G en. 189] 189
F AM ILY L A W

) C HI L D A B US E AN D N EGLECT

— R E PORT I NG O B L I GAT I ON W HE N V I CT I M OF C HI L D A BUSE O R N EGLECT I S N OW A N A DULT O R A L L E GE D A B US E R I S D E AD

— C ONFI DE NT I AL I T Y O F R EPORTS

D ece m ber3, 1993

T he Hon orab l e A nn M

ari e D oo ry H ou se of D el ega t es

Y o u hav e request ed our op i nion on s everal i ssues rel at i ng to th e S tate law o n th e re p o rtin g o f c h ild a b u se a n d n e g lec t. S p e c if ica lly , y o u p o se th e f

o llo w in g q u e stio n s: 1. D oes a perso n w ho has r eas on t o bel i eve thats om eone w ho i s n o w an adul tw as abus ed ornegl ect ed w hen thati ndi vi dual w as a chi l d have a n obl i gat i on, under§§5- 704 or5- 705 of t he Fam i l yLa w A r t i c l e , M a r y l a n d Cod e ( “ FL” Ar t i c l e ) , t o r e p o r tt he a l l e g e d a b u s e o rn e g l e c t ?
2

. If the law g e n e ra llyd o es re q u ir e p erso n s to rep o rt su sp e c ted a b u se o r n e g lec t in v o lv in g a v ictim w h o is n o w a n a d u lt, does t hi s obl i gat i on exi s ti f t he al l eged a bus eri s dece as ed?
3. U nderw hatci r cu m s t ance s ar e r epor t ed al l egat i ons of c h i l d a b u s e o rn e g l e c td i s c l o s e d t o t h e p u b l i c , a n d b ywho m?
F or t he reasons st at ed b el ow , w e con cl ud e as foll ow s: 1. FL §§5- 704 ( w i t h resp ec tt o heal t h pr act i t i oner s , pol i ce o f f ice rs, e d u c a to rs, a n d h u m a n se rv ice w o rk e rs) a n d 5 -7 0 5 (w ith re sp e c t to a ll o th e r p e rso n s ) r e q u ire re p o rtin g w h e n e v e r th e re is re a so n to b e liev e th a t c h il d a b u se o r n e g lec t o c c u rre d in th e p a st, e v e n i f the al l eged vict i m i s an adult w hen t he i ncident com es to li g h t. O f cour s e, t he fa ctt hatt he vi ct i m i s now an adul ts houl d be p a r to f t h e r e p o r t , a n d t h i s f

a c tma yb e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n tb yt he author i t i es w ho r ece i ve t he r epor tw hen theydet er m i ne the ac t i ons to ta k e in re s p o n s e to th e re p o rt

.1 9 0 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y
2. F L §§ 5 -704 an d 5 -705 requ i re a r epo rtun der t hese ci r cumst ance s even i f t he al l eged a bus er i s bel i eved t o be dec eas ed. I nfor m at i on t hatt he al l eged a bus eri s dece as ed s houl d be i ncl uded i n t he r eport , and the author i t i es r ece i vi ng t he r epor tm ayt ake a p p ro p ri a te a c c o u n t o f

th a t c ir c u m s ta n c e
. 3

. A n yre p o rt m a d e u n d e r F L § § 5 -7 0 4 o r 5

- 7 0 5 is confi dent i al , m aybe di s cl os ed onl yundert he l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s s peci fi ed bys t atut e, and maynotbe di s s emi nated to t he publ i c at la rg e
.

I

R e p o r tin g W h e n th e V ict im is a n A d u lt
A
. P r inci

ples of Statutor y Constr ucti on A s w i t h a n yo t h e rs t a tu t e , whe n we a t t e mptt o c o n s t ru e t he chi l d abus e r epor t i ng l aw w e tr yt o be fa i t hful t o “the purpos e of the l egi s l at i on, det er m i ned i n t he l i ghtof th e st atut e’ s l anguage and cont ext

. ” Leppo v. St at e Highw ay Adm i nis t r at i on , 330 M d. 416, 422, 624 A

. 2d 539 ( 1993)

. I n s o doi ng, “ourfi r s tr ecour s e i s t o t he w o rd s o f th e s ta tu te , g iv in g th e m th e iro rd in a ry a n d n a tu ra l im p o rt .” Fai r banks v. McC ar t er , 3 3 0 M d . 3 9 , 4 6 , 6 2 2 A .2 d 1 2 1 (1 9 9 3 ).
H o w e v e r, “[ i]f

th e sta tu to rylan g u a g e itse lf is i n su f f icie n t to l e a d u s c o mf

o r t a b l yt o c o n c l u d e wh a tt h e L e g i s l a tu r e i n t e n d e d , we lo o k b e yo n d th e w o rd s a n d e x a m in e leg isla tiv e h isto ryw h e n it i s avai l abl e and the cont extof t he l egi s l at i on. ” Leppo , 330 M d. at422. “C o n text m ayinclu d e re lat ed statu tes , p erti n en t l eg isl ati v e h ist o ry an d ‘ ot herm at er i al t hatfai r l ybear s on t he .

. . fundament al i s s ue of l egi s l at i ve purpos e orgoal

. . . . ’ ” G E IC O v. Insu ra n ce C o m m ’r , 332 M d. 124, 132, 630 A

. 2d 713 ( 1993) ( quot i ng Kacz or ow s ki v. C i t y of B al t i m or e, 3 0 9 M d . 5 0 5 , 5 1 5 , 5 2 5 A .2 d 6 2 8 (1 9 8 7 ))

. S e e a ls o , e .g ., H a rr is v . S ta te , 3 3 1 M d . 1 3 7 , 1 4 6 , 6 2 6 A .2 d 9 4 6 (1 9 9 3 ).
B . Statutor

y Text
F L §5 -704(a) s et s out an un qu al i fi ed d utyt o reportchil d ab use o r n e g lec t b yc e rta in o c c u p a tio n s:G en. 189] 191

The ter ms “health practitioner,”“police of fice r,” a nd “educ ator or 1 hum ans e r

v i c e w o r k e r ” ar e d e f

i n e d i n§ 5

- 7 0 1 ( h ) , ( o ) , an d

( f ) r e s p e c t i v e l y. N ot w i t hs t andi ng anyot herpr ovi s i on of l aw , includi ng anyl aw on pr i vi l eged co m m u n icati o n s, ea ch h ea lth p rac ti ti o n er, pol i ce of fi cer , oreducat ororhum an s er vi ce w or ker , act i ng i n a pr ofes s i onal capa ci t y , w ho has r easo n to be l i eve thatt he chi l d has been s ubj ect ed t o: ( 1) ( i ) abus e, s hal l no ti fyt he l ocal depart m ent[of so ci al s er vi ces ] ort he ap p rop ri ate law en fo rce m en t age n cy ; or ( i i ) negl ect , s hal l not i fy t he l ocal depart m ent ; and ( 2) i f ac t i ng as a s t aff m em b erof a h o sp it al, p u b li c h ea lth ag en cy , ch il d ca re in s titu tio n , juv e n ile d e ten tio n c e n ter , sc h o o l, ors i m i l ari ns t i tut i on, i m m ed iat el ynot i fyand g iv e a ll i n f

o rm a tio n re q u ire d b y th is se c tio n to t he hea d of t he i ns t i tut i on o r d esi gnee of t he head. 1
FL §5- 704 r equi r es an im m edi at e or al r epor tand a pr om ptw r i t t en re p o rt. T h e se re p o rts a re to c o n tain th e f o llo w in g in f

o rm a tio n : ( 1) t he name, age, and h o m e addr es s of th e c h ild ; ( 2) t he name and home addr es s of t he c h ild ’s p a re n t o r o th e r p e rso n w h o is re sp o n sib le f

o r th e c h ild ’s c a re ; (3 ) th e w h e re a b o u ts o f

th e c h ild ; ( 4) the n at ur e and e xt entof t he abus e or negl ectof t he chi l d, i ncl udi ng anyevi dence or i nfor m at i on avai l abl e t o t h e r e p or t er conce r ni ng pos s i bl e pr evi ous i ns t ances of abus e ornegl ect ; and1 9 2 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

