Dialogue: Mandatory reporting of abuse urgently needed

JILL GOLDSON* says that, despite several concerns, the case is strong for making it obligatory to report suspected cases of child abuse.


Moral panic occurs at the news of child-abuse tragedies. Quite rightly the cry has gone up that something must be done. Further dialogue took place at the Stop the Hurt conference organised by National MP Bob Simcock and chaired by the Children's Commissioner, Roger McClay.

The day did not have a partisan flavour. It was simply a long-overdue resumption of the debate about mandatory reporting, which makes it a legal requirement for certain people to report known or suspected cases of child abuse to a prescribed authority.

Six years ago, a select committee debated mandatory reporting and decided against it. Since that time, 65 more children have been killed in child-abuse tragedies and countless others have suffered and continue to suffer. This is compelling evidence that we are still not getting it right.

The people at the conference were all centrally involved in the field and, among others, included social workers, paediatricians, Barnardo's, Parentline and Women's Refuge workers.

Lack of faith in the ability of Child, Youth and Family Services to respond adequately to increased numbers of referrals was the reason given for concerns about mandatory reporting by some professionals. Other participants, many of them community agencies for at-risk families, worried that mandatory reporting might scare families away from seeking help.

There was uncertainty, too, about how abuse would be defined - whether there would be penalties for failure to report and who exactly would be required to report.

Those supporting mandatory reporting were clear about the need for its urgent implementation, despite concerns about lack of funding and definition. In the words of Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, head of Women's Refuge, "Get over it and get on with it."

Many strongly agreed about the immediate need to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use reasonable force in the disciplining of their children. Corporal punishment was outlawed in Sweden in 1975; in 20 subsequent years, four children died. Over the same period in this country, 240 children have died, although the population is two and a half times smaller.

The facts seem to speak for themselves. In a country which prides itself as a great place to raise kids, we are witnessing fairly spectacular failure for our children on many health and welfare indicators. Specifically, our child abuse, domestic violence and youth suicide rates are unhealthily high.

Surely few would dispute that any role is more fundamentally relevant to society than that of raising children. Families have no unions to monitor their wages or health, or safety watchdogs to assess their working conditions. The exacting task of caring for dependent children is often carried out in conditions of deprivation.

Unlike pressure groups such as Grey Power, low-income families do not have a voice. Against a backdrop of salary increases for managers and rejection of the paid parental leave bill, lip-service about the importance of the family unit continues.

How can we live comfortably with the fact that our statutory child-protection service has a conservative estimate of 3000 unallocated cases of children at risk because of lack of resources, then hear that the arts community has just received $140 million? It seems that child abuse is only topical at times of tragedy.

What lies behind this reluctance of the state to involve itself in matters of the family? We have an abundance of recent research which makes very clear the links between child abuse, violence and poverty. Are children and their families simply too politically insignificant to justify a fiscal cost or are we perhaps needing to deny that all is not well with family life in our society?

To acknowledge vulnerable families and the need to monitor them will also at times imply a social cost. This cost is about accepting the right of the state to intervene in family life. If society does not consider this cost worth paying, it could be said that some children will die to preserve the dignity and freedom of others.

Anyone who has been involved with abusive families knows there is a fundamental pattern of ignoring legitimate needs and later responding with punitive controls when behaviour is seen as antisocial. The lack of response by the state to the legitimate needs of the family, followed by a punitive response at times of crisis, seems to mirror this pattern.

Heather Henare, of the Child Abuse Prevention Society, suggests that perhaps the term "mandatory reporting' should be replaced by the term "mandatory response" - a response that makes the child safe now, but which also provides the family with an immediate and professional service.

All involved in the health and welfare of children and their families require adequate funding and training in the detection, reporting and management of child abuse at the same time that our statutory child-protection agency needs an urgent review.

Let's not delude ourselves that the mandating of key professionals to report abuse will take the problem away. But at the very least it will provide help for the vulnerable child. It is an important start to a serious commitment to improving conditions.

* Jill Goldson lectures in the department of community studies at Unitec.

Herald Online feature: Violence at home

Donations to the Safe and Sound Appeal can be sent to PO Box 91939, Auckland Mail Centre

Free phone: 0800 946 010