Mandatory reporting and intimate partner violence

Mandatory reporting laws began with Henry Kempe's 1962 description of the battered child syndrome. Within a decade, every U.S. state had passed a law requiring physicians, and eventually teachers and other professionals, to report suspected child abuse. The logic was specific: children cannot report for themselves, the abuser is typically the only adult with continuous access, and the costs of a false positive (an investigation that finds nothing) were judged lower than the cost of a missed case. The architecture worked because the population was bounded and the alternative was nothing. When the same scaffolding was extended in the 1980s and 1990s to elder abuse and then to intimate partner violence, the underlying assumption—that the victim cannot speak—was imported without examination. Adults in abusive relationships can speak. They often choose not to, and that choice usually has reasons the reporter cannot see.

The fears are not paranoid. Mandatory police contact triggers arrest in roughly half of cases in jurisdictions with dual-arrest or pro-arrest policies, and the person arrested is sometimes the victim. Children present at the scene may be flagged for child protective services, with the victim treated as a parent who "failed to protect." Immigration status, public housing eligibility, custody arrangements, and employment can all be affected by a report the victim did not authorize. Carole Warshaw's interviews with women in mental health treatment found that the single most common reason for non-disclosure of abuse to clinicians was fear of what the clinician would be required to do. The system designed to make help-seeking safer had made it more dangerous, and victims had correctly calibrated.

At the population level, mandatory reporting is a collective bet: that more disclosures, on average, produce more safety. The bet ignores variance. If the policy increases reporting by ten percent but causes the thirty percent of victims in the most dangerous situations to avoid help entirely, the population is worse off even though the headline number improved. James Mercy's CDC work on injury surveillance has consistently pointed out that mandatory reporting of injuries is most useful for epidemiological purposes—knowing the size of the problem—and least useful as a direct intervention. The conflation of surveillance and intervention is a category error baked into the law.

A child has no capacity to assess risk, no economic alternatives, and no relationship to terminate. An adult in an abusive relationship has, to varying degrees, all three. Treating her like the child means treating her as if her stated preferences are presumptively the product of coercion and can be overridden by the reporter's judgment. Sometimes that is true. Often it is not. The default matters: if the default is override, the system communicates that the victim is not the agent of her own life. The Law 0 humility move is to start from the opposite default and require a specific argument for overriding it.

Jacquelyn Campbell's danger assessment work depends on the victim trusting the assessor enough to answer honestly. Twenty questions about access to weapons, escalation patterns, threats to kill—none of them get accurate answers if the respondent knows the answers will be forwarded to police without her consent. Mandatory reporting laws that capture therapists and counselors directly undermine the instruments developed to identify the most dangerous cases. The collective optimizes for the appearance of vigilance and pays for it with the reality of less information.

California's penal code 11160 requires reporting of injuries from firearms or assaultive conduct but allows the victim's preferences to be recorded and considered. New York carved out medical providers from broad reporting requirements after data showed that the requirement reduced hospital visits. These middle paths are not perfect, but the outcome data is consistently better than either pole. The states that have studied their own laws and adjusted them are doing Law 5 work. The states that have not are doing Law 4 work badly—planning once, calling it done.

Anita Raj and Jay Silverman's studies of South Asian and Latina immigrant women found that abusers routinely use the threat of state contact as a control mechanism. The threat does not have to be accurate—and usually isn't, since most mandatory reporting does not trigger immigration enforcement—to be effective. The victim's fear is shaped by what she has been told, by community knowledge of past cases, and by her partner's confidence. A policy that ignores this distribution of fear treats the population as homogeneous when it is not. The cost falls on the women already most isolated.

Mandatory reporting often pairs with pro-arrest or mandatory-arrest policies in domestic violence response. Linda Saltzman's CDC surveillance work documented that mandatory arrest reduces repeat victimization for some subgroups and increases it for others, particularly in low-income and minority communities where the arrest itself destabilizes the household economically. The chain—mandatory report, mandatory arrest, mandatory prosecution—removes the victim's agency at every step. Each link was added with good intentions. The cumulative system is one no individual designer would have endorsed.

