2 year old with bruises

[thinid]

Again, the OP has not said that she thought the bruises might have been caused by abuse.

The mother not giving a "straight" answer does NOT automatically mean the OP should have suspected abuse.

Thinking the child should be seen by a doctor does NOT mean the OP must have thought the bruises might have been caused by abuse.

Those are both assumptions.

My point is that saying someone is REQUIRED to report whenever a child has unexplained bruises is not correct. Reports are required when the reporter suspects that abuse may have occurred. There are many, many scenarios where a child might show up with marks on them and you might never have any reason to think that they had been a victim of abuse. We do not know enough about the child, the bruises, what was said, etc to say if the OP should have suspected abuse. To post that reporting was REQUIRED in this case, without clarifying what the reporting requirments actually are is giving bad information to the people who visit this site looking for answers.

 

[Silverplum]

To post that reporting was REQUIRED in this case, without clarifying what the reporting requirments actually are is giving bad information to the people who visit this site looking for answers.

Then why don't you provide the information?

Stop complaining about how other people post and how you dislike it: START by making the improvements YOU want.

 

[mistoffolees]

Again, the OP has not said that she thought the bruises might have been caused by abuse.

The mother not giving a "straight" answer does NOT automatically mean the OP should have suspected abuse.

Thinking the child should be seen by a doctor does NOT mean the OP must have thought the bruises might have been caused by abuse.

Those are both assumptions.

There is an expectation that people will be reasonable.

FACTS:
OP saw bruises.
OP asked about the bruises and got an evasive answer.
OP thought the bruises were serious enough to see a doctor.

A reasonable person (especially in a child care position) would be wondering about abuse. Otherwise, why ask about the bruise was gotten? And if the person was concerned enough to ask, then the fact that the answer was evasive would have led to concerns about abuse.

It is just not reasonable to say that the above facts occurred and abuse didn't cross OP's mind. And when children's safety is concerned, you err on the side of safety.

 

[thinid]

Then why don't you provide the information?

Stop complaining about how other people post and how you dislike it: START by making the improvements YOU want.

I did. See posts #6, #8, #10 and #12.


I get it that the OP probably should have made a report. So should her husband, her mother and her friend. At least one of those four adults should have suspected abuse, right? Her post implys that she suspected abuse. But she doesn't give the details we need to know if a reasonable person would have suspected abuse at the time (not in hind sight with more information available to them).

 

[Zigner]

Post #12 is the only thing that comes CLOSE to being an actual reference to law. However, you STILL have not backed up your assertion with reference to the OP's state.

 

[thinid]

And how should I know what state the OP is in? That's one of the pieces of information she left out.

I also have not seen anyone cite a law to back up their claims that the OP was required to report the bruises based on the FACTS she has provided.

Thinking that the OP should have suspected abuse is an ASSUMPTION.

 

[Zigner]

And how should I know what state the OP is in? That's one of the pieces of information she left out.

I also have not seen anyone cite a law to back up their claims that the OP was required to report the bruises based on the FACTS she has provided.

Thinking that the OP should have suspected abuse is an ASSUMPTION.

Then you should be asking what state the OP is in, not making blanket statements.

As to the rest, based on the FACTS she has provided, a REASONABLE person could very well believe that abuse may be occurring.

 

[Proserpina]

And how should I know what state the OP is in? That's one of the pieces of information she left out.

I also have not seen anyone cite a law to back up their claims that the OP was required to report the bruises based on the FACTS she has provided.

Thinking that the OP should have suspected abuse is an ASSUMPTION.

The OP DID suspect something.

But you're going to sit and argue the point until you're blue in the face and gills.

Why don't we let OP come back to explain, before the thread gets locked for being completely pointless?

 

[lealea1005]

I get it that the OP probably should have made a report. So should her husband, her mother and her friend. At least one of those four adults should have suspected abuse, right?.

They aren't the mandated reporters (with the possible exception of her husband if he has contact with the children at her daycare).

 

[sbrooks]

It seems to me that the crux of this argument is that should a mandated reporter have suspected abuse. "Not getting a straight answer," could easily be the mother saying, " I don't know," or "Oh. I didn't notice those." It doesn't really mean that the mother was being shady. And speaking as the oldest of 5 siblings and a ridiculous number of cousins, bruises show up on kids pretty often. Especially on little girls. It's not normally a point of concern.