Malo’s parents could have taken a breather on March 25. For 2 years, they had been pursuing their former nanny for acts of abuse against their son, revealed by chilling audio recordings. On that date, the Saintes court could only support the facts and sentence the employee to several months of suspended prison time and a 3-year formal ban on carrying out any professional activity in contact with minors. However, she does not look defeated: she is today appealing this decision. As if she could justify these facts.
Overwhelming records, and no more doubt
It all starts in January 2023, when Malo is 7 months old. The nanny is the wife of a colleague of the dad’s, and there is no sign of trouble. On the contrary, trust reigns. However, a year later, Malo begins to complain, cries more and more often, becomes angry and talks about spankings himself. Suspicious marks also appear on the child’s body. The parents then slip a dictaphone into Malo’s diaper bag. And what they discover is terrifying.
The 7 hours of recording reveal constant insults (“you’re such a bitch”, “you’re lazy”, “get out”, “you stink”). But also unsuitable situations, such as locking children in the cellar, or leaving them outside in the cold. An attitude which leads to a complaint, but also major consequences for the family: resignation of the father, sleep problems for the parents, psychological follow-up for the child… Consequences which were taken into account by the court. And yet, the former nanny seems not to understand what she is being accused of.
Do we have to be in denial to challenge what is proven?
To shed light on this reaction which may seem incomprehensible, psychologist Amélie Boukhobza provides a nuanced look at these psychological mechanisms at work.
According to her, to appeal in this case “is a way of not collapsing oneself by continuing to deny one’s guilt, even obvious, even proven.”
In other words, recognizing the facts is not only a question of truth or bad faith: it is also, profoundly, a question of psychological survival.
Admitting such acts, especially when they contradict one’s self-image — I’m a good person”, “I take care of children” — can cause a real inner shock. “Because admitting this type of act (…) can create a form of massive internal shock. A dissonance that is difficult to bear” evokes the psychologist.
Avoid collapse by all means
Faced with this, strategies are being put in place to avoid collapse. “The psyche does what it can to hold on: it denies, it minimizes, it distorts.” These defense mechanisms are not rare, quite the contrary. They allow the person to continue functioning without being overwhelmed by guilt.
“Among them, we find denial, of course. But also rationalization (“it wasn’t that serious”), projection (“I’m wrongly accused”), or even splitting, which allows us to compartmentalize actions that are incompatible with one’s self-image.”
What can be even more disturbing is that this posture is not always conscious or calculated. “And what may seem craziest is that the person can go so far as to believe their own version. And not in a delusional way, just because she clings to it psychically. Like a form of survival.”
Seeking to escape the facts
To this is of course added a more concrete, almost pragmatic dimension: “There is also a more concrete issue: to recognize is necessarily to accept the consequences: condemnation, social scrutiny, shame. Here again, refusal may be an attempt to maintain a minimum of control.”
Thus, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, the obvious does not always impose itself on the individual concerned.
“This can seem very confusing, because these mechanisms can coexist with objective evidence. But the judicial truth is not always enough to produce a psychological truth. So one can be guilty and not recognize it as such.”
In this case, as in others, this gap between judicial reality and inner experience reminds us of the extent to which human psychology can be complex. However, in this case, the appeal will probably only give the abusive nanny some respite. Who will sooner or later have to serve her sentence, whether she recognizes it or not.