Hong Kong has recently enacted the Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), which will come into force in January 2026. The Ordinance mandates 25 categories of “specified professionals” (including teachers, social workers, doctors, nurses, and clinical psychologists) to report “as soon as practicable” to the authorities when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a child (i) has been, or (ii) is at real risk of suffering “serious harm”. Despite the considerable support for mandating the reporting of child abuse to protect children from severe abuse and neglect, commentators worry that a mandatory reporting regime may undermine children’s autonomy and cause further psychological harm to children.

Under section 5(2) of the Ordinance, mandated reporters only have a statutory defence of “delaying” reporting if they honestly and reasonably believed that the delay was in the child’s best interests and that they have taken reasonable measures to protect the child’s interests during the delay. The limited scope of the delay defence would likely lead to mandatory reporting in most cases, regardless of the child victim’s wishes.

For example, a child coerced or enticed into sexual intercourse may feel distressed and wish to privately consult a clinical psychologist. The clinical psychologist must make a report to the authorities, even if the child objects to doing so, unless the psychologist honestly and reasonably believes that delaying to report is in the child’s best interests and that the psychologist takes reasonable measures to protect the child’s interests. The psychologist may have no means to take such reasonable measures as they may not meet with the child frequently. They may also feel uncertain as to what is in the child’s “best interests”. The real risk of criminalisation forces mandated reporters to err on the side of caution and report regardless of the child victim’s wishes and feelings.

While the legislation is well-intentioned to protect vulnerable children, children may not wish or be well-prepared to report their experiences to the authorities out of feelings of distress, shame or self-blame. Children may also fear that reporting will lead to unwanted attention, stigmatisation, exclusion (e.g., from family), or retaliation. Filing a report when the child victims are not well-prepared may cause further psychological harm and jeopardise their recovery process. There may also be secondary victimisation when child victims have to face police questioning and cross-examination by the legal representative of the perpetrator. More importantly, a mandatory reporting regime may damage the supposedly trusting therapeutic relationship between mandated reporters and children, removing safe channels for child victims to seek psychological comfort and help.

Children’s developing capacities for logical thinking and reasoning should be respected by facilitating their involvement in the reporting process. However, it is recognised that children’s wishes may be overridden by other cogent considerations, such as the prevention of continuous and serious harm caused to children.

To strike a balance between respecting child autonomy and protecting the best interests of children, we propose two recommendations. First, children’s right to be heard, which entails “information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect”, should be better protected. Mandated reporters should be encouraged to (i) understand and respond to a child’s concerns against reporting, (ii) explain the investigation and legal process after reporting, and (iii) obtain the child’s informed consent before proceeding to report. If these steps are incorporated into the government’s Mandated Reporter Guide, children’s autonomy will be better respected.

Second, with reference to New South Wales’s approach, the legislature may consider introducing a further defence for non-reporting when (i) the mandated reporter has taken reasonable steps to ascertain that the child did not wish to make a report, and (ii) the mandated reporter honestly believed that non-reporting was reasonable in the circumstances (which could take into account, e.g., the child’s capacity to make an informed decision and the benefits/disadvantages of non-reporting). This proposal would respect child autonomy and allow a safe space to remain for children to share their traumatic experiences with the specified professionals, while also mandating a report against a child’s wishes when they lack the capacity to recognise abuse, or when they are facing continuous risk of serious harm.

While the reporting of child abuse should be encouraged, children’s autonomy could be better respected in the mandatory reporting regime by obtaining children’s informed consent prior to reporting and providing a wider defence to specified professionals for non-reporting.