Verified by 
Adverse Childhood Experiences
Reporting Child Abuse and Retaliation
Do you know the risks associated with reporting?
Posted January 5, 2024 Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer
Many jobs have risks associated with them. Firefighters learn about hazards, receive protective gear, and are trained to anticipate and mitigate job risks. Are Mandatory Reporters (MRs) of child abuse adequately prepared for the risks they may encounter?
In general, MRs are legally required to report suspected child abuse. Seems straightforward enough, right? Not so much. Between states, the list of MRs varies (in 18 states, all adults are required to report); the definitions of child abuse vary; the who, what, where, when, and how to report child abuse varies; and in a few states/settings, MRs must report up the chain of command rather than directly to law enforcement or Child Protective Services. In some states, the MR is required to receive training, while in other states they are not. The content of the training also varies.
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act (CAPTA) created federal immunity protections for MRs and requires states to do likewise to receive CAPTA funding. Generally, if an MR reports suspected abuse in good faith, they will be immune from criminal and civil liability. Many MRs interpret this to mean they cannot be sued or charged criminally. This is because most mandatory reporting information and training repeatedly reassures MRs that when they report suspected abuse, they will be protected under the immunity umbrella.
This would be very reassuring to MRs if it were true. However, our research found MRs have suffered all manner of retaliation after reporting suspected abuse: harassment/threats by the alleged perpetrator, having their identity released to the alleged perpetrator or other entity, job loss or demotions, being reported to their professional licensure or ethics board, having their professional license sanctioned or revoked; and sued civilly.
A 2013 HHS study surveyed 544 medical professionals about their experience cooperating or assisting with a mandatory report or providing consultation services to health care providers, investigators, child welfare agencies, or law enforcement. The study found that 11% of doctors who worked on child maltreatment cases were later sued by the alleged abusers.
Our 2023 study expanded this earlier study, surveying 619 MRs from varying professions and measuring many forms of retaliation. We found that 27.1% experienced retaliation (14.9% of those did not indicate retaliation type). The most common forms included harassment/threats (73.8% by the person they reported and nearly 11% by another entity); 30.4% had their identity released to the alleged perpetrator; 7% were civilly sued; 3% were reported to their ethics board; 3% were reported to their licensure board; 3% were fired or demoted and one had their license revoked.
Our research also found that MRs who reported child sexual abuse were found to be at greatest risk of retaliation. And trained MRs were more likely to report and less likely to face retaliation.
Why would anyone go after the good guy? The simple but sad answer: because they can. State and federal immunity protections are inadequate, lack uniformity, and are often unenforced. Retaliation may occur to: protect the brand/reputation of an institution or powerful individual; to prevent lawsuits against government agencies; to discredit or silence the MR involved in custody disputes and child maltreatment court cases; to obtain monetary damages; and to invalidate a child's abuse allegations against an alleged abuser.
Unfortunately, MRs are not educated about reporting risks or how to anticipate and reduce those risks. They are not informed that anyone can sue anyone for anything, despite immunity protection. They are not made aware that most immunity laws do not address the most common forms of retaliation such as harassment and having their identity released to the alleged perpetrator.
When an MR faces a lawsuit or criminal charges, it is up to the MR to lawyer up, spending thousands of dollars to defend their livelihood and reputation to uphold their immunity protection. They must contact their professional liability insurance company and most likely inform their attorney about immunity laws offering protection. They will experience fear, anxiety, and confusion that will likely negatively impact their mental health and job performance.
Since no state or federal entity investigates or collects data about retaliatory actions, there is nowhere for an MR to report retaliation or access guidance, support, or resources. Instead, MRs are faced with the devastating realization that they are alone.
Consider these examples. A child reports to their therapist (MR) that their father is sexually abusing them. The therapist concludes there is a reasonable suspicion the abuse took place. The MR performs their reporting mandate and reports the suspected abuse. Two weeks later, their state licensure board notifies the MR that a licensure board complaint was filed against them by the father. Consider the teacher who lives in a state where they must report up the chain of command to their supervisor. The teacher reports to the school principal that their student reported abuse by another teacher. The school principal does not want to damage the school's reputation and fails to report to law enforcement. The teacher, who is concerned for the student, reports directly to the police and is fired for defying school policy which requires them to report up the chain of command. Consider the doctor who treats a young child for injuries that appear to be caused by cigarette burns. A report is made to CPS and the abuse is not substantiated. The parent then files a lawsuit against the doctor.
Will revealing the inadequacy of MR immunity protections discourage MRs from reporting suspected abuse? Our research indicates some MRs already fear possible retaliation and are simply choosing not to report. Our research also found that MRs who experienced retaliation and those who have witnessed another MR face retaliation are both less likely to report abuse.
So how do we better protect MRs? Require regular MR training which includes education about state and federal immunity laws, all forms of retaliation, the specifics of how and where to report, and how MRs might mitigate reporting risks. For instance, teaching MRs to file a lawsuit against an employer for wrongful termination after making a mandated report. Teaching MRs to document their reporting and consulting with a colleague and documenting the consultation is also important.
University programs should incorporate this information in their curriculum for students entering MR professions and licensure boards need to be informed that a board complaint filed after a mandated report may be a form of retaliation.
Further, prohibiting employers from releasing the MR's identity and enacting whistleblower protection for MR employees who report their employer for failing to uphold reporting law is crucial. Eliminating chain of command reporting, which places MRs at much greater risk of adverse employment actions should be eliminated in all settings and states.
And most importantly, modifying CAPTA, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act (CAPTA; 2010 (P.L. 111-320). Creating a national think tank of experts to establish a model statute and establishing more expansion and uniformity in mandated reporting laws, anti-retaliation, and immunity laws are critical. For instance, uniform immunity could allow case dismissal without requiring the MR to appear in court to uphold their immunity. States should be required to adopt and enforce the model statute to receive federal funding.
Despite risks, MRs must remain dedicated to protecting children by reporting suspected abuse. However, the government, which legally requires MRs to report, must equally commit to safeguarding front-line MRs. MRs should not have to fear reprisal or choose between their reputation and livelihood and child safety. Greater and enforced MR protection will help us remain the unwavering voice of vulnerable children.
