What The Eff!?

The following is a detailed (over)analysis of "A Father Accused: Did He Molest His Children" which aired today, uploaded for the time being here:

There's a lot of baloney in this episode, which is unfortunate because it involves a very serious issue: allegations by a mother, Wilma, that her husband, Adam, has sexually abused their children.

Now, I'm not arguing that Wilma is right; that she's telling the truth; that her child actually accused the father; or that Adam is a molester. However, (again) Dr. Phil poorly handles the matter and carelessly distorts the discussion. In a most disturbing display of exceeding his professional expertise, Dr. Phil actually sets himself up as the judge to determine whether child abuse did in fact occur and delivers a verdict. Isn't it highly irresponsible for a talk show host to exercise this kind of jurisdiction in a one hour television show?

(at 39:01) Dr. Phil states that he isn't basing his conclusion on the results of the polygraph results alone.
However, immediately after announcing the results of the lie detector test, which supports Adam, Dr. Phil asks Wilma (at 33:16): "How do you feel about the fact that this test confirms that Adam has not touched your children in a sexual manner?"
(at 33:37): "You should be elated... you have just found out that these evidence indicate that your child has not been molested. Is that not the best news that you have ever heard your whole life?"

Since when is a polygraph proof positive? Have we gotten to that level of technology? In fact, doesn't the research indicate the opposite:
"Polygraphy has little evidence to support its use.^[9]^[10]^[11] Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates,^[12] the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.^[10] The utility among sex offenders is also poor^[13] with insufficient evidence to support accuracy or improved outcomes in this population.^[14]"

In rendering his verdict, Dr. Phil repeatedly states (his opinion) as a fact that child abuse has not taken occurred:
(at 41:20) He states to Wilma, "As much as you feel like reality is spinning right now, you should have joy that all signs point to the fact that no one has hurt your children."

(at 40:05) Before apologizing to Adam, Dr. Phil states "And I'm the guy who says you have to believe children until you find out otherwise. I think we have found out otherwise."

(at 40:30) Dr. Phil states to Adam, "...now you have a lot more evidence than you had before....Well, I will be happy when you have your children in your [lap?] and they have their daddy in their lives."

However, to the complete contradiction of everything he had just represented, Dr. Phil concluded his show with:
(at 41:38) "If a child comes to you and gives you an indication that they've been touched inappropriately in some way, then please take that very, very seriously. Don't go running at the accused person like your hair is on fire in a hysterical way." [what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway??]
"Do your homework too. But believe that child, accept that child, nurture that child and find out what the truth is."

HERE'S MY REBUTTAL:
Fuck the truth.
What if you can't uncover the truth? Is finding the truth even possible in every case? Humans are not oracles that can channel events to review them for accuracy. If, as I suspect in many cases of child abuse, there may not exist evidence which affirms the existence of the abuse, what does a parent do when faced with an indication/accusation/allegation by a child or even a gut instinct that something is wrong even without a shred of evidence?
Here's my non-expert point of view - the truth would be convenient but it's actually a non-issue at this point. Your child is in need of help, and your search for the "truth" may derail what needs to be your primary focus, which is protecting your child. Err in favor of believing your child.
Yes, even when the accused is a parent:
1) because even if it's untrue, the accusation indicates your child still needs help;
2) I'll take my chances that an innocent adult is more capable of dealing with the injustice of a false accusation versus a victimized child if the unthinkable is in fact true.

Extended reading:
In no particular order, here's more of Dr. Phil's nonsense and flawed reasoning, which permeated the entire episode:

(at 39:10) Claiming that he didn't open the envelope containing the test results until he was on the show - what difference does that make? and that claim doesn't mean he didn't know the results of the test results before the show (which of course, he did).

(at 39:50) Suggesting Wilma's own experience as an abuse victim may distort her reasoning ability (not the first time that Dr. Phil has employed dangerous slippery slope logic to discredit allegations of sexual abuse).

Questioning the sufficiency of Wilma relying on her child's alleged account of abuse, asking:
"Why do you believe that he is [molesting his daughter]?"
"And you believe this?"
"And why do you believe it. I mean, this is the man you married. I mean, you know him. Do you think he's capable of that?"
Why is Wilma's knowledge of her husband independent of her daughter's accusation relevant? Why is Dr. Phil shifting responsibility over to Wilma based on her understanding of the man she married? Obviously, most sane people don't enter marriages with known pedophiles. If good people who would protect their children from danger had this kind of cognition, wouldn't that resolve the problem?

After Dr. Phil himself raises Wilma's allegations that she's been raped repeatedly during the marriage, he counters with:
"I was interested to see if you wanted to talk about that, because if someone was molesting my children, I wouldn't want to talk about another damn thing... I wouldn't want to talk about pills... I wouldn't want to talk about muscle relaxers... I would want to talk about that... that would be my focus here... I was just curious what you want to talk about."
So rape allegations and completely opposing accounts of drug use/abuse are not relevant to the credibility of these individuals? Why would Dr. Phil raise the issue only to pass judgment and dismiss its relevance? Why would Wilma's apparent concern that Adam's alleged abuse of her is related to the alleged abuse of her children be twisted by Dr. Phil to be representative of her lack of regard or focus on the issue at hand?

(at 13:44) Dr. Phil implores Adam to make a confession on national television if the allegations are true - following with an offer to help Adam any way that he can, stating "people can get over and recover from that."
Was Dr. Phil just baiting Adam to reveal the truth or does Dr. Phil actually believe his sweeping generalization that a man who would molest his own children "can get over and recover from that?"

Contrary to Dr. Phil's suggestions, a Child Protective Services "No Finding" of evidence does not mean that no abuse happened. It simply means CPS didn't find conclusive evidence.

Dr. Phil used variations between Wilma's statements in police reports and what she told the show's producers to discredit her, determining the existence of inconsistencies. Are these variations actually inconsistencies? We don't know what kinds of questions producers ask their guests or how in depth these conversations are? We don't know to what extent Wilma received more information from her children since the time of her initial report to the police, which she then conveyed to the producers. Moreover, if the allegations are true, the information comes from a 4 year old and is being recounted by her emotionally distraught mother - is it that unbelievable that the information could be imprecise?

Dr. Phil threw out weighty terms such as "forensic interview" and touted his forensic investigation background as supporting his ability to determine what likely happened. However, all he seemed to reach were faulty conclusions. For example, I'm not sure that Wilma talking about herself in her forensic interview necessarily undermines her credibility. There are other possibilities, like maybe she's self-centered and not necessarily a liar?

Even if the guests had a pleasant testing experience and fully understood the test questions, these conditions do not establish the veracity of the lie detector test results. At one point Dr. Phil (at 29:35) even uses Wilma's words against her, "and, like you said, there are no false positives, so you don't have any problems with the test?" So now if Wilma says it, that makes it so, Dr. Phil?

Even if Wilma instructed her daughter on how to recount her experience, which was not proven, does this mean the abuse didn't happen?

And on a non-determinative point, I can't help but note that Adam's laugh at 11:52 is downright creepy. How are these accusations "laughable?" I don't know if this man is a molester, but it's weird that he finds allegations that he molested his own children comedic.