Citation

Fakunmoju SB. Child Maltreat. 2009; 14(1): 53-68.

Affiliation

University of Maryland School of Social Work, Baltimore, MD 21201-1777, USA. SFakunmoju@ssw.umaryland.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1077559508320386

PMID

18612040

Abstract

Little is known about the influence of evidentiary and case characteristics on adverse appeal outcomes for substantiated cases of maltreatment. This article, therefore, reports on a sample of adverse appeal outcomes during a 2-year period. Using Drake's Harm/Evidence model to examine the adverse outcomes, the study describes differences between substantiated cases that were "modified" versus "overturned" during appeal, as well as differences in their evidentiary characteristics across different types of maltreatment. Content analysis and logistic regression analysis of administrative data were used to predict overturned versus modified outcome. Overall, child neglect, substantiated cases that did not meet basic evidentiary standards, and cases that were deemed as not credible were more likely to be overturned in comparison to being modified. A substantiation assessment framework (SAF) is developed and implications of Drake's Harm/Evidence model for investigating maltreatment as well as for understanding judicial decision making in appealed cases of maltreatment is highlighted.

Language: en