









































COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   117   116  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

Mandated reporting laws are pertinent to practitioners of  “helping 
professions,” such as social workers, doctors, nurses, and teachers. These 
laws dictate that a professional or student in those fields must report 
suspected child maltreatment to the state for investigation. The report, as 
well as the investigation that follows, has the potential to result in removal 
and separation of  children from their parents or caretakers. The child 
welfare system of  which mandated reporting is a component has a cruel 
history of  racism and white supremacy, as well as prejudice towards those 
experiencing poverty, disabilities, mental health concerns, homelessness, 
and substance use disorders. This research examines the disproportionate 
harm the child welfare system has on Black and Brown individuals, 
particularly in New York, and how the system has used mandated 
reporting laws to further marginalize oppressed communities since the 
1970s. This research indicates the need to comprehensively reimagine 
the erroneously named “child welfare system” starting with repealing 
mandated reporting laws in the United States. 

Time Doesn’t Heal All Wounds:  
A Call to End Mandated 

Reporting Laws

G INGUANTA, THEY/THEM
CATHARINE SCIOLLA, SHE/HER 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   119   118  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS: A CALL TO END 
MANDATED REPORTING LAWS

LITERATURE REVIEW 
THE FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICA’S MODERN FAMILY REGULATION SYSTEM 

Historically, the “family regulation system,” a term coined by 
Dorothy Roberts in 2020 for the industry more commonly known as the 
child welfare system1, dates back to the 1850s, informally starting with 
what is known as the Orphan Train movement. Between 1854 and 1929, 
thousands of  poor children from urban settings were kidnapped,2 and 
they were moved across the country to be housed with white, Anglo-
Saxon protestant parents (Orphan Train, 2020). Even though the work of  
the Orphan Train movement was reformed through social welfare policy 
within the United States later on with legislation like the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the destruction of  families and 
removal of  children from homes has long been a tradition in the United 
States. White saviorism3 and paternalism are the backbone of  the family 
regulation system, whose foundational pillars also include the forced 

1 In her 2020 article, Roberts connected the child welfare system and the criminal justice system as 
two pawns playing in the larger carceral regime. She elaborates upon this notion: “The misnamed 
‘child welfare’ system, like the misnamed ‘criminal justice’ system, is designed to regulate and punish 
black and other marginalized people. It could be more accurately referred to as the ‘family regulation 
system.’” (Roberts, 2020).

2 The term kidnapped is not used as hyperbole. We believe this to be fact. When individuals move 
children across state lines it is considered kidnapping. Why then does this definition not apply to 
the actions of  the state as well? The state has a simultaneous monopoly on both violence and the 
conceptualization of  violence (Anter, 2019). Children during the Orphan Train movement were 
taken out of  their culture, families, and homes and shipped across the United States because one 
white man, Charles Loring Brace, thought it would be best for them. Oftentimes many children 
did not know or understand where they were being taken and in some cases were forced to end all 
contact with their birth families (Brown et al., 2020). To understand the impact the Orphan Train 
Movement had on children please visit: https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-
welfarechild-labor/orphan-trains/

3 White Saviorism is a term used to describe white people who “help” Black people and people of  
color in a self-serving manner. White saviorism is most commonly associated with individual acts that 
perpetuate colonialism and imperialism, particularly in the African continent: volunteer tourism and 
missionary work, for example. Instead of  allowing communities to make decisions for themselves, 
white people come in to “help” as a form of  aid, perpetuating a dangerous narrative that white 
people must be centered in order for BIPOC oppression to end.

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

sterilization of  Black, Indigenous, People of  Color (BIPOC) women and 
folks with disabilities, as well as eugenics (Sterilization and Social Justice 
Lab [SSJL]). This is the enduring legacy of  our modern system: building 
blocks rooted in paternalism and white supremacy. 

The mentality of  the Orphan Train movement of  the 1850s was 
to “clean up” the streets of  cities and produce “upstanding” citizens, 
while doing nothing to end the conditions of  poverty those children 
endured. This mentality affects how Americans think about and make 
laws regarding childhood, poverty, and what does or does not constitute 
abuse or neglect. In fact, the United States’ obsession with the “safety” 
and “protection” of  its children is thinly veiled and coded language used 
to justify its true and more insidious nature: to destroy the Black family 
(as well as Native American families, Brown families, and later immigrant 
families living in poverty).

Between 1929 and the 1960s, orphanages were replaced with foster 
care and programming to aid “poor children and families” (Forestdale, 
n.d.). However, it was not until the 1960s that this mentality of  
“programming for the poor” and foster care became the framework of  
the modern day family regulation system and the “foster care industrial 
complex.” The modern family regulation system was developing parallel 
to the United States government’s assault on Black, Native American, 
Brown, and immigrant communities; in some instances, this assault was 
on low-income white folks as well. 

