Nivel Óptimo de Inventarios

There are several ways that a child abuse investigation may be initiated, but all have their origin in a concern that a child is being mistreated in some manner. Many professionals, such as counselors, teachers, physicians, and even Sunday school teachers, are required by law to call their state’s child abuse hotline immediately if they suspect that a child is being abused or neglected. Mandated reporters typically fall into one of several catego- ries and include professionals who work with children as a part of their normal work

duties. Mandated reporters include personnel in the following fields: medical, schools, social service, mental health, law enforcement, child care, and members of the clergy.

Most states have strict laws that define the parameters of child abuse reporting, in- cluding delineating what constitutes a reportable concern, the time frame in which a mandated reporter must report the suspected abuse, and the consequences of failing to report suspected abuse, such as the suspension of one’s professional license. In fact, in most states, the failure to comply with mandated reporting requirements is a crime (a misdemeanor or even a felony for repeated failures). In many states, the majority of calls made to the child abuse hotline are from mandated reporters, but this does not preclude anyone from calling the child abuse hotline if they suspect that a child is being abused or neglected by a parent or caregiver. Thus, it is not uncommon for neighbors, friends, or even relatives to report suspected child abuse, and those who are not mandated re- porters are allowed to call anonymously.

Sequence of Events in the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse

A child abuse investigation is initiated when someone, either a concerned individual or a mandated reporter, places a call to the state child abuse hotline. Due to the intrusive nature of an abuse investigation, federal and state laws exist to protect the privacy of family life. Thus, hotline workers must adhere to strict guidelines regarding what re- ports can and cannot be accepted. If the report of alleged abuse meets the stated criteria, then the report will be accepted and investigated in a timely manner.

For state CPS agencies to receive federal funding, the federal law mandates that all child abuse reports be screened immediately and investigated in a timely manner (CAPTA, 2010). Although federal law does not specify a particular time frame, most states have compliance laws stipulating specific guidelines mandating that reports of abuse be investigated anywhere from immediately after receiving a report for cases in- volving imminent risk, to 10 days in some states for reports with moderate to minimal risk to the child (Kopel, Charlton, & Well, 2003).

Once a hotline worker makes the decision to accept a child abuse report, the case is sent to the appropriate regional agency and assigned to an abuse investigator, who is a licensed social worker or other licensed human service professional. The actual inves- tigation will vary depending on the specific circumstances of the allegations, but most investigations will involve interviewing the child, the nonoffending parent(s), and the alleged perpetrator. Although the sequence of the interviews might alter depending on the specific circumstances of the case, most investigators prefer to interview the child before the parents or caregivers to avoid the potential for influencing or intimidating the child.

Types of Child Maltreatment

Child maltreatment is a crime regardless of who the perpetrator is and should always be reported to authorities, but a state’s CPS agency becomes involved when the abuse is perpetrated by someone who is acting in a caregiving role to the child. This includes a parent, a relative, a parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend, a teacher, or even a babysitter.

Although each state is charged with the responsibility for defining child abuse and neglect according to state statute, the federal government has developed a definition of what constitutes the minimum standard for child abuse and neglect and has created four general categories of child maltreatment, including neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. The following is the U.S. Health and Human Services’ definition of each type of abuse, but again it is important to remember that each state, although bound to this minimum standard, will likely have additional criteria and scenarios that qualify as abuse (National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2005).

Neglect is failure to provide for a child’s basic needs. Neglect may be

S
Physical (e.g., failure to provide necessary food or shelter or lack of appropriate

supervision)

S
Medical (e.g., failure to provide necessary medical or mental health treatment)

S
Educational (e.g., failure to educate a child or attend to the child’s special education

needs)

S
Emotional (e.g., inattention to a child’s emotional needs, failure to provide psycho-

logical care, or permitting the child to use alcohol or other drugs)

Because cultural values, standards of care in the community, and poverty may be contributing factors related to caregiving challenges, the existence of some of these prob- lems does not necessarily indicate that the legal abuse of a child is occurring. Rather, the manifestation of certain problems within a family system, such as not sending a child to school, may indicate an overwhelmed family’s need for information and general assis- tance. Yet, if a family fails to utilize the information, assistance, and resources provided and the child’s health or safety is determined to be at risk, then CPS intervention may be required.

Physical abuse includes physical injury (ranging from minor bruises to severe frac-

tures or death) as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stab- bing, choking, hitting (with a hand, stick, strap, or other object), burning, or otherwise harming a child. An injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caretaker in- tended to hurt the child.

Sexual abuse includes activities by a parent or caretaker that include fondling a

child’s genitals, penetration, incest, rape, sodomy, indecent exposure, and exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.

Emotional abuse involves a pattern of behavior that impairs a child’s emotional de-

velopment or sense of self-worth. This may include constant criticism, threats, or rejec- tion, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance. Emotional abuse is often difficult to prove, and therefore, CPS may not be able to intervene without evidence of signifi- cant harm to the child. Emotional abuse is almost always present when other forms of abuse are identified.

The Forensic Interview

In the past 25 years, allegations of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, have skyrocketed. Reasons for this include increased public awareness, mandatory report- ing requirements, and a significant change in attitudes regarding child abuse, with an

increasing sentiment that abuse is no longer a private family matter. Yet, as the pendu- lum swung, the 1970s witnessed a sort of frenzy in child sexual abuse reporting, and a popular contention among mental health experts was that children were incapable of making false allegations. This belief fostered a sense of overeagerness on the part of some therapists, who sometimes used inappropriate interviewing techniques, with lead- ing questions: “Did he touch you on your privates?”, forced choice: “Did he touch you under your clothing, or over your clothing?”, option posing: “I heard that your uncle has been bothering you”, or suggestive questions: “Many kids at your school have said that your teacher has touched them, did he touch you too?”.

