All bark and no bite: Legal and professional consequences for failing to report child maltreatment

The duty to report child maltreatment is a key legal and professional responsibility. Over time this duty to report has expanded and increasing numbers of families experience investigations by the child protection system. However, research shows that the vast majority of reports are not substantiated, and that broader mandated reporting legislation does not lead to more substantiation of child maltreatment (Rosenberg et al., 2024). This suggests there is a need to adjust reporting decisions to decrease unnecessary intrusive investigations for families and decrease resources used for investigation by an already over-burdened child protection system. One potentially fruitful area for decreasing unnecessary reports is to decrease those made by social workers to meet legal or professional responsibilities, rather than based on a genuine child protection concern. Fearing potential legal or professional disciplinary consequences mandated reporters may over-report and this research focuses on cases where mandated reporters faced legal or professional disciplinary consequences for failing in the duty to report to decrease fear-based reporting. Examining cases in Ontario, Canada only one person was found guilty in court and three social workers faced discipline. These cases involved failing to report direct disclosures of abuse, rather than suspicion. This is not meant to deter reporting based on genuine child protection concerns. This research aims to provide concrete information about the risk social workers face in cases where they do not report a situation that falls within the duty to report legislation but where they do not have a meaningful concern about child maltreatment.