffickers or abusers.