Eventually this method of questioning was met with overwhelming criticism, par- ticularly by members of the legal community, who were charged with defending those individuals falsely accused of sexually abusing children in their charge. These types of questions significantly increased the likelihood of erroneous disclosures, particularly with preschool-aged children (Hewitt, 1999; Peterson & Biggs, 1997; Poole & Lindsay, 1998).

In response to such criticism, CPS agencies across the country developed pilot pro- grams that combined the resources from several investigative branches, including CPS agencies, police departments, and district attorneys’ offices. This coordinated approach not only prevents the trauma of duplicative interviews by separate enforcement agen- cies, but also allows for the highly specialized training of investigators on forensic inter- viewing techniques that avoid any type of suggestive or leading questions.

Although there is a general understanding among investigators of what constitutes a forensic interview, there was still concern that many interviewers used types of ques- tions that were somewhat leading in nature, including an interviewer’s inadvertent reac- tion to a child’s response that either encouraged or discouraged an honest disclosure. For instance, an investigator who strongly believes that a child has been abused may inadvertently respond with frustration if a child denies the abuse, which may influence the child, who wants to please the investigator, to give a false disclosure of abuse. Even an expression of sympathy on the part of the interviewer, in response to disclosures of abuse, can inadvertently encourage a child to embellish somewhat to receive more of the interviewer’s compassion.

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) devel- oped a forensic interviewing protocol that teaches interviewers how to ask open-ended questions, using retrieval cues that rely on free recall. “Tell me everything you can re- member” is an example of an open-ended question. “Tell me more about the room you were in” is an example of a retrieval cue (Bourg, Broderick, & Flagor, 1999; Sternberg, Lamb, & Orbach, 2001).

To Intervene, or Not Intervene: Models for Decision Making

Many variables influence the outcome of an investigation, including the criteria with which a CPS agency uses to determine (1) whether abuse is occurring and (2) whether the abuse rises to the level of warranting intervention. In other words, it is possible for some abuse reports to be determined as unfounded, even though the investigator may strongly suspect that an unhealthy home environment does exist. But another reason

for not substantiating an incident of child abuse relates more to poor or inconsistent decision-making policies within a CPS agency due to human errors in decision mak- ing. DePanfilis and Scannapieco (1994) discussed the vital importance of CPS agen- cies developing and adhering to a consistent and realistic decision-making model when determining whether family intervention is warranted in order to avoid the inherent problems in making bias-free and fact-based decisions. Child abuse investigators are responsible for:

1. assessing the safety of children who are at risk of maltreatment,

2. deciding what types and levels of services may be immediately needed to keep chil- dren safe, and

3. determining under what conditions children must be placed in out-of-home care for their protection. (p. 229)

According to the Child Welfare League of American (CWLA) there are several ap- proaches to making risk assessments of child maltreatment in child protection. The ap- proaches are either statistically based or based upon consensus of experts in the field, as well as research on the area of child maltreatment. Actuarial models of risk assess- ment and decision making assess families based upon factors and characteristics that are statistically associated with the recurrence of maltreatment. Because the inventory is based upon a statistical calculation, the validity of the inventory may be considered higher than the consensus-based model risk assessments; yet, many within the child welfare fields express concern that actuarial models do not allow enough for clinical assessment. An example of an actuarial model for risk assessment and decision making includes the CRC Actuarial Models for Risk Assessment (Austin, D’Andrade, Lemon, Benton, Chow & Reyes, 2005).

Consensus-based approaches include the theoretically-empirically guided ap- proach that ranks a series of factors that have empirical support for their association with child maltreatment, and Family Assessment Scales (CWLA, 2005). Some exam- ples of consensus-based models for risk assessment and decision making include the Washington Risk Assessment Matrix (WRAM), the California Family Assessment and Factor Analysis (CFAFA, or the “Fresno Model”), and the Child Emergency Response Assessment Protocol (CERAP) (Austin, D’Andrade, Lemon, Benton, Chow, & Reyes, 2005).

The Child at Risk Field System (CARF) is an example of a consensus-based risk- assessment model that has been tested in the field. The CARF provides the following guidelines for abuse investigators making a determination about abuse:

Where children were determined to be maltreated and unsafe, the offending parents 1. were out of control,

2. were frequently violent, 3. showed no remorse,

4. may actually request placement,

5. did not respond to previous attempts to intervene, and/or 6. location was unknown.

And the caseworker believed that 1. the parents were a flight risk,

2. the child had special needs the parents could not meet, 3. the conditions in the home are life-threatening, and/or 4. the nonoffending parent could not protect the children.

Where children were determined to be maltreated and safe, the parents

1. possessed a sufficient amount of impulse control, 2. accepted responsibility for the situation in their home,

3. had appropriate understanding of the child, showed concern for the child and remorse for the maltreatment,

4. had a history of accessing help and services, and 5. exhibited knowledge of good parenting skills.

Thus, although definitions of child maltreatment are statutorily defined, there is a tremendous amount of latitude that an investiga- tor has in determining whether child maltreatment is occurring and whether the extent of the abuse warrants intervention. Primarily, it is through the use of an effective and well-tested decision-making model

that an abuse investigator will have the greatest likelihood of making an appropriate determination in a child abuse investigation.

Working with Children in Placement