Key to the development of  the modern family regulation system 
is the narrative of  the “battered child syndrome.” In 1962, the term 
“Battered Child Syndrome” was created to describe the clinical condition 
of  severely abused, neglected, or maltreated children which could 
result in death (Kempe et al., 1985). Three years after the publication 
naming “Battered Child Syndrome,” all fifty states had passed legislation 
requiring doctors to report suspected child abuse or neglect (Melton, 
2004). Originating from the concept of  “Battered Child Syndrome,” as 
defined by Kempe, mandated reporting initially focused on disseminating 
information to doctors about how to identify and properly report abuse 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   121   120  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

to authorities. Kempe’s research was narrowly focused on the most severe 
forms of  abuse (e.g., broken bones), but he generalized his findings to 
create a universal standard for any child suspected of  experiencing abuse. 
This generalization was not only quite a leap, but was also dangerous. 
The family regulation system has become a tool of  surveillance, which 
has been weaponized against Black communities, communities of   
color, and communities living at or below the poverty line. Shortly 
thereafter, CAPTA was passed, which “provides Federal funding and 
guidance to States in support of  prevention, assessment, investigation, 
prosecution, and treatment activities” (Child Welfare Information 
Gateway, 2019, p. 1). 

Around the same time, a feeling of  moral superiority was being 
promoted through the creation of  the “war on drugs” by President 
Nixon in 1971. By 1980, President Reagan had widely expanded the 
criminalization of  drug use, particularly crack-cocaine, and the prison 
industrial complex (DuVernay, 2016). Importantly, Nixon’s “war on 
drugs” invented the racialized myth of  the crack-addicted baby, a 
pervasive stereotype that looms over the family regulation system to this 
day (Wexler, 2019). 

Mandated reporting laws were born out of  a movement to “clean 
up” and rid city streets of  “child gangs” (Brown et al., 2020) and a 
nationwide panic around severe abuse observed in a small percentage 
of  children (Mandatory Reporting Study, 2020). Instead of  addressing 
some of  the contributing factors to child abuse like historical trauma, 
patriarchy, and white supremacy, mandated reporting laws were passed 
that individualized issues of  poverty and domestic violence as a failure 
of  an individual or a family, rather than a failure of  society to address 
the mental and physical well-being of  its citizens. This attitude of  moral 
superiority, paternalism, and victim blaming is one that continues to 
frame the family regulation system and has historically been used as a 
tool of  political and economic agendas in America, including the war on 
drugs. 

 In this paper we will review research and analyze the implications 
mandated reporting laws have had on Black families (as well as Native 

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

American, Brown and immigrant families, including but not limited to 
all families who live at or below the poverty line)4. We will recommend, 
based on our research and experiences serving in the legal and social 
service sector, to abolish the family regulation system by ending 
mandated reporting laws. We do not believe that ending the family 
regulation system and mandated reporting laws will put an end to all 
abuse, nor do we promote ignoring violence towards children. Though 
the family regulation system purports and falsely claims to be about 
protecting children, when observing the experiences and realities of  folks 
ensnared in the family regulation system and looking at data, we have 
concluded that the family regulation system is the largest perpetrator 
of  violence, abuse, and neglect to children and families. Our intention 
is to clarify and affirm the latter narrative in order to chip away at the 
legitimacy of  institutions operating within the family regulation system 
and to take a critical look at mandated reporting as a tool of  white 
supremacy. 

For far too long, Black mothers and families have had to endure 
family separation while their voices were silenced by powerful and 
well-funded institutions. From our research on Black scholars and the 
voices of  Black moms, we, as authors, have learned about the racial 
disproportionality of  the current family regulation system. We must 
get rid of  it and work towards creating a world where Black voices 
and families have self  determination over their own futures. This 
includes understanding how the terms “abuse” and “neglect” have been 
weaponized against Black, Native American, Brown, immigrant, and 
low-income families. This means that we must slowly gut, defund, and 
transition away from our society’s reliance on punitive institutions like 
the State Central Registry--the “centralized” database of  all child abuse, 
maltreatment, and neglect cases-- and toward funding and handing over 
power to Black, Native American, Brown, and immigrant communities 

4 Operationalized by Christina Bush, the theory of  anti-Blackness postulates that systemic racism 
in America exists “through the denigration, disenfranchisement, and disavowal of  people racialized 
as Black” (Bush, n.d.). That anti-Blackness permeates all aspects of  society is evident when looking 
at systemically racist policies and practices, de-facto segregation, redlining, misogynoir, and police 
violence.



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   123   122  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

and families.5 A first step towards this goal is to end mandated reporting. 

THE PURPOSEFUL AMBIGUITY OF MANDATED REPORTING 
AND ITS IMPACTS 

Mandated reporting is a relatively new concept for social workers, 
dating back less than 50 years to the inception of  the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974. In its short life, however, the 
principle of  mandated reporting has done significantly more harm than 
good. As previously stated, mandated reporting came about as a result 
of  Dr. Kempe’s research on “Battered Child Syndrome (BCS),” and 
the fear that ensued regarding child maltreatment, abuse, and neglect. 
“BCS” should be diagnosed when there is a presence “...of  fracture 
of  any bone, subdural hematoma, failure to thrive, soft tissue swellings 
or skin bruising, in any child who dies suddenly, or where the degree 
and type of  injury is at variance with the history given regarding the 
occurrence of  the trauma” (Kempe et al., 1962). It is noteworthy that 
federal mandated reporting legislation rests on abuse that is only the most 
serious, though due to the ambiguity of  mandated reporting laws and 
the legal consequences of  not reporting, over-reporting as a precaution 
dilutes what is actually a case of  serious abuse and what is not. This over-
reporting disportionately affects Black, Indigenous, and Latinx families.6 

5 We would like to recognize that there are cases of  severe and dire child abuse and neglect that, 
heartbreakingly, often go unstopped by governement entities, as interference only occurs when it is 
too late. Thus, we align with the same ideology as the upEND movement in that “we want to support 
the formation of  communities and a society where harm does not occur in the first place and where 
harm does occur, communities are able to respond in ways that do not create more harm” (upEND, 
FAQs). 

