DOES S.534 LAW DEPRIVE SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE OLYMPIANS OF STATE INVESTIGATION RESOURCES?

SECTION I.

“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success” Henry Ford.

Lawmakers, governments, law enforcement officers, advocates and others should work together with teamwork performing their duty for the protection of Children. Policies and procedures for Child Protection and Welfare should be straight forward. Sadly they aren’t.

“Much can be accomplished if concerned parties don’t care who gets credit for the accomplishments.” Football Coaches Blanton Collier and Bill Arnsparger.

Children are not defined by the Sport, Recreation, Exercise or the Activity in which they participate, but defined by their age of minority, less than 18 in most United States.

Children are diagnosed using the ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease 2010 in effect Oct 2015) morbidity and mortality they manifest secondary to Child Physical and Psychological Maltreatment, Sexual Abuse and Human Rights Violations.

Retired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said,  “No Sport is a nation unto its own, immune from outside interference by the justice system. No one and no Sport are above the law”. All U.S. citizens serve the Rule of Law.  [Condoleezza Rice interview, State of The Nation, Candy Crowly, CNN News, Dec 25, 2011]

Furthermore, No Child is more special or precious than any other Child. All Children are the future of the United States of America and deserve equal treatment.

Child Athlete Abuse Syndrome (see: http://www.cappaa.com/child-athlete-abuse-syndrome-forensic-definition-5 ) should be reported, investigated, litigated, due processed and resolved the same on equal grounds for all children across the naion.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services appears to believe Child Welfare and Protection and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment are statutorily authorized State Sovereign Domains. The following is USHHS publication.

The U.S. Federal Government provides financial grants to each United State to conduct their statutorily authorized Child Welfare / Protection and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Sovereign Domains.The following is their publication.

Similar understanding and financial support are not granted to U.S. Federal Government Agencies for Child Welfare / Protection and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment. S.534 Law received in the 2018 sanctioned budget $2.5 million grant (not clear if annual or once), which won’t begin to finance all the resources necessary for an effective Multidisciplinary Team S.534 Law.

As research found in “Reporting by School Personnel”:  “Disincentives” for Reporting might outnumber Incentives for the effectiveness of S.534 Law “despite federal requirements, financial incentives, and federal guidance”.  Child Olympian S.534 Law Reporting might remain ineffective and receive limited compliance:

(1) if, as described by a similar school group, ”Reporting by School Personnel”…. “ambiguities and vagueness of S.534 Law statutes are a major layer of Disincentives and influences (2), (3).

(2) “lack of incentives outnumber disincentives for mandated reporters to report suspected or known instances of Child Olympian Sexual Abuse

(3) “dynamics of U.S. Olympic culture and lack of clarity might deter reporting under the S.534 Law statutes, because

  • ‘members’ remain reluctant to file reports of known or suspected Child Sexual Abuse
  • or when they do file reports, ‘members’ might not follow procedures specified in the statutes
  • the report is “not done in the legally prescribed manner”
  • “fear of reprisals to ‘member’ or Olympians
  • feeling the report will not help
  • opposition to invasion of Olympian’s privacy.

In addition, in the example, Research from “Reporting by School Personnel” found “these practices (S.534 actual practice vs intent for reporting objective) were in clear violation of the reporting statutes as they were written and intended to be implemented. See reference:  [Intent v. Practice: Incentives and Disincentives for Child Abuse Reporting by School Personnel by Jane Rosien, Lelia Helms, and Carolyn Wanat, 1993 BYU Educ. & L.J. 102 (1993). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol1993/iss1/5]

“Need for a Team Approach:  Over the past two decades, the number of reports of child abuse and neglect has greatly increased, straining resources to investigate allegations effectively;” Another reason all resources for reporting Child Maltreatment should be united supporting the State Multidisciplinary Team concept.

Consequently, the increased work has prompted “significant outside pressure on professionals to act promptly, yet professionally and correctly, when faced with a report of Child Abuse or neglect.” S.534 Law may well struggle to keep up the pace with their limited resources.

“Research related to Child Abuse has increased dramatically in the same period. More information than ever before, in the areas of specialized child development issues, victim and offender dynamics, diagnostic imaging, traumatic memory, linguistics, forensic pathology, and others, is available to help practitioners discover the truth of a report.” S.534 access to specialized information perhaps might not be timely.

