«		LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE UPDATES		»
ACROSS THE STATES

CALIFORNIA

Case gives parents recourse with CPS

The Fourth District Court of Appeals recently overturned a ruling regarding an Orange County Child Protective Services (CPS) decision to file a report with the Child Abuse Central Registry Index in Sacramento. The plaintiffs (not homeschoolers) were investigated for child abuse and, as a result of that investigation, their child was removed from their custody for two days. The child was then returned to the parents after CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to justify the filing of a petition in juvenile court for abuse or neglect.

Several months after ending the investigation, the Orange County CPS informed the plaintiffs that it had transmitted a child abuse report to the department of justice in Sacramento concluding that the alleged abuse was not "unfounded."

The parents contested the conclusion and demanded a hearing, but Orange County responded that the law did not require it to provide such a hearing. The parents then filed a lawsuit asking the court to grant a hearing to review CPS's findings.

The trial court denied the parents' request, but an appeals court reversed the ruling, finding that listing a parent's name in a child abuse registry implicates the family's privacy interest. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits such a violation of parental liberties without due process.

According to the appellate court's opinion, at the conclusion of an investigation, CPS must notify the person investigated for abuse or neglect if the finding is anything other than "unfounded." Should that occur, the person under investigation may then demand an impartial hearing in order to respond to the evidence against him and present his own evidence. If CPS refuses, the person may compel the hearing by filing a petition for writ of mandate.

Burt v. County of Orange represents a major victory for parents in California who have undergone child abuse and neglect investigations and are not satisfied with the outcome. They now have a clearly established right to contest that outcome with a neutral decision maker.

— by J. Michael Smith