Monday, August 29, 2011

Mandated reporting:In 18 states everyone is a mandated reporter

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Professionals Required to Report

Approximately 48 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands designate professions whose members are mandated by law to report child maltreatment.1 Individuals designated as mandatory reporters typically have frequent contact with children. Such individuals may include:
  • Social workers
  • Teachers and other school personnel
  • Physicians and other health-care workers
  • Mental health professionals
  • Child care providers
  • Medical examiners or coroners
  • Law enforcement officers
Some other professions frequently mandated across the States include commercial film or photograph processors (in 11 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico), substance abuse counselors (in 14 States), and probation or parole officers (in 17 States).2 Seven States and the District of Columbia include domestic violence workers on the list of mandated reporters, while seven States and the District of Columbia include animal control or humane officers.3 Court-appointed special advocates are mandatory reporters in nine States.4 Members of the clergy now are required to report in 26 States.5

Reporting by Other Persons

In approximately 18 States and Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. Of these 18 States, 16 States and Puerto Rico specify certain professionals who must report but also require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession.6 New Jersey and Wyoming require all persons to report without specifying any professions. In all other States, territories, and the District of Columbia, any person is permitted to report. These voluntary reporters of abuse are often referred to as "permissive reporters."

23 comments :

  1. The law only mandates reporting IF there is clear reason to believe abuse occurred. Not mere suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shemesh we are back to raglayim l'davar.

    The Aguda still requires you to go to a rabbi and that is against mandated reporting laws. The rabbi might further tell you not to report a case which is in fact abuse.

    Bottom line - The Aguda's position is not in compliance with mandated reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The Aguda still requires you to go to a rabbi and that is against mandated reporting laws."

    The mandated reporting laws do NOT preclude you from first going to a rabbi.

    "The rabbi might further tell you not to report a case which is in fact abuse.

    Bottom line - The Aguda's position is not in compliance with mandated reporting."


    The Agudah's position is that if there is a conflict between Torah Law and Secular Law, Torah Law is what prevails and what you must follow in such a conflict.

    That position is also the Torah Law.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ben Torah - we have been through this already. Reporting because of mandated reporting laws is not against Torah. This is the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Silman, Rav Wosner, Maharam Shick and others. It is clearly stated in BM 83

    Furthermore - if your delay in reporting because you had to ask your rabbi results in harm - you are liable not only for violating the law but are liable for civil suits. And surely if the rabbi tells you not to report the abuse.

    In sum - it is sheker to claim that this is a dispute between Torah and secular law and that therefore you need to follow the Torah. Torah laws says to follow mandated reporting.

    So while there are clearly gedolim to rely on to comply with mandated reporting - please tell me who besides Rav Menashe Klein agrees with the statement "Mandated reporting might contradict the Torah and therefore it is prohibited by the Torah prohibition of mesira to comply unless a rabbi permits it"

    ReplyDelete
  5. R. Eidensohn-

    Some authorities agree with you that Halacha allows (or requires) to follow the secular law. OTOH, other Torah authorities clearly say halacha does NOT allow you to follow secular mandated reporting laws at times.

    If one is an adherent of those Torah authorities, he cannot disregard them because other authorities do allow the reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ahron - thank you for the acknowledgment.

    Now the next step is understand the rabbis who don't acknowledge the obligation to follow mandated reporting. What do they do with BM 83?

    A possiblity is that there is really no difference and that everyone agrees that one must follow mandated reporting. Those who are machmir - are not doing so because of mesira. They simply want to add a double check that the best decision is being made. Or as Rav Sternbuch told me - it is necessary so the world is not hefker. This is also the view of the Yam Shel Shlomo - which Rav Gottesman cited to explain why the Aguda does not require a beis din but only a single rabbi.

    Thus if you accept that the Rav is a consultant for objectivity and responsible action to avoid harming the innocent - than there really is no dispute. He is not poskening on mesira and he is not indispensible.

    The difference between these two views of those who prohibit without a rav - is what if the person goes to the police without consulting a rav? What sin did he do?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ahron & Ben torah

    Who are the posskim who state that it is contrary to halacha to report in case where there is mandated law?

