Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Browse or Search All Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages (10,000+). The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - June 11, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8275
Date: 2009-09-24

Author:Poha Kane

Subject:Re: indicated reports vs unfounded reports

On 9/22/09, DeanTong@aol.com wrote:

> So are you saying that five or eight or eleven unfounded abuse reports

> against an accused individual or family may or does equal a moderate or

> higher

> risk to the alleged child victims for actual abuse or for perhaps

> emotional/psychological abuse of the kids due to false allegations?



Mr. Tong, the poster did not say "false allegations."



A child can be injured, as was posted by another person here, and deny

the accused did the harm, yet the harm was done.



That is a child at risk even if charges can't be brought against an

alleged perpetrator.



There are many such cases I think. Please stick to the facts, and

don't change the wording of the person you are questioning. It simply

leads to conflict and loss of objectively and clarity.



Some will think the person actually said, false allegations, when they did not.



Unfounded does not mean false in all or even the majority of such

cases necessarily.



False allegations are a subcategory, another category, of unfounded.

But there are many kinds. I hope I am clear enough on this.



Thank you in advance for your consideration of my position on this question.



Kane



> Dean Tong, MSc., Forensic Trial Consultant

> 604 Brentwood Place

> Brandon, FL 33511

>

> 813.657.4930, Ph/Fax

> 813.417.5362, Cell

>

> DeanTong@aol.com

> TongDean56@gmail.com (E-Mail Attached Files, Only)

> _http://www.abuse-excuse.com/_ (http://www.abuse-excuse.com/)

> _http://www.DeanTong.com_ (http://www.deantong.com/)

>

> Disclaimer: Dean Tong is not an attorney. He is not licensed to give legal

> advice and nothing herein should be construed to be legal advice. If you

> need legal assistance please consult with an attorney in your area by

> checking here _http://www.abanet.org/lawyerlocator/searchlawyer.html_

> (http://www.abanet.org/lawyerlocator/searchlawyer.html) .

>

>

> In a message dated 9/22/2009 11:00:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> crystalle.williams@dhhs.nc.gov writes:

>

> The North Carolina Structured Family Risk Assessment of Abuse/Neglect also

> counts the number of reports, not substantiations or findings of "Services

> Not Recommended," that have ever been made in regards to the children in

> the family, to determine the likelihood of risk. Additionally, there is

> another item on the tool that asks how many of those reported cases were

> substantiated or found to be "in need of services," or those when

> out-of-home

> placement was necessary.

> So, both- number reports made and actual findings- are considered in the

> overall level of risk to the children.

> To respond to your question about vulnerability, I think that in some

> cases, children are just as vulnerable when there is a history of unfounded

> reports. Social workers, of course, don't know this at the time; they go on

> the information gathered during the CPS Assessment. For example, when we

> assess reports involving domestic violence or substance abuse, it is common

> for

> a report to be unsubstantiated or found to not need services due to the

> secrecy, denial, and fear involved for all family members, but that doesn't

> mean that the children are not at risk, and may be hurt later. If the

> actual safety factors are not revealed during the assessment, then it is

> possible for us to miss it, therefore unknowingly leaving a vulnerable

> child at

> risk.

> Crystalle Williams, MSW

> NC Division of Social Services

> Staff Development Team

> Child Welfare Section

> 704-399-8160

> crystalle.williams@dhhs.nc.gov

>

>

>





On 9/22/09, DeanTongaol.com wrote:

> So are you saying that five or eight or eleven unfounded abuse reports

> against an accused individual or family may or does equal a moderate or

> higher

> risk to the alleged child victims for actual abuse or for perhaps

> emotional/psychological abuse of the kids due to false allegations?



Mr. Tong, the poster did not say "false allegations."



A child can be injured, as was posted by another person here, and deny

the accused did the harm, yet the harm was done.



That is a child at risk even if charges can't be brought against an

alleged perpetrator.



There are many such cases I think. Please stick to the facts, and

don't change the wording of the person you are questioning. It simply

leads to conflict and loss of objectively and clarity.



Some will think the person actually said, false allegations, when they did not.



Unfounded does not mean false in all or even the majority of such

cases necessarily.



False allegations are a subcategory, another category, of unfounded.

But there are many kinds. I hope I am clear enough on this.



Thank you in advance for your consideration of my position on this question.



Kane



> Dean Tong, MSc., Forensic Trial Consultant

> 604 Brentwood Place

> Brandon, FL 33511

>

> 813.657.4930, Ph/Fax

> 813.417.5362, Cell

>

> DeanTongaol.com

> TongDean56gmail.com (E-Mail Attached Files, Only)

> _http://www.abuse-excuse.com/_ (http://www.abuse-excuse.com/)

> _http://www.DeanTong.com_ (http://www.deantong.com/)

>

> Disclaimer: Dean Tong is not an attorney. He is not licensed to give legal

> advice and nothing herein should be construed to be legal advice. If you

> need legal assistance please consult with an attorney in your area by

> checking here _http://www.abanet.org/lawyerlocator/searchlawyer.html_

> (http://www.abanet.org/lawyerlocator/searchlawyer.html) .

>

>

> In a message dated 9/22/2009 11:00:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> crystalle.williamsdhhs.nc.gov writes:

>

> The North Carolina Structured Family Risk Assessment of Abuse/Neglect also

> counts the number of reports, not substantiations or findings of "Services

> Not Recommended," that have ever been made in regards to the children in

> the family, to determine the likelihood of risk. Additionally, there is

> another item on the tool that asks how many of those reported cases were

> substantiated or found to be "in need of services," or those when

> out-of-home

> placement was necessary.

> So, both- number reports made and actual findings- are considered in the

> overall level of risk to the children.

> To respond to your question about vulnerability, I think that in some

> cases, children are just as vulnerable when there is a history of unfounded

> reports. Social workers, of course, don't know this at the time; they go on

> the information gathered during the CPS Assessment. For example, when we

> assess reports involving domestic violence or substance abuse, it is common

> for

> a report to be unsubstantiated or found to not need services due to the

> secrecy, denial, and fear involved for all family members, but that doesn't

> mean that the children are not at risk, and may be hurt later. If the

> actual safety factors are not revealed during the assessment, then it is

> possible for us to miss it, therefore unknowingly leaving a vulnerable

> child at

> risk.

> Crystalle Williams, MSW

> NC Division of Social Services

> Staff Development Team

> Child Welfare Section

> 704-399-8160

> crystalle.williamsdhhs.nc.gov

>

>

>