6 “In calendar year 2019, 41.4% of  New York Statewide Central Register of  Child Abuse and 
Maltreatment reports involved children in families who identified as Black/African American, 
even though these children only make up about 23% of  the NYC child population, and 45.4% of  
reports involved children in families who identified as Latinx/Hispanic, even though these children 
comprise 36.4% of  the NYC child population. On the other hand, while 26.5% of  NYC children are 
White and 14.1% of  NYC children are Asian/Pacific Islander, these families make up 8% and 5.3% 
respectively of  reports to the SCR” (Oversight-Racial Disparities in the Child Welfare System, 2020, 
p. 5).

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

Mandated reporters are often inconsistent about the reporting 
of  suspected child abuse, neglect, and maltreatment, both because of  
the unclear guidelines set forth by national law and because of  the 
incongruence between mandating reporting and professional ethics 
(Feng et al., 2012). The threshold for mandated reporters in New York 
State is “any reasonable suspicion.” Many professionals disagree on what 
constitutes reasonable suspicion, at what point to report, and how to 
go about this conversation with clients. The New York State Office of  
Children and Family Services Summary Guide for Mandated Reporters 
(2019) defines reasonable suspicion as “a suspicion that the parent or 
other person legally responsible for a child is responsible for harming that 
child or placing that child in imminent danger of  harm. Your suspicion 
can be as simple as distrusting an explanation for an injury” (2019, p.2). 

Given the wide range of  professions that fall under mandatory 
reporting laws– doctors, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, teachers–
it is understandable that there is no consensus on how to interpret 
“reasonable suspicion.” What that means to a doctor in a hospital setting 
is very different form what it means to a teacher in a kindergarten 
classroom, or a therapist in a counseling session. Specifically for medical 
professionals, evidence reveals that providers are more likely to report 
families and individuals of  color even when presenting with the same 
injuries and demographic factors as white families and individuals 
(Hlavinka, 2021). This indicates that racial biases within the medical 
field are not limited to the care and compassion received by patients of  
color, but also extends to the trust and support they receive from their 
physicians and medical staff (Hlavinka, 2021). 

Furthermore, research also suggests that even within professions 
there is no agreement on the threshold of  reasonable suspicion, noting 
that this can vary from person to person, department to department, and 
specialty to specialty (Levi & Crowell, 2011). This ambiguity is purposeful 
and creates an environment where racial bias thrives. This continues 
the destruction of  Black, Native American, Brown, immigrant, and low 
income families.



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   125   124  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Mandated reporting and the possibility of  a report being made 
diminishes the strength of  the therapeutic alliance and the clinical 
benefits of  work between clinicians and their clients (and trust between 
doctors and medical staff and their patients). Critics of  mandated 
reporting have long argued that having clinicians as mandated reporters 
damages the work that clinicians can do by disrupting the therapeutic 
alliance. The potential of  reporting may hinder the work that a clinician 
can do with a client, as the client may be monitoring and censoring 
what they say throughout sessions, causing a rupture in the therapeutic 
alliance and diminishing healing and growth as a result. Critics note that 
this is a major concern for clinicians who utilize a psychodynamic or 
psychotherapeutic approach (Kalichman, 1999). If  a client discloses that 
harm is occurring, the clinician is in the position to successfully deliver 
an intervention and discuss the root causes of  the abuse. To report, the 
clinician or professional must break confidentiality, which has harmful 
effects on the client-clinician relationship (Kalichman, 1999). 

 How do social work practitioners justify the harm done through 
the family regulation system’s mandating a report report while striving 
to achieve their code of  ethics? Can they? Due to the legal ramifications 
of  not reporting, does the mandated reporting law actually coerce 
professionals into reporting to prevent legal recourse? Does this ultimately 
disproportionately favor reporting over not reporting at all?

