Preserving Immunity for Reporters of Medical Child Abuse.

Abstract

All American jurisdictions have laws protecting children from abuse and neglect. Mandated reporters, including health professionals, whether their suspicions ultimately are substantiated or unfounded, are entitled to immunity when their reports are entered in good faith. When harm takes the form of medical child abuse (MCA, also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy or factitious disorder imposed on another), its origin is ambiguous, at least initially. Questions arise as to whether the caregiver intended to deceive medical professionals and if the condition improved when the child was separated from the caregiver. Clinicians may have an obligation to report MCA in difficult-to-diagnose cases or those where parents press for hospitalizations and procedures. Substantiated cases may lead to removal of children from homes and criminal prosecution of parents. This can result in backlash against the reporter by the parents, with claims of malpractice, official misconduct, intentional harm, fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud, defamation (libel or slander), or all of the above. This article examines case law regarding alleged departures from good-faith reporting of MCA and explores potential limitations to immunity provided to mandated reporters. The findings include no significant instances in which the immunity shield for good-faith reporting was pierced.