Mandatory Reporting Legislation in the United States,Canada,and Australia: A Cross-Jurisdictional Review of Key Features,Differences,and Issues

Abstract

Mandatory child abuse reporting laws have developed in particular detail in the United States, Canada, and Australia as a central part of the governments' strategy to detect cases of abuse and neglect at an early stage, protect children, and facilitate the provision of services to children and families. However, the terms of these laws differ in significant ways, both within and between these nations, with the differences tending to broaden or narrow the scope of cases required to be reported and by whom. The purpose of this article is to provide a current and systematic review of mandatory reporting legislation in the 3 countries that have invested most heavily in them to date. A comparison of key elements of these laws is conducted, disclosing significant differences and illuminating the issues facing legislatures and policymaking bodies in countries already having the laws. These findings will also be instructive to those jurisdictions still developing their laws and to those that may, in the future, choose to design a system of mandatory reporting.

Keywords

mandatory reporting legislation child abuse and neglect child protection agencies cross-jurisdictional review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. ( 2007). Child protection Australia 2005-06. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Besharov, D. (1983). Protecting abused and neglected children: Can law help social work? Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 421—434.

Besharov, D. (1985). “Doing something” about child abuse: The need to narrow the grounds for state intervention. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 8, 539—589.

Besharov, D. (2005). Overreporting and underreporting of child abuse and neglect are twin problems. In D. Loseke , R. Gelles , & M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 285—298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bromfield, L. , & Higgins, D. (2005). National comparison of child protection systems, Child Abuse Prevention Issues, 22. Melbourne, Australia: National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Brosig, C. , & Kalichman, S. (1992). Child abuse reporting decisions: Effects of statutory wording of reporting requirements. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 486—492.

Butler, D. , & Mathews, B. (2007). Schools and the law. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2005a). Definitions of child abuse and neglect: Summary of state laws (State Statutes Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/lawspolicies/statutes/define.cfm

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2005b). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect: Summary of state laws (State Statute Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/lawspolicies/statutes/manda.cfm

10.

Daro, D. (2007). (Ed.). World perspectives on child abuse (7th ed.). Chicago: International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect.

11.

Deisz, R. , Doueck, H. , George, N. , & Levine, M. (1996). Reasonable cause: A qualitative study of mandated reporting. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(4), 275—287.

12.

Drake, B. , & Jonson-Reid, M. (2007). A response to Melton based on the best available data. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 343—360.

13.

Finkelhor, D. (2005). The main problem is underreporting child abuse and neglect. In D. Loseke , R. Gelles , & M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 299—310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Kalichman, S. (1999). Mandated reporting of suspected child abuse: Ethics, law, and policy (2nd ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

15.

Kempe, C. , Silverman, F. , Steele, B. , Droegemuller, W. , & Silver, H. (1962). The battered child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181, 17—24.

16.

Levi, B. , Brown, G. , & Erb, C. (2006). Reasonable suspicion: A pilot study of pediatric residents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 345—356.

17.

Levi, B. , & Loeben, G. (2004). Index of suspicion: Feeling not believing. Theoretical Medicine & Bioethics, 25(4), 277—310.

18.

Mathews, B. , & Bross, D. (in press). Mandated reporting is still a policy with reason: Empirical evidence and philosophical grounds. Child Abuse and Neglect .

19.

Mathews, B. , Walsh, K. , Butler, D. , & Farrell, A. (2006). Mandatory reporting by Australian teachers of suspected child abuse and neglect: Legislative requirements and questions for future direction. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education, 11, 7—22.

20.

Mathews, B. , Walsh, K. , & Fraser, J. (2006). Mandatory reporting by nurses of child abuse and neglect. Australian Journal of Law and Medicine, 13, 505—517.

21.

Melton, G. (2005). Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 9—18.

22.

Melton, G. , & Davidson, H. (1987). Child protection and society: When should the state intervene? American Psychologist, 42, 172—175.

23.

Nelson, B. (1984). Making an issue of child abuse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Swain, P. (1998). What is “belief on reasonable grounds”? Alternative Law Journal, 23, 230—233.

25.

Swain, P. (2000). The significance of “significant”—When is intervention justified under child abuse reporting laws? Australian Family Law Journal, 14, 26—35.