Grooming, Coercion, and the Police Problem

Surprisingly, very few people understand exactly what grooming is, how it happens, and the immense control it can have over a person. And when it is combined with coercion, grooming is an even more powerful and harmful act. Read on to learn more about both, and why they can be impossible to combat when a law enforcement officer or authority figure uses them against a child and their family.

Grooming

According to the American Bar Association’s understanding of grooming in abuse cases, grooming is a method offenders use that involves building trust with a child and the adults around a child to gain access to time alone with them. In extreme cases, offenders may use threats and or physical force to assault or abuse a child. More common, though, are subtle approaches designed to build relationships with families.

The offender may assume a caring role, befriending the child or even exploiting their position of trust in authority to groom the child and/or the child’s family. The individuals intentionally build relationships with the adults around a child or seek out a child who is less supervised by the adults in their life. This increases the likelihood that the offender's time with the child is welcomed and encouraged.

Coercion

According to a recently passed piece of legislation under Massachusetts Chapter 209A, coercion is a pattern of behavior to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, or compel the compliance of a person. The groomer instills a level of reasonable fear, physical harm, or a reduced sense of physical, safety or autonomy, by the following actions including, but not limited to:

• Isolating the victim from friends, relatives, or other sources of support.

• Depriving the person of their basic needs.

• Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the person’s activities, communications, movements, finances, or access to services, including through technological means.

• Compelling a person to abstain from or engage in a specific behavior or activity, including criminal activity.

• Using repeated court actions found by a court not warranted by an existing law or good faith argument.

• Threatening to publish sensitive information, including sexually explicit images.

According to womenslaw.org, the most damaging category of coercion is sexual coercion, which is defined as follows: Sexual coercion is when a person has sex because they feel they should or must, rather than because they want to. This can include threatening or intimidating a victim to make them share sexual images, and using manipulation and guilt to force the victim to engage in behavior they aren't comfortable with or don't want to do.

The Police Problem

The problems of reporting ongoing abuse and/or sexual misconduct by police include physical danger and the high risk that the report goes nowhere. The issue is so prevalent, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police has admitted that policing “creates opportunities for misconduct because of the power and authority that officers possess over others.” This risk is especially high for vulnerable individuals, such as Sandra who was young and, in the words of her abuser, Matthew Farwell, who knew her for 10 years and is most likely responsible for her death, Sandra: “Had a troubled life,” such that he “Felt bad for her and kept tabs on her over the years.”

Her second known abuser, William Farwell, met Sandra “10 years prior” to her death when he was a guest instructor for the Explorers and later “saw her” when he was working a paid detail in 2018. He further stated that she “constantly contacted him” and that he “only had sex with her a few times, once when he was drunk.” He neglects to mention the countless hours of sexting and coercing Sandra to take pictures of video of herself and others, exchanging such material with him while he was on duty as a Stoughton Police Officer.

Sandra’s third abuser, Robert Devine, knew Sandra day-to-day through her dedication to the Explorers program beginning in 2010 when she was 13 years old. During her death investigation, Devine denies any contact or relationship with Sandra despite being shown proof of his countless interactions with her, as well as evidence of meeting with her at a restaurant on December 21, 2020, and messaging with her on February 1, 2021, her last day alive.

Had Sandra opted to report her ongoing abuse to an officer, she would have faced an impenetrable blue wall of officers who were conflicted by unclear policy, a sordid history of retaliation and cover-ups, and the shame of being advised that it was her own promiscuity and mental instability that caused her problems, and ultimately, her own death. The defendants in the wrongful death civil lawsuit intend to blame and shame Sandra posthumously to escape responsibility and “move on” with their lives.

Justice for Sandra Birchmore

Justice for Sandra Birchmore matters, not only to honor her life and the life of her unborn child, but also to end this despicable cycle and allow other potential victims to recover.

Justice for Sandra Birchmore means that good and honorable police officers, of which there are many, can carry out their oath to protect the public without this ominous cloud hanging over their work and disrupting their emotional wellness. It shouldn’t hurt to be a good cop; rather, it should be the norm.

Justice for Sandra Birchmore also means that the cycle ends with her and no other children will end up in the hands of predators with badges who will destroy their childhood innocence and quality of life, including their actual life. For all those who loved Sandra, this means, “We’re so sorry, beautiful girl, that we weren’t able to stop this in time, we wish you were here, and we aren’t going to let this ever happen again.”