Gen.189] 189

FAMILY LAW ) CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT — REPORTING

OBLIGATION WHEN VICTIM OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT IS

NOW AN ADULT OR ALLEGED ABUSER IS DEAD —

CONFIDENTIALITY OF REPORTS

December 3, 1993

The Honorable Ann Marie Doory

House of Delegates 

You have requested our opinion on several issues relating to

the State law on the reporting of child abuse and neglect.

Specifically, you pose the following questions: 

1. Does a person who has reason to believe that someone

who is now an adult was abused or neglected when that individual

was a child have an obligation, under §§5-704 or 5-705 of the

Family Law Article, Maryland Code (“FL”Article), to report the

alleged abuse or neglect? 

2. If the law generally does require persons to report

suspected abuse or neglect involving a victim who is now an adult,

does this obligation exist if the alleged abuser is deceased?

3. Under what circumstances are reported allegations of

child abuse or neglect disclosed to the public, and by whom? 

For the reasons stated below, we conclude as follows:

1. FL §§5-704 (with respect to health practitioners, police

officers, educators, and human service workers) and 5-705 (with

respect to all other persons) require reporting whenever there is

reason to believe that child abuse or neglect occurred in the past,

even if the alleged victim is an adult when the incident comes to

light. Of course, the fact that the victim is now an adult should be

part of the report, and this fact may be taken into account by the

authorities who receive the report when they determine the actions

to take in response to the report. 
190 [78 Op. Att’y

2. FL §§5-704 and 5-705 require a report under these

circumstances even if the alleged abuser is believed to be deceased.

Information that the alleged abuser is deceased should be included

in the report, and the authorities receiving the report may take

appropriate account of that circumstance. 

3. Any report made under FL §§5-704 or 5-705 is

confidential, may be disclosed only under the limited circumstances

specified by statute, and may not be disseminated to the public at

large. 

I

Reporting When the Victim is an Adult

A. Principles of Statutory Construction

As with any other statute, when we attempt to construe the

child abuse reporting law we try to be faithful to “the purpose of the

legislation, determined in the light of the statute’s language and

context.” Leppo v. State Highway Administration, 330 Md. 416,

422, 624 A.2d 539 (1993). In so doing, “our first recourse is to the

words of the statute, giving them their ordinary and natural import.”

Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 46, 622 A.2d 121 (1993). 

However, “[i]f the statutory language itself is insufficient to

lead us comfortably to conclude what the Legislature intended, we

look beyond the words and examine legislative history when it is

available and the context of the legislation.” Leppo, 330 Md. at 422.

“Context may include related statutes, pertinent legislative history

and ‘other material that fairly bears on the ... fundamental issue of

legislative purpose or goal ....’” GEICO v. Insurance Comm’r, 332

Md. 124, 132, 630 A.2d 713 (1993) (quoting Kaczorowski v. City of

Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 515, 525 A.2d 628 (1987)). See also, e.g.,

Harris v. State, 331 Md. 137, 146, 626 A.2d 946 (1993). 

B. Statutory Text

FL §5-704(a) sets out an unqualified duty to report child abuse

or neglect by certain occupations: 
Gen.189] 191

 The terms “health practitioner,” “police officer,” and “educator or 1

human service worker” are defined in §5-701(h), (o), and (f) respectively.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, including any law on privileged

communications, each health practitioner,

police officer, or educator or human service

worker, acting in a professional capacity, who

has reason to believe that the child has been

subjected to:

(1)(i) abuse, shall notify the local

department [of social services] or the

appropriate law enforcement agency; or 

(ii) neglect, shall notify the local

department; and 

(2) if acting as a staff member of a

hospital, public health agency, child care

institution, juvenile detention center, school,

or similar institution, immediately notify and

give all information required by this section to

the head of the institution or designee of the

head. 

1

FL §5-704 requires an immediate oral report and a prompt written

report. These reports are to contain the following information: 

(1) the name, age, and home address of

the child; 

(2) the name and home address of the

child’s parent or other person who is

responsible for the child’s care; 

(3) the whereabouts of the child; 

(4) the nature and extent of the abuse or

neglect of the child, including any evidence or

information available to the reporter

concerning possible previous instances of

abuse or neglect; and 
192 [78 Op. Att’y

 The exceptions set out in FL §5-705(a)(2) excuse reporting of 2

information encompassed by the attorney-client privilege described in §9-

108 of the Courts Article, reporting of information otherwise encompassed

by the duty of confidentiality owed by an attorney to his or her client, and

reporting that would violate the constitutional right to assistance of

counsel. The exception set out in FL §5-705(a)(3) refers to certain

confidential communications to a minister, clergyman, or priest. 

