Mandatory reporting and ministering visits

[askandanswer]

In many Australian states and territories, legislation about mandatory reporting requirements impose an obligation to report suspicions of abuse or violence, particularly in relation to children. In most jurisdictions, this requirement is limited to people likely to be working with children, eg, teachers, social workers, medical specialists and the like. However, in the jurisdiction where I live, everybody over the age of 18 is mandatorily required to report suspicions of abuse and domestic violence. 

A ministering visit has recently taken place in our branch which led to the ministering visitor making a mandatory report to a government agency. I can see how this might be problematic for two reasons - I suspect there is a very low percentage of ministering brothers and sisters who are aware of their mandatory reporting obligations, so that could lead to a situation whereby church members carrying out a church responsibility, might be in breach of mandatory reporting requirements by failing to report what they see during their ministering visits. Secondly, there may be some members who, if they knew that a ministering visit could potentially generate a mandatory report, might become hesitant about allowing ministering visits in their home. 

Does anyone else live in a jurisdiction where everybody over the age of 18 has a requirement to mandatorily report, and if so, does this have any impact on how ministering is done? 

[mikbone]

I live in California - I probably break 20 laws on a daily basis.

I’ve started using a quote from the Holy Ghost.

“Behold the world and the wisdom thereof.”     1 Ne 11:35

[zil2]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I live in California - I probably break 20 laws on a daily basis.

Pfff.  Your existence is probably illegal.  And it causes cancer.

[Carborendum]

Just now, zil2 said:

Pfff.  Your existence is probably illegal.  And it causes cancer.

Heh.  Human beings are a virus to the earth.

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can see how this might be problematic for two reasons ...

The biggest problem I see is the high probability of excessive false positives.

• How many people are really aware of the laws regarding "abuse"?
• How many people will see something out of context and believe it is a "sign" of abuse, when it was really nothing?
• How many people will report a "possible" issue and the social workers put the thumb screws to the family and place kids in foster care based on "suspicion" alone?

We've already seen very minor issues where abuse wasn't even alleged.  But a busy-body social worker decides to barge into a home with police support on the very first visit based on suspicion alone.

It is at the point now where I have to ask: "If I had to choose between the way things are today vs. de-crimminalizing abuse..." Well, with my level of knowledge about the topic (and I grant I'm not an industry professional, so my sample size may be tilted) I don't know if I'd choose to keep things as they are.  Here's why.

• I consider the fact that families are torn apart based on nothing but suspicion and accusation alone.  This has lasting effects on families who did nothing wrong.
• Even when there is real abuse (and there are certainly many gradations) the state doesn't exactly have a great record of taking care of the children either.  So, what good are we really doing?

I am absolutely clear that when someone is killed, the murderer needs to be punished.  But I would suppose that many conditions of abuse are not as bad as being put in the system.  And it is very easy for the system to be tweaked just a bit so that the system isn't worse than the disease (at least, in many cases).  Yet, the government just doesn't want to do that.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Heh.  Human beings are a virus to the earth.

And they are known to the state of California to cause cancer.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

In many Australian states and territories, legislation about mandatory reporting requirements impose an obligation to report suspicions of abuse or violence, particularly in relation to children. In most jurisdictions, this requirement is limited to people likely to be working with children, eg, teachers, social workers, medical specialists and the like. However, in the jurisdiction where I live, everybody over the age of 18 is mandatorily required to report suspicions of abuse and domestic violence.

This is horrifying. I'm very sorry to hear it.

[mikbone]

Nanny State

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state#:~:text=Nanny state is a term,nanny has in child rearing.

 

[Traveler]

An unkind word is abuse.  Even an unkind unverbalized thought can be abusive to those sensitive because of circumstance.  I believe @Carborendum is correct in that overaction to minor abuses are itself abusive.   I am not sure I trust government or any individual to know when abuses cross a fine line.  Never-the-less there are abuses that should never be overlooked.  Certainly, any abuse in question ought to be brought to attention rather than being left to fester in those involved. 

