DCF Fair Hearing Reversal of False Sexual Abuse Allegations – Case Study

DCF Fair Hearing Reversal of False Sexual Abuse Allegations

Procedural History:

The father, Mr. B, had three separate reports of child abuse filed against him with the Department of Children and Families (DCF). These reports alleged that Mr. B had sexually abused and neglected his daughter in his home. DCF investigated and the allegations against Mr. B were supported for sexual abuse and neglect.

The Department of Children and Families referred this case to the District Attorney’s office for possible criminal charges and jail time. We were retained and filed for a Fair Hearing on behalf of Mr. B with the DCF Fair Hearing Office in a timely manner, highlighting the importance of understanding parents’ rights against DCF during such critical times.

Issue:

Whether the allegations that Mr. B had sexually abused and neglected his daughter should be supported.

Rule of Law:

Pursuant to 110 CMR 2.00 “Abuse means the non-accidental commission of any act by a caretaker upon a child under age 18 which causes, or creates a substantial risk of physical or emotional injury, or constitutes a sexual offense under the laws of the Commonwealth or any sexual contact between a caretaker and a child under the care of that individual. Abuse is not dependent upon location (i.e., abuse can occur while the child is in an out-of-home or in-home setting.)”

Pursuant to 110 CMR 2.00 “Neglect means failure by a caretaker, either deliberately or through negligence or inability, to take those actions necessary to provide a child with minimally adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, supervision, emotional stability and growth, or other essential care; provided, however, that such inability is not due solely to inadequate economic resources or solely to the existence of a handicapping condition. This definition is not dependent upon location {i.e., neglect can occur while the child is in an out-of-home or in-home setting.)”

Analysis:

Initially, Mr. B filed a motion seeking increased visitation with his daughter. One week later, he received multiple allegations of sexual abuse and neglect of his daughter by DCF. DCF investigated whether or not these allegations should be supported. DCF interviewed multiple witnesses during its investigation. Ms. A, the child’s mother, alleged that when returning from the beach, the child was taking off her bathing suit when she stated that Mr. B had touched her inappropriately. Ms.

A alleges that directly after the statement, the child looked visibly upset. Ms. A then asked the Child to write down what happened in the backseat of the car. Ms. A then presented the letter the Child allegedly wrote in the back of the car, disclosing the abuse to DCF. The Child is globally developmentally delayed. Two other mandated reporters also filed with DCF, without having spoken to the Child or Mr. B about the incident.

A rape kit was performed on the Child. It showed no physical evidence of sexual abuse. A SAIN (Sexual Abuse Intervention Network) interview of the Child was performed at the D.A’s Office. The SAIN interview was held under the mistaken belief that the Child was “high functioning” and credible, both of which were false statements. The Child was not questioned about the letter or various statements she had made.

The Child was never asked to read or write anything at the interview that would assess and evaluate her cognitive and receptive abilities. The SAIN team was only given the three DCF 51 A Reports and the DCF 51 B Investigation to base their interview on. The Child’s letter that she allegedly wrote disclosing the incident by Mr. B was not presented. The SAIN team did not interview Mr. B or any individuals present during the alleged abuse. Therefore, the basis for which the SAIN interview was conducted lacked substance and was not a comprehensive analysis of the alleged sexual abuse and neglect.

The DCF Investigator failed in her affirmative duty to interview the father, as a caretaker, and the Child pursuant to 110 CMR. DCF supported the allegations without interviewing Mr. B. The weekend that the alleged sexual abuse occurred between Mr. B and his daughter, there were other adult caretakers present in the home.

The DCF Investigator did not interview the two other adult caretakers. The DCF Investigator failed to speak to credible family members, and the Child herself. The DCF Investigator only spoke to Ms. A and Ms. A’s boyfriend, however neither were present the weekend of the alleged incident.

Multiple expert witnesses testified that the allegation should be reversed and unsupported.  Before Expert witness #1’s services were retained, Mr. B underwent comprehensive testing, which Expert witness #1 reviewed. Expert #1 concluded that they believe Mr. B did not sexually abuse his daughter. Mr. B knowingly and voluntarily submitted to multiple comprehensive tests surrounding sexual abuse. Expert witness #1 recommended that the Father’s name be removed from DCF registry regarding sexual abuse and or neglect of his child.

Expert Witness #2 reviewed the three known printed exemplars written by the Child in addition to the letter written by the Child claiming Mr. B sexually abused her. Expert Witness #2 stated that based on his personal evaluation of the letter the letter was not written or printed by the Child.

Expert Witness #3 is commonly utilized by the DCF and has experience with over 2,000 sexual abuse victims. The DCF investigator heard the Child telling the SAIN team that Mr. B never told her not to tell. This statement conflicts with Expert Witness #3’s experience with previous abuse victims, stating that the pedophiles always tell their victims that the abuse is a “secret. Expert Witness #3 also examined the letter and found that the language used in the letter such as “uncomfortable” and “strange” was not commonly used by seven-year-old children. Instead, they are more likely to use adjectives such as “icky.” This suggests that the letter was coached.