(5) any other information that would help

determine:

 (i) the cause of the suspected abuse or

neglect; and

 (ii) the identity of any individual

responsible for the abuse or neglect.

FL §5-704(c).

A person who is not in one of the occupational groups

identified in FL §5-704(a) is instead subject to the legal duty to

report set out in §5-705(a): 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2)

and (3) of this subsection, notwithstanding any

other provision of law, including a law on

privileged communications, a person other

than a health practitioner, police officer, or

educator or human service worker who has

reason to believe that a child has been

subjected to abuse or neglect shall: 

 (i) if a person has reason to believe that

the child has been subjected to abuse, notify

the local department [of social services] or the

appropriate law enforcement agency; or 

 (ii) if the person has reason to believe

that the child has been subjected to neglect,

notify the local department.2
Gen.189] 193

 Those who report are granted immunity from civil liability or 3

criminal penalty for doing so in good faith. FL §5-708; §5-362 of the

Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. See Catterton v. Coale, 84 Md.

App. 337, 579 A.2d 781 (1990), cert. denied, 321 Md. 638, 584 A.2d 67

(1991). Conversely, the failure to report might, under some

circumstances, pose a risk of liability. See generally Furr v. Spring Grove

State Hosp., 53 Md. App. 474, 454 A.2d 414, cert. denied, 296 Md. 60

(1983); Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334

(1976).

 The full definition of “abuse” is as follows: 4

(1)(i) The physical injury of a child by any

parent or other person who has permanent or

temporary care or custody or responsibility for

supervision of a child, or by any household family

member, under circumstances that indicate that

the child’s health or welfare is significantly

harmed or at risk of being significantly harmed; or

 (ii) sexual abuse of a child, whether

physical injuries are sustained or not.

(2) “Abuse” does not include, for that reason

alone, providing a child with nonmedical religious

remedial care and treatment recognized by State

law. 

Under FL §5-705(d), “[t]o the extent possible, a report made under

subsection (a) of this section shall include the information required

by [FL] §5-704(c) ....” 

3

A “child” is “any individual under the age of 18 years.” FL §5-

701(d). “Abuse” is defined as the “physical injury” or “sexual

abuse” of a child by the child’s caretakers. FL §5-701(b)(1). The 4

term “sexual abuse” is defined as “any act that involves sexual

molestation or exploitation of a child by a parent or other person

who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for

supervision of a child, or by any household or family member.” FL

§5-701(p)(1). “Neglect” is defined as “the leaving of a child

unattended or other failure to give proper care and attention to a

child by the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian under

circumstances that indicate that the child’s health or welfare is

significantly harmed or placed at risk of significant harm.” FL §5-

701(n)(1). 
194 [78 Op. Att’y

FL §5-706, which specifies the investigatory duties of the

agencies that receive reports of child abuse and neglect, indicates

that the General Assembly’s primary concern was the health, safety,

and welfare of a child who has been victimized: 

Within 24 hours after receiving a report of

suspected abuse and within 5 days after

receiving a report of suspected neglect, the

local department or the appropriate law

enforcement agency shall:

(i) see the child:

(ii) attempt to have an on-site interview

with the child’s caretaker; [and]

(iii) decide on the safety of the child,

wherever the child is, and of other children in

the household ....

FL §5-706(b)(2). This language, referring as it does to “the child,”

implies that the General Assembly assumed that the report would

concern someone who was then a child and that protective services

might be needed for that child. See FL §5-709(c), 5-710, and 5-713.

See generally 76 Opinions of the Attorney General 220 (1991).

Yet, as the reference to “other children in the household”

suggests, the General Assembly had broader concerns as well )

namely, to protect other children who might be at risk from the

alleged abuser. This concern is reflected in the following additional

duty imposed on the local department: to “decide on the safety of

other children in the care or custody of the alleged abuser.” FL §5-

706(b)(2)(iii). See also FL §5-706(c)(2)(ii). Thus, the statute

reflects the common-sense proposition that if one child has been

abused, the safety of other children over whom the alleged abuser

has control is doubtful, and the local department has a duty to check

on their safety.

