Protecting children through mandated child-abuse reporting

Educational Forum, The, Winter 2003 by Dombrowski, Stefan C, Ahia, C Emmanuel, McQuillan, Kathleen

REASONABLE SUSPICION

Despite considerable ambiguity regarding states' reporting requirements, the laws of most states are clear about one thing: the legal standard for reporting entails reasonable suspicion of abuse (Foreman and Bernet 2000; Kalichman 1999). California's statutory language is representative and helpful in understanding reasonable suspicion. It states that "reasonable suspicion means that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position . . . to suspect child abuse." Though suspicion does not exclude subjective linkage of the facts presented, the suspicion must first be objective. When the threshold of reasonable suspicion has been met, school professionals are legally required to report. These professionals are not required to "prove" abuse, nor should they blur their professional boundaries by attempting to substantiate the probability of abuse through in-depth investigation (Kalichman 1999). When indicators of abuse accumulate, then a report might be needed.

There may be significant reluctance to report suspected maltreatment. For instance, some mandated reporters believe that Child Protective Services (CPS) creates more problems for the child (and the family) than it resolves (Grossoehme 1998). Failure to report due to this type of rationalization is illegal, ethically prohibited, and a violation of professional guidelines. School professionals are not afforded professional discretion and legal flexibility when a reasonable-- suspicion threshold has been met (Myers 1986; 1998). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that the outcome of CPS intervention may be less deleterious than commonly perceived. Watson and Levine (1989) suggested that families who experienced CPS investigations found these investigations to be generally positive rather than intrusive. Overall, school professionals are cautioned against any hesitancy when maltreatment is suspected. Conversely, school professionals are cautioned to avoid haste in reporting when the indicators of abuse seem unreasonable or based solely on a biased third-- party account.

So what does it mean to suspect abuse reasonably? This phrase might have different meanings for different individuals. School professionals who have had specialized training providing services to maltreated children may have a different conception of reasonable suspicion than someone who has not benefited from such experience or training.

INDICATORS OF MALTREATMENT

There are many possible indicators of abuse, but no single sign necessarily substantiates its existence. Some maltreated children may exhibit a combination of these signs, while others exhibit none. Furthermore, children who have not been maltreated may exhibit some of the symptoms. As a general rule, the greater the combination of indicators of maltreatment, the more likely a reasonable suspicion threshold may have been met (Wolfe 1999).

Confounding this problem, child maltreatment and its associated effects do not necessarily fit into discrete categories. There is often overlap among both the types (i.e., physical or sexual) and the indicators (i.e., sexualized behavior or antisocial behavior) of maltreatment. Mandated reporters must remember that the existence of indicators of abuse does not bear a linear relationship with maltreatment (Wolfe 1999). In addition, there are often cultural differences that might be misconstrued as potentially abusive (Merali 2002; Sue and Sue 1999). These cultural factors must be considered, but they do not obviate one's legal and ethical obligation to report when maltreatment has been reasonably suspected. To help facilitate understanding of this complex topic, we must study abuse subtypes.