Abstract
Clinicians face the prospect of mandated reporting when a patient reports, either during the intake appointment or during the course of addiction treatment, their risky substance use-related behavior around a child. Beyond legal considerations, many factors might influence a clinician’s decision whether or not to report the case to child protective services (CPS). Although there is literature regarding mandated reporting in the setting of pre- or perinatal substance use, there is limited literature regarding the mandated reporting obligation in the setting of postnatal substance use around children. We survey the relevant statutes and regulations in the 51 jurisdictions of the United States regarding postnatal mandated reporting for substance-related parental abuse and neglect. Drawing from these results, we identify areas of legal obligation, areas open to interpretation, and areas that remain unaddressed. We further propose a clinical framework for determining whether to make a CPS report in the course of addiction treatment. In the current state of significant variability in mandated reporting regulation, clinicians must consider the safety of the child, the well-being of the family, stigma toward individuals with substance use disorder, maintenance of the conditions necessary for the patient to engage with addiction treatment, and what the law requires.
Children of parents with substance use disorder (SUD) are at elevated risk of parental abuse or neglect.1,–,4 Substance use may increase the risk for abusive or neglectful parenting by a complex interplay of impulsivity, irritability, negative affect, antisocial traits, and myriad other co-occurring mental illnesses, with superimposed social and legal instability.5 Intergenerational cycles of addiction and childhood abuse and neglect also contribute significantly to this risk.6 The impaired and at times chaotic parenting that occurs in the setting of parental substance use can result in child maltreatment, such as physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; unstable or unsafe living environment; food insecurity; lack of personal hygiene or medical or dental care; unstable supervision; or poor school attendance, among other manifestations.7
Because child safety and well-being are widely considered high priorities, and health professionals are mandated reporters, clinicians treating patients for SUD are often faced with the prospect of reporting substance-related parental abuse or neglect to child protective services (CPS).8 The mandated reporting process is generally negatively perceived by clinicians, patients, and children alike.9,–,11 In addition to the possible removal of the child from the home, such a report may lead to an injured therapeutic alliance,10 patient disengagement with SUD treatment,12 or retaliatory action against the reporter.13 Additionally, the prospect of such a report may be used coercively against patients.14 For these reasons and others, screening for SUD can be a perilous endeavor.15
Further complicating matters is the wide variability in mandated reporting statutes.16,17 At the same time, limited training is provided to mandated reporters regarding the various nuances of the reporting process and case-specific factors to consider when determining whether a report is required.18
Although some literature addresses how statutes engage with the subject of pre or peri-natal parental substance use,19,20 research on navigating the complex circumstances that arise when considering mandated reporting for postnatal parental substance use is otherwise limited. Considering that there is often greater legal uncertainty regarding mandated reporter obligations for substance-related parental abuse and neglect in the postnatal period relative to the pre- and perinatal period, we sought to specifically address the gap in knowledge regarding mandated reporter obligations for parental substance use in the postnatal period.
Methods
We attempted to determine the current legal requirements for mandated reporting in the setting of postnatal parental substance use. Postnatal parental substance use is herein defined as parental substance use that occurs after parturition. In particular, we attempted to determine whether the following questions are addressed within current legal frameworks:
Is the mandate to report altered depending on the patient’s engagement with SUD treatment?
Is the mandate to report altered depending on the type of substance used?
How recent does the risky behavior have to be in order to qualify for a mandated report (i.e., is there a statute of limitations or window of obligation on the mandate to report)?
How old does the child-at-risk have to have been at the time of the behavior (or currently) to mandate a report?
Can the mandate to report be deferred until the possibility that the patient disengages in treatment?
Does a patient’s or parent’s positive drug screen constitute a mandate to report?
Is the mandate to report altered based upon the patient’s insight into the riskiness of the behavior?
Does the mandate to report differ if the patient recants the initial report of risky behavior?
Is the mandate to report altered if the patient is already justice-involved for either an addiction-related or unrelated problem?