Cases of child abuse implicate another highly significant

legislative objective– potential prosecution of the abuser. The report

is the first step, for it is to provide “any ... information that would

help ... identi[fy] ... any individual responsible for the abuse ....” FL
Gen.189] 195

 The previous year, the General Assembly enacted a statute that

5

made it a felony to maliciously beat, strike, or otherwise mistreat a child

under the age of fourteen to such a degree as to require medical treatment.

See Chapter 743, Laws of Maryland 1963.

§5-704(c)(5)(ii). Moreover, the statute manifests a legislative

concern with effective prosecution: “The local department, the

appropriate law enforcement agencies, the State’s Attorney within

each county and Baltimore City, the department’s office responsible

for child care regulation, and the local health officer shall enter into

a written agreement that specifies the standard operating procedures

for the investigation and prosecution of reported cases of suspected

abuse.” FL §5-706(e). See also FL §5-706(f) (requiring certain

procedures for joint investigations of sexual abuse). In addition, the

local department is required to provide the local State’s Attorney

with both its preliminary findings after receiving a notice of

suspected abuse and a written report of its findings after it completes

its investigation. Obviously the information is intended to aid the

State’s Attorney in determining whether to pursue possible charges

under Article 27, §35A of the Code, which makes it a felony,

punishable by lengthy incarceration, for a “parent or other person

who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for

the supervision of the child or a household or family member who

causes abuse to the child ....” 

C. Legislative History

In 1964, the General Assembly enacted the first statute that

required the reporting of suspected child abuse. Chapter 104, Laws

of Maryland 1964. Under this act, a physician who rendered medical

care to a child under the age of fourteen under circumstances

indicating that the child had been mistreated was required to report

the abuse to the local police department or the Maryland State

Police. The statute granted immunity from civil liability for anyone 5

participating in the report or any juvenile proceeding resulting from

the report.

The General Assembly substantially revised the reporting

requirements in 1966 by requiring “every health practitioner,

educator, health, mental health, or social worker or law enforcement

officer” who contacted, examined, attended, or treated a child and

believed that a child had “sustained physical injury as a result of
196 [78 Op. Att’y

abuse” to report the abuse. Chapter 221, Laws of Maryland 1966.

The person making the report was required to report orally to the

local department of social services and, if the reporter believed or

had reason to believe that immediate protection was needed, also

make the report to the police. Within 48 hours of the initial report,

the individual was required to make a written report to the local

department and the local State’s Attorney.

Chapter 835 of the Laws of Maryland 1973 amended the 1966

statute to allow the professionals who were required to report to do

so to either the local department or the police. Chapter 835 also

required the agency initially receiving the report to notify the other.

Thus, neither the local department nor the police were allowed to

proceed alone. Chapter 835 also clarified earlier language by

imposing a duty to report child abuse on persons other than the

specified professionals. See 60 Opinions of the Attorney General 51

(1975).

In 1978, the General Assembly enacted provisions for the

protection of neglected children. Among other provisions, “every

health practitioner, educator, social worker, and law enforcement

agency or officer” with reason to believe that a child was neglected

was obliged to report the pertinent facts to the local department of

social services. Chapter 880, Laws of Maryland 1978.

In 1983, the General Assembly recognized that professionals

were but one source for the reporting of neglected children and

provided that “[a]ny person other than a health practitioner, law

enforcement agency, police officer, educator or social worker who

has a reasonable belief that a child is a neglected child may file with

the local department an oral or written report of the suspected

neglect.” Chapter 492, Laws of Maryland 1983. 

In order to encourage more reporting, in 1986 the General

Assembly authorized occupational licensing sanctions against any

health practitioner, police officer, educator, or social worker who

knowingly fails to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the

local department or the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Chapter 539, Laws of Maryland 1986.

In 1987, the General Assembly decided to combine the child

abuse and child neglect statutes and create Subtitle 7, “Child Abuse
Gen.189] 197

 Before the repeal of the privileges became effective, the General

6

Assembly reconsidered its decision and, in Chapter 770 of the Laws of

Maryland 1988, partially restored privileges by creating additional

exceptions to the reporting requirements of FL §5-705 for certain

privileged communications. See note 2 above.

and Neglect,” in the Family Law Article. Chapter 635, Laws of

Maryland 1987. Chapter 635 greatly expanded the reporting

requirements of professionals by requiring them to report suspected

child abuse and neglect whether they had seen or treated the child or

not. As under prior law, “a person other than a health practitioner,

police officer, or educator or human service worker who has reason

to believe that a child has been subject to abuse or neglect” was

required to notify the local department or law enforcement agency.

