Maryland’s Scarlett Letter


The Child Abuse Registry by John J. Condliffe and Angela J. Smith


John J. Condliffe is Vice-Chair of the MTLA Trial Reporter Committee and serves on the Amicus Commit- tee. He is a partner in Shub-Condliffe & Condliffe, P.A. and has a private practice involving family law, appellate practice and personal injury. He has lectured on family law issues including child custody and spousal abuse.


Angela J. Smith is an associate in Shub-Condliffe & Condliffe, P.A. Her practice is devoted to family law. Before her present position, she worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Michael M. Galloway prior to his appointment to the bench. She is a past member of the Young Lawyers’ Section of the Baltimore County Bar Association.


John J. Condliffe Angela J. Smith


Author’s notes: The original constitutional research in this case was done by Judith Shub-Condliffe, Esq. in connection with the constitu- tionality of arguments being made in a contested adoption case case. Local departments of social services handles many cases involving egregious child abuse and they do a yeoman’s job with little in the way


of resources and public support. Primarily, local departments of social services get criticism when they fail to prevent abuse where they had notice and, as with this article, when they go overboard.


IS, a young African-American mother


of three young children, fled her apart- ment during an assault on her by her husband. Her husband then also left the apartment, leaving the children alone. Her husband is now serving time for a second assault he made while under a pro- tective order. IS was cited by the local Department of Social Services for neglect for leaving her children unattended. Not understanding the forms notifying her of her right to an administrative appeal, IS is now one of over 100,000 Maryland citi- zens on the Child Abuse Registry.


BH, a divorced father of two, had recently let his ex-wife know that he was getting re-married. BH enjoys shared physical custody with his ex-wife having slightly more than + the time. At his next sched- uled time for picking up his daughters, he was advised they were not coming over. He left a message stating that he was “coming to get them.” Arguing that this constituted a threat, BH’s ex-wife filed a Petition for Protection from Domestic Violence and obtained an ex-parte order. The Department of Social Services inves- tigated and concluded that since BH’s


daughter’s did not want to see him it would be psychologically abusive to re- quire visitation.


This position was


An allegation that the girl’s pater- nal grandmother had choked one girl in public was also added. The domestic vio- lence petition was denied after the trial judge concluded that the girls were lying. While waiting in court for the hear- ing, BH approached his daughters and, with some anger in his voice, asked them to stop lying. He also allegedly stared at his daughters in the courtroom. Based on these new allegations only, the local Department of Social Services notified BH that they made a finding of “mental abuse indicated”. The case was dismissed in the last moment when the DSS attor- ney learned that the psychologist who initially saw the girls would no longer tes- tify unless both parents waived the girls’ mental health privilege. Defending the DSS findings cost BH nearly $7,500 in attorney’s fees.


supported by a psychologist to whom his ex-wife took the girls without BH’s con- sent and who released her opinion to DSS.1


Thomas C. Cardaro


PH: 410-752-6166 FX: 410-752-6013


Statutory Background


In 1966, the Legislature modified state statutes to allow the State Department of Welfare–now the Social Services Admin- istration and parent agency of local


1


Family Law Article, § 5-711 allows the local Departments of Social Services to obtain medical records in connection with an in- vestigation under Title 5, Subtitle 7.


18 Trial Reporter Winter 2003


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60