Child abuse registry
Moderators: family_man, LindaJM
Child abuse registry
.
Disclosure of confidential records - state laws
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... onfide.cfm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 ... -abuse.php
Friday, November 04, 2005
Missouri judge rules child abuse registry unconstitutional
Holly Manges Jones at 7:37 AM ET
[JURIST] A Missouri circuit court judge ruled Thursday that the state's child abuse registry is unconstitutional because it does not allow alleged abusers a due-process hearing before being placed on the list. The registry is not available to the general public, but child care facilities and other employers can use the list to screen current and potential employees. Judge Richard Callahan said the current process caused damage to suspected offenders' reputations and careers, and said these individuals are entitled to a hearing with witnesses before being put on the list. The judge also said that the hearings must use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than "probable cause," which has already been changed by a 2004 law. The Missouri Department of Social Services [official website] said it is considering appealing the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court [official website] and Judge Callahan's ruling will not go into effect until the appeals process is complete.
.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Mar ... ews030.asp
Court sides with abuse defendants
Registry wrongly lists the accused before hearings, judges say.
Published Wednesday, March 14, 2007
JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - The Missouri Supreme Court granted greater legal protections to people accused of child abuse or neglect, ruling yesterday that the state has been wrongly listing people on an abuse registry before giving them hearings.
The court said Missouri was unconstitutionally depriving people of their due-process rights by allowing them to be included on the blacklist solely based on the determination of a state child-abuse-and-neglect investigator or supervisor.
The ruling largely upholds a November 2005 decision by a Cole County judge striking down the registry’s procedures.
The state child abuse registry is kept secret from the general public, but child-care providers and others use it to screen current and potential employees. People listed on the registry effectively are barred from the working at child-care facilities.
Yesterday’s ruling stemmed from a Jan. 2, 2003, anonymous call to a state hot line alleging the chief executive officer and an employee at the Faith House child-care facility in St. Louis had negligently failed to supervise the children in their case. The state Department of Social Services put the women on the registry based on an investigator’s finding of the probable cause of neglect.
That decision was upheld by the Department of Social Services’ Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board, which holds only informal hearings, not ones after judicial procedures.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said putting people on the registry before a hearing in which witnesses are under oath, can be cross-examined and can be compelled to testify violated due-process rights. He also said the hearings must use a tougher-to-prove criterion of "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "probable cause."
A change in 2004 state law already had required that the "preponderance of evidence" standard be used but did not require a hearing be held.
The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for a hearing with the "preponderance of evidence" standard before a registry listing can occur. But the court said due-process rights did not require testimony under oath, and the General Assembly was free to require - or not require - other procedural protections at administrative hearings.
St. Louis attorney Timothy Belz, who represented the Faith House employees, said the ruling was an 80 percent victory that should result in the women’s names being removed from the registry of suspected abusers. The ruling also should affect numerous other cases around the state, he said.
"What the Supreme Court did here was emasculate the central registry system to the extent that they could without opening a Pandora’s box as to every administrative hearing in the state," Belz said.
.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/ ... _brief.pdf
page 5
Cases
Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Cavarretta v. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 660 N.E. 250 (Ill. App 3d 1996) . . . 40
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 55
Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Dupuy v. McDonald, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Il. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38, 40
Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-31, 36, 40
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 55
Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Hojnacki v. Klein-Acosta, 285 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 31
In re Preisendorfer, 719 A.2d 590 (N.H. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 40
Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 46,48, 49, 50, 57
Moore v. Board of Educ., 836 S.W.2d, 943 (Mo. banc 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Neal v. Fields, 429 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,35
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-29
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991); . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
State ex re. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
State ex rel. D.M. v. Hoester, 681 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. banc 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
State v. Rollie, 962 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
State v. Smith, 988 S.W.2d 71 (Mo. App. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
State v. Young, 695 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. banc 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Stiffelman v. Abrams, 655 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. banc 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Tate v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 18 S.W.3d 3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Townsend v. Vallas, 256 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-31, 36, 40, 42, 43
Williams v. State, 978 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 44, 56
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. at 113, 115 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
.
Appellant's Reply Brief
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/ ... _brief.pdf
.
Disclosure of confidential records - state laws
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... onfide.cfm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 ... -abuse.php
Friday, November 04, 2005
Missouri judge rules child abuse registry unconstitutional
Holly Manges Jones at 7:37 AM ET
[JURIST] A Missouri circuit court judge ruled Thursday that the state's child abuse registry is unconstitutional because it does not allow alleged abusers a due-process hearing before being placed on the list. The registry is not available to the general public, but child care facilities and other employers can use the list to screen current and potential employees. Judge Richard Callahan said the current process caused damage to suspected offenders' reputations and careers, and said these individuals are entitled to a hearing with witnesses before being put on the list. The judge also said that the hearings must use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than "probable cause," which has already been changed by a 2004 law. The Missouri Department of Social Services [official website] said it is considering appealing the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court [official website] and Judge Callahan's ruling will not go into effect until the appeals process is complete.
