PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 2 February 2001, p. e16
Conflict Between Confidentiality and Physician Reporting
Requirements Under Child Abuse Laws
, and
From the * Division of Adolescent Medicine,
Center for
Children's Support, and the § Department of Pediatrics, University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Osteopathic Medicine,
Stratford, New Jersey.
Over the past several decades,
sexual activity between unmarried adolescents and adult partners has
received increased public scrutiny, especially as it relates to teenage
pregnancy.1 Although the total adolescent birth rate has
declined over the past decade, the birth rate for teenagers younger
than 15 years has remained stable.2 Adult fathers are
responsible for one quarter of births to adolescents <15 years of age,
and they typically are nearly 9 years older than the
mothers.3
Because this sexual behavior is associated with an increase in
teenage pregnancy, with all of its associated social consequences, public policy has dictated better enforcement of laws that prohibit such activity. This is one reason for the revision and increased enforcement of many state statutory rape laws that criminalize certain
sexual activity between adolescents and adult partners. Individuals,
however, generally do not have a legal duty to report a crime. Thus,
physician reporting of such sexual behavior under these criminal
statutory rape laws is premised on ethical and other considerations.
Physicians encountering teenagers involved in sexual
relationships with adults may, however, be mandated to report such activity because of reporting requirements of child protection laws
(ie, abuse and neglect), if the sexual activity is construed as abuse
or neglect. A physician who becomes aware of sexual activity between an
adolescent and an adult partner must then decide between confidentiality and disclosure. Physicians may be ethically troubled about maintaining confidentiality when parents are unaware of such
activity, particularly if reporting to child protection
agencies is also needed. Conversely, confidentiality between
adolescents and their physicians is essential for their continued
participation in medical care.4,5 In fact, physicians who
specialize in treating adolescents prefer to maintain confidentiality
about most consensual sexual situations between adolescents and adult
partners, except for those relationships with a large age difference
between the sexual partners.6 This issue is also
confounded by the civil liability and criminal penalties that can be
incurred by physicians for failing to report behavior proscribed by
child protection laws.
We analyzed the child protection laws in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia as they relate to the potential mandatory reporting of "consensual" sexual activity between an unmarried adolescent and an adult partner (who lives in a different home and who
has no custodial control over the adolescent; Fig
1). This analysis was based on the
hypothesis that child protection laws may consider such sexual activity
to be "sexual abuse." Readers of this commentary should be aware
that: most child protection laws as they relate to sexual abuse apply
to "children" <18 years of age; these laws consider
adult "perpetrators" as persons 18 years of age or older; the type
of sexual activity that is defined as "sexual abuse" varies from
state to state; and the laws are frequently silent on the issue of
consensualness. This commentary focuses only on the issue of mandatory
reporting and does not address discretionary reporting when the
physician chooses to report because of the belief that the relationship
is harmful to the adolescent. Because some of these laws are ambiguous
and subject to differing interpretations, this commentary should not be
relied on as a source of legal advice in any particular jurisdiction.

View larger version (53K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Variations in state child protection laws as they relate to potential
mandatory reporting of "consensual" sexual activity between an
unmarried adolescent and an adult partner. Category 1 refers to states
where mandatory reporting may exist; Category 2 refers to states where
reporting may be discretionary; and Category 3 refers to states where
reporting is not mandatory.
| |
LAWS WHERE MANDATORY REPORTING MAY EXIST |
|---|
In 18 states (35%), the laws can be interpreted as requiring reporting of this "consensual" sexual activity. Some laws specifically include sexual activity between an adolescent and an adult in its definition of "sexual abuse." In other states, the laws include language that such activity is reportable if a parent "allowed ... or permitted the activity to be committed" (guardians, custodians, and adult caretakers are delegated the same responsibilities as parents). This phrase implies that reporting is predicated on parental knowledge of the behavior. An example of this category is the following state law that requires mandatory reporting of:
"abuse which includes sexual abuse, as defined in ORS chapter 163 ... ORS chapter 163 includes sexual abuse in the third degree which occurs when a person subjects another person to sexual contact and ... the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being under 18 years of age" (italics ours).7
Other variables that may affect reporting under this category include the nature of the sexual activity (eg, fondling vs kissing vs intercourse vs sodomy) and the age of the adolescent.
| |
LAWS WHERE REPORTING MAY BE DISCRETIONARY FOR THE PHYSICIAN |
|---|
In 27 states (53%), there were 2 major types of laws where one could infer that reporting is discretionary. Under the first type, the law required reporting for acts of "sexual abuse" (which may be construed to include consensual adolescent-adult sexual activity) if it results in damage to the psychological or mental welfare of the minor (italics ours). Under the second type, the term "sexual abuse" is not specifically defined. In both of these scenarios, one could argue that physicians have discretion in reporting by deciding whether the sexual behavior is either psychologically damaging to the adolescent or whether the physician believes that the behavior is "sexual abuse."
| |
LAWS WHERE REPORTING NOT MANDATORY |
|---|
In 6 states (12%), reporting does not seem to be required. Typically, the term "sexual abuse" applies only to activity involving a parent, guardian, caretaker, or other adult in a position of authority.
| |
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY, IMMUNITY, AND PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE |
|---|
Any dilemma related to reporting is confounded by additional variables in these laws. Under the child abuse laws in 43 states and the District of Columbia, a physician who desires to maintain confidentiality and who does not report proscribed activity may incur civil and criminal liability. However, the standard for not reporting in some states uses language such as "intentionally," "willingly," and "knowingly." In addition, civil liability may result from an adolescent who incurs harm because of the sexual relationship.
Under 47 of the laws, civil and criminal immunity for "good faith" reporting was provided; under 4 laws, immunity was absolute. Under 38 laws, the legal privilege of nondisclosure based on patient-physician confidentiality is not applicable for purposes of the statute (in one, the privilege is inapplicable except for psychiatrists). Thus, the laws encourage reporting by eliminating "obstacles" for not reporting.
| |
CONCLUSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Child protection statutes may contain ambiguous language that produce dilemmas for physicians who may have a legal obligation to report sexual activity between an adolescent and an adult partner, yet desire to maintain confidentiality. If a law were construed to mandate reporting for such sexual activity, a physician may adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. This may prevent any determination about whether the relationship is harmful to the adolescent. The failure to report such behavior may have the potential for civil and criminal sanctions to be imposed by regulatory agencies and/or civil liability from persons injured because of the failure to report. Furthermore, the legal privilege of patient-physician confidentiality may not protect the physician from this liability in most states.
| |
RECOMMENDATIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
As a result of this review of the child protection laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, it is apparent that there is significant ambiguity in these laws as they relate to sexual activity between adolescents and adult partners. The physician needs to balance the need for confidentiality and the protection of the adolescent patient against the potential for liability for not reporting. We recommend several general guidelines in the revisions of these laws:
Clarifications such as these will assist physicians who treat adolescent patients in understanding their obligations, if any, under these laws. Until this occurs, physicians who treat adolescent patients should familiarize themselves with the child protection laws in their jurisdiction, as they relate to adolescent-adult sexual behavior.
This commentary was peer-reviewed. sexual activity, adults, adolescents, consensual sexual situations, physician reporting.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
This commentary is based, in part, on research presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American College of Legal Medicine; March 30, 2000; San Diego, CA.
Received for publication May 8, 2000; accepted Sep 14, 2000.
Reprint requests to (L.F.-W.) Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, UMDNJ-SOM, 40 E Laurel Rd, Suite 100, Stratford, NJ 08084. E-mail: winterlb{at}umdnj.edu
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||