Exploring the contested role of mandatory reporting laws in the identification of severe child abuse and neglect
Exploring the contested role of mandatory reporting laws in the identification of severe child abuse and neglect
复制标题
探讨强制报告法在识别严重虐待和忽视儿童行为中的有争议的作用
DOI：
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199652501.003.0019
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Benjamin Mathews
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Benjamin Mathews
大量儿童受到父母和照料者的严重虐待和忽视。婴儿和幼儿是最脆弱的，无法寻求帮助。为了识别这些情况，使儿童保护和提供适当的援助，许多司法管辖区制定了“强制性报告法”，要求指定的专业人员，如医生，护士，警察和教师报告严重虐待和忽视儿童的可疑案件。其他司法管辖区并没有采用这种立法方式，至少部分原因是担心这些法律会使无根据的举报急剧增加，据称，这会导致调查侵犯人们的隐私，对无辜的父母和家庭造成创伤，并将稀缺的政府资源用于值得处理的案件。本文的主要目的是探讨在何种程度上反对强制性报告法律是有效的基础上声称，法律产生的“过度报告”。本文的第一部分回顾了最初的强制性报告法律，讨论了它们发展成目前的各种形式，解释了它们与政策和普通法报告义务的关系，并将它们置于现代儿童保护制度中的位置。本文件的这一部分表明，一般而言，当代报告法的范围已远远超出其最初的概念，但现在对不同类型严重虐待的性质、发生率、时间和影响也有了更深入的了解，认识到虐待的真实的发生率远远高于官方记录的发生率，有强有力的证据表明，大多数已查明的严重虐待案件是由授权的报告员报告的。本文的第二部分讨论了强制性报告法律对“过度报告”的明显影响，参考了澳大利亚政府关于报告模式和结果的数据，特别关注新南威尔士州。可以看出，关于报告数量和结果的原始描述性数据似乎表明，报告法既产生了理想的后果（查明严重案件），也产生了问题性后果（未经证实的报告数量增加）。然而，为了探讨数据在多大程度上支持多报的说法，而且由于未经证实的报告数量本身并不能证明多报，本文的这一部分对数据提出了进一步的问题。谁提出报告，关于哪些虐待类型，这些报告的结果是什么？这些报告的性质是什么？例如，在多大程度上是关于同一个孩子的多份报告？“未经证实”的报告有何意义，这种报告是否可以用来显示报告效力的缺陷和报告法的问题？澳大利亚提供的证据不够详细或有力，无法证明多报的说法。然而，同样明显的是，无论是采用基于公共卫生和/或其他原则的方法，都需要收集和分析关于报告的更好的证据。此外，需要进行更细致的研究，以确定什么可以合理地说是构成“多报”，并必须努力尽量减少不令人满意的报告做法，了解有关司法管辖区的背景和目标。报告还得出结论认为，根据不同的管辖区，现有数据可以提供有用的指标，说明法律具体组成部分的积极、消极和意外影响，以及儿童保护制度的长处、弱点和需要。
Significant numbers of children are severely abused and neglected by parents and caregivers. Infants and very young children are the most vulnerable and are unable to seek help. To identify these situations and enable child protection and the provision of appropriate assistance, many jurisdictions have enacted ‘mandatory reporting laws’ requiring designated professionals such as doctors, nurses, police and teachers to report suspected cases of severe child abuse and neglect. Other jurisdictions have not adopted this legislative approach, at least partly motivated by a concern that the laws produce dramatic increases in unwarranted reports, which, it is argued, lead to investigations which infringe on people’s privacy, cause trauma to innocent parents and families, and divert scarce government resources from deserving cases. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which opposition to mandatory reporting laws is valid based on the claim that the laws produce ‘overreporting’. The first part of this paper revisits the original mandatory reporting laws, discusses their development into various current forms, explains their relationship with policy and common law reporting obligations, and situates them in the context of their place in modern child protection systems. This part of the paper shows that in general, contemporary reporting laws have expanded far beyond their original conceptualisation, but that there is also now a deeper understanding of the nature, incidence, timing and effects of different types of severe maltreatment, an awareness that the real incidence of maltreatment is far higher than that officially recorded, and that there is strong evidence showing the majority of identified cases of severe maltreatment are the result of reports by mandated reporters. The second part of this paper discusses the apparent effect of mandatory reporting laws on ‘overreporting’ by referring to Australian government data about reporting patterns and outcomes, with a particular focus on New South Wales. It will be seen that raw descriptive data about report numbers and outcomes appear to show that reporting laws produce both desirable consequences (identification of severe cases) and problematic consequences (increased numbers of unsubstantiated reports). Yet, to explore the extent to which the data supports the overreporting claim, and because numbers of unsubstantiated reports alone cannot demonstrate overreporting, this part of the paper asks further questions of the data. Who makes reports, about which maltreatment types, and what are the outcomes of those reports? What is the nature of these reports; for example, to what extent are multiple numbers of reports made about the same child? What meaning can be attached to an ‘unsubstantiated’ report, and can such reports be used to show flaws in reporting effectiveness and problems in reporting laws? It will be suggested that available evidence from Australia is not sufficiently detailed or strong to demonstrate the overreporting claim. However, it is also apparent that, whether adopting an approach based on public health and or other principles, much better evidence about reporting needs to be collected and analyzed. As well, more nuanced research needs to be conducted to identify what can reasonably be said to constitute ‘overreports’, and efforts must be made to minimize unsatisfactory reporting practice, informed by the relevant jurisdiction’s context and aims. It is also concluded that, depending on the jurisdiction, the available data may provide useful indicators of positive, negative and unanticipated effects of specific components of the laws, and of the strengths, weaknesses and needs of the child protection system.