Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_34_issue_2?pg=47
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:06:58+00:00

Document:
The accused’s need for access is obvious in many cases; these individuals will need information to appeal or defend a finding of substantiated abuse or neglect. Children who may have been the victims of abuse or neglect also have an obvious right to the information; as the New Jersey law evidenced, this information can help children better understand their situation. Additionally, this information may be helpful as victims seek medical treatment.
Some of the restrictions states place on disclosure to subjects of the report, however, may hinder accountability. For example, limiting the accused’s access to substantiated cases of abuse, or for the purpose of criminal defense, prevents those individuals from reviewing records of government investigation that resulted in unfounded reports of abuse. This access would seem to offer a great deal of information about the process of investigation. Additionally, if unsubstantiated records are retained for future use by agencies, the accused should have the ability to challenge any inaccurate information. In contrast, the limits placed on a minor’s access to child abuse records in South Carolina seem reasonable; restricting access to sensitive information by age likely reduces the risk of further distress to the victims. To maximize accountability, however, once the child reaches the age of majority,109 restrictions should be lifted to allow the child full access to the records.
In addition to these protections for minors, states should redact any sensitive information, such as the name or identifying information of the person who filed a report of suspected abuse, when an individual named in the agency record requests access, to provide a more balanced approach to disclosure. This would allow individuals to have relevant access and the ability to challenge any inaccurate information, while also promoting accountability and oversight of child welfare agencies by those most closely associated with an agency’s investigative and placement procedures.
104 See, e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN. § 39.202(2)(e) (West 2013) (permitting disclosure when the accused is not a parent and limiting the disclosure to information about the investigation process); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 722.627(2)(f) (West 2013) (requiring the name of the reporter to be redacted); MO. ANN. STAT. § 210. 150(2)(5) (West 2013) (prohibiting disclosure before a criminal “indictment is returned or an information filed”).
105 N.J. STAT. ANN. § 9:6-8.10a(b)(12) (West 2013).
107 S.C. CODE ANN. § 63-7-1990(B)(6) (2013).
108 N.J. STAT. ANN. § 9:6-8.10a(c).
109 Children exit or “age out” of child welfare systems between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, depending on state policy. See CHILD WELFARE INFO. GATEWAY, U.S. DEP’T HEATH & HUMAN SERVS., FOSTER CARE STATISTICS 2012 5 n.4 (2013), available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.pdf.

References: § 39
 § 722
 § 210
 § 9
 § 63
 § 9