I will not pretend to know where that line is – perhaps the line is different for different circumstances?

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Heh.  In Colorado, we have the "Safe2Tell" system.  Over 100,000 reports filed by kiddos who either don't feel safe, or see someone else not feeling safe. 

They tell us that 97%+ are "verified reports", but what that means, varies.

 

[zil2]

57 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

They tell us that 97%+ are "verified reports", but what that means, varies.

So really, they're varified reports?

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

So really, they're varified reports?

Rarefied reports.

[Grunt]

Not being familiar with CA law, what are the guidelines for mandatory reporting?   If someone yells at their child?  Spanks their child?  Takes away electronics?  Molests?

When are you required to report?   When you witness this personally?  If you suspect it's taking place?  If you see evidence?

It depends on how strict and definitive the requirements are.   There are many times I see a parent-child interaction and think "I wouldn't do that", but it doesn't rise to what I consider abuse.   If it is a very subjective requirement, then I'm not sure why anyone would worry about it.   We should be reporting abuse whether we're required to or not.  That doesn't mean someone parenting differently than you is abuse, though.

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The biggest problem I see is the high probability of excessive false positives.

• How many people are really aware of the laws regarding "abuse"?
• How many people will see something out of context and believe it is a "sign" of abuse, when it was really nothing?
• How many people will report a "possible" issue and the social workers put the thumb screws to the family and place kids in foster care based on "suspicion" alone?

We've already seen very minor issues where abuse wasn't even alleged.  But a busy-body social worker decides to barge into a home with police support on the very first visit based on suspicion alone.

It is at the point now where I have to ask: "If I had to choose between the way things are today vs. de-crimminalizing abuse..." Well, with my level of knowledge about the topic (and I grant I'm not an industry professional, so my sample size may be tilted) I don't know if I'd choose to keep things as they are.  Here's why.

• I consider the fact that families are torn apart based on nothing but suspicion and accusation alone.  This has lasting effects on families who did nothing wrong.
• Even when there is real abuse (and there are certainly many gradations) the state doesn't exactly have a great record of taking care of the children either.  So, what good are we really doing?

I am absolutely clear that when someone is killed, the murderer needs to be punished.  But I would suppose that many conditions of abuse are not as bad as being put in the system.  And it is very easy for the system to be tweaked just a bit so that the system isn't worse than the disease (at least, in many cases).  Yet, the government just doesn't want to do that.

You're right, I suspect there is a very low level of awareness of the mandatory reporting laws. In the email I sent to the EQP last night I suggested that perhaps there might need to be some training on this topic, and not just in our branch. 

This is a particularly sensitive problem where I live. We have a high indigenous population here, approximately 30%, and most indigenous families here have been affected by what is known as the stolen generation, which is the term used to describe a long held federal government policy, abandoned only in the early 1970' I think,  of seeking to assimilate aboriginal people into white society. But on the other hand, home situations amongst aboriginal people are generally far worse, and much closer to a need for government intervention.

I have very similar sentiments. I have a low level of trust when it comes to the "effectiveness" of the state taking a child from their family and placing them with another family or institution. Mind you, I am only aware of the stories from one side of the ledgar, ie, those that make it into the media because of spectacular failure. I don't know how many genuine success stories there are. No doubt @JustAGuy would have an interesting perspective on this. 

And yes, I suspect that the majority of social workers have a shoot first and ask later type approach. And its so much easier for a social worker to make a decision than it is to then undo a decision through court processes. 

[askandanswer]

54 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not being familiar with CA law, what are the guidelines for mandatory reporting?   If someone yells at their child?  Spanks their child?  Takes away electronics?  Molests?

When are you required to report?   When you witness this personally?  If you suspect it's taking place?  If you see evidence?