    Rav Elyashiv and Rav Wosner and others clearly bring Ritva BM 83 and cite that at least it is permitted halachikally. Look at Yeshrun 15 and 22 cited here. I haven't seen anyone (I think there was also Rav sillman, Rav Halberstam and Rav Weiss and Rav Zalmen Nechemyah Goldberg. I don't think that anyone of them stated that it is prohibited to report in a case where there is Dina Demalchussa to report.

    ReplyDelete
  8. R. Eidensohn-

    I'm not sure I'm following your most recent point. Let's take the great posek Rav Menashe Klein shlit"a, who you've previously posted his psak here, as an example. He prohibits going to the police or secular authorities. He would prohibit even a rov who was asked such a shaila by layman from approving that person reporting to the police.

    If he -- or someone who holds of him or takes a similar stance in halacha -- is ones posek, that person simply cannot go to the police. Even though other authorities may disagree with that halachic position.

    ReplyDelete
  9. While normally one needs to follow his posek. However in this case where Rav Klein, Shilta apparently goes against all the gedolim as well the fact that he does not cite some relevant sources and he doesn't seem to understand the metzios - there is no problem for one of his followers to utilize the rulings of Rav Eliashiv or Rav Auerbach and others instead. Rav Klein's psak is mistaken.

    The issue we are discussing here is not Rav Klein's psak.

    It is also also unquestionable that if a child was harmed because a person decided that he is not allowed to go to the police - either because he didn't get to ask his rav or his rav told him not to go - he would be punished for violating mandated reporting laws- despite the assurance of the Aguda. He would also be liable for civil damages.

    However we have three main issues to address.

    1) What is the degree to which risks to the safety of a child need to be taken to avoid the possibility of harm to the reputation of an innocent person?

    2)what risk to a child's life are you willing to take to avoid diminishing rabbinic control of the issue of abuse?

    3)To what degree does mandated reporting change the balance of the above concerns?

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's easy to say, but one must still follow their rov's psak. And if Rav Klein shlit"a is one's posek, that's the end of the line as far as the shaila.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ahron,

    1)when was the Teshuva by Rav Klein written? Was it recently? If not, he might have to be asked again, for what we know today was not known years ago.

    2) Second: We can see from the teshuva that his pssak does not fit the metzius. Part of his teshuva states that there is no way to ascertain the truth without two kosher eydim who actually saw the event. Today, we know that there are situations where we know for a certain that a child was molested and we can ascertain with DNA or the like that a particular person molested the child. It is like two eydim.

    As Rav Eidensohn stated Rav Klein has not addressed the relevant sources discussed by all Gedolim (Rav ELyashiv, Wosner etc. etc.) like Remo Choshen Mishpat 35 and at the same time he cites pessachim 113 that has no relevance here (for starters, we are not talking about punishing someone for a past event only; but mainly to prevent a thug to assault in the future), so the pssak of Rav Klein given with his ex[explanation shows that the pssak lacks standing.

    I fail to see how one is to follow a pssak of a Rov that by his own admission (the writing of his pssak) shows that he did not understand the issue at hand. So how can one follow a pssak of a Rov who does not understand the metzius? Of course one should respect him for his other pssokim where he shows understanding of the mezius and he should not be disrespected. however how can one say that it is called a "pssak" in an area where the Rav has no understanding?

    In addition: I would ask you, what is the Halacha where one's Rav pssak is in area of pikuach nefesh and others claim his position places in danger other fellows: Is one mechuyav to follow his rov, or his is the fact that others claim that it is pikuach nfesh render it "safek sakana" where one has to go lechumrah? Let me add another question: What is the Halacha if someoneone sees a serial killer, is he allowed to report him to the authorities or not according to Rav Klein?

    But. I'm digressing because your position shows a degree of callousness and total disregard for the severity of the issues involved. But I want to reiterate that your central position is completely untenable: a Rov whose own writing shows that he is not familar with the issue onvolved cannot be considered "pssak" in a particular area where he seems to be totally not knowledgeable.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aaron-

    1) Search this blog. It is posted here.

    2) The psak still stands. You may think its wrong and other poskim may agree. Nevertheless, those that go with Rav Menashe shlit"a, or others who hold like him, can't shop for another posek cause other poskim disagree. You may not agree with that, but the bottom line is people aren't going to shop for a new posek based on how you feel rather than how Rav Menashe or their posek decides.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ahron there are two issues here. Are Rav Klein's followers likely to comply with his view - even if he is wrong? The answer is probably yes

    The more important question is do they have to follow him in this matter. The answer is clearly no.