The e x ceptio n s s et outin FL §5-705(a)(2) excuse repor ting of 2 information enc ompassed by the attorney-client privilege described in §9- 108 of the Co u

r tsAr ti c le , rep o r

tingof information otherwise enc ompassed by the duty of conf identiality

owed by an attorney

to his or her c lient, and re p o rtingthat would violate the constitutional right to assistance of c ouns e l. Thee xcepti on set ou t in F L§5 -7 05 (a)( 3) re fers to c e rt a in confide ntial communications to a minister, clergy man, or prie st. (5 ) a n yo th e r in f

o rm a tio n th a t w o u ld h e lp det er m i ne: ( i ) the ca us e of the s us pect ed abus e or negl ect ; and (i i) the i dent i tyof anyi ndi vi dual re sp o n sib le f

o r th e a b u se o r n e g lec t.
F L § 5 -70 4 (c).
A per s on w ho i s noti n one of the oc cu p ati o nal gr oups id e n tifie d in F L § 5 -7 0 4 (a ) is in ste a d su b jec t to th e leg a l d u tyto re p o rt se t o u t in § 5 -7 0 5 (a ):

( 1) E xcept as pr ovi ded i n par agr aphs ( 2) an d ( 3 ) o f t hi s s ubs ect i on, not w i t hs t andi ng any ot her p r ovi s i on of l aw , i ncl udi ng a l aw on pr i vi l eged c om m uni cat i o n s, a per s on ot her t han a he al t h pr act i t i oner , p o li ce of fi cer , or educa t o rorhum an s er vi ce w or kerw ho has r eas on t o b el i eve thata chi l d has been su b jec ted to a b u se o r n e g lec t sh a ll: ( i ) i f a per s on has r eas on t o bel i eve that t he chi l d has been s ubj ect ed t o abus e, not i fy t he l ocal depart m ent [of s oci al s er vi ces ] ort he ap p rop ri ate law en fo rce m en t age n cy ; or ( i i ) i f t h e p e r s o n h a s r e a s o n t o b el i eve th a t th e c h ild h a s b e e n su b jec ted to n e g lec t, n o tifyth e lo c a l d e p a rtm e n t. 2G en. 189] 193

Those who re p o rt aregrante d immunity from civil liability

or 3 criminal penalty for doing so in g ood faith. FL §5-708; § 5 -3 6 2 o f the Courts and J udicial Proce eding s Article. Se eCatte rto n v . Co ale , 84 Md. App. 337, 579 A.2d 781 (1990), cert. de nied, 321 Md. 638, 584 A.2d 67 (1 99 1) . Co nv e rs e ly , th e failure to repo rt might, un de r s ome circ umstances, posea risk of liability

. See generally Furr v. Spri ng Grove State Hosp. , 53 Md. Ap p
. 4 7 4 , 4 54 A.2d 414, cert. de nied, 296 Md. 60 (1 98 3) ; Taras off

v . R e ge ntsof U

niv . o f Ca l. , 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 (1976). Th e full d e fi nition

of “ a bu se ” is a s f

oll ow s: 4 (1)(i ) The physical injury of a c hild by

any pare nt or o ther pe rson who has permane nt or temporar y care or custody

or re sponsibili ty

for su pe rv isi on of a c hil d, or by any ho us e ho ld f amily member, under circumstances that indicate that th e c h i l d ’ s h e a l tho r

w e l f ar e i s s i gn i f

i c antly harme d or at risk of be ing significantly harme d; or (ii) sexual ab u s e o f a c hild, whether phy sic a l in

jurie s a resu staine d o r n ot. (2) “ Abuse”does not include, for that rea son alone , p ro v iding a

child with nonmedical re ligious re me dial c areand

tr e atme nt re c ognize d b y State law. U nderFL §5- 705( d) , “[t ] o t he ext entpos s i bl e, a r epor t m ade unde r s ubs ect i on ( a) of t hi s s ect i on s hal l i ncl ude t he i nfor m at i on r equi r ed b y[ F L ] § 5 -7 0 4 (c ) ....” 3
A “chi l d” i s “any i ndi vi dual under t he age of 18 y ear s
. ” FL §5- 701( d)

. “A bus e” i s defi ned as t he “phy s i cal i nj ur y ” or“s ex ual abus e” of

a chi l d byt he chi l d’ s car et aker s
. FL §5- 701( b) ( 1)

. T he 4 t er m “s exual abus e” i s define d as “a nyactt hati nvol ves s exual m ol es t a t i o n o re x p l o i t a t i o n o f a c h i l d b ya p a r e n to ro t h e rp e r s on w ho has per m anentort empora r ycar e orcus t odyorr es pons i bi l i t yfor s up e r vi s i on of a c hi l d, orbya nyho us e ho l d o rfa mi l ymembe r
. ” FL § 5 -7 0 1 (p )(1 ). “ N e g lec t” is d e f in e d a s “ th e lea v in g o f a c h ild unat t ended orot herfai l ur e t o gi ve pr op er ca r e and a t t ent i on t o a chi l d byt he chi l d’ s par ent s , guar di an, or cu stod i an under c irc u m sta n c e s th a t in d ica te th a t th e c h ild ’s h e a lth o r w e lf a re is s i gni fi cant l yhar m ed orpl ace d at r i s k of s i gni fi cant har m
. ” FL §5- 7 0 1 (n )( 1 ).1 9 4 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y
FL §5- 706, w hi ch sp eci fi es t he i nves t i gat or ydut i es of t he agenc i e s t h a tr e c e i v e r e p o r t s o f c h i l d a b u s e a n d n e g l e c t , i n d i c a t es t h a tt h e G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y’ s p r i m a r y c o n c e r n w a s t h e h e a l t h , s a f e t y, a n d w e lf a re o f a c h ild w h o h a s b e e n v ictim ize d : W i t hi n 24 hour s aft er r ece i vi ng a re por tof s u spect ed abus e and w i t hi n 5 day s aft er rec ei vi ng a r epor tof s us pect ed negl ect , t he l ocal depart m entort he appr opr i at e l aw e n f o rc e m e n t ag e n c ysh a ll: ( i ) s ee the chi l d: ( i i ) at tem p t t o have a n on- s i t e i nt er vi ew w i t h t he chi l d’ s car et aker ; [and] ( ii i) d eci de on the s afe t yof t he chi l d, w h e re v e r th e c h ild is, a n d o f o th e r c h ild re n in th e h o u s e h o ld