In the fall of 2024, we compiled a list of statutes regarding mandated reporting of postnatal parental abuse or neglect (also referred to as child abuse or neglect) for the 51 U.S. jurisdictions (Table 1).21,–,71 Statutes were also searched using the LexisNexis database. At the same time, we contacted the department of child protective services (or other relevant department), the office of the attorney general, and the medical board for all 51 U.S. jurisdictions to obtain regulations and guidelines regarding mandated reporting of parental abuse or neglect (Table 2).72,–,108 If we did not receive a response, we concluded our inquiry with the determination that there was no available evidence of such a regulation or guideline for that jurisdiction.
U.S. Jurisdiction Statutes Related to Minors and Illicit Substance Use Exposure and Reporting, 2024
U.S. Jurisdiction Child Protective Services Regulations and Guidelines That Are Available and Identifiable Related to Minors and Illicit Substance Use Exposure and Reporting, 2024
Results
Areas of Legal Obligation
Despite significant variability in legal requirements, many statutes, regulations, or guidelines addressed substance use in the discussion of parental abuse or neglect. The criteria for substance-related parental abuse or neglect varied by jurisdiction, with most jurisdictions defining it as substance use that interferes with an individual’s ability to parent or substance use that negatively affects a child (Table 3). Setting aside the legal definition of adult that is specific to each jurisdiction (e.g., age requirements, emancipation criteria), the only jurisdiction that requires mandated reporting for a specific child age is Tennessee, which has a relevant statute that specifically applies to children younger than eight years old who ingest an illicit substance that yields a positive urine drug screen result.
Criteria for Substance-Related Parental Abuse or Neglect by Jurisdiction Drawn from Both Statutes and Child Protective Services Regulations and Guidelines, 2024
Otherwise, many of the relevant statutes and policies appear to be purposefully broad and include limited, if any, nuanced clinical considerations. Mandated reporters are encouraged to report and are almost universally offered immunity from civil or criminal liability when making a report in good faith. Additionally, mandated reporters almost universally face legal penalties if they fail to make a timely report.
Areas Open to Interpretation
Because the criteria to make a CPS report are distinct from the criteria for CPS intake and investigation, the relevant statutes do not appear to incentivize mandated reporters to investigate or interpret the case in question. This is exemplified by a guideline from South Carolina, which instructs mandated reporters:[T]he law allows and also encourages all persons to report […] You do not need to have conclusive proof. The law requires you to report when you have “reason to believe” a child is being or may be abused or neglected. Do not attempt to investigate or excessively question the child. Specially trained [Department of Social Services] caseworkers and law enforcement officers will investigate the allegations (Ref. 99, p 2, 10).
The primary exception is that, in many instances, parental substance use alone is not sufficient to require a report. Instead, mandated reporters are encouraged to consider whether the severity of parental substance use has resulted in maltreatment or neglect of a child, to include lack of age-appropriate supervision or inability to meet a child’s basic needs (Table 3). That is to say, assessment of risk of harm is not separate from complying with the law; it is in fact what the law often demands.
Areas That Remain Unaddressed
Very few statutes or guidelines specifically address the inquiries noted in the above methods, either in whole or in part. For instance, many statutes or guidelines do not address the relevance of insight, recanting, or being justice-involved. This indicates that nuanced and complex clinical scenarios of postnatal parental substance use are largely not addressed by current legal frameworks. Particularly concerning is the fact that most mandated reporter statutes do not address whether parental engagement in SUD treatment modifies the obligation to report; notable exceptions include statutes in Alaska, Delaware, and New York and policies in Indiana, Massachusetts, and Michigan.
