Procedural History:
The Mother we represented had numerous 51A’s reports of child abuse and or neglect filed against her. These were regarding alleged domestic abuse between her and the Father of the children as well as the Father’s drug abuse problem. Some of the DCF reports were opened for family assessment. As a result of the last screened in allegations against the Mother and Father, the Department of Children and Families conducted a 51B investigation that looks at whether or not the 51A allegations should be supported or unsupported.
“Due to the numerous 51A child abuse and or neglect reports against the parents, we were concerned that the Department would potentially remove the children from the home. We immediately interceded and took action to fight against DCF and to prevent this. Understanding the DCF investigation process was crucial in our efforts to communicate effectively with DCF and safeguard the family’s rights.
The 51B Investigator made contact with the parents as well as any providers for the children such as schools, therapists, and medical providers. DCF ran criminal and other background checks on the parents. Ultimately, they decided that the allegations should be supported because the Mother was under the impression that the Father, who had a drug issue, had been clean and sober and all the visits he had with the children, were supervised by a family member of the Father’s. She was told to get the visitations to cease, but she failed to appear in court after putting forth a motion. According to DCF, she did not follow through with what was requested of her. For all of these reasons, the allegations of negligent supervision of her child were supported.
We were retained to represent the Mother during the Family Assessment period. We visited the Mother’s home every month to meet with DCF. We coordinated these visits and made them mutually convenient for all parties so that the Department could complete its assessment. Attorney Seaver and his assistant were both present every time, so neither the Mother nor the children were ever alone with DCF. After many kind remarks about the family and the home, we requested in writing for the case to be closed as Mother had shown that she was a loving and caring Mother.
Shortly after the Investigation concluded and the allegations were supported for neglect, we filed a request for a Fair Hearing. It is required by the Department that a Fair Hearing Request be submitted within 30 days of receipt of the letter from DCF indicating that the allegations were indeed supported. This is the ONLY place that a false allegation of child abuse or neglect can be reversed by filing for and conducting a Fair Hearing. The thirty-day period starts when you receive the letter from DCF stating the allegations were supported.
To prepare for the Fair Hearing, we procured an expert to counter DCF, prepared witnesses as well as the appellant for direct and cross-examination, and we also wrote a Finding of Facts and Rulings of Law to supplement the Hearing. The Fair Hearing Officer ultimately, sided with the evidence that was presented by the Mother, and she reversed the allegations of negligent supervision. Mother was successful in her fight against DCF and the false allegations against her.
Issue:
Was Mother truly negligent in her supervision by allowing the Father access to the children?
Rule of Law:
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:
There was an allegation of neglect against the Mother for allowing Father to have access to her children. Mother was polite and worked cooperatively with the Department to complete all the necessary steps. DCF Investigator, DCF social worker, and supervisor had unfettered access to Mother, her minor children, and their home. DCF Investigator completed a response visit to the home and met with Mother and her children. The home was clean and appropriately furnished. During the assessment, DCF Supervisor visited Mother’s home.
Both children were engaged in school and visible in the community. DCF Supervisor reports that the boys attend school and daycare and do well reportedly. None of the school administrators had contacted Mother regarding any concerns that they had with Younger Child or Older Child, other than their attendance when they would come from the Father’s house. The school administrators, being mandated reporters, did not file any reports of child abuse and or neglect.
The children are involved in therapy. It should be noted this was not a recommendation by the Department to have the children enrolled in therapy. Mother and her mom thought it was necessary due to the children’s lack of visitation and the absence of their Father from their lives. Mother had also enrolled Older Child in counseling at school again, as this was beneficial to Older Child last year. Mother felt that the children were doing well in therapy to address various issues including non-visitation with their Father since April. Both children were medically up to date, and the pediatrician, a mandated reporter, has never had any concerns.
Mother went to District Court and tried to get a restraining order against the Father because she did not want him to be able to randomly show up and take the children out of school. The restraining order was denied because she was not in imminent fear of harm. Mother then went back to court to get child support and to limit the Father’s ability to visit the children. Mother had custody of Younger Child and Older Child since the children were born out of wedlock. Mother was told by court personnel that if she tried to get child support, then this would allow Father to get possible visitation. Child support was not going to happen due to the Father not being gainfully employed.
Older Child had a flag football game. Mother, paternal aunt, and a family friend were present at the game. The Father showed up to the game unexpectedly. Older Child came off the field and was excited to see his dad, as Older Child had not seen him in a while. Mother agreed to allow Older Child to go and spend time with his Father if either paternal aunt or family friend agreed to be there to supervise; paternal aunt confirmed that she would be present.
Mother’s understanding was that Older Child was going to visit with his Father for a few hours, and Paternal Aunt would bring Older Child back to Mother’s home later that night. As the visit was wrapping up, Mother received a call from the Father stating that Older Child did not feel good, was tired, and wanted to stay at Father’s home for the night. Mother was hesitant. Paternal Aunt assured her that she would be staying at the Father’s house overnight to supervise the Father. Older Child did not show up to school the next day because he was not feeling well. This was when DCF contacted Mother.
Paternal Aunt and Family Friend have supervised the children many times before with no issues, and they have never given Mother a reason not to trust them. The Department made Mother aware that the visit at the Father’s house was not supervised, although Paternal Aunt assured Mother that it would be. Mother cannot control a third party if they decide not to supervise. Mother trusted that Paternal Aunt was supervising the visit, and after learning that this was not happening, Mother ensured that the boys nor herself had contact with the Father.
The supported decision and comprehensive assessment were due to concerns that Mother was allowing the children to have unsupervised contact with the Father despite being aware of the Fathers drug history and domestic violence. Other issues that arose were school attendance and going to school late while under their Father’s care. Mother stated that she did not believe the Father was using again as he had entered rehab about a month and a half prior and was doing drug screens through the court.
Mother would never let Father around the kids if she suspected he was using drugs again. Mother also spoke to Older Child, who did not report anything concerning happening at the Father’s home. It was Mother’s understanding that when the children were with their Father, either Paternal Aunt or Family Friend would pick up the children and be present always as a supervising person.
Paternal Aunt and Family Friend had never given Mother a reason to believe that she could not trust them to supervise the visits. Mother’s understanding was that it was agreed that the Father was to be “supervised” always by a person in his family. This did not happen, and Mother was made aware of this when the 51 A report was filed in April. When Mother learned of this, she immediately eliminated all visitations between Father and children (Testimony of Mother).
Conclusion:
According to the Department, “neglect” was present because of concerns that Mother was allowing the children to have unsupervised contact with the father despite his drug use. It is important to note that the mandated reporter filed the 51 A report against only the Father; however, the screener added neglect of Older Child by mother. Mother stated that she understands why DCF was concerned by the visitations with Father, but that she truly believed he was committed to sober living.
The Department performed a comprehensive assessment after completing the 51 B investigation. Mother was polite and cooperated with the Department to complete the assessment. During that assessment, Mother spoke with the supervisor about her plan to keep the boys safe from harm and would not allow the Father to see or talk to the children until she had concrete proof of sobriety and treatment.
Mother is a single mother and is currently the main financial support for her two children. Mother is employed as a nurse, and a supported neglect allegation could potentially cause her to lose her job. The action of the Department closing the case early and not requiring services shows a low level of concern by DCF, a level not rising to neglect. Mother respectfully asks that the allegation of “neglect” against her be reversed.
Case Study Disclaimer:
The above 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.” This analysis intricately examines the DCF investigation process,
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.