“Moreover, to meet the competing demands of child protection, due process, and family preservation, laws have been repeatedly changed and refined in the areas of evidence, procedure, and definitions related to abuse and neglect. The existence of such abundant yet diverse and technical data and legal requirements places significant demands upon professionals who investigate and prosecute these increasingly difficult cases.”

“No single profession or State Agency {possibly Federal Agency Safe Sport S.534} has the ability to respond adequately to any allegation of child maltreatment. Indeed, several professions and State agencies are mandated to report or investigate suspicions of child abuse and neglect or to provide services to abused children or the perpetrators of abuse. It is now well accepted that the best response to the challenge of child abuse and neglect investigations is the formation of an Multidisciplinary Teams (MDT).”

“Practice and experience clearly demonstrate that children and their families, communities, and the professionals serving them benefit greatly from the existence of an appropriately functioning MDT. The best mechanism to ensure that government fulfills its obligations to protect children and bring to justice those responsible for mistreating them is the cooperation, coordination, and collaboration of the responsible agencies in an investigative MDT.”  [Forming a Multidisciplinary Team to Investigate Child Abuse, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Second Printing March 2000 NCJ 170020]

This publisher was taught, during Child Abuse Recognition Education, (C.A.R.E.) training 2009 (training to travel to doctor’s community offices and teach the doctor and staff how to recognize Child Abuse) to Report Child Abuse to the County Attorney, the chief law enforcement officer in their state county and CPS to begin the investigative process of the MDT. From those 2 departments requests and information will be disseminated as the process for justice moves forward.

Cherry-picking one group, enacting special laws for them, inadequate laws to some critics, who believe state laws are more appropriate, less ambiguous and statutorily authorized, than S.534 Law, and allocating federal funds in support of the new S.534 Law are a disservice to Children and the Overall Child Protective System and discriminatory.

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [Fundamental Principles of Olylmpism]

Does S.534 Law, The Safe Sport Act, violate the Civil Rights and Equal Protection Clause of male Olympians and non-Olympian Children?

“A horrified world recently watched dozens of women and girls, some of them Olympians, describe in detail how Larry Nassar, the gymnastics doctor, had sexually abused them for decades as layers of elite athletic organizations failed to stop it.” This tragedy was horrific.

So this year, for the first time, there is an organized and advertised contingent of offices designed to help sexual assault victims dotted around the sprawling Olympics venue, from clinics that cater to world-class athletes to Sister Droste’s four trailers, organized by the local community for the army of 14,000 volunteers, most of them young, 70% of them female. [At the #metoo Olympics, organizers confront sexual abuse, by Claire Galofaro, AP Sports Writer Stephen Wade, Feb. 12, 2018 USA Today]

This reporter applauds the response to the Nassar Tragedy. Girls and women Olympians should be safer and less traumatized by sexual offenders. But is there hope for Olympian and non-Olympian boys and men, who suffer or have suffered Child and Youth Athlete Abuse Syndrome?

“Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment is to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born.[57]

“A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term “child” does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law.”  [Children’s Rights, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School]

Federal Statutes: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -Civil Rights of Children, Civil action for deprivation of rights

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)”

42 U.S. Code Chapter 67 – CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT AND ADOPTION REFORM

SUBCHAPTER III – COMMUNITY-BASED GRANTS FOR THE PREVENTION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT (§§ 5116 to 5116i)

42 U.S. Code § 5116 – (a) Purpose and authority: It is the purpose of this subchapter—(1) to support community-based efforts to develop, operate, expand, enhance, and coordinate initiatives, programs, and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support the coordination of resources and activities, to better strengthen and support families to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect; and

(2) to foster an understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of diverse populations in order to be effective in preventing and treating child abuse and neglect.

(b) Authority The Secretary shall make grants under this subchapter on a formula basis to the entity designated by the State as the lead entity (referred to in this subchapter as the “lead entity”) under section 5116a(1) of this title for the purpose of—

(1)developing, operating, expanding, and enhancing community-based and prevention-focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and neglect that are accessible, effective, culturally appropriate, and build upon existing strengths

(3) financing the start-up, maintenance, expansion, or redesign of specific community based  child abuse and neglect prevention program services (such as respite care services, child abuse and neglect prevention activities, disability services, mental health services, substance abuse treatment services, domestic violence services, housing services, transportation, adult education, home visiting and other similar services) identified by the inventory and description of current services required under section 5116d(3) [1] of this title as an unmet need, and integrated with the network of community-based child abuse and neglect  prevention  programs to the extent practicable given funding levels and community priorities;

