Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Abuse Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate in Senate committee over bill to raise penalties for false child‑abuse reports
Summary
Senate Bill 385 would raise penalties for knowingly making false reports of child abuse; sponsors and survivors urged stricter penalties while committee members raised concerns about chilling legitimate reports and suggested narrowing language.
SALEM — On Feb. 4 the Oregon Senate Committee on Judiciary heard testimony on Senate Bill 385, a proposal to increase criminal penalties for knowingly making false reports of child abuse.
Committee staff summarized the bill: it would reclassify the offense of making a false report of child abuse from a Class A violation to a Class A misdemeanor for a first or second offense and make a third or subsequent offense a Class C felony. Staff said the bill’s effective date would be the 91st day after the governor signs it.
Sen. Kim Thatcher, who introduced SB 385, told the committee she drafted the bill because false reports can have “huge consequences” for accused parents and for children swept into proceedings. Thatcher said the current penalty, a Class A violation, is often not enforced and that stronger penalties are necessary to deter malicious false reporting.
Several witnesses described personal harm and urged stronger penalties. Aurora Shull, who said her family was harmed by false allegations, testified that false reports waste public resources and can produce long‑term psychological and financial harm to both the accused parent and the child. Glenda Roten described the harm from parental alienation and urged the committee to treat knowingly false reports as felonies in order to prevent severe family disruption.
Committee members probed the bill’s scope and potential unintended effects. Senator Gelser Runeland asked how the measure would distinguish a report made in good faith from a knowingly false allegation — and whether the bill could deter legitimate reporters, including victims or unrepresented parents who rely on DHS or hotline screening. The committee cited an existing statutory immunity provision for reporters who make reports in good faith.
Several senators and panelists discussed narrowing the bill’s scope. Some members expressed preference for retaining a provision that prosecutors must prove the report was made with the purpose of interfering in a custody, parenting time, visitation or child‑support decision; others said that limitation could leave certain malicious reporters unpunished. Lawmakers discussed whether the statute should be limited to adult reporters and whether enhanced penalties should apply only when the false report is used to influence family‑law proceedings.
Committee discussion noted related statutes. A committee member referenced ORS 162.375 (initiating a false report) and compared its Class A misdemeanor penalty to the proposed penalty in SB 385. Committee members also pointed out that Measure 11 charges and other serious allegations can already carry mandatory minimums in separate contexts when those charges are filed.
No committee vote on SB 385 occurred during the Feb. 4 hearing. Committee members closed the public hearing after extended questioning and discussion and indicated they would consider statutory language and possible amendments — including tighter definitions of intent and an adult‑only provision — before further action.
The record includes a mix of written and oral testimony; sponsors said the bill intends to target malicious, repeated misuse of reporting channels, while some members asked staff and the sponsor to redraft or clarify elements to avoid chilling good‑faith reports or penalizing vulnerable reporters who lack counsel.