Discussion
Mandated Reporting
Each U.S. jurisdiction has its own statutes and policies governing the operation of its own child protection system. Each jurisdiction also has an agency to implement this system and mechanism for reporting suspected parental abuse or neglect.109 Mandated reporting laws became prevalent following the 1962 publication of “The Battered-Child Syndrome,” in which pediatrician C. Henry Kempe and colleagues described cases of severe physical abuse in children and called for physicians to alert the “proper authorities” when they suspected that a child had suffered serious bodily injuries that were intentionally inflicted by a parent or caregiver.110 In part because of the national attention that this publication received, in 1963, the U.S. Children’s Bureau published a legislative guide regarding mandated reporting.109,111 This proposal recommended that states legislate the following mandate:The proposed legislation requires a report to be made [to law enforcement] when there is reasonable cause to suspect that physical injury was inflicted by a parent or other person responsible for the care of the child. […] [The physician] is not expected to make any outside, independent investigation. The reporter would be concerned only with what is disclosed to him by the nature and extent of the injuries and the case history. If from these he finds a reasonable likelihood, both that the injuries were inflicted on the child by other than accidental means and that they were inflicted by a parent or other person responsible for the child’s care, he would have to make a report. If he is not able to draw this hypothesis with respect to each of these facets, he is not required to report. A physician in making his diagnosis would have to decide whether or not the case before him falls within the statute. But, in so doing, his would be the preliminary act. The report would initiate investigative machinery and might or might not result in law enforcement, social service, or judicial action. The decision to report, therefore, although it should be carefully considered and derived from the available evidence, implies no factor of infallibility. In making it, a physician would not be functioning as a judge or jury. He merely would be acting on a reasonable suspicion stemming from his professional experience and expert opinion. More than this would not be required of him (Ref. 112, p 6-7).
The proposal’s associated recommended legislative language included a mandate for physicians to report suspected intentional “serious physical injury” and the provision of immunity to reporters from civil and criminal liability, nullification of the physician-patient privilege and husband-wife privilege in subsequent judicial proceedings, and criminalization of failure to report as a misdemeanor.112
By 1967, all 50 states had developed mandated reporting legislation.111 Although most aligned with the Children’s Bureau recommendations, some broadened the mandate to report beyond medical professionals, to include a universal mandate in some instances.109 In 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) financially incentivized states to pass mandated reporting laws for both neglect and abuse, which it broadly defined as: “physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of a child under the age of eighteen by a person who is responsible for the child’s welfare under circumstances which indicate that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby” (Ref. 113, § 3). Now, all U.S. jurisdictions have mandated reporter statutes that include broad definitions of abuse and neglect, which are applicable to all clinicians in any context in which they might learn of a reportable case.109,111
Failure to report parental abuse or neglect has also been recognized as a basis for malpractice liability. In Landeros v. Flood (1979), a case of first impression, the California Supreme Court raised the possibility that a physician who negligently failed to recognize and report signs of child abuse could face civil responsibility for future injuries sustained by that child. In doing so, the court acknowledged that the causal link between failure to report and subsequent harm might be sufficient enough to sustain a finding of responsibility. At present, some states, including New York and Colorado, provide for civil liability for failure to report directly in their criminal statutes, whereas in other jurisdictions, the statute can serve as the basis for civil liability by helping to establish a standard of care.114
Concerns with Mandated Reporting
There are limited data available for outcomes regarding the mandated reporter statutes or policies of specific jurisdictions, but there are data available for U.S. mandated reported outcomes more broadly. Consistent with the 1963 Children’s Bureau recommendations, mandated reporters are most commonly obligated to make a report to CPS based upon a “reasonable suspicion” standard (also referred to as “reasonable cause” or “reasonable belief” standard). That is, mandated reporters are obligated to make a report to CPS if they have a reasonable suspicion that parental abuse or neglect has occurred and are not obligated to investigate or have confirmatory evidence for a good faith suspicion. There is significant variability in how the “reasonable suspicion” standard is understood, interpreted, and applied, with no consensus among clinicians as to what constitutes a reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect.115,116
Many clinicians are hesitant to report a potentially reportable case to CPS, despite the fact that failure to do so may expose them to medicolegal risk. Even when they have some level of suspicion of parental abuse or neglect, clinicians do not consistently report all potentially reportable cases to CPS.117,–,119 This is despite the fact that reports of abuse or neglect by medical personnel have higher substantiation rates relative to reports made by the general population.120,–,122 Clinicians may be selective in reporting in part because of their relationship with the family, consideration of case-specific elements, and perceptions of anticipated negative outcomes associated with CPS involvement. Other clinicians may be hesitant to report potential abuse or neglect if they are unsure whether there is ongoing or imminent future harm and may therefore opt to perform some form of follow-up management that does not involve CPS.123