    The following is Rav Sternbuch's view cited in my book on Child abuse

    Rav Sternbuch(Child & Domestic Abuse volume I page 110): One frequently encountered problem is when there is clear evidence of child abuse and yet the rabbi consulted says not to go to the police. He might say that the molester promised never to do it again or that the molester’s family or community or yeshiva might suffer significant financial losses or embarrassment. In other words if the rabbi is saying to sacrifice children for the sake of money or embarrassment or the disgrace to the community, it is clear however that this view has no basis in Jewish law. We don’t sacrifice innocent people for the sake of negative consequences to others. Rav Moshe Sternbuch commented that any rav who would say such a thing is not practicing as a rav. A rabbi has an obligation to provide protection to the victim. By definition it seems it is an unjust ruling. Any rabbi who makes such a ruling may be ignorant of either the halacha or he doesn’t understand what the molesting or wife abuse causes. Therefore if there is time - another rabbi should be consulted.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Therefore if there is time - another rabbi should be consulted."

    So Rav Shternbuch also says a rov should be first consulted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. shemesh said...

    "Therefore if there is time - another rabbi should be consulted."

    So Rav Shternbuch also says a rov should be first consulted.

    ==========
    yes if there is no possible danger to the child because of the delay. If the rav consulted gives an answer which you don't think is protecting the child then he said another rav should be consulted - if this isn't possibly dangerous to the child. the prime focus is danger to the child and secondarily to rabbinic involvement

    He also agreed that where there is mandated reporting that a rav should be consulted - if it doesn't endanger the child and if the government isn't makpid.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Apparently the Agudah takes the same position as Rav Shternbuch.

    ReplyDelete
  17. shemesh said...

    Apparently the Agudah takes the same position as Rav Shternbuch.
    -------------
    No they don't. The only communality is they both say a rav should be involved. They differ significantly on the emphasis of the priority of the consideration of the danger to the child. The Aguda does not consider mandated reporting of significance or rodef or sofek rodef. The Aguda did not say to go to another rav if the person felt that the psak was not protecting the child. In fact the Aguda gives no weight to the layman's understanding of the degree of danger of the situation.


    Hopefully the Aguda will move towards Rav Sternbuch's views - but it is clearly not there yet.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ahron,

    1) I don't know where it is in this blog. However, I saw the Teshuva at another blog (Seforimblog) but I did not see the date of the teshuva. I thought that it is an earlier Teshuva (due to many things mentioned and not mentioned in that teshuva). Can you verify when that teshuva was actually written?

    2)I'm sorry. I do not see how you respond to the poinT being made. If a Rov is knowledgeable about an issue and offers a pssak on the matter and I then go to another Rov it may be called shopping for another opinion. I didn't ask you to "Shop" for another opinion because of what i hold. I asked you to verify if Rav Klein addresses the issues asked. Since he does not, it means he is not knowledgeable in these issues and therefore it is not a pssak (it as if he would "eyni yodea").

    3) Also: You haven't answered my other questions: The issue of "Shopping" for a halocho is also discussed in halocho (iow it is not a "gut" feeling that one cannot ask another rov; it is a whole siman and subject in gemoroh and posskim. I don't recall this sugyo lehalocho but it is not poshut at all that if you asked a rov theat you cannot ask another rov in all cases; ie. maybe only if the first assered then one cannot ask for a kuloh but not the other way aroudn. In our case what is chumroh for the suspect is a kuloh for the the child that needs to be defended from being attacked. Tossefos expresses himself: How else hoe are we going to come to a clear position if not through asking Rabbis and they will discuss amongst themselves and decide "וכי לא ישאל לכל החכמים וידונו זע"ז אולי ישובוהו מדבריו..." or "...אבל השואל ישאל כל מה שירצה דמתוך כך ידקדקו בדבר ופעמים שהראשון טועה ויצא הדבר לאורה!" (נדה כ) .

    And I ask you again: If Rav Klein answered that you are not to report a serial killer to the police, would you not be (at least allowed to ask another Rov). the truth is that "hashoel harey zeh meguneh" in such a case of pikuach nefesh. Bit in any case, you get the point, I can't see how you hide behind "i follow so and so" when issues of pikuach nefesh or matters that affect the lives of a child throughout his whole life is concerned. Rav Klein in his teshuva does not seem to address at all these concerns (how we prevent destruction of lives in the future; he writes as if we are concerned in the punishment for something done in the past). His view is not a view in our question WADR!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Daas Torah wrote:


    However we have three main issues to address.

    1) What is the degree to which risks to the safety of a child need to be taken to avoid the possibility of harm to the reputation of an innocent person?

    2)what risk to a child's life are you willing to take to avoid diminishing rabbinic control of the issue of abuse?

    3)To what degree does mandated reporting change the balance of the above concerns?


    I think there is a fourth issue here. As R' Hershel Schachter explained to me, as far as קדושים תהיו is concerned, at least according to the רמבן and others, we have a responsibility to also not be seen as having lower morals than אומות העולם. If they understand that the סכנה is real enough to immediately mandate reporting, we look like poor moral seconds if we end up not doing so ourselves. How can anyone entertain not going to the authorities as some act of קדושה ... we see that it causes only חילול שם שמים

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Nevertheless, those that go with Rav Menashe shlit"a, or others who hold like him, can't shop for another posek cause other poskim disagree":.


    But they can ask him to explain his position and to see if he addresses the issues or there is a mistake in the info or in the analysis (obviously if one the questioner is familiar with the issue),

    " You may not agree with that, but the bottom line is people aren't going to shop for a new posek based on how you feel rather than how Rav Menashe or their posek decides":

    You should not shop based on how "i" feel but you should understand that the Rov understood the question and you should be able to explain to others the rationale of the issue.

    I'll cite just briefly to show that your statements are not carved in stone:

    Shulchan Oruch Yoreh Deoh 242 :31 :
    shulchan Oruch states that one dayan should not matir that which another dayan assered. But this is only if the it is a difference "בשקול הדעת" BUT NOT WHEN THERE IS A MISTAKE IN "דבר משנה". There are a lot of issues that are qualified as "svar mishneh". things that are clear and there is no room for another way of thinking may qualify a a dvar mishneh (see also Shach for different details). Another thing mentioned there is that the chochom does not answer something someelse assered but the "Shoel is alllowed to ask"!.

    Bottom line: there are many details to this halocho.

    And I go back to two general points pertaining to our case:

    1) If the Rov seems not understand the mtzius of the case. Does this Halacha apply?

    2) Does this Halacha apply in matters of pikuach nefesh or even of Tzorech Rabim and Tzaar Rabim?

    Please provide a source for both thiese questions (that it applies).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ahron,

    Furthermore:

    Even if the halocho that you are citing would apply to you (if you were a talmid of Rav Menashe and Rav Menashe would your rav muvhak and if he is not your rav mucvhak and you have not asked this question how does this apply to the most people who have not asked him this particular question) it does not apply to Rav Eidensohn and to most others who did not ask Rav Klein and they asked other Rabbonim and they have an obligation to disseminate the pssak given by Rov Rabbonim in quantity and in statue (Rav Elyashiv and Rav Wosner are acepted berov Tfutzot yisroel) their pssak.

    their pssak is that one is obligated to report if one knows someone is a molester adn there is no issue of messira period. And standing quiet to a molester is a violation of Loy taamod al dam Reeycha.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Aaron: Similar to your last point, those who follow Rav Klein's psak would have an obligation to disseminate the psak given by Rav Klein shlita.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That is only regarding that point. (And even there it might be said that it is only for someone who a) always follows him ONLY versus anyone else' b) studied the issue and is able to explain cogently why this Rov is right. Otherwise, he is wasting his time trying to convince others who are completely not bound by his pssak of his corerctness since they themselves have no idea why he should be correct. In fact, they would make a mockery of the dissemination since the position of the Rov would be highly disrespected and the rov would like he does not know what he is talking about),

    But there are other points as well: 1) In our case it is not even a pssak, since it is clear that he is not addressing our issue and it does not fit the metzius, 2) since it is a matter of pikuach nfesh and dam reeycho and tzzar lerabim it might be highly questionable is his pssak carries any validity to the outside since sof sof there is sakana or sofek sakana so even his followers may not necessarily have to listen to him in this case.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.