“I Did My Part”: Surrendering Professional Judgment through Child Maltreatment Reporting

Background: Social work scholars and practitioners have long debated the ethics of legally mandated child maltreatment reporting. While some have embraced mandated reporting laws as important to child safety (e.g., LaSelle, 2025), others have argued that mandated reporting harms families and contributes to racial disparities (Detlaff, 2025; Itzkowitz & Olson, 2022). Some have argued that “mandated supporting” should replace mandated reporting (Ray, 2026). The long-standing debate can be informed by research investigating how mandated reporters conceptualize mandated reporting. Grounded in a street-level bureaucracy perspective (Lipsky, 1980), this study investigated human service professionals’ conceptualization of mandated child maltreatment reporting. The study addressed the question: How do human service professionals perceive the legal mandate to report child maltreatment?

Methods: Taking a pragmatic qualitative approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2022), the study involved semi-structured interviews with human services professionals who were legally mandated reporters. Participants were identified through professional networks focused on child maltreatment services and prevention. Of 32 human services professionals contacted, 20 agreed to participate for a response rate of 62%. The study P.I. conducted individual interviews via Zoom lasting from 48 to 72 minutes. The interviews probed experiences filing child maltreatment reports and thoughts about mandated reporting. With interview transcripts, two researchers followed an inductive thematic coding and analysis process.

Results: Four primary themes emerged from the analysis. Professionals conceptualized mandated reporting as: (1) a way to transfer responsibility to others, noting “I did my part” so others will have responsibility to determine next steps; (2) willful surrender of practice wisdom, training, and expertise, advising “don’t think too hard” about filing reports; (3) an act involving no personal discretion, arguing that “we don’t have a choice;” and, less commonly, (4) an act that can involve discretion, noting “sometimes we can do something” other than file a report or “going through the ‘what ifs’” by considering potential consequences of reports.

Discussion: Legal mandates to report child maltreatment reflect an assumption that professionals will not act appropriately to promote child safety if they are trusted to report at their own discretion. It is concerning that well-trained human service professionals -- including social workers -- seemed to embrace relinquishing their discretion, judgment, and expertise when deciding whether to file a child maltreatment report. The surrender of judgment is especially surprising in a context in which professionals are aware that many child welfare systems face challenges in responding appropriately, adequately, equitably, and supportively to child maltreatment reports (Edwards et al., 2023; Fong,2023). Consistent with research on “passing the buck” (Steffel et al., 2016), this study’s findings suggest that a consequence of mandated reporting laws may be the subjugation of both professional judgment and child and family well-being to reflexive legal compliance. Future discussions of mandated reporting should consider the practice and policy implications if professional mandated reporters avoid exercising judgment or thinking “too hard” when filing child maltreatment reports.