Title: Passion v. Dept. of Social & Rehabilitation Services

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Passion v. Dept. of Social & Rehabilitation Services  (95-400); 166 Vt. 596; 
689 A.2d 459

[Filed 3-Jan-1997]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-400

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1996

Jan Passion                          }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Human Services Board
                                     }
Department of Social &               }
Rehabilitation Services              }     DOCKET NO. Fair Hearing #13,154

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Petitioner Jan Passion appeals an order of the Human Services Board
  denying his request to strike a report from the Vermont Department of
  Social and Rehabilitation Services' (SRS) registry of substantiated child
  abuse investigations.  He contends the Board erred in admitting evidence of
  a prior unsubstantiated allegation of abuse, the Board wrongfully excluded
  petitioner during the testimony of the victim, the evidence was inadequate
  to support a substantiation of sexual abuse, and SRS had no jurisdiction to
  investigate the incident, which occurred in Mexico. We affirm the Board's
  order.

       SRS first had contact with petitioner in 1992 when the agency received
  a report of possible sexual abuse involving petitioner and his
  stepdaughter, R.F.  Following an investigation, SRS determined the
  allegation could not be substantiated as sexual abuse or exploitation, and
  no further action was taken.

       In April 1994, SRS received another report from R.F.'s high school
  guidance counselor. The incident occurred while the family was on vacation
  in Mexico.  R.F., then fourteen years old, was suffering from a stomach
  disorder, and petitioner was massaging her stomach.  R.F. reported that,
  after an aunt left the room, petitioner touched her breasts several times. 
  Petitioner claimed that the touching, if it occurred, was purely
  inadvertent and nonsexual.

       SRS investigated and substantiated the report as child sexual abuse,
  which resulted in placement of petitioner's name on the SRS registry of
  substantiated child abuse investigations. See 33 V.S.A. § 4916(a).  SRS's
  finding of abuse was upheld throughout petitioner's subsequent appeals to
  the SRS District Director, the SRS Commissioner, and the Human Services
  Board, which adopted the hearing officer's report and order in June 1995. 
  The Board concluded that petitioner had sexually molested R.F., which under
  the statute "consists of any act . . . by any person involving sexual
  molestation or exploitation of a child," 33 V.S.A. § 4912(8), and denied
  petitioner's request to expunge the report against him.  This appeal
  followed.

       Petitioner first argues that SRS violated his statutory and due
  process rights by using evidence from the 1992 unsubstantiated
  investigation.  Vermont law requires that all SRS records of an
  unsubstantiated child abuse investigation be destroyed unless the person
  complained of requests that they not be destroyed.  33 V.S.A. § 4916(a),
  (b).  That SRS failed to destroy its documents from the 1992 investigation,
  petitioner claims, is shown by repeated mention of the 1992 event in the
  1994 investigation documents and during subsequent proceedings.

       But petitioner has failed to show that SRS did not destroy the 1992
  documents.  The only document from the 1992 investigation submitted on
  appeal is a CUSI report.  The Chittenden Unit for Special Investigations,
  or CUSI, is a police unit not affiliated with SRS.  The statutory

   

  requirement to destroy documents applies only to records held by SRS;
  non-SRS investigators are free to record and preserve information as they
  deem appropriate and necessary.  Also, although the SRS investigator
  testified during the hearing that he was "aware" of the 1992 incident,
  there was no evidence that 1992 SRS records were used during the 1994
  investigation. While the statute expressly requires destruction of
  unsubstantiated abuse records, it does not require SRS investigators, or
  other witnesses, to develop amnesia about prior reported incidents. Thus,
  petitioner has failed to provide any evidence that SRS violated the
  statutory requirements.

       Additionally, any mention during the proceedings of SRS records from
  the 1992 investigation was harmless.   Petitioner must show not only that
  the Board erred in admitting evidence of the 1992 SRS investigation, but
  that the admission prejudiced petitioner.  See Baldwin v. State, 126 Vt.
  70, 77,