Some critics of the current child protection system note that the mandate to report as originally designed severely underestimated the prevalence of childhood abuse and neglect.124 The laws were originally drafted under the assumption that the incidence of severe physical abuse would be in the hundreds.125 Instead, the incidence of abuse and neglect as broadly defined by CAPTA turned out to be in the millions.124,126 With the large number of cases identified by mandated reporters, child protection systems without adequate staffing, funding, and other resources were quickly overwhelmed.127 Now, related in part to large caseload burdens, caseworker screening and investigation of allegations of abuse or neglect principally operate to collect evidence to substantiate such allegations and not necessarily to provide social services that might ameliorate a family’s situation.124 Consequently, CPS investigations are frequently perceived as punitive and coercive rather than helpful.128 Perhaps because of stigma, parental substance use is associated with increased rates of CPS caseworkers substantiating abuse or neglect allegations.129,130
Parental substance use is a significant contributor to children entering the child welfare system. In one study of children younger than one year old, parental substance use was the sole reason for removal in 16.6 percent of cases and was at least one reason for removal (among multiple others) in 50.8 percent of cases.131
Although not making a CPS report carries the risk of potentially exposing a child to ongoing abuse or neglect, making the report also carries its own set of risks. For instance, children with contact with CPS experience worse mental health and developmental outcomes.132 Children who enter foster care are also at risk for worse mental, behavioral, and physical health outcomes.133,134
The situation is further complicated by comparing outcomes of children who remain in the child welfare system versus those who are reunified. Relative to children who remain in foster care, children who are reunified with their families are at higher risk of substance use, legal involvement, and mental health and behavioral problems.135,136 This has been attributed to the fact that, in many cases, the family or environmental problems or socioeconomic risk factors that initially contributed to separation are not resolved prior to reunification.137 Noting the importance of resolving maltreatment risks prior to reunification, one study found that about 16 percent of reunified children reentered the child welfare system within five years.138 Relative to children who enter foster care for other reasons, children who enter foster care because of parental SUD spend more time in foster care, are less likely to achieve reunification with their family, and are more likely to reenter foster care following reunification.139,–,141 Coinciding with the rise in the opioid epidemic, parental substance use has contributed to an increased number of children living in and entering foster care and a low and decreasing family reunification rate.142,143
CPS reports are also associated with risks toward parents with SUD. Because of variations in statutes and policies as well as data collection methods, the prevalence of SUD among CPS-involved parents varies widely but has been estimated to be 3.9 to 79 percent.144 CPS reports can contribute to stigma toward individuals with SUD.145 CPS-involved parents may disengage or be less likely to engage with SUD treatment.12,146 Among caregivers with SUD who engage in SUD treatment and who are accused of abuse or neglect, they are more likely to have additional allegations of abuse or neglect relative to those who did not engage in SUD treatment, potentially because families that receive more services are also subject to greater agency surveillance.147 Throughout this discussion, it is vital to note that a sizable proportion of parents with SUD adequately care for their children.148
There are also concerns regarding inequities in CPS involvement. Clinicians are more likely to report abuse or neglect among minority, low-income, and uninsured families.149,150 Children of color are more likely to be referred to CPS, are more likely to be substantiated as victims of abuse or neglect and enter foster care, and are less likely to be reunified with their family relative to white peers.151,152 Indigenous families also experience disproportional separation.153 Recent analysis has demonstrated that some of these associations may be confounded by poverty.154,–,156
Overall, there appear to be significant reasons to wonder whether the current mandated reporter and child protection system results in more harm to families than good. Although admitting that the current system of mandated reporting offers imperfect case-finding and requires significant reform to the provision of services, proponents of the current system argue that, without mandated reporting laws, many cases of abuse and neglect would remain hidden.157 Others argue that the generally negative narrative around CPS interventions overshadows the positive experiences that some CPS-involved individuals have.158
A Framework for Mandated Reporting
Based on the foregoing discussion, a clinician faced with the prospect of making a CPS report because of parental substance use must navigate a complex ethical, legal, and clinical cost-benefit analysis. In the course of this analysis, clinicians must consider the safety of the child, the well-being of the family, stigma toward individuals with SUD, maintenance of the conditions necessary for the patient to engage with addiction treatment, and what the law requires.
