Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 341–347 | Cite as

Do Standards of Proof Affect Decision Making in Child Protection Investigations?

  • Murray Levine
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Every state investigates child maltreatment reports. Some states use a lower standard of proof of “some credible evidence” (or similar terms) to substantiate cases after investigation. Other state legislatures prescribe a higher standard of “preponderance” of the evidence. Legislatures use these terms of art as a matter of policy to control the risk of false-positive errors. A lower rate of substantiation should follow from a higher standard of proof. There was no statistically significant difference in the percent of substantiated and the percent of unsubstantiated cases in the two groups of states. If state policy to reduce the false-positive error rate is to be effective, something more is required than simply manipulating the verbal formula in legislation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Addington v Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979).Google Scholar
  2. Black, H. C. (1979) Black's law dictionary (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  3. Flango, V. E. (1991). Can central registries improve substantiation rates in child abuse and neglect cases? Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 403–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985) Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.Google Scholar
  5. Levine, M, Doueck, H. J., and associates (1995). The impact of mandated reporting on the therapeutic process. Picking up the pieces. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. McCauliff, C. M. A. (1982). Burdens of proof: Degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees. Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1293–1335.Google Scholar
  7. Miller, J. S., Williams, K. M., English, D. J., & Olmstead, J. (1987). Risk assessment in child protection: A review of the literature. Olympia, WA: The Risk Assessment Evaluation Project. Division of Children and Family Services, Department of Social and Health Services.Google Scholar
  8. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (1996). Child maltreatment 1994: Reports from the states to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. 22-10058. Washington, DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.Google Scholar
  9. Santosky v Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).Google Scholar
  10. Valmonte v Bane, 18 F. 3rd 992 (2nd Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
  11. Wilcox, B. L. (1997, July). Child abuse reports and substantiations: A state-wide study of changing patterns. Paper presented at Congressional Staff Luncheon Briefing, sponsored by the Consortium on Children, Families and the Law.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murray Levine
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloNY

Personalised recommendations