Title: Gloucester County v. Kennedy

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  All the Justices 
 
 
GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT 
OF SOCIAL SERVICES 
 
 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 
v.  Record No. 980100 
November 6, 1998 
 
JOHN JOSEPH KENNEDY, JR. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY 
John M. Folkes, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we must construe Code § 63.1-248.5:1(C).  
The statute deals with the report of investigation prepared by a 
local department of social services following receipt of 
information or allegation of child abuse or neglect. 
 
Subsection (C) provides: 
"Any person who is the subject of an unfounded report 
or complaint made pursuant to this chapter who 
believes that such report or complaint was made in bad 
faith or with malicious intent may petition the 
circuit court in the jurisdiction in which the report 
or complaint was made for the release to such person 
of the records of the investigation.  Such petition 
shall specifically set forth the reasons such person 
believes that such report or complaint was made in bad 
faith or with malicious intent.  Upon the filing of 
such petition, the court shall request and the 
department shall provide to the court its records of 
the investigation for the court's in camera review.  
The petitioner shall be entitled to present evidence 
to support his petition.  If the court determines that 
there is a reasonable question of fact as to whether 
the report or complaint was made in bad faith or with 
malicious intent and that disclosure of the identity 
of the complainant would not be likely to endanger the 
life or safety of the complainant, it shall provide to 
the petitioner a copy of the records of the 
investigation.  The original records shall be subject 
to discovery in any subsequent civil action regarding 
the making of a complaint or report in bad faith or 
with malicious intent." 
 
 
In June 1997, appellee John Joseph Kennedy, Jr., filed a 
petition against appellant Gloucester County Department of 
Social Services pursuant to the foregoing statute.  The 
petitioner, apparently a nonresident of Virginia, alleged that 
he is the father of a daughter born in 1994 who is in the 
custody of the child's mother in Gloucester County.  The father 
further alleged that the mother had made his visitation with the 
child "very difficult" and, at times, had refused to allow 
visitation. 
 
The father also alleged that "someone, believed to be the 
natural mother, her live-in boyfriend or someone on their 
behalf," had made a complaint to the department alleging that he 
had sexually molested his daughter.  The father further alleged 
that the department, after investigation, concluded the 
complaint of child abuse was "'not founded.'" 
 
In addition, the father asserted the complaint against him 
was made without any basis and in bad faith or with malicious 
intent in order to damage his relationship with his daughter so 
as to prevent his visitation with her.  He asked the court below 
to require the department to release to him an unaltered copy of 
the complaint that initiated the investigation and to provide a 
 
2
copy of all its records pertaining to the investigation to the 
court for in camera review. 
 
Responding, the department generally denied the father's 
allegations, although it admitted the investigation revealed the 
complaint of child abuse was "'not founded.'"  Following a 
hearing, at which only argument of counsel was presented, the 
trial court ordered the department, over its objection, to 
submit the file related to the complaint for the court's in 
camera review. 
 
During a second hearing, the trial court considered only 
argument of counsel and ordered the department, over its 
objection, to provide its investigative records pertaining to 
the complaint to counsel for the father.  The court found, after 
an in camera review of the records, "that there is a reasonable 
question of fact as to whether the child protective service 
complaint was made in bad faith or with malicious intent and 
that disclosure of the identity of the complainant would not be 
likely to endanger the life or safety of the complainant."  The 
department appeals, the trial court having stayed execution of 
its order pending appeal. 
 
On appeal, the department contends the trial court 
"committed reversible error by making findings and reaching a 
decision without benefit of any evidence."  Elaborating, the 
department says:  "There can be no argument . . . the trial 
 
3
court concluded that presentation of evidence was not required 
by the Petitioner in order to grant the prayer of his Petition, 
namely that the Department of Social Services was required to 
turn over its entire file to him."  Continuing, the department 
argues that the trial court's "sole basis" for granting the 
father's petition was because of the court's in camera review of 
the department's file.  According to the department, this was an 
abuse of discretion because the trial court disregarded settled 
rules of civil procedure that provide for presentation of 
evidence when the pleadings raise questions of fact. 
 
The department also contends the trial court disregarded 
rules of statutory construction because the statute in issue 
"contemplates that an evidentiary hearing of some sort will be 
conducted."  We do not agree with the department's contentions. 
 
This statute is plain and unambiguous.  In clear language, 
the General Assembly has created a summary procedure to enable a 
person wrongfully accused of child abuse or neglect to obtain 
the details of the accusation from the local social services 
department that investigated the ill-founded charge. 
 
If a person is the subject of an "unfounded report" of 
child abuse or neglect, the statute permits filing of a petition 
containing an allegation, with supporting "reasons," of bad 
faith or malicious intent.  That was done in this case.  
Further, the statute provides that, upon filing of such a 
 
4
petition, the trial court "shall request" and the department 
"shall provide" its records of investigation for the court's in 
camera review.  That was properly done in this case, and the 
court reviewed the investigative file in camera. 
 
