When the Case is Reported—but No One Is Charged

There is another phrase that appears often in conversations about child sexual abuse. It usually comes after “there was no diagnosis” and “he went to counseling.”

“There were no charges.”

Sometimes it’s said plainly. Sometimes with a shrug. Sometimes as if it should settle the question entirely.

But the absence of criminal charges does not mean the absence of abuse. And the path a case takes after it is reported often explains why.

When child sexual abuse is reported, law enforcement does not always pursue criminal charges. In many cases—especially those involving intrafamilial abuse, delayed disclosure, or minor victims—police forward the report to Child Protective Services instead.

At that point, the case often enters the civil child-protection system, not the criminal one.

This is how many abuse cases become dependency and neglect cases, commonly referred to as DN cases.

DN cases are not designed to determine criminal guilt. Their purpose is different.

According to child welfare standards, CPS involvement focuses on:

• Whether a child is safe

• Whether a home environment needs intervention

• Whether supervision, services, or restrictions are required

The standard of proof in these cases is lower than in criminal court. The goal is not prosecution—it is risk management.

As a result, abuse can be substantiated without anyone ever being arrested.

This distinction is rarely explained to the public.

So when people say “there were no charges,” what they often mean is that the case was handled outside the criminal system—not that the allegation lacked credibility, and not that it was unfounded.

In many DN cases, law enforcement determines that criminal prosecution would be difficult due to:

• The age of the child

• Lack of physical evidence

• Delayed disclosure

• Family dynamics

• Statutes of limitation

• Or concern about retraumatizing the child through trial

That decision is procedural. It is not a declaration of innocence.

Once CPS takes over, the case proceeds quietly.

Hearings may be sealed. Records may be confidential. Outcomes may involve supervision plans, safety agreements, or mandated services—none of which are public in the way criminal convictions are.

From the outside, it can look like nothing happened.

From the inside, everything changed, hopefully.

This is where misunderstanding becomes dangerous.

Because when abuse is handled as a DN case, the narrative often shifts from “what happened” to “what can be managed.” Responsibility becomes blurred. Language softens. The focus moves to compliance and stability rather than accountability.

And years later, when survivors mature and speak up, they are often met with the same refrain:

“If it was real, there would have been charges.”

That assumption is incorrect.

According to child welfare professionals and legal standards, many substantiated abuse cases never result in criminal prosecution—not because the abuse didn’t occur, but because the system prioritized immediate safety over criminal adjudication.

For survivors, this gap between systems often feels like erasure.

The harm was serious enough to involve police.

Serious enough to involve CPS.

Serious enough to change the structure of "family rules."

But not serious enough—apparently—to be named publicly.

This is why the earlier arguments matter.

“No diagnosis.”

“He went to counseling.”

“There were no charges.”

Individually, each phrase sounds reasonable. Together, they form a narrative that quietly minimizes harm without ever denying it outright.

They rely on what the system didn’t do, rather than what actually happened.

The truth is less comfortable and more complex.

A case can be reported.

A child can be believed.

Abuse can be substantiated.

And still, no one is charged.

That outcome says far more about the limitations of our systems than it does about the reality of abuse.

This series of posts exists to make those distinctions visible.

Not to inflame.

Not to speculate.

Not to rewrite history.

But to name what these phrases really mean—and what they don’t.

Because when language is imprecise, accountability disappears.

And accountability should never be lost.