4.8.1 Credibility of Evidence | 4.8.2 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from All Sources | 4.8.3 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from Professional Sources | 4.8.4 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from Non-Professional Sources (Adult) | 4.8.5 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from Non-Professional Sources (Children) | 4.8.6 Using Evidence to Reach an Investigative Finding | 4.8.7 Factors to Be Considered | 4.8.8 Contacting the Assigned Service Worker
The CPSW, in consultation with the supervisor, analyzes the information gathered in the context of the key decisions; that is, he or she frames questions that will help evaluate that information. Examples of contextual questions related to safety and risk are:
Analysis by the CPSW is the process of careful examination and scrutiny of key information. The analysis is informed by the CPSW and supervisor's professional knowledge about patterns of behavior in the context of crisis, stress, family history and the like. In the majority of cases the family will be the primary protectors of the child after the CPSW has ended his or her involvement. The analysis, therefore, should also include the family whenever possible. This means the CPSW must take the family's view of the situation seriously and, most importantly, involve the family in developing strategies for protecting the child.
NOTE: Alleged perpetrators of abuse may express remorse and be contrite regarding the incident and resulting harm. While such expressions and observations may be typical, the CPSW and supervisor must restrict case determination to careful analysis of only the facts of the investigation.
During the course of an investigation the CPI is required to contact various subjects and collaterals to obtain information to use as evidence to prove or disprove the pending allegation. Information received may or may not be relevant, and may or may not be true. The mandate of the CPI is to determine what information is relevant so that it may be used as evidence to "indicate" or "unfound" an investigation.
For purposes of making child abuse and neglect investigation decisions, "credibility of evidence" means the likelihood that the information is accurate.
The CPI will use two types of evidence to support an investigative finding. The first is direct evidence. An example of direct evidence is a statement taken from an eyewitness. The second type of evidence is indirect or circumstantial. This type of evidence infers the existence or nonexistence of certain facts. For example, circumstances infer that a child's caretaker is the perpetrator of abuse when a child diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome has not been out of the care and custody of the caretaker. "Evidence" is that information that proves or disproves the allegation at issue. Information that does not prove or disprove the allegation is irrelevant.
The CPI and supervisor must evaluate the value and relevancy of case information to determine which information will be used as evidence, and which evidence is more or less credible. The CPI and the supervisor must assess the credibility of evidence using the following factors and the Child Abuse and Neglect Finding Matrix (new form). The Child Abuse and Neglect Finding Matrix which will become part of the investigative file, will facilitate and document the assessment process.
Factors affecting the credibility of all evidence include, but are not limited to, the following:
Corroborating Evidence: This is evidence that supports someone's prior statements or other evidence that may point to a certain determination of fact. This type of evidence is more credible than information that has not been verified or supported by independent sources. For example a mother's statement that a physician has seen her child is made far more credible when the physician (corroborating witness) verifies that he or she has seen the child. Another example would be the child's statement that they were hit by an extension cord, and by observing the child's back you observe linear loop marks on the child's back (corroborating physical evidence).
Source of Information: The more direct the source of information that serves as the basis for a source's opinion, the more credible the opinion. For example, a physician rendering an opinion based on a review of medical records is more credible than one rendering an opinion based on a caseworker's description of an injury. A physician rendering an opinion based on her or his direct physical evaluation is more credible still.
