ABPN vignette

[shahseh22]

Psychiatry Linked-item Set (Vignette) - American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

Psychiatry Linked-item Set (Vignette) Part 1 The 44-year-old, wealthy, married businessman shown in the video exhibit is referred for psychiatric evaluation by his couples therapist (James) because of a recent change in behavior. For the past several months, he has...

www.abpn.com

I think i'm missing something here. I don't see why this is not a CPS case (based on history)? I thought that should be the main focus on this vignette.

Can someone explain this to me?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Trismegistus4]

Are you asking why this is not a mandatory-reporting-of-child-abuse situation? The purpose of mandatory reporting laws is not to bring justice against the abuser, it's to protect children. So what they want to know is whether there is currently a child or children who are being abused. If you call them and say "this guy told me he had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old 10 years ago," what is there for them to investigate? That kid is now 27 years old and thus is no longer a child in danger of being abused. I've never made a report so maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong, but they have to have a specific situation to investigate. They're not going to patrol the guy's neighborhood, workplace, church, etc. and investigate whether every child they find has been abused.

Also, age of consent laws vary by state, so we don't know that this relationship was even illegal. And another point where someone more knowledgeable can correct me: I'm not sure whether having a sexual relationship with an older adolescent, while illegal if the adolescent is under the age of consent, is considered to constitute "child abuse" for the purpose of mandatory reporting laws.

That said, this seems like a poorly written case, because if they think there's insufficient reason to go down that road they should have made it more clear.

 

[Merovinge]

So laws very from state to state, however in my state we are mandated reporters for child known to us professionally (this is actually taken from the state legal code). This means if you are an adult psychiatrist who never interacts with children your patients can disclose to you the worst types of child abuse possible and from my understanding, you are not able to disclose unless their is future intent described, which then fall under Tarasoff issues.

Just like your patients can reveal that they have been serial killers previously (say you were treating the Golden State Killer after he stopped but before he was caught) you are unable to disclose any information unless they detail future intent.

Spilk or other forensically minded folks, would love to hear if my training was different than others on this

 

[shahseh22]

Are you asking why this is not a mandatory-reporting-of-child-abuse situation? The purpose of mandatory reporting laws is not to bring justice against the abuser, it's to protect children. So what they want to know is whether there is currently a child or children who are being abused. If you call them and say "this guy told me he had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old 10 years ago," what is there for them to investigate? That kid is now 27 years old and thus is no longer a child in danger of being abused. I've never made a report so maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong, but they have to have a specific situation to investigate. They're not going to patrol the guy's neighborhood, workplace, church, etc. and investigate whether every child they find has been abused.

Also, age of consent laws vary by state, so we don't know that this relationship was even illegal. And another point where someone more knowledgeable can correct me: I'm not sure whether having a sexual relationship with an older adolescent, while illegal if the adolescent is under the age of consent, is considered to constitute "child abuse" for the purpose of mandatory reporting laws.

That said, this seems like a poorly written case, because if they think there's insufficient reason to go down that road they should have made it more clear.

In my state, we are mandated reporters of current and prior abuse (or even suspicion of abuse). What's to say that this individual may not be in contact with other children that he is not telling us?

 

[Merovinge]

In my state, we are mandated reporters of current and prior abuse (or even suspicion of abuse). What's to say that this individual may not be in contact with other children that he is not telling us?

Well that standard would prevent anyone with pedophilic actions from ever receiving treatment without being reported so I'm not sure I would agree that your state's laws are minimizing harm to children or promoting the best societal good.