Mandated Reporting

One principle under which all teachers (in fact, all child care providers in addition to policemen, firemen, health care personnel, coaches, social workers, clergy, and mental health professionals) operate is that of mandated reporter. While specific laws vary from state to state, all professionals who work with children are required to report any suspected abuse or neglect either to their administrators or directly to child protective services.

Abuse is defined as deliberately causing physical or sexual harm to a child or knowingly allowing others to do so, and neglect is defined as the failure to provide an adequate environment in which a child can physically, mentally, and emotionally thrive. (It is important to note that the economic inability to provide a physically, mentally, and emotionally nourishing environment does not constitute neglect.)

Potential signs of abuse or neglect include frequent injuries (especially if the children are unable to provide an explanation), behavior that is either excessively aggressive or abnormally passive, difficulty sitting down, age-inappropriate sexual knowledge, malnourishment, poor personal hygiene, and regular absences from school.

Of course there are many more symptoms than just those mentioned above, and one of the difficult responsibilities of being a mandated reporter is having to determine what constitutes abuse or neglect. As a result, the responsibility of serving as a mandated reporter can be daunting; however, the alternative of not reporting can be even worse.

Consider the following scenarios: in the first, a sixth-grader who has always been a high achiever begins to fail his courses; he becomes withdrawn from his friends and tends to spend more and more time hanging around the school; he seems hesitant to go home; his teachers attempt to glean what is wrong, but the student is reluctant to share any information about what is transpiring at home although he makes several veiled references to the fact that his "mother is always sad."

In the second, a young girl comes to school with a black eye and a dislocated shoulder; she tells several different stories about how her injuries occurred, but she has difficulty making eye contact when she relates these stories; her father, who recently lost his job, is known around town as an aggressive man who becomes violent when he drinks.

Obviously both of these scenarios are potentially suspicious, but are those suspicions worthy of being reported as abuse or neglect? Would it make a difference if you knew that the boy's parents were recently divorced or that the girl was a competitive snowboarder?

These are the kinds of murky suspicions and knotty details with which mandated reporters are forced to wrestle prior to making a decision, a decision with substantive consequences for both children and families.

However, despite the emotional distress that an investigation into abuse or neglect entails, both of the potential consequences result in best case scenarios: either a child is rescued or a family is exonerated - either the suspicions are corroborated, and a child is removed from a potentially life- threatening situation; or the investigation determines that the suspicions are unfounded.

It is important to note that while the consequences may differ, the process is the same: those morally and legally responsible for the welfare of children bear the responsibility of reporting their suspicions (in fact, if they do not report their concerns, they can lose their licenses and be held criminally and civilly liable); and once they do, a formal and procedurally- just investigative procedure is begun.

Despite the thorny intricacies involved in making decisions about the lives of others, the reward for those of us who embrace this responsibility is that it demands that the welfare of children is honored above all else.

It is this single ideal, so frequently parroted and so infrequently realized, that guides the moral and legal principles of mandated reporters.

--Steve McKibben
3/25/07