THE ARGUMENT TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER
Historically, the narrative of  the family regulation system has been 

couched in language like “protecting children,” thus erasing the voices 
of  directly impacted individuals and promoting stories that fit the 
narrative of  white saviorism. If  the social problem is framed as poverty 
or individual failure, then the intervention is separating families to 
preserve the child’s safety. However, research demonstrates that, in most 
cases, keeping a family together is best, and reporting can be harmful 
to families (Kalichman, 1999). Thompson and Flood (2002) argued that 
the best way to protect children is to emphasize preventive and support 
services that would help with family preservation and maintaining 

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

family ties, even when it is unsafe for children to live with their parents. 
Research also indicates there is a specific pattern of  cases that are 
reported and re-reported. The characteristics of  these cases include, but 
are not limited to, social support deficits, family stress, and partner abuse 
(DePanflis & Zuravin, 2002). Families who fit this profile but use the 
services provided have been shown to be 33% less likely to have another 
report placed for them (DePanflis & Zuravin, 2002). This indicates 
that identifying proper support services for families to participate in is 
effective in reducing re-reporting (DePanflis & Zuravin, 2002). Given 
the main case characteristics, future considerations for increased support 
services should include aligning families with others to increase social 
support, psychoeducation around stress and abuse, and family violence 
intervention programs through a trauma-informed and culturally humble 
approach. 

In addition to the pattern of  report and re-report, there is also 
evidence for a high correlation between re-reporting and specific “risk” 
factors. Connell et al. (2006) found that family poverty was the strongest 
predictor of  re-reporting. Other predictors of  re-reporting include 
community poverty level, family history of  substance abuse, and domestic 
violence. This strongly suggests a correlation between socioeconomic 
status, income level, mental health, and victimization--all of  which are 
dictated by race in the U.S.--and re-reporting. These “risk factors” further 
reveal mandated reporting’s continued legacy of  oppression, systemic 
racism, and intergenerational trauma within the Black community 
(Hernández et al., 2005).

MODERN DAY RACISM: EFFECTS OF MANDATED 
REPORTING 

It is evident that white supremacy is the ideological backbone of  the 
family regulation system. Through the operation of  the family regulation 
system, including the foster care system, the United States demonstrates 
that it believes the state will do a better job of  parenting a child than 
those living in poverty, specifically Black folks, Indigenous individuals, 
immigrants, and people with disabilities. This is the intent of  the family 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   127   126  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

regulation system and has been since its formation; it is by choice, not 
coincidence, as was seen in the Orphan Train’s movement to “clean up” 
urban communities. This kind of  thinking has a dire legacy in the United 
States and must end.

Mandated reporting contributes to the racial disproportionality 
within the family regulation system at both state and federal levels. 
The first manuscript reporting racial disproportionality in the family 
regulation system dates back to 1972 (Billingsley & Giovannoni, 1972), 
and its findings continue to hold true 45 years later. In 2000, it was 
reported that Black children represented 38% of  the foster care system 
while being only 16% of  the national population (National Council of  
Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2017). Between the years 
of  2000 and 2011, Black children were twice as likely to be removed 
from their parents care as white children (Sangoi, 2020). Black children 
were overrepresented in foster care in 46 of  the 50 states in 2015 
(NCJFCJ, 2017). In 2015-2018, only 9 out of  every 1,000 cases in the 
United States reported to child protective services were confirmed cases 
of  maltreatment (KIDS Count, 2018). In 2017, in California and New 
York, Black children were represented three times more in foster care 
than they were in the state’s population (NCJFCJ, 2017). Of  cases that 
were confirmed as maltreatment, in 2018, 18% involved Black families 
and 23% involved Hispanic or Latino families (KIDS Count, 2018). 
Thus, for 2018, children of  color accounted for approximately 65% of  all 
children in foster care throughout the United States (KIDS Count, 2018). 
As of  2020, children that are Black represent 23% of  kids in the family 
regulation system while only representing 14% of  the national population 
(KIDS Count, 2020). 

While some states have universal reporting laws, others only require 
professional mandated reporters (Krase & DeLong-Hamilton, 2015). 
More than half  of  the 3.3 million reports of  child maltreatment in 2011 
were carried out by these professionals (United States Department of  
Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and 
Families, 2012). 

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

 Black families and caregivers are more likely to be reported for 
maltreatment than white families (Miller, 2008; Putnam-Hornstein 
et al., 2013). In New York State, Black families and caregivers are 
disproportionately reported for child maltreatment by school employees 
via mandated reporting (Krase, 2015). The ongoing surveillance and 
involvement with the family regulation system reinforces negative 
stereotypes of  Black individuals and families, such as the lack of  ability to 
take care of  their children without government assistance (Dettlaff  
et al., 2020). 

While the state claims to protect children, state intervention in 
family matters is insidious and has far-reaching consequences that 
further compound the trauma of  living in a white supremacist society. 
Additionally, the narrative that family separation benefits both children 
and parents is an outright falsehood disproven by research that indicates 
the negative impacts it has on the wellbeing of  children and families 
(Rethinking Foster Care, 2014). In addition to research that proves the 
long-lasting trauma families experience due to state intervention, there is 
also a robust amount of  research that points to a clear pipeline between 
foster care and prison (Center, 2018). 

As explained by Dorothy Roberts (2002), mandated reporting has 
reverberating effects at the local and personal levels. Communities 
consisting of  Black families are plagued by mandated reporting, 
surveillance, and separation, thereby enduring harm to their individual 
and collective identities. Each of  these makes it difficult for people 
and families of  color to build stable bonds and overcome additional 
disadvantages. Roberts (2008) reported a lack of  community involvement, 
as well as diminished social connection, lower quality friendships, and 
less supportive bonds due to fear of  child welfare intervention by the state 
and fear of  the possible calls and reports made by disgruntled neighbors 
as a result of  other social conflicts.

