Gen. 31] 31

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT – RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT AND

DISSEMINATION OF REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT JUVENILE

JUSTICE MONITOR

February 17, 2004

The Honorable M. Teresa Garland

Special Secretary

Governor’s Office for Children,

 Youth, and Families

You have asked for our opinion about the extent to which the

Office of the Independent Juvenile Justice Monitor (“Independent

Monitor”) must keep confidential information that it receives in

carrying out its statutory responsibilities to evaluate and report on

investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect at facilities of the

Department of Juvenile Services (“DJS”). You specifically ask us

to reconcile the Independent Monitor’s statutory obligations to

provide reports to other State officials and to respond to requests

under the Maryland Public Information Act (“PIA”) with the

confidentiality requirements that pertain to child abuse investigations

under Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 88A, §6(b). We

summarize your questions as follows:

1. To what extent does Article 88A, §6(b), limit the

information regarding incidents and investigations of possible child

abuse and neglect that the Independent Monitor may include in the

reports that it is required to provide to various State officials?

2. To what extent does Article 88A, §6(b), or other law

further limit the information in a report of the Independent Monitor

that may be disclosed in response to a request under the PIA?

3. Do the restrictions imposed by Article 88A, §6(b), on the

information in a report depend on which agency provided the

information to the Independent Monitor?
32 [89 Op. Att’y

For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude: 

1. A report by the Independent Monitor may, and should,

include findings and recommendations regarding public agency

performance in response to allegations of child abuse and neglect at

DJS facilities. However, to comply with Article 88A, §6(b), the

report should not identify, or disclose information that invades the

privacy of, a child, the child’s family, the individual who allegedly

committed the abuse, or the individual who reported suspected abuse

to State or local authorities.

2. Assuming that a report is prepared in compliance with

Article 88A, §6(b), that statute would not further restrict the public

inspection of the report pursuant to a PIA request. Of course, in

responding to a PIA request, the Independent Monitor must also

consider other applicable exceptions to the general rule of disclosure

under the PIA. In particular, the Independent Monitor should

consult with agencies that provided investigative reports to

determine whether public disclosure of the contents of those records

would compromise a current investigation or otherwise be contrary

to the public interest. To the extent possible, the Independent

Monitor should identify the parts of a report subject to that

exemption at the time the report is provided to State officials.

3. The restrictions imposed by Article 88A, §6(b), apply to

information that the Independent Monitor obtains from DJS, local

departments of social services, law enforcement agencies, or other

agencies, as well as to results of any investigation by the

Independent Monitor itself.

I

The Independent Monitor

A. Duties of the Independent Monitor

The Independent Monitor, established in the Governor’s Office

for Children, Youth, and Families (“OCYF”), is responsible for

determining “whether the needs of children under the jurisdiction of
Gen. 31] 33

 1The Independent Monitor was originally created in 2000 under a

Memorandum of Agreement of the Subcabinet for Children, Youth, and

Families, an entity comprised of the heads of various human services

agencies. See Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 49D, §4.1. Two years

later, the General Assembly codified the Independent Monitor and

expanded its responsibilities. Chapter 255, Laws of Maryland 2002. 

 2Under State law, reports of child abuse or neglect are referred to a local

department of social services or an appropriate law enforcement agency.

See Annotated Code of Maryland, Family Law Article (“FL”), §§5-704,

5-705. Local departments of social services are charged with investigating

those reports and pursuing various remedies, and providing treatment.

See, e.g., FL §§5-706 (investigations), §5-709 (removal of child from

home), §5-710 (provision of services to child); see also COMAR

07.02.07.01A.

the Department [of Juvenile Services] are being met in compliance

with State law, that their rights are being upheld, and that they are

not being abused.” Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 49D,

§40(f).1 The Independent Monitor must evaluate facilities owned or

operated by DJS, including physical conditions, staffing, grievance

and monitoring processes, and the treatment and services provided

to residents. Article 49D, §43(1). It is to review DJS’s internal

monitoring and incident reporting activities, as well as the reports of

findings of the local departments of social services2 concerning

incidents at the facility. Article 49D, §43(2), (5), (6). The

Independent Monitor is to make unannounced site visits to facilities,

interview staff, youth, and others, and participate in multidisciplinary teams organized as part of an investigation of an

allegation of abuse or neglect at a DJS facility. Article 49D,

§§43(4), 44(2), (4). 