It depends on how strict and definitive the requirements are.   There are many times I see a parent-child interaction and think "I wouldn't do that", but it doesn't rise to what I consider abuse.   If it is a very subjective requirement, then I'm not sure why anyone would worry about it.   We should be reporting abuse whether we're required to or not.  That doesn't mean someone parenting differently than you is abuse, though.

Here's how the child abuse part of mandatory reporting works. I believe it is similar for domestic violence.

Report child abuse

In the Northern Territory (NT), you must report your concerns if you believe a child is being, or has been, harmed or abused.

This is a legal responsibility under the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 and is called mandatory reporting.

Your report should include any relevant information about your concerns for the child's safety and wellbeing.

You don't need proof of harm or abuse to report your concerns - you just need a reasonable belief that a child has been harmed or is likely to be harmed.

If you are worried about neglect or harm to a child but are not sure if it's something you should report, you should talk about your concerns with professional staff at the child protection reporting line on 1800 700 250. The reporting line operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

You are safeguarded under the law from legal or professional liability if you make a report in good faith.

https://nt.gov.au/law/crime/report-child-abuse#:~:text=In the Northern Territory (NT,and is called mandatory reporting.

 

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  In Colorado, we have the "Safe2Tell" system.  Over 100,000 reports filed by kiddos who either don't feel safe, or see someone else not feeling safe. 

They tell us that 97%+ are "verified reports", but what that means, varies.

 

Being angry in Colorado is a reportable issue?

[Just_A_Guy]

In Utah, everyone is a mandatory reporter.  (There are exceptions for clergy, but under the common definition that wouldn’t really cover a teacher, youth leader or ministering brother/sister).

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In Utah, everyone is a mandatory reporter.  (There are exceptions for clergy, but under the common definition that wouldn’t really cover a teacher, youth leader or ministering brother/sister).

I don't see how this is enforceable in any real sense. If you can't prosecute someone for perjury when he brazenly lies in open court and you have the video to back it up, how could anyone ever be convicted of non-reporting?

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't see how this is enforceable in any real sense. If you can't prosecute someone for perjury when he brazenly lies in open court and you have the video to back it up, how could anyone ever be convicted of non-reporting?

Australia's Head of State is not our Prime Minister, it is the Governor-General, who, in consititutional terms, is the King's representative. He is the one who has to sign a bill passed by both houses of Parliament before it becomes law. Around the turn of the century, Peter Hollingsworth, who was the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane at the time, our 3rd largest city, was appointed to be Governor General. He is the only Governor General we have had who was forced to resign because of media and public pressure. His alleged crime was not reporting the proclivities and sexual activities of several paedophile priests in his diocese. It was beyond doubt that priests who he was responsible for had committed crimes, and in all likelihood, he knew about this, but did not report it. Like several other religious leaders, including former Cardinal George Pell, it is believed that when Archbishop Hollingsworth became aware of these people and their activities, he simply moved them around from one parish to the next. He was never found to be criminally liable for not reporting but the suspicion and public pressure was enough to lead him to resign as Governor-General, although still retaining his government pension of about four times the annual average salary. In April this year, an internal inquiry by the Anglican church found him guilty of misconduct, but said he could keep his job if he apologised to the victims of the paedophile priests. This was in the face of many calls that he be defrocked. The following month he voluntarily gave up his right to officiate in religious services. 

In 2018 the former Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, our 4th largest city was found guilty of failing to report the activities of priests he knew had committed offences more than 40 years previously, in the 1970s. 

[Carborendum]

On 6/29/2023 at 3:10 PM, Vort said:

Rarefied reports.

Blue Rare.

[LDSGator]

On 7/3/2023 at 3:20 PM, askandanswer said:

Australia's Head of State is not our Prime Minister, it is the Governor-General, who, in consititutional terms, is the King's representative. He is the one who has to sign a bill passed by both houses of Parliament before it becomes law. Around the turn of the century, Peter Hollingsworth, who was the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane at the time, our 3rd largest city, was appointed to be Governor General. He is the only Governor General we have had who was forced to resign because of media and public pressure. His alleged crime was not reporting the proclivities and sexual activities of several paedophile priests in his diocese. It was beyond doubt that priests who he was responsible for had committed crimes, and in all likelihood, he knew about this, but did not report it. Like several other religious leaders, including former Cardinal George Pell, it is believed that when Archbishop Hollingsworth became aware of these people and their activities, he simply moved them around from one parish to the next. He was never found to be criminally liable for not reporting but the suspicion and public pressure was enough to lead him to resign as Governor-General, although still retaining his government pension of about four times the annual average salary. In April this year, an internal inquiry by the Anglican church found him guilty of misconduct, but said he could keep his job if he apologised to the victims of the paedophile priests. This was in the face of many calls that he be defrocked. The following month he voluntarily gave up his right to officiate in religious services. 

In 2018 the former Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, our 4th largest city was found guilty of failing to report the activities of priests he knew had committed offences more than 40 years previously, in the 1970s. 

I assume the Governor General has no real power, much like the monarch. From a technicality side, sure, he’s in charge. But I’m pretty sure that Albanese is running the show. 

[askandanswer]

11 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I assume the Governor General has no real power, much like the monarch. From a technicality side, sure, he’s in charge. But I’m pretty sure that Albanese is running the show. 

Yes, you're right, on paper, the Governor-General holds a lot of power, in practice, virtually none. The last time I can recall a Governor-General actually exercising his power on his own initiative was in 1975 when the Governon-General sacked the Prime Minister, without any prior approval or disapproval from the monarch. I believe that Governon-General had kept the monarch advised of what was happening in Australia at that time, and had asked for advice, but the monarch persistently declined to give any clear advice on how the Governon-General should handle the crisis that was unfolding. The sacking of the Prime Minister by the Governor-General was the closest Australia has come to a constitutional crisis. 

Albanese is doing a good job, his approval ratings continue to be close to what they were at the time he was elected more than a year ago. 

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The sacking of the Prime Minister by the Governor-General was the closest Australia has come to a constitutional crisis. 

 

I’m just an ignorant American (though I know what happened to Harold Holt 😉 ) but I’ve always wondered what would happen if the monarch refuses royal assent or something like what happened in 75’ repeats itself. 

[askandanswer]

An ignorant American? Isn't that a bit of tautology?

We have a situation in the state of New South Wales a little bit similar to what you described happening at the moment. In that state, there is a piece of legislation that was passed by both houses of parliament 13 years ago but which has not been signed by the State Governor, who is the monarch's state representative. However, in that case, the Governor's "decision" not to sign is at the direction of the government - the legislation was passed by a previous government and before the governor could sign it, an election was held, and the Opposition gained power, they disagreed with the legislation so they directed the Governor not to sign the legislation. This year, after 13 years in opposition, the party that originally passed that legislation regained power, and I believe they are now updating the legislation before presenting it back to the governor for signature. Its something to do with creating an exception for Aboriginal people from the laws that limit how much abalone can be harvested from the ocean each year.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-19/cultural-fishing-hearing-nsw-parliament-house-sydney/101346918

It has never been tested, but the Prime Minister can recommend directly to the monarch that a Governor-General be removed from office. Its highly likely that the monarch would act on the Prime Minister's request. In 1975 both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General could have arranged for the removal of each other but the Governor-General was quicker to act so he won that particular race. Interestingly, John Kerr, the Governor-General in 1975 had been appointed to that office by the Prime Minister who he later sacked. After that, he was hated and vilified by Labor supporters until the day he died. 

One of the tv networks here made a reasonably accurate mini-series about it about a decade later called The Dismissal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dismissal_(miniseries)#:~:text=The Dismissal is an Australian,the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

2 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

An ignorant American? Isn't that a bit of tautology?

I'll let that comment, made the day after our Independence day celebrations, slide.  On account of you Australians are all standing upside down and the blood must be rushing to your head and making you dizzy. 😉