As Black and other communities of  color continuously suffer from 
racist systems and policies, their negative health outcomes and poor living 
conditions, caused by white supremacy and the cultural imperialism of  



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   129   128  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

America, are then used against them in the form of  mandated reporting 
and state-led interventions like child removal. This perpetuates the 
historically traumatic narrative of  Black families as unworthy  
or incapable. 

CURRENT PRACTICES OF HARM
Mandatory reporting laws do not account for a reporter’s own 

personal experiences, biases, or beliefs. There is a well-documented racial 
issue within the family regulation system, as discussed in the previous 
section. Historically, white, Anglo-Saxon, upper middle-class individuals 
have dictated what is appropriate, what is inappropriate, and what is 
“right” when it comes to parenting and family values. This notion of  
the “white lens” is clearly evident in the family regulation system where 
we see families punished for not meeting upper middle-class, Anglo-
Saxon standards.7 It is clear that the immediate need of  children and 
families dealing with the family regulation system is the abolition of  
the family regulation system. It should be replaced with the integration 
of  community-based services that are preventative and promote child, 
family, and community wellbeing, as well as the acknowledgement of  the 
race-based motivation behind the trauma inflicted on children, families, 
and communities of  color under the guise of  this system. We also believe 
that the family regulation system should be defunded and the money 
reinvested back into the community, with community members at the 
forefront of  deciding what gets funded. 

VIII. CENTERING FAMILY SUCCESS 
The family regulation system is made up of  two arms: the legal 

industry and the social service industry. The entire industry sits below the 
legal and prosecutorial infrastructure that is dependent upon family court 
and reporting for its economic survival (Rethinking Foster Care, 2014). 
Ultimately, do families need more services, where they will come into 

7 A recent example of  this is the disproportionate number of  marijuana-related reports on BIPOC 
folks in low socio-economic neighborhoods, and the heraliding of  marijuana use as a form of  self-
care for white and upper-class parents (Ketteringham, 2019).

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

contact with even more mandated reporters? Or do researchers, activists, 
impacted parents, lawyers, and other advocates need to push towards 
abolishing the state intervention system all together, while fighting for 
social change that will put an end to racial trauma and disparities? 

Between the years of  2015-2018, less than 1% of  cases reported to 
child protective services were substantiated, or found to be confirmed 
cases of  maltreatment (KIDS Count, 2018). The most common finding 
nationwide in family court is one of  neglect, not abuse (National Child 
Abuse Statistics from NCA, 2020). The charge of  neglect is usually an 
indictment of  the parent’s ability to meet a child’s needs due to poverty. 
The charge of  neglect is how the family regulation system continuously 
punishes folks living at or below the poverty line, blaming them as an 
“individual failure,” rather than systemic failure. Over and over research 
shows families involved in the family regulation system are most likely 
living at or below the federal poverty line (Joyce, 2019). 

Reports show that the family regulation industrial complex spends 
tens of  billions of  dollars each year, with estimates citing that between 
2004 and 2014 spending of  state, local, and federal dollars reached up to 
32 billion dollars each year (Sangoi, 2020). For scale, the state, local, and 
federal average annual spending on the Women, Infants, and Children 
Supplemental Nutrition Program, providing support and programs for 
children under three living in poverty, is 6 billion dollars (Sangoi, 2020, 
p. 131). Yet, with roughly five times as much being spent on the family 
regulation system, the dollars do not reach families and children in need 
of  services and support; the vast majority of  this spending was on “out-
of-home placement”: not keeping families together (Sangoi, 2020, p. 
131). 

The most appropriate use of  resources for the family regulation 
system would be to develop services that “meet the needs of  such 
families,” and “to reduce the risk of  recurrent allegations among families 
faced with economic challenges’’ (Connell et al., 2002, p. 584). In 
practice, this would mean prioritizing the voices of  directly impacted 
individuals and communities by creating sustainable programs that are 
built around the demands of  families involved in the family regulation 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   131   130  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

system. Directly impacted individuals, families, and communities 
have argued for decades that decreasing surveillance and oppressive 
infrastructure operated through mandated reporting will lead to less 
childhood trauma, greater intra-community trust, disclosure amongst 
participants and care providers, and overall greater wellbeing (Roberts, 
2002). 

The state-mandated intervention systems have operated as a means 
through which to control, manipulate, and oppress communities of  color 
and those living in poverty. It is time for change. Building community 
resources and services would innately involve directly impacted 
individuals, families, and communities, who are the experts in their own 
lives and needs, by asking, “what do you need?” 

A CALL FOR CHANGE: ABOLISH MANDATED  
REPORTING LAWS

Not only have we imagined, based on the voices of  Black folks who 
have worked as lawyers, scholars, and who have been impacted by the 
family regulation system, what a world without the family regulation 
system could look like, but we have also highlighted the harm that the 
current system does and the values that control the current decision 
making processes within the system. The “child welfare” system we 
currently have is not working to protect children and families, nor is it 
increasing child wellbeing. It is a system deeply rooted in oppression, 
surveillance, and punishment of  BIPOC communities and brutally 
enforces a white, Anglo-Saxon style of  parenting. How do we prevent 
children and families from experiencing trauma at the hands of  the 
family regulation system? What is a successful first step in abolishing the 
family regulation system? 