B. Reporting Obligations of the Independent Monitor

The Independent Monitor law directs the Independent Monitor

to report detailed findings and recommendations to the legislative

leadership and various other State officials. Article 49D, §45. The

statute requires the Independent Monitor to issue two basic types of

reports: (1) special reports keyed to particular problems or findings,

and (2) periodic reports summarizing the activities of the

Independent Monitor. 
34 [89 Op. Att’y

 3The reports are to be submitted to the legislative leadership in

accordance with Annotated Code of Maryland, State Government Article

(“SG”), §2-1246. Under that provision, five copies are delivered to the

Department of Legislative Services. SG §2-1246(b)(1). Copies are to be

provided to other members of the Legislature upon request or upon

direction of the leadership. SG §2-1246(b)(2). 

First, the Independent Monitor must provide ongoing “timely”

reports concerning:

(1) Any problem regarding the care,

supervision, and treatment of children in

DJS facilities; 

(2) Findings and recommendations related to

its investigations of disciplinary actions,

grievances, incident reports, and cases of

alleged child abuse and neglect; and 

(3) Other findings and actions undertaken by

the Independent Monitor.

Article 49D, §45(a). These reports are to be made to the Subcabinet

for Children, Youth, and Families, to the Special Secretary for

OCYF, and also to the Speaker of the House of Delegates and the

President of the Senate.3

 Id.

Second, the Independent Monitor must prepare, on a quarterly

and an annual basis, reports that describe “all activities of the

Office” and any actions taken by DJS as a result of findings and

recommendations of the Independent Monitor. Article 49D, §45(b)-

(c). The quarterly reports are also to summarize any violations of

DJS standards or regulations that remained unabated for more than

30 days during the quarter. Article 49D, §45(b)(3)(iii). These

reports are to be provided to the Special Secretary, the Secretary of

DJS, and the General Assembly. Article 49D, §45(b)-(c). Copies of

the quarterly reports must also be sent to the State Advisory Board

for Juvenile Services, while copies of the annual reports are to be
Gen. 31] 35

 4See, e.g., Independent Juvenile Justice Monitor Special Report on

Conditions/Incidents: Physical Abuse/Neglect Incidents, Thomas J.S.

Waxter Children’sCenter(June 30, 2003)(findings and recommendations

concerning excessive use of force incidents and other child abuse

allegations at the Waxter Center during 2003); Charles Hickey School

(May 29, 2003) (findings and recommendations regarding DJS reporting

of and response to 20 cases of suspected child abuse or neglect during

2003 at the Charles Hickey School); Overcrowding/Inadequate Staffing

and Supervision/Sexual Behavior between Youth/Decreased Incident

Reporting/Threats to Life, Health and Safety, Cheltenham Youth Facility

(November-December 2003) (findings and recommendations regarding

health and safety risks to youth as a result of severe understaffing and

failure to report violent incidents to DJS and other authorities). 

sent to the Governor and to special advisory boards related to

specific juvenile facilities. Id. 

C. Requests for Reports of the Independent Monitor

 Since its inception, the Independent Monitor has reviewed a

number of instances of alleged child abuse and neglect in DJS

facilities and has produced reports that identify practices that may

impair the State’s ability to prevent abuse and neglect or to respond

effectively when it occurs.4

 The Independent Monitor has relied on

information from numerous sources, including DJS incident reports,

records and reports of local departments of social services and law

enforcement agencies, interviews with facility staff and residents,

personal observations by the Independent Monitor’s staff, and

participation in multi-disciplinary teams investigating particular

incidents. 

The Independent Monitor’s reports have included detailed

findings concerning alleged abuse incidents and the responses of

DJS, local departments of social services, and law enforcement

personnel. The reports also make recommendations for corrective

action to improve public agencies’ response to child abuse and

neglect allegations and incidents. It is our understanding that the

Independent Monitor has attempted to exclude from its reports

identifying information concerning youths who may be the subjects

of abuse or neglect, reporters of suspected abuse, and alleged

abusers.
36 [89 Op. Att’y

The Independent Monitor’s reports have been disseminated

to various State officials in accordance with the Independent

Monitor law. Like other agencies, the Independent Monitor receives

requests for copies of its reports pursuant to the Maryland Public

Information Act (“PIA”), Annotated Code of Maryland, State

Government Article (“SG”), 10-611 et seq. Before releasing a report

in response to such a request, the Independent Monitor must redact

information if disclosure of that information is prohibited by the PIA

or other laws, such as Article 88A, §6(b). 

II

Confidentiality Requirements of Article 88A, §6(b)

Much of the information and many of the reports reviewed by

the Independent Monitor derive from investigations by law

enforcement agencies and local departments of social services of

suspected child abuse and neglect. Article 88A, §6(b) generally

provides that “all records and reports concerning child abuse and

neglect are confidential.” The statute and a related regulation of the

Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) set out limited

circumstances under which disclosure is permitted. Article 88A,

§6(b)(1)-(2); COMAR 07.02.07.19. Unauthorized disclosure is a

criminal misdemeanor. Article 88A, §6(e). 

The exceptions to the broad prohibition against disclosure are

limited to specifically described situations and classes of persons

who investigate the child abuse allegations, care directly for a child,

or administer or oversee social welfare programs. Disclosure may

be made pursuant to a court order or, in more limited circumstances,

an order of an administrative law judge. Article 88A, §6(b)(1).

Disclosures are also permitted, for specified purposes, to various

other State and local officials who investigate allegations of child

abuse or neglect, to entities such as the State Council on Child

Abuse and Neglect, the State Citizens Review Board for Children,

and child fatality review teams, and to officials responsible for child

protective services or child care, foster care, and adoption licensing.

Article 88A, §6(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii). Disclosure may also be made to

licensed practitioners or officials providing services to the victims
Gen. 31] 37

of abuse or neglect. Article 88A, §6(b)(2)(i), (v). Other permissible

recipients of this information include a person accused of child

abuse or neglect, the parent or custodian of a child, and a school

superintendent or director of a child care facility responsible for

taking administrative or personnel action against an alleged abuser.

Article 88A, §6(b)(2)(iv), (vi), (vii), (viii). 

One of these exceptions specifically allows for disclosures to

the Independent Monitor. Article 88A, §6(b)(2)(ix). However, the

statute is silent on whether this exception encompasses redisclosures

in the Independent Monitor’s reports. The DHR regulation attempts

to ensure that redisclosure of such information is governed by the

same standards as the original disclsoure. It provides that a record

or report “may only be disclosed to individuals who, by law or

written agreement, are subject to the requirements of Article 88A,

§6(b)....” COMAR 07.02.07.19F. 

Both the statute and the regulation emphasize that the identity

of the individual who reports alleged abuse or neglect is to remain

confidential. See, e.g., Article 88A, §6(b)(iv) (disclosure permitted

to alleged abuser if identity of reporter is protected), (vi) (disclosure

to parent or custodian permitted if reporter’s identity is protected);

COMAR 07.02.07.19E, I.

Finally, the statute contains a proviso that it should not be

construed to prohibit “... the publication, for administrative ...

purposes, of statistics or other data so classified as to prevent the

identification of particular persons or cases.” Article 88A, §6(c)(1).

