Rethinking Mandatory Reporting: The Intersection of Child Welfare, Systemic Bias, and Mental Health Equity

Mandatory child abuse reporting laws were created with a vital goal in mind: to protect our most vulnerable. In New Jersey, the law mandates that everyone—not just specific professionals—is required to report if they have "reasonable cause to believe" a child has been abused or is at risk.

However, is the current child protection system actually working as intended, or is it perpetuating harm against marginalized communities?

ARMHA-NJ Co-Chair Dr. Susan C. Esquilin explored the complex history, ethical dilemmas, and staggering racial disparities inherent in our current mandatory reporting system. The data reveals that the system often functions less as a protective shield and more as a mechanism for surveillance and family disruption, particularly for Black families.

The Data: Protection or Surveillance?

To understand the current crisis, we have to look at the numbers. While the universal reporting mandate was designed to increase the identification of child abuse, it has primarily led to an increase in reporting without a corresponding increase in actual substantiation of harm.

A critical distinction must be made between abuse and neglect. In 2023, 70% of all maltreatment referrals in New Jersey were for neglect, while only 16% were for physical abuse and 5% for sexual abuse.

The racial disparities within these referrals are alarming. For example, in Essex County:

• Black youth make up just 37% of the child population, yet they account for 58% of CPS referrals.

• Most devastatingly, Black children make up 77.5% of the children who have been in out-of-home placements for over three years in the county.

  
  

A History of Exclusion and Bias

These racial disparities are not accidental; they are deeply rooted in the history of the child welfare system. In the late 19th century, early child protection interventions, such as the Orphan Trains, were strictly focused on "saving" poor, White European immigrant children. Black children were entirely excluded from orphanages and aid programs; instead, they were frequently sent to local facilities for the mentally ill, funneled into delinquency facilities, and even used as convict laborers.

When financial aid programs were eventually opened to Black applicants in the 20th century, eligibility standards stiffened, requiring mothers to meet White, middle-class standards of "morality". In 1961, the "Flemming Rule" determined that children could be removed to foster care if their homes were deemed "unsuitable," a vague, highly subjective label that ultimately evolved into what we now categorize as "neglect".

The Criminalization of Poverty

Legally, neglect occurs when a caregiver fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care although they are financially able or assisted to do so. However, the reality on the ground is that poverty is frequently conflated with neglect.

Scholars point out a "Class-Based Visibility Bias" at play. Black and poor families are often subjected to much higher levels of surveillance by professionals in public settings such as public schools, hospital clinics, and emergency rooms, leading to disproportionate referral rates.

Current scholarly concerns emphasize that the resources spent on investigating families would be far better spent addressing the societal, structural issues that cause distress in the first place, such as poverty, the need for adequate childcare, and wages that allow parents to survive working a single job.

A Call for Ethical, Trauma-Informed Clinical Practice

For mental health professionals, mandatory reporting presents a profound ethical dilemma. Reporting can result in a breach of confidentiality, the disruption of the therapeutic alliance, and immense trauma for the family being investigated.

Dr. Esquilin urges clinicians to move beyond a "Floor Perspective" of ethics which focuses merely on risk management and avoiding punishment, and adopt a "Positive Perspective" based on relational engagement.

When a report truly must be made, professionals can reduce harm by utilizing the SPIKE Approach to involve parents empathetically:

• Setting: Have a private discussion with the parent away from the children.

• Perception: Listen to the parent’s opinions and understand their concerns.

• Invitation: Inform the parent of your legal responsibility and invite them to be part of the referral process.

• Knowledge: Clearly inform the parent of what information you will give to CPS and the possible outcomes.

• Emotions: Be empathic and allow the parent space to express their emotional reactions.

  
  

Moving Toward Systemic Change

The original premises of mandatory reporting laws have turned out to be false, and the current system causes disproportionate harm to families of color. As mental health advocates, we must ask ourselves: how can we shift our focus from policing families to providing the preventive, structural support they actually need to thrive?

---

If you are passionate about creating a mental health system that is anti-racist, equitable and accessible, please join us! You will find a supportive and passionate alliance of individuals ready to walk this path with you. Step by step, together, we can dismantle racism in our mental health system, and in our world. Join us today and be a part of the change we wish to see!