.... F L § 5 -7 0 6 (b )( 2 ). T h is la n g u a g e , re f e rr in g a s it d o e s to “ th e c h ild ,” im p lies th a t th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b lya ss u m e d th a t th e re p o rt w o u ld conce r n s om eone w ho w as t hen a chi l d and t hatpr ot ect i ve s er vi ces m ig h t b e n e e d e d f

o r t h a t c h ild

. See FL §5- 709( c) , 5- 710, and 5- 713. S e e g e n e ra lly 76 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 2 0 (19 9 1 ).
Y et , as t he r efe r ence t o “other chi l dr en i n t he househol d” su g g e sts , the G e n e ra l A s s e m b lyh a d b ro a d e r c o n c e rn s a s w e ll

) n a m e ly , to p ro tec t o th e rc hi l dr en w ho m i ghtbe atr i s k fr om t he al l eged a bus er
. T hi s conce r n i s r efl ect ed i n t he fol l ow i ng addi t i onal dut yi m pos ed on the l o ca l d ep ar t m ent : t o “dec i de on the s afe t yof ot herchi l dr en i n t he ca r e orcus t ody of t he al l eged a bus er
. ” FL §5- 7 0 6 (b )( 2 )( iii)

. See a l

so F L § 5 -7 0 6 (c )(2 )(ii). T h u s, th e s tatu te r efl ect s t he comm on- s ens e pr opos i t i on thati f one c hi l d has been abus ed, t he s afe t yof ot her c hi l dr en overw hom t he al l eged a bus er has cont r ol i s doubt ful , and the l ocal depart m enthas a dutyt o chec k o n t h e i rs a f

e t y. C as es of chi l d abus e i m pl i cat e anothe rhi ghl ys i gni fi cant legislat ive o b

jecti v e– p o tential p rose cu ti o n o f th e a b u ser. T h e re p o rt is th e f irst ste p , fo r it is to p ro v id e “ a n y.. . inf o rm a tio n th a t w o u ld he l p
. . . i de nt i [f

y ]

. . . a ny i nd i vi du a l r e s po ns i bl e fo r t he a bu s e
. . . . ” FLG en. 189] 195

The pre vious year , the Genera l As sembly enac ted a statute that 5 ma deit a fe lony to ma lic iou sly be at, strike , or oth e rw isemis tr e at a c hil d un de r the a g e of

fo ur te e n to su c h a

de gre e a s to re qu ir e me dic a l tre atme nt. SeeChapter 743, L aws of Ma ryland 1963. §5- 704( c) ( 5) ( i i )

. M or eover , t he s t atut e m ani fes t s a l egi s l at i ve conce r n w ith eff

ect i ve pr os ecut i on: “The l ocal depart m ent , t he a p p ro p ria te la w e n f

o rc e m e n t ag e n c ies , the S tate ’s A tto rn e yw ith in e a c h c o u n ty a n d B a lti m o re C ity , the d e p a rtm e n t’s o f f ice re sp o n sib le f o r c h ild c a re re g u latio n , a n d th e lo c a l h e a lth o f f ice r sh a ll en ter in to a w r i t t en agr eement t hat s peci fi es t he s t andar d oper at i ng pr ocedur es fort he i nves t i gat i on and pros ecut i on of re por t ed cas es of s us pect ed a b u s e .” F L § 5 -7 0 6 (e ). S ee als o F L § 5 -7 0 6 (f ) (re q u irin g c e rta in pr ocedur es for j oi nt i nves t i gat i ons of s exual abus e)

. I n addi t i on, t he l ocal depart m enti s r equi r ed to p rovi de the l ocal St at e’ s A t t or ney w i t h bot h i t s pr el i m i nary fin di ngs aft err ece i vi ng a not i ce of s us pect ed abus e and a w r i t t en re por tof i t s fi ndi ngs aft eri tcompl et es i t s i n v es t i gat i on. O bvi ous l yt he i nfor m at i on i s i nt ended t o ai d t he St at e’ s A t t or ney i n det er m i ni ng w hethert o pur s ue pos s i bl e cha r ges u n d e r A r t i c l e 2 7 , § 3 5 A o f t h e C o d e , w h i c h m a k e s i t a f e l o n y, puni s habl e by l engthy i ncar cer at i on, for a “par ent or ot her pe rs on w ho has per m anentort empora r ycar e orcus t odyorr es pons i bi l i t yfor t he s uper vi s i on of t h e chi l d ora hous ehol d orfami l ym ember w ho caus es abus e t o t he chi l d .

. . . ”
C
. L egis lati ve History I n 1964, t he G ener al A s s embl yenac t ed the fi r s ts t atut e that r e q u i r e d t h e r e p o r t i n g o f s u s p e c t e d c h i l d a b u s e
. Ch a p t e r 1 0 4 , L a ws of M ary l and 1964. U nder t hi s act , a phy s i ci an w ho r ender ed medi cal car e t o a chi l d undert he age of fou rt een underci r cumst ance s ind icati n g that the c h il d h ad b ee n m istrea ted w as re q u ir ed to rep o rt th e a b u se to th e lo c a l p o lice d e p a rtm e n t o r th e M a ry lan d S ta te Pol i ce. T he s t atut e gr ant ed i m m uni t yfr om ci vi l l i abi l i t yforany one

5 par t i ci pat i ng i n t he r epor t or any j uveni l e pr ocee di ng r es ul t i ng fr om th e re p o rt.
T he G ener al A s s emb l ys ubs t ant i al l yr evi s ed the r epor t i ng req u ir em en ts i n 1 9 6 6 b yreq u ir ing “e v ery he alt h p rac ti ti o n er, educa t or , heal t h, m ent al heal t h, or s oci al w or kerorl aw enfor cement offi cer ” w ho cont act ed, exami ned, at t ended, ort reat ed a c hi l d and bel ieve d t hata chi l d had “s us t ai ned phy s i cal i nj ur yas a r es ul tof1 9 6 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y abus e” t o r epor tt he abus e. C hapt er221, L aw s of M ary l and 1966. T h e per s on m aki ng t he r epor tw as r equi r ed t o r epor tor al l yt o t he l ocal departm en tof s oci al s er vi ces and, i f t he r epor t erbel i eved or had reas on to beli eve thati m m ediat e prot ect i on w as need ed, al so m a k e th e re p o rt to th e p o lice

. W ith in 4 8 h o u rs o f th e in iti a l re p o rt, t he i nd ividu al w as r equi r ed t o m ake a w r i t t en r epor tt o t he l ocal d e p a r t m e n ta n d t h e l o c a l S t a t e ’ s A t t o r n e y. C hapt er835 of t he Law s of M ary l and 1973 amended the 1966 s t atut e t o al l ow t he prof es s i onal s w ho w er e r equi r ed t o r epor tt o do so t o either th e l ocal depart m ent ort he p oli ce. C hap t er 835 a l so req u ir ed the a g en cyinit ial lyrec eivin g the re p o rt to n o ti fythe o ther. T h u s, n e ith e r th e lo c a l d e p a rtm e n t n o r th e p o lice w e re a llo w e d to pr ocee d a l o n e
. Cha p t e r8 3 5 a l s o c l a r i f i e d e a r l i e rl a n g u a g e by i mpo s i n g a d u t y t o r e p o r t c h i l d a b u s e o n p e r s o n s o t h e rt han t he s p e c if ie d p ro f e s s io n a ls