(5) financing public information activities that focus on the healthy and positive development of parents and children and the promotion of child abuse and neglect prevention activities.  (Pub. L. 93–247, title II, § 201, as added Pub. L. 104–235, title I, § 121, Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3080; amended Pub. L. 108–36, title I, § 121(a), (b), June 25, 2003, 117 Stat. 813; Pub. L. 111–320, title I, § 132, Dec. 20, 2010, 124 Stat. 3478.)  [Children’s Rights, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School]

Furthermore, an efficiently functioning MDT appears beyond the scope, capacity, capability of S.534 Law and limited funding for several reasons:

  1. 534 Law indirectly ignores the rights of non-Olympian Children
  2. by Confusing Child Abuse State jurisdiction with Federal jurisdiction
  3. Muddling state sovereignty for Child Welfare
  4. Blurrring Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), originally enacted in 1974 (Public Law 93-247), which has been amended several times and most recently amended and reauthorized by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act December 20, 2010.
  5. Distracting and confusing parties seeking current Child Protective and Welfare public policy
  6. while S.534 Law appears to be discriminatory on the one hand, it appears to Deprive Child Olympians their Rights to access complete State Child Protective and Welfare Laws.
  7. Child Olympians are not isolated on an island, not above and outside the Rule of Law
  8. Should Not be isolated from Sovereign, Inherent State Power for Child Protection
  9. Nor Child protective Services / Social Services
  10. Nor isolated from Child Protection System every hour of the day, 24/7
  11. The Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) approach in combating Child Maltreatment can involve not only the Child Protection System, but possibly, when necessary, all the law enforcement necessary, specially trained child abuse police officers, adult criminal justice system, juvenile/family court system, mental health, medical professions, and many more
  12. The integration of the strengths of all who provide state services to abused and neglected children and their families provide successful Child Abuse investigations and resolutions. MDTs are readily available to State investigations. S.534 might not have ready access.

“”> Parens Patriae [Latin, Parent of the country] the doctrine that grants Sovereignty, the Inherent Power and Authority of the State, to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

“In the United States, the Parens Patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs.

“The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized.

“This Sovereign, inherent power is generally supplemented by Federal legislative acts that define the scope of child protection and guide the implementation of the laws in a state.  1.

Concern exists for Implementation of 4 major areas of S.534 Law. Additional areas of concern might emerge later regarding its implementation.

  1. A child Abuse Report is not an accusation, but a call for an investigation of the ‘who, what, when and where circumstances’ and a call for Due Process.
  • “”> A child who is suspected to be the victim of abuse is at risk of further serious harm, physical, emotional and additional sexual abuse without appropriate intervention by a child welfare agency / Child Protective Services.”
  • “As primary caregivers, physicians, especially pediatricians, are often the first to suspect or learn of instances of such abuse.
  • Child welfare laws throughout the U.S. obligate physicians who suspect or learn of child abuse to report such abuse to the appropriate State Child Welfare Agency.
  • In some states, failure to properly report suspected abuse exposes physicians to criminal prosecution.”
  • Physicians, who suspect abuse and fail to follow state guidelines, also expose themselves to the risk of a future lawsuit.
  1. S.534 Law has not mentioned or guaranteed Child Abuse Reporter Anonymity and Confidentiality. See Section II. below: “a mechanism by which a national governing body or paralympic sports organization can—“(i) share confidentially a report of suspected child abuse of an amateur athlete  with the Center, which in turn, may share with relevant national governing bodies, Paralympic sports organizations, and other entities; This is a disincentive to report.
  • “”> Most States maintain toll-free telephone numbers for receiving reports of abuse or neglect. Reports may be made anonymously to most of these reporting numbers, but States find it helpful to their investigations to know the identity of reporters when volunteered.
  • Doctors can use these numbers, too.
  • For State-specific information about these hotlines, see Information Gateway’s State Child Abuse Reporting Numbers at https://www. childwelfare.gov/organizations/?CWIGFunctionsaction=rols:main. dspROL&rolType=Custom&RS_ID= 5.”
  • S.534 Law offers no convenient, incentive Hotline access.
  • “”> In U.S. current law, all jurisdictions have provisions in statute to maintain the confidentiality of abuse and neglect records.
  • The identity of the reporter is specifically protected from disclosure to the alleged perpetrator in 41 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico.20 20 The statutes in Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Virgin Islands do not specifically protect reporter identity but do provide for confidentiality of records in general.”
  • This protection is maintained even when other information from the report may be disclosed. See Section II. below “a mechanism by which a national governing body or paralympic sports organization can—“(i) share confidentially a report of suspected child abuse of an amateur athlete  with the Center, which in turn, may share with relevant national governing bodies, Paralympic sports organizations, and other entities;
  • Release of the reporter’s identity is allowed in some jurisdictions under specific circumstances or to specific departments or officials, for example, when information is needed for conducting an investigation or family assessment or upon a finding that the reporter knowingly made a false report (in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia). In some jurisdictions (California, Florida, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Guam), the reporter can waive confidentiality and give consent to the release of his/her name.””<
  1. Child Abuse Reporter Immunity from HIPAA violation has not been assured in S.534 Law.
  • “”>The duty to report suspected sexual abuse is not limited to small children.
  • Often, laws require that any suspected abuse of a youngster under age 18 must be reported to the appropriate Child Welfare Agency.
  • Under these laws, physicians are prohibited from informing a child’s parent or caretaker that the child sought reproductive or abortion counseling or services. Violating these confidentiality laws can expose a physician to civil, criminal, or administrative sanctions.”

Child Abuse Reporter Anonymity / Confidentiality and Child Abuse Reporter Immunity from HIPAA violations after filing a Report are important Child Abuse Reporter incentives.

(See in Section II. Below: 1. HIPAA is not mentioned in S.534. (g) Immunity for good faith reporting and associated actions…… 2. Immunity shall not be accorded to persons acting in bad faith. 3. Ambiguous: Why would a court not dismiss a suit because the claim doesn’t exist, denied on the merits, as a matter of law? Is S.534 Immunity a matter of law or not?)

Reporters might be more likely to Report in accordance with State Child Protection Laws, where they reside, rather than S.534 Safe Sport Law out of state, the details of which are not ‘crystal clear’, when Child Olympians are suspected Victims of Sexual Abuse.

  1. Child Olympians are exposed to every possible human and some non-human (it seems to non-Olympians) situation. Child Olympians are not invisible, not isolated on an island as many would prefer and others have tried to correct but failed, isolated from outside legal authority and intervention.
  • No Child Olympian should be ‘left behind’, deprived of all the State Child Abuse Resources available.
  • “”>For complete comprehensive intervention, every imaginable Childhood dilemma must be included, taken into consideration and managed when they present themselves by S.534 i.e. pregnancy, child birth, marriage, suicide/or attempted, death, gun violence, arrest, school work/attendance, poverty, discrimination, drug addiction, domestic violence, domestic sexual abuse, mental illness, acute and chronic illness, medical care, sexually transmitted disease, foster care, prostitution, sex trafficking, and on and on. 7.
  •  Authority governing every possible legal situation has not been described or made evident in S.534 Law.
  • The possibility for Victim removal to a safe place, if necessary, has not been clearly defined in S.534. Conscientious removal would require predetermined vital information needed to tailor a personalized, practical plan for a safe place for each victims unique situation, descriptions not yet publicized, possibly not available, in S.534 Law.
  1. Authority for a protective order against the Offender for temporary protection from abuse has not been described.
  2. Non-Federal, State Juvenile and Family Court, have long been established for victim safe place orders and protection orders from offenders.
  3. “”> Child Protective Services are currently available across America, billions of dollars are devoted to child welfare, and thousands of professionals do their best to help vulnerable children. Isolating Olympian Children form this assistance is a disservice.
  4. The Child Protection System protects children every hour of the day. Social workers/CPS are on call and on duty 24/7.
  5. S.534 Law has not described an Emergency Medical Service and Emergency Social Service system.
  • A Short History of Child Protection in America, American Bar Association by John E.B. Myers:
  • Forty years ago, child protection pioneer Vincent De Francis lamented, “No state and no community has developed a Child Protective Service program adequate in size to meet the service needs of all reported cases of child neglect, abuse and exploitation.” 54
  • What would De Francis say today? I believe he would say that although today’s child protection system has many problems, the contemporary system is a vast improvement over the incomplete patchwork that existed in the 1960s.
  • Unfortunately, the public seldom hears about child protection’s successes.
  • Indeed, the only time child protection makes the front page or the evening news is when something goes terribly wrong: social workers fail to remove an endangered child who ends up dead, or social workers remove children when they should not.
  • Both scenarios-over- and under intervention-are inevitable in the difficult work of child protection.
  • It is the Multidisciplinary Team that is our best tool in combating child maltreatment.
  • Yet, the fact that the public hears only about child protection’s failings undermines confidence in the system.
  • The truth is that the system saves lives and futures.
  • As you read the above sentence, a social worker somewhere is making a decision that will protect a child. As we look back across history, it is clear that the effortss to protect children are not a story of failure, but a story of progress and hope.
  • The child protection system is far from perfect, and much remains to be done, but, at the same time, much has been accomplished. [52. See id. 53. See id. 54. DE FRANCIS, supra note 16, at 11. HeinOnline — 42 Fam. L.Q. 462 2008-2009 A Short History of Child Protection in America]
  1. “”>In the final analysis, the skills and judgments required of law enforcement officers in response to child abuse cases are significantly different than that expected of officers in the investigation of most criminal activity. Factors that set apart child abuse cases are:
  2. At the onset of the investigation, officers must not assume that abuse, and therefore a crime, has occurred. The investigation must not just seek who is responsible, but must first establish that what has happened constitutes child abuse as defined in State law.
  3. Officers must communicate effectively with children in child abuse cases far more often than in any other class of crime. The child, particularly in sexual abuse cases, may be the only witness to the crime (beside the perpetrator).
  4. The officer must share power and authority with staff of other investigative agencies who have an equal responsibility to investigate allegations of child abuse.
  5. CPS staff must be viewed and developed as allies, rather than competitors or impediments in the criminal investigative process.
  6. Officers must often defer to the judgments of other professionals in assessing the evidence before them, including physicians, coroners, or mental health professionals.
  7. The officer may find that the case is affected by more judicial systems than any other class of crime he/she is likely to confront. It is not uncommon for the criminal investigation and prosecution to be influenced by the juvenile or family court judge, the divorce judge, or administrative bodies such as licensing review boards or State CPS due process systems.
  8. Ultimately law enforcement and the criminal justice system alone cannot successfully confront child abuse. Likewise, the child protection system or the mental health or medical professions cannot deal effectively with this problem alone. It is only through the effective integration of the strengths of all who provide services to abused and neglected children and their families that successful outcomes can be achieved.
  9. For this reason, officers involved in the protection of children, either as a function of their patrol duties or as a special investigative assignment, must seek ways to build effective relationships and alliances with the other systems involved in child protection.
  • “Law enforcement officers cannot isolate themselves in their own system and expect to address this problem effectively. Officers who may be experienced in other aspects of law enforcement can only be effective if they acquire the special skills and knowledge needed for this work. While some officers may have natural abilities with children, special training promotes understanding of the special developmental limitations and abilities of growing children and positively influences the investigative and fact finding process. 63
  1. “Officers must also be prepared for the special emotional toll that child abuse cases may exact from professionals involved. Failure to fully appreciate this aspect can lead to early burnout, but may also cloud judgment and objectivity. The potential for such influences to adversely affect the officer’s performance can be mitigated through effective coordination with the other agencies and professions actively involved in the protection of children.
  2. It is the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) that is our best tool in combating child maltreatment,<”” 6.
  3. which has not yet been defined and guidelined in S.534 Law as many of the other concerns outlined before have not been.

Section II. below which references S.534 Law, quoted in its exact words, reveals the ambiguous, uncertain, disorganized mechanisms, policies and procedures listed for  ‘development’ in what appears to be an upstart “patchwork” Law (Myer)

S.534 Law does not embrace and dedicate all resources to the structured, experienced states’ ‘Multidisciplinary Team’ concept, which promotes Child Abuse Prevention, Protection, Intervention Services and Child Maltreatment reduction for all Children across the nation.

Complete eradication is impossible. The current system is not perfect. However, the state system has continued the past ~50 years to develop, and is currently available in each United State.” (Myer).

S.534 Law, it appears from the best internet sources, will begin patching pieces, an isolated system, anew from ground up, for suspected Abuse of Olympian Child Athletes. It is feared to be another bureaucratic obstructive, discriminatory layer, hindering Child Abuse justice. (IMHSMO, but this publisher reserves the right to edit opinions if and when clarity presents itself, possibly with more detailed language.)

