The article describes the major criticisms of mandated reporting laws as presenting arguments that produced many unsubstantiated reports; increased workload for child protective services; and wasted resources and reduced the quality of service given to known deserving children and families. Other critics cited claimed mandated reporting was "a policy without reason" and that that "common sense and empirical research" show mandated reporting was "a bankrupt policy." Some have proposed that jurisdictions with these laws should revise their systems “to facilitate voluntary assistance to children and families--to create or sustain the norms of caring that prevent harm to children”, and urged countries without a U.S.-type system to adopt another model. The paper presents the argument that without a system of mandated reporting, a society would be far less able to protect children and assist parents and families, because many cases of abuse and neglect would not come to the attention of authorities and helping agencies. Despite acknowledging that mandated reporting schemes are imperfect, using child safety as the primary concern and drawing on evidence from several nations, the argument is made that a child protection system needs a form of case identification beyond voluntary help-seeking; that mandated reporting produces a large number of substantiated reports; to sacrifice this compromises child protection; the most serious problems in systems having mandated reporting appears to lie not with the reports, but with responses; and that the economic and social justice advantages of mandated reporting far outweigh any disadvantages. References