Chapter 635 also contained a provision with a delayed effective

date that would have eliminated any privilege (for example, doctorpatient or attorney-client) that a professional or individual may have

established with the victim, the abuser, or any other individual that

would prevent that individual or professional from reporting the

abuse. However, the General Assembly also created an exception 6

from reporting for mental health providers who specialize in the

psychiatric treatment of pedophilia. Commonly known as the

“Berlin” exception, after the doctor who proposed it, the exception

excused a health practitioner from reporting child sexual abuse if the

alleged abuse occurred prior to the time when the individual began

the psychiatric treatment, the practitioner was treating the individual

for the purpose of curing the individual’s pedophilia, and the

practitioner’s knowledge of the abuse came exclusively from the

individual who abused the child. 

 The last substantial change to the reporting statutes occurred

in 1989 when the General Assembly repealed the “Berlin” exception.

Chapter 730 of the Laws of Maryland 1989. Thus, all health

practitioners, including mental health providers that counsel child

abusers, have an unqualified duty to report child abuse. See 75

Opinions of the Attorney General 76 (1990) (mental health providers

must report even when the child abuser was referred by an attorney

for evaluation prior to criminal proceedings).
198 [78 Op. Att’y

Overall, the legislative history demonstrates an ever-widening

scope for the reporting requirements. Having made the judgment

that mandatory reporting was an essential element in efforts to

combat child abuse and neglect, the General Assembly has

consistently sought to remove impediments to the flow of

information to the authorities. When policy choices were explicitly

presented to the General Assembly, it has opted for more inclusive

reporting. For example, in 62 Opinions of the Attorney General 157

(1977), Attorney General Burch reviewed policy arguments for and

against the imposition of reporting obligations on health

practitioners who learned of child abuse from a source other than the

child and urged that “the Legislature’s reasoned judgment is required

to set priorities in this area.” 62 Opinions of the Attorney General

at 161. A decade later, the Legislature set its priority by requiring

such reporting. The repeal of the short-lived “Berlin” exception is

another example of legislative priority-setting.

Indeed, we find special pertinence in the legislative history of

the repeal of the “Berlin” exception. This action came after the

General Assembly was informed of evidence showing a pattern of

abuse in pedophilia cases that makes reporting all the more

important to protect other potential victims.

In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding

House Bill 1210, to repeal the “Berlin” exception, Detective Gary

Costello of the Montgomery County Police Department cited several

incidents of pedophiles committing sexual abuse against children

during their entire lives. Detective Costello mentioned one case in

which a local educator had staged his death “after being accused of

molesting children in Vermont.... For the next fifteen years ... under

an assumed identity he worked as schoolmaster and principal,

sexually abusing many children.” In another case, a pedophile “was

arrested multiple times throughout his life for child exploitation and

re-offended again while in the Johns Hopkins Treatment Center.”

In written testimony on House Bill 1210, the Montgomery

County Juvenile Court Committee stated: “Experts tell us that a

single pedophile in his ‘career’ molests hundreds of children.

However, his arrest, prosecution, and court-ordered treatment may

result from the discovery of only one incident of child sexual abuse.

His other victims, compelled into silence both by threats and the

sheer embarrassment of having been molested, may never come
Gen.189] 199

forward for help on their own.” In another letter of support for

House Bill 1210, the PTA Council of Howard County stated that

“the chronic nature of child molestation, the child molester’s

propensity for multiple victims, and the fatal outcome of AIDS make

the need for early identification of HIV-infected child molesters

readily apparent. An infected child molester who continues to abuse

endangers the lives of present and future victims.”

Similar testimony supported Senate Bill 99, the Senate version

of the legislation to repeal the “Berlin” exception. The National

Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse cited a report on adult

survivors of child sexual abuse which found that almost two-thirds

of the sample never told anyone about the abuse prior to the age of

18. In its testimony, the National Resource Center on Child Sexual

Abuse also cited concern for the spread of AIDS as an important

reason for mandatory reporting. The testimony noted a case in

Virginia in which the brother of a man who died of AIDS called the

police to identify him as a child molester. The police performed a

search of the deceased’s residence and found hundreds of child

pornography photos. The police were left with unanswered

questions of who the children were, how many had been molested,

and how many might have been infected with the HIV virus. Since

there was no way of identifying the victims, they remained

unnotified. 