Further, the statute provides:  "The petitioner shall be 
entitled to present evidence to support his petition."  Clearly, 
the petitioner has the right, but is not required, to present 
evidence. 
 
However, consistent with the summary nature of the 
proceeding as contemplated by the statute, nowhere is the 
department given the right to present evidence.  Contrary to the 
department's argument, the statute does not require an 
"evidentiary hearing of some sort."  When, as here, disclosure 
of records of a government agency is involved, the legislature 
has the prerogative to establish a special statutory procedure 
for their disclosure that varies from ordinary rules of civil 
procedure regarding presentation of evidence.  
 
The statute goes on to authorize the trial court to 
determine from its review of the records of investigation 
whether the complaint "was made in bad faith or with malicious 
intent and that disclosure of the identity of the complainant 
would not be likely to endanger the life or safety of the 
complainant."  The trial court made these findings, based upon 
its in camera review. 
 
5
 
We have examined in camera the investigative file, which is 
a part of the appellate record, and have determined there is 
credible information in the file to support the trial court's 
findings. 
 
Thus, we hold the trial court properly applied the statute 
and correctly ordered the department to provide the father with 
a copy of the records in question.  Consequently, the judgment 
below will be 
Affirmed. 
JUSTICE KOONTZ, dissenting. 
 
 
I respectfully dissent. 
 
In my view, under the circumstances of this case, Code 
§ 63.1-248.5:1(C) does not contemplate unfettered discretion in 
the trial court to release a copy of the records of the 
investigation conducted by a local department of social services 
of an “unfounded report or complaint” of child abuse or neglect.   
Here, the release of such records upon the mere filing of a 
petition by the person who was the subject of such report or 
complaint and the trial court’s in camera review of the agency’s 
investigative report necessarily involves the exercise of 
unfettered discretion. 
 
Code § 63.1-248.5:1(C) permits a trial court to release a 
copy of the records of the investigation of an unfounded report 
or complaint of child abuse or neglect where the petitioner 
 
6
seeking release of such records “specifically set[s] forth the 
reasons [he] believes such report or complaint was made in bad 
faith or with malicious intent.”  However, before providing the 
petitioner with a copy of the records of the investigation, the 
trial court must first “determine[] that there is a reasonable 
question of fact as to whether the report or complaint was made 
in bad faith or with malicious intent and that disclosure of the 
identity of the complainant would not be likely to endanger the 
life or safety of the complainant.” 
Thus, the legislature has placed on the petitioner the 
burden of establishing the existence of “a reasonable question 
of fact,” and where, as here, the agency responsible for the 
investigation affirmatively denies the allegations of the 
petition, that burden plainly must require more than the mere 
allegation of bad faith or malicious intent in the petition.  A  
report or complaint ultimately determined to be unfounded is not 
necessarily one made in bad faith or with malicious intent.  
Indeed, the “reasonable question of fact” to be determined 
pursuant to Code § 63.1-248.5:1(C) involves a resolution of this 
distinction in addition to a determination whether disclosure of 
the identity of the complainant would not be likely to endanger 
the safety of the complainant.  Similarly, the petitioner’s 
burden, particularly the required showing that disclosure of the 
identity of the complainant would not likely endanger the life 
 
7
or safety of the complainant, cannot be met solely by the 
content of the investigative report even if reviewed in camera 
by the trial court.  In short, where the petition is opposed and 
there is no evidentiary hearing, the trial court has no 
foundation upon which to exercise the judicial discretion 
contemplated by the statute in question. 
 
The agency having custody of the investigative report must, 
for obvious reasons, act in the interests of the complainant, 
the discovery of whose identity is the object of the petition.  
If a petitioner is permitted to avoid an adversarial hearing by 
declining to exercise his “right” to present evidence in support 
of his petition or the agency is not permitted to present 
evidence in support of its opposition to the petition, the 
agency is deprived of any realistic opportunity to protect the 
interests of the complainant.  Such a result is, in my view, 
inconsistent with the statutory purpose to encourage reports of 
child abuse and neglect.  In addition, the danger is real that 
complainants will be subjected to unwarranted exposure to 
frivolous civil lawsuits which will inevitably have a chilling 
effect on reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect by the 
public.  Cf. Ayyildiz v. Kidd, 220 Va. 1080, 1082-83, 266 S.E.2d 
108, 110-11 (1980); Niese v. Klos, 216 Va. 701, 703, 222 S.E.2d 
798, 800 (1976) (malicious prosecution actions disfavored 
because of chilling effect on reporting of crimes by public). 
 
8
 
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the trial 
court and remand the case to permit the petitioner to produce 
independent evidence in support of his allegation, or, should he 
decline to do so, for dismissal of his petition with prejudice. 
 
9