Is Child fatality disclosure hindered by Bureaucratic circumventing and ignorance?
Part 1 of a 4 part investigative report
Recently, this reporter, sent out numerous, §7B-2902, child fatality disclosure requests to various county DSS agencies across the state of North Carolina.
These disclosures come at a very high price, the fatality or near fatality of a child.
As such, requests for disclosure should be handled with the utmost respect, honesty, and in full compliance with the law.
Background
Enacted in 1997, North Carolina General Statute 7B-2902, requires the disclosure of, findings and information, to the public, by any public agency, when a child fatality or near fatality results from abuse, neglect, or maltreatment, within 5 working days, unless there exists a valid, statutory reason, to decline disclosure.
The Findings and information as defined by the law:
“(2) Findings and information.—A written summary, as allowed by subsections (c) through (f) of this section of actions taken or services rendered by a public agency following receipt of information that a child might be in need of protection. The written summary shall include any of the following information the agency is able to provide:
a. The dates, outcomes, and results of any actions taken or services rendered.
b. The results of any review by the State Child Fatality Prevention Team, a local child fatality prevention team, a local community child protection team, the Child Fatality Task Force, or any public agency.
c. Confirmation of receipt of all reports, accepted or not accepted by the county department of social services, for investigation of suspected child abuse, neglect or maltreatment, including confirmation that investigations were conducted, the results of the investigations, a description of the conduct of the most recent investigation and the services rendered, and a statement of basis for the department’s decision.”
This is not merely a State law, but a Federal Mandate required by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), which compels states that receive federal grant money to disclose, to the public, findings or information (the or is considered inclusive instead of limiting) on child abuse fatalities and near fatalities. According to the ACF website:
“…When child abuse or neglect results in the death or near death of a child, the State must provide for the disclosure of the available facts.” “However, nothing in this provision should be interpreted to require disclosure of information which would jeopardize a criminal investigation or proceeding.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, even provides Question and Answer clarification to ensure that States are aware of the provisions necessary to comply with this disclosure requirement.
This sounds straightforward enough, right?
Incredibly, what should have been an uncomplicated, legally authorized, disclosure request that was answered with a statutory directed disclosure, instead, in some cases, was a nightmare of ignorance, failure to reply, bureaucratic circumventing, failure to produce lawful “summary’s” and declining disclosures without "good faith" or "just cause".
Ignorance of the law
All of the e-mails sent to the various DSS agencies contained the same information:
- The law that authorized disclosure in child fatalities and near fatalities,
- The definition of findings and information as afforded by the statute,
- The name, age, date of death, and parent/s of the deceased child,
- The name and title (North Carolina CPS Examiner) of the public person making the inquiry.
The disclosure law does not necessitate that the requester has to provide identifying information, employer information, or reveal the reason or intended purpose of the disclosure information.
It merely states “…a public agency, shall disclose to the public, upon request…”
Yet, several DSS personnel or county attorneys responded to the disclosure requests with requests of their own. They included:
- a court Order—Johnston County DSS,
- identification of employer and purpose of inquiry—Rockingham County DSS,
- identity or agency where the North Carolina CPS Examiner title is held—New Hanover County DSS,
- a return email from an “agency email account” with “department letterhead”—Robeson County DSS
Out of the four departments that wrote requesting further information, two responded to the return correspondence with compliance with the law, two however, did not.
Rockingham County Department of Social Services—Larry Johnson, Director
On November 21, 2011, a disclosure request was emailed to Rockingham County DSS, seeking the disclosure of facts and information about the child fatality of Antonio Devon Bridges Jr., a 4-month-old child, who died June 19, 2008.
The next day, Wendy Walker, Attorney for Rockingham County DSS, responded to this request, stating that she could not tell from the email in what capacity the request for RCDSS records were being requested and asking “Do you mind identifying who your employer is and the purpose of your inquiry?”.
A reply, that very day, November 22, 2011, containing the answers to Ms. Walker’s questions and a reminder that the answers were given even though the law did not require that the requester reveal this type of information, was emailed to Ms. Walker.
As of the date of this article, disclosure concerning the child fatality of Antonio Devon Bridges Jr., has never been released, nor has a legally valid reason to deny the disclosure been received.
In fact, Ms. Walker has not responded since her inquiries were answered.
The law clearly states, unless there is a legally allowable reason to refuse:
“Within five working days from the receipt of a request for findings and information related to a child fatality or near fatality, a public agency shall consult with the appropriate district attorney and provide the findings and information…”
*Update: Ms. Walker did finally reply, a month after her questions were answered, December 22, 2011, stating that DSS had not received any previous reports concerning Antonio Devon Bridges Jr., prior to his death.
Johnston County Department of Social Services—Earl Marett, Director
On November 17, 2011, a request for disclosure concerning the child fatality of Dakota Johnson, a 14-year-old teen, who died July 13, 2010, was emailed to the Johnston County Department of Social Services.
6 days later, Denise Boyette, Social Worker Program Administrator, sent the following reply:
“Despite your request in writing for a summation of any involvement our agency may or may not have pertaining the child mentioned in your email below, due to confidentiality surrounding Child Protective Services involvement, you will have to seek a court order to obtain any possible information our agency may or may not have regarding this child. Once you have obtained such a court order, please feel free to contact us at that time.”
A subsequent email to Ms. Boyette explaining that a court Order was not required because the “confidentiality surrounding Child Protection” ends when a child dies, due to suspected maltreatment, abuse, or neglect, except for specific information that is described in the statute.
The email further stated that this public disclosure was authorized under § 7B-2902, and included an embedded link to the statute on the North Carolina General Assembly website.
In answer to this communication, Johnston County DSS Attorney, W.A. Holland Jr., sent a very abrasive email in which he wrongly stated,
“Lisa needs to read 7B-2901/ She is not one listed. Further that info is maintained by the clerk of superior court. We respectfully decline to release any information to an "interested party".”
Emails sent to Mr. Holland, containing the entire law, questions of how as an attorney he could be unaware of this law, suggestions that he research the law or call the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to confer with them, and a justified demand for an apology, went unanswered.
While it is considerably concerning that neither, Ms. Boyette, a “Social Worker Program Administrator”, or W.A. Holland Jr., the “Johnston County DSS Attorney” was aware of this law.
Even more alarming is that both failed to research, investigate, verify, or even question if this was a valid, legally, mandated law, before erroneously refusing to obey a legally enforceable and existent law.
“Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.”
John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.
The actions of these Johnston County employees raise several concerning questions:
- What other laws are the Johnston County DSS and its attorney unaware of?
- Are they investigating, researching, verifying, and questioning other matters before reaching a determination, or are they dogmatically following their version of the law, despite evidence to the contrary?
- How could this lack of knowledge and apparent refusal to thoroughly examine, even the simplest assertion that is different from their own, be affecting the children and families in Johnston County?
- Shouldn't some kind of training be made available to these department to ensure that they are aware of the laws and following them?
Johnston County DSS was recently in the news, when Sheriff, Steve Bizzell, publically accused them of neglecting the needs of Johnston County Children.
The law is precise on the relief a member of the public can seek if they feel disclosure was wrongly denied:
"Any person whose request is denied may apply to the appropriate superior court for an order compelling disclosure of the findings and information of the public agency. The application shall set forth, with reasonable particularity, factors supporting the application." G.S. 7B-2902(e)
Unfortunately, the law is silent on what relief can be sought or any punishments that may apply, if these departments fail to respond or acknowledge this law at all.
Up next in this series: Child death disclosure hindered by Bureaucratic circumventing, ignorance?
Part 2: Is DSS failure to reply to disclosure requests, breaking the law?
Comments