. See 60 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al51 (19 7 5 ).
I n 1978, t he G ener al A s s embl yena cted pr ovi s i ons fort he p rotec ti o n o f n eg lected ch il d ren
. A m o n g o ther p rov isi o n s , “e v ery heal t h pr act i t i oner , educa t or , s oci al w or k er, and l aw enfor cement agenc y or offi cer ” w i t h r eas on t o bel i eve thata chi l d w as negl ect ed w as obl i ged t o r epor tt he pert i nentfac t s t o t he l ocal depart m entof s oci al s er vi ces
. C hapt er880, L aw s of M ary l and 1978.
In 1 9 8 3 , the G e n e ra l A s se m b lyre c o g n ize d th a t p ro f e ss io n a ls w er e butone s our ce f

ort he r eport i ng of negl ect ed chi l dr en and provi ded t hat“[a ] nyper s on ot hert han a he al t h pr act i t i oner , l aw enfor cementagenc y , pol i ce of fi cer , educa t or ors oci al w or kerw ho h a s a re a so n a b le b e lief

th a t a c h ild is a n e g lec ted c h ild m a y f ile w ith t he l o ca l depar t m entan or al orw r i t t en r epor tof t he s us pect ed n e g le c t.” C h a p te r 4 9 2 , L a w s o f M a ryla n d 1 9 8 3

. I n or dert o encour age mor e r ep o rt ing, i n 1986 t he G ener al A s s embl yaut hor i zed oc cupat i onal l i cens i ng s anct i ons agai ns tany heal t h pr act i t i oner , po li ce offi cer , educa t or , ors oci al w or kerw ho know i ngl y fai l s t o r epor t s us pect ed chi l d abus e or negl ect t o the l o c a l d e p a r t m e n to rt h e a p p r o p r i a t e l a w e n f o r c e m e n ta g e n c y. C hapt er539, L aw s of M ary l and 1986.
In 1 9 8 7 , the G e n e ra l A ss e m b lyd e c id e d to c o m b in e th e c h ild abu se and c hil d n eglectst atutes and creat e S ub t i t l e 7, “C hil d A bu seG en. 189] 197

Be forethe repea l of the privileg es bec ame e ffe ctive, the General 6 Assembly rec onsidered its dec ision and, in Chapter 770 of the L aws of Maryland 1988, par

tiall y restore d privileg es by cre atingadditional e xcep tions to t

herepo rtingre qu ire me nts of F L§5 -7 05 fo r c e rt a in privileg ed communications. Seenote 2 above

. and N egl ect , ” i n t he Fami l yL aw A r t i cl e. C hapt er635, L aw s of M ary l and 1987. C h apt er635 gr eat l yexpande d t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement s of pr ofes s i onal s byr equi r i ng t hem t o r epor ts us pect ed chi l d abus e and negl ect w hether t hey had see n or t r eat ed t he chi l d or n o t. A s u n d er p ri o r l aw , “a p erso n o ther tha n a h ea lth p rac ti ti o n er, pol i ce of fi cer , oreduca t ororhum an s er vi ce w or kerw ho has r eas on t o bel i eve thata chi l d has been s ubj ectt o abus e ornegl ect ” w as r e q u i r e d t o n o t i f

y t h e l o c a l d e p a r t m e n to rl a w e n f o r c e m e n ta g e n c y.

C hapt er635 al s o cont ai ned a pr ovi s i o n wi th a d e l ay ed ef fec t i ve d ate tha t w o u ld h av e e li m inated an yp ri v il eg e (fo r ex am p le, d o ctorpat i entorat t or ney - cl i ent ) t hata pr ofes s i onal ori ndi vi dual m ayhave es t abl i s hed w i t h t he vi ct i m , t he abus er , or any ot heri ndi vi dual t hat w oul d pr eventt hati ndi vi dual orpr ofes s i onal fr om r epor t i ng t he abus e. H ow ever , t he G ener al A s s embl y al s o cr eat ed an e xcept i on

6 fr om r epor t i ng form ent al heal t h p rovi der s w ho s peci al i ze i n t he ps y chi atr i c tr eatm entof pedophi l i a. C om m onl y k n o w n as t he “B er l i n” exc ept i on, aft er t he doct or w ho pr opos ed i t , t he exc ept i on excus ed a he al t h pr act i t i onerfr om r epor t i ng chi l d s exual abus e i f t he al l eged a bus e occurr ed pr i or t o t he t i m e w hen the i ndi vi dual began t he ps y chi atr i c t r eatm ent , t he pr act i t i oner w as t r eat i ng t he i ndi vi dual fort he purpos e of c ur i ng t he i ndi vi dual ’ s p ed o p hi l i a, and the pr act i t i oner ’ s know ledg e of t he abus e ca m e exc l us i vel yfr om t he in d iv id u a l w h o a b u s e d th e c h ild

. T he l ast su b stan ti al change t o t he r epor t i ng s t atut es occurr ed i n 1989 w hen t he G ener al A s s embl yr epea l ed the “Ber l i n ” e x c e p t i o n. C h a p ter 7 3 0 o f th e L a w s o f M a ry lan d 1 9 8 9 . T h u s, a ll h e a lth p ra c tit io n e rs, in c lu d in g m e n tal h e a lth p ro v id e rs th a t co u n se l ch ild a b u s e rs , h a v e a n u n q u a lif ie d d u ty to re p o rt c h ild a b u s e
. See 75 O pi ni ons of the At t or ney G ener al 7 6 (19 9 0 ) (m en tal h ea lth p rov iders m us t r epor t even w hen t he chi l d abus er w as r efe r r ed by an att or ney fo r ev alua ti o n p ri o r t o crim inal p roc ee d ing s).1 9 8 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y
O ver al l , t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or ydemonst r at es an eve r - w i deni ng s cope f or the r epor t i ng r equi r ement s
. H avi ng m ade the j udgm ent th a t m a n d a to ryre p o rtin g w a s a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t in e f f o rts to combat chi l d abus e and ne gl ect , t he G ener al A s s embl yhas cons i s t ent l ys oughtt o r emove i m pedi m ent s t o t he flow of in f o rm a tio n to th e a u th o rities . W h e n p o licyc h o ice s w e re e x p licitly pr es ent ed t o t he G ener al A s s embl y , i thas opt ed for m or e i ncl us i ve r epor t i ng. For exampl e, i n 62 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al157 ( 1977) , A t t or ney G ener al B ur ch r evi ew ed pol i cyar gum ent s forand a g a in st th e im p o s itio n o f re p o rtin g o b lig a tio n s o n h e a lth pr act i t i oner s w ho l earned of c hi l d abus e fr om a sour ce ot her t han the chil d an d u rge d that “the L eg isl ature ’s reaso n ed jud g m en ti s r equi r ed t o s e tp r i o r i t i e s i n t h i s a r e a
. ” 62 O p inions of

the At t or ney G ener al at161. A deca de l at er , t he L eg isl atur e s eti t s pr i or i t ybyr equi r i ng su c h re p o rtin g . T h e re p e a l o f th e sh o rt-liv e d “ B e rlin ” e x c e p tio n is anotherexampl e of l egi s l at i ve pr i or i t y - s et t i ng. I ndeed, w e fi nd s peci al per t i nence i n t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof t he r epea l of t he “Ber l i n ” ex cept i on. T hi s act i on came aft ert he G ener al A s s embl yw as i nform ed of evi dence s how i ng a patt ern of ab u s e i n pedophi l i a ca s es t hatm akes r epor t i ng al l t he mo re i m po rt ant t o p rot ectotherpo t enti al vict i m s. I n t es t i m onyt o t he H ous e J udi ci aryC om m i t t ee r egar di ng H o u se B il l 12 1 0 , to rep ea l th e “ B erli n ” e x ce p ti o n , D etec ti v e G ary C os t el l o of t he M ont gom eryC ount yPol i ce D epart m entci t eds ever al i nci dent s of pedophi l es comm i t t i ng s exual abus e aga i ns tchi l dr en d u rin g th e ir e n tire liv e s. D e tec tiv e C o ste llo m e n tio n e d o n e c a se in w hi ch a l ocal educa t orhad s t aged hi s death “af t er bei ng acc us ed of m ol es t i ng chi l dr en i n V er m ont

