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 - September 14, 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: 8817
Date: 2011-02-26

Author:D F MCMAHON

Subject:RE: Greene v. Camreta

Just to clarify my question: I've followed the case and am familiar with the range of arguments presented in amici for both sides (many of the briefs asking the Supreme Court to reverse are actually submitted "in support of neither party"). I've also read some of the policy reviews and revisions that have been generated, in California and Oregon in particular, in order to adapt to the 9th circuit ruling. These include forms investigators present to schools and other measures. Many of the arguments for reversal claim the decision will make the job of investigating maltreatment impossible. What I am wondering is whether anybody has offered anecdotal or statistical evidence that there has been a dire impact in those jurisdictions where policies have been modified in response to the circuit court ruling. I think the Supreme Court has an interesting task before it--I can imagine, for example, that some kind of middle way would be required (think of the trisection created in Roe v. Wade to balance interests of the state vs. interests of a pregnant woman). I have a hard time imagining that the court would be able to come up with an opinion that would be limited to a precise set of facts rather than one that would be "anticipatory"--unless some legal minds on this list can offer any insight in that regard. It would be interesting to know how policy regarding the investigation component of child abuse might affect the very creation of data used to research child abuse. Sheri McMahon ________________________________ Subject: RE: Greene v. Camreta Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:08 -0600 From: RFreitag@mw.nccd-crc.org To: child-maltreatment-research-l@list.cornell.edu http://www.scribd.com/collections/2823030/Greene-v-Camreta-U-S-Supreme-Court-Merit-and-Amicus-Briefs The case is now before the Supreme Court, with arguments expected March 1. The link above covers briefs filed on both sides, including one by the NASW. Raelene Freitag MSW, Ph.D. Director Children's Research Center 426 S. Yellowstone Drive Madison, WI 53719 608-831-1180 www.nccd-crc.org CRC is a nonprofit social research organization and division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency Please do not send any identifying or confidential information (names, birthdates) via Email. It is possible for third parties to intercept information transmitted in an Email. Case or referral numbers (but not social security numbers) may be included where necessary. Intercepting persons cannot use these numbers to identify a client unless they have access to the host application or database. From: bounce-8481820-13366172@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-8481820-13366172@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of D F MCMAHON Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:13 AM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: Greene v. Camreta Just curious: I've looked at a range of sources regarding policy review/revision within the 9th circuit following its decision concerning child abuse interviews conducted in public schools--especially in Oregon, where the decision has been most pertinent. Is anyone aware of any attempts to assess the impact, if any, of this decision on investigations within the 9th circuit? Sheri McMahon ND

Just to clarify my question: I've followed the case and am familiar with the range of arguments presented in amici for both sides (many of the briefs asking the Supreme Court to reverse are actually submitted "in support of neither party"). I've also read some of the policy reviews and revisions that have been generated, in California and Oregon in particular, in order to adapt to the 9th circuit ruling. These include forms investigators present to schools and other measures. Many of the arguments for reversal claim the decision will make the job of investigating maltreatment impossible. What I am wondering is whether anybody has offered anecdotal or statistical evidence that there has been a dire impact in those jurisdictions where policies have been modified in response to the circuit court ruling. I think the Supreme Court has an interesting task before it--I can imagine, for example, that some kind of middle way would be required (think of the trisection created in Roe v. Wade to balance interests of the state vs. interests of a pregnant woman). I have a hard time imagining that the court would be able to come up with an opinion that would be limited to a precise set of facts rather than one that would be "anticipatory"--unless some legal minds on this list can offer any insight in that regard. It would be interesting to know how policy regarding the investigation component of child abuse might affect the very creation of data used to research child abuse. Sheri McMahon ________________________________ Subject: RE: Greene v. Camreta Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:08 -0600 From: RFreitagmw.nccd-crc.org To: child-maltreatment-research-llist.cornell.edu http://www.scribd.com/collections/2823030/Greene-v-Camreta-U-S-Supreme-Court-Merit-and-Amicus-Briefs The case is now before the Supreme Court, with arguments expected March 1. The link above covers briefs filed on both sides, including one by the NASW. Raelene Freitag MSW, Ph.D. Director Children's Research Center 426 S. Yellowstone Drive Madison, WI 53719 608-831-1180 www.nccd-crc.org CRC is a nonprofit social research organization and division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency Please do not send any identifying or confidential information (names, birthdates) via Email. It is possible for third parties to intercept information transmitted in an Email. Case or referral numbers (but not social security numbers) may be included where necessary. Intercepting persons cannot use these numbers to identify a client unless they have access to the host application or database. From: bounce-8481820-13366172list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-8481820-13366172list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of D F MCMAHON Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:13 AM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: Greene v. Camreta Just curious: I've looked at a range of sources regarding policy review/revision within the 9th circuit following its decision concerning child abuse interviews conducted in public schools--especially in Oregon, where the decision has been most pertinent. Is anyone aware of any attempts to assess the impact, if any, of this decision on investigations within the 9th circuit? Sheri McMahon ND