Direct Interest: Information from a source who has something to lose or gain from a particular investigative outcome is less credible than information from one who has no direct interest in providing an account that may not be accurate. For example, a neighbor who has had no previous relationship to family and who reports that the young children have been left alone is more credible than a neighbor who has been feuding with the family and makes the same report. It should not be surprising that adults named as alleged perpetrators of abuse or neglect would want to present themselves in the best possible light during the investigation. Self reports concerning possible CA/N risk indicators such as use of alcohol/drugs; the extent to which they use corporal punishment/instruments in disciplining their children; their involvement in a domestic violence relationship; or the extent and nature of a relationship with a paramour/convicted sexual offender may be denied or minimized by the alleged perpetrators during interviews. Additionally these adults may give inaccurate characterizations of why they and their children are not regularly in contact with extended family members, when in fact these adults are estranged from extended family members because extended family members have concerns about the adults care of the involved children. It is imperative that the CPI seeks objective corroboration of these self-reports. Family members and extended family members may even be consistent in denying or minimizing possible CA/N risk indicators (e.g., subject family and extended family members may be substance abusers). The CPI must seek out additional collaterals to verify self-reports and consider information developed through personal observation, reports from professionals, or required interviews that will establish the accuracy of self-reports. While information provided by potential perpetrators may be accurate, it must considered carefully since there is always motivation to present information that will lead to unfounding. There is no substitute for independent verification of this sort of information.
Those individuals classified as "professionals" may be viewed as credible witnesses. However, not all professionals are equal in terms of the credibility of the information they provide in specific situations. Factors influencing the degree to which a professional's information is credible include:
Training: A professional who has more training is more credible than one who has less. For example, information about the mental state of a parent obtained from a psychiatrist is more credible than information obtained from a Bachelor Social Work counselor.
Experience: A medical professional with more training/experience is more credible than one with less training/experience. For example, a pediatrician who is a member of the hospital staff is more credible than a pediatric resident.
Specialization: An opinion provided by a professional may be considered more credible when he or she has a specialization relevant to the issue being considered. For example, a radiologist's opinion about the cause of a bone fracture is more credible than an opinion provided by a pediatrician; and an opinion provided by a pediatric radiologist with a specialization in the identification of child abuse is more credible than an opinion provided by a radiologist without that specialization.
The credibility of information obtained from non-professional sources, especially subjects of investigations, must be carefully evaluated. Particular consideration must be given to any direct interest non-professional sources may have in the outcome of an investigation. When weighing the credibility of non-professional sources of evidence, there is no substitute for independent verification of the evidence with additional sources. Factors influencing the degree of credibility of information provided by non-professional source's include:
Consistency: Information reported in a consistent manner is more credible than information reported inconsistently. For example, a non-professional source that provides a significantly different description of an incident to a police officer or a physician from that given to the CPI is less credible than a person whose description of the incident remains constant. In order to verify the consistency of the previous obtained statements It is crucial that the CPI not share information obtained from other sources with a source being interviewed.
Plausibility: A plausible statement is one that is seemingly true based on the facts and circumstances. For example, the statement a hand shaped bruise on a child's face was caused by a fall is obviously implausible. As a rule, qualified physicians must verify whether explanations given for physical injuries are plausible.
In addition to the following factors, the factors above in subsection (3) should be applied to evidence obtained from children.
Child's Age and Developmental State: Information provided by an older child is usually more credible than information obtained from a younger child with less developed cognitive abilities. For example, a detailed description of a complex chain of events given by a twelve year old is generally more credible than a description of the same series of events given by a verbal three year old. However, the opposite is true when a young child is able to give a plausible and specific description of situations that would normally be beyond his or her experiences (e.g., sexual acts).
Plausibility: The plausibility of information gathered from children should generally be evaluated in the same manner as information gathered from adults. However, the evaluation must take into consideration the development of the child's communication skills and abilities. A young child may tell a true story in a way that would make the information seem implausible. For example, the child may describe ejaculation as a snake spitting.
Evidence that an Account of the Facts Has Been Influenced by Others: A child's information is more credible when the child is interviewed out of the presence of adults with the ability and motivation to coerce, pressure or otherwise influence the child's statement; and the child has not been in the care of those same adults since the incident. For example, information about abuse allegedly committed by a father obtained from a young child who has been in the custody of the mother involved in a bitter divorce with the father may be less credible because the mother may have intentionally or unwittingly pressured the child into giving inaccurate information.
