Mandatory reporters, and a wwyd scenario

[Pea-n-Me]

I will just not participate thank you very much. You are free to if you choose.

The only ethical or moral obligation i feel is not to abuse anyone, child or adult, and i don't so my conscience is clear.

ok

the world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

albert einstein



i swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

elie wiesel



they came first for the communists,
and i didn't speak up because i wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and i didn't speak up because i wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and i didn't speak up because i wasn't a jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

pastor martin niemöller

 

[luvsJack]

Right, an unsubstantiated report never has any negative consequences which whether they are meant to be or not end up being punitive. I will just not participate thank you very much. You are free to if you choose.

The only ethical or moral obligation I feel is not to abuse anyone, child or adult, and I don't so my conscience is clear.

so you feel no ethical or moral obligation to society? No moral or ethical obligation to children who may need our protection?

What a sad, sad, selfish world it would be if everyone felt that way.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

so you feel no ethical or moral obligation to society? No moral or ethical obligation to children who may need our protection?

What a sad, sad, selfish world it would be if everyone felt that way.

I don't think that this is what FD meant at all. He simply wants no part of mandatory reporting. His posts have centered on that one theme.

 

[Colleen27]

A number would, but for me to see a child enough to actually recognize most of the things listed, I would have to have a relationship with said child. Since I am friends or relatives with every child that meets that criteria, I would almost certainly take it to their parents first. Now, if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, you bet I would call the police, but I know these kids and their families. It wouldn't be a CYA call, it would be a last ditch effort to protect a child that really needs it.

Read the list. How would I know if a bruise was "unexplained"? How would I become aware of a sleeping disorder? They ask you to recognize things that one simply could not without some sort of relationship or special training.

That is why I believe that people should, by and large, mind their own business. How can a stranger see these things in a child that they see on the playground one time? There are many reasonable explanations for every one of those things without context.

Exactly. I don't take issue with the idea - heck, even with the obligation - that a teacher or other adult who has an ongoing relationship with a child report the kind of red flags in Walden's post. The problem I have is with the idea that even off-duty and dealing with kids/parents they have no such relationship they're somehow supposed to report anything they notice. That, to me, is an unrealistic responsibility that leads to CYA reporting rather than each report being out of well-founded concern.

 

[luvsJack]

I don't think that this is what FD meant at all. He simply wants no part of mandatory reporting. His posts have centered on that one theme.

He stated that his own moral or ethical obligation was not to abuse a child or an adult. That is what I was commenting on.


You all are saying that one of the problems with mandatory reporting is the parent having to prove themselves innocent. Do you not think the same thing can happen without mandatory reporting? I mean I would seriously hope that someone would STILL report such things and there will still be cases where the reported is mistaken. If there are really that many cases where someone's career and/or life is ruined by such a report, then the problem lies in the handling of such a report not in the reporting.

 

[walden]

Right, an unsubstantiated report never has any negative consequences which whether they are meant to be or not end up being punitive. I will just not participate thank you very much. You are free to if you choose.

The only ethical or moral obligation I feel is not to abuse anyone, child or adult, and I don't so my conscience is clear.

Interesting and morally ambiguous position. IMO. So you would turn your head if you see indications of abuse because of your (personally) perceived negative consequences of some unsubstantiated reports to some parents. You would ignore the child's needs. I'll agree that an innocent parent/caregiver will be upset by questioning, and that is sad and upsetting. But the flip side of that is that an abuser parent will get away with abuse/murder because you do not want to intervene.

You are not an abuser so your conscience is clear? Nope. Ignoring evidence of abuse is being a collaborator/bystander/excuser in and of abuse.

I don't think that this is what FD meant at all. He simply wants no part of mandatory reporting. His posts have centered on that one theme.

FD has made some quite inflamatory statements which we may (perhaps) be misinterpreting. It may be that he/she may not want any part of mandated reporting. Is he in fact a mandated reporter or just venting? If he/she is a mandated reporter, and truly takes this position, she/he might be in more trouble with her/his employers than with us on the DIS. And I say that as one ambivolent on mandated reporting.