The confidentiality requirements of Article 88A, §6(b), are

designed to ensure that the State complies with federal regulations

issued under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42

U.S.C. §5101 et seq. The federal statute prescribes eligibility criteria

for certain federal grants for child abuse and neglect treatment and

prevention programs. To maintain a state’s eligibility, among other

things, the state’s law must include confidentiality provisions for

child abuse and neglect records that are designed to protect the

rights of victims of alleged abuse or neglect and their parents or

guardians. 42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(A)(v). A related regulation
38 [89 Op. Att’y

requires that projects and programs supported by federal grants

“must hold all information related to personal facts or circumstances

about individuals involved in those projects or programs confidential

and shall not disclose any of the information in other than summary,

statistical, or other form which does not identify specific individuals

[except in specified circumstances].” 45 CFR §1340.20. Another

regulation, on which Article 88A, §6(b), is patterned, spells out

specific circumstances in which disclosure is permitted. See 45 CFR

§1340.14(i). 

III

Application of Article 88A, §6(b), 

to Independent Monitor Reports

A. Restrictions on Content of Reports

You first ask about the extent to which Article 88A, §6(b),

limits the information that the Independent Monitor may include in

the reports required by its enabling legislation. At first glance, the

two statutes may appear to work at cross purposes. Article 88A,

§6(b), strictly limits the disclosure of information concerning

investigations of child abuse and neglect, even to government

officials. On the other hand, the Independent Monitor law requires

reports that necessarily must discuss such investigations at DJS

facilities.

We begin our analysis from the premise that the two statutes

should be harmonized to the extent possible. State v. Ghajari, 346

Md. 101, 115, 695 A.2d 143 (1997) (“when two statutes appear to

apply to the same situation, this Court will attempt to give effect to

both statutes to the extent that they are reconcilable”). In that light

we look to the legislative purpose underlying these enactments.

Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 514-15, 525 A.2d

628 (1987).

The Independent Monitor was created in response to reports

of alleged child abuse at DJS facilities and concerns that there was

a need for enhanced oversight of the agency’s handling of such
Gen. 31] 39

 5The 1986 opinion also specifically addressed the extent of disclosure

when a child has died and a parent or other custodian of the child has been

arrested on charges related to alleged abuse. The Legislature subsequently

codified and elaborated on the guidelines provided by the opinion, by

enacting Article 88A, §6A. Chapters 405, 406, Laws of Maryland 1998.

That statute explicitly grants the Secretary of Human Resources and local

social services directors the discretion to disclose information regarding

a child abuse investigation if the child has died or suffered serious injury,

criminal charges have been filed, and disclosure is not contrary to the best

(continued...)

incidents. See, e.g., Criminal probe focuses on boot camp guards;

Glendening orders monitoring of all juvenile facilities, Baltimore

Sun (December 14, 1999) at p. 1A. The Independent Monitor law

directs the Independent Monitor to review child protective services

findings regarding abuse or neglect investigations at DJS facilities,

and to participate in local child abuse and neglect multi-disciplinary

investigatory teams, Article 49D, §§43, 44, and to report “[f]indings,

actions, and recommendations, related to the investigations of ...

alleged cases of child abuse and neglect” to the Subcabinet and

legislative leadership, Article 49D, §45(a). These responsibilities

signal a legislative intent to include specific findings regarding child

abuse and neglect incidents and investigations in the Independent

Monitor’s ongoing reports to the Subcabinet and legislative

leadership.

In our opinion, Article 88A, §6 (b), is not to the contrary. In

a 1986 opinion, Attorney General Sachs reviewed Article 88A, §6,

and the related federal law and regulations. He concluded that, even

within the strict confines of the “legally mandated preservation of

personal privacy,” the statute and regulations should be construed to

permit review of agency performance. 71 Opinions of the Attorney

General 368 (1986). 

As Attorney General Sachs noted, the federal law on which

Article 88A, §6(b), is based is intended to protect the privacy of a

child and the child’s family and, thus, “can properly be read as

permitting disclosure, in the public interest, of information that

would not impair personal privacy.” 71 Opinions of the Attorney

General 368, 377 (1986).5 This is thoroughly consistent with the
40 [89 Op. Att’y

 5(...continued)

interests of the child. Article 88A, §6A. In those circumstances, the

identity of the suspected victim of abuse may be disclosed, but not the

identity of the person who reported the alleged abuse or neglect. Article

88A, §6A(d)-(e).

intent of the federal law “to promote the establishment and conduct

of effective state programs to prevent and treat child abuse.” Id.

