{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "397-1",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 17 of 43\n\n972\nN. Bennett and W. O'Donohue\ngym shoes with her mother's consent generally would not. A criticism of this definition is that \"appropriate\" behaviors may be used by some perpetrators to groom (e.g., buying a poor child gym shoes may still be performed to gain the child's trust to eventually abuse her). However, because this behavior can be entirely unrelated to abuse and because the assessment ought to strive to minimize false positives, we have chosen to require that all grooming behaviors be inappropriate in and of themselves. Second, we recognize that not all inappropriate behaviors ought to be considered grooming-an adult offering cigarettes to a child may be inappropriate but in addition we narrow the class of these inappropriate behaviors to those that are related to increasing the probability of sexual contact.\n\nIt is important to note that there may be instances in which the questionable behavior falls in some gray area between grooming and nongrooming. For example, a father buying his daughter a bikini may or may not be considered inappropriate. Unless more details are known about the context of this purchase (perhaps it was just impossible for the mother or some other female to do this and the need for a bathing suit was urgent), one could explicate reasonable arguments that the behavior is and is not representative of grooming. The most logical judgment to come to, then, is that this behavior is an indeterminate case and that it is unclear whether it should be considered grooming.\n\nArguments also need to be made regarding the second criterion of the definition: whether the function of the inappropriate behavior was to increase the likelihood of abuse in the future. Interpreting behavior and the intentions of a person performing a behavior is admittedly complex. The rational appraisal of behavior involves setting up a universe of plausible interpretations and gathering evidence in the individual case to rule in or rule out each. As an example, if a male neighbor has a pool and buys a bikini for a five-year-old girl to come over to swim and has her change into the bikini at his house while they are alone (the purchase of the bikini and having her change in his house without her guardian present would be considered inappropriate and thus meet the first criterion of the definition), the set of major plausible interpretations regarding the function of the behavior include:\n\n1. Buying a bikini for the girl was the only way to allow the child to engage in the appropriate activity of swimming. Changing at his house was the only way to have the child dressed appropriately for swimming. These facts do not function to set the occasion for abuse to occur.\n2. Buying a bikini and having the child change alone is not appropriate as there are more appropriate, prudent alternatives. In addition, bikinis can be thought of as sexualized clothing and changing alone without a guardian present is also a boundary violation. For example, giving money to the child's guardian to buy whatever bathing suit the guardian thought\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005884",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 17 of 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "972\nN. Bennett and W. O'Donohue",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "gym shoes with her mother's consent generally would not. A criticism of this definition is that \"appropriate\" behaviors may be used by some perpetrators to groom (e.g., buying a poor child gym shoes may still be performed to gain the child's trust to eventually abuse her). However, because this behavior can be entirely unrelated to abuse and because the assessment ought to strive to minimize false positives, we have chosen to require that all grooming behaviors be inappropriate in and of themselves. Second, we recognize that not all inappropriate behaviors ought to be considered grooming-an adult offering cigarettes to a child may be inappropriate but in addition we narrow the class of these inappropriate behaviors to those that are related to increasing the probability of sexual contact.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is important to note that there may be instances in which the questionable behavior falls in some gray area between grooming and nongrooming. For example, a father buying his daughter a bikini may or may not be considered inappropriate. Unless more details are known about the context of this purchase (perhaps it was just impossible for the mother or some other female to do this and the need for a bathing suit was urgent), one could explicate reasonable arguments that the behavior is and is not representative of grooming. The most logical judgment to come to, then, is that this behavior is an indeterminate case and that it is unclear whether it should be considered grooming.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Arguments also need to be made regarding the second criterion of the definition: whether the function of the inappropriate behavior was to increase the likelihood of abuse in the future. Interpreting behavior and the intentions of a person performing a behavior is admittedly complex. The rational appraisal of behavior involves setting up a universe of plausible interpretations and gathering evidence in the individual case to rule in or rule out each. As an example, if a male neighbor has a pool and buys a bikini for a five-year-old girl to come over to swim and has her change into the bikini at his house while they are alone (the purchase of the bikini and having her change in his house without her guardian present would be considered inappropriate and thus meet the first criterion of the definition), the set of major plausible interpretations regarding the function of the behavior include:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Buying a bikini for the girl was the only way to allow the child to engage in the appropriate activity of swimming. Changing at his house was the only way to have the child dressed appropriately for swimming. These facts do not function to set the occasion for abuse to occur.\n2. Buying a bikini and having the child change alone is not appropriate as there are more appropriate, prudent alternatives. In addition, bikinis can be thought of as sexualized clothing and changing alone without a guardian present is also a boundary violation. For example, giving money to the child's guardian to buy whatever bathing suit the guardian thought",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005884",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "N. Bennett",
      "W. O'Donohue"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005884"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the definition and identification of grooming behaviors. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a PDF or scanned image of a printed document."
}