The S.534 Law questions and concerns herein published might offer improvements in the Child Olympian Sexual Abuse Crisis now at hand.

It possibly will assist Child Athlete Abuse Syndrome Reporters in their decision-making-process for the most appropriate method for Reporting suspected Child Maltreatments, Sexual Abuse and other legal decisions.

Personally speaking, this publisher prefers to Report Child Abuse to the County Attorney, the chief law enforcement officer in the county and the CPS, social services, within the state the suspected Child Victim resides to initiate the MDT investigative process, which was the method for Reporting Child Abuse, taught, during his 2009 Child Abuse Recognition Education, (C.A.R.E.) training mentioned previously,

Once reported to the County Attorney and CPS, consistent with section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (§20341),  those 2 entities will collaborate and move the MDT investigative process expeditiously forward.

S.534 Law descriptive terms are from §20341 for Child Abuse Reporting, which the new Law references: 

(d) Agency designated to receive report and action to be taken……investigations shall be conducted jointly by social services and law enforcement personnel. CPS is social services. The County Attorney is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county. 

The County Attorney and CPS, as indicated, will report the suspected incident(s) to the Center for Safe Sport.

References:

  1. [Parens Patriae – Doctrine, Children, Protect, and Treatment – Jrank, Articleshttp://law.jrank.org/pages/9014/Parens-Patriae.html#ixzz5AfckgnMa]
  2. [Excerpted from The Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make: And How to Avoid Them Edited by Steven Babitsky, Esq. and James J. Mangraviti, Esq. (©2005 SEAK, Inc.) by karen@seak.comin SEAK]
  3. [Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau]
  4. [Excerpted from The Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make: And How to Avoid Them Edited by Steven Babitsky, Esq. and James J. Mangraviti, Esq. (©2005 SEAK, Inc.) by karen@seak.comin SEAK]
  5. [A Short History of Child Protection in America, American Bar Association, John E.B. Myers, Distinguished Professor and Scholar, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 1. For those interested in in-depth treatment of the history of child protection, I have written three overlapping books on the subject: CHILD PROTECTION IN AMERICA: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE (2006); A HISTORY OF CHILD PROTECTION IN AMERICA (2004) [hereinafter A HISTORY]; and CHILD PROTECTION IN AMERICA: A HISTORY (manuscript available from the author; jmyers @pacific.edu). See also Marvin Ventrell, The History of Child Welfare Law, in CHILD WELFARE LAW AND PRACTICE: REPRESENTING CHILDREN, PARENTS, AND STATE AGENCIES IN ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND DEPENDENCY CASES 113-42 (Marvin Ventrell & Donald N. Duquette eds., 2005). HeinOnline, Family Law Quarterly, Volume 42, Number 3, Fall 2008]
  6. [The Role of Law Enforcement in the Response to Child Abuse and Neglect Donna Pence Charles Wilson 1992 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect This manual was developed and produced by The Circle, Inc., McLean, VA, under Contract No. HHS-105-88-1702.
  7. [Invisible Children, Kids At Risk Action, KARA 2017]

Section II.

  1. 534 Text {{{ reeks with ambiguous, uncertain, disorganized mechanisms, policies and procedures as described in the Text of S.534 below. (IMHSMO, but this publisher reserves the right to edit opinions if and when clarity presents itself, possibly with more detailed language.)

Professor Myers stated “The contemporary ‘Child Protection System’ is a vast improvement over the ‘incomplete patchwork’ that existed in the 1960s.

“Interdisciplinary teams combating child maltreatment with Child Protective Services are currently available across America. Billions of dollars are devoted to child welfare, and thousands of professionals do their best to help vulnerable children.” [A Short History of Child Protection in America, American Bar Association, John E.B. Myers, Family Law Quarterly, Volume 42, Number 3, Fall 2008]

Isolating Olympian Children, who are suspected victims of Child Abuse from the now existing, experienced Interdisciplinary Teams in each state, who are combating child maltreatment with Child Protective Service assistance with a novice “patchwork” (Myers) S.534 Law is a dangerous disservice to the Olympian Children, other Children, Child Protective Services in general and everyone associated with Olympian and other Athletes, (in MHSMO).

S.534 is the result of the failure of U.S. Olympics to protect Child Olympians from all types of ‘Child Athlete Abuse Syndrome’, a short title for Child Physical and Psychological Maltreatment, Sexual Abuse and Children’s‘ Civil Rights violations.

