Prev: Testing
Next: SUZANNE LISTRO JURY TRIAL DELAYED UNTIL FEB 8
From: Greegor on 4 Feb 2010 09:28
http://nfpcar.org/NCCPR/#FALSE_ALLEGATIONS:_WHAT_THE_DATA_REALLY_SHOW__


FALSE ALLEGATIONS: WHAT THE DATA REALLY SHOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the previous paper in this series noted, of the roughly 2.7 million
reports alleging child abuse every year, about two-thirds typically
are false.

==========================================

But to a child saver, there is virtually no such thing as a false
allegation of child abuse. False reports are labeled "unfounded" or
"unsubstantiated" but child savers insist that's not the same thing as
false. They offer several reasons why, in all likelihood, any parent
accused of child abuse must be guilty. Such arguments are a classic
example of a half-truth. They are, quite literally, half of the
truth.
==========================================
Of course, America's stumbling, bumbling child-saving bureaucracy is
going to mislabel some real cases of abuse -- some guilty families
will be let off the hook after an investigation. But that same
bureaucracy repeatedly labels innocent families guilty.

This question was examined by a major federal study, commonly known as
the second National Incidence Study or NIS2. This study second-guessed
child protective workers, re-checking records to see if they had
reached the right conclusion. The researchers found that protective
workers were at least twice as likely and perhaps as much as six times
more likely to wrongly label an innocent family guilty as they were to
wrongly label a guilty family innocent.[1] Thus, not only are about
two-thirds of all allegations false, chances are that figure is an
underestimate.

Yet child savers insist that false reports are not really false. These
are their reasons, and why those arguments don't wash:

· The case was labeled unfounded because the worker couldn't "prove"
guilt. In fact, workers don't have to prove guilt. There is no trial,
no judge, no jury. A worker can label a parent guilty and place his or
her name in a state central register based entirely on her own
suspicions.

The real problem is the reverse: innocent people whose cases have been
wrongly "substantiated." In half the states, workers need only believe
it is slightly more likely than not that maltreatment occurred to
declare the case “substantiated.”[2] In the other half, the standard
is even lower: Typically, in these states, a worker can label a case
"substantiated" if she thinks she has "some credible evidence" of
maltreatment, even if there is more evidence of innocence. In a case
brought by a member of the NCCPR Board of Directors, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 1994 that "the 'some
credible evidence' standard results in many individuals being placed
[in the Central Register] who do not belong there."[3] It is grossly
misleading for child savers to label such cases as "confirmed" or
"substantiated."

· The parents are guilty but the law doesn't define what they did as
child abuse. State laws are so broad that virtually anything a parent
does or does not do can be labeled abuse or neglect, if a worker sees
fit. Indeed, as the previous paper explains, the largest single
category of "substantiated" maltreatment is "neglect," a category
filled with cases in which parents have been accused of maltreatment
solely because they are poor.

· The investigator had so many cases that she couldn't investigate
long enough to uncover abuse or she was not trained well enough to
detect it. The same worker may miss evidence showing that a parent is
innocent for the same reasons.

· The parents are guilty but the system has no help to offer, so the
case was labeled unfounded. On the other hand, often the system will
provide help for any kind of family problem only if the family is
accused of child abuse. Therefore, workers sometimes deliberately
mislabel innocent parents guilty in order to get them help with other
problems.

In addition, most states lump together cases in which there has been
actual maltreatment with cases where the worker thinks something just
might happen in the future. These so-called "at risk" cases may make
up half or more of the 40 percent of all allegations that are
"substantiated."[4] And finally, the enormous pressure on workers has
to be considered. If they label a case false and harm comes to a
child, they face loss of their jobs, the enmity of the press and the
public, and perhaps even criminal charges. If they wrongly label
parents guilty, even if that leads to needless foster care placement
and all the harm that can cause for a child, the worker suffers no
penalty. So workers practice "defensive social work" and wrongly
accuse innocent parents.

For all of these reasons it is clear that of the 2.7 million reports
alleging child abuse every year, a minimum of about two-thirds are
false -- not "unfounded," not "unsubstantiated" -- just plain false.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Testing
Next: SUZANNE LISTRO JURY TRIAL DELAYED UNTIL FEB 8