Mandatory reporting: the general group of laws that requires that certain classes of people: typically medical, social work, teachers - must report instances of child sexual abuse when they encounter it.
Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?
In Kansas, the Attorney General takes the position that since the law forbids sex with those under 16 years old (because they cannot meaningfully consent, I imagine) then by definition minors under 16 that are sexually active are victims of abuse within the meaning of the mandatory report law… and doctors, social workers, teachers, etc. that are aware of such must report it.
It seems to me the real problem here is the Kansas Attorney General’s view that any sexual activity below the age of consent constitutes sexual abuse by definition. Sex between a couple of 15-year-olds certainly could be abusive, but it doesn’t seem much more likely to be abusive than sex between 16-year-olds. Sexual abuse of children is a deadly serious problem, and any response to it that involves ratting out teenagers having consensual sex with each other is very poorly thought out.
This should not be taken to mean I see no reason to discourage young teenagers from having sex with each other - just that it’s not remotely the same issue as real sexual abuse, and lumping the two phenomena together is frankly pretty offensive.
The other issue, which may be what Bricker is hinting at, is that mandatory reporting policies can have an inhibiting effect on other desirable goals. For example, suppose a sixteen year old in a sexual relationship with another sixteen year old contracts a venereal disease. From a medical standpoint, the main goal is to get everyone with the disease treated without any judgement on how they contracted it. But a sixteen year old who knows that any doctor will be required to report that this teenager is having sex may decide to ignore the disease rather than seek treatment and face exposure.
My opinion is that medical people should practice medicine, social workers should do social work, teachers should teach, and law enforcement officers should enforce the law. The government should not require people who are performing a necessary role to subjugate the best practice of their profession to the goals of another profession.
Perhaps the thing to do would be to change the legislation so that doctors don’t have to report on the sexual activity of anyone over the age of fourteen unless they believe the sexual activity is coerced.
I’m a mandated reporter of child abuse/neglect to the State Central Registry- but in order to be reportable, the perpetrator of abuse or neglect must be a adult responsible for the child. I am no more required to report that a 16 year old is having sex with her boyfriend than I am to report that the same 16 year old was punched by her classmate. If either the sex or the punch involved a parent or “parental substitute” I would be required to report.
There is a reason for mandatory reporting laws- all of them. And they very likely all have different reasons. Children who are abused or neglected by their parents or guardians are in a special situation- they are being victimized by the very people they should be able to go to for help. They are dependent on and their expectations of normal behavior were shaped by those same people. It’s a rare child who calls the police or the department of social services to report that a parent is beating or starving or sexually abusing him or her. Mandatory reporting laws came about to ensure that doctors, teachers etc who saw evidence of neglect or abuse wouldn’t close their eyes to it.
If Kansas law really requires that all virtually sexual activity by those under the age of 18 be reported, no matter who the other party is, it’s not to protect children whose parents fail to meet their parental responsibilites. If it is meant to somehow protect children from being crime victims , then all crimes against children should be reported. If it meant to increase the reporting rate of sex crimes, then it should include sex crimes with adult victims and should be in a different section of law - somewhere around the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds .
I suspect that not all crimes against children must be reported and not all sex crimes must be reported. Which leads me to the conclusion that either the law or the opinion is intended to prevent those under the age of consent from receiving abortions or birth control. I can only hope that the effect on STD treatment is unintended
“Witnesses in the case disagreed what types of activities would have to be reported. Kline testified that intercourse and oral and anal sex would be reported. Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston, also a defendant, said she also would include fondling.”
It’s a bad thing in practice, but it’s the correct application of the law. The AG doesn’t write the laws, and has to stick to them even if they are incredibly stupid. The cure for the bad thing is to change the law, not blame the AG’s application of it… even if he supports the law. Of course contientious objectors can do what they please in response to this situation, and probably pay the pentalty for doing what’s right.
It’s a bad thing, and very likely will have an inhibiting effect on free discussion between the minor and the counselor/priest/doctor/etc. (henceforth called “the counselor”). I know when I was a teenager, every counselor or psych I saw, in our introductory session, would lay out the things they were required to report, such as suicide threats or sexual abuse. What’s going to happen here is that counsellors are going to say “If you talk about any of your sexual activity with me, I’m going to be required by law to report it”, and so the kids aren’t going to talk about it with their counselor, and nobody will benefit from the situation. The counselor won’t be able to perform their job to the best of their ability, and the kid won’t be able to receive advice/treatment from the counselor in this area.
The state AG reinterpreted the mandatory reporting law in order to target abortion clinics.
The reinterpretation will flood the state with useless reports.
The AG seems to think he’ll be better at spotting abuse based on written reports rather than leaving it to the health professionals to make the determination.
The AG doesn’t seem to be looking for records of teen births in order to prove abuse, only records of teen abortions.
The AG’s office has offered five different interpretations of what the law in question actually means.
Summary of My View:
If a child/teen is being abused, something should be done. What that something is, I don’t know, since I’m not a health professional, but reporting in and of itself doesn’t seem unreasonable. The specifics of how the reporting should work may be unreasonable or reasonable, depending on what is actually being proposed.
Ooooh-wheee! Banning abortion sure is tricky, ain’t it?
The Attorney General’s opinion essentially concludes that because sex with a minor 15 or under is illegal even if it is consensual sex with another minor, the minor has been injured and the sex must be reported.