. . . . For t he nextfi ft een y ear s
. . . under a n a s su m e d id e n tityh e w o rk e d a s s c h o o lm a ste r a n d p rin c ip a l, s exual l yabus i ng m any chi l dr en. ” I n another cas e, a pedophi l e “w as ar r es t ed mul t i pl e t i m es t hr oughouthi s l i fe for chi l d expl oi t at i on and re -o f f e n d e d a g a in w h ile in th e J o h n s H o p k in s T re a tm e n t C e n te r.”
In w ri tte n test im o n yo n H o u se B il l 12 1 0 , the M o n tgo m ery C o u n ty J u v e n ile C o u rt C o m m itt e e sta ted : “E x p e rts te ll u s th a t a s i ngl e p ed ophi l e i n hi s ‘ car eer ’ m ol es t s hundr eds of chi l dr en. H ow eve r, hi s ar r es t , pr os ecut i on, and court

- or der ed tr eatm entm ay r e s u l tf r o m t h e d i s c o v e r y o f

o n l y one i nci dentof chi l d s exual abus e. H i s ot hervi ct i m s , compel l ed i nt o s i l ence b o th byt hr eat s and the s h e e re mb a r r a s s mento f h a v i n g b e e n mo l e s t e d , ma yn e v e rc o meG en. 189] 199 for w ar d forhel p o n their o w n. ” I n anotherl et t erof s uppor tfor H ous e B i l l 1210, t he P T A C ounci l of H ow ar d C ount ys t at ed that “the ch ron ic na ture o f c h il d m o lest ati o n , the c h il d m o lest er’s pr opens i t y for m ul t i pl e vi ct i m s , and t he fat al out come of A I D S m ake the n ee d fo r ea rl yiden ti f ica ti o n o f H IV -i n fe cted ch il d m o lest ers readi l yapp arent

. A n i nfec t ed chi l d m oles t er w ho con t i nu es t o ab use e n d a n g e rs th e liv e s o f

p re s e n t a n d f

u tu re v ic tim s .” Si m i l art es t i m onys uppor t ed Senat e B i l l 99, t he Senat e ver s i on of t he l egi s l at i on t o r epea l t he “Ber li n ” except i on. T he N at i onal R e so u rc e C e n ter o n C h ild S e x u a l A b u se c ited a re p o rt o n a d u lt s ur vi vor s of chi l d s exual abus e w hi ch found t hat al m os tt w o- t hi r ds of t he s ampl e neve rt ol d any one aboutt he abus e pr i ort o t he age of 18. I n i t s t es t i m ony , t he N at i onal R es our ce Cent eron C hi l d Sexual A bus e a lso cit ed conc ern fort he s pr ead of A I D S as an i m por t ant re a so n f o r m a n d a to ryre p o rtin g . T h e tes tim o n yn o ted a c a s e in V i r gi ni a i n w hi ch t he br ot herof a man w ho di ed of A I D S cal l ed the pol i ce t o i dent i fyhi m as a chi l d m ol es t er
. T h e pol i ce pe r for m ed a se a rc h o f

th e d e c e a se d ’s r e sid e n c e a n d f o u n d h u n d re d s o f

c h ild por nogr aphyphot os
. T he pol i ce w ere l eftw i t h unans w er ed ques t i ons of w ho t he chi l dr en w er e, how m anyhad bee n m ol es t ed, and how m any m i ght have been i nfec t ed w i t h t he H I V vi rus
. Si nce t her e w as no w ay o f i dent i fy i ng t he vi ct i m s , t heyr emai ned u n n o tif ie d

. D . A nal

ys is and C onclusion W e a c k n o w led g e th a t F L § § 5 -7 0 4 a n d 5 -7 0 5 c o u ld re a so n a b ly be cons t rued t o appl yonl yi f t he al l eg ed vi ct i m w er e s t i l l a chi l d. T h e g ram m ar )“r eas on t o bel i eve t hat a chi l d has been s ubj ect ed t o” a b u se o r n e g lec t

)and the emphas i s el s ew her e i n t he s t atut e on p ro te c tiv e s e rv ic e s f

o r t h a t c h ild le n d w e ig h t to a n a rr o w re a d in g
. B uti n t he end, w e ar e convi nced t hatt he bett ercons t ruct i on of t he l angua g e is t hatr epor t i ng i s r equi r ed w heneve ran ac tof pr i or chi l d abus e ornegl ectoccurr ed, no m at t ert he p rese ntage of t he vi ct i m
. W e bel i eve thatt he G ener al A s s embl ym eantt o ens ur e that th e a p p ro p ria te in v e s tig a to rya n d p ro se c u to ria l au th o rities w o u ld l earn of a llin s ta n c e s in w h ic h a c h ild w a s v ic tim iz e d

. T o b e s u r e , t h e p r i ma r yg o a l o f t h e r e p o r t i n g l a w )pr ovi di ng pr ot ect i on and s er vi ces t o a vi ct i m i zed c hi l d

) ca n n o t be ac hi eved2 0 0 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

A 19 91 surv e y of loc a l depa rtme nts of so c ia l se rv ic e s fo un d th at, 7 in a pproxi mately 80% of the c ases where a n adult client reports abuse a s a child, a minor c hild remained in the homewhere the c lient had bee n abused. L etter of

advicefrom Assistant Atto rn ey Ge neral Wendy Gre enburg

to Ms. J acque line Frich, at 3 (O ctober 30, 1991). This opinion does n o t at tempt to spell out the details of an 8 appropriate re sponse by

the local department to a report of a buse or neglec t when the known vic tim is now an a dult. W e believe , howeve r, that the local dep artment musttake reasona ble steps, in light of the inf or matio n availa

ble to it, to a sc e rt a in wh e ther a ny c hil dre n a

repre se ntly at risk. As a pra ctical matter , a prose cution become s more diffic ult if a

9 great deal of time has passe d since the of fense . But that pra ctical c oncer n is a fa c tor fo r t heStat e ’s Attor

ne y to a sse ss i n c on sid e ri ngwh e ther t o bringcharg es; it is not a basis fo r an undue narrowing of the flow of i n f o r m at i o nt o th e S t at e ’ s Att o r n e y. w hen the vi ct i m i s now an adul t