D. Analysis and Conclusion

We acknowledge that FL §§5-704 and 5-705 could reasonably

be construed to apply only if the alleged victim were still a child.

The grammar ) “reason to believe that a child has been subjected to”

abuse or neglect ) and the emphasis elsewhere in the statute on

protective services for that child lend weight to a narrow reading. 

But in the end, we are convinced that the better construction of

the language is that reporting is required whenever an act of prior

child abuse or neglect occurred, no matter the present age of the

victim. We believe that the General Assembly meant to ensure that

the appropriate investigatory and prosecutorial authorities would

learn of all instances in which a child was victimized. 

To be sure, the primary goal of the reporting law ) providing

protection and services to a victimized child ) cannot be achieved
200 [78 Op. Att’y

A 1991 survey of local departments of social services found that, 7

in approximately 80% of the cases where an adult client reports abuse as

a child, a minor child remained in the home where the client had been

abused. Letter of advice from Assistant Attorney General Wendy

Greenburg to Ms. Jacqueline Frich, at 3 (October 30, 1991).

 This opinion does not attempt to spell out the details of an 8

appropriate response by the local department to a report of abuse or

neglect when the known victim is now an adult. We believe, however,

that the local department must take reasonable steps, in light of the

information available to it, to ascertain whether any children are presently

at risk.

 As a practical matter, a prosecution becomes more difficult if a 9

great deal of time has passed since the offense. But that practical concern

is a factor for the State’s Attorney to assess in considering whether to

bring charges; it is not a basis for an undue narrowing of the flow of

information to the State’s Attorney.

when the victim is now an adult. But protecting that one individual

is not the sole legislative objective, though it may be the primary

one. Even if one particular victim of abuse or neglect is now an

adult and thus outside the scope of the State’s protective efforts,

others who are still children might continue to be at risk and in need

of child protective services. The investigative duties of the local 7

department of social services extend to this potential group of other

victims. See FL §5-706(b)(3) and (4) and (c)(2)(ii). And as the 8

legislative history of the repeal of the “Berlin” exception vividly

shows, the Legislature was well aware that many pedophiles

continue their pattern of abuse with new victims. Furthermore, the

risk of AIDS underscores the need for a focus broader than the fact

that one victim of abuse is now an adult. 

In the case of reported child abuse of an individual who is now

an adult, moreover, the State’s interest in potential criminal

prosecution is fully served by the reporting mandate. An offense

under Article 27, §35A is a felony with no specified limitations

period. Hence, the State may institute a prosecution at any time.

Massey v. State, 320 Md. 605, 610, 579 A.2d 265 (1990).9

Our interpretation of current law is strengthened by one

Maryland appellate decision and some out-of-state authority. In

Reynolds v. State, 88 Md. App. 197, 594 A.2d 609 (1991), a 56-yearold Carroll County resident was confronted by his four adult
Gen.189] 201

daughters with having sexually abused them when they were

children. The defendant then sought counseling but was informed

that, in order to receive counseling, he must sign a form consenting

to the counseling center’s notification to the police of any

incriminating evidence regarding the abuse. 88 Md. App. at 201.

After receiving advice from the local State’s Attorney Office that he

was not immune from prosecution, the defendant eventually signed

the consent form in order to receive counseling because he assumed

that other agencies would have a similar procedure. Id. The Court

noted that it was “indeed the case” that other agencies were required

to report the abuse. 88 Md. App. at 201. After the defendant

disclosed his abuse of his four now-adult daughters, the counselor

informed the State’s Attorney’s Office, which then notified the State

Police and an investigation was started. 88 Md. App. at 206.

Ultimately, the defendant was convicted of several sexual offenses.

88 Md. App. at 200.

On appeal, the defendant argued that his incriminating

admissions to the counselor and the State Police violated his

privilege against self-incrimination. While the Court eventually held

that his admissions were voluntary and did not violate his Fifth

Amendment privilege, the Court briefly mentioned the child abuse

reporting statute. In discussing the doctor-patient privilege, the

Court noted that, because of the child abuse reporting statute, there

was “no privilege against a counsellor’s legally required disclosure

of the fact of child abuse to law enforcement officials.” 88 Md. App.

at 203. The Court did not qualify its statement that reporting should

only occur when a child, rather than an adult, reported abuse. Nor

did the Court in its opinion ever question the applicability of the

reporting statute to the factual situation at hand. 

