Mandatory reporting and ministering visits

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

One problem, among many others, with the mandatory reporting laws, is that there is no accountability.  So, if an ex spouse, vindictive neighbor, or a school employee that simply doesn’t like the parents’ method of discipline, calls CPS and reports abuse, they can do so without any consequences of making a false report or exercising poor judgment.  Making a report to CPS is very serious, and can cause a lot of worry, stress and sometimes money to innocent families.  Anonymous reporting makes it too easy to file frivolous reports.  Now, people like educators are not completely anonymous, as CPS knows who made the allegation, but the parents are not allowed to know.  And quite frankly, if my child’s teacher is making allegations about me, that puts my child in danger, and I should have every right to know who that is.  

100% correct. 

[Carborendum]

It is always such a difficult topic. Which is worse, that we don't report an actual case of abuse?  Or if a family's life is ruined because someone reported incorrectly?

The argument for reporting generally stems from the belief that when it all goes through courts, that the truth will eventually come out and everything will be restored.

No, it won't.

If it is truly better to ruin the family rather than allowing the abuse to continue, then why have families at all?

If it is truly better to allow the abuse to continue, then why consider it a crime at all?

Those are the two extremes that we don't want to see.

The balance is where people are urged to seriously consider all the ramifications and what available evidence there is before moving.  At the very least, we "first, do no harm."  But when we really see clear evidence, it is then that we'd make such an accusation.

I'd really be interested in knowing what is being taught in these "mandatory training classes."  If it were 30 years ago, that would have been a great time to introduce this.  But today, it is just too easy to use "homophobia" as a sign of abuse when parents are trying to protect their children from LGBTQ indoctrination.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is always such a difficult topic. Which is worse, that we don't report an actual case of abuse?  Or if a family's life is ruined because someone reported incorrectly?

I'm not sure about every state, but here in Colorado, over-reporting is such a thing, that it would be very rare to see someone's life ruined because someone filed a report.  https://safe2tell.org/ - They teach kids to use this website in school, and kids use it quite a bit.  Including as a way to get revenge on someone, or because they're mad at someone.

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm not sure about every state, but here in Colorado, over-reporting is such a thing, that it would be very rare to see someone's life ruined because someone filed a report.  https://safe2tell.org/ - They teach kids to use this website in school, and kids use it quite a bit.  Including as a way to get revenge on someone, or because they're mad at someone.

That's a very interesting phenomenon.  It is reported so often that virtually never taken seriously?

I see this eventually developing into one of two directions (one good, one bad).

• They get so many complaints that they recognize that it could be a prank, and take it in stride -- BUT still investigate seriously.  This is exactly as it should be.  That is what the legal system is supposed to do.
• It becomes so over used that they reduce efforts at enforcement and reallocate police resources elsewhere.  We know where that went with the defund the police movement.

Does this reporting system effect the civil cases at all?  If someone reports it, records are kept.  If a parent wants to divorce, they could use that record to get custody of the kids... just wondering.

I'm just wary because I've seen both extremes IRL.  And I see how bad it can be either direction.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That's a very interesting phenomenon.  It is reported so often that virtually never taken seriously?

Well, they're all "taken seriously".   The state "investigates" I think all of them, but I'd guess that some of the investigations amount to "I read the report and found nothing actionable."   Others have a cop actually try to make contact.  You can pretty much ask any cop that has done some time on patrol, and they'll tell a similar story about how many stupid domestic calls they respond to that amount to nothing.  Can't find the people, the accuser recants, no evidence of abuse, no probable cause and nobody will talk to them, etc.

Then there are the "oh, those people again" calls.  Wife beaten up for the millionth time, haul the guy to jail for the millionth time, he goes right back, she takes him right back, rinse, repeat.  

I mean, I suspect that a portion of reporting actually result in the catching of a bad guy who gets prosecuted and someone actually gets real help.  I don't know, but I'd suspect it's a tiny minority.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Does this reporting system effect the civil cases at all?  If someone reports it, records are kept.  If a parent wants to divorce, they could use that record to get custody of the kids... just wondering.

I'm just wary because I've seen both extremes IRL.  And I see how bad it can be either direction.

In Utah, for what it’s worth:  DCFS maintains what the statute calls the “management information system” (colloquially, we call it “SAFE”).  If Intake decides, based on a report, that a CPS investigation should open, then the system will hold the case activity logs of the CPS worker who handled the investigation (they should be logging every contact, conversation, forensic interview, etc), and the case will eventually close with one of four findings:

1). “Supported”:  basically, the caseworker thinks there’s a greater-than-fifty-percent chance that abuse or neglect actually occurred.

2).  “Unsupported”:  the caseworker thinks there’s a less-than-fifty-percent chance that abuse or neglect actually occurred, but can’t conclusively disprove the allegation.

3).  “Without merit”:  the caseworker uncovered information enabling them to prove that the allegation was false.

4).  “Unable to complete:  the casework was unable to locate the family, or wasn’t permitted to interview the child directly.

The SAFE system is confidential and may only be used for internal Utah Department of Human Services (DCFS’s parent agency) purposes, including vetting foster parent license applicants and potential DHS employees.  (I have heard that school boards have the option to access the system to vet potential teachers, but the people I’ve talked to who are in a position to know for sure, get really vague whenever I try to pin them down on this issue).  (Utah also recently enacted a regimen for expungement of “unsupported” and certain types of “supported” findings, though it’s still relatively new and they’re still working out the wrinkles of how to apply it.)  However, “supported” findings of severe and/or chronic abuse or neglect (including sexual abuse) do get forwarded on to the “licensing information system”, which is accessible by various state agencies that handle licensing of various professions.  

Parents may appeal a “supported” finding by requesting review by DHS’s Office of Administrative Hearings, and may appeal the OAH by requesting a hearing before a juvenile court judge.

Parents have the ability to pull the complete (unexpunged) SAFE history of their kids.  So, a divorcing couple could access reports of abuse or neglect involving the children and try to implicate the other parent in court.  But an unsupported, without merit, or UTL finding isn’t going to get them very far with the court (and may not be admissible at all under evidence rules); and even if there’s a “supported” finding—the parent would still probably have to subpoena the same witnesses DCFS spoke to in their investigation, and have them testify in court firsthand; the DCFS records would only play a secondary role from an evidentiary standpoint.

[JohnsonJones]

On 6/29/2023 at 2:22 PM, 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.

I believe I am a mandatory reporter (And I believe many states have this specific thing, where teachers and others are considered mandatory reporters).  Luckily I normally don't deal with a lot of kids so it has never come up (yet).  Even when I served in Ward Leadership I didn't have a case like this turn up (thankfully...that may have caused a conflict in some ways). 

If you see signs of abuse which could include things such as a lot of unexplained bruising occurring, especially if it is on a regular basis.  Broken limbs occurring on a regular basis.  A Child comes up to you and says they are being abused.  things to that nature.  A mandatory reporter cannot just think a child is making it up...the statement must be followed up on. 

Now, luckily I normally deal with College age students, but we still have to take an online thing explaining such stuff to us.  Others also tend to be mandatory reporters if these things get brought up to them.