False Allegations: What the Data Really Show

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/OTHER3.pdf

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / Supplemental Issue Paper 3

False Allegations: What the Data Really Show

As the previous paper in this series
noted, of the roughly 3.5 children investigated as
a result of reports alleging child abuse every
year, more than 2.7 million of them are victims of
false allegations.
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
more than three&quarters 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 about half the
states, workers need only believe it is
slightly more likely than not that
maltreatment occurred to declare the case
“substantiated.” In only one state is the
standard higher. 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.[2]
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. In
fact. 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 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. But 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 all allegations that are
"substantiated." 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 3.2 million children alleged to be victims of
child abuse every year, a minimum of three&
quarters are victims of allegations that are false &
& not "unfounded," not "unsubstantiated" && just
plain false.

Updated,January 1. 2010
1. Study Findings: Study of National Incidence and Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect: 1988 (Washington: U.S. Dept. of Health
and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1988), Chapter 6, Page 5.
2. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Child Maltreatment 2007, Appendix D,
available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/appendd.htm
3. Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994).