Riolo: You mentioned that you recall a study that found less than 50% of therapists comply with mandatory reporting laws. This is shocking given the fact that all 50 states have clear-cut mandated reporting laws based of Federal Laws for years. There is simply no excuse for a claim that one did not report in order to preserve the treatment relationship. However one of the constant issues that I see helping therapists discern a reasonable suspicion which we without a doubt required to report from "any suspicion" or a hunch which could be based on little more than a gut feeling.
Murphy: This issue is important -- but therapists should take comfort in the fact that as long as they report in good faith, it doesn't matter that a prosecution or even successful intervention doesn't follow. The bottom line for me is that if more therapists (and other mandatory reporters) were prosecuted for failing to report, there would be an uptick in reporting -- which would be good for kids. I just don't think the political will is there to prosecute therapists, teachers, etc. -- not until some big disaster anyway.
Riolo: Regarding the question of mandated reporting how would address the concern of those who would say that reporting based on any suspicion as opposed to reasonable suspicion while protected from liability if made in good faith can a) overload the CPS System which can divert attention to cases where it is needed and b) can lead to unnecessary disruption of families. I guess I have always struggled with a workable concept of reasonable suspicion.
Murphy: Reasonable minds can differ re: whether information is sufficient to amount to "reasonable suspicion" -- this will never change -- and the key when teaching how to apply these rough standards is to use hypotheticals to create an understanding of where the parameters lie. I like to use examples of "mere rumors" -- and pit them against examples of "more than mere rumors" -- as this is the line I see as the place where the tough cases sit.
I also teach that the bottom line is, it's far better to report because as long as it's done in good faith, there is no liability exposure and frankly, there is no justification for NOT protecting a child by claiming it's "too expensive" or social services is overburdened. Nor is it reasonable for families to claim it's too disruptive. Erring on the side of child protection is the safe approach, though I can understand how some folks who work in protective services can be unprofessional and even completely unfair. It's a price I'm willing to pay in exchange for protecting the maximum number of kids. I can understand that reasonable people might disagree with this approach.
Riolo: Again I want to thank you for a extremely informative discussion. Readers’ comments can directed to Johnr@psychjourney.com or a recorded phone message can be left at (214) 615-6044 ex. 8460. Note Long distance charged may apply.