Thus, as the 1986 opinion concluded, public disclosure that does not

run afoul of Article 88A, § 6(b), and that would contribute to a fuller

airing of “the quality of performance by social services agencies in

handling child abuse cases,” would ultimately promote agency

effectiveness and permit agencies and the public to identify

improvements in organization, administration, staffing, or funding

of child protective services. Id. 

Notably, the federal regulations, on which Article 88A, §6(b),

is patterned clearly contemplate that non-identifying information will

be disclosed as part of the oversight of agency performance. They

provide that a state may, by statute, authorize disclosure to: 

[a]n appropriate State or local official

responsible for ... oversight of the

enabling or appropriating legislation,

carrying out his or her official

functions; and

[a] person, agency, or organization

engaged in a bona fide ... evaluation

project, but without information

identifying individuals named in a

report or record, unless having that

information open for review is essential

to the ... evaluation, the appropriate

State official gives prior written

approval, and the child, through his/her

representative ..., gives permission to

release the information. 
Gen. 31] 41

 6This proviso would not pertain if specific information had already

properly become a matter of public record – for example, if the alleged

perpetrator had been named as a defendant in a criminal proceeding

arising out of the incident. See 71 Opinions of the Attorney General 368,

375 (1986).

45 CFR §1340.14(i)(2)(x)-(xi). As is evident, such a disclosure is

limited, as necessary, to preserve individual privacy. 

Attorney General Sachs concluded similarly that Article 88A,

§6(b) is “not intended to shield from public scrutiny the functioning

of child protective services [and] should be construed to permit

disclosure of facts about local department performance — if, but

only if, disclosure does not compromise the privacy interests that the

restrictions require to be protected.” 71 Opinions of the Attorney

General at 374-75. 

Under the same reasoning, an Independent Monitor’s report

may discuss specific incidents of alleged abuse or neglect at DJS

facilities, the steps taken to investigate such incidents and prevent

further incidents, and any findings or conclusions of the

investigators. However, the report should not include information

from which the youth, the youth’s family, the reporter of the alleged

abuse, or the alleged abuser may be identified.6

 We understand that

the Independent Monitor already seeks to exclude from its reports

any personally identifiable information. 

Under these guidelines, significant details regarding agency

performance may be disclosed. Nonetheless, we urge the

Independent Monitor to take special care to avoid disclosing

information from which individuals may be identified indirectly or

information that would otherwise invade personal privacy. In some

instances, for example, this will require eliminating references to the

age and home county of a child, certain details of an alleged

incident, or the position classification and specific job assignment of

an employee. As a general guideline, we suggest that the

Independent Monitor’s reports include only the degree of detail

necessary for a reader to assess the adequacy of the public agency’s

investigation and response to a report of suspected child abuse.
42 [89 Op. Att’y

B. Restrictions on Responses to Requests under the Public

Information Act

OCYF periodically receives requests for copies of reports of

the Independent Monitor, including those that contain findings

regarding possible child abuse or neglect incidents and their

investigation. Similar requests have been made to the Department

of Legislative Services, to which such reports are submitted under

Article 49D, §45(a). You have asked what limitations Article 88A,

§6(b), places on the agency’s response to such requests. In

particular, you ask whether the agency must redact from the report

non-identifying information describing the process by which an

incident of alleged child abuse was reported, investigated, and

resolved, before it releases the report in response to such a request.

A request for a report of the Independent Monitor is governed

by the Maryland Public Information Act (“PIA”). SG §10-611 et

seq. The PIA provides a general right of public access to “public

records” unless one of the various exceptions in the statute limits

access. SG §10-613(a). A report of the Independent Monitor is

clearly a “public record” as it is “made by a unit ... of the State

government ... in connection with the transaction of public

business.” SG §10-611(g)(1).

