Mandated Reporting

likely occurred. This is true even where the sender and third-parties are all also minors. There is no right to possess such photos.

Some mandated reporters are reluctant to report this behavior when it is consensual between two minors. Currently, the letter of the law suggests the reporter should report the matter, though it is quite possible that Child Protective Services or another law enforcement agency might not take such a report. The reporter should certainly report if a minor has had his or her picture sent to someone without his or her consent. It is critical to educate young people and their parents about how the law may not have caught up with technology and society in this area, and they are engaging in risky behavior by sexting. Once an image has been sent out, the subject loses all control over how that image is spread and seen.

3. R ED F LAGS : S EXUAL A BUSE

As with physical abuse, an actual report by or of a child suffering from sexual abuse may trigger reasonable suspicion and the duty to report.

Some physical red flags to consider are pregnancy (which, in and of itself is not reasonable suspicion, but must be considered in context with the age of the child), 28 sexually transmitted diseases, or complaints of pain, swelling or itching in the genital area. These examples are offered as red flags that may be observed in the course and scope of a mandated reporter’s job duties, as a result of a child’s verbal complaint of discomfort. 29 4. D UTIES B EYOND M ANDATED R EPORTING School districts and other agencies that supervise children should also be aware that they may have reporting duties that go beyond the mandated reporter obligations that are the focus of this workbook. Where an agency stands “ in loco parentis ” (i.e. in place of the parent) that agency may also have a duty to notify the parents of the alleged victim.

In Phyllis P. v. Claremont Unified School District, a 13- year old student sexually assaulted an eight-year-old. The district did not initially notify the victim’s parents. The Court determined that the district had a duty to notify the parents because of a “special relationship.” The Court held that the district stood in loco parentis (in place of the parent) and as such owed a duty of care both to the child and the parent. Similarly, a day camp program or a child day care center could be considered in loco parentis and thus may owe a duty of care to advise parents where they reasonably suspect their child was the victim of abuse.

LCW Practice Advisor

Mandated Reporting ©2020 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 11