When officers respond to a domestic violence call and cannot determine the primary aggressor, many jurisdictions default to arresting both parties. Susan Wilt's New York City fatality review work found that women who had been arrested in dual-arrest incidents were significantly less likely to call police in subsequent incidents, including incidents that ended in their death. The mandatory architecture punishes the victim for the system's inability to do its job. The romantic lens is unforgiving here: she called for help with the most intimate kind of betrayal, and the help arrested her.

Repealing or narrowing a mandatory reporting law is politically costly because the opposition can run an ad showing a dead woman and asking why the legislator weakened her protections. The fact that the law did not protect her, and may have contributed to her death by deterring her from seeking help, is too complex to fit in the ad. Heather Boonstra's policy analysis at the Guttmacher Institute has noted the same pattern in adjacent areas: protective-sounding laws are sticky regardless of evidence. Law 5 requires institutions willing to absorb the political cost of revision. Most are not.

A defensible system would: (1) make resources, shelter, and legal aid available without requiring a report; (2) reserve mandatory state action for cases involving weapons, children present, or documented incapacity; (3) require that any report triggered against the victim's wishes be accompanied by a documented safety plan and a follow-up call from a DV specialist rather than a patrol officer; (4) collect outcome data and publish it. None of this is technically difficult. The difficulty is political, and the difficulty is that the current system flatters the collective's sense of having done something.

A woman who declines to report is not choosing the abuse. She is choosing between two bad options under information the system does not have. She knows whether her partner will escalate if police come. She knows whether her job survives an arrest. She knows whether her mother will take her in. The mandatory reporter overrides this calculation with a checklist. Sometimes the override saves her life. Sometimes it ends it. A collective policy that cannot tell the difference, and refuses to develop the capacity to tell the difference, is not protecting her. It is protecting itself from the discomfort of her judgment.

1. Warshaw, Carole. Mental Health Treatment for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Chicago: National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma and Mental Health, 2014.

2. Raj, Anita, and Jay Silverman. "Violence Against Immigrant Women: The Roles of Culture, Context, and Legal Immigrant Status on Intimate Partner Violence." Violence Against Women 8, no. 3 (2002): 367–98.

3. Mercy, James A., and Linda E. Saltzman. "Fatal Violence Among Spouses in the United States, 1976-85." American Journal of Public Health 79, no. 5 (1989): 595–99.

4. Campbell, Jacquelyn C. "Danger Assessment: Validation of a Lethality Risk Assessment Instrument for Intimate Partner Femicide." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24, no. 4 (2009): 653–74.

5. Wilt, Susan, Susan Illman, and Maureen BrodyField. Female Homicide Victims in New York City, 1990-1994. New York: New York City Department of Health, 1995.

6. Saltzman, Linda E., Janet L. Fanslow, Pamela M. McMahon, and Gene A. Shelley. Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999.

7. Silverman, Jay G., Anita Raj, Lorelei A. Mucci, and Jeanne E. Hathaway. "Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality." JAMA 286, no. 5 (2001): 572–79.

8. Warshaw, Carole, and Phyllis Brashler. "Mental Health Treatment for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence." In Intimate Partner Violence: A Health-Based Perspective, edited by Connie Mitchell. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

9. Boonstra, Heather D. "Advancing Sexuality Education in Developing Countries." Guttmacher Policy Review 14, no. 3 (2011): 17–23.

10. Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Daniel Webster, Jane Koziol-McLain, Carolyn Block, Doris Campbell, Mary Ann Curry, Faye Gary, et al. "Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships." American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 7 (2003): 1089–97.

11. Sullivan, Cris M., and Deborah I. Bybee. "Reducing Violence Using Community-Based Advocacy for Women with Abusive Partners." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67, no. 1 (1999): 43–53.

12. Sherman, Lawrence W., Janell D. Schmidt, and Dennis P. Rogan. Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. New York: Free Press, 1992.