When a person is falsely accused of child abuse, there are negligible, if any, legal causes of action that can be brought against the child abuse reporter because of the expansive immunity protections that are afforded to child abuse reporters across the United States. This is especially concerning since a report of child abuse is made every ten seconds in the United States and studies have demonstrated that many of these reports are unsubstantiated. A 1996 study, performed by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, compiled data from thirty-seven states, and concluded that, on average, only thirty-one percent of child abuse claims are substantiated. Moreover, a 2005 study, performed by child protection authorities in Canada, investigated 7,672 claims of child abuse and found that four percent of the unsubstantiated child abuse claims were the product of, “intentionally fabricated false allegations.” Accordingly, this data suggests that a multitude of innocent people have been falsely accused of child abuse. This issue is further complicated by the expansive immunity protections which are provided to child abuse reporters.

Immunity protections for child abuse reporters are extremely strong across the United States. These protections are designed to encourage reports of child abuse and function to shield a reporter from any civil or criminal liability that might be a consequence of making a child abuse report. Most states offer child abuse reporters either qualified immunity (such as good faith immunity) or absolute immunity. These immunities often provide undeserved protections to reporters who make unsubstantiated or intentionally fabricated reports.

In order to shed light on the issues that expansive immunity protections have created, this article starts by discussing the real story of two innocent parents who were falsely accused of child abuse, the effects of those false accusations, and the legal hurdles the parents had to face. This article then compares legislation from Minnesota—which offers good faith immunity to child abuse reporters—against legislation from California—which offers a combination of absolute immunity and other immunities to child abuse reporters—to demonstrate how some states approach immunity provisions and how these provisions often result in a lack of justice for those who are falsely accused of child abuse. Finally, this article concludes by proposing potential legislative solutions which can help to protect the rights of those falsely accused of child abuse.