Reversing DCF Allegations of Physical Abuse and Neglect Against a Teacher in Superior Court – Case Study

Reversing DCF Allegations of Physical Abuse and Neglect Against a Teacher in Superior Court

Procedural History:

Our client (hereinafter Ms. A) was a Teacher in Early Education Care (EEC). She has extensive experience working with children and she had no criminal or DCF history. The Department of Children and Families (hereinafter DCF) received a 51A report alleging neglect of Child 1 by Ms. A. Ms. A was accused of physically abusing Child 2 in a subsequent 51A report filed shortly after by DCF.

For parents facing similar challenges, understanding what are my rights during a dcf investigation and the dcf investigation process can provide essential guidance on navigating these complex situations. added the allegation of neglect on behalf of Child 2 per Department policy. DCF investigated the alleged physical abuse and neglect. Neglect was confirmed, but no evidence of physical abuse was found after the investigation.

Ms. A received a final decision: neglect of Child 2 was found based on statements and staff observations. DCF filed a subsequent 51A report shortly after, accusing Ms. A of physically abusing Child 2. against ChilThe Fair Hearing Officer stated that the Department did not find reasonable cause to believe that Child 1 was neglected according to the Department’s definition and, as a result, did not support the 51A allegations of neglect against Child 1. Upon learning of the supported decision against our client we filed a timely appeal with the Massachusetts Superior Court.

Issue:

Should we dismiss the Neglect Allegation for Child 2, considering potential DCF regulation violations in their decision?

Rule of Law:

“Neglect is the failure of a caretaker to provide a child with basic necessities, like food, shelter, and mediotional stability and growth, or other essential 4l care; provided, however, that such inability is not due solely to inadequate economic resources or solely to the existence of a handicapping condition. Neglect can happen in any setting, as defined in 110 CMR 2.00, without being location-dependent.

Analysis:

The 51A reports that Ms. A had been antagonizing and teasing Child 2 by singing and laughing at her. The witness to this alleged incident was an uncertified teacher’s aide who could not give a specific date, time, or location for the alleged incident. Massachusetts Law requires that mandated reporters such as teachers must immediately communicate with the department orally and, within 48 hours shall file a written report with the Department detailing the suspected abuse or neglect. The mandated reporter was unable to recall a date, time, and location of the alleged incident. The timeliness of filing this report remains unclear

fact that the individual could not recall details. This also raises the issue of whether this was a false report. The reporter, arrested for driving with a suspended license and lying about it to the police, also possesses a criminal record.  Additionally, the reporter was untruthful about where she attended college. This lack of credibility, combined with her inability to recall even the most basic information regarding the alleged incident, drew her credibility into question. Ms. A also had limited contact with Child 2. They only spent about 5-10 minutes together. In addition, Child 2’s teacher reported not witnessing Ms. A antagonizing or teasing Child 2.

Uncertainty surrounds the timeliness of filing this report. The DCF investigator only spoke with four children. None of the children recalled any of the allegations as alleged. Child 2 was three at the time of the interview and answered a total of 2 questions. Child 2’s age alone brings her competence into question. To establish Child 2’s competency, the DCF Investigator must determine if the child remembers their experiences, can differentiate between truth and falsehood, and comprehends the consequences of lying.

The DCF Investigator established none of this. In addition, the child was never able to tell such facts that were consistent and coherent in a story that made sense, such as providing time, date, range of dates, or location of alleged incidents that may have occurred. There was no corroboration of the child’s statements from any evidence, including observations made by school staff, parents, or other children, which accounted for. Additionally, the investigator failed to consult Child 2’s medical and school records, as well as Child 2’s doctor. This could have helped establish if the child could be a competent witness.

Speaking to a pediatrician or consulting medical records could also inform the investigator of Child 2’s behavioral issues. Child 2’s co-teacher reports anger issues, struggling with emotions.. Mother reports that the child has a history of stating she did not like other teachers, including Ms. A. Mother also reports that the child has a history of self-harm. Mother had no concerns about Ms. A or the incident. DCF failed to consider these factors when making their decisions.

Conclusion:

DCF violated procedural law in the release of reports, scheduling the Fair Hearing, and rendering the decision without crucial information. The support finding was based on the statements of the children, corroborated by staff observations. However, the evidence shows that no staff had witnessed the alleged incident. This placed the burden on the young child as a witness. The young child was not competent and could not supply evidence of neglect. The Department also failed to corroborate the credibility of the two witnesses.

The Department failed to take into consideration the child’s behavioral issues, including the history of self-harm and the mother’s claims that the child does not like other teachers. The mother had never had an issue with the Ms. A and was not concerned about her child’s safety and wellbeing with Ms. A. DCF’s finding of neglect has resulted in substantial harm to the Ms. A, who lost her gainful employment in EEC. Without doing a thorough investigation, they jumped to conclusions from unreliable sources and cost Ms.

A her gainful employment. We supplied an extensive brief supporting all of our client’s contentions. The Fair Hearing Officers reversed their decision on the 51 B investigation appeal. The significance of this reversal is noteworthy. The decision did not provide support for Ms. A to continue her career as a teacher. This outcome may prompt individuals in similar situations to question what are my rights during a DCF investigation and explore the DCF appeal process to seek a fair hearing and potentially challenge decisions perceived as unjust.

Case Study Disclaimer:

The above case study has been edited to remove any possible identifying information. This is done to protect Ms. A 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 Ms. A 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.

One thought on “Reversing DCF Allegations of Physical Abuse and Neglect Against a Teacher in Superior Court – Case Study

  1. blank
    lisa deweese says:

    they have to explain to me why the have not been having the petitions served upon the parents these how many years and why they have case without court action the civil rights issue here is very much missed by them they miss the point of civil rights why are the charges non penal not criminal in nature and then why don’t they fully disclose the mediation contract to the parents they do not even say do you want to the mediation process or do you want trial to deny the charges it is guilty as charged how much do they claim they have no proof of their claims what type of case is this civil or criminal a combo killer with chemical restraints and imuniity from civil and criminal liablity 1974 capta

Leave a Reply

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

Call Now Button