Pity the poor, oppressed
“mandated reporter” of child abuse.
Sure,
they already have protections from lawsuits that are so strong that they have
to not only violate the law but have good reason to know they’re doing it, or
be acting maliciously, before a jury can even consider what they’ve done to an
innocent family.
But, says Franne Sippel, that’s not enough! How
does she know? Because out of the millions of times mandated reporters have
filed reports – or in some cases, even seized children on their own authority –
she’s found a handful in which the reporter was sued or faced some kind of
retaliation.
Since
the entire structure of American child welfare is built on a foundation of
horror stories, it’s no surprise that they constitute Sippel’s entire “evidence
base.” But even some of the horror stories don’t hold up to scrutiny. She cites
five instances of alleged retaliation against a mandated reporter, but provides
supporting evidence for only one of them.
Then
she cites two court cases. But she links only to items that support her
position – not the actual court decisions. The decisions tell a different
story.
What the Courts Said
In one
case, Sippel writes that “G.J., an infant, sustained skull and rib fractures
while in his parents’ care. The story his mother gave was medically
inconsistent with his injuries. Radiologists suspected child abuse, which was
consistent with medical literature.”
But according to the actual decision, the parents made a
strong case that there was overwhelming evidence abuse did not cause the
child’s injuries, and that the doctor they sued allegedly used deception and
coercion to hold the child in the hospital needlessly. Ultimately the child was
separated from his family for months before a court ruled that, in fact, there
had been no abuse.
The
court did not say the doctor did all these things, ruling only that there was
enough evidence to allow a jury to decide. But Sippel thinks even that is too
much of a burden for a mandated reporter to bear.
Sippel also doesn’t link
to the actual decision in the second case
she cites. That decision paints a picture of a school administrator allegedly
waging a vendetta against a parent fighting with the school over a child’s
special education plan. The court found that “… the facts taken in the light
most favorable to [the accused] suggest that she embellished or entirely
fabricated [some] allegations, including those that most clearly suggested sexual
abuse.”
Again,
the court did not say the administrator is guilty – only that the alleged
conduct is not protected by immunity, so the parents have a right to let a jury
decide if it took place.
And, of course, the
horror stories go both ways. Consider these cases of mandated
reporters abusing authority. And this one. And this one. And this story noting how even landlords are getting
into the act, using false child abuse reports to retaliate against tenants.
What HHS Said
Sippel’s claim that “The
Secretary of Health and Human Services made recommendations to Congress for
strengthening immunity in child maltreatment cases” is also misleading.
The
tone of the HHS report certainly is sympathetic to mandated reporters; as one
would expect, since the authors consulted only mandated reporters. What would a
report that questioned only the falsely accused and the lawyers who represent
them have found?
But the
report makes no actual recommendations of its own. Rather, it passes on
recommendations from mandated reporters. Surprise! They want even less
accountability.
Indeed, the extremism of
some seeking to avoid accountability knows no bounds. This can be seen in the
notorious “right-to-lie” case, in which child welfare caseworkers
claimed they were not constitutionally prohibited from outright lying to the
court to get a child taken from her mother.
In what The Chronicle aptly
characterizes as an “epic dis” of this argument, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals points out that California passed a law
specifically stating that immunity does not apply to child welfare workers who,
acting with malice, commit perjury and fabricate evidence.
That
seems pretty basic. But, the decision notes, the association of county welfare
directors and the National Association of Social Workers, among others,
actually opposed the law!
And
finally, if you’re going to argue that even minimal accountability for mandated
reporters might discourage them from reporting, “leading to more abuse and deaths,”
you probably should not choose a case from Pennsylvania as your example,
as Sippel does.
In the wake of the Jerry
Sandusky scandal at Penn State, reports alleging child abuse have skyrocketed,
deluging the state hotline and county child welfare agencies. And of course, in
parts of the state, foster care has skyrocketed as well.
All of
which makes it less likely workers will have time to find children in real
danger – leading to more abuse and deaths.