Among the exceptions to the general right of access under the

PIA are situations in which “inspection would be contrary to ... a

State statute.” SG §10-615(2)(i). Accordingly, Article 88A, §6(b),

which restricts disclosure of information concerning reports and

investigations of child abuse, can be the basis for denying access to

public records. However, in our opinion, if an Independent

Monitor’s report follows the guidelines outlined in the previous

section of this opinion, Article 88A, §(6) should not bar public

disclosure of the report. As Attorney General Sachs observed in

1986, “the public has a vital interest in seeing to it that those

responsible for child protective services are doing their jobs properly

and are provided with adequate resources. The agencies involved

have no privacy interest to be protected; on the contrary, the public

interest requires that they be held accountable for their performance,

like any other part of government.” 71 Opinions of the Attorney
Gen. 31] 43

 7For similar reasons, the 1986 opinion concluded that another exception

in the PIA did not bar access to non-identifiable information. That

exception prohibits public disclosure of “public records that relate to

welfare for an individual.” SG §10-616(c). Noting that the PIA must be

construed broadly to afford public access to information about actions of

government agencies and officials, the 1986 opinion determined that

information on agency performance that does not implicate individual

privacy interests could be disclosed. 71 Opinions of the Attorney General

at 378. Thus, this exception would also not affect disclosure of a report

by the Independent Monitor that complies with the guidelines set out in

the previous section of this opinion.

 8This provision also permits Maryland law enforcement agencies to

deny inspection of certain intelligence and security information, SG §10-

618(f)(1)(iii), and provides a “person in interest”with a somewhat greater

right of access, SG §10-618(f)(2).

 9To some extent, the assessment whether a disclosure of investigatory

records is contrary to the public interest involves considerations similar to

the privacy concerns underlying Article 88A, §6(b). See, e.g., SG §10-

618(f)(2)(iii)(investigatory record may be withheld if disclosure would

constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy); (iv) (disclosure

of confidential source); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Maryland

Comm. Against the Gun Ban, 329 Md. 78, 617 A.2d 1040 (1993)

(disclosure of report of internal investigation of police officer might

dissuade witnesses and possible informants from cooperating in the

(continued...)

General 368 (1986) (emphasis added). Under the same reasoning,

Article 88A, §(6), permits public disclosure of non-personally

identifiable findings regarding agency performance in response to

child abuse and neglect allegations that the Independent Monitor

reports to the Subcabinet and the Legislature.7

On occasion, another exception to the PIA may apply to a

specific report or specific portions of a report. For example, the PIA

contains an exception for “records of investigations conducted by ...

a police department, or a sheriff,” as well as investigatory files

compiled by other agencies “for any other law enforcement, judicial,

correctional, or prosecutorial purpose.” SG §10-618(f)(1).8

Inspection of those records may be denied if the custodian believes

that their disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. SG

§10-618(a).9
44 [89 Op. Att’y

 9(...continued)

investigation). However, other factors can also be part of a determination

whether an agency should disclose an investigatory record. See, e.g., SG

§10-618(f)(2)(i) (interference with law enforcement proceedings); (vi)

(prejudice to an investigation).

Investigatory files compiled by the police in response to a

report of suspected child abuse or neglect plainly are within the

purview of the investigatory records exception. Records compiled

by DJS or a local department of social services may also be withheld

under this exception if certain showings can be made. Equitable

Trust Co. v. State Human Relations Comm’n, 42 Md. App. 53, 399

A.2d 908 (1979), rev’d on other grounds, 287 Md. 80, 411 A.2d 86

(1980); Fioretti v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 351 Md. 66,

716 A.2d 258 (1998). In particular, the agency must be able to

demonstrate that it “legitimately was in the process of or initiating

a specific relevant investigative proceeding” and that disclosure of

the investigatory information would prejudice the investigation or

cause some other identifiable harm that justifies withholding the

record. Fioretti, 351 Md. at 82, 91. 

