Gen. 65 65

EDUCATION

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ) CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS) PERSONNEL

)PUBLICINFORMATIONACT ) DISCLOSURE TO PARENTS OF

INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER AND

STUDENT

September 19, 1997

The Honorable Joseph M. Getty

House of Delegates 

You have requested our opinion about a public school’s

obligation to notify the parents of a student when it learns of a

potential romantic relationship between a teacher and a student.

Specifically, you ask whether a school system is required to notify

the parents of a student under these circumstances and, if so, whether

it must do so within a particular time frame. You also ask whether

the legal obligations of the school system are affected if the student

is 18 years of age or older.

Our opinion is as follows: If the situation involves an

investigation of alleged child abuse by a teacher, the parents should

be told of the situation within 24 hours. The responsibility for

notification, however, lies with the local department of social

services (“local department”) or the police department, not the

school system. If there is no issue of child abuse, a school system

may notify parents of the observed circumstances concerning the

student’s behavior or other student-oriented information, without,

however, disclosing information from the teacher’s personnel record.

These conclusions apply whether or not the student has reached the

age of 18. 

I

Background

According to press accounts, two years ago a custodian at a

high school in Carroll County saw a female student and a male

teacher together one evening at the school. The custodian was

sufficiently concerned about the situation to notify the principal.
66 [82 Op. Att’y

1

 FL §§5-704 is applicable to “educators,” among other

professionals.

2

 A general account of the circumstances under which a teacher may

be charged with child abuse may be found in 82 Opinions of the Attorney

General 58 (1997).

Apparently, the school system investigated to determine whether the

teacher had violated school system policies prohibiting

inappropriately personalrelationships between teachers and students.

The parents of the student were not promptly notified of the

custodian’s observation or of the school system’s response.

When the parents later found out about the incident, they

expressed deep concern to the Board of Education of Carroll County

that they had not been promptly notified. As the board undertook a

revision of its policy on teacher-student relationships, the issue of

parental notification took on greater significance. Your opinion

request seeks clarification of the circumstances under which State

law requires or authorizes parents to be notified of an incident

evidencing what may be their child’s inappropriate relationship with

a teacher. 

II

Parental Notification of Child Abuse Allegations

If the nature of a relationship between a teacher and a student

causes an observer to have “reason to believe that a child has been

subjected to ... abuse ...,” the observer has a legal duty to report the

incident to the local department of social services or a law

enforcement agency. §§5-704 and 5-705 of the Family Law (“FL”)

Article, Maryland Code.1

 “Abuse” includes “sexual abuse of a child

....” FL §5-701(b)(2). A “child” is an individual under the age of 18.

FL §5-701(d).2

 

As we wrote in a lengthy opinion some years ago, the primary

responsibility for investigating alleged child abuse by a school

system employee is that of the local department and the police. 76

Opinions of the Attorney General 220 (1991). Although a school

system may conduct its own internal personnel investigation of
Gen. 65 67

alleged child abuse by an employee, it may do so only under

limitations intended to assure the primacy of the investigation by the

local department and the police. 76 Opinions of the Attorney

General 220, 221. Among other things, we advised that the school

system should not “interview the victim of the alleged abuse, the

alleged abuser, or any potential witness without the prior consent of

the local [department] or the police.” 76 Opinions of the Attorney

General 220, 221-22. We also advised the school system to “keep

confidential any information about the alleged child abuse that it

learns during the course of its internal investigation.” Id. 

Although the school system should not disclose to parents

information that it may have learned about alleged child abuse by a

teacher, notification to the parents will occur by different means.

Under FL §5-706(b)(2), within 24 hours after receiving a report of

abuse, the local department or law enforcement agency must

“attempt to have an on-site interview with the child’s caretaker.”

This interview would undoubtedly entail disclosure about the

incident between teacher and student that gave rise to the

investigation.

A child abuse investigation may concern a student who, at the

time of the investigation, is 18 years of age or older. In 78 Opinions

of the Attorney General 189 (1993), we concluded that the child

abuse reporting law applied whenever there was reason to believe

that child abuse had occurred in the past, even if, when the incident

came to light, the alleged victim was no longer a child. Thus, even

if a student is 18 years of age or older, the conclusion stated above

) that responsibility for discussing the situation with the parents

rests with the local department or law enforcement agency, not the

school system ) would apply. 

III

Parental Notification Apart From Child Abuse Allegations

Under some circumstances, contact between a teacher and a

student may not give rise to reason to believe that abuse has occurred

but might be grounds for discipline of the teacher. For example, as

noted in Part I above, the Carroll County school system has a policy

prohibiting inappropriately personal relationships between teachers

and students, even if the relationship is not sexual. 
68 [82 Op. Att’y

If no investigation of alleged child abuse is under way, the

school system is not constrained by the considerations discussed in

Part II above. A school system, however, does not have unfettered

discretion to disclose information about its investigation of an

inappropriate relationship between a teacher and a student. Rather,

any disclosures must be tailored to comply with a statutory

prohibition against disclosure “of a personnel record of an

individual.” §10-616(i)(1) of the State Government (“SG”) Article.

The text of this prohibition is as follows:

(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this

subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection

of a personnel record of an individual,

including an application, performance rating,

or scholastic achievement information.

