Opinion ID: 2060464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: The AMF and CIS Registries

Text: As recognized by the local departments in their brief, [a]lso considered part of the agency's record are the coded entries in the AMF and CIS. [9] The departments go on to describe the evolution of the AMF: Since the 1940s, prior to local departments having responsibility for CPS [Child Protective Services], DHR and local departments have maintained lists of their clients. Prior to automation, this was done by use of a centralized index card filing system known as the Master File. When the Master File was automated in 1986, it was renamed the Automated Master File or AMF. [Citations omitted.] In his affidavit for the L.D. case, Acting Director Berry further described the AMF and CIS database systems: The AMF, which still operates in many jurisdictions, is accessible to all local departments. The AMF contains coded information about any individual who has applied for or received benefits or services through a DHR program anywhere in the state. As with the Master File, local departments use the AMF to locate active and closed case records; determine what DHR benefits or services individuals have applied for or received; monitor case activity; and extract limited demographic information about individual applicants and recipients. The AMF also generates the data DHR requires for various statistical reports. In the early 1990s, DHR began development of a new computer system, CIS. Local departments in all but the largest jurisdictions now use CIS to track clients and services. While CIS jurisdictions still have access to the AMF, they enter new data and cases directly into CIS. The same kinds of data are recorded in both systems. In both the AMF and CIS, child protective services provided in response to a report of child abuse or neglect are catalogued, as other services, under a case head, usually the female head of the household. Under the case head, local departments enter the names of family members, including the child and other relatives by blood, adoption, or marriage, and of household members. In the case of alleged abuse or neglect, household members include all individuals who lived with the child or were a regular presence in the child's home. Any other individuals significant to the provision of services are identified as associates and coded with a reference to their relationship to the case head. The particular services provided to a family are identified in the AMF or CIS by a code. In the case of reported child abuse or neglect, a service code for child protective services is entered into the AMF or CIS for the case head as well as for every household or family member or associate. An additional code identifies the alleged maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect) and disposition of the investigation (indicated, unsubstantiated, or ruled out). .... Access to the AMF and CIS is limited. In both systems, access is controlled by the use of passwords provided only to certain local department and DHR employees for whom access is necessary to perform their jobs. Acting Director Berry went on to describe the now defunct Central Registry. He stated that the Central Registry initially was accessible to public and private agencies and that it was not until 1977 that the Legislature prohibited the Department from entering a person's name into `the Child Abuse Central Registry' unless he or she had been `adjudicated a child abuser' or had been offered an administrative hearing. See generally 1977 Md. Laws, Ch. 504. Berry noted that in 1981, because of the stigmatizing effect on a family or child and the intrusive nature of the appeals process, the Legislature limited access to the Central Registry to individuals specifically involved in child abuse investigations: protective services staff of the Social Services Administration, protective services staff of local departments of social services, who are investigating a report of suspected child abuse, ... and law enforcement personnel who are investigating a report of suspected child abuse. 1981 Md. Laws Ch. 770 (showing additions and deletions). But see COMAR 07.02.07.23A, supra. In 1987, at the request of the Department, the Legislature again amended provisions regarding the Central Registry and clarified that the maintenance of the Central Registry was discretionary rather than mandatory. See 1987 Md. Laws Ch. 635 (now codified with amendments at § 5-714(a)). Accordingly, in the late 1980s, the Department deactivated the Central Registry. It was reactivated briefly after the passage of the Chapter 318 hearings process, [b]ased on [DHR's] understanding that the Chapter 318 appeal procedures would satisfy, as well, the hearing requirements of section 5-715. That interpretation proved incorrect when this Court held in C.S., 343 Md. at 33, 680 A.2d at 480, that section 5-715 required that individuals be offered full contested case hearings, not simply the limited Chapter 318 hearings, prior to the entry of their names on the Central Registry. As we have stated, in reaction to that decision and rather than offering full contested case hearings, the Department again deactivated the Central Registry. At no time has DHR offered individuals full administrative contested case hearings to challenge the entry of their names on the AMF or CIS. The AMF is defined by the DHR in its regulations as an automated electronic system that maintains data related to services provided by a local department. COMAR 07.02.07.02B(3). The AMF also has been referred to as a statewide, comprehensive database containing records of all cases, including those of suspected child abuse, which are handled by local departments of social services. Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Floor Report for House Bill 617, at 2 (1993); Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Bill Analysis for House Bill 617, at 1 (1993). The local departments assert that [t]hese databases serve as computerized indices of all of the agency's files, only a small percentage of which involves [Child Protective Services]. By `running' a name, a local department can determine whether [it or] any [other] local department has served or assisted an individual or household and the status of such involvement. The local departments contend that the AMF and CIS systems are not central registries because they are not `designed solely to list the names of adjudicated child abusers.' C.S., 343 Md. at 22, 680 A.2d at 474 (quoting Bill Analysis for House Bill 617, at 2). In the L.D. case, the circuit court below determined that, as matter of law, the AMF and CIS databases operated by the Montgomery County Department of Social Services and the State Department of Human Resources constitute a central registry as contemplated by Md.Code Ann. Family Law Art., §§ 5-714 and 5-715 (1990 & Supp. 1996). In reaching this determination, Judge Mason, in an excellent opinion, explored the factual background and described the AMF and CIS databases: The precursor to the AMF was the Master File index card systems maintained by each individual local department since the 1940s. These systems were unique to each department and kept track of only those services rendered by that respective local department. Statistical data from these files was tabulated and sent to DHR on a monthly basis. In 1986, DHR created the Automated Master File (AMF) to replace the card system. Unlike the manual card system, the AMF was the filing system for all local departments and made information entered by one local department instantly accessible to all others. In 1990, DHR updated the AMF with a new system called the Client Information System (CIS). The same data is recorded in both systems. The CIS database is now used in all but the largest jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions using the CIS still have access to the AMF. In both systems, data regarding child abuse and neglect is cataloged under a case head and is entered by means of alphanumeric codes. Although the affidavit [of Stephen Berry] does not set out how DSS determines who is the case head, it does state that the case head is usually the female head of the household. Nonetheless, all information regarding the case is stored under that name. Included in this information are the identities of all individuals significant to the provision of services along with codes which reveal their relationship to the case head. In the case of child abuse or neglect, two codes are entered which are of particular importance:  one signifies that a child protective services investigation has been conducted and identifies the maltreatment alleged in the investigation, i.e., whether it is physical abuse, sexual abuse or neglect; and  the second identifies the finding of the investigation, i.e., whether it was ruled out, indicated, or unsubstantiated. These codes appear under the name of each individual listed under the case head regardless of whether that individual is the perpetrator, victim or is otherwise associated with the case. There is no code which explicitly identifies or otherwise singularly applies to the perpetrator. In addition to submitting the affidavit generally describing the codes and procedures used to enter an individual onto the AMF or CIS, DSS also submitted printouts reflecting the information available on [L.D.]. As for the AMF printouts, this information only reflects that [L.D.] ran a day care home. This is because DSS switched from the AMF to the CIS prior to the allegations of neglect against [L.D.]. DSS entered all case information on the CIS, hence, only the CIS contains child neglect information connected with [L.D.]. The CIS printouts regarding [L.D.] largely confirm the general information regarding the databases summarized above. The information appears in three types of printouts. One printout is the address display which contains [L.D.]'s address. The second printout is the summary display wherein [D.N.] is listed as the case head with [L.D.'s] spouse, [L.D.'s] children, [the child and the child's mother] all listed under [L.D.'s] name. Next to each name is the code for a child neglect investigation. The final type of printout is the client inquiry display. Each individual, including [L.D.] has a distinct display under their name in which certain information appears. All of these displays for each individual contain the same codes signifying: (1) a child neglect investigation; (2) a finding of indicated neglect; (3) the location of the office handling the investigation; and (4) the dates the investigation was opened and closed. Additionally, the displays contain codes for each individual's relationship to the case head and their date of birth. [Citations omitted; footnotes omitted.] With the foregoing discussion in mind, we turn now to the case sub judice.