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania had the occasion

to deal with this issue under that state’s reporting law. In Brozovich

v. Circle C Group Homes, Inc., 548 A.2d 698 (Pa. Commw. Ct.

1988), a woman who was 19 informed a private provider of social

services that she had been abused in her foster home when she was

17. The private agency then informed Pennsylvania’s child

protective services agency. Because of the child abuse report, the

foster parents lost their license to act as foster parents. They then

brought suit against the private social service agency for making a

false child abuse report, not made in good faith as the law required.

The trial court dismissed the suit after finding that the social service
202 [78 Op. Att’y

agency had immunity from liability under the child abuse reporting

law.

On appeal, the foster parents argued that because the victim

was 19 years of age when she made the report of abuse, the child

abuse reporting law was inapplicable, because it only applies to

children under the age of 18. The appeals court summarily

dismissed this argument, stating that “the law grants immunity to

those reporting child abuse without regard to the age of the victim

when the abuse was reported.” 548 A.2d at 700.

In reaching its decision in the Brozovich case, the Pennsylvania

court relied on an earlier child abuse reporting case, Cruz v.

Commonwealth, 472 A.2d 725 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). In that case,

a father sought to have his record expunged of a child abuse report.

The father argued that since his minor daughter made the report two

years after the last alleged incident of sexual abuse occurred, the

report did not fall into time limit for reporting required by the

statute. His argument was based on the purpose section of the

statute, which stated that the reporting laws were enacted to respond

to the urgent needs of abused children for protective services, and on

the provision mandating that oral reports of abuse be filed

immediately and written reports within 48 hours of the initial report.

In rejecting the father’s argument, the court stated: 

We find nowhere in the statute any suggestion

that the legislature intended to create a statute

of limitations for reports of child abuse.... The

time limits prescribed by the statute were

obviously intended for the protection of the

child, not to shield the alleged abuser.... [T]he

statutory construction which the appellant

urges would be contrary to the legislative

intent to protect children from further abuse.

472 A.2d at 730.

We are not insensitive to policy arguments that our

construction of the reporting law might be contrary to the desire of

some adults who were victims of child abuse and who wish to limit

disclosure to their therapists only or who would prefer to seek

recourse against the alleged abuser through private channels, not
Gen.189] 203

involving government agencies. Mandating reporting under such

circumstances, it has been suggested earnestly, will simply

discourage these adults from coming forward and thereby effectively

prevent treatment of both the victim and the alleged abuser. In other

situations, the events will have occurred so many years ago that

neither protection of those who are still children nor criminal

prosecution of the alleged abuser is really at stake. 

There is merit to these policy arguments, as there is to the

countervailing policy considerations. These arguments, however,

are addressed to the wisdom of the current reporting law, not to its

construction. If the General Assembly accepted these arguments, it

would draw lines in the statute that are not there now ) allowing

reporting to be forgone if the incident occurred more than X years

ago, or if the victim is now more than Y years old, or affording some

discretion to a therapist in the timing of the report. But we cannot

construe the current statute as if it already contained such lines. It

does not. If we were to accept the proposition that no reporting was

required if the victim were now an adult, then we would be saying

that there was no duty to report if an 18 year old had been subjected

to recent abuse and had younger siblings in the care of the abuser.

That would be an untenable construction of the statute, one that we

cannot imagine the General Assembly intended.

In reality, the scope or nature of an investigation may vary

depending on the information provided in a report, including the

time that has passed since the abuse occurred and the present

circumstances of the alleged abuser. And surely those who are

conducting an investigation can be sensitive to the concerns of an

adult who is in therapy. Judgments of this kind, however, are to be

made on a case-by-case basis by the local department of social

services and appropriate law enforcement agencies. Current law

does not excuse compliance with the duty to report to those

authorities. 

II

Reporting When Alleged Abuser is Dead

We shall not repeat here the analysis set out at length in Part I

above. The current law does not excuse reporting even if the
204 [78 Op. Att’y

information available to the person who is required to report

suggests that the alleged abuser is dead. Perhaps the information is

wrong; perhaps the death occurred so recently that individuals who

are still children might be in need of services as a result of the abuse.

 

Of course, if it is certain that the alleged abuser died many

years ago, these considerations will not apply. Nevertheless, this

office cannot import into the statute an exception that was not

enacted by the General Assembly. 

III

Confidentiality

FL §5-707(a) provides as follows: 

Subject to federal and State law, the

[Social Services] Administration shall provide

by regulation adopted in accordance with Title

10, Subtitle 1 of the State Government Article

(1) procedures for protecting the

confidentiality of reports and records made in

accordance with this subtitle; (2) conditions

under which information may be released; and

(3) conditions for determining in cases

whether abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse is

indicated, ruled out, or unsubstantiated. 

Furthermore, Article 88A, §6(b) contains the general requirement

that “all records and reports concerning child abuse or neglect are

confidential and their unauthorized disclosure is a criminal offense

....” This subsection specifies that information contained in reports

or records concerning child abuse and neglect may be disclosed only

under the following circumstances: 

(1) Under a court order;

(2) To personnel of local or State

departments of social services, law

enforcement personnel, and members of multidisciplinary case consultation teams, who are

investigating a report of known of suspected
Gen.189] 205

 COMAR 07.02.07.18, the pertinent regulation of the Social 10

Services Administration, is essentially a reiteration of the limited statutory

bases for disclosure.

child abuse or neglect or who are providing

services to a child or family that is the subject

of the report; 

(3) To local or State official responsible

for the administration of the child protective

services necessary to carry out their official

functions;

(4) To a person who is the alleged child

abuser or the person who is suspected of child

neglect if that person is responsible for the

child’s welfare and provisions are made for

the protection of the identity of the reporter or

any other person whose life or safety is likely

to be endangered by disclosing the

information; 

(5) To a licensed practitioner who, or an

agency, institution, or program which is

providing treatment or care to a child who is

the subject of child abuse or neglect; or 

(6) To a parent or other person who has

permanent or temporary care and custody of a

child, if provisions are made for the protection

of the identity of the reporter or any other

person whose life or safety is likely

endangered by disclosing the information.10

These Maryland provisions are in furtherance of a confidentiality

requirement in the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Act. See 42 U.S.C. §5103(b)(2)(E); 45 C.F.R. §1340.14(i). As a

prior opinion summarized, “The various confidentiality statutes and

regulations ... make it very clear that [the Social Services

Administration] is prohibited from publicly disclosing the identity of

the person who made a report of suspected abuse; the nature and

extent of the child’s injuries that prompted the report; the identity of
206 [78 Op. Att’y

 In this opinion, AttorneyGeneral Sachs identified another narrow 11

circumstance under which disclosure would be permissible:

If abuse has resulted in the death of a child and if

the parent or other caretaker has been arrested on

charges related to that abuse, the custodian of

pertinent records may disclose the following

information:

(i) Whether the child had ever been the

subject of a report of suspected abuse, 

(ii) the date on which any such report was

received, 

(iii) the dates on which the local department

of social services initiated and completed its

investigation into the validity of the reports, and 

(iv) the general nature of the department’s

investigation.

71 Opinions of the Attorney General at 368-69.

the alleged abuser; information obtained in the local department’s

investigation or the sources of that information; or the evaluations

of the child’s family and home made in the course of the

investigation.” 71 Opinions of the Attorney General 368, 374

(1986).11

Thus, a victim of abuse can be assured that the agencies

receiving information as a result of a report will safeguard the

information from public disclosure. “[T]he purpose behind the

nondisclosure laws is to encourage the reporting of child [abuse and]

neglect cases.” Freed v. Worcester County, 69 Md. App. 447, 455,

518 A.2d 159 (1986), appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 804 (1987). 

IV

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that: 

1. FL §§5-704 (with respect to health practitioners, police

officers, educators, and human service workers) and 5-705 (with
Gen.189] 207

respect to all other persons) require reporting whenever there is

reason to believe that child abuse or neglect occurred in the past,

even if the alleged victim is an adult when the incident comes to

light. Of course, the fact that the victim is now an adult should be

part of the report, and this fact may be taken into account by the

authorities who receive the report when they determine the actions

to take in response to the report. 

2. FL §§5-704 and 5-705 require a report under these

circumstances even if the alleged abuser is believed to be deceased.

Information that the alleged abuser is deceased should be included

in the report, and the authorities receiving the report may take

appropriate account of that circumstance. 

3. Any report made under FL §§5-704 or 5-705 is

confidential, may be disclosed only under the limited circumstances

specified by statute, and may not be disseminated to the public at

large.

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Jack Schwartz

Chief Counsel

Opinions & Advice*

*Amanda Stakem Conn, a volunteer intern in the Opinions & Advice

Division, contributed substantially to the preparation of this opinion.