. B ut pr ot ect i ng t hat one i ndi vi dual is not the s ol e l egi s l at i ve obj ect i ve, t hough i t m ay be t he prim ary one. E ven i f one pa r t i cul arvi ct i m of abuse o r n egl ecti s now an adu l tand t hu s o u tsid e t he scop e of the S t at e’s prot ect i ve ef fort s, ot her s w ho ar e st i l l chi l dr en mi ghtcont i nue t o be atr i s k and i n need of chi l d pr ot ect i ve s er v ic es
. T he i nves t i gat i ve dut i es of t he l ocal 7 depart m entof s oci al s er vi ces ext end t o t hi s pot ent i al gr oup of ot her v ic tim s
. See FL §5- 706( b) ( 3) and (4) an d ( c) ( 2) ( i i )

. A nd as t he 8 leg isla tiv e h isto ryo f

th e re p e a l o f th e “ B e rlin ” e x c e p tio n v iv id ly s how s , t he Legi s l atur e w as w ell aw ar e thatm anypedophi l es cont i nue t hei r pat t ern of abuse w i th new vi ct i m s
. Fur t her m or e, t he r i s k of A I D S under s cor es t he nee d for a focus br oadert han the fa ct th a t o n e v ic tim o f

a b u s e is n o w a n a d u lt.
I n t he cas e of r epor t ed chi l d abus e of a n i ndi vi dual w ho i s now an adul t , m or eover , t he St at e’ s i nt er es ti n pot ent i al cr i m i nal prosecuti on i s ful l yser ved byt he re p ort i ng m and at e. A n o ffen se underA r t i cl e 27 , §35A i s a fe l onyw i t h no s peci fi ed l i m i t at i ons p eriod

. H ence , t he St at e mayi ns t i tut e a pr os ecut i on atanyt i m e. Ma ss e y v . S ta te , 3 2 0 M d

. 6 0 5 , 6 1 0 , 5 7 9 A

. 2 d 2 6 5 (19 9 0 ). 9
O uri nt erpr et ati on of curr entl aw i s s t r engthened byone M a ryla n d ap p ell ate d ec isi o n an d so m e o u t- o f-state au tho ri ty

. In R e y n o ld s v . S ta te , 8 8 M d

. A p p
. 1 9 7 , 5 9 4 A

. 2 d 6 0 9 (19 9 1 ), a 5 6 -y ea ro ld C a rro ll C o u n tyre sid e n t w a s c o n f ro n ted b yh is f

o u r a d u ltG en. 189] 201 d au g h ters w ith h av ing sex u all y ab u sed them w h en they w e re chi l dr en. T he def

endantt hen s ought co u n seli ng butw as i nfor m ed t hat , i n or dert o r ece i ve couns el i ng, he m us t s i gn a form cons ent i ng t o t he couns el i ng cent er ’ s not i fi cat i on t o t he pol i ce of any i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence r egar di ng t he abus e. 88 M d. A pp. at20 1. A ft err ece i vi ng advi ce f r om t he l ocal St at e’ s A t t or ney O ffi ce thathe w as noti m m une fr om pr os ecut i on, t he def endanteventual l ys i gned t he cons entfor m i n or dert o r ece i ve couns el i ng beca us e he as s um ed th a t o th e r a g e n c ie s w o u ld h a v e a s im ila r p ro c e d u r e
. Id

. T h e C o u rt not ed t hati tw as “i ndeed t he cas e” thatot heragenc i es w er e r equi r ed t o r epor tt he abus e. 88 M d

. A p p
. at201. A ft ert he def endant di s cl os ed hi s abus e of hi s fournow - adul tdaught er s , t he counse l or in f o rm e d th e S tate ’s A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice , w h ich th e n n o tifie d th e S tate Pol i c e a n d a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n was s t a r t e d

. 8 8 M d

. App

. a t206. U l t i m at el y , t he defe nd ant w as conv i ct ed o f several sexual offen ses. 88 M d. A pp. at200.
O n appea l , t h e def

endantar gued thathi s i ncr i m i nat i ng a d m iss io n s to th e c o u n s e lo r a n d th e S tate P o lice v io late d h is p riv ilege againstsel f

-in c rim in a tio n . W h ile th e C o u rt e v e n tu a llyh e ld th a t h is a d m iss io n s w e re v o lu n tar ya n d d id n o t v io la te h is F if th A m end m ent pr i vil ege, the C ou rtbri efl ym enti on ed the chil d ab use r ep or t i ng s t atut e. I n di s cus s i ng t he doct or - pat i entpr i vi l ege, t he C o u rtn o ted th at, b ec au se o f th e c h il d ab u se rep o rt ing statu te, there w as “n o p ri v il eg e a g ains t a co u n sell o r’s l eg all yreq u ir ed d iscl o su re of t he fa ctof chi l d abus e t o l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s
. ” 88 M d. A pp. a t 2 0 3 . T h e C o u rt d id n o t q u a lify its sta tem e n t th a t re p o rtin g sh o u ld onl yoccurw hen a c hi l d, r athert han an adu lt , r epor t ed abus e. N or di d t he C our ti n i t s o p inion everques t i on t he appl i cabi l i t yof t he re p o rt in g s ta tu te to th e f a c tu a l s itu a tio n a t h a n d

. T he C om m o n w eal t h C our tof Penns y l vani a had the occ as i on t o deal w i t h t hi s i s s ue under t hat s t at e’ s r epor t i ng l aw
. I n B r oz ovi ch v. C ircl e CG r oup H

om es , I nc . , 54 8 A

. 2d 69 8 (Pa. C om m w . C t. 1988) , a w om an w ho w as 1 9 i nfor m ed a pr i vat e pr ovi derof s oci al s er vi ces t hats he had be en abus ed i n herfos t erhom e w hen s he w as 1 7 . T h e p riv a te a g e n c yth e n in f o rm e d P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s c h ild pr ot ect i ve s er vi ces agenc y . B eca us e of the chi l d abu se rep or t , t he fos t erpar ent s l os tt h eir l i cens e t o actas fos t erpar ent s
. T heyt hen br oughts ui tagai ns tt he pr i vat e s oci al s er vi ce a gencyform aki ng a fal s e chi l d abus e re por t , not m ade i n good fai t h as t he l aw r equi r ed. T he tr i al cour t di s m i s s ed t he s ui taft erfi ndi ng t hatt he s oci al s er vi ce2 0 2 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y
agenc yhad i m m uni t y fr om l i abi l i t y under t he chi l d abus e r epor t i ng l a w. O n a p p e a l, th e f

o ste r p a re n ts a rg u e d th a t b e c a u s e th e v ictim w a s 1 9 y ears of ag e w hen she m ade the reportof ab use, t he ch ild a b u se re p o rtin g law w a s in a p p lica b le, b e c a u se it o n lya p p lies to c h ild re n u n d e r th e a g e o f 1 8 . T h e a p p e a ls c o u rt su m m a rily d ism iss e d th is a rg u m e n t, statin g th a t “th e law g ra n ts im m u n ityto th o s e re p o rtin g c h ild a b u se w ith o u t re g a rd to th e a g e o f th e v ictim w hen the abus e w as r epor t ed. ” 548 A

. 2d at700.
I n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on i n t he B r oz ovi ch c a se , the P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rt re lie d o n a n e a rl ie r c h ild a b u s e re p o rt in g c a s e , C r uz v. C o m m o n w e a lth , 472 A

. 2d 725 ( Pa. C om m w . C t

. 1984)