Eh. Firedancer should probably speak for his/herself. I haven't noticed that poster before, but I largely lurk unless we are discussing dogs.

I have to say, Pea-N-Me's collection of quotes were brilliant! I wish I'd posted those exact quotes.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I wish I'd posted those exact quotes.

FireDancer likes quotes.

 

[FireDancer]

I am not a mandatory reporter. I would not participate in it if I was expect to be (huh, I didn't notice would be my new catch phrase).

My issue is not specifically to do with abused kids, it is the whole notion that citizens are supposed to tattle on their neighbors without proof of actual wrong doing on their neighbor's part. It creates a nation of people looking out their windows and calling the authorities every time their neighbor does something they deem suspicious or, even worse, inappropriate. It is done in the name of anti-terror or national security or child protection but it is just the authorities, whom ever the relevant ones are in the scenario, making the citizens into police. They did it in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It takes the form of mandatory reporting, McCarthyism, or the new See Something Say Something program. All of them make someone have to prove their innocence in the face of baseless accusations from fellow citizens and in the United States of America you do not have to prove your innocence. I don't care if the thing you are proving is you don't beat your kids or you aren't a communist.

If you have proof of abuse go to the authorities. Mandatory reporting, like zero tolerance policies, are lazy. Kids get bruises and break bones. No parent should have to prove they aren't beating their child just because every once in a while they have a mark on them.

I worry about me, not everyone around me. I am not the morality police any more than I am the real police. What you do is between yourself and whatever God you report to.

Just my opinion of course.

so you feel no ethical or moral obligation to society?

Of course I do. I feel morally obligated to not commit crimes against other people (including children) and to report crimes I witness. I feel no moral or ethical obligation to report alleged crimes I have not witnessed and no proof even happened. Our nation has had enough witch hunts and I'm not contributing to any more.

A number would, but for me to see a child enough to actually recognize most of the things listed, I would have to have a relationship with said child. Since I am friends or relatives with every child that meets that criteria, I would almost certainly take it to their parents first. Now, if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, you bet I would call the police, but I know these kids and their families. It wouldn't be a CYA call, it would be a last ditch effort to protect a child that really needs it.

Read the list. How would I know if a bruise was "unexplained"? How would I become aware of a sleeping disorder? They ask you to recognize things that one simply could not without some sort of relationship or special training.

That is why I believe that people should, by and large, mind their own business. How can a stranger see these things in a child that they see on the playground one time? There are many reasonable explanations for every one of those things without context.

, especially the bolded. I too would get much more involved with the children of family and friends. I feel a different burden to them than I do to other fellow citizens. I expect strangers also to feel less of a burden towards them than I do.

 

[Becky2005]

The problem I have is with the idea that even off-duty and dealing with kids/parents they have no such relationship they're somehow supposed to report anything they notice. That, to me, is an unrealistic responsibility that leads to CYA reporting rather than each report being out of well-founded concern.

I agree. It's pretty much why I didn't want to take my 3rd child out of the house for nearly a year. He got kicked in the eye at the beginning of the school year on the playground. He had a VERY nasty black eye that eventually turned all sorts of interesting colors. He bruises easily anyway and it took several months for the eye to heal. I felt like I was looking over my shoulder all the time when we went out in public because I don't trust the public. Plus he got so stinking tired of answering what happened that 1/2 the time I would answer when people asked. I was just waiting to have someone decide to call on me for that even though they didn't know me from the man on the moon. Luckily for me (unlucky for my child though! He had a rough couple years! We were a little paranoid at the beginning of this year!) all his major injuries have been AT school.

 

[luvsJack]

Of course I do. I feel morally obligated to not commit crimes against other people (including children) and to report crimes I witness. I feel no moral or ethical obligation to report alleged crimes I have not witnessed and no proof even happened. Our nation has had enough witch hunts and I'm not contributing to any more.
.

I seriously hope an abused child never crosses your path. You do know there are many others signs of abuse than bruises? If you do not actually witness abuse how do you expect to have proof? It is the job of the investigators to find out if the child was abused, not the reporters.

Mandatory reporter or not, IMHO, it is the job of ever adult to protect children.