Rather than incorporate and embrace the already existing Multidisciplinary State Team method, combating ‘Child Athlete Abuse Syndrome’ with Child Protective Services available across America, S.534 was created from scratch with patchworked-pieces, as cases presented themselves.

S.534 Law is another layer of bureaucratic obstacles “addressing and remedying” Olympian Child Sexual Abuse.

S.534 Law takes a ‘select group’ of Child Olympians back into the “patchwork era” of Justice for Child Sexual Abuse and Protect Services.”

See the following “patchwork” S.534 Law below in the exact words revealing the ambiguous, uncertain, disorganized mechanisms, policies and procedures to be developed; rather than the “structured, experienced, Multidisciplinary Teams, “working together for success” (Henry Ford) which developed over the past 50 years.”

  • 220542.Additional duties.

“(a) In General.—The Center shall—

“(1) develop training, oversight practices, policies, and procedures for implementation by a national governing body or paralympic sports organization to prevent the abuse, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, of any amateur athlete; and

“(2) include in the policies and procedures developed under section 220541(a)(3)—

TITLE I—PROTECTING YOUNG VICTIMS FROM SEXUAL ABUSE

SEC. 101. REQUIRED REPORTING OF CHILD AND SEXUAL ABUSE.

(a) Reporting Requirement.—Section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20341) is amended—

34 USC 20341: Child abuse reporting Text contains those laws in effect on March 24, 2018

  1. Child abuse reporting

 (d) Agency designated to receive report and action to be taken

For all Federal lands and all federally operated (or contracted) facilities in which children are cared for or reside and for all covered individuals,

  • the Attorney General shall designate an agency to receive and investigate the reports described in subsection (a).
  • By formal written agreement, the designated agency may be a non-Federal agency.

When such reports are received by social services or health care agencies, and involve allegations of sexual abuse, serious physical injury, or life-threatening neglect of a child, there shall be an immediate referral of the report to a law enforcement agency with authority to take emergency action to protect the child.

All reports received shall be promptly investigated, and whenever appropriate, investigations shall be conducted jointly by social services and law enforcement personnel, with a view toward avoiding unnecessary multiple interviews with the child.

(e) Reporters and recipient of report involving children and homes of members of the Armed Forces

(1) Recipients of reports

In the case of an incident described in subsection (a) involving a child in the family or home of member of the Armed Forces (regardless of whether the incident occurred on or off a military installation), the report required by subsection (a) shall be made to the appropriate child welfare services agency or agencies of the State in which the child resides.

The Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy) shall jointly, in consultation with the chief executive officers of the States, designate the child welfare service agencies of the States that are appropriate recipients of reports pursuant to this subsection.

Any report on an incident pursuant to this subsection is in addition to any other report on the incident pursuant to this section.

 (g) Immunity for good faith reporting and associated actions

“All persons who, acting in good faith, make a report by subsection (a), or otherwise provide information or assistance in connection with a report, investigation, or legal intervention pursuant to a report, shall be immune from civil and criminal liability arising out of such actions. There shall be a presumption that any such persons acted in good faith.

“If a person is sued because of the person’s performance of one of the above functions, and the defendant prevails in the litigation, the court may order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal expenses. Immunity shall not be accorded to persons acting in bad faith. (Ambiguous: Why would a court not dismiss the suit because the claim doesn’t exist as a matter of law? Is immunity a matter of law or not?) 

{{{The following insert representing more ambiguous, confusing explanations, (IMHSMO). This is an Explanation by ‘Champion Women, Advocacy For Girls and Women in Sport’:

 “The statute provides for a qualified privilege {another new term for definition, not defined in S.534 The Safe Sport Act – mbmssrmd} to speak during a SafeSport investigation. That means witnesses and victims can’t be sued for defamation unless they act with “actual malice,” a legal term meaning they knew they were giving false testimony. Making a mistake during the investigation, like forgetting times or dates, won’t destroy the privilege.”

Champion Women U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Policies at a Glance

2. “The club-sport and Olympic family are required to report sexual abuse, suspected Abuse and may not retaliate against those who report sexual abuse……”

Reports should be made to the authorities (?) and can be made to SafeSport by phone: 720-524-5640 or online link:  https://safesport.org/respons-resolution/report

7. “Victims, parents and peers can: Tell the police, their doctor, their mental health practitioner, school teacher, principal or Title IX Coordinator. They can also call SafeSport and report the abuse: 720-520-5640 [Champion Women U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Policies at a Glance] }}}

“Bloomberg Law Definition of Qualified privilege:  is a type of defense taken in defamation actions. An otherwise defamatory statement gets qualified privilege protection when the communication/statement is :

1) made in good faith; and
2) on a subject matter in which the person making it has an interest, or in reference to which he/she has a duty; and
3) made to a person or persons having a corresponding interest or duty, even though it contains matter which, without this privilege, would be slanderous; and
4) made without malice.
The defense of qualified privilege permits free communication in certain relationships without the risk of an action for defamation. The person communicating the statement usually has a legal, moral or social duty to make it and the recipient will have a corresponding interest in receiving it.”

Now for the Psychology: “Explanations are ubiquitous and diverse in nature. Humans are driven to acquire and provide explanations. The processes of constructing and understanding explanations are intrinsic to our mental lives from an early age, with some sense of explanatory insight present before children are even able to speak.”

‘Exerts’ have explained and explained ‘The Safe Sport Act’, S.534 Law.  From a review of the wonders of an explanation: “Explanations are sought after and provided not only in interpersonal interactions of more than one person, but also within the mind of a single individual.

The causes for the considerable diversity in the many kinds of explanations are huge. The causal and relational complexity inherent in much of the world makes many explanations necessarily incomplete or flawed.

People use a wide variety of experiments, facts, quasi facts, evidence and pseudo-evidence to support or counter bad explanations and choose among competing explanations that may be more reasonable.

However, the explanations for the explanations do not prevent us from frequently and dramatically overestimating the depth of our explanatory understanding.   [Keil FC. Explanation and Understanding. Annual review of psychology. 2006;57:227-254.]

“The longer and more complicated the explanation, the less competent the explanation of the phenomena being explained.” Chinese Proverb.

One cannot rely on the rationale of a dog’s bark; only the lashing of its rational tail.  [The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuition approach to moral judgment, Haidt J., Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34.]

The relatively static short stubbed dog tail signals are more easily understood and require less explanation.

Continue TITLE I., Sec 101. from above insert:

“(A) a requirement that all adult members of a national governing body, a paralympic sports organization, or a facility under the jurisdiction of a national governing body or paralympic sports organization, and all adults authorized by such members to interact with an amateur athlete, report immediately any allegation of child abuse of an amateur athlete who is a minor to—

“(i) the Center, whenever such members or adults learn of facts leading them to suspect reasonably that an amateur athlete who is a minor has suffered an incident of child abuse; and

“(ii) law enforcement consistent with section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20341);

“(B) a mechanism, approved by a trained expert on child abuse, that allows a complainant to report easily an incident of child abuse to the Center, a national governing body, law enforcement authorities, or other appropriate authorities;

“(C) reasonable procedures to limit one-on-one interactions between an amateur athlete who is a minor and an adult (who is not the minor’s legal guardian) at a facility under the jurisdiction of a national governing body or paralympic sports organization without being in an observable and interruptible distance from another adult, except under emergency circumstances;

“(D) procedures to prohibit retaliation, by any national governing body or paralympic sports organization, against any individual who makes a report under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B);

“(E) oversight procedures, including regular and random audits conducted by subject matter experts unaffiliated with, and independent of, a national governing body or a paralympic sports organization of each national governing body and paralympic sports organization to ensure that policies and procedures developed under that section are followed correctly and that consistent training is offered and given to all adult members who are in regular contact with amateur athletes who are minors, and subject to parental consent, to members who are minors, regarding prevention of child abuse; and

“(F) a mechanism by which a national governing body or paralympic sports organization can—

“(i) share confidentially a report of suspected child abuse of an amateur athlete who is a minor by a member of a national governing body or Paralympic sports organization, or an adult authorized by a national governing body, Paralympic sports organization, or an amateur sports organization to interact with an amateur athlete who is a minor, with the Center, which in turn, may share with relevant national governing bodies, Paralympic sports organizations, and other entities; and

“(ii) withhold providing to an adult who is the subject of an allegation of child abuse authority to interact with an amateur athlete who is a minor until the resolution of such allegation.

All federal actions should be focused together (Henry Ford) promoting, advocating and funding already existing Interdisciplinary State Teams combating Child Maltreatment with Child Protective Services across America to ensure that laws in our states pertaining to Child Abuse and Neglect are strengthened to protect all children.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *