Exploring the contested role of mandatory reporting laws in the identification of severe child abuse and neglect

Significant numbers of children are severely abused and neglected by parents and caregivers. Infants and very young children are the most vulnerable and are unable to seek help. To identify these situations and enable child protection and the provision of appropriate assistance, many jurisdictions have enacted ‘mandatory reporting laws’ requiring designated professionals such as doctors, nurses, police and teachers to report suspected cases of severe child abuse and neglect. Other jurisdictions have not adopted this legislative approach, at least partly motivated by a concern that the laws produce dramatic increases in unwarranted reports, which, it is argued, lead to investigations which infringe on people’s privacy, cause trauma to innocent parents and families, and divert scarce government resources from deserving cases. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which opposition to mandatory reporting laws is valid based on the claim that the laws produce ‘overreporting’. The first part of this paper revisits the original mandatory reporting laws, discusses their development into various current forms, explains their relationship with policy and common law reporting obligations, and situates them in the context of their place in modern child protection systems. This part of the paper shows that in general, contemporary reporting laws have expanded far beyond their original conceptualisation, but that there is also now a deeper understanding of the nature, incidence, timing and effects of different types of severe maltreatment, an awareness that the real incidence of maltreatment is far higher than that officially recorded, and that there is strong evidence showing the majority of identified cases of severe maltreatment are the result of reports by mandated reporters. The second part of this paper discusses the apparent effect of mandatory reporting laws on ‘overreporting’ by referring to Australian government data about reporting patterns and outcomes, with a particular focus on New South Wales. It will be seen that raw descriptive data about report numbers and outcomes appear to show that reporting laws produce both desirable consequences (identification of severe cases) and problematic consequences (increased numbers of unsubstantiated reports). Yet, to explore the extent to which the data supports the overreporting claim, and because numbers of unsubstantiated reports alone cannot demonstrate overreporting, this part of the paper asks further questions of the data. Who makes reports, about which maltreatment types, and what are the outcomes of those reports? What is the nature of these reports; for example, to what extent are multiple numbers of reports made about the same child? What meaning can be attached to an ‘unsubstantiated’ report, and can such reports be used to show flaws in reporting effectiveness and problems in reporting laws? It will be suggested that available evidence from Australia is not sufficiently detailed or strong to demonstrate the overreporting claim. However, it is also apparent that, whether adopting an approach based on public health and or other principles, much better evidence about reporting needs to be collected and analyzed. As well, more nuanced research needs to be conducted to identify what can reasonably be said to constitute ‘overreports’, and efforts must be made to minimize unsatisfactory reporting practice, informed by the relevant jurisdiction’s context and aims. It is also concluded that, depending on the jurisdiction, the available data may provide useful indicators of positive, negative and unanticipated effects of specific components of the laws, and of the strengths, weaknesses and needs of the child protection system.

Mandatory reporting laws

As part of the effort to protect children from significant abuse and neglect, each state and territory in Australia has enacted legislation commonly known as "mandatory reporting laws". There is much confusion about the nature and effects of these laws, both generally and within each jurisdiction. Accordingly, the main aim of this chapter is to review and explain the legislative principles across Australia. In doing so, the chapter will identify differences between the state and territory laws and will situate the laws as part of a system of responses to the whole spectrum of child abuse and neglect. We will also highlight the need for effective reporter training and public awareness, especially given the tension between the widely perceived need for a community response to child abuse and neglect and the simultaneous concern to avoid unnecessary reporting of innocuous events and situations.

Mandatory Reporting Laws and Identification of Child Abuse and Neglect: Consideration of Differential Maltreatment Types, and a Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse Reports

Mandatory reporting laws have been created in many jurisdictions as a way of identifying cases of severe child maltreatment on the basis that cases will otherwise remain hidden. These laws usually apply to all four maltreatment types. Other jurisdictions have narrower approaches supplemented by differential response systems, and others still have chosen not to enact mandatory reporting laws for any type of maltreatment. In scholarly research and normative debates about mandatory reporting laws and their effects, the four major forms of child maltreatment—physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect—are often grouped together as if they are homogenous in nature, cause, and consequence. Yet, the heterogeneity of maltreatment types, and different reporting practices regarding them, must be acknowledged and explored when considering what legal and policy frameworks are best suited to identify and respond to cases. A related question which is often conjectured upon but seldom empirically explored, is whether reporting laws make a difference in case identification. This article first considers different types of child abuse and neglect, before exploring the nature and operation of mandatory reporting laws in different contexts. It then posits a differentiation thesis, arguing that different patterns of reporting between both reporter groups and maltreatment types must be acknowledged and analysed, and should inform discussions and assessments of optimal approaches in law, policy and practice. Finally, to contribute to the evidence base required to inform discussion, this article conducts an empirical cross-jurisdictional comparison of the reporting and identification of child sexual abuse in jurisdictions with and withoutmandatory reporting, and concludes that mandatory reporting laws appear to be associated with better case identification.

Mandatory Reporting Laws for Child Sexual Abuse in Australia : A Legislative History

This work conducts a comprehensive historical review and analysis of the legislative principles for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in each State and Territory of Australia. The research traces and explains all the significant changes in the development of the laws in each jurisdiction since their inception in 1969 to the year 2013. The research also identifies why the legislation changed in each jurisdiction, covering research into publicly available records, focusing on significant government inquiries and law reform reports, and parliamentary debates. The research is situated within a treatment of the modern discovery of child sexual abuse as a widespread phenomenon of significant public health concern.

Developing countries and the potential of mandatory reporting laws to identify severe child abuse and neglect

This chapter considers the key characteristics of different types of child abuse and neglect, and outlines the nature and justifiability of mandatory reporting laws. The issue of whether these laws may be useful for child protection in developing countries with emerging economies is an important one. ‘Developing country’ is a term used by various institutions to describe a nation which has a lower living standard, industrial base, and human development index (HDI) compared to other countries (World Bank 2012; United Nations Development Programme 2013). In the context of developing countries, the chapter addresses two questions: first, might some forms of maltreatment be more suited to mandatory reporting than others? Second, what options for child protection may be considered by developing countries, taking into account children’s needs, cultural conditions and practices, economic imperatives, and the different levels of preparedness to implement child protection strategies?

Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect

This book provides the first comprehensive international coverage of key issues in mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. The book draws on a collection of the foremost scholars in the field, as well as clinicians and practice-based experts, to explore the nature, history, impact and justifiability of mandatory reporting laws, their optimal form, legal and conceptual issues, and practical issues and challenges for reporters, professional educators and governments. Key issues in non-Western nations are also explored briefly to assess the potential of socio-legal responses sex trafficking, forced child labour and child marriage. The book is of particular value to policy makers, educators and opinion leaders in government departments dealing with children, and to professionals and organisations who work with children. It is also intended to be a key authority for researchers and teachers in the fields of medicine, nursing, social work, education, law, psychology, health and allied health fields.

Mandatory reporting laws: Their origin, nature, and development over time

Dozens of countries have enacted mandatory reporting laws in various forms to respond to child abuse and neglect. Other countries including England are currently considering whether to introduce them, and if so in what form. It is important for policymakers, practitioners and researchers to understand these laws’ background, nature and purpose. This chapter outlines the origins and provenance of the first mandatory reporting laws; discusses their nature; describes major developments over time; and identifies some major effects and their consequences. It is shown that the laws are a heterogeneous, organic, flexible mechanism enabling social intervention where otherwise such intervention is severely compromised or impossible. Their primary function is to comprise but one aspect of a multifaceted child welfare system by identifying cases of serious maltreatment which would not otherwise come to light: sexual abuse and severe physical abuse are paradigm examples. The essential role of these laws is therefore primarily a tertiary aspect of a public health model, rather than a purely preventative strategy. Mandatory reporting laws are made by each specific jurisdiction according to its preferred design and function within its socio-political system. There is a spectrum of different approaches from which a jurisdiction can choose: they can apply to a broad or a narrow range of reporter groups, a broad or a narrow range of types of maltreatment, and a broad or a narrow range of instances where abuse or neglect occurs.

Submission to Queensland Law Reform Commission WP 73 Review of Child Protection Mandatory Reporting Laws for the Early Childhood Education and Care Sector

In 2015 the QLRC is conducting an inquiry into whether to extend legislative mandatory reporting duties for physical abuse and sexual abuse to early childhood education and care practitioners. The current legislation does not require these practitioners to report suspected cases of significant harm from physical or sexual absue to child welfare agencies. Based on the literature, and a multidisciplinary analysis, our overall recommendation is that we endorse the extension to selected early childhood education and care practitioners of Queensland’s current mandatory reporting duty in the Child Protection Act 1999 s 13E.

Does the protection of vulnerable children require a system of mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect? [An issues paper for the New Zealand Government Green Paper for vulnerable children]

In this Issues Paper, I raise some key points relevant for any government which is considering its child protection and family welfare policy. In particular, I will raise questions about whether a form of legislative reporting duty is required, and if so, what consequences this has for child protection. The context of child maltreatment - and each form of maltreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and neglect - is extremely complex, and the overarching question of how to deal with these phenomena involve challenging normative, economic and practical questions. There are no easy or perfect solutions. Nor, often, is there the amount and quality of evidence available on which public policy approaches should be devised. However, from the best evidence about the history of this context, from research conducted in this field, and from the best evidence available about the nature, incidence and effects of different subtypes of maltreatment, some observations can be made which may help to inform deliberations. I outline 10 key issues related to mandatory reporting legislation while being mindful of the New Zealand context. My view, based on both research evidence and a concern to protect and promote children’s interests, and society’s interests, is that reporting laws in some form are necessary and can contribute substantially to child protection and enhancing family and community health and wellbeing. However, they are only one necessary part of a sound child protection system, being a method of tertiary and secondary prevention, and primary prevention efforts must also be prioritised. Moreover, it is essential that if a legislative reporting duty is enacted, it must be designed carefully and implemented soundly, and it must be integrated within a properly resourced child protection and family welfare system.

Consequences of introducing mandatory reporting legislation for child sexual abuse

To improve detection of child sexual abuse, many jurisdictions have enacted mandatory reporting laws requiring selected persons to report known and suspected cases. In Ireland, the Child First approach previously incorporated only a policy-based approach to reporting. Due to a perceived lack of efficacy, the Children First Bill was drafted in 2012 to shift this policy guidance to a legislative approach. What effects will the new legislative reporting duties have on numbers of reports, and outcomes of reports, of suspected child sexual abuse? This paper will shed light on these important questions by presenting results of analyses of the introduction of legislative reporting obligations in two Australian States. Three questions will be explored: 1. Does introducing reporting legislation result in enhanced detection of child sexual abuse? 2. Do different reporter groups have different patterns of reporting? 3. What do the patterns of report numbers and outcomes indicate for child protection systems and communities?

Issues to consider when developing mandatory reporting legislation and policy to improve discovery of child abuse

In the United Kingdom, recent investigations into child sexual abuse occurring within schools, the Catholic Church and the British Broadcasting Corporation, have intensified debate on ways to improve the discovery of child sexual abuse, and child maltreatment generally. One approach adopted in other jurisdictions to better identify cases of severe child maltreatment is the introduction of some form of legislative mandatory reporting to require designated persons to report known and suspected cases. The debate in England has raised the prospect of whether adopting a strategy of some kind of mandatory reporting law is advisable. The purpose of this article is to add to this debate by identifying fundamental principles, issues and complexities underpinning policy and even legislative developments in the interests of children and society. The article will first highlight the data on the hidden nature of child maltreatment and the background to the debate. Secondly, it will identify some significant gaps in knowledge that need to be filled. Thirdly, the article will summarise the barriers to reporting abuse and neglect. Fourthly, we will identify a range of options for, and clarify the dilemmas in developing, legislative mandatory reporting, addressing two key issues: who should be mandated to report, and what types of child maltreatment should they be required to report? Finally, we draw attention to some inherently different goals and competing interests, both between and within the various institutions involved in the safeguarding of children and the criminal prosecution of some offenders. Based on this analysis we offer some concluding observations that we hope contribute to informed and careful debate about mandatory reporting.

Child abuse and neglect: A socio-legal study of mandatory reporting in Australia - Report for the Australian Government

This report presents the results of a national study exploring the law and practice of mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. Government administrative data over a decade (2003-2012) were accessed and analysed to map trends in reporting of different types of child abuse and neglect (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect) by different reporter groups (both mandated reporters e.g., police, teachers, doctors, nurses depending on the jurisdiction, and non-mandated reporters e.g., family members, neighbours, depending on the jurisdiction), and the outcomes of these reports (whether investigated, and whether substantiated or not). The study was funded by the Australian Government and administered through the Government of Victoria.

Child Abuse and Neglect: A Socio-legal Study of Mandatory Reporting in Australia - Report for the ACT Government

This report presents the results of a study exploring the law and practice of mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect in the Australian Capital Territory. Government administrative data over a decade (2003-2012) were accessed and analysed to map trends in reporting of different types of child abuse and neglect (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect) by different reporter groups (both mandated reporters e.g., police, teachers, doctors, nurses depending on the jurisdiction, and non-mandated reporters e.g., family members, neighbours, depending on the jurisdiction), and the outcomes of these reports (whether investigated, and whether substantiated or not). The study was funded by the Australian Government and administered through the Government of Victoria.

Child Abuse and Neglect: A Socio-legal Study of Mandatory Reporting in Australia - Report for the New South Wales Government

This report presents the results of a study exploring the law and practice of mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect in New South Wales. Government administrative data were accessed and analysed to map trends in reporting of different types of child abuse and neglect (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect) by different reporter groups (both mandated reporters e.g., police, teachers, doctors, nurses, and non-mandated reporters e.g., family members, neighbours), and the outcomes of these reports (whether investigated, and whether substantiated or not). The study was funded by the Australian Government and administered through the Government of Victoria.

Child Abuse and Neglect: A Socio-legal Study of Mandatory Reporting in Australia - Report for the Northern Territory Government

This report presents the results of a study exploring the law and practice of mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect in the Northern Territory. Government administrative data over a decade (2003-2012) were accessed and analysed to map trends in reporting of different types of child abuse and neglect (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect) by different reporter groups (e.g., police, teachers, doctors, nurses, vs family members, neighbours), and the outcomes of these reports (whether investigated, and whether substantiated or not). The study was funded by the Australian Government and administered through the Government of Victoria.