State child abuse registries have faced legal challenges
Catherine Jun / The Detroit News
Decades after federal legislation triggered the founding of child abuse registries, many states have expanded their policies and procedures, drawing court challenges in several instances.
Still the registries remain controversial, and how they are handled ranges from state to state.
Michigan has over the years both expanded its access to the list and contracted its criteria for listing. In addition to a finding of neglect or abuse, the caseworker must also find a”high” or “intensive” risk to the child’s well-being, save for a few exceptions. Then and now, criminal conviction is not necessary.
“It makes it more difficult to be placed on the registry because it’s looking at our more serious cases,” said Zoe Lyons, manager of the Children’s Protective Services division of the Department of Human Services.
Twenty-three states had policies restricting their central registries to claims that were substantiated, founded or indicated on reports, according to a 2003 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Approximately 30 states allow or require a check of central registry or department records for individuals applying to be child- or youth-care providers, according to the Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Many states began adding names to their registries as early as 1975, following the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which required all states to keep such records to qualify for funding for child welfare programs.
And several have faced legal challenges that in some cases forced child welfare agencies to bolster their due process protections:
• In 1991, a school paraprofessional filed a class action lawsuit against New York state arguing that placing her name on the registry violated her rights of privacy and substantive and procedural due process. She was eventually awarded more than $115,000.
• The Maryland appeals court ruled in 1996 that people accused of abuse or neglect have the right to a trial-type hearing before the state lists them. State officials were soon thereafter required to schedule hearings in front of an administrative law judge in all cases in which it’s requested.• Late last year, a federal appeals court ruling in San Francisco prompted the California attorney general to review that state’s procedures for appealing a listing. The state offers no procedure for a listed person to seek removal from the list.
Child welfare attorneys say that the move to use registries as a hiring tool goes far beyond its original purpose.
“I don’t think the intent was ever to have this be an employment resource,” said Linda Spears, vice president of policy and public affairs at the Child Welfare.
My Opinion On This Matter:
First and foremost unless you are convicted in a criminal court or found guilty of abuse by a judge by an abundance of evidence supporting CPS’s Claim…your name should not be on any list. This list turns people into criminals without ever going to trial.
Most of the people on these lists, should not even be there….CPS is a civil matter. When CPS substantiates abuse against you it is just their own personal opinion, it is not a matter of law. Many times it is to get even, as it was in our case…to discredit our valid complaints against them. There is no trial, there is no evidence…they can do what they want.
I say these lists need to be abolished, if CPS needs a list to refer to in cases of abuse…then that list needs to be private, employers should not have access to it…NO ONE SHOULD!
And unless you have actually been convicted in court of the crime of child abuse and neglect…your name should not be on any list…Whatever happened to due process, the right to a fair trial, the right to face your accuser in court and present evidence in your defense….this list is bullshit and should be abolished in all 50 states!
