IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v31y2009i2p199-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contested cases of physical abuse: Evidentiary characteristics of modified and overturned outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Fakunmoju, Sunday B.

Abstract

In 1996 the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was amended to mandate that states establish an official process to allow persons identified by child protective services agencies as perpetrators of child maltreatment to contest the findings. Little is known about the outcomes of these contested cases. In this study content analysis was used to examine evidentiary characteristics (failure to meet basic evidentiary standards, insufficient credible evidence, lack of credibility/credible refutation, and lack of harm/substantial risk of harm) and four injury characteristics (nature, location, severity/size, and source) of adverse outcomes in 104 contested cases of physical abuse presided over by Administrative Law Judges. Descriptive analysis suggested that injuries inflicted on children were predominantly minor bruises, scratches, or marks; the injuries resulted mainly from physical force; and the most frequently inflicted areas were lower parts of the body. Using logistic regression analysis to predict modified versus overturned outcomes, results showed that substantiated cases of physical abuse lacking proof of harm/substantial risk of harm were more likely to be modified than overturned. Practice implications related to determination of harm from evidentiary perspectives are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Fakunmoju, Sunday B., 2009. "Contested cases of physical abuse: Evidentiary characteristics of modified and overturned outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 199-205, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:31:y:2009:i:2:p:199-205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190-7409(08)00181-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason, J. & Andereck, N.D. & Marks, J. & Tyler Jr., C.W., 1982. "Child abuse in Georgia: a method to evaluate risk factors and reporting bias," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 72(12), pages 1353-1358.
    2. Drake, Brett, 1995. "Associations between reporter type and assessment outcomes in Child Protective Services referrals," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 503-522.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. DePanfilis, Diane & Girvin, Heather, 2005. "Investigating child maltreatment in out-of-home care: Barriers to effective decision-making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 353-374, April.
    2. Giovannoni, Jeanne & Meezan, William, 1995. "Rethinking supply and demand in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 465-470.
    3. Bae, Hwa-Ok & Solomon, Phyllis L. & Gelles, Richard J., 2007. "Abuse type and substantiation status varying by recurrence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 856-869, July.
    4. Jent, Jason F. & Eaton, Cyd K. & Knickerbocker, Lauren & Lambert, Walter F. & Merrick, Melissa T. & Dandes, Susan K., 2011. "Multidisciplinary child protection decision making about physical abuse: Determining substantiation thresholds and biases," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1673-1682, September.
    5. Wolock, Isabel & Sherman, Patricia & Feldman, Leonard H. & Metzger, Barbara, 2001. "Child abuse and neglect referral patterns: A longitudinal study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 21-47, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:31:y:2009:i:2:p:199-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.