.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Mar ... ews030.asp
Court sides with abuse defendants
Registry wrongly lists the accused before hearings, judges say.
Published Wednesday, March 14, 2007
JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - The Missouri Supreme Court granted greater legal protections to people accused of child abuse or neglect, ruling yesterday that the state has been wrongly listing people on an abuse registry before giving them hearings.
The court said Missouri was unconstitutionally depriving people of their due-process rights by allowing them to be included on the blacklist solely based on the determination of a state child-abuse-and-neglect investigator or supervisor.
The ruling largely upholds a November 2005 decision by a Cole County judge striking down the registry’s procedures.
The state child abuse registry is kept secret from the general public, but child-care providers and others use it to screen current and potential employees. People listed on the registry effectively are barred from the working at child-care facilities.
Yesterday’s ruling stemmed from a Jan. 2, 2003, anonymous call to a state hot line alleging the chief executive officer and an employee at the Faith House child-care facility in St. Louis had negligently failed to supervise the children in their case. The state Department of Social Services put the women on the registry based on an investigator’s finding of the probable cause of neglect.
That decision was upheld by the Department of Social Services’ Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board, which holds only informal hearings, not ones after judicial procedures.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said putting people on the registry before a hearing in which witnesses are under oath, can be cross-examined and can be compelled to testify violated due-process rights. He also said the hearings must use a tougher-to-prove criterion of "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "probable cause."
A change in 2004 state law already had required that the "preponderance of evidence" standard be used but did not require a hearing be held.
The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for a hearing with the "preponderance of evidence" standard before a registry listing can occur. But the court said due-process rights did not require testimony under oath, and the General Assembly was free to require - or not require - other procedural protections at administrative hearings.
St. Louis attorney Timothy Belz, who represented the Faith House employees, said the ruling was an 80 percent victory that should result in the women’s names being removed from the registry of suspected abusers. The ruling also should affect numerous other cases around the state, he said.
"What the Supreme Court did here was emasculate the central registry system to the extent that they could without opening a Pandora’s box as to every administrative hearing in the state," Belz said.
.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/ ... _brief.pdf
page 5
Cases
Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Cavarretta v. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 660 N.E. 250 (Ill. App 3d 1996) . . . 40
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 55
Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Dupuy v. McDonald, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Il. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38, 40
Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-31, 36, 40
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 55
Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Hojnacki v. Klein-Acosta, 285 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 31
In re Preisendorfer, 719 A.2d 590 (N.H. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 40
Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 46,48, 49, 50, 57
Moore v. Board of Educ., 836 S.W.2d, 943 (Mo. banc 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Neal v. Fields, 429 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,35
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-29
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991); . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
State ex re. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
State ex rel. D.M. v. Hoester, 681 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. banc 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
State v. Rollie, 962 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
State v. Smith, 988 S.W.2d 71 (Mo. App. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
State v. Young, 695 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. banc 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Stiffelman v. Abrams, 655 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. banc 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Tate v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 18 S.W.3d 3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Townsend v. Vallas, 256 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-31, 36, 40, 42, 43
Williams v. State, 978 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 44, 56
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. at 113, 115 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
.
Appellant's Reply Brief
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/ ... _brief.pdf
.
Last edited by Marina on Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
.
http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information/12-09-05.html
Missouri Child Abuse Registry Rejected
Missouri’s child abuse registry has been branded unconstitutional by a judge earlier this week, after the judge ruled that suspected offenders should receive some sort of hearing before they are registered onto it. Although it is not disclosed to the public, the register is used by potential employers in a relevant field to check the suitability of applicants and employees.
The judge stated that reputations could be seriously marred and lives seriously affected in cases where names were put on the register without any sort of hearing taking place first. However, he has suspended his judgement taking effect for the present time because the Department of Social Services plan to appeal against it.
The ruling judge, Richard Callahan, added that constitutional rights were violated in cases where people were listed on the register without a hearing before a decision-maker. This would be a court type hearing where witnesses would be under oath and cross examinations could take place.
The founder of a child care facility who once found her name on the register commented that the ruling was "wonderful, because many people don't know what the due process is. Their names go on, and they don't know about the appeals process or any of that."