Children are not able to protect themselves, its up to all of us to do it for them. And sadly, too many times we have to protect them from their parents.

I am not suggesting that anyone report everytime they see a few bruises on a child but there is certainly a difference in a hyper, happy little child that has probably gotten the bruises while playing hard and the timid child, scared of their own shadow that has bruises in places that would be hard to bruise from playing. Both could be abused or neither but the second certainly needs a closer look.

The problem with abuse and abusers is that they always do it behind closed doors. They do not allow anyone to see it and try to hide the signs. You keep saying that you would only report someone you know. But, the fact is someone you know could be an abuser and you not know about it. Sometimes its actually harder to see that which is right in front of us, I mean none of us want to think that our best friend is abusing his/her child. So we tend to explain away more and turn a blind eye to more when its someone we are close to.

I hope and pray if a stranger's child ever crosses your path with obvious signs of abuse that you will not be too afraid of starting a witch hunt to protect that precious child.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I seriously hope an abused child never crosses your path.

I hope and pray if a stranger's child ever crosses your path with obvious signs of abuse that you will not be too afraid of starting a witch hunt to protect that precious child.

Your attack on someone who doesn't agree with your opinions is unwarranted and offensive.

Furthermore, it is far more likely that someone who over-preaches the gospel of "protecting the children" will actually be the person who turns the other way if/when actual child abuse cases cross their paths than those who use common sense, good judgment and reason in their daily lives.

Anyone can talk the talk. Talk is cheap. But it's been my experience that those actually walking the walk rarely have the time or patience for talking the talk.

 

[luvsJack]

Your attack on someone who doesn't agree with your opinions is unwarranted and offensive.

Furthermore, it is far more likely that someone who over-preaches the gospel of "protecting the children" will actually be the person who turns the other way if/when actual child abuse cases cross their paths than those who use common sense, good judgment and reason in their daily lives.

Anyone can talk the talk. Talk is cheap. But it's been my experience that those actually walking the walk rarely have the time or patience for talking the talk.

I wasn't attacking him. I was being honest. He doesn't have to agree with my opinion at all; I don't expect him to. But I meant what I said.

As for walking the walk--I have and still would. And I would never turn the other way if a child is being neglected or abused or in need in any way.

I certainly would never think that I don't have a responsiblity as a human being to intervene or report any suspected abuse to a child.

 

[CleoPahd]

In response to the OPs original question...

I think that the teacher mom should have gone over and spoken to the mother herself before making any kind of decision about what to do. The behavior you are describing can be attributed to a person with low blood sugar. When I was younger I worked at this coffee shop and always thought this particular customer we had was coming in drunk often. He seemed to sober up after a while and a little snack. It turns out he was a diabetic and as a result, when his sugar was low he would stagger, slur, look as though he was about to fall asleep, etc. My mom has MS and she also exhibits similar behaviors when she is over tired. I am not a mandated reporter, but work in a school so there instances where I have had to report things to the mandated reporters.

Whether the mother was drunk or having a medical episode, until the reporter mother herself actually spoke to the distressed mother to personally assess the situation, I feel she would doing a disservice to the child by immediately calling in a report. If after trying to get to the bottom of the situation and finding out that there was a real danger/neglect, or that the mother was completely unstable and unwilling to accept assistance, than at that point I would think it would be reasonable to pursue actions of a mandated reporter.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kriii]

I'm a mandated reporter. I have to follow the law in my state, which means I report what I observe and am not supposed to try and investigate it myself to determine whether or not it is "really" abuse before reporting. Others are trained for investigation and it is supposed to be left it in their hands. I have no problems with this. It doesn't make me on a witch-hunt for potential abusers, it just ensures that signs of possible abuse are not ignored. Non-mandated reporters don't have to have to agree with this approach but keep in mind that mandated reporting is part of the job responsibility for many and the terms by which we conduct the mandated reporting are not open to debate. If the coach is truly a mandated reporter, I believe she would have acted more properly if she had actually made a report rather than tried to investigate it herself. Since the coach didn't do so, I believe that the teacher should have.