Some literature addresses general ethical and legal considerations for mandated reporting.159,160 The literature is limited on considerations for determining whether to make a report to CPS for suspected postnatal parental abuse or neglect related to substance use.161 Based upon our survey of current statutes and policies, we propose a framework for making a report when learning about possible postnatal substance-related parental abuse or neglect (Fig. 1). When developing this framework, we were primarily considering a scenario in which a clinician is caring for an adult patient who has SUD and who is also a parent or caregiver.
Figure 1. A framework for determining whether to make a report to child protective services (CPS) based upon suspected parental substance use.
Clinicians should first consider imminent risk to the child. Then, clinicians should consider whether they are certain that abuse or neglect has occurred based upon either witnessing parental abuse or neglect themselves or hearing first-hand reports of abuse or neglect from the child, parent or patient, or other witness. Then, clinicians should consider whether the concern for parental abuse or neglect warrants a report based on relevant statutes or regulations.
In some cases, if the statute or regulation does not appear to address the concern in question, then certain factors related to the patient’s SUD severity, insight, or engagement in SUD treatment may modify the obligation to make a report. There is a breadth of treatment options that might constitute engagement in SUD treatment, such as psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, or 12-step participation, among many others. Ideally, SUD treatment plans are multimodal and individualized. The degree of a patient’s engagement in SUD treatment should also be considered in light of the SUD treatment resources available within the patient’s environment.162
Although clinicians may be legitimately concerned that making a report may cause a patient to disengage with SUD treatment, ultimately, concerns about child safety legally and ethically trump concerns about patient engagement. Along similar lines, the report cannot be contingent on the patient disengaging with care, as this may be coercive and is likely illegal, as most statutes require timely reporting of concerns. If the then-child is now legally an adult at the time that the clinician learns about the suspected parental abuse or neglect, and the patient no longer has any ongoing childcare responsibilities, then a report is likely not required. If a patient reports an incident concerning parental abuse or neglect and then subsequently recants that report, that recantation does not obviate the clinician’s obligation to report. If a clinician ultimately decides to report a concern, then the clinician should make the patient aware; it might be reassuring to the patient for the clinician to add that just because a report is being made does not necessarily mean that CPS will accept the report for investigation.
A hypothetical scenario may prove instructive. A patient voluntarily enters an addiction intensive outpatient program for management of alcohol use disorder. During the intake interview, the patient discloses that, several months prior to entering treatment, he drove intoxicated with his child in the car. He denies having driven intoxicated since that incident, adding that his alcohol consumption has overall reduced since that time. In this scenario, the patient’s substance use is severe to the extent that it placed his child in danger. The fact that the scenario occurred several months ago is only relevant in regard to the child being still legally considered a child at the time that the clinician learns about the incident. In this case, the mandated reporter would make a report to CPS.
In another example, consider a patient who discloses to her clinician that she smokes cannabis daily in the basement of her house. She does not want to reduce her cannabis use. She reports that she smokes only at night when her children are asleep, and her children have never been present in the basement while she is smoking. She also reports that she keeps an audio monitor with her so that she can be notified if her children need her. In this circumstance, it does not appear as though the patient’s substance use is resulting in abuse or neglect of her children, and the patient is taking steps to mitigate the affect of the substance use on her parenting. Therefore, a report is not required in this case.