We narrowed our focus to abolishing mandated reporting laws, 
which was directly inspired by Joyce McMillan’s call to end Mandated 
Reporting. Without mandated reporting laws, we believe that clients 
would disclose more openly and productively in clinical work, at the 
doctor, and with teachers. In doing so, folks can actually get the adequate 
mental and physical health care they need and deserve. For example, due 

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

to mandated reporting at public hospitals, many pregnant people will not 
go to prenatal appointments for fear of  a report being filed against them, 
especially due to any positive toxicology report (Khan, 2019). Without 
mandated reporting, birthing folks would more likely attend all prenatal 
sessions, which could in turn decrease the mother and infant mortality 
rates of  both Black and non-Black birthing folks. In sum, trust can be 
built up between client and provider in systems that are historically 
oppressive and punitive, and clients will be able to get more out of  
services, because services will actually deliver their intended impact and 
interventions. Children and families’ wellbeing will flourish because only 
cases that have actual merit or need will be reported and the fear of  state-
imposed trauma this system instills will be removed.

A world without an added layer of  surveillance from mandated 
reporting means a world where there will be: 1) increased child 
wellbeing in communities where the family regulation system’s presence 
is high; 2) less undue trauma to youth and families; 3) greater inter-
communities and intra-community trust; and 4) less violence overall. 
As social workers, we also recognize the potential for less burn out and 
more time to work intimately with clients and community members. 
In this world, we imagine there will be greater collaboration amongst 
organizations, community entities, neighbors, and schools. Without the 
fear of  mandated reporting hindering access to care or trust in authority 
figures, greater fidelity to services can be provided, relationships between 
families and schools can improve, and medical well-visits can be regularly 
attended. In this world, we imagine self-determination for families 
and choices made with consent and knowledge rather than in fear. We 
imagine communities solving their own problems and service providers, 
like social workers, stepping in only if  requested. Love and justice are at 
the core of  our call to end mandated reporting laws. 

The implications of  this research suggest that change is needed at 
several levels, including the individual, family, community, state, and 
federal. We demand that advocates, social workers, and lawyers take 
the lead from those who have been most impacted: parents who have 
experienced the family regulation system and children whose lives have 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   133   132  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

been turned upside down due to family separation. Our hope is that 
this paper can spark a conversation more broadly amongst providers, 
including those working within the family regulation system, social 
workers in schools and hospitals, medical staff, and people who are 
unaware of  the serious harms the family regulation system commits 
everyday in the name of  “child safety.” 

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
The researchers are passionate about contributing to this growing 

body of  knowledge, and we want our scholarship to be used to bolster 
the existing advocacy of  impacted parents to amend or abolish the family 
regulation system. As folks who have not been directly harmed by this 
particular system, we only understand the mechanisms through scholarly 
work and working directly with those most impacted. Often, directly 
impacted individuals are not given the option to engage with or draw 
conclusions about the systemic issues behind the family regulation system, 
but are rather forced to do so. As white researchers and academics, 
we are a part of  the systems of  colonialism and white supremacy that 
continue to marginalize those most impacted by this issue. Academia is 
predominantly an institution and tool of  white supremacy, often stealing 
from and profiting off of  the ideas and struggles of  BIPOC, immigrants, 
LGBT+ individuals, people with disabilities, and poor communities. It is 
our hope that this research can be used as a tool by those most impacted 
to advocate for themselves and their communities, and as a conversation 
starter for service providers and mandated reporters. 

DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to all of  the children and families currently 

or formerly involved with the family regulation system. This research 
would not have been possible without the tireless support of  many of  our 
friends, family, and colleagues. A special thanks to Dr. Ellen Lukens, who 
pushed this team to be what it is, to KLS, without whom none of  this 
would be possible, and to all of  the people who volunteered their time 

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

to share with us their experiences with the family regulation system: JW, 
MGO, KS, ALD, NM, and DK. To our partners and loved ones who put 
up with our late nights and grammatical questions, thank you. To our 
editors, Caitlin and Sarah, we would not be here today without you. And, 
to Joyce McMillian, whose work continues to be a source of  inspiration. 

For further education about the impact of  mandated reporting on 
families or to get involved in the movement to end the family regulation 
system, we urge you to check out the following: Movement for Family 
Power, JMacForFamilies, upEND, and Ancient Song Doula Services.

REFERENCES
A. (Ed.). (n.d.). Abuse/Neglect Investigations by Community District, 2014-

2017. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs/pdf/data-analysis/2018/
AbuseNeglectInvestByCommDistrictYrs2014To2017.pdf

Adam, E. K., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2002). Home sweet home(s): Parental separations,  
residential moves, and adjustment problems in low-income adolescent girls. 
Developmental psychology, 38(5), 792–805. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.792 

Anter, A. (2019). The modern state and its monopoly on violence. The Oxford Handbook 
of  Max Weber, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190679545.013.13 

Billingsley, A., & Giovannoni, J. M. (1972). Children of  the storm: Black children and 
American child welfare. Harcourt Brace Jovanivich.

