afc paper reports of child abuse and neglect
Post on 27-May-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
AdmissibilityofIndicated,UnfoundedandExpungedReportsofChildAbuseor
NeglectandTheirUsebyAttorneyfortheChildsinCustodyLitigation
BY:CharityPhipps,DavidFrench(Fall2005)
UPDATED:GabriellaMacDonald(2014)
CompletedtofulfilltherequirementoftheAttorneyfortheChildExternship,SUNYBuffaloLawSchool,Prof.SusanVivianMangold
Maybecitedwithproperattributiontostudentauthors.
2
I.INTODUCTION
Reportsofchildabuseandneglectcanbeparticularlyinfluentialinlitigation
forchildcustodyandvisitation.Oneorbothpartiesmayhavebeenthesubjectof
previousabuseorneglectinvestigationsbytheDepartmentofSocialServices
(hereinafterDSS).Oneorbothpartiesmayallegeabuseorneglectbytheopposing
party.Inbothsituations,theAttorneyfortheChildrepresentingthechildmustbe
preparedtoaddresstheadmissibilityoftheresultinginvestigationreports.
Therearethreeclassificationsofreportsofchildabuseandmaltreatment,
eachwithitsownruleforadmissibilityasevidence.Areportsupportedbysome
credibleevidenceisclassifiedas“indicated.”Anindicatedreportisadmissiblein
custodylitigation.Areportthatisnotsupportedbysomecredibleevidenceis
classifiedas“unfounded.”Anunfoundedreportisgenerallyinadmissibleincustody
litigation,butitisadmissibleincivillitigationinvolvingfalseallegationsofchild
abuseormaltreatmentandincriminalprosecutionforthereportingoffalse
allegations.Indicatedandunfoundedreportsareexpungedafteraspecifiedperiod
oftimehaslapsed.Inaddition,indicatedandunfoundedreportscanbeexpunged
wherethereisinsufficientevidencetosupportthereport.Expungedreportsare
inadmissibleasevidence.
Inadditiontoaddressingtheadmissibilityofthereports,theAttorneyforthe
Childmustbepreparedtoarguethesignificance,orinsignificanceofthereports
introducedasevidence.Thesignificanceofreportsofabuseormaltreatmentvaries
dependinguponseveralfactors,includingtheabilityofDSStofindevidenceto
supportthereport;theleveloffamilyinterventionfollowingthereport,andthe
3
existenceofsubsequentreportsinvolvingthesamesubjectorchildrennamedinthe
report.AthoroughunderstandingofthesefactorswillenabletheAttorneyforthe
Childtoeducatethecourtabouttherelevanceoftheadmissiblereportsaswellas
theweightofthatevidenceinlitigationforchildcustodyandvisitation.
Thispaperwillexpoundoneachofthesetopics.First,itwilloutlinethe
processbywhichapersonreportschildabuseandneglectandthesubsequent
investigationbyDSS.Second,itwilldiscusstheadmissibilityofunfoundedreports
asevidenceandthelimitedexceptionstothatgeneralrule.Finally,itwilldiscussthe
processofexpungementofindicatedandunfoundedreportsaswellasthe
inadmissibilityofexpungedrecordsasevidence.
A.ReportsandInvestigationsofChildAbuseandMaltreatment
Thevastmajorityofchildrenenteringthechildwelfaresystemdosobecause
thereareallegationsofabuseorneglectbyaparent.Thechildfirstbecomes
“known”toDSSwhenapersonreportstheabuseormaltreatmenttotheagency.
DSSmaintainsatoll‐freetelephonehotlinetoreceivereportsofabuseand
maltreatment.1Anyonesuspectingabuseormaltreatmentmayreporttothis
hotline,butcertainpersonsaremandatedtoreportwhentheyhave“reasonable
causetosuspectthatachildcomingbeforethemintheirprofessionalorofficial
capacityisanabusedorconsideredamaltreatmentchild.”2Theyarealsorequired
toreporttheabuseormaltreatmentwhenaparentorguardian“comesbeforethem
intheirprofessionalorofficialcapacityandstatesfrompersonalknowledge1N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(Consol.2014).2N.Y.Soc.Serv.413(Consol.2014).
4
facts…which,ifcorrect,wouldrenderthechildanabusedormaltreatedchild.”3The
statuteliststhemandatedreporters,toinclude:physicians,registerednurses,social
workers,psychologists,schoolofficials,childcareworkers,andlawenforcement
officials.4Mandatedreportershaveimmunityfromliabilityiftheymakeareportin
goodfaith.5However,ifamandatedreportedwillfullyfailstoreportchildabuseor
maltreatment,“heshallbeguiltyofaclassAmisdemeanor”and“shallbecivilly
liable.”6
Uponreceiptoftheallegationsofabuseorneglect,DSSdetermineswhether
theactsalleged,“couldreasonablyconstituteareportofchildabuseor
maltreatment.”7Ifso,DSSrefersthecasetotheappropriatelocalagencyfor
investigation.8Thisinvestigationmustbecompletedwithin60daystodetermine
whetherthereportis“indicated”or“unfounded.”9Areportis‘indicated’ifthelocal
agencyfindssomecredibleevidencetosupportthereportofabuseor
maltreatment.10TheindicatedreportisplacedontheStateCentralRegisterofChild
AbuseandMaltreatment(CentralRegister).11Ifthelocalagencyfindsthatthereis
nocredibleevidencetosupportthereportofabuseormaltreatment,thereportis
determinedtobeunfounded.12Althoughtheunfoundedreportisplacedonthe
centralregister,“allinformationidentifyingthesubjectsofthereportandother3Id.4Id.5N.Y.Soc.Serv.419(Consol.2014.).6N.Y.Soc.Serv.420(Consol.2014.)7N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(2)(a)(Consol.2014).8Id.9N.Y.Soc.Serv.424(7)(Consol.2013).10N.YSoc.Serv.Law412(7)(Consol.2013).11N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law422(1)(Consol2014).12N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law412(6)(Consol2014.)
5
personsnamedinthereportshallbelegallysealedforthwithbythecentralregister
andanylocalprotectiveservicesorstateagencywhichinvestigatedthereport.”13
Thesubjectoftheindicatedreportmayrequestthatthereportbeamended
asunfoundedorexpunged.14Asthesubjectofthereportprogressesthroughthe
levelsofadministrativeandjudicialreview,thestandardofreviewincreases,
requiringstrongerevidencetosupporttheagency’sfindingthatthereportis
indicated.Therefore,asthehigherstandardsofreviewareapplied,aonce‐indicated
reportmaybedeemedtobeunfoundedduetoastrongerevidentiarystandard,and
thatjustifiestheexpungementofthereport.
Thereareseverallevelsofadministrativeandjudicialreviewofthe
determinationsthatthereportisindicated.First,DSSdetermineswhetherthereis
somecredibleevidencethatthechildwasabusedorneglectedbythesubjectofthe
report.15Ifsomecredibleevidencesupportsthereport,thesubjectcanrequestan
administrativehearing.16Attheadministrativehearing,theagencyhastheburden
toshowbythepreponderanceoftheevidencethatthesubjectofthereporthas
abusedorneglectedthechild.17IftheadministrativeLawjudgedeterminesthatthe
reportisindicated,“thesubjectofthereportmaycommenceaproceedingpursuant
toCPLRarticle78tochallengethedecision”.18Inthearticle78hearing,the
13N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(Consol.2014).14N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(8)(a)(Consol.2014).15LawTTvDowling,87N.Y.2d699,704(1996).16N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(8)(a)(v)(Consol.2014).17Leev.TT,87N.Y.2dat712.18Idat705.
6
standardofreviewis“whetherthedeterminationisrationalandsupportedby
substantialevidence.”19
IndicatedReport
WhenChildProtectiveServiceshasinvestigatedtheallegationsof
maltreatmentandthereporthasbeen“indicated,”thisreportofchildabuseor
neglectmaybeadmissibleinconjunctionwithcustodylitigation.An“indicated
report”isdefinedasareportofallegedabuseormaltreatmentsupportedbysome
credibleevidence.20Somecredibleevidencemeansthatthereexistsevidenceofthe
actoractsthatgaverisetothereportcommittedbythesubjectofthatreport,
usuallythechild’sparent.Itisappropriatetousethe“somecredibleevidence”
standardtodeterminewhetherareportmadetotheCentralRegistrarshouldbe
markedasindicated.21
Section422(5)(c)ofNewYorkSocialServicesLawprovidesthat“therecord
oftheindicatedreporttothecentralregistershallbeexpunged[e.g.completely
destroyed]tenyearsaftertheeighteenthbirthdayoftheyoungestchildnamedin
thereport.”Inaddition,thesubjectofthereporthastherighttoseethe
expungementofthisindicatedreportwithinthetimeframesetforthinsection
422(8)(a)(i)oftheNewYorkSocialServicesLaw.Thisprovisionlimitsthetimefor
requestingexpungementofanindicatedreportto90daysaftertheaccusedis
19GeraldG.v.StateDep’tofSocServ.,248A.D.2d918(3rdDept1998.)20N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law412(7)(Consol.2013).21N.YSoc.Serv.Law422(5)(Consol.2014).
7
notifiedbythelocalagencythatthereporthasbeenindicated.22Ifthatrequestis
denied,thesubjecthastherighttoafairhearing.23
IndicatedReport‐AdmissibleasEvidence
OnceareportofchildabuseorneglecthasbeenindicatedbyChildProtective
Services,thereportmaybeadmissibleasevidenceincustodylitigation.
Admissibilityoftheindicatedreportdependsonwhetheritcomplieswiththe
businessrecordexemptiontothehearsayruleandprovidedthatthe“indicated,”
reportwasnotoverturnedbystateofficials.”24
TheNewYorkFamilyCourtAct651‐arequiresthatafoundationbelaidfor
theadmissibilityofCentralRegisterreportsinacustodyproceeding.InreNicoleVV,
theCourtstatedtheindicatedreportshouldbeintroducedintoevidence,butthis
reportalone,“withoutanycorroboration,isnotsufficientevidenceforthecourtto
determinethattheparenthasabusedorneglectedthechild.25However,anyother
evidencesupportingthereliabilityofthereportwouldallowthecourttodetermine
thataparenthasmaltreatedthechild.”26Maltreatmentofachildbyaparentis
powerfulevidenceinacustodyorvisitationdispute.27
Iftheindicatedreportisnotadmittedintoevidence,acaseworker’s
testimonyaboutthereport’scontentremainsinadmissiblehearsay.Inorderto22Jannie“CC”vKaladjian,189A.D.2d56(3rdDept.1993).23N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law422(8)(a)‐(b)(Consol.2014);Lee“TT:v.Dowling,211A.D.2d46(3rdDept.1995).24N.Y.FamilyCt.Act651‐a;(PracticeInsights,MargaretA.BurtEsq.(Seehttps://www.nycourts.gov/ip/cwcip/Trainings/subGuard/cslaw2010‐2011.pdf)25Inre“NicoleVV”,296A.D.2d608(3rdDept.2002).26N.Y.FamilyCt.Act651‐a(Consol.2014)27Id.
8
allowtheindicatedreportintoevidencetheattorneyforthechildmustarguethat
thisreportisanexceptiontohearsayandfallsunderthebusinessrecordexception.
Thisbusinessrecordsexceptionrequiresthatevidenceseekingtobeadmittedmust
bea“writingorrecord”madeintheregularcourseofbusiness,contemporaneously
withthetransaction,occurrenceoreventdescribedtherein(see,CPLR4518).28
TheAttorneyfortheChildcanchoosetouseanindicatedreportagainstone
oftheparties;probablythemosteffectivewaytoaccomplishthisisto“subpoena
theinvestigationchildprotectivecaseworkertotestifyabouttheinvestigation.The
resultsoftheinvestigationshouldbeadmissibleifcounselusesajudicialsubpoena
underSSL422(4)(A)(e).”29NewYorkFamilyCt.Act651‐allowsforthesubpoenaed
indicatedreporttobeadmissibleasabusinessrecord.
Inadditiontotheindicatedreportitself,courtshaveallowedtheadmission
oftheentirecasefileofthechildprotectiveagencyintoevidence.Forexample,In
theMatterofR(anonymous),30aproceedingtoextendtheplacementofchildren,the
SecondDepartmentheldthatthefamilyCourtproperlyadmittedtheentirecasefile
ofthechildprotectiveagencyintoevidence.
Theagencyestablishedaproperfoundationforadmissionofthefileinto
evidenceasabusinessrecordbyestablishingthatitconsistedofentriesmaybycase
workerswhowereunderabusinessdutytotimelyrecordallmattersrelatingtothe
welfareofthesubjectchildren.Furthermore,asrequiredbyprincipalsof
28Inre“NicoleVV”,296A.D.2dat613.29N.Y.FamilyCt.Act651‐a(Consol.2014).30ChildrenPutnamCountryDep’tofSocialServsv.AlifeR(anonymous),264A.D.2d423(2ndDept.1999).
9
“fundamentalfairness”,theappellant’scounselwasaffordedtheopportunityto
reviewthecasefilepriortoitsadmissionintoevidence.31
Likewise,inChautauquaCountyDeptofSoc.Serv.VAnnW.(inreRaychael
L.W.),theAppellant’sclaimthattheFamilyCourterrorinreceivingintoevidence
theentirecasefileofpetitioneronthegroundsthatthefilecontainedinadmissible
hearsaywasrejected.32Thecourtconcludedthat“fundamentalfairnessisnot
violatedbytheadmissioninevidenceofanentirecarefilewheretheopposing
attorneyhashadtheopportunitytoreviewthecasefilebeforeitsadmissionin
evidence.”33
Thus,aAttorneyfortheChildseekingtohaveanentirecasefileadmitted
intoevidenceshouldbeabletodosoprovidedtheyfirstestablishaproper
foundationforthefileasabusinessrecord.Thisfoundationmaybeestablishedby
showingthatthecontentsofthefileweremadebycaseworkersunderabusiness
dutytodocumentissuesconcerningthewelfareofthesubjectchild.Next,inorder
tosatisfytheprincipalsof“fundamentalfairness”,theAttorneyfortheChildmust
affordopposingcounseltheopportunitytoreviewthecasepriortoitsadmission
intoevidence.
D.Child’sOutofCourtStatementsRegardingAbuseAdmissible
31Id.at423‐24;3‐40NewYorkTrialGuide40.50.32DeptofSoc.Serv.VAnnW.(inreRaychaelL.W.),298A.D.2d930,931(4thDept.2002).33SeeMatterofR.Children,264A.D.2d423,424;MatterofRosemaryD.,78A.D.2d.889,Ivdenied52N.Y.2d703,MatterofMelanieRuthJJ.,76A.D.2d651(3rdDept.1998).(fundamentalfairnessnotviolatedwhenapartyhasanopportunitytoexaminethecasefail,eitherpriortoorduringthetrial).
10
Inadditiontoadmittinganindicatedreport,statementsbythechildthathe
orshehadbeenabusedorneglectedbyaparentcanbecompellingevidenceto
supporttheAttorneyfortheChild’sposition.AnumberofThirdDepartmentcases
haveruled,“out‐of‐courthearsaystatementsofachildaboutbeingneglectedare
admissibleinprivatecustodycases.”34“Thehearsayexceptionregardingprior
statementsmadebychildrenrelatingincidentsofabuseandneglectencompassed
inFamilyCourtAct1046(a)(vi)appliessincethegravamenofpetitioners’case
involveschildabuse.”35
OpposingAdmissionofIndicatedReport
Opposingtheadmissionofanindicatedreportmaybesomewhatmore
difficultalthoughnotentirelyimpossible.AccordingtothePracticeInsightsnotedin
FamilyCourtAct651‐a,“ifcounselistryingtoopposeadmissionoftheindicated
investigationthebestargumentmaybethatthereport’sallegationsarenot
corroborated.”However,corroborationseemstobeeasilysatisfiedbyhavingthe
caseworkertestifyastotheirfindings.Anotherpossibleargumenttoopposethe
admissionofanindicatedreportisthattheweightofthefindingsmaynotbe
significant,especiallyif“thechildprotectiveworkerindicatedthecase,buttookno
actualaction,suchasbringinganeglectpetition,againsttheparent.”36Thistypeof
34N.Y.FamilyCt.Act651‐a(Consol.2014).35PrattvWood,210A.D.2d741,742(3rdDept.1994.)Seealso“InReNicoleVV”,296A.D.2dat612(Numerouswitnessestestifiedtostatementsmadetothembychildrendescribingmother’sabusiveconduct;statementsproperlyadmittedunderFamilyCourtActarticle2asout‐of‐concernstatementsofchildren;statementswereamplycorroborated).36N.Y.FamilyCtAct651‐a(Consol2014)
11
situationmayarisewheretheperpetratoroftheabuseisnolongerincontactwith
thechild,oriftheindicatedparentacceptstheservicesofferedbyDSSinaneffortto
dealwiththeabuse.Insuchcasestheremaybenocourtactionandthemattermay
stayentirelywithinDSS.
B.UnfoundedReports
Incontrasttoindicatedreportofabuseormaltreatment,unfoundedreports
areunavailabletoAttorneyfortheChildsandaregenerallyinadmissibleas
evidence.Thepolicyfortheunavailabilityandinadmissibilityofunfoundedreports
istheprotectionofthesubject’snamesinthereportswhenthereisinsufficient
evidencetosupporttheallegationscontainedtherein.
Anunfoundedreportisareportofchildabuseormaltreatmentinwhichthe
investigationdeterminesthattherewasnotsomecredibleevidenceoftheabuseor
maltreatment.37BeforetheChildProtectiveServicesReformActof1996,knownas
Elisa’sLaw,unfoundedreportswereexpunged.38UnderElisa’sLaw,theunfounded
reportismaintainedbytheCentralRegister,but“allinformationidentifyingthe
subjectsofthereportandotherpersonsnamedinthereportshallbelegallysealed
forthwithbythecentralregisterandanylocalprotectiveservicesorstateagency
whichinvestigatedthereport.”39TheCentralRegistermaintainsunfoundedreports
forsupervisorypurposes.Itcanalsobeusedinsubsequentinvestigationofabuseor
37N.Y.Soc.Serv.412(6)(McKinney2014).38N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(former5);L1996,ch.12,8‐12.39N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(Consol.2014).
12
maltreatmentinvolvingthesamesubject,child,orthechild’ssiblings.40Tenyears
afterthereceiptofthereport,“theunfoundedreportisexpunged.41
TheAppellateDivision,ThirdDepartment,upheldElisa’sLaw,which
requiresthattheCentralRegistermaintainunfoundedreportsforsubsequent
investigationsofabuseormaltreatment.42Fortworeasons,theCourtheldthat
Elisa’sLawdoesnotviolatethedueprocessrightsofthesubjectofthereport.First,
theplaintiffsfailedtoprovethestigmaplustest.Althoughtheyestablishedthat
thereisalowlevelofstigmaattachedtoanunfoundedreport,thesubjectsofthe
reportsexperiencenoemploymentdeprivationbecauseemployersdonothave
accesstothereports.43Second,“maintainingthesealed,unfoundedreportsfor
purposesofDSS’subsequentinvestigationsisrationallyrelatedtothecommunity
interestofimprovingthesafetyofchildreninbothfamilyandinstitutional
settings.44“Theprincipalpurposeof[Elisa’sLaw]wastohelpchildprotective
workersdetectandinvestigateapatternofabuserevealedbyunfoundedreports
previouslyexpunged,sinceanunfoundedreportdoesnotalwaysindicatethata
childhasnotbeenabused.”45AnAttorneyfortheChildwillfindElisa’sLaw
especiallyusefulinthelimitedcasesmentionedbelowinwhichunfoundedreports
areadmissiblebecauseElisa’sLawrecognizesthatandunfoundedreportisnot
necessarilyanuntruereport.
40Id.41N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(6)(Consol.2014.).42MaryL.v.StateDept.ofSocialServices,244A.D.2d.133(3rdDept.1998).43Idat136.44Idat137.45Idat135.
13
Accesstounfoundedreportsisstrictlylimited.First,theOfficeofChildren
andFamilyServicehasaccesstounfoundedreportsforsupervisorypurposes.46
Second,“forthepurposeofpreparingafatalityreport,”theOfficeofChildrenand
FamilyServicesandafatalityreviewteamhaveaccess.47Third,thelocalchild
protectiveservicesagencyandtheofficeofchildrenandfamilyserviceshaveaccess
tounfoundedreports“wheninvestigatingasubsequentreportofsuspectedabuse
ormaltreatmentinvolvingasubjectoftheunfoundedreport,achildnamedinthe
unfoundedreport,orachild’ssiblingsnamedintheunfoundedreport.”48Fourththe
subjectofthereporthasaccess.49Finally,thedistrictattorney,sheriff,andpolice
officershaveaccesstounfoundedreports“whensuchofficialverifiesthatthereport
isnecessarytoconductanactiveinvestigationorprosecutionoffalsereportingof
abuseorneglectunderNewYorkPenalLaw240.55(3).50Inaddition,the
commissionerofDSSmaydiscloseinformationaboutanunfoundedreportifthe
disclosuredoesnotinterferewiththebestinterestofthechild.51However,the
commissionermayonlydisclosethat“theinvestigationhasbeencompleted,andthe
reporthasbeenunfounded.”52ItshouldbenotedthatanAttorneyfortheChildis
notauthorizedbyNewYorkSocialServicesLaw422(5)(a)tohaveaccesstoan
unfoundedreport.
46N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(i)(Consol.2014).47N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(ii)(Consol.2014).48N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(a)(iii)(Consol.2014).49N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(iv)(Consol.2014).50N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(v)(Consol2014)51N.Y.Soc.Serv.422‐(5)(a)(i)(Consol2014).52N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(ii)(Consol.2014).
14
UnfoundedReports—InadmissibleasEvidence
Withlimitedexceptions,anunfoundedreportisinadmissibleasevidence.
“Anunfoundedreportshallnotbeadmissibleinanyjudicialoradministrative
proceedingoraction.”53TheFamilyCourtActparticularlyexcludesunfounded
reportsasadmissibleevidenceincustodyorvisitationproceedings.54Theparty
seekingtheadmissionofanunfoundedreportcannotsubpoenaacaseworkerto
testifytothecontentsoftheinadmissiblereport.InHumberston,theAppellate
Division,FourthDepartment,heldtherespondentdoes“notfallwithinanystatutory
provisionallowinghertointroduceintoevidenceanunfoundedreportofsexual
abuseoftheparties’daughter…andbecausetheunfoundedreportwas
inadmissible,”theCourtheldthattheauthoroftheunfoundedreportcouldnot
testifytoitscontents.55InPeoplevLV,theSupremeCourtofRennsselaerCounty
heldthatanunfoundedreportcouldn’tbemadeavailabletotheDistrictAttorneyin
acriminalcaseconcerninganincidentdescribedinthereportunlessthecrimeis
makingfalseallegationsofchildabuseormaltreatment.56TheCourtheldthatthe
DistrictAttorneycouldn’tsubpoenathecaseworker“to,ineffect,recreatethe
inadmissiblerecord.”57“Counselshouldfurtherargueforexclusionofallotherproof
whichflowsfromanunfoundedinvestigation,“althoughthereisnotastatute
excludingsuchevidence.58
Exceptions53N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(Consol.2014).54N.Y.FamilyCt.Act651‐a(McKinney2014).55HumberstonvWheaton,801N.Y.S.2d836(4thDept.2005).56PeoplevLV,182Misc.2d912,915(N.Y.SupCt.1999).57Idat916.58N.Y.Fam.Ct.Act651‐a(Consol.2014).
15
Therearethreeexceptionstothegeneralrulethatunfoundedreportsare
inadmissibleasevidence.First,“anunfoundedreportmaybeintroducedinto
evidencebythesubjectofthereportwheresuchsubject,isaplaintifforpetitioner
inacivilactionorproceedingallegingthefalsereportingofchildabuseor
maltreatment.59Acivilactionwouldincludeanactionagainstrespondentforfalsely
reportedabuseorneglectbytheotherparent.
InLimvLyi,theAppellateDivision,ThirdDepartment,heldthatoneparent’s
falseallegationsofabuseagainsttheotherparentareevidencethatcustodytothe
accusingparentisnotthebestinterestsofthechild.60AfterDSSdeterminedthat
petitioner’sreportofchildabusebytherespondentwasunfounded,thepetitioner
soughtsolecustodyofthechild.61Respondentcross‐petitionedforsolecustody.62
TheCourtheldthat“theadmissionoftheunfoundedreportisproper”because
respondentallegedinhiscross‐petitionthatpetitionerfalselyaccusedhim.63
Therefore,hewasconsideredapetitionerinhiscross‐petitionforsolecustody.64
Thefalseallegationsareevidencethattheaccusingparentintentionallyinterfered
withtheotherparent’srelationshipwiththechildandplacedherneedsabovethe
child’sneedsbysubjectingthechildtounnecessaryinvestigation.65Similarly,the
AppellateDivision,FourthDepartment,upheldthemodificationofcustodybasedon
59N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(c)(Consol.2014).60LimvLyi,299A.D.2d7764(3rdDept2002).61Idat765.62Id.63Idat767.64Id.65Idat764,766.
16
falseallegationsofchildabuse.66TheCourtheldthattherewas“soundand
substantialbasisintherecord“toupholdthetrialcourt’sdecisiontomodify
custodyforpetitioner.67Evenaftertherespondenthadbeen“convictedoftwo
countsofattemptedfalselyreportinganincidentintheseconddegreeinconnection
withthosefalseallegationofabuse,”shefiledanotherfalsereportagainst
petitioner.68TheCourtsupportedthetrialcourt’sfinding“thatrespondent’s
behaviorandactionswerenotinthebestinterestofthechild…andtheseveral
investigationsassociatedwiththosefalsereportsofabuseweretraumaticforthe
child.”69
Itisunclearwhethertheentireunfoundedreportisadmissibleincivil
actionsinvolvingfalseallegationsofabuseorneglect.Itispossiblethatonlythe
portionofthereportconcerningthefalseallegationisadmissible.NewYorkSocial
ServicesLaw422(5)(b)(i)doesnotspecifywhethertheentireunfoundedreportis
admissible,andcaselawhasnotspecifiedwhethertheentirereportoronly
portionsareadmissible.Oftenthecourtssimplyreferto“unfoundedreports”as
evidencewithoutmoredescriptionoftheadmissibleorinadmissibleportions.
Fromasmallgroupofcasesofferinggreaterdescriptionsoftheadmissible
unfoundedreports,itcanbeinferredanadmissibleunfoundedreportincludes,at
least,thestatementthatthereportwasdeterminedtobeunfoundedandthe
informationfoundduringtheinvestigationthatjustifiesthatdetermination.For
example,inCiannarneavMcCoy,theAppellateDivision,ThirdDepartment,referred66BeyervTranelli‐Ahse,195A.D.2d972(4thDept.1993).67Idat973.68Id.69Id.
17
to“thereportofasexualabuseevaluationprocuredby[DSS]’asevidence
supportingthetrialcourt’smodificationofcustodyinfavoroftherespondent.70The
reportfoundthepetitioner’sallegationstobeinconsistentwiththeclusterof
symptomsanddynamicsofsexualabuse,andthechildprotectivereportwas
unfounded.71Thecourtadmittedthereportonthesexualabuseevaluationandthe
unfoundedreport,butdidnotsaywhetherthereportswereadmittedintheir
entirety.
InJohnA.v.Bridget,theFamilyCourtofNewYorkadmittedanunfounded
reportintoevidenceanddescribedtheinvestigationincludedinthereport.72The
Courtrelatedthat“Theinvestigationincludedinterviewsofthechildrenontwo
separatedates.AttheinitialinterviewonApril29,2003,onetwintoldthechild
protectivespecialistthat“Pammytoldmedaddytouchedmypeepee.”Theother
child,however,madenomentionofbeingtouched.TheChildren’sstatementsonthe
secondinterviewweremostlyrelatedtothecourtcase,whichleftthechild
protectivespecialistwiththeimpressionthatthechildrenhadbeencoached.73
Theevidenceoftheentireunfoundedreportorportionsthereofwouldalso
besubjecttoevidentiaryrulesofrelevanceandwhethertheprobativevalue
substantiallyoutweighstheprejudicialeffect.Theserulescouldrequirethe
admissionofonlyportionsofthereport.
Incustodyorvisitationcasesinvolvingallegationsoffalsereportsofabuseor
neglect,theAttorneyfortheChildwillusetheunfoundedreporttosupporther70CiannarneavMcCoy,306A.D.2d647,648(3rdDept.2003).71Idat649.72JohnA.v.Bridget,4Misc.3d1022A(Fam.Ct.2004).73Id.
18
positionthatoneparentshouldhavecustodyovertheother.PerhapstheAttorney
fortheChildperceivesthatisitinthechild’sbestinterestfortheparentwithan
unfoundedreportagainsthertohavecustody.Inthatscenario,theparentwiththe
unfoundedreportwouldintroducetheunfoundedreportasevidencethattheother
parentmadefalseallegationsofabuseormaltreatmentagainsther.Theparentwith
theunfoundedreportandtheAttorneyfortheChildwouldarguethatthisevidence
demonstratesthatbymakingfalsereports,theotherparentsubjectedthechildto
unnecessaryinvestigation,interferedwiththechild’srelationshipwiththeparent,
andplacedhisneedsabovethechild’sneeds.
Inanotherscenario,theAttorneyfortheChildperceivesthatitisinthe
child’sbestinterestfortheparentmakingunfoundedallegationsofabuseorneglect
againsttheotherparenttohavecustody.Inthatscenario,theparentwiththe
unfoundedreportsagainstherwouldintroducethereportsasevidenceforthesame
reasonsdescribedinthefirstscenario;buttheAttorneyfortheChildshouldremind
thecourtthatanunfoundedreportisnotnecessarilyanuntruereport.Suchwasthe
premiseofElisa’sLaw,whichrequiredthattheCentralRegistermaintain
unfoundedreportsforthepurposeofinvestigationsofsubsequentreportsinvolving
thesamesubjectorchildrennamedinthereports.Multipleunfoundedreports
couldhelpchildprotectiveworkersidentifyapatternofabuse.Whensuchapattern
ofabuseispresent,theAttorneyfortheChildwouldstronglyopposethattheparent
namedinthereportreceivecustodyofherchild.
Thesecondexceptiontothegeneralruleofinadmissibilityisthecriminal
prosecutionforfalsereportingofabuseorneglect.NewYorkSocialServicesLaw
19
422(5)(a)(v)allowsthedistrictattorney,policedepartment,andsheriff’sofficeto
accesstheunfoundedreport“whensuchofficialverifiesthatthereportisnecessary
toconductactiveinvestigationorprosecution”forfalseallegationsofabuseor
maltreatment,andunfoundedreportsareadmissibleincriminalcasesprosecuting
thefalseallegationsofchildabuseormaltreatmentunderNewYorkPenalLaw
240.55(3).74NewYorkServicesLaw422(5)(a)(v)statesthattheofficialmustverify
thatthereportisnecessary,whichwouldindicatethataverificationisrequiredto
obtainanunfoundedreport.TheJusticeCourtofNewYorkheldthatasubpoena
ducestecumwassufficienttoaccesstheunfoundedreportbecausethesubpoena
ducestecumisa“declarationthattheinformationsoughtisnecessarytothe
investigationorprosecutionofthematter”andtheDistrictAttorneycouldbe
disciplinedifheissuedanunnecessarysubpoena.75Again,itisnotclearfromthe
statuteorthecaselawwhethertheentirereportoronlytheportionconcerningthe
falseallegationisadmissible,thereportwouldbesubjecttoevidentiaryrulesof
relevanceandprobativevalue.Othercourtshaveallowedasubpoenaducestecum
fortheproductionofunfoundedreports,althoughtheissuesofthecaseswerenot
whetherthesubpoenawassufficienttosatisfythestatue.76
Atleasttwocomplicationshavearisenconcerningtheadmissionof
unfoundedreportsasevidenceincriminalcasesforfalsereportingofchildabuseor
neglect.Thefirstcomplicationariseswhenincriminatingevidenceunrelatedtoan
unfoundedreportiscontainedwithinthatreportagainstdefendant.InPeoplev74N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(v)(Consol.2014).75PeoplevTrester,190Misc.2d46,47‐48(N.Y.JusticeCt.2002).76Peoplev.LV,182Misc.2dat916,PeoplevMcFadden,178Misc.2d343,344(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1998).
20
Berliner,thedefendantwaschargedwithmakingafalsereportofabuseorneglect.77
Thepeoplearguedthatthedefendantwasthesubjectofanunfoundedreportand
duringtheinvestigationofthatreport,“thedefendantmadesomeallegedly
incriminatingstatements…probativeofthefactthathelatermadeafalsereport
regardinganeighborfamily.”78Thosestatementswerecontainedintheunfounded
reportagainstdefendant.79TheCityofNewRochelleheldthatDSSmustproduce
theunfoundedreportforanincamerareviewbythecourtto“determinewhether
anyoftheinformationcontainedthereinmaybeprobativeofthechargesleviedby
thePeopleagainstthedefendant.”80TheCourtreasoned,“thesealingofDSS
unfoundedreportsismeanttoshieldthosefalselyaccusedofchildabuseorneglect,
orthoseindividualsaccusedofknowinglymakingfalseaccusations.”81Although
NewYorkSocialServicesLaw422(5)(b)forbidstheadmissionofunfounded
reportsasevidence(withthetwoexceptions),theCourtallowedthePeopleto
introduceintoevidencetheportionofheunfoundedreportagainstdefendant
concerninghisincriminatingstatementsaboutmakingfalseallegationsagainsta
thirdparty.82Thatportionoftheunfoundedreporthasnoconnectiontothe
allegationsofabuseagainstdefendantwithinthereport.
Thesecondcomplicationariseswhenfalseallegationsofabuseorneglectare
notchargedinthecriminalcasebutpartofthedefense.InPeoplevMcFadden,the
defendantwaschargedwithmultiplecountsofsodemy,rape,sexualabuse,and77PeoplevBerliner,179Misc.2d844,845(N.Y.CityCt.1999).78Idat847.79Id.80Idat851.81Id.82Idat852.
21
endangeringthewelfareofachild.83Thedefendantrequestedajudicialsubpoena
ducestecumfortheproductionofunfoundedreportsagainsthim.84Heclaimedthat
theunfoundedreportcontainedproofoffalseallegationsofsexualabusemade
againsthimbythevictimofthepresentlyallegedcrimes.85Hisdefensewasthatthe
victimfalselyaccusedhimofthecrimes.Toresolvethe“tensionbetweentheright
ofadefendanttoafairtrialandtherightoftheStatetomaintainconfidentialityof
certainrecords,”thecourtorderedDSStoproducetheunfoundedreportsforanin
camerareview.86Thecourtheldthat“ifthedefendantcandemonstratethatthe
prohibitionprovidedforintheapplicableportionofsection422(5)oftheSocial
ServicesLawwoulddeprivehimofmaterialnecessaryforhisdefense,such
prohibitionmustbenegative,andtheappropriateinformationmustbeadmittedat
trial.”87
Thethirdexceptiontothegeneralruleofinadmissibilityistheproceeding
undertheFamilyCourtActArticle10.Thesubjectoftheunfoundedreportmay
introduceintoevidencewhen“suchsubjectisarespondentinaproceedingunder
articletenoftheFamilyCourtAct.”88Again,theAttorneyfortheChildwould
presentthesameargumentinsupportoforinoppositiontotheunfoundedreports
asshewouldinlitigationforcustodyorvisitation.
Tointroduceanunfoundedreportintoevidencewhenitfitswithinthe
above‐mentionedexceptions,counselmustestablishthefoundationoftheevidence83PeoplevMcFadden,178Misc.2d.at344.84Id.85Id.86Idat346,348.87Idat348.88N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(a)(iv)(Consol2014).
22
andthensubmititasabusinessrecordexceptiontohearsayrule.FamilyCourtAct
651‐astatesthatifanunfoundedreportwereadmissible,itwouldbeadmittedasa
businessrecord.89
TheNewYorkSocialServicesLawisunclearaboutwhethertheentire
unfoundedreportisadmissiblewithintheexceptions,buttheintroductionofeither
thecompletereportorportionsthereofwouldbesubjecttootherevidentiaryrules
suchasrelevanceandwhethertheprobativevaluesignificantlyoutweighsthe
prejudicialeffect.InPeoplevLVthecourtheld,peopleseekinganordertounseal
thereporttopermitdisclosureofinformationconcerningthefactsand
circumstancesunderlyingtheunfoundedincidentofabuseormaltreatmentwillbe
denied.90
C.Expungement—IndicatedReports
Aspreviouslydiscussed,thesubjectofanindicatedreporthasarightto
requestanexpungementofthisreportwithin90daysaftertheaccusedisnotified
bythelocalagencythatthereporthadbeenindicated.91Andifthatrequestis
denied,thesubjecthastherighttoafairhearing.92Dueprocessprotectionsrequire
aheightenedstandardofproofinordertoupholdanindicatedfindingduringan
administrativeexpungementhearing.
Duetothehighriskoferrorproducedbythe“somecredibleevidence”
standardusedinadministrativeexpungementhearings,dueprocessprotection89N.Y.FamilyCt.Act651‐a(Consol2014).90Peoplev.LV,182Misc.2d912,701N.Y.S.2d685(Sup.Ct.,RensselaerCounty1999).91Jannie“CC”vKaladjian,189A.D.2dat56.92N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law422(8)(a)‐(b)(Consol.2014)andLee“TT”v.Dowling,211A.D.2dat46.
23
warrantsareplacementthereofwiththehigher“preponderanceoftheevidence”
standard.Suchdeterminations,however,doesnotunderminetheuseofthe“some
credibleevidence”standardforaninitialdeterminationtoindicateareportorfor
aninitialadministrativereviewofthatdeterminationtoexpungeoramendsuch
report.93
IntheadministrativehearingpursuanttoNewYorkSocialServicesLaw
422(8)(b)todetermineexpungement,thestandardisthepreponderanceofthe
evidenceandtheburdenisonDSS.94
Ifafteranadministrativehearingthereportisnotexpunged,thesubjectof
thereportmaycommenceaproceedingpursuanttoCPLRarticle78tochallengethe
decision.”95Thestandardofreviewinthisarticle78proceedingis“whetherthe
determinationisrationalandsupportedbysubstantialevidence.”96
Expungement—UnfoundedReports
Inadditiontotheprovisionsforexpungementofindicatedreports,section
422(5)(c)oftheNewYorkSocialServicesLawprovidesthatthesubjectofan
unfoundedreportmayalsorequestthatthematterbecompletelyexpungedandnot
justsealed.97“Theoretically,asealedunfoundedreportisnotavailabletothepublic,
butmistakeshavebeenknowntobemade.Theclientforwhomadisclosureofeven
93NilsTTvNewYorkStateDeptofSocServ.,221A.D.2d874(3rdDept.1995).94RobertOOvDowling,217A.D.2d(3rdDept.1995);affirmedby87N.Y.2d1043(1996).LeeTTvDowling,87N.Y.2d.(1996).95Idat705.96GeraldG.vStateDeptofSocServ.,248A.D.2dat919.97N.Y.Soc.Serv.422(5)(c)(Consol2014).
24
anunfoundedreportwouldbedevastating—suchasapediatrician—should
considerseekingtohavetherecordsdestroyed.”98
Thesubjectofanunfoundedreportwhowishestohavethisreportexpunged
isnotentitledtoahearing.Section422(5)(c)oftheNewYorkSocialServicesLaw
providesthatarequestforexpungementofanunfoundedfindingmaybemadeto
theStateOfficeofChildandFamilyServiceswhich,initsdiscretion,maygranta
requesttoexpungeanunfoundedreportwhere:
“(i)thesourceofthereportwasconvictedofaviolationofsubdivisionthree
ofsection240.55ofthepenallawinregardtosuchreport;or
(ii)thesubjectofthereportpresentsclearandconvincingevidencethat
affirmativelyrefutestheallegationofabuseormaltreatment;provided
however,thattheabsenceofcredibleevidencesupportingtheallegationsof
abuseormaltreatmentshallnotbethesolebasistoexpungethereport.”
Examplesthatpresentclearandconvincingevidencethataffirmativelyrefute
allegationsofabuseormaltreatmentmayincludesituationswheretheattorneyfor
theaccusedprovideswitnessstatementsandmedicalreportsthatachild’sinjuries
wereaccidentalorwherethelocalChildProtectiveServicesinvestigatortakesthe
positionthatthereportwastotallywithoutmerit.99Ifthisrequesttoexpungean
unfoundedreportissuccessful,thestatewillorderthecountytocompletelydestroy
thesubject’sfile.
Conclusion98Id.99Id.
25
Childcustodylitigationofteninvolvesallegationsofchildabuseor
maltreatmentbytheparties.Moreover,inmanyinstancesoneorbothparentsmay
havebeenthesubjectofpreviousabuseorneglectinvestigationbyDSS.Attorneys
fortheChildwilloftenseethesereportsasacriticaltoolintheircases.Inorderfor
anAttorneyfortheChildtobestrepresentachildclient,aAttorneyfortheChild
mustaddresstheadmissibilityoftheresultinginvestigativereports.Ifthereportis
admitted,theAttorneyfortheChildmustargueastotheweightofthatevidence.
Theindicatedreportisadmissible.TheAttorneyfortheChildcouldarguethatthe
indicatedreportisevidencethatitisnotinthebestinterestofthechildtogive
custodytotheparentsubjectofthereport.TheAttorneyfortheChildcould
alternativelyarguethattheallegationsoftheindicatedreportwereeithernot
severeenoughtoprecludeaparentfromhavingcustody,ortheabuseorneglect
wassufficientlyremediedtoallowcustodytothatsubjectparent.Anunfounded
reportisgenerallyinadmissiblebutisadmissibleincivilactionsinvolvingfalse
allegationsofabuseorneglect,criminalprosecutionforreportingfalseallegation
andforproceedingsunderFamilyCourtActArticle10.Incivilactionsinvolving
falseallegations,theAttorneyfortheChildcanarguethattheunfoundedreportisa
falseallegationbyaparentwhoplaceshisneedsabovethechild’sneeds,interferes
withthechild’srelationshipwiththeotherparent,andsubjectsthechildto
unnecessaryinvestigations.OrtheAttorneyfortheChildcanarguethatunfounded
reportsarenotnecessarilyuntruereportsandthataseriesofunfoundedreports
couldbeindicativeofapatternofabusebythesubjectparent.Finally,anexpunged
reportisinadmissibleunderallcircumstances.Anunderstandingoftheserulesof
26
admissibilityofindicated,unfounded,andexpungedreportswillenableaAttorney
fortheChildtobestserveherchildclient.
top related