Ms. A’s credibility and propensity to tell the truth is an issue of question. She reported to the DCF Investigator that she and Mr. B had a “nasty” divorce. Ms. A also alleged that domestic violence occurred during their marriage and that she had been stalked by Mr. B. Had the Investigator elected to move forward with the claim, they would have found that Ms. A and Mr. B had an amicable divorce, using a shared lawyer. Many witnesses including Ms. A’s mother corroborated the healthy, amicable nature of their marriage and divorce.

DCF 51 B investigator failed to corroborate or disprove that the Child was “high functioning.” The Investigator had access to two Individualized Education Plans (“IEP’s”) and a neuropsychological assessment of the Child. The 51 B Investigator failed to read these important documents to corroborate or disprove whether Child 1 was “high functioning.

The IEP indicated that the Child’s communication, literacy and mathematical skills are below average. She further struggles with a high level of distractability, inattention, and impulsivity. Ms. A filed as a non-mandated reporter a 51A report in which she stated that the Child is globally developmentally delayed and has a hard time expressing herself.

The Child’s credibility and propensity to tell the truth are also an issue of question. DCF 51 B Investigator referred to the Child as being “credible” to the SAIN team, however had no basis for these claims. The DCF Investigator failed to ask whether the Child is credible and understands the difference between a truth and a lie, and if she has a recollection of the events that transpired that weekend. Previously, Ms. A sent an email to Mr. B complaining of the Child’s propensity to make up stories, manipulate people and lie. Both Mr. B and his girlfriend testify that the Child had a propensity to lie and steal. The Investigator 51 B did not obtain reliable information that could corroborate or disprove whether the Child was truly “high functioning” and credible.

Conclusion: 

The DCF Investigator failed to corroborate or disprove reliable information based upon numerous false statements by Ms. A. The DCF Investigator had a limited scope during this investigation and consequently failed to support or disprove the allegations. The DCF Investigator failed to interview Mr. B as a primary caretaker pursuant to 110 CMR.

The DCF Investigator failed to interview the Child and in so doing, failed to determine the Child’s functioning and credibility. The DCF Investigator failed to read important documents relating to the Child, which could have corroborated or disproved the false statement by Ms. A that the Child was “high functioning.”  The DCF Investigator failed to gather reliable information surrounding the Child’s credibility. The DCF Investigator failed to question the Child about the letter, including its authenticity, contents, vocabulary, and meaning.

The 51B allegations were primarily supported because of statements made by Ms. A. The DCF Investigator failed to corroborate or disprove these statements. We filed an extensive findings of fact rulings of law which included the testimony of three expert witnesses. After a comprehensive review of the evidence and findings of fact that we submitted, the Fair Hearing Officer reversed the decision to support the allegations of sexual abuse and neglect against our client. This outcome underscores the importance of understanding the DCF appeal process and exercising parents’ rights against DCF during such investigations.

Case Study Disclaimer:

The below case study has been edited to remove any possible identifying information. This is done to protect client confidentiality. The analysis is taken straight from the Finding of Fact that is written on the case, but certain parts have been excluded, again to protect client confidentiality. The complete Finding of Fact and Rulings of Law is not limited to the following “Analysis”

Kevin Seaver is an experienced, trusted lawyer who successfully represents clients against DCF from Boston, Massachusetts. Call Kevin at (617) 263-2633 or request a Consultation online!

DISCLAIMER

You find yourself in this situation, it’s advisable to seek legal representation from a qualified attorney, like those at the Law Office of Kevin Seaver, who can advocate for your rights and guide you through the complex process of a DCF investigation.

Remember that the ultimate goal of DCF is to ensure the safety and well-being of children while supporting families in crisis.

Please note that this article does not create an Attorney-Client relationship between our law firm and the reader and is provided for informational purposes only. Information in this article does not apply to all readers.

Readers should not rely on this information as legal advice and should seek specific counsel from the attorney based on personal circumstances. Thank you.

Kevin Patrick Seaver is a Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer who represents parents against false child abuse allegations.

 

Massachusetts DCF Defense Lawyer Kevin Seaver has been successfully fighting false child abuse allegations since 1991.

2 thoughts on “DCF Fair Hearing Reversal of False Sexual Abuse Allegations – Case Study

  1. blank
    NAKIA JACKSON says:

    The way I see it that the mother and boyfriend filed false report and dcf is covering their asses but are getting caught up. This man’s name is getting tarnished by this and losing time with his children who probably won’t know what is going on. It’s sad that this is going on and hope he will win in the end

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now Button