{"id":31876,"date":"2021-03-09T16:03:36","date_gmt":"2021-03-09T16:03:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caseyfamilyv2.wpengine.com\/higher-standards-of-proof-2\/"},"modified":"2026-08-04T22:53:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:53:55","slug":"estandares-de-prueba-mas-estrictos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.casey.org\/es\/higher-standards-of-proof\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00bfInfluyen los est\u00e1ndares m\u00e1s estrictos de prueba para el abuso y la negligencia infantil en las tasas de corroboraci\u00f3n?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

This summary synthesizes findings from a single research study, The standard of proof in the substantiation of child abuse and neglect. <\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n

What can we learn from this study?<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Child welfare policy and practice vary across the country, including the standard of proof for substantiating reports of child abuse or neglect. While some states require “clear or convincing,” or a “preponderance” of evidence before substantiating a report, others have a much lower threshold, with some requiring only “reasonable” evidence. This study analyzes the extent to which thresholds influence the disposition of child maltreatment reports, and ultimately the number of children involved in a substantiated report of maltreatment or placed into foster care. The study also looks at the impact of recent changes to these thresholds on overall trends.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n

Study details<\/h2>\n \n \n \n