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.