NCJ Number
129712
Journal
California Western Law Review Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Dated: (1989-1990) Pages: 373-394
Date Published
1990
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This comment addresses the rationale for requiring professionals to report suspected cases of child abuse and reasons for including some type of immunity provision for professionals required to report child abuse, with attention to the history of California's immunity provision and the appellate courts' interpretations of the provision.
Abstract
The child abuse reporting requirement is intended to protect the abused child by bringing the abuse to the attention of social and protective service agencies. Under reporting statutes, the responsibility of ferreting out abuse is mandated for those professionals likely to come in contact with the abused child. Provisions for immunity from legal liability for false reports and the abrogation of privileged communications are typically part of reporting statutes. In California, immunity provisions are not working. Children are still being abused, and professionals mandated to report abuse are deterred from reporting because they are worried about being sued; falsely accused persons may still have no remedy under the law. This comment proposes the establishment of a panel or board of review composed of various professionals. This panel would review claims against reporters to determine if there is sufficient evidence to prove intentionally false or malicious reporting. 151 footnotes