Brown, A. (2020, October 21). Orphan Trains. Social Welfare History Project. https://
socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/orphan-trains/ 

Bush, C. (n.d.). Anti-blackness. Antiracist Praxis, American University Washington. 
https://subjectguides.library.american.edu/c.php?g=1025915&p=7749761

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). About CAPTA: A legislative history. U.S.  
Department of  Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. https://www.
childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/about/

Connell, C. M., Bergeron, N., Katz, K. H., Saunders, L., & Tebes, J. K. (2007). 
Re-referral to child protective services: The influence of  child, family, and case 
characteristics on risk  status. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(5), 573–588. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.004 

Deisz, R., Doueck, H. J., George, N., & Levine, M. (1996). Reasonable cause: A 
qualitative study of  mandated reporting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(4), 275-287.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213496000099 

Depanfilis, D., & Zuravin, S. J. (2002). The effect of  services on the recurrence of  child  
maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0145-2134(01)00316-7



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   135   134  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Desmond, M. (2019, August 14). American capitalism is brutal. You can trace 
that to the plantation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/slavery-capitalism.html 

Dettlaff, A. J., Rivaux, S. R., Baumann, D. J., Fluke, J. D., Rycraft, J. R., & James, J. 
(2011). Disentangling substantiation: The influence of  race, income, and risk on the 
substantiation decision in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 
1630–1637. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.005

Dettlaff, A. J., Weber, K., Pendleton, M., Boyd, R., Bettencourt, B., & Burton, L. (2020). 
It is  not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: The upEND 
movement to abolish the child welfare system. Journal of  Public Child Welfare, 14(5), 
500-517. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15548732.2020.1814542

DeVernay, A. (Director). (2016). 13th [Film]. Netflix.
Feng, J.Y., Chen, Y.W., Fetzer, S., Feng, M.C., & Lin, C.L. (2012). Ethical and legal 

challenges of  mandated child abuse reporters. Children and Youth Services Review, 
34(1), 276–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.026

Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate 
representation  of  race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and 
victimization. Children and  Youth Services Review, 25, 359–373. 
doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(03)00026-4 

Frequently Asked Questions. UpEND. https://upendmovement.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/upEND-EXTERNAL-FAQ.pdf

Hanks, A., Solomon, D., & Weller, C. (2018, February 21). Systemic inequality: 
How America’s structural racism helped create the Black-White wealth gap. 
Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/
reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/

Harris, M. S., & Hackett, W. (2008). Decision points in child welfare: An action research 
model to address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 
199–215.  doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.006

Hernández, P., Almeida, R. and Dolan‐Del Vecchio, K. (2005). Critical consciousness, 
accountability, and empowerment: Key processes for helping families heal. Family 
Process, 44, 105-119. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1111/j.1545-
5300.2005.00045.x 

Hlavinka, E. (2021, March 12). Racial disparity seen in child abuse reporting. MedPage 
Today. https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/aap/88958

Hope, E. C., Hoggard, L. S., & Thomas, A. (2015). Emerging into adulthood in the face 
of  racial discrimination: Physiological, psychological, and sociopolitical consequences 
for African American youth. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1, 
342–351. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ftps0000041

Howard, K., Martin, A., Berlin, L. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2011). Early mother-child 
separation, parenting, and child well-being in early head start families. Attachment 
and Human Development, 13, 5–26. doi:10.1080/14616734.2010.488119 

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

Huggins-Hoyt, K.Y., Briggs, H. E., Mowbray, O., & Allen, J. L. (2019). Privatization, 
racial  disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Outcomes for foster children 
of  color. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 125–131. doi:10.1016/j.
childyouth.2019.01.041

Joyce, K. (2019, February 25). The crime of  parenting while poor. New Republic. 
Retrieved November 08, 2020, from https://newrepublic.com/article/153062/
crime-parenting-poor-new-york-city-child-welfare-agency-reform

Kalichman, S. C. (1993). Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 9. In Mandated reporting of  suspected child 
abuse: ethics, law, & policy (pp. 11–194). Essay, American Psychological Association.

Kempe, C. H. The Battered Child Syndrome. (1985). https://www.kempe.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/The_Battered_Child_Syndrome.pdf  

Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F. N., Steele, B. F., Droegemueller, W., Silver, H.K. 
(1962). The Battered-Child Syndrome. JAMA 181(1), 17–24. doi:10.1001/
jama.1962.03050270019004

Ketteringham, E. (2019, May 8). Families torn apart over pot: As N.Y. moves to legalize 
marijuana, it must fix agonizing disparities that take children away from black and 
brown mothers and fathers. NY Daily News. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/
ny-oped-families-ripped-apart-over-pot-20190508-qtrnmuyztzfr7let4vxjxga7zm-story.
html

Khan, Y. (2019, April 17). Family separations in our midst | WNYC | New York Public 
Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News. WNYC. https://www.wnyc.org/story/
child-removals-emergency-powers/

KIDS Count. (2020). Black children continue to be disproportionately represented in 
foster care. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/

