Defining child psychological maltreatment has been a challenge for scientists and law makers. There is a general consensus that psychological maltreatment is harmful to children (CAPTA, 1974), but most laws that define it focus on indicators of harm rather than exposure to acts of maltreatment (Hart et al., 2022). By focusing on indicators of harm, psychological maltreatment is not reported as a form of child abuse until there are observable symptoms. This general policy and practice among law makers and child welfare advocates has led to unacceptably high rates of Type II errors (false negatives) and under-reporting. For example, the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services collects child abuse reporting data from child protection agencies every year and according to their 2021 Child Maltreatment report the prevalence rate of psychological maltreatment was reported as 6.4% (Children's Bureau, 2021). The relevant science from 29 studies involving seven million participants suggests the actual prevalence is more like 36% (Stoltenborgh et al., 2012). Some jurisdictions have taken this into account. For instance, Colorado incorporates observable symptoms and exposure to psychological maltreatment by defining emotional abuse as: "An identifiable substantial impairment of the child's intellectual or psychological functioning or development"  OR "A substantial risk of impairment of the child's intellectual or psychological functioning or development" (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-103). Likewise, the authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) have defined psychological maltreatment as any "non accidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child's parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child" (ApA, 2013, p. 719).

What Does the Science Say?

In the landmark treatise "The Psychologically Battered Child," Garbarino, Guttmann, and Seeley (1986), suggested that psychological maltreatment should be defined as "a concerted attack by an adult on a child's development of self and social competence, a pattern of psychically destructive behavior" that takes five forms: Rejecting, Isolating, Terrorizing, Ignoring, and Corrupting. They added: "Rather than casting psychological maltreatment as an ancillary issue, subordinate to other forms of abuse and neglect, we should place it as the centerpiece of efforts .... to protect children" (p. 7). As they noted, "in almost all cases, it is the psychological consequences of an act that define that act as abusive." Subsequent to the release of this treatise, major child welfare organizations have adopted Garbarino et al.'s model defining the five subtypes of psychological maltreatment (APSAC, 2017; Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2024). The operational definitions for the psychological maltreatment subtypes identified by Garbarino et al. have remained constant since 1986 with few modifications. Unfortunately, there still remains significant barriers to identification and reporting due to the framing of emotional abuse as "mental injury" or "psychological harm."

What Does the Law Say?

One of the most common ways an aggrieved party can recover for psychological injuries is to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). IIED occurs when "one acts in a manner that intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer severe emotional distress" (LLI, 2022). In family law, it is not uncommon for divorcing parents to accuse one another of causing psychological injuries to the children. So what's wrong with this picture? Well, the focus of identifying whether psychological maltreatment has taken place is where? On indicators of harm rather than where it should be, which is on exposure to acts of maltreatment.