. I n t hatcas e, a f a th e r so u g h t to h a v e h is rec o rd e x p u n g e d o f a c h ild a b u se re p o rt. T h e f a t h e ra r g u e d t h a t s i n c e h i s mi n o r d a u g h t e r ma d e t h e r e p o r tt wo y ear s aft ert he l as tal l eged i nci dentof s exual ab u se occ ur r ed, t he r epor tdi d notfal l i n to t i m e l i m i tforr epor t i ng r equi r ed byt he s t atut e. H i s argu m ent w as bas ed on the purpos e s ect i on of t he s t atut e, w hi ch s t at ed t hatt he r epor t i ng l aw s w er e ena ct ed t o r es pond t o t he ur gentneeds of abus ed chi l dr en forpr ot ect i ve s er vi ces , and on t he pr ovi s i on m andat i ng t hator al rep o r t s of abus e be f i l ed im m e d iate lya n d w ritten re p o rts w ith in 4 8 h o u rs o f th e in iti a l re p o rt. In re jec tin g th e f

a th e r’s a rg u m e n t, th e c o u rt sta ted : W e fi nd now her e i n t he s t atut e anys ugges t i on th a t th e leg isla tu re in ten d e d to c re a te a sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons forr epor t s of chi l d abus e.
. . . T he ti m e li m its p resc ri b ed b ythe s tatu te w ere obvi ous l yi nt ended f

or t he pr ot ect i on of t he chi l d, nott o s hi el d t he al l eged a bus er
. . . . [T]he s t atut or ycons t ruct i on w hi ch the appe l l ant ur ges w o u l d be contr aryt o t he l egi s l at i ve i nt entt o pr ot ectchi l dr en fr om fur t herabus e. 472 A

. 2d at730.
W e ar e noti ns ens i t i ve t o pol i cyar gum ent s that our cons t ruct i on of t he r epor t i ng l aw m i ghtbe contr aryt o the des i r e of so m e a d u lts w h o w e re v ictim s o f c h ild a b u se a n d w h o w ish to lim it di s cl os ur e t o t hei rthera p i s t s onl yorw ho w oul d pr efe rt o s eek r ecour s e aga i ns tt he al l eged a bus ert hr ough pr i vat e c h an n el s , notG en. 189] 203 i nvol vi ng gover nm ent agenc i es
. M andat i ng r epor t i ng un d er such c irc u m sta n c e s, it h a s b e e n su g g e ste d e a rn e stly , w ill sim p ly d isc o u ra g e th e se a d u lts f ro m c o m in g f

o rw a rd a n d ther ebyeff

e c tiv e ly pr event t r eatm ent of bot h t he vi ct i m and t he al l eged abus er
. I n ot her s i t ua t i o n s , t h e e v e n t s wi l l h a v e o c c u r r e d s o ma n yy e a r s a g o t hat nei t herpr ot ect i on of t hos e w ho ar e s t i l l chi l dr en norcr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n o f

th e a lle g e d a b u s e r i s re a lly a t s ta k e
. T her e i s m er i tt o t hese p o li cyar gum ent s , as t her e i s t o t he co u n terva il ing p o li cyco n side rati o n s. T h ese arg u m en ts, h o w ev er, a re a d d re ss e d to th e w isd o m o f th e c u rre n t re p o rtin g law , n o t to its c o n stru c tio n . If

th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly a c c e p ted th e se a rg u m e n ts, it wo u l d d r a w l i n e s i n t h e s t a tu t e t h a t a r e n o tt h e r e n o w )al l ow i ng rep o rt ing to b e f

o rgo n e if th e in cide n t occ u rred m o re tha n X y ea rs a g o , o ri f t h e v i c t i m i s n o w mo r e t h a n Y y e a r s o l d , o ra f f o r d i n g s o me di s cr et i on t o a ther api st in the t i m i ng of t he r epor t

. B utw e ca nnot c o n stru e th e c u rre n t sta tu te a s if it al r eady co n tai n ed su ch li n es. It does not

. I f w e w er e t o acc ept t he pr opos i t i on t hatno r epor t i ng w as r equi r ed if t he vi ct i m w er e now an adul t , t hen w e w oul d be s ay i ng t hatt her e w as no dut yt o r epor t i f an 18 y ear ol d had been s ubj ect ed to rec en t abu se a n d h ad y o u n g er sibli n g s in th e c a re o f th e a b u ser. T h a t wo u l d b e a n u n t e n a b l e c o n s t ru c t i o n o f t h e s t a tu t e , o n e t h a twe cannoti m agi ne the G ener al A s s embl yi nt ended.
In re ali ty , the s co p e o r na ture o f a n inv esti g ati o n m ayv ary dependi ng on t he i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded i n a r ep o rt , i ncl udi ng t he t i m e thathas pas s ed s i nce t h e ab u s e occ ur r ed and the pr es ent circu m stan ce s o f t h e all eg ed ab u ser. A n d su rely tho se w h o a re conduct i ng an i nves t i gat i on can be sen sit ive t o t he conc erns of an adul tw ho i s i n t her apy
. J udgm ent s of t hi s ki nd, how ever , ar e t o be m ade on a cas e- by

- cas e bas i s by t he l ocal depart m entof s oci al s e r v i c e s a n d a p p r o p r i a t e l a w e n f o r c e me n t a g e n c i e s
. Curr ent l aw d o e s n ot excuse com pli ance w i t h the dutyt o reportt o those a u th o ri tie s
.

II

R eport i ng W hen A l l eged A buser i s D ead
W e sh a ll n o t re p e a t h e re th e a n a ly sis se t o u t at le n g th in P a rt I above. T he curr entl aw does notexcus e r eport ing ev en i f t he2 0 4 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y inf o rm ati o n av ail ab le t o th e p erso n w h o is r eq u ir ed to rep o rt su g g e sts th a t th e a lleg e d a b u se r is d e a d . P e rh a p s th e in f o rm a tio n is w r ong; perhaps t he dea t h occurr ed s o r ece nt l yt hati ndi vi dual s w ho ar e s t i l l chi l dr en mi ghtbe i n need of s er vi ces as a r es ul tof t he abus e. O f cour s e, i f i t i s cert ai n t hat t he al l eged abus er d ied m any y e a rs a g o , the se c o n sid e ra tio n s w ill n o t ap p ly . N e v e rth e les s, th is offi ce ca n n o t i m por ti nt o t he s t atut e an e xcept i on t hatw as not e n a c te d b yth e G e n e ra l A s s e m b ly.
III
C o n fi d en ti a li ty
F L § 5 -7 0 7 (a ) p ro v id e s a s f o llo w s: Subj ectt o fede r al and St at e l aw , t he [Soci al Ser vi ces ] A dm i ni s t r a t i o n s h a l l pr ovi de b yre g u latio n a d o p ted in a c c o rd a n c e w ith T itl e 1 0 , S u b tit le 1 o f

th e S tate G o v e rn m e n t A rticle ( 1) pr o c e dur es for pr ot ect i ng t he c o n f id e n tialityo f re p o rts an d re c o rd s m a d e in acc or dance w i t h t hi s s ubt i tl e; ( 2) condi t i ons underw hi ch i nfor m at i on m ay be r el eas ed; and ( 3) co n d i t i ons fordet er m i ni ng i n cas es w h e th e r a b u se , n e g lec t, or se x u a l ab u se is in d ic a te d , ru le d o u t, o r u n s u b s ta n tia te d