Krase, K. S. (2015). Child maltreatment reporting by educational personnel: Implications 
for racial disproportionality in the child welfare system. Children & Schools, 37, 
89–99. doi:10.1093/cs/cdv005

Krase, K. S., & De-Long-Hamilton, T. A. (2015). Comparing reports of  suspected 
child  maltreatment in states with and without Universal Mandated Reporting. 
Children and  Youth Services Review, 50, 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2015.01.015

Levi, B. H., & Crowell, K. (2011). Child abuse experts disagree about the threshold 
for mandated reporting. Clinical Pediatrics, 50(4), 321–329. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000992281038917

Mandatory reporting study. (2020). The Marshall Project. https://www.
themarshallproject.org/documents/6891700-Mandatory-reporting-study

McTavish, J. R., Kimber, M., Devries, K., Colombini, M., MacGregor, J. C. D., Wathen, 
C. N., Agarwal, A., & MacMillan, H. L. (2017). Mandated reporters’ experiences with 
reporting child maltreatment: A meta-synthesis of  qualitative studies. BMJ Open, 
7(10), 1-15.  doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013942



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   137   136  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TIME DOESN’T HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Melton, G. B. (2005). Mandated reporting: a policy without reason. Child Abuse & 
Neglect, 29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.05.005 

Miller, M. (2008). Racial disproportionality in Washington State’s child welfare system.  
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

National Child Abuse Statistics from NCA. (2020, August 18).  https://www.
nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/

National Council of  Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). (2017). 
Disproportionality rates for children in foster care: Fiscal year 2015. https://www.
ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NCJFCJ-Disproportionality-TAB-2015_0.
pdf

New York State, Office of  Children and Family Services. Child Protective Services, 
Family Assessment Response. (n.d). Web. Accessed 11/8/2020. Retrieved from:  
https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/publications/Pub1159.pdf

Okie, S. (2009, January 27). The epidemic that wasn’t. New York Times.  https://
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html

Orphan Train. (2020, October 29). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train
Oversight-Racial Disparities in the Child Welfare System, New York City Council 

Committee on General Welfare. (2020). (David A. Hansell). https://www1.nyc.gov/
assets/acs/pdf/testimony/2020/GWCommitteeHearing.pdf

Putnam-Hornstein, E., Needell, B., King, B., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2013). Racial 
and ethnic disparities: A population-based examination of  risk factors for involvement 
with child protective services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 33–46.  doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2012.08.005 

Rivaux, S. L., James, J., Wittenstrom, K., Baumann, D., Sheets, J., Henry, J., & Jeffries, 
V.  (2008). The intersection of  race, poverty, and risk: Understanding the decision 
to provide services to clients and to remove children. Child Welfare, 87, 151–168.

Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of  child welfare. Civitas. 
Roberts, D. (2008). The racial geography of  child welfare: Toward a new research 

paradigm. Child Welfare, 87(2), 125–150.
Roberts, D. (2020, June 16). Abolishing policing also means abolishing family regulation. 

The Imprint. https://imprintnews.org/child-welfare-2/abolishing-policing-also-
means-abolishing-family-regulation/44480

Sangoi, L. (2020). “How the foster system has become ground zero for the U.S. drug 
war.” Movement for Family Power, NYU Family Defense Clinic, and The Drug Policy 
Alliance. 

Since 1854 Forestdale has helped children and families grow together. (n.d.). Forestdale 
Inc. History. https://www.forestdaleinc.org/history 

Sterilization and Social Justice Lab. (n.d.). Sterilization and Social Justice Lab. Home. 
https://www.ssjlab.org/

G INGUANTA & CATHARINE SCIOLLA 

Sullivan, L., & Walters, A. (2011, October 25). Incentives and cultural bias fuel foster 
system. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141662357/incentives-and-
cultural-bias-fuel-foster-system 

United States Department of  Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, 
Youth and Families. (2012). Child maltreatment. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wexler, R. (2019, January 11). Decades after media, child welfare got “crack babies” 
wrong, damage to women of  color lives on. Youth Today. https://youthtoday.
org/2019/01/decades-after-media-child-welfare-got-crack-babies-wrong-damage-to-
women-of-color-lives-on/

CATHARINE SCIOLLA (she/her), is a Masters of  Science 
in Social Work candidate at Columbia School of  Social Work in 
Advanced Generalist Practice and Programming concentrating in 
Contemporary Social Issues. Catharine holds a Bachelor of  Art in 
Psychology from University of  Richmond. She is passionate about 
working with those who have experienced gender-based violence 
and those who have experienced homelessness.

G INGUANTA (they/them) is an MSW Candidate expecting 
to Graduate from the Columbia School of  Social Work this 
Spring 2021. G is an AGPP (Advanced Generalist Practice and 
Programming) student who focuses on Contemporary Social Issues. 
While at CSSW, G served at Forestdale Inc as a case planner for 
the Strong Mothers Program and intern at the Bronx Defenders 
with Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies in the Family Defense 
Practice. G is interested in the intersection between race, gender 
and state sanctioned violence, thinking about implementing 
alternatives to capitalism imperialism and dreaming of/making a 
world where people are truly free.