(2) A custodian shall permit inspection

by:

 (i) the person in interest; or

 (ii) an elected or appointed official who

supervises the work of the individual.

“The obvious purpose of [SG §10-616(i)] is to preserve the

privacy of personal information about a public employee that is

accumulated during his or her employment.” 65 Opinions of the

Attorney General 365, 367 (1980). See also 68 Opinions of the

Attorney General 335, 338 (1983). The term “personnel records,”

we have explained, includes “not only the papers contained in the

employee’s official personnel file ... but also papers relating to a

personnel matter in the hands of an authorized custodian .... No

custodian may permit access to such records other than to a person

or persons permitted access by law.” 78 Opinions of the Attorney

General 291 at 293 (1993). In that opinion, we concluded that a

complaint of improper behavior lodged against employees of a court

clerk’s office was a “personnel record” that could not be made

public. That conclusion applies squarely here. A school system may

not disclose to parents the contents of a teacher’s “personnel record.”
Gen. 65 69

3

 The opinion about the clerk’s office employees, for example,

concerned written documentation of allegedly improper conduct. 78

Opinions of the Attorney General 291, 292-93. 

4

 The definition of “education records” in the federal Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 likewise focuses on

documentary material maintained by a school. See 20 U.S.C.

§1232g(a)(4)(A). See generally Belanger v. Nashua, New Hampshire

School Dist., 856 F. Supp. 40, 49 (D.N.H. 1994) (reciting legislative

history). In any event, parents have a right of access to their child’s

education records, at least if the child is under 18 years of age. See 20

U.S.C. §1232g(b)(1)(H) and (d).

Despite its breadth, the prohibition against disclosure of

“personnel records” does not block all disclosure. First, the term

“record” is limited to “documentary material.” SG §10-611(f)(1).3

First-hand observations, by contrast, are not “records.” As we

pointed out in another opinion, “observable facts that exist

independently of ... a ‘record ...’” were not within the scope of a

statute prohibiting disclosure of certain juvenile “records.” 78

Opinions of the Attorney General 240, 243 (1993). Therefore, a

school system has the discretion to tell parents what observers have

seen or heard about a student’s behavior, including observed

behavior involving a teacher. This is not disclosure of a “personnel

record,” even if the observations are subsequently reduced to writing

and become a “record.”4 A school system might, for example,

establish a procedure requiring an immediate oral report to a school

administrator of any apparent violation of the policy barring intimate

relations between a teacher and a student. Assuming that the report

does not suggest possible child abuse, the administrator may then

notify the parents of the report, because the information about their

child undoubtedly would be important to the parents. This

procedure would be separate from any process oriented toward

potential employee discipline and would not involve disclosure of

the contents of a “personnel record.”

Second, even after a school system receives or creates

“documentary material” that would be, under the law, a confidential

“personnel record,” the school system may still have discretion to

disclose some information to parents. If, for example, a school

system receives information about a student during the course of a

personnel investigation of a teacher, the school system may disclose

that student-related information, so long as it preserves the
70 [82 Op. Att’y

5

 In exceptional cases, a school system’s common law duty to

protect a student from harm might even require disclosure to parents of

information derived from a “personnel record.” Disclosure, under those

circumstances, might well be viewed by the courts as “otherwise provided

by law.” SG §10-616(a). In an opinion that necessarily is limited to

general guidance, however, we cannot speculate about the particular

circumstances that might justify this additional degree of disclosure.

confidentiality of employee-related information derived from a

“personnel record.”

We acknowledge that these distinctions ) between an oral

report and a written one, and between student-related and employeerelated information ) seem artificial and may be hard to administer.

Nevertheless, they are distinctions intended to reconcile, as best we

can, the prohibition on disclosure of “personnel records” and the

need to preserve as wide a zone of discretion for school officials as

possible.

A school system has “a special duty to exercise reasonable care

to protect a pupil from harm.” Lumsford v. Board of Educ. 280 Md.

665, 676, 374 A.2d 1162 (1977). See also Collins v. Board of Educ.,

48 Md. App. 213, 218, 426 A.2d 10 (1981) (school authorities have

a common law duty, “as the temporary custodian of children, to

exercise reasonable care for their protection”). A student’s

involvement in an inappropriately personal relationship with a

teacher may foreshadow sexual involvement or some other serious

situation requiring swift parental intervention to protect the student

from psychological or physical harm. Cf. Eisel v. Board of Educ.,

324 Md. 376, 597 A.2d 447 (1991) (duty to inform parents of report

of student’s suicidal statements). Despite the barrier of the

“personnel records” confidentiality law, a school system does have

room to make the disclosures that will help safeguard children.5 

IV

Conclusion

In summary, our opinion is as follows:
Gen. 65 71

1. If there is reason to believe that a child has been subjected

to child abuse by a teacher, the school system should not notify the

parents. The local department or law enforcement agency is

responsible for doing so.

2. If there has been no allegation of child abuse but instead

a report suggesting an inappropriately personal relationship between

a teacher and a student, the school system may provide immediate

notice to parents of observed behavior involving the student or other

student-oriented information. The school system, however, may not

disclose the contents of documents created or received in the course

of a personnel investigation of the teacher or other personnel records

pertaining to the teacher. 

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Jack Schwartz

Chief Counsel

 Opinions and Advice