The standard of proof at adjudication of abuse or neglect

Ashley J. Provencher; Josh Gupta-Kagan; Mary Eschelbach Hansen

doi:10.1921/swssr.v17i2.551

Authors

Ashley J. Provencher
Josh Gupta-Kagan
Mary Eschelbach Hansen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1921/swssr.v17i2.551

Keywords:

child protective services, foster care, standard of proof, burden of proof, legal system

Abstract

We measure the extent to which the standard of proof the CPS must meet at trial in a child abuse or neglect case influences the outcomes in the case. In the United States, the government of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia sets its own standard of proof. We measure the influence of the standards of proof using survey data. We find that a higher standard of proof – one requiring the government to present clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect rather than only requiring a preponderance of the evidence of abuse or neglect—decreases the probability that the judge rules in favor of CPS. A clear and convincing standard also affects decisions before trial: it increases the number of visits made by CPS during an investigation; it lowers the odds that CPS substantiates the case; and it lowers the odds that a case reaches trial. After trial, it increases the probability of an out-of-home placement.

References

Alaska Stat. § 47.10.011 (2012)\nAla. Code §§ 12-15-310 & 12-15-311 (2012)\nAriz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844 (2012)\nArk. Code Ann. § 9-27-325 (2009)\nCal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 355 & 355.1 (2006)\nCal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 361 (2006).\nColo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-505 (2012)\nConn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-129 (2009)\n16 Del. Code § 1009 (2013)\nD.C. Code § 16-2317 (2001)\nD.C. Code § 16-2388 (2001).\nFla. Stat. Ann. § 39.507 (2011)\nGa. Code Ann. § 15-11-181 (2012)\nHawaii Rev. Stat. § 587A-4 (2010)\nIdaho Code § 16-1619 (2010)\n705 Il. Code Serv. § 405/2-18 (2007)\nInd. Code § 31-34-12-3 (2012)\nIowa Code Ann. § 232.96 (2006)\nKan. Stat. Ann. § 38-2250 (2000)\nKent. Rev. Stat. § 620.100 (2006)\nLa. Ch. Code Art. 665 (2003)\n22 Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4035 (2004)\nMd. Courts & Jud. Proc. § 3-817 (2013)\n119 Mass. Gen. L. Ann. § 26 (2009)\nMich. Court Rules 3.972 (2007)\nMinn. Stat. Ann. § 260C.163 (2007)\nMiss. Code Ann. § 43-21-561 (2009)\nMo. Sup. Ct. Rules of Juv. Proc. 117.05 (2013)\nMont. Code Ann. § 41-3-422 (2011)\nNeb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (2008)\nNev. Rev. Stat. § 432B.530 (2011)\nN.H. Rev. Stat. § 169-C:13 (2010)\nN.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:6-8.46 (2002)\nN.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-20 (2010)\nN.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1046 (2009)\nN.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 7B-805 (2011)\nN.D. Code § 27-20-29 (2006)\nOhio Rev. Code § 2151.35 (2005)\n10A Okl. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-4-6-2 & 1-3-603 (2009)\nOr. Rev. Stat. § 419B.310 (2011)\n42 Pa. Code § 6341 (2000)\n8 L.P.R.A. § 447h (2006)\nR.I. R. Juv. Proc. 17\nS.C. Code § 63-7-1660 (2010)\nS.D. Code § 26-7A-82\nTenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-129\n40 Tex. Fam. Code § 105.005 (2009)\nUtah Code § 78A-6-311 (2012)\n33 Ver. Stat. Ann. § 5315 (2001)\nVa. Code Ann. § 16.1-252 & 63.2-1525 (2010)\nWash. Rev. Code § 13.34.130 (2012)\nW. Va. Code § 49-6-2 (2009)\nWisc. Stat. Ann. § 48.31 (2011)\nWyo. Stat. 1977 § 14-3-425 (2011)\nAddington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979). Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/441/418/case.html'>http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/441/418/case.html</a>\nBen-David, V. (2011). Judicial bias in adjudicating the adoption of minors in Israel. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 195-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.003\nBhatti-Sinclair, K., & Sutcliffe, C. (2013). Challenges in identifying factors which determine the placement of children in care? An international review. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30, 4, 345-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-012-0293-x\nBlack's Law Dictionary (2001), 2d Pocket Edition\nBlackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England 713 (ed. William Hardcastle Browne 1892), Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=xic0AAAAIAAJ&pg (last accessed February 25, 2013) <a target="_blank" href='http://books.google.com/books?id=xic0AAAAIAAJ&pg'>http://books.google.com/books?id=xic0AAAAIAAJ&pg</a>\nBraye, S. & Preston-Shoot M. (1990). On teaching and applying the law in social work: it is not that simple. British Journal of Social Work, 20, 4, 333-353\nBritner, P. A., & Mossler, D. G. (2002). Professionals’ decision-making about out-of-home placements following instances of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 4, 317-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134,02)00311-3\nChibnall, S., Dutch, N., Jones-Harden, B., Brown, A., & Gourdine, R. (2010). Children of color in the child welfare system: Perspectives from the child welfare community. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau <a target="_blank" href='http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/otherpubs/children/litreview.cfm'>http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/otherpubs/children/litreview.cfm</a>\nClermont, K.M. & Eisenberg, T. (1992). Trial by jury or judge: transcending empiricism. Cornell Law Review, 77, 1124-1177. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/246 (last accessed February 25, 2014) <a target="_blank" href='http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/246'>http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/246</a>\nCross, T.P., & Casanueva, C. (2009). Caseworker judgments and substantiation. Child Maltreatment, 14, 1, 38-52\nDickens, J. (2004). Teaching child care law: key principles, new priorities. Social Work Education 23, 2, 217-230\nDoyle Jr, J.J. (2011). Causal effects of foster care: An instrumental-variables approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 7, 1143-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.014\nDrake, B. Jonson-Reid, M.,Way, I. & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8, 248-260\nFlango, V.E. (1991). Can central registries improve substantiation rates in child abuse and neglect cases? Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 403-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134,91)90024-8\nFranklin, B. (1970). Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan 14 March 1785. In 9 Benjamin Franklin, Works 9, 293\nHorwitz, S. M., Hurlburt, M. S., Cohen, S. D., Zhang, J., & Landsverk, J. (2011). Predictors of placement for children who initially remained in their homes after an investigation for abuse or neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 3, 188-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.12.002\nHussey, J. M., Marshall, J. M., English, D. J., Knight, E. D., Lau, A. S., Dubowitz, H., & Kotch, J. B. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: distinction without a difference? Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 5, 479-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.12.005\nIn Interest of D.D.H., 875 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn the Interest of Dimmitt, 560 S.W.2d 368, 371 (Mo. Ct. Ap. 1977). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn re Jonathan, 415 A.2d 1036, 1039 (R.I. 1980). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn re Juv. App., 471 A.2d 1380 (Conn. 1984). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn re M.L.C., 548 S.E.2d 137, 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn re Tammie Z., 484 N.E.2d 1038 (N.Y. 1985). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn re N.H., 569 A.2d 1179 (D.C. 1990). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database\nIn re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/358/case.html'>http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/358/case.html</a>\nKagehiro, D.K., & Stanton, W.C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 2, 159-178. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01067049\nKearney, J. (2013). In the loop. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 16, 3, 7-19\nKohl, P. L., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2009). Time to leave substantiation behind: Findings from a national probability study. Child Maltreatment, 14, 1, 17-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559508326030\nLevi, B.H., & S.G. Portwood (2011). Reasonable suspicion of child abuse: Finding a common language. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 39, 1, 62-69. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00550.x\nLevine, M. (1998). Do standards of proof affect decision making in child protection investigations? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 3, 341-347. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025710707682\nMandel, R. (2006). The evidence is ‘clear and convincing’: Santosky v. Kramer is harmful to children. Children's Legal Rights Journal, 26, 1-24\nMatter of Riffe, 382 N.W. 2d 842 (Mich. App. 1985)\nMcMahon, C. (1999). Due process: Constitutional rights and the stigma of sexual abuse allegations in child custody proceedings. Cath. Law, 39, 153\nMnookin, R.N., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950-997. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/795824\nMoore, K.A. (2000). Judges, juries, and patent cases – an empirical peek inside the black box. Michigan Law Review, 99, 365-409 (2000)\nMeyer, A.S., McWey, L.M., McKendrick, W., & Henderson, T.L. (2010). Substance using parents, foster care, and termination of parental rights: The importance of risk factors for legal outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 5, 639-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.12.011\nMumpower, J.L. (2010). Disproportionality at the ‘front end’ of the child welfare services system: an analysis of rates of referrals: ‘hits,’ ‘misses,’ and ‘false alarms’. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 33, 3, 364-405. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25790786 (last accessed February 25, 2014) <a target="_blank" href='http://www.jstor.org/stable/25790786'>http://www.jstor.org/stable/25790786</a>\nNational Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect [NDACAN] (2008). National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW): General Release Version User's Guide. Ithaca: Cornell University\nPatterson, J. (2013). The Massachusetts care and protection system: is a low tolerance for risk really in the best interest of children? Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 22, 165-199\nRivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574 (1987). Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/574/'>http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/574/</a>\nSantosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/745/case.html'>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/745/case.html</a>\nSchwartz, D.L., & C.B. Seaman (2013). Standards of proof in civil litigation: an experiment from patent law. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, i, 429-479. Retrieved from http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v26/26HarvJLTech429.pdf (last accessed February 25, 2014) <a target="_blank" href='http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v26/26HarvJLTech429.pdf'>http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v26/26HarvJLTech429.pdf</a>\nStephenson, M. (2011). Informational acquisition and institutional design. Harvard Law Review, 124, 1422-1483\nSolan, L.M. (1999).Refocusing the standard of proof in criminal cases: some doubt about reasonable doubt. Texas Law Review, 78, 105-147\nStroud, J., & Warren-Adamson, C. (2013). Multi-agency child protection. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 16, 3), 37-49\nWoodby v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv. (1966), 385 U.S. 276. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/276/'>http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/276/</a>\nWoody, W.D., & Greene, E. (2012), Jurors’ use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages. Behavioral Science and the Law, 30, 6, 856-872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2027\nZuravin, S. J., Watson, B., & Ehrenschaft, M. (1987). Anonymous reports of child physical abuse: are they as serious as reports from other sources? Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 4), 521-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(87)90078-0\n