Fundación para la Confianza

Executive summary

The bill on false reports and the risks for children and adolescents

October 2026 · Reviewed on 30 October 2026; it will be updated if the bill’s progress in the Senate changes.

Read the full report

Read and sign the statement

The bill on false reports (Bill No. 18.239-36) is presented as a way to provide redress to people who were falsely reported in family cases and for sexual offences, but its core is punitive: it opens proceedings against the person who reported and creates a new offence that allows reports made in good faith that could not be proven to be punished with imprisonment. As drafted, it raises the cost of reporting child sexual abuse, exposes those whom the law obliges to report, and puts at risk the expert witnesses, psychologists and child protection programmes that assess children and adolescents.

Status of the bill

It is a private member’s bill (moción) introduced by Senators Kaiser, Balladares, Gatica, Ossandón and Van Rysselberghe, at the first reading stage in the Senate. The Family Committee (Comisión de Familia) approved it on 11 August 2026 by two votes to one. The Women and Gender Equity Committee (Comisión de la Mujer y Equidad de Género) rejected the general approval of the bill (idea de legislar) on 5 October by three votes to two. It is now before the Senate Constitution, Legislation, Justice and Rules Committee, under “immediate discussion” urgency.

Content of the bill

A person who was reported in a family case or for a sexual offence, and whose case ended without a conviction, may ask within one year for the report to be declared false. For sexual offences it is enough that the report was dismissed by the supervisory judge (juez de garantía) or by a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público), which, in our reading, includes a provisional closure (archivo provisional). The definition of a false report also covers accusations made “before a competent official”, and the text does not clarify whether it extends to administrative reports, such as those filed with the Local Children’s Offices (Oficinas Locales de la Niñez) or the Office of the Children’s Ombudsperson (Defensoría de la Niñez). The judge may grant the request without hearing the person who reported, who has fifteen days to object. To declare the report false, “well-founded presumptions” that it was made with knowledge of its falsehood or with “manifest negligence” (“manifiesta negligencia”) are enough. The declaration entails an obligation to pay compensation, to publish a retraction in the press and to erase the records of the original case, and on its own it is the basis of a new offence punishable by 541 days to five years’ imprisonment, applied at its maximum degree when the report concerns sexual offences or was made in a family case. The expert witnesses and the programmes that issued reports may be held jointly and severally liable and barred from issuing reports if intent, gross negligence or omission of information is attributed to them.

Risks for children and adolescents

1. It discourages the reporting of an offence that the vast majority of victims never report. According to research by the CUIDA UC Centre using the National Survey on Sexual Abuse and Childhood Adversity (Encuesta Nacional de Abuso Sexual y Adversidades en la Niñez), 18.5% of the population suffered sexual abuse before the age of 18, 37.6% of those victims never told anyone, and only 9% reported it to Carabineros (Chile’s national uniformed police), the PDI (Investigations Police of Chile) or the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The bill increases the cost of reporting for the minority who already do so. Moreover, a person who voices a suspicion on social media without reporting it falls outside the bill and risks only a criminal complaint (querella) for calumny, in which falsehood must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: the bill makes it riskier to report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office than to accuse someone publicly.
2. It treats lack of evidence as falsehood. Among reports of sexual offences against children and adolescents in 2022, provisional closure accounts for 74% of case closures and acquittal for less than 1% (Fundación Amparo y Justicia, with data from the Public Prosecutor’s Office). When a case reaches judgment, the courts convict in more than eight out of ten cases. Child sexual abuse usually happens without witnesses and is disclosed late: most cases are closed because the facts could not be proven, not because it has been established that the events did not occur.
3. It allows a person to be ordered to pay without a hearing. The procedure is a summary (monitory) procedure, without a hearing: a person who reported and does not understand the notification or has no lawyer is obliged to pay if they do not object within fifteen days. The Supreme Court warned that this procedure “would not appear to be appropriate” and that the declaration of falsehood “constitutes the sole element of the criminal offence”.
4. It punishes the negligence of the person who reports. The “manifest negligence” standard requires the person reporting to carry out a prior verification which, in child sexual abuse, can only be done by questioning the child or by waiting for further incidents, which is precisely what Law 21.057 seeks to avoid.
5. It exposes schools and health centres. The Code of Criminal Procedure obliges school heads, teachers and health professionals to report within 24 hours and penalises failure to do so. In 2024, one in five reports of sexual offences against children and adolescents was received by organisations obliged to report. The bill does not exclude these reporters, and the Supreme Court asked for it to be made compatible with that duty.
6. It puts expert witnesses, psychologists and child protection programmes at risk. Article 4 makes personally liable the expert witnesses and the staff of accredited partner organisations of the State that issued reports in the case, which includes the programmes of the National Service for the Specialised Protection of Children and Adolescents (Servicio Nacional de Protección Especializada a la Niñez y Adolescencia, Mejor Niñez) that assess and intervene in cases of maltreatment and sexual abuse and report to the family courts. If the report is declared false and intent, gross negligence or omission of information “they knew or should have known” is attributed to them, they are liable with their own assets, jointly and severally with the person who reported, for direct loss, loss of earnings and non-material damage, and are barred from issuing reports for two to five years, or for life if they reoffend. The text does not clarify whether it is enough that the report served as grounds for an interim measure, and to be exempted the professional must prove that they acted in accordance with the lex artis (professional standards) and were deceived. The Supreme Court observed that the bill does not even require those professionals to be party to the proceedings that may declare them liable. The Minister of Justice warned that the rule discourages the preparation of reports; it is foreseeable that fewer professionals will agree to assess children and adolescents, or that they will do so with defensive reports.
7. It re-victimises children and adolescents. It opens a second trial on the same facts in which they may be summoned again, as the Minister of Justice warned before the Family Committee, and in which they are not a party and are not heard even if their account is declared false.
8. It erases the trail of repeat offenders who were not convicted. The judgment orders the records of the original case to be deleted at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Judiciary and the Civil Registry. A provisionally closed case can be reopened when other victims of the same offender come forward; if the record has been erased, the Public Prosecutor’s Office loses the ability to link the cases.
9. It may reach adolescents who report. The bill does not exclude adolescents from liability for the new offence, which carries an aggravated penalty precisely when the report concerns sexual abuse.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

The bill does not contain the impact assessment that the Committee on the Rights of the Child requires for any law affecting children as part of the best interests of the child (art. 3.1; General comment No. 14, paras. 6, 35 and 99). It contradicts the protection of those who report a suspicion of violence in good faith, which the Committee includes under article 19 (General comment No. 13, para. 49). It also compromises the right to be heard (art. 12), protection from sexual abuse (art. 34), the recovery of victims (art. 39), privacy (art. 16) and the treatment of adolescents in the criminal justice system (art. 40). The bill invokes the best interests of the child only in favour of the child separated from a falsely reported parent, and does not assess the effect on the child or adolescent who was in fact a victim of abuse and whose case could not be proven.

Institutional positions

The Supreme Court (Official Letter No. 138-2026) objected to the summary procedure, pointed out that the bill sets no standard of proof and does not define who may be sued, and asked for it to be made compatible with the legal duty to report. The Minister of Justice told the Family Committee that there are already avenues for prosecuting malicious reports, that sexual offences are difficult to prove and many end without a conviction, and proposed increasing the penalties under article 211 of the Criminal Code. The Ministry nevertheless acknowledges the problem of interim measures ordered without sufficient evidence and considers it reasonable to study procedural changes that do not put victims at risk. The Women and Gender Equity Committee rejected the general approval of the bill. The Family Committee did not hear from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Office of the Children’s Ombudsperson or organisations dedicated to caring for child victims.

Proposal

Reject the bill in its current form. A knowingly fabricated report is already an offence (art. 211 of the Criminal Code) and that provision can be improved. If the Senate decides to legislate, the minimum requirements are:

• Sanction only reports made with direct intent.
• Exclude cases closed by provisional closure, the discretion not to investigate or a decision not to proceed.
• Remove the summary (monitory) stage and guarantee the right to a defence.
• Exclude those who report under a legal duty, and children and adolescents.
• Limit the liability of expert witnesses and programmes to intent, and guarantee their right to be heard.
• Remove the aggravating circumstance for sexual offences.
• Prohibit the child from being required to testify again.
• Replace the erasure of records with a confidential annotation.
• Commission a child rights impact assessment with the participation of the Office of the Children’s Ombudsperson.

The harm described by the bill’s supporters, the prolonged separation of a child from one of their parents through interim measures, is real and has another cause: the duration of those measures and the lack of coordination between the family and criminal courts. It is corrected with deadlines for reviewing interim measures and coordination between courts, without raising the cost of reporting abuse.

Sources

• Bill No. 18.239-36, text of the bill (in Spanish)
• Senate Family, Children and Adolescents Committee, first report (12 August 2026, in Spanish)
• Supreme Court, Official Letter No. 138-2026 (8 June 2026, in Spanish)
• Research by the CUIDA UC Centre using the National Survey on Sexual Abuse and Childhood Adversity.
• Fundación Amparo y Justicia (2025), study on reports of sexual offences against children and adolescents (in Spanish)
• Public Prosecutor’s Office, Statistical Bulletin January–June 2026 (in Spanish)
• Committee on the Rights of the Child, General comment No. 13 and General comment No. 14 (Spanish versions)

Read the full report

Read and sign the statement