In considering these or other hypothetical cases, jurisdiction-specific statutes may affect whether or not a report is required. Consider a third scenario in the context of New York statutes and guidelines.53,93 A patient is engaging in SUD treatment for opioid use disorder. The patient lives with his child and the child’s grandparent. The child’s grandparent is the child’s legal guardian. The patient shares with the clinician that, despite adherence to pharmacotherapy and regular meetings with a peer recovery coach, he continues to use illicit opioids and occasionally “nods out” at home while the child is also at home. The child continues to be cared for by the grandparent during these periods. The patient denies that the child has any access to illicit substances or substance-related paraphernalia. Based on our interpretation of New York statutes and guidelines in place at the time that this study was conducted, a report would not be required in this case.
Finally, consider a fourth scenario in the context of Alaska statutes.22 The patient has a child who was removed from her custody six months ago because of alcohol-related concerns. The patient has since engaged in SUD treatment, and the child has been reunified with the patient. During the course of a scheduled appointment with her SUD treatment provider, the patient initially reports that she has returned to alcohol use but then recants the report on further questioning. Based on our interpretation of Alaska statutes in place at the time that this study was conducted, a report would be required in this case.
Limitations
The foregoing framework does not necessarily apply to cases of pre- or perinatal substance use, in large part because many jurisdictions have statutes that specifically address pre- or perinatal substance use that we did not analyze in this study.19,20 Pre- and perinatal substance use sometimes involves the use of toxicologic tests (e.g., urine drug screens), in which a positive result may suggest that the infant has necessarily been exposed to an illicit substance that the mother used during pregnancy. Indeed, many jurisdictions have legal penalties for mothers with confirmed prenatal substance use or whose infant has evidence of being exposed to an illicit substance in utero.163,164 Recognizing the negative outcomes for many families subject to mandated reporting because of pre- and perinatal substance use, several programs have attempted to reduce CPS involvement among substance-exposed infants.165,166 Statutes may emphasize pre- and perinatal substance use as particularly relevant because of the known negative effects of maternal substance use during those periods on fetal development.167 As noted above, however, the effects of parental substance use after the child is born (i.e., postnatal substance use) are more complicated and the associated statutes for SUD-related parental abuse and neglect are less specific.
The framework that we propose is not only applicable for patients who are engaging in addiction treatment but may be applicable to any clinical scenario in which a patient is being evaluated for SUD. This would include instances in which a forensic psychiatrist learns about a potentially reportable case during the course of a forensic evaluation, in which case the psychiatrist would have to navigate the tension between the mandated reporting obligation and the client’s right to attorney-client privilege.168,169 There is some case law to inform this area, such as Elijah W. v. Superior Court (2013),170 in which the California Court of Appeals found that a forensic psychiatrist retained by an attorney is not required to comply with mandated reporter statutes.171 Even so, if clients are “overly self-disclosing” regarding the dysfunction caused by their substance use, the forensic psychiatrist may need to repeat warnings that the information gathered during the evaluation can be shared with other select parties.172 As noted above, these types of challenging circumstances can make screening for SUD a perilous endeavor. Depending on the statutes within a clinician’s jurisdiction and the clinician’s own stringency to the “reasonable suspicion” standard, having discussions with patients about their SUD may necessitate detailed discussions in order for the clinician to make a properly informed decision about whether or not to make a CPS report.
Our framework may also inform other types of forensic evaluations, such as child custody evaluations173 or involuntary commitment evaluations for substance use treatment.174 Given the chronic relapsing nature of SUD, it may be particularly relevant for clinicians who are performing such evaluations to consider the degree to which a patient has engaged in SUD treatment and other attempts to modify the risk of relapse. Within the context of a specific jurisdiction’s statutory definition of incapacity, lack of engagement in relapse modification may place patients at foreseeable risk of losing decisional and functional capacity.175
It is important to acknowledge that the types of cases that we are discussing are often emotionally and ethically challenging for both clinicians and patients. On the one hand, clinicians want to engage patients in SUD care, reduce addiction-related stigma, and ensure child safety. On the other hand, patients may feel as though they are being punished for engaging in SUD treatment and for being forthcoming about their experience and thereby be disincentivized to engage in SUD treatment because of fear that they will lose custody of their children. In complex cases, clinicians may benefit from obtaining collateral information (if the patient consents) or seeking advice from colleagues (including multidisciplinary treatment teams) or institutional legal counsel prior to determining whether or not to make a report.