Note: When making investigative findings, the credibility of each piece of evidence must be evaluated according to the above factors. The more credible the information, the more weight it is to receive in reaching a decision.
The final step in determining whether SCR reports will be indicated or unfounded is to consider all information obtained during the investigation and determine which information is relevant to be used as evidence to make a determination. It is of critical importance that all evidence suggesting that an incident of abuse or neglect did not occur be given the same consideration as evidence suggesting that an incident of abuse or neglect did occur. The Child Abuse/Neglect Finding Matrix, musts be used to evaluate each piece of information to determine its relevance, credibility and weight of importance in proving or disproving the allegations presented.
The supervisor is to review the matrix with the investigator to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the incident occurred or that the set of circumstances is or was present. Equal consideration shall be given to information entered in both columns.
1) If the answer is "no" the report is unfounded and consideration should be given to the need and potential for service provision.
The following may never be used as the sole basis for unfounding a report:
Intent to Harm the Child: The alleged perpetrator's intent to hurt a child, leave a mark, or endanger him by leaving him alone in a car is not a factor to be considered in making a finding. The law is clear that the showing of intent is not required to find abuse, but that the abuse occurred by "other than accidental means". In reviewing the specific circumstances surrounding the allegation, the focus must be on whether the caretaker failed to exercise the care that circumstances required, "what happened to the child" not "what was the adult's intent".
One Time Incident: There is nothing in Illinois CA/N law that allows a report to be unfounded solely because the abusive/neglectful incident was a one-time incident. The incident must be evaluated giving greater weight to the other factors. It is equally inappropriate to unfound a case of an infant being left alone simply because it had not happened before.
Agreement to Accept Services: The fact that a perpetrator agrees to receive services (or is already receiving them) has no effect on the decision to Indicate or Unfound an allegation. This determination is based upon the incident that occurred. Treatment can impact the safety and risk assessments, but not the finding decision. For example, a mother who hit a two-year old in the face with a belt should not be Unfounded simply because she is getting anger-management counseling.
Note: An exception to this rule is the failure to obtain required immunizations reported as medical neglect, which must be unfounded when the caretaker obtains the immunizations during the investigation.
Economic Status or Neighborhood: Investigative decisions must never be influenced in any way by a family's economic status or by the condition of the neighborhood in which they live. The fact that families are wealthy or that they live in an affluent neighborhood plays no part in decisions to indicate or unfound reports.
Attitude Toward the Worker: The attitude family members express toward the worker must not influence investigative decisions. Reports must never be unfounded because the family is compliant, agreeable, or cooperative with the worker.
2) If the answer is "yes", the incident or set of circumstances is to be compared to the definitions of all relevant allegations and the established standard for indicating them to determine whether the situation fits. Relevant factors must be considered for applicable allegations [See Subsection (d)]. If the answer is "yes", the report is indicated. The CERAP and risk assessment should be reviewed to determine what steps should be taken to assure the safety of involved children.
The following may never be used as the basis for indicating a report:
The Family's Need for Services: The decision to indicate must be based on evidence and not used as a way to get services to a family. Services can be provided to families whose reports are unfounded.
Failure to Accept Services: Again, decisions about investigative decisions and service provision are separate. A family's refusal to accept services may be related to decisions about court intervention but not the decision to `indicate" a report.
Economic Status or Neighborhood: Investigative decisions must never be influenced in any way by a family's economic status or by the condition of the neighborhood in which they live. The fact that families are poor or that they live in a disadvantaged neighborhood plays no part in decisions to indicate or unfound reports.
Attitude Toward the Worker: The attitude family members express toward the worker must not influence investigative decisions. Reports must never be indicated because the family is argumentative, hostile, or uncooperative with the worker.
Some allegations, by their very definition, presume child abuse or neglect as defined by ANCRA. For example, a child who has suffered a subdural hematoma, internal injuries, bone fractures, or burns as the result of parental action or inaction is presumed to have been abused or neglected.
Other allegations do not, by their very definition, presume child abuse or neglect as defined by ANCRA. For example, bruises or welts as the result of parental action or inaction may or may not be serious enough to constitute child abuse or neglect. Whether the incident constitutes abuse or neglect depends upon the extent of the injury, the location of the injury, the age of the child, and other pertinent factors.
Allegations that do not constitute child abuse or neglect in every instance include:
· Cuts, Bruises, Welts, Abrasions and Oral Injuries
· Substance Misuse
· Substantial Risk of Physical Injury/Environment Injurious to Health and Welfare
· Inadequate Supervision
· Inadequate Shelter
· Inadequate Food
· Inadequate Clothing
· Environmental Neglect
· Medical Neglect
· Failure to Thrive (Non-Organic)
· Medical Neglect of Disabled Infants
In reports where one of these allegations of harm is included, the report-taker must first apply the "factors" to determine if the alleged harm is serious enough to constitute a report of alleged abuse or neglect. After verifying the actual harm to the child, the investigative worker must apply the factors again to determine if the harm is serious enough to indicate the report.
Factors that help the investigator weigh the child's maturity; ability to make sound judgments and ability to care for or protect himself including the age of the child are common to several allegations.
The age of the child is associated with his/her level of vulnerability. The younger the child, the more vulnerable he/she is. The age of the child is a common indicator of risk of maltreatment. In addition, the age of the child is a strong predictor of recurrence of maltreatment. Young children are at greater risk for severe child abuse injuries. The worker needs to consider the child's age in the context of his/her physical, emotional and developmental abilities. (Note: Injuries to older children should not be disregarded because of the youth's age.) In determining whether a factored report is to be indicated the worker must assess:
In reports where one of these allegations of harm is included, the report-taker must first apply the "factors" to determine if the alleged harm is serious enough to constitute a report of alleged abuse or neglect. After verifying the actual harm to the child, the investigative worker must apply the factors again to determine if the harm is serious enough to indicate the report.
Certain principles were used to select those allegations where factors should be applied. The first principle is that although parental responsibility for the provision of protection, supervision, food, shelter, clothing, education, and a sanitary environment continues until the child attains age 18 or is a legally emancipated minor, the need for the parent to provide these things decreases as the child's own ability to protect himself or to obtain or provide these necessities increases. The second principle is very similar to the first. The risk/harm to the child decreases as the child's own ability to protect himself, comprehend danger in a given situation or to obtain or provide these necessities increases.
Factors that help the investigator weigh the child's maturity; ability to make sound judgments and ability to care for or protect himself are common to several allegations. In addition, other factors help the investigator weigh the seriousness of each incident. These two types of factors separate true allegations of child abuse or neglect from examples of poor parenting.
Prior to the case finding, the CPSW shall consult with the assigned service worker (assigned prior to the report or on early alert/enhancement cases) and review case information to date, to discuss any additional issues, the safety plan and recommended final finding. The contact shall be fully documented on a CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT INTERVIEW NOTES (CANTS 17-A). Any unresolved issues shall be referred to the workers' respective supervisors who will collaborate to resolve. The Child Protection Manager remains the final arbiter.
Concurrent with the determination to "indicate" the case are the assessment of risk and the subsequent disposition of the case. The case disposition is according to "levels" as outlined under, Levels of Service Intervention subsection. The CPSW must open a service case if the family is assessed at Level 3-6.
4.8.1 Credibility of Evidence | 4.8.2 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from All Sources | 4.8.3 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from Professional Sources | 4.8.4 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from Non-Professional Sources (Adult) | 4.8.5 Factors Affecting the Credibility of Evidence Obtained from Non-Professional Sources (Children) | 4.8.6 Using Evidence to Reach an Investigative Finding | 4.8.7 Factors to Be Considered | 4.8.8 Contacting the Assigned Service Worker