Based on the wording of the mandated reporting requirements, I’m trying to understand how an official of a public university who receives a second-hand report of child molestation (and/or maybe even who witnesses it directly) are covered by those requirements.
Specifically, I am referring to the wording, “that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse”, and the proper interpretation of “a child coming before them”.
Does that require a direct relationship between the official and the child, or does “coming before them in their professional or official capacity” mean that the issue or report comes to their attention, but not that the individual victim be physically present before that official when the official is conducting their duties (such as would be the case with a health care professional who is directly responsible for examining the child, or an elementary school teacher who is teaching the child).
I am also unsure of the applicability of the first provision of the law to this situation, namely “licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children”. In what way are those officials “licensees” (and in fact, what is the definition of “children” - is a college freshman considered to be a child under this part of the law?).
Moral imperatives are a different issue - I am just referring to whether and how the persons involved in this situation meet the legal requirements for reporting.
I’d like to know this as well. I had read elsewhere that it applied to the individuals in charge of an institution, so whether this applies to Curley or not is unknown.
And is anyone wondering if Mike McCreary got his job because he kept his mouth shut? Because I sure as heck am.