A report of the Independent Monitor might include

information drawn from the investigatory files of another agency for

which that agency might reasonably deny a request for access under

the investigatory files exception. For example, an Independent

Monitor’s report might describe an ongoing investigation and

include information that might prejudice the investigation, reveal an

investigative technique, or disclose a confidential source. In those

circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Independent Monitor

to withhold that portion of the report from public inspection, if the

agency that provided the information would itself deny access under

the investigatory files exception. 

In responding to a PIA request for a report, the Independent

Monitor should consult with those agencies that shared investigative

reports incorporated into the report to determine whether any

information is subject to the investigative files exception and, if so,

whether its disclosure would cause one of the harms the exception

is designed to prevent – e.g., jeopardize an ongoing investigation.
Gen. 31] 45

In some instances, the Independent Monitor may need to delay

public disclosure of information until after administrative or judicial

proceedings have been completed. 

As a practical matter, it may be difficult for the State officials

who receive a report of the Independent Monitor’s to know whether

the report contains such material exempt from public inspection

under the PIA. If the Independent Monitor is aware at the time a

report is disseminated that certain portions are exempt under the

investigatory records exemption, it should identify those parts of the

report for the benefit of the officials to whom the report is

disseminated. The Independent Monitor should strive to the extent

possible to avoid including material in a report that must be redacted

before the report is publicly disseminated.

C. Whether Restrictions Depend on the Source of the

Information

Finally, you ask whether the disclosure restrictions imposed

by Article 88A, §6(b), depend upon which agency is the source of

particular information. As noted above, in assessing a DJS response

to allegations of child abuse and neglect, the Independent Monitor

relies on information and reports from a variety of agencies and

other sources, in addition to its own staff.

The applicability of Article 88A, §6(b), to the investigative

findings of agencies other than a department of social services has

been discussed in several prior opinions of the Attorney General.

Those opinions indicate that the statute must be construed to protect

the privacy of the persons involved in an abuse or neglect incident,

regardless of whether information about the incident was reported

by personnel of the local department of social services or other

agency investigators. 76 Opinions of the Attorney General 220, 231-

32 (1991) (information gathered by school systems, in response to

allegations of child abuse by school personnel, is subject to

confidentiality requirements of Article 88A, §6(b)); 82 Opinions of

the Attorney General 72 (1997) (Article 88A, §6(b), proscriptions

are applicable to law enforcement records). The Independent

Monitor has the same obligation to maintain the confidentiality of
46 [89 Op. Att’y

protected information under Article 88A, §6(b), as does DJS, a local

department of social services, or a law enforcement agency that

provided information to the Independent Monitor. 

The confidentiality requirements associated with child abuse

investigations are based on the nature of the information, not the

agency that conducted the investigation. The same guidelines set out

above apply to all information arising from a child abuse or neglect

investigation, regardless of the original source of the information.

IV

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that: 

1. A report by the Independent Monitor may, and should,

include findings and recommendations regarding public agency

performance in response to allegations of child abuse and neglect at

DJS facilities. However, to comply with Article 88A, §6(b), the

report should not identify, or disclose information that invades the

privacy of, a child, the child’s family, the individual who allegedly

committed the abuse, or the individual who reported suspected abuse

to State or local authorities.

2. Assuming that a report is prepared in compliance with

Article 88A, §6(b), that statute would not further restrict the public

inspection of the report pursuant to a PIA request. Of course, in

responding to a PIA request, the Independent Monitor must also

consider other applicable exceptions to the general rule of disclosure

under the PIA. In particular, the Independent Monitor should

consult with agencies that provided underlying investigative reports

to determine whether public disclosure of the contents of those

records would compromise a current investigation or otherwise be

contrary to the public interest. To the extent possible, the

Independent Monitor should identify the parts of a report subject to

that exemption at the time the report is provided to State officials.
Gen. 31] 47

3. The restrictions imposed by Article 88A, §6(b), apply

to information that the Independent Monitor obtains from DJS, local

departments of social services, law enforcement agencies, or other

agencies, as well as to results of any investigation by the

Independent Monitor itself.

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

JoAnn Goedert

AssistantAttorney General

Robert N. McDonald

Chief Counsel

 Opinions and Advice