Given the mandatory reporting laws many states have, I am not surprised that the school reported it and can't really blame the school for doing so.  Reporting laws are designed to remove the mandated reporters' discretion so that those who are trained (at least theoretically) to perform investigations are brought in to make those investigations and things aren't swept under the rug.  The rationale behind these laws is that the discretion needs to be eliminated so that people who have less training and also sometimes have some interest in the situation are not vested with the authority to disregard reports -- it has been known to happen sometimes (not always, of course) that a school official who is going to have to shoulder the burden of an investigation looks a little more skeptically at a report of inappropriate conduct, or else has some bias and wants to protect the possible accuser, or thinks that the investigation could be more traumatic for the victim, or disbelieves the victim or that the accused could have done what's he/she is accused of, or that a person sweeps a report under the rug for any of a number of other reasons.  

Of course any bright line rule is going to have a possibly silly application, as this instance may demonstrate.  Fortunately the Children's Aid Services quickly investigated and determined that there was no evidence of abuse.  But even though it undoubtedly caused distress to the parents, don't we as parents want these things checked out?

So even though a psychic's tip isn't exactly anything I would characterize as strong evidence . . . I would think that in what was perhaps an excess of caution a school would probably be wise to report the information, especially where there were other behaviors that were consistent with abuse, even if they were also consistent with a possible victim's known autism.    

And what if it had turned out to be true?  Would we want the principal to have independently decided, "Nah, I don't think this is enough evidence to go on, I would look "profoundly idiotic" for reporting it," and abuse continued because the principal didn't want to take a chance at looking foolish?  I fully appreciate that this is slim evidence, but I'd want the principal to risk looking dumb or being excessively cautious if there were the remotest possibility that my child was being sexually abused.  

I sure wish the teachers at my school had gone ahead and acted on their suspicions about a teacher and me, because they had some, and they were right.  But at least we can be comforted that none of them appeared "profoundly idiotic," or took a risk when they had only a strong suspicion and a small amount of information, can't we?

Deb, you call a psychic's predictions "slim evidence"???  It's no evidence at all, it's quackery, and it's nothing short of scandalously irresponsible for the school system to think otherwise.

Depending on the state's statutes, mandatory reporters are expected to use a threshold anywhere from "reasonable suspicion of abuse" to "know or suspect abuse".  I myself am a mandatory reporter due to my job, and I can tell you that in no state I've worked in would the word of a psychic suffice to trigger that threshold.  

OMG, I'd sue so hard and so fast.  That's like saying your neighbor's cat spoke to you in a dream...what bull@#%*.

Deb, I understand what you're talking about, but wouldn't it have been better for the school to continue to investigate it a little more until there is solid evidence and then turn it over to CAS? Try and get something to go on first? Hearsay just is not enough.

As I understand it, the school or other authority figure is not allowed to investigate before reporting--when there's suspicion, you've gotta report.

A friend who's a kindergarten teacher told me she breaks the mandatory reporting law every time she asks a follow-up question about a kid's injury. For example, a kid came in with a gash on his head and said, "My dad did it." Under mandatory reporting laws, my friend should have reported that. But she knows kindergartners, so she asked what he meant--and what actually happened what that dad accidentally tripped him going up the stairs and the kid hit his head on the step.

So I think the problem here is that the school was put in a very difficult position, terms of their obligations to the law, their students, and their families. There was no right choice.

I wonder what the CIA and FBI would say about this, since they've been using psychics in investigations for decades!

Renee, no, the slim evidence is the child's behavior that was consistent with abuse, even though it was consistent also with the child's autism.  (And yes, I get that they were concerned about her behavior because of the report).  I just don't see how a mandated reporter could not report in this situation, as far fetched as the initial accusation was.

And Ally, I can't imagine what cause of action one could assert in a lawsuit against the school for this.

I don't know the laws of this state, steffmarcusky, but in most cases the mandatory reporting laws require reporting immediately and do not give discretion for investigation.