Future Directions
The development of uniform mandated reporting statutes for substance-related parental abuse or neglect can be informed by evidence-based research into how the use of specific substances and how engagement in SUD treatment affect the risk of parental abuse or neglect.176 Statutes would also ideally account for how patient engagement with evidence-based pharmacologic, psychotherapeutic, family-based, and other interventions might modify the obligation to report.177,178
The degree to which children enter foster care because of substance-related parental abuse or neglect also highlights the urgent need for research into the longitudinal outcomes for children, parents, and families for children who enter child welfare or foster care because of substance-related parental abuse or neglect versus children who stay in the care of parents with SUD, with a further subanalysis comparing outcomes of whether or not parents actively engage in SUD treatment. Additional research could include a cohort study of children exposed to parental SUD, comparing outcomes for those who were CPS-involved relative to those who were not. Such research could inform the efficacy of mandated reporter laws and CPS services, as well as the clinical merits of reporting potentially reportable cases. Depending on the results of such research, parents with SUD might be less disincentivized to engage with SUD treatment if they were reassured that being forthcoming regarding how substance use affects their parenting would not thereby put them at risk of losing custody of their children.
At a public health level, it is essential to appreciate that a CPS report and investigation must not constitute the terminal step in an intervention for a family. Particularly if an SUD-related report is substantiated, comprehensive treatment should include intervening on the personal, family, environmental, and socioeconomic risk factors that contributed to the reportable incident. This may involve continually reassessing and addressing the root cause(s) of a patient’s SUD.179
Conclusions
Significant variability and lack of clarity characterize the mandated reporting requirements for suspected postnatal substance-related parental abuse or neglect. This variability can contribute to clinician uncertainty regarding mandated reporting obligations, to include a challenging cost-benefit analysis regarding making a report. Uniformity in mandated reporting requirements would afford greater standardization of the reporting process. Mandated reporting statutes should ideally be able to balance prioritizing child safety and family well-being with reducing SUD stigma and optimizing SUD treatment retention.
Footnotes
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
- © 2025 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.↵
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.↵
- 87.↵
- 88.↵
- 89.↵
- 90.↵
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.↵
- 95.↵
- 96.↵
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵
- 101.↵
- 102.↵
- 103.↵
- 104.↵
- 105.↵
- 106.↵
- 107.↵
- 108.↵
- 109.↵
- 110.↵
- 111.↵
- 112.↵
- 113.↵
- 114.↵
- 115.↵
- 116.↵
- 117.↵
- 118.↵
- 119.↵
- 120.↵
- 121.↵
- 122.↵
- 123.↵
- 124.↵
- 125.↵
- 126.↵
- 127.↵
- 128.↵
- 129.↵
- 130.↵
- 131.↵
- 132.↵
- 133.↵
- 134.↵
- 135.↵
- 136.↵
- 137.↵
- 138.↵
- 139.↵
- 140.↵
- 141.↵
- 142.↵
- 143.↵
- 144.↵
- 145.↵
- 146.↵
- 147.↵
- 148.↵
- 149.↵
- 150.↵
- 151.↵
- 152.↵
- 153.↵
- 154.↵
- 155.↵
- 156.↵
- 157.↵
- 158.↵
- 159.↵
- 160.↵
- 161.↵
- 162.↵
- 163.↵
- 164.↵
- 165.↵
- 166.↵
- 167.↵
- 168.↵
- 169.↵
- 170.↵
- 171.↵
- 172.↵
- 173.↵
- 174.↵
- 175.↵
- 176.↵
- 177.↵
- 178.↵
- 179.↵
