Although the Federal government has implemented several child protection laws since the 1970s to try and prevent child maltreatment, according to recent statistics approximately 600,000 children per year are victims of abuse or neglect (Child Maltreatment, 2021). One of the most important pieces of child protection legislation passed was the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA, 1974). The original objectives of CAPTA were to increase the “identification, reporting, and investigation of child maltreatment” while simultaneously compiling statistics relative to reported incidents of abuse or neglect through state child protection agencies (NAIC, 2003, p. 3). It was conceptualized that by increasing the number of investigations and reports of suspected child abuse and neglect it would prevent future abuse or neglect from occurring through an intervention model aimed at (1) protecting the child (by removing them from the parents’ custody) while (2) helping families in crisis through community services aimed at educating parents about their responsibilities. Four years before the passage of CAPTA (1974), California adopted a no-fault divorce model (UMDA, 1970) which was initially targeted to help reduce family conflicts in court under the traditional fault-based divorce model (White, 2010). Following California’s lead, by the end of the 1970s most States adopted the same model leading to a dramatic rise in the divorce rate from 10% in 1970 up to 40% by 1980. According to Shiono & Quinn (1994), not only did divorce rates rise under the no-fault divorce model but marriage rates fell. This led to a dramatic increase in the number of children being raised in single parent homes (Fabricius & Luecken, 2007). Numerous studies have shown that divorce and being raised in a single parent home are significant risk factors for child abuse (Amato, 2000; Child Maltreatment, 2011) because these environmental and family factors contribute to a sociological model that is inadequate to meet the developmental needs of the child.

Reporting and Evaluating Child Abuse

Child abuse and neglect assessments involve making a factual determination of whether a parent, care giver, or other person responsible for the safety, health, and welfare of a child has engaged in behavior that has caused harm or is likely to cause harm to a child (MCL 750.136b). There are various definitions in the law, the scientific literature, and CPS operational manuals which guide decision making in child abuse assessments. The most common standard used for reporting is reasonable cause to believe. For example, under Colo. Stat. Rev. § 19-3-304(I)(a), "Any person who has reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect or who has observed the child being subjected to circumstances or conditions that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect shall immediately upon receiving such information report or cause a report to be made." Once a child abuse/neglect report has been made, determining whether abuse/neglect actually took place involves an investigation. It is common for child abuse investigations to be conducted through a multi-disciplinary collaboration between protective services, medical or mental health professionals, and law enforcement. The way in which protective services arrive at their findings varies from state to state. The most common way abuse and neglect is determined is through a three tiered categorization - (1) founded, (2) unfounded, and (3) inconclusive. Founded usually means that there was a preponderance of evidence that abuse/neglect took place. Unfounded often means that there was clear and convincing evidence suggesting the alleged abuse/neglect did not happen. Inconclusive is a term used whenever there some likelihood that abuse or neglect occurred but the investigation was unable to obtain evidence necessary to make a founded report. Some states will categorize this as 'unsubstantiated' or a lack of preponderance. It is important note that ruling out suspected abuse carries a higher burden of proof (clear and convincing) than ruling it in (preponderance).