This time last year, anonymous reporting of child maltreatment, where it is optional for reporters to disclose any personally identifying information when making a report of child maltreatment to a state or local hotline, was permitted in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. On September 1st, 2023, a Texas law went into effect that made accepting anonymous reports of child maltreatment illegal in the state. California wasn’t far behind and it passed a bill that took effect January 1st, 2024.
California AB 391 amends the child maltreatment reporting law in the state of California by requiring personally identifying information be collected from callers for any report made to child maltreatment hotlines in California to be accepted for investigation. While they’re the second state to pass such a law, they’re not the second to propose it. Texas was the first state to pass a law banning anonymous reporting of child maltreatment and it took effect there on September 1st, 2023, while New York, Kentucky, Colorado, New Hampshire, Montana and Mississippi have all proposed banning anonymous reporting of child maltreatment, but have not successfully passed such an amendment thus far.
Anonymous reporting initially came to be in response to concerns that some people aware of child maltreatment may not report, because they fear potential retaliation, so the idea was to get as many reports as possible- many might be unsubstantiated, but it meant that the legitimate concerns would be more likely to be identified more quickly. However, the confidentiality laws protecting the identities of reporters of child maltreatment are so robust that fear of retaliation with the alternative should be almost exactly the same as if it’s done anonymously. The identity of anyone who makes a report to child maltreatment hotlines in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. is confidential by law and the identity is shared on a need-to-know basis only. This is outlined specifically in federal law in the Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1973.
CPS is also never allowed to share the identity of the reporter with an alleged subject of child maltreatment except under court order; therefore, anonymous reporting solves a problem that doesn’t really exist. This also means banning anonymous reporting will not increase child welfare system transparency. At the same time, there is no consistent, effective system in place to validate the personally identifying information provided by a reporter in real time; this means that while providing false identifying information would fall under making a report in bad faith, it’s highly unlikely to be proven, prosecuted or unravel an investigation determination later.
While banning anonymous reporting is a good thing, it doesn’t change much, practically speaking. Quite simply, only 7% of reports made to child maltreatment hotlines in the United States are made anonymously. Most come from mandated reporters, who can’t prove they’re compliant with mandated reporter laws if they do so anonymously; not only that, reporters are encouraged to leave their identifying information, so CPS investigators can follow up with additional question if needed any many reporters don’t see any danger in leaving their information. The burden of proof required to unseal the identity of an anonymous reporter for prosecution is extraordinarily high and since all reports accepted by child maltreatment hotlines are assumed to be made in good faith, it is unlikely to change child maltreatment reporting behaviors in a major way.
Banning anonymous reporting may reduce the amount of reports made in bad faith slightly in the states that do so, as some reporters may not be comfortable leaving their information- regardless of how unlikely it is that they end up prosecuted for doing so. This has been, in fact, the main argument against banning anonymous reporting at all and remains the reason anonymous reporting has not only persisted for as long as it has, but why most bills proposed thus far to ban anonymous reporting have failed.
While it is worth commending California for banning anonymous reporting to child maltreatment hotlines in their state, this is only a small step. These changes in Texas and California do not lead us at CPSprotect Consulting Services to recommend moving to those states, as both Texas and California, respectively maintain serious parental rights concerns in their laws outside of mandated reporting. If you are receiving repeated anonymous reports in your state, reach out to our expert child welfare consultants to start taking steps to address them, as moving to a different state may not do anything to resolve the issue. We expect to see more states follow suit and ban anonymous reporting of child maltreatment in the coming years. That being said, at this time, we acknowledge this small improvement in child welfare law and look toward continued steps toward addressing the long list of significant concerns plaguing the child welfare system across the United States and systems like it worldwide.