. Fur t herm o re, A r t i cl e 88A , §6( b) cont ai ns t he gene r al r equi r ement tha t “a ll rec o rds a n d rep o rt s co n ce rnin g ch il d ab u se o r ne g lect are con fi den t i al and t heirun authori zed d i scl osure i s a cr i m i nal offense

.. .. ” T h is su b se c tio n sp e c if ies th a t in f

o rm a tio n c o n tain e d in re p o rts o r re c o rd s co n c e rn in g c h ild a b u se a n d n e g lec t m a yb e d isc lo se d o n ly u n d e r th e f

o llo w in g c irc u m sta n c e s: (1) U n d er a co u rto rde r; (2 ) T o p e rso n n e l o f

lo c a l o r S tate depar t m ent s o f s o c i a l s e r v i c e s , l aw e n f o rc e m e n t p e r s o n n e l, a n d m e m b e rs o f m u lti

d isci p li n aryca se co n su lt ati o n team s, w h o are i nves t i gat i ng a r epor tof know n of s usp ec t edG en. 189] 205

COMAR 0 7.02.07.18, the per tinent regulation of the Social 10 Service s Administration, is essentially a re iteration of the limited statutory bases f or disclosure. chi ld ab u s e ornegl ectorw ho ar e pr ovi di ng s er vi ces t o a chi l d orfami l y t hat i s t he s ubj ect o f th e re p o rt; (3 ) T o lo c a l o r S ta te o f f icia l re sp o n sib le fort he admi ni s t r at i on of t h e ch i l d pr ot ect i ve s er vices neces s aryt o carr youtt hei roffi ci al fun ct i on s; (4 ) T o a p ers on w ho i s the all eged ch ild a b u se r or th e p e rso n w h o is s u sp e c ted o f c h ild negl ecti f t hatper s on is r es pons i bl e fort he chi l d’ s w elfar e and pr ovi s i ons ar e made for t he pr ot ect i on of t he i dent i t yof t he r epor t eror a n yo th e r p e rso n w h o se life o r sa f e ty is lik e ly to b e en d an g ere d by di s cl os i ng t he in f o rm a tio n ; ( 5) T o a l i cens ed pr act i t i onerw ho, oran a g e n c y , ins ti tu tio n , o r p ro g ra m w h ich is p ro v id in g tre a tm e n t o r c a r e to a c h ild w h o is the s u b ject of ch il d ab u se o r ne g lect; o r ( 6) T o a pa rent orot herper s on w ho has per m anent or t empora r y car e and c us t odyof a chi l d, i f pr ovi s i ons ar e made for t he pr ot ect i on of t he i dent i t yof t he r epor teroranyot her p ers on w ho se l i fe or safet yi s l i k e ly endange r ed bydi s cl os i ng t he i nfor m at i on. 10
T h e se M a ry lan d p ro v is io n s a re in f u rth e ra n c e o f

a c o n f id e n tiality r equi r ement i n t he fe der al C hi l d A bus e Pr event ion and Tre at m ent A c t. See 42 U

. S

. C

. §5 10 3(b)( 2)( E ); 45 C

. F

. R

. §1 34 0. 14 (i ). A s a pr i oropi ni on s um m ar i zed, “The var i ous confi dent i al i t y s t atut es and r egul at i ons
. . . m ake i tverycl eart hat[t he S o ci al Ser vi ces A dm i ni s t r at i on] i s pr ohi bi t ed fr om publ i cl ydi s cl os i ng t he i dent i tyof t he per s on w ho m ade a r epor t o f s us pect ed abus e; t he natur e and ext entof t he chi l d’ s i nj ur i es t hatpr om pt ed the r epor t ; t he i dent i t yof2 0 6 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

In this opini on, Attorney Gene ral Sachs identified a nother na rrow 11 circ umstance under which disclosurewould be per missibl e: I f a bu seha s re su lte d in t

hede ath o f a

c hil d a nd if the parent or other

caretake r has be en arrested on charg es re lated to that abuse , the custodian of pertinent re cords may

disclose the following information: (i) Wh e th e r th e c h il d h a d e v e r b e e n the subject of a

repor t of suspecte d abuse, (i i) th e d ateo nwh ic hany s u c hr ep o rt w as rec eived, (iii) the dates on which the local depa rtment of so c ia l serv ic e s in iti ate d a nd c omp le te d it s investigation into the validity of the reports, and (iv) the g eneral nature of the department’s investigation. 71 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral at 368-69. the a ll eg ed ab u ser; i n fo rm ati o n o b tai n e d in the lo ca l dep artm en t’ s i nves t i gat i on or th e so ur ces of t hati nfor m at i on; ort he eva l uat i ons of t he chi l d’ s fam il y an d hom e made i n t he cour s e of the i nves t i gat i on. ” 71 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al 368, 374 (19 8 6 ). 11
T hus , a v ict i m of abus e ca n be as s ur ed thatt he age nci es r ece i vi ng i nfor m at i on as a r es ul tof a r epor tw i l l s afe guar d t he i nfor m at i on fr om publ i c di s cl os ur e. “[T] he purpos e behi nd t he nondi s cl os ur e l aw s i s t o encour age t he r eport i ng of chi l d [abus e and] negl ectcas es
. ” Fre e d

v . W o rc e ste r C o u n ty , 69 M d. A pp. 447, 455, 5 1 8 A .2 d 1 5 9 (1 9 8 6 ), appeal dis m is s ed , 4 8 4 U .S . 8 0 4 (1 9 8 7 ). IV C oncl usi on In su m m a ry , itis o u r o p in io n th a t: 1. FL §§5- 704 ( w i t h r es pectt o healt h p r act i t i oner s , pol i ce o f f ice rs, e d u c a to rs, a n d h u m a n se rv ice w o rk e rs) a n d 5 -7 0 5 (w ithG en. 189] 207

re sp e c t to a ll o th e r p e rso n s) r e q u ire re p o rtin g w h e n e v e r th e re is re a so n to b e liev e th a t ch ild a b u se o r n e g lec t o c c u r r e d in th e p a st, e v e n if th e a lleg e d v ictim is a n a d u lt w h e n th e in c id e n t co m e s to l i ght

. Of c o u r s e , t h e f

a c t t h a t t h e v i c t i m i s n o w a n a d u l t s h o ul d be par tof t he r ep or t , and thi s fac tm aybe t aken i nt o acc ountbyt he author i t i es w ho r ece i ve the r epor t w hen t heydet er m i ne the ac t i ons to ta k e in re s p o n s e to th e re p o rt

. 2. F L §§ 5-704 and 5-705 requi re a r epo rtun der t hese ci r cumst ance s even i f t he al l eged abus eri s bel i eved t o be dec eas ed. I nfor m at i on t hatt he al l eged a bus eri s dece as ed s houl d be i ncl uded i n t he r epor t , and the auth or i t i es r ece i vi ng t he r epor tm ayt ake a p p ro p ri a te a c c o u n t o f

th a t c ir c u m s ta n c e
. 3

. A n yre p o rt m a d e u n d e r F L § § 5 -7 0 4 o r 5 -7 0 5 is confi dent i al , m aybe di s cl os ed onl yundert he l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s s peci fi ed b y st atut e, and maynotbe di s s emi nat ed t o t he publ i c at l ar ge. J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce*

*A m anda St akem C onn, a vol unt eeri nt ern i n t he O pi ni ons & A dvi ce D i vi s i on, cont r i but ed subs t ant i al l y t o t he pre par at i on of t hi s opi ni on.