.
http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information/12-09-05.html
Missouri Child Abuse Registry Rejected
Missouri’s child abuse registry has been branded unconstitutional by a judge earlier this week, after the judge ruled that suspected offenders should receive some sort of hearing before they are registered onto it. Although it is not disclosed to the public, the register is used by potential employers in a relevant field to check the suitability of applicants and employees.
The judge stated that reputations could be seriously marred and lives seriously affected in cases where names were put on the register without any sort of hearing taking place first. However, he has suspended his judgement taking effect for the present time because the Department of Social Services plan to appeal against it.
The ruling judge, Richard Callahan, added that constitutional rights were violated in cases where people were listed on the register without a hearing before a decision-maker. This would be a court type hearing where witnesses would be under oath and cross examinations could take place.
The founder of a child care facility who once found her name on the register commented that the ruling was "wonderful, because many people don't know what the due process is. Their names go on, and they don't know about the appeals process or any of that."
.
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/ ... CA01.shtml
Court Rejects Mo. Child Abuse Registry
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., Nov. 4, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) A judge declared Missouri's child abuse registry unconstitutional Thursday, ruling that suspected offenders deserved a court-like hearing before being listed.
The registry is kept secret from the general public, but is used by child care providers and others to screen current and potential employees.
Circuit Judge Richard Callahan concluded that people's reputations and professional careers were damaged when their names were placed in the child abuse registry before a due-process hearing.
The Department of Social Services said it was likely to appeal the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Callahan suspended the effect of his judgment pending an appeal.
Callahan's ruling stemmed from a 2002 instance of alleged sexual abuse at the Faith House child care facility in St. Louis. Although they were not accused of abuse themselves, founder Mildred Jamison and nurse Betty Dotson were listed on the child abuse registry based on probable cause of neglect.
The decision was upheld by the Department of Social Services' Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board, which holds only informal hearings, not ones following judicial procedures. Decisions by the review panel can be appealed to a judge, but the listing occurred before that happened.
Callahan said it violated constitutional due-process rights to list people on the registry prior to holding a hearing before a neutral decision-maker in which witnesses are under oath, can be cross-examined and can be compelled to testify.
He also said the hearings must use a tougher-to-prove criterion of "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "probable cause" _ a change already made by a 2004 law.
Jamison said Callahan's ruling was "wonderful, because many people don't know what the due process is. Their names go on, and they don't know about the appeals process or any of that."
Dotson could not be reached for comment.
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/ ... CA01.shtml
Court Rejects Mo. Child Abuse Registry
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., Nov. 4, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) A judge declared Missouri's child abuse registry unconstitutional Thursday, ruling that suspected offenders deserved a court-like hearing before being listed.
The registry is kept secret from the general public, but is used by child care providers and others to screen current and potential employees.
Circuit Judge Richard Callahan concluded that people's reputations and professional careers were damaged when their names were placed in the child abuse registry before a due-process hearing.
The Department of Social Services said it was likely to appeal the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Callahan suspended the effect of his judgment pending an appeal.
Callahan's ruling stemmed from a 2002 instance of alleged sexual abuse at the Faith House child care facility in St. Louis. Although they were not accused of abuse themselves, founder Mildred Jamison and nurse Betty Dotson were listed on the child abuse registry based on probable cause of neglect.
The decision was upheld by the Department of Social Services' Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board, which holds only informal hearings, not ones following judicial procedures. Decisions by the review panel can be appealed to a judge, but the listing occurred before that happened.
Callahan said it violated constitutional due-process rights to list people on the registry prior to holding a hearing before a neutral decision-maker in which witnesses are under oath, can be cross-examined and can be compelled to testify.
He also said the hearings must use a tougher-to-prove criterion of "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "probable cause" _ a change already made by a 2004 law.
Jamison said Callahan's ruling was "wonderful, because many people don't know what the due process is. Their names go on, and they don't know about the appeals process or any of that."
Dotson could not be reached for comment.
.
.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/200 ... 37941.html
School employee's name should not be on child abuser list, court rules
Thursday, Oct 5, 2006
By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK - The name of a Berryville Elementary assistant principal who left bruises after disciplining a student with a paddle should not be on a child abuse registry, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
The appeals court affirmed the ruling of a circuit judge who reversed an administrative law judge's decision that Shelly Holman's name be placed on the Central Registry of Child Abusers as requested by the state Department of Health and Human Services.
The agency appealed Carroll County Circuit Judge Alan Epley's decision to the appellate court.
"Here, the punishment was approved by the child's parents and was conducted according to the procedures set out in the school handbook in the presence of both of the child's parents and a school administrator," Chief Judge John Mauzy Pittman wrote Wednesday in a unanimous opinion.
In January 2005, the boy's parents were given the choice of having the boy suspended from school three days for fighting, or corporal punishment. The parents chose the latter, which consisted of spanking with a paddle about 2.5 inches wide and two feet long.
As the boy's parents and a school administrator watched, Holman, an assistant principal, swatted the boy three times with the wooden paddle. During the paddling, no one told Holman to stop because they thought she was hitting too hard, and the boy did not cry out during the punishment.
About 90 minutes later, the boy's mother noticed bruises on the child's buttocks and took photographs. She took her son to a physician two days later and the doctor was of the opinion that the bruises did not suggest child abuse.
The boy's mother then contacted DHHS, which conducted an investigation and concluded that the assistant principal violated Arkansas Code Annotated 12-12-503, which says it is abuse for a public school employee to cause a nonaccidental physical injury to a child.
After a hearing, an administrative law judge ordered Holman's name be placed on the child abuse registry.
Holman appealed the decision to circuit court. Epley ruled that the law judge's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. DHHS appealed, petitioning the appeals court to place Holman's name back on the registry.
In its decision Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said that bruises alone cannot be used as a legal litmus test for abuse to the exclusion of all other related circumstances.
.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/200 ... 37941.html
School employee's name should not be on child abuser list, court rules
Thursday, Oct 5, 2006
By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK - The name of a Berryville Elementary assistant principal who left bruises after disciplining a student with a paddle should not be on a child abuse registry, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
The appeals court affirmed the ruling of a circuit judge who reversed an administrative law judge's decision that Shelly Holman's name be placed on the Central Registry of Child Abusers as requested by the state Department of Health and Human Services.
The agency appealed Carroll County Circuit Judge Alan Epley's decision to the appellate court.
"Here, the punishment was approved by the child's parents and was conducted according to the procedures set out in the school handbook in the presence of both of the child's parents and a school administrator," Chief Judge John Mauzy Pittman wrote Wednesday in a unanimous opinion.
In January 2005, the boy's parents were given the choice of having the boy suspended from school three days for fighting, or corporal punishment. The parents chose the latter, which consisted of spanking with a paddle about 2.5 inches wide and two feet long.
As the boy's parents and a school administrator watched, Holman, an assistant principal, swatted the boy three times with the wooden paddle. During the paddling, no one told Holman to stop because they thought she was hitting too hard, and the boy did not cry out during the punishment.
About 90 minutes later, the boy's mother noticed bruises on the child's buttocks and took photographs. She took her son to a physician two days later and the doctor was of the opinion that the bruises did not suggest child abuse.
The boy's mother then contacted DHHS, which conducted an investigation and concluded that the assistant principal violated Arkansas Code Annotated 12-12-503, which says it is abuse for a public school employee to cause a nonaccidental physical injury to a child.
After a hearing, an administrative law judge ordered Holman's name be placed on the child abuse registry.
Holman appealed the decision to circuit court. Epley ruled that the law judge's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. DHHS appealed, petitioning the appeals court to place Holman's name back on the registry.
In its decision Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said that bruises alone cannot be used as a legal litmus test for abuse to the exclusion of all other related circumstances.
.
.
http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5650/
13 August 2004
TheIowaChannel.com – Child Abuse Registry Lists State Workers
DES MOINES, Iowa—The state’s registry of known child abusers includes 19 employees of the Iowa Department of Human Services, which keeps the child abuse registry. Department spokesman Roger Munns said the department determined that all 19 workers, whose names were kept confidential, could remain employed.
.
http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5650/
13 August 2004
TheIowaChannel.com – Child Abuse Registry Lists State Workers
DES MOINES, Iowa—The state’s registry of known child abusers includes 19 employees of the Iowa Department of Human Services, which keeps the child abuse registry. Department spokesman Roger Munns said the department determined that all 19 workers, whose names were kept confidential, could remain employed.
.
.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_8.htm
How to Get Removed From a Central Registry
.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_8.htm
How to Get Removed From a Central Registry
.
.
Maine
http://www.ptla.org/kla/parents/dhs/
In some cases DHHS will substantiate a parent or caregiver of abuse or neglect but will not remove your child from your home. This means you will be placed on the child abuse registry even though your child was never removed from your care.
.
Maine
http://www.ptla.org/kla/parents/dhs/
In some cases DHHS will substantiate a parent or caregiver of abuse or neglect but will not remove your child from your home. This means you will be placed on the child abuse registry even though your child was never removed from your care.
.
.
South Carolina
http://www.aclusc.org/Page/Clipping/Sta ... Drake.html
Critics take issue with Child Abuse Registry
.
South Carolina
http://www.aclusc.org/Page/Clipping/Sta ... Drake.html
Critics take issue with Child Abuse Registry
.
Return to “Research Resources”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests