When DCF Comes a-Calling: How to Try to Stay Out of the Fire When You're Already in the Frying Pan

In the article "Attorney Participation in Family Partnership Meetings," Sara R Brennan, NACC Legal Intern, wrote:

Without the assistance or guidance of an attorney, many parents volunteer information that can later be used against them, without a complete understanding of the consequences some of their statements can have. Parents may also agree to safety plans that can later be used against them in proceedings if they do not comply with every single provision of the plans. Furthermore, parents are sometimes forced to agree to out-of-home placements for their children, usually without a full understanding of their options.

e-Guardian v. 34, no. 7, National Association of Counsel for Children, August 2012, pp. 1-2.

The article proposes that state courts should exercise their discretion in favor of appointing attorneys to represent parents during the initial, pre-court stages of child protective services (CPS) investigations. It mentions two programs that provide pre-petition representation and suggests that NACC members disseminate information about solo practitioners who provide pre-petition representation.

I provide representation to parents in Massachusetts facing those frightening calls and letters from CPS that a worker "needs" to meet with the family to discuss an allegation that their child(ren) has(have) been abused or neglected. I work with families during Initial Assessments, Investigations and Assessments and represent parents at Fair Hearings, in court and at other aspects of the "variable response," Integrated Casework Practice Model.

A couple weeks ago, I fielded a call from a parent in just that position. S/he was being investigated by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families [DCF, Massachusetts's CPS agency, formerly known as the Department of Social Services (DSS)] for the second time in as many months. S/he couldn't afford an attorney and so, as I had done for others, many times before, I gave the caller a free, (not so) brief, initial consultation. I say "(not so) brief" because, after our one and a half hour phone call, I spent another half hour writing an email to send links to the Mass. DCF regulations and other material I had summarized on the phone.

The parent who called from a remote part of the state, had, without representation, just gotten through an "Initial Assessment" for an allegation of neglect with a determination of "unsupported." S/he was now being subjected to an "Investigation" by the same intake worker (who was determined to vindicate him/herself by "supporting" this abuse / neglect report from a "mandated reporter," even if the children were no more at risk than they had been the previous month). The caller to my office was worried about what being investigated means that was different than the previous initial assessment and what the consequences of a determination that s/he had neglected his/her children would be.

Since it did not seem that s/he was at risk of having his/her children removed from his/her care even though the DCF worker said it was definitely "illegal" to leave children alone in a car under any circumstances, I started by telling him/her:

Stay calm about your DCF matter and don't let the investigator trick you into saying anything about being overwhelmed or stressed out by the process.

The "variable response" differentiation between an "Initial Assessment" and an "Investigation" are not yet in the official regulations of DCF in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. For the purposes of this article, it should suffice to say that an Initial Assessment results in a finding of unsubstantiated, minimum risk or refer for assessment, and seems, at least partially to exclude less serious cases from being able to seek reversal of any findings through the Fair Hearing process, discussed later.

Under the statute, DCF must "investigate" whenever there is a report of suspected abuse or neglect of a child. The law setting out when a report becomes mandatory and authorizing any person who has reasonable cause to believe a child is being abused or neglected to report is in section 51A of the statute, so these are typically called "51A Reports." The resulting "evaluation" report is called a 51B because of where the requirements for the investigation are in the statute.

The current DCF "Intake" regulation that attempts to detail the statutory "investigation" scheme is here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/110CMR4.pdf. The "non-emergency" investigation that I was discussing with the caller is section 4.26.

Once DCF concludes, either through an Initial Assessment or an Investigation, that the family needs to engage in "services" to correct the problems that caused them to be reported to the Department, they enter into a stage called "Assessment." DCF's regulations about the 45 day Assessment are here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/110CMR5.pdf.

"Service Plans" are the "agreements" DCF workers try to get the parents to sign, either on an "emergency" basis, i.e., during the investigation, or for ongoing case work, i.e. for 6 month increments after Assessment. The regulation about service plans is here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/110CMR6.pdf.

The regulations about requesting copies of the reports that were filed (51As) and that the caseworker doing the initial assessment or investigation writes (51Bs) are in article 12.00, here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/110CMR12.pdf, particularly section 12.08.

How to request a Fair Hearing to appeal the finding that you did abuse or neglect your children is in article 10.00, here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/110CMR10.pdf.

Definitions of abuse and neglect (though not particularly good ones) are in the Glossary, article 2.00, here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/110CMR2.pdf.  Slightly more detailed descriptions of what they mean by "reasonable cause to believe," "supported" and "The List" (that the worker told this parent s/he would be on "forever") are in article 4 sections 4.32-4.38, linked above.

Most of what it all means is in court interpretations of things DCF did that parents appealed, which is covered in a 3 day course and 1200 page two-binder notebook for lawyers in this field and changes all the time, so you can see why I couldn't really teach you everything you need to know in one phone call or even a way-too-long blog post.

The Mass. Trial Court Law Libraries has a good set of resource pages, called "Mass. Law About ...". You might find the cases and additional links at the one about Child Abuse and Neglect to be informative. Here's a link: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/childabuse.html. Note the subsection with its own link on that page called "Is it illegal in Massachusetts to leave a child alone in a car?" Here's a link to it: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/childabusefaq.html#car. There's a similar subsection called "How young a child can be left home alone?" Here is it's link: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/childabusefaq.html#home.

I have included them here because the handling of these subjects is typical of how mandated reporters and DCF workers in Massachusetts deal with issues. That is, they seem to believe that "there is a law" that makes certain actions "illegal" when, actually, the case law makes it a fact-specific determination and leaves a good deal to the discretion of the parent, as long as the parent is being reasonable.

SCOTUS overturns CA9 on Warrantless CPS interrogations

The U. S. Supreme Court issued its decision today in Camreta v. Greene. Read the full decision here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1454.pdf

This is the 9th circuit case in which the circuit court found a Fourth Amendment violation based on a CPS worker and Sheriff's deputy's warrantless interrogation of a then 9-year-old at school. The 9th Circuit, though finding the violation, found that the official had qualified immunity since the law was unclear before. The deputy was granted cert in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled it could review the appellate court's constitutional decision, even though Camreta was the prevailing party below, based on qualified immunity. Nevertheless, the Court held the case is moot, because Greene has no continuing stake in the controversy. Consequently, it vacated the portion of the 9th Circuit opinion that imposed the warrant requirement.

Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in which Roberts, Scalia, Ginsberg and Alito joined. Scalia wrote a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, joined by Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the result, but opining that the court should have decided only that the case was moot and vacated the judgment below. Kennedy, joined by Thomas, wrote a dissent concluding that Camreta as a "prevailing party" should not have been permitted to appeal the constitutional decision below, which he describes as "obiter dictum".

Thanks to the NACC yahoo group for notice of and the link to the decision and to members of the group for the concise summary quoted above.

Details of Temporary Custody Hearing in Orlando paper or And Yet Something Else Not to Do to Your Child

The "Yet Something Else Not to Do to Your Child" in the article linked below is shoot him. Yes, you read that right, a father is alleged to have shot his own son.

Ocoee father shooting son: Judge says mother of teen shot can't protect her children - OrlandoSentinel.com

The horrendous circumstances depicted in the headline caught my attention. I think you knew already that parents should NOT shoot their children. That's not why I posted the article.

I have often thought that child protective services (CPS) agencies (the Department of Children and Families, DCF, formerly DSS, in Massachusetts) overreach in bringing "failure to protect" cases. I went to read the details in the article thinking I would find myself objecting with statements such as, "What more did they expect her to do? How could she have predicted that?" But the article convinced me, as the Florida DCF lawyer convinced the Orange County (FL) judge, that this was probably a reasonable failure to protect case.

That's not why I posted the article.

Two things really caught my attention:

1. The reporter seems to have been in the courtroom. She published details about the allegations and comments about what the attorneys said.

In Massachusetts, child protection cases are closed to the public. We might get a snippet in the news about the police bringing DCF into a case when they find children in a "house of horrors" or when parents are arrested. But we don't get to see inside the CPS system -- the public doesn't know how it is decided whether children are released to their parents or placed.

2. The article said that the children were upset when told they wouldn't be going home and it has comments about what the parents' attorneys said. Nothing was said though about what the children's attorney said.

In Mass children's counsel are supposed to follow their clients' expressed wishes or, if the child is too young or otherwise incompetent for reasons other than just minority, use substituted judgment to determine what the children would want if they were competent.

Hmm, on third thought, did the children need to be taken away from the mother?

Legal Consequences of Teen Sexuality

The following question was posted here:

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-16-year-old-consent-to-sex-in-ma-to-a-29-yea-233319.html

Paraphrasing the question:

I am 16 and see a personal counselor. I told her I am in a relationship with a 29 year old man. She checked with her advisers and DCF to see if it was legal or not and said yes it is legal -- there's nothing anyone can do about it. Then a couple of months after that my counselor brought my mom in with us during a session to work on my relationship with her. My mom brought up her concerns of me possibly being with this man. I have always said to her I wasn't with him and he has told her the same. The next day tells me that it's illegal and she needs to tell the authorities. So, is it legal or not?

My answers:

The age of consent for sexual relations in Massachusetts is 16. I'll post more in a few minutes after searching to give you some citations.

Call me at 781-641-3472 if you would like a free, brief initial consultation about your rights.

The Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries have put together a great set of links on a page called "Massachusetts Law About Sex."

I suppose it could be argued that it might be "abuse" under DCF (formerly DSS)'s definition if the counselor had "reasonable cause to believe" that your relationship with this man "causes, or creates a substantial risk of physical or emotional injury," or if the man can be defined as a "caretaker" in relationship to you because "any sexual contact between a caretaker and a child under the care of that individual" also constitutes "abuse." I'll link the definition page below as well as the statutory link about what a counselor is "mandated" to "report."

On the other hand, a child in DCF custody is allowed to consent to her own "family planning services" which can include contraception. See §11.05 of the Medical Authorizations regulation linked below.

If the counselor is required to report under §51A, linked below, your right to privacy of your conversations with her is essentially voided. If she is wrong about her insistence on reporting and ignores your reasonable requests that she keep your confidences, you may have a claim against her.

DCF's Glossary regulation

Mandated reporting Law

DCF's Medical authorizations regulation

Untold Number of Things You Can Be Restrained from Doing to Anyone

Massachusetts will soon have an Harassment Prevention Order statute.

Chapter 23 of the Acts of 2010: AN ACT RELATIVE TO HARASSMENT PREVENTION ORDERS was enacted on February 9, 2010. By my calculation it will go into effect on May 10th. The act adds a new chapter, 258E, to the Mass. General Laws. It is not yet up in the official, online version of the General Laws, so for now you'll have to use the St. 2010, c. 23 link or, to eventually find it in its codified form, go to M.G.L. c. 258D, § 9 and click the "Next Section" button.

The actions that are restrainable under the new law are defined as follows:

“Abuse”, attempting to cause or causing physical harm to another or placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

“Harassment”, (i) 3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property; or (ii) an act that: (A) by force, threat or duress causes another to involuntarily engage in sexual relations; or (B) constitutes a violation of section 13B, 13F, 13H, 22, 22A, 23, 24, 24B, 26C, 43 or 43A of chapter 265 or section 3 of chapter 272. (M.G.L. c. 258D, § 1.)

In contrast to Abuse Prevention Orders (Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 209A), the plaintiff and defendant in a complaint for protection from harassment do not need to have had any family, living or substantial dating relationship. (Cf. M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1.) But similarly to chapter 209A: Violations of chapter 258D orders are criminal offenses, there are no filing fees, the orders can be entered without advance notice, initial orders are valid for 10 court business days after which there is to be an extension hearing and there do not need to have been violations of the order for the order to be extended after its original expiration date.

The relief available to "A person suffering from harassment" is to "order that the defendant:"

(i) refrain from abusing or harassing the plaintiff, whether the defendant is an adult or minor;
(ii) refrain from contacting the plaintiff, unless authorized by the court, whether the defendant is an adult or minor;
(iii) remain away from the plaintiff’s household or workplace, whether the defendant is an adult or minor; and

(iv) pay the plaintiff monetary compensation for the losses suffered as a direct result of the harassment; provided, however, that compensatory damages shall include, but shall not be limited to, loss of earnings, out-of-pocket losses for injuries sustained or property damaged, cost of replacement of locks, medical expenses, cost for obtaining an unlisted phone number and reasonable attorney’s fees. (G.L. c. 258B, § 3(a).)

Violations of the orders are criminal offenses with potential penalties of:

[A] fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2½ years in a house of correction, or both. In addition to, but not in lieu of, the foregoing penalties and any other sentence, fee or assessment, including the victim witness assessment in section 8 of chapter 258B, the court shall order persons convicted of a violation of such an order to pay a fine of $25 that shall be transmitted to the treasurer for deposit into the General Fund. For any violation of such order, the court may order the defendant to complete an appropriate treatment program based on the offense.

In each instance in which there is a violation of a harassment prevention order or a protection order issued by another jurisdiction, the court may order the defendant to pay the plaintiff for all damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings, out-of-pocket losses for injuries sustained or property damaged, cost of replacement locks, medical expenses, cost for obtaining an unlisted telephone number and reasonable attorney’s fees. (M.G.L. c. 258D, § 9.)

The orders may be sought in the district, superior, Boston Municipal or, if both the plaintiff and defendant are below the age of 17, in the juvenile courts where the plaintiffs reside. (M.G.L. c. 258A, § 2.)

To discuss obtaining or defending against such an order, read my Initial Consultation Policies and contact The Law Office of Michael L. Rich.

Yet Something Else Not To Do To Your Child

This article that I was alerted to via the Snopes.com "Daily Snopes" is perhaps this Georgia mother's reply to the following inquiry:

At a party several years ago, I was introduced to a lawyer who was here from China studying taxation law at Harvard Law School. He asked me what field of law I practiced. When I told him Children's Law he said, "I don't think we have that in China." After a brief discussion of what Children's Law was about, he said, "You can probably tell me then, is it true that you're not allowed to beat your children in America?" When I said yes, that was mostly true he asked, "So, what do you do when they don't study?"

And the answer is:

As punishment for bad grades, a Georgia mother forced her 12-year-old son to kill his pet hamster with a hammer, police said.

The day after he was forced to kill his pet, the child told his teacher [...].

The teacher reported the incident to DFCS authorities, who contacted police [who arrested Mom].

See the rest of the article here: Cops: Mom forces son to kill hamster for bad grade | ajc.com

So there's something else to add to my list of Top 10 Discipline Methods Not to Use on your Child.

Something Else Not to do to Your Child

Don't hide your child in a crawl space.

An Illinois judge found that it constituted neglect for a mother to hide her then 5 year old son in a crawl space in her mother's house for most of two years to keep him away from his father whom she accused of abuse.

Ill. Judge: Mom's Hiding Of Boy Amounts To Neglect
JIM SUHR, Associated Press Writer
BENTON, Ill. (AP) ― A mother's hiding of her son for nearly two years in his grandmother's home, often in a crawl space behind a wall, amounted to neglect, a judge ruled Friday. See full article here.

Neither child protective services nor the court had believed mother's allegation of abuse. She and the child disappeared two years ago after the court granted the father temporary custody. The article does not say how they were found. There are criminal child abduction charges pending against the mother, the maternal grandmother and the MGM's boyfriend.

The boy is currently having supervised visitation with his parents (which are reportedly going well) and a custody and visitation hearing is scheduled for January 8th.

Top 10 Discipline Methods Not to use on Your Child

On the same day that I received a request to answer a survey for child abuse professionals about what I think my community's beliefs are concerning discipline methods, I saw an article about one type that wasn't on the list.

A pediatrician at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is circulating a survey about opinions about child abuse. Professionals in various disciplines of the child protection field were asked to say whether we think it is the norm in our communities to use certain methods on various age children usually, occasionally, rarely or never. It didn't include the one that turned out to me to be the Number 1 Truly Shocking Thing NOT to do to Your Child.

But first the list:

Top 10 Discipline Methods Not to Use on your Child

Number 10 - Pinching

Number 9 - Kicking

Number 8 - Hot peppers in mouth as punishment

Number 7 - Calling child names such as stupid, ugly or useless

Number 6 - Hitting on the buttocks with an object such as a belt or switch

Number 5 - Slapping child on the face or the back of the head

Number 4 - Hitting child elsewhere than on the buttocks with an object such as a belt, hairbrush or stick

Number 3 - Shaking

Number 2 - Beating (that is hitting over and over again with an object or fist)

and the number 1 Truly Shocking Thing NOT to do to Your Child ...

... TASING.

That's right, I saw an article about a woman who called the police on her 10 year old daughter who curled up on the floor rather than take a shower at bed time. AND THEN the mother gave the officer permission to use his taser on the child if he thought it was necessary. See the November 19, 2009, Associated Press article from Ozark, Arkansas, here.

The girl's father, who reportedly "does not have custody", described the child as having "emotional problems."

The Mayor wants the State Police or FBI to investigate and said:

People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation.

Really? Really? The town has to have an independent investigation to determine whether a child having a tantrum at home needs to be shocked into submission?

See also my Guest Commentary on the bill that was then pending in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban corporal punishment in the December 13, 2007, Arlington Advocate.

Shaken baby or not?

A report in the Brockton Enterprise Increases in shaken baby cases concerns officials tells of various officials' speculation about the rise in reported cases of suspected shaken babies.

There are experts in the field of evidence-based medicine who suggest that there are other explanations for many of the injuries that the shaken baby prevention advocates attribute solely to vigorous shaking. The pediatric neurologist and pediatric radiographer who spoke at a seminar I attended sponsored by the (Massachusetts) Juvenile Bar Association two years ago delineated the genesis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. They pointed out the flaws in the "research" of the founder of the Shaken Baby movement and how the advocates ignored contrary evidence in a series of cases.

The Shaken Baby Advocates insisted that the injuries and signs apparent in various infants and toddlers could not have been caused by anything other than being vigorously in the manner they propose. Then the evidence-based medicine teams would scientifically prove that the injuries could have been caused by a car accident as described by the accused parents in one case, by falling down the stairs with the baby as described by the accused parents in another case and even by falling out of a high chair as described by the accused parents in yet another.

The cases often rely on the assertion that certain retinal damage patterns can only be caused by a baby being vigorously shaken but the evidence-based presenters showed that the claim was based on believing an assumption that did not look at a wide enough collection of retinal damage patients. When retinal images across other medical specialties besides just child abuse pediatrics are viewed, there are many other causes including some as benign as sneezing that cause the retinal images that shaken baby prosecutors so often rely upon.

The bad economy may be causing a lot of hardship but it is not necessarily the cause of an increase in reported shaken baby cases. An increase in reported shaken baby cases may not even be caused by an increase in shaken babies. When DCF investigators or police are investigating an injured baby case they may well have a predilection to think shaken baby and be dealing with a system of "experts" too quick to disbelieve the parents and assume inflicted injury.

If you are the subject of a 51A (report of child abuse or neglect), are accused of having shaken your baby or are subjected to any other investigation by police or the Department of Children and Families (DCF, formerly the Department of Social Services, DSS) be sure to contact an attorney with experience in this field BEFORE your interviews, BEFORE letting them into your home.

Supreme Court to hear school strip search case

As reported here, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Safford (AZ) Unified School District's appeal of the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the dismissal of Savana Redding's suit against it for strip searching her to look for ibuprofen when she was a 13-year-old honor student with no history of discipline issues at her middle school.

I hope SCOTUS isn't taking the case in order to overturn the Ninth Circuit. The July 11, 2008, Opinion of nine of the eleven appeals court judges who heard the case details the Constitutional basis for holding the school personnel responsible for their unreasonable violation of the privacy and person of the 13-year-old student.

The Ninth Circuit held that

[T]he public school officials who strip searched Savana acted contrary to all reason and common sense as they trampled over her legitimate and substantial interests in privacy and security of her person.

It would be a shame if parents had to worry more about schools abusing their children than the "evils" that Safford U.S.D.'s officials say they want to protect our children from.

WHAT?@@!??

A young mother's apparently disturbed young friend steals her baby Thursday night so on Friday

the Department of Social Services took custody of the baby and his 16-month-old sister, and Sterrett's third child, a 2-year-old boy, was placed with relatives, according to a spokeswoman for the agency.

DSS previously investigated Sterrett for alleged neglect involving one of her other children. That case was closed last year, according to Alison Goodwin, a spokeswoman for DSS, who gave no details.

Does DSS not realize, like the Texas authorities in the FLDS case didn't realize, that they need specific, articulable "reasonable cause to believe that the removal of the child is necessary to protect him from further abuse or neglect"? See Mass. General Laws chapter 119, section 51B (emphasis added). Doesn't "further" imply that there had to have been some abuse or neglect in the first place?

Nothing in the Globe article about poor Ms. Sterrett's troubles indicates that there was any evidence of

reasonable cause to believe that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare including sexual abuse, or from neglect, including malnutrition, or who is determined to be physically dependent upon an addictive drug at birth

which is the applicable statutory definition from the infamous section 51A.

It's hard to tell for sure from the Globe article, but it seems as if this is another case of DSS breaking up a family in the name of protecting children from a parent they don't need protection from. Will the Globe report on Tuesday, after Ms. Sterrett's 72-hour hearing , if she gets her children back from the juvenile court judge? Will DSS apologize or even have its spokesperson report that they were wrong if Ms. Sterrett does get her children back?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives even young mothers the right not to have their children seized by the state without probable cause.

Corporal punishment

Following a discussion on the Arlington email list about anti-corporal punishment legislation that Rep. Jay Kaufman filed on behalf of Arlington resident Kathleen Wolf, Rep. Kaufman posted his rationale for testifying in favor of the bill.

My reply to Rep. Kaufman's post and letter to the editor:

I believe that the Department of Social Services (DSS) provided misleading statistics to the Legislature that Rep. Kaufman cited in his testimony and Letter to the Editor concerning the corporal punishment bill (The Advocate, December 6, 2007) .

My experience as an attorney who has represented parents and children in abuse and neglect cases for almost 30 years tells me that the "19,000 cases of abuse reported to DSS in the 3rd Quarter" almost certainly included "incidental or minor physical contact" that the bill exempts and its proponents say they are not concerned about.

The mandated reporting statute (General Laws chapter 119, section 51A) is interpreted by DSS to require reporting whenever there is any suspicion of abuse or neglect.

I have had two cases already this quarter and several more in my career in which DSS decided to "support for abuse" in cases where there was merely a "spanking" or "a swat". Involvement of DSS in those families and its erroneous findings that there was abuse occurred even though "abuse" is defined in DSS's own regulations and the Supreme Judicial Court's 1999 *Cobble* case as requiring more than brief, minor pain and a rapidly fading red mark.

The referral of 1,200 cases to the District Attorney (DA) level is cited as meaning that "there was compelling evidence of abuse and prosecution was warranted." Not so. Under DSS regulations referral to the DA merely means that a DSS "investigator" has determined that there was "reasonable cause to believe" that certain serious kinds of abuse had occurred. "Reasonable cause" does not require physical evidence or even medical confirmation.

If the cited statistic was even the number of cases referred by DSS on which DAs filed criminal cases, maybe it would be an indication that someone had determined there was "probable cause" to believe a crime had been committed. That is not what a DSS referral to the DA means. "Reasonable cause" in DSS-speak does not equal "probable cause." Rarely are any of the 19,000 reported cases presented to a court or even to anyone outside of the intake unit for independent fact-finding determinations.

The constitutional burden of proof for criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Courts have ruled that family relationships can be permanently severed upon "clear and convincing evidence." To temporarily remove a child from a family into foster care while the court determines if the child is at risk of harm requires only "a fair preponderance of the evidence." But DSS referring a case to the DA is an even lower standard -- "reasonable cause to believe" that abuse has occurred. The fact that only "1,200 of [the 19,000 reported cases] "advanced to the DA's level" means that 17,800 were either "unsupported" or were found not to have any evidence of serious abuse.

Yes, abuse is a serious problem and should be uncovered, prosecuted and prevented. Children should be protected from it. But, if this bill passes DSS, an agency that already involves itself with 80,000 cases per year (many of which are not significant enough to refer for law enforcement investigation), will have an excuse to continue its micromanagement of parents who do not conform to its belief that all physical contact in discipline is harmful and warrants intervention.

I am certainly in favor of the legislative deliberations that Rep. Kaufman's testimony suggests but I think focusing on corporal punishment and giving DSS additional incentive to investigate families that use it reasonably, runs the risk of driving parents underground with their questions about how best to raise their children. If medical and other childcare professionals must report a family to DSS every time there is a suspicion of the use of corporal punishment, insecure parents may refrain from asking for advice.

So, yes, have the debate; reforms are needed. The Legislature should consider requiring a judicial determination of probable cause or real, documentable exigent circumstances (as I believe to be required by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article XII of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights) before DSS is allowed to pierce a family's privacy or take their children involuntarily into foster care.

I respectfully urge the legislature not to pass this bill. Stop abuse, prevent abuse, prosecute abuse - but keep the government out of the private affairs of families.

was published in The Arlington Advocate as a Guest Column "More on corporal punishment" and was promoted by Atty. Deborah Sirotkin Butler on the Blue Mass Group blog "Legislation on corporal punishment - protection for children or invasion of privacy ?".

The issue seems to sharply divide people between those who believe that all corporal punishment constitutes abuse or battery and should be punished and those who think that corporal punishment is a personal choice and may not warrant state intervention in all cases.

DSS Reform Bill

Massachusetts House Bill 4191 An "Act Relative to Child Abuse and Neglect" is scheduled for public hearing tomorrow (9/26/07, 10:30 a.m. in room 222) by the Legislature's Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities.

Though the bill fixes several of the issues of lack of real oversight highlighted by the Haleigh Poutre case, too much of the lack of oversight, dearth of definitions, confusing language and lack of due process for families in the current statute are left essentially untouched. What tries to look like major overhaul of the whole statutory scheme is really just a minor tune up of a small portion of what really affects families involved with the child protection system.

I am afraid that passage of the bill in its entirety will make it appear that thoughtful consideration was given by the legislature to the troubling issues that are really not addressed.

I call on Senator Spilka, Rep. Coakley-Rivera and the rest of their committee to recommend passage of the new oversight and second opinion provisions of H. 4191 but to remove the portions that merely restate the existing sections of chapter 18B and 119 until a comprehensive review and restructuring particularly recognizing parents' rights, due process, probable cause and true judicial oversight of DSS or the Department of Children and Families can be accomplished.

Allegations and investigations

Someone purporting to be a "victim advocate" for DSS wrote to the Arlington (MA) email list with the surname and street name of a "dad" allegedly being investigated for sexual abuse of his children. The writer asserted that s/he had sent the email "OFFLIST" to someone who had asked to be "updated".

The email prompted a flurry of queries and complaints including why the name wasn't on the sex offender notifications that the police department sends out, why the original poster would disclose the information and defending the privacy of the affected family.

Though I was trying to stay away from email other than actual work today, I couldn't resist commenting.

Here is essentially what I wrote to explain the differences between the sex offender info that police departments report to child-involved organizations and the allegations that the original writer said were being "investigated" by DSS:

What was reported on this list is not on the offenders list a daycare provider gets from the APD because the list is of registered sex offenders -- which occurs after conviction of certain "sex crimes" and the posts were about an accused dad, being investigated by the Department of Social Services (DSS).

It doesn't make me question the poster's motives but whether s/he understands the confidential nature of DSS's investigations (even IF s/he only intended to inform one "OFFLIST" correspondent who "asked to be updated").

An allegation that comes to DSS's attention is a VERY FAR cry from being about a "sex offender" who has to register and who would thus be on the list that day care providers and others who provide services to children get from the local police.

Certain professionals are required by law to report and DSS is required to "investigate" whenever there is "reasonable cause to believe that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare including sexual abuse, or from neglect, including malnutrition, or who is determined to be physically dependent upon an addictive drug at birth". [Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 119, section 51A; see also the Web Resources page of my website.]

I could go on with 30 years worth of anecdotes, regulations and court cases that explain, limit or expand upon what that means and how different it may be from a general public understanding.

Instead, I'll just summarize by saying that "mandated reporters" are often told to err on the side of caution and report even the slightest suspicion; to let the investigation process sort it out. But then DSS is cut a whole lot of slack to not actually conduct any real investigation (and just conclude that if a "mandated reporter" decided to make a report, then it should be "supported") because the law requires them to complete their investigations in 10 days (24 hours if an emergency). (See also my Boston Globe LTE of June 1, 2007 or my blog post about it.)

A large part of my practice is devoted to representing families when DSS seeks to intervene. Feel free to post comments here about your experiences. If you are seeking legal advice, however, remember that this blog is not private and you should contact my office to discuss scheduling a consultation.