Protecting children through mandated child-abuse reporting

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

WHAT TO INCLUDE IN A REPORT

When compiling information for a report, the educator must be cautious about crossing professional boundaries by assuming an investigative role. This role is outside the scope of the school professional's ethical and legal mandate (Kalichman 1999; Kuest and Winter 2000). The threshold for reporting is reasonable suspicion. Thus, the school professional should not seek irrefutable evidence before making a report. Substantiation of maltreatment is the responsibility of CPS and the legal system.

Information provided in a report might include the following, if available (Kuest and Winter 2000):

* who (e.g., information about the perpetrator and anyone else who may have either witnessed the event or be at risk for maltreatment, including siblings);

* what (e.g., information about the nature of abuse);

* when (e.g., details describing when the abuse occurred and how many times it occurred, and where it usually occurs); and

* where (e.g., on what part of the body abuse was perpetrated and where the abuse took place).

Furthermore, it may be prudent to allow CPS to begin its investigation prior to informing the alleged perpetrator of a possible investigation. Premature notification risks further harm to the child, as the perpetrator may use coercive means to conceal the maltreatment. Once an investigation has been initiated, then the mandated professional should consider, on a case-by-case basis depending upon the nature of the relationship between the professional and alleged perpetrator and the nature of the maltreatment, whether to inform. A professional's mandated report is kept confidential by CPS, though caregivers may be able to discern who filed the report (Kalichman 1999).

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE REPORT?

Following a mandated report, CPS will decide whether a child is in imminent risk of further maltreatment (Kuest and Winter 2000). If so, then CPS may act immediately by removing the child from the home and placing the child in protective custody. Otherwise, CPS will decide whether or not to investigate. If CPS decides not to investigate, the information provided will be retained in a file by the agency in the event of future allegations. If CPS decides to investigate, then a trained worker will visit the parties involved within 24 to 48 hours and make a preliminary determination of whether the child is at risk for continued maltreatment (Kuest and Winter 2000). The determination might include removing the child from the current placement or providing intervention services to the family while maintaining the child's current placement. CPS does not automatically remove a child from caregiver custody unless the child's safety or life is in danger. CPS is usually interested in preserving the family structure and should attempt to do so if that approach is in the best interests of the child (Kalichman 1999).

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Child maltreatment deserves greater attention among school professionals. Long-term consequences can be devastating, so school professionals must seriously consider implementing some reforms. First, teachers, principals, and school psychologists would benefit from additional training and education in the area of child maltreatment and mandated reporting. This article might serve as an initial step in that process. More in-depth training may come about through workshops or in-service presentations from experts knowledgeable about both school systems and the child-- welfare system. Such training must raise awareness of the adverse impact of maltreatment and therefore the protective features of mandated reporting. Generally speaking, mandated reporting should be viewed positively rather than negatively, as it is in the best interest of children. An additional subset of this education should focus on increasing awareness of the indicators of maltreatment, which could provide school professionals with a more thorough understanding of the nuances of reasonable suspicion and place them in a better position to protect children. Training of this nature would also attempt to instill the understanding that, when uncertain about reporting obligations, the school professional should contact child protective services requesting guidance. Finally, training should foster an understanding of the legal requirements to report maltreatment, an awareness of liability and criminal sanctions for lack of reporting, and an awareness that the mandated reporter is generally immune from liability when a report is made in good faith.