 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services v. P.F.3/6/2001
REPORTED
This is the story of a father who successfully defended himself against accusations that he molested his three year old daughter. It underscores the importance that a thorough, unbiased investigation can play in protecting both children and parents.
The Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services ("MCHHS"), appellant, asks us to overturn an order reversing its finding that P. F., appellee ("Mr. F."), sexually abused his child. The order also prevented MCHHS from entering Mr. F.'s name into a central registry reporting child abuse cases in which MCHHS has made a finding that abuse was either "indicated" or "unsubstantiated," and required MCHHS to expunge from its records any references to Mr. F. as a suspected abuser. An administrative law judge issued the order after finding that "there is no credible evidence that an incident of sexual abuse occurred . . . ." The circuit court agreed, and affirmed the administrative order.
In this appeal, MCHHS argues that the administrative law judge and the circuit court erred by failing to treat the expert testimony of its social worker and the out of court statements of the child as credible evidence that Mr. F. abused his daughter. We shall affirm the judgment, because (1) the social worker's opinion that the child had been molested merely vouched for the child's credibility, and (2) the administrative law judge's threshold determination that the child's hearsay statement was not reliable enough to constitute credible evidence of abuse was supported by the evidence.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On August 4, 1998, MCHHS received a confidential report concerning the possible sexual abuse of a three year old child whom we shall refer to as "Susan." Susan's parents, Mr. F. and E. F. ("Ms. F."), are divorced. The reporter was Mr. F.'s therapist. She alleged that after Mr. F. spent a recent day with Susan, he became concerned that someone, such as a babysitter, may have molested her. According to notes in MCHHS's file, the therapist said that Mr. F. told her that his fears arose when he went to change Susan's diaper, and she asked him if he was going to "tickle her pee-pee." He was worried why a young child would ask such a question. The therapist told Mr. F. that she felt legally obligated to report his concerns, and advised him to inform Ms. F. Mr. F. said that when he told his ex-wife that his therapist was making a report, she became angry and told him that he had just lost his visitation privileges.
Police And MCHHS Investigation
One of MCHHS's social workers, Ann Marie Gumula, began her investigation by telephoning both Mr. F. and Ms. F, and then meeting with both parents and the child. Gumula and a police detective , Ralph Penn, Jr., interviewed first Ms. F. and Susan, and later Mr. F. This turned out to be the investigators' only contact with Susan.
Penn and Gumula prepared separate case reports. Penn's report, dated August 21, 1998, both opened and closed the police department's investigation. Penn first summarized the therapist's report, which was related to him by MCHHS. Mr. F. reported to his therapist that his ex-wife told him that Susan had said that Mr. F. had hurt her "pee pee" with his finger. According to the report, Mr. F. also told the therapist that "while changing [Susan's] diaper she asked him if he was going to tickle her pee-pee. Mr. [F.] told his daughter that daddies don't tickle their daughter's pee-pee."
Penn's report then summarized the interviews with Ms. F., Susan, and Mr. F. According to Penn, Ms. F. reported that she had heard Susan complain about her father hurting her on two occasions.
On 0
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|