NationStates Jolt Archive

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that California's maintenance of the California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), which is a database of known or suspected child abusers, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because identified individuals are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.

Here is a summary of the case and holding:

Appellants Craig and Wendy Humphries are living every parent’s nightmare. Accused of abuse by a rebellious child, they were arrested, and had their other children taken away from them. When a doctor confirmed that the abuse charges could not be true, the state dismissed the criminal case against them. The Humphries then petitioned the criminal court, which found them “factually innocent” of the charges for which they had been arrested, and ordered the arrest records sealed and destroyed. Similarly, the juvenile court dismissed all counts of the dependency petition as “not true.”

Notwithstanding the findings of two California courts that the Humphries were “factully innocent” and the charges “not true,” the Humphries were identified as “substantiated” child abusers and placed on California’s Child Abuse Central Index (“the CACI”), a database of known or suspected child abusers.

As the Humphries quickly learned, California offers no procedure to remove their listing on the database as suspected child abusers, and thus no opportunity to clear their names. More importantly, California makes the CACI database available to a broad array of government agencies, employers, and law enforcement entities and even requires some public and private groups to consult the database before making hiring, licensing, and custody decisions.

This case presents the question of whether California’s maintenance of the CACI violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because identified individuals are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against them. We hold that it does.

Here is the pdf (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0556467p.pdf) of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

I think that reading about what happened to the Humphries makes it hard to disagree with the Ninth Circuit. On the other hand, I agree with the idea behind the CACI. Hopefully, the CACI can be changed so that protects the due process rights of identified individuals.

Anyone have an opinion?

more info on the CACI:

California Attorney General's Child Protection Program: Child Abuse Central Index (http://ag.ca.gov/childabuse/):

The Attorney General's Child Protection Program administers the Child Abuse Central Index, which was created by the Legislature in 1965 as a tool for state and local agencies to help protect the health and safety of California's children.

Each year, child abuse investigations are reported to the Child Abuse Central Index. These reports pertain to investigations of alleged physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental/emotional abuse, and/or severe neglect of a child. The reports are submitted by police, sheriff's, county welfare and probation departments.

To aid law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes information from the Child Abuse Central Index available, including notices of new child abuse investigation reports involving the same reported suspects and/or victims. Information also is provided to designated social welfare agencies to help screen applicants for licensing or employment in child care facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background checks for other possible child placements, and adoptions. Dissemination of Index information is restricted and controlled by the Penal Code.

Information on file in the Child Abuse Central Index include:


Names and personal descriptors of the suspects and victims listed on reports;
Reporting agency that investigated the incident;
The name and/or number assigned to the case by the investigating agency;
Type(s) of abuse investigated; and
The findings of the investigation for the incident, which is either substantiated or inconclusive.


It is important to note that the effectiveness of the index is only as good as the quality of the information reported. Each reporting agency is required by law to forward to DOJ a summary of every child abuse incident it investigates, unless the incident is determined to be unfounded or general neglect. Each reporting agency is responsible for the accuracy, completeness and retention of reports submitted.

I have always been fundamentally against maintaining public lists of accused ANYTHING. As a matter of law, unless and until you are proven guilty in a court of law, you are innocent of any and all charges against you. To publicly list people as "suspected" or "accused" child abusers that have not had their guilt proven beyond all reasonable doubt is a clear violation of their civil rights.

The standards for CPS 'substantiating' a claim of child abuse are far removed from proving anyone guilty of child abuse or of even proving child abuse in fact happened. A single emergency worker decides ones fate in these cases. There is no jury, trial or appeal. You can't argue or reverse their decision even when that decision is based heresay, misinformation, lies that are later recanted or manipulation on the part of estranged parents. Supposedly the logic is that better safe than sorry when dealing with the safety of children, but at what cost. Peoples lives are forever scarred. They currently have no recourse and are forced to carry this stigma throughout the rest of their lives. I've seen this system work firsthand and hope this decision leads to a serious reworking of the CACI.

I have always been fundamentally against maintaining public lists of accused ANYTHING. As a matter of law, unless and until you are proven guilty in a court of law, you are innocent of any and all charges against you. To publicly list people as "suspected" or "accused" child abusers that have not had their guilt proven beyond all reasonable doubt is a clear violation of their civil rights.

Agreed. The heinousness of the crime shouldn't be enough to overturn the right to a fair trial, by allowing a de facto public conviction.

I have always been fundamentally against maintaining public lists of accused ANYTHING. As a matter of law, unless and until you are proven guilty in a court of law, you are innocent of any and all charges against you. To publicly list people as "suspected" or "accused" child abusers that have not had their guilt proven beyond all reasonable doubt is a clear violation of their civil rights.

Agreed. The heinousness of the crime shouldn't be enough to overturn the right to a fair trial, by allowing a de facto public conviction.

So, is your objection to the degree to which the list is public? What crosses the line in terms of making the information public?

I am assuming you don't object per se to police keeping track of arrests or other such record-keeping.

So, is your objection to the degree to which the list is public? What crosses the line in terms of making the information public?

I am assuming you don't object per se to police keeping track of arrests or other such record-keeping.

of course not, that's why I made the point to say "public". As to what extent does it become public? When one who is not na officer of the law or connected state agency can access that information through legal means.

Police record keeping is one thing, it helps police track suspects and keep a database of information. however releasing that information to the public does not serve that purpose. It doesn't help internal bookkeeping matters. It serves to "warn" the public about people.

People who have been convicted of no crime.

Now if they could only go and fix the mess that is Sex Offender Registration system as well.

Because most people don't care how incredibly bullshit it is that one can be lumped in with rapists and convicted child molesters just by being caught urinating in public... until it happens to them of course.

The list should only be made available for convicted child abusers or rapists or other sex offenders. Otherwise, there's going to be a lot of people who are unfairly accused on that list, destroying their reputations and ability to live anywhere. The idea is a good one, but the implementation has some serious problems that need to be addressed.

What I find objectionable is the use of an allegation as though it were fact.
If the database is being used for background investigations, it should contain "facts". Anyone can make an allegation - but allegations are not necessarily facts.
Anyone should be able to search for their own data in the database, and then have any "allegations" removed unless the state can prove that they are "facts".

The difference between keeping track of "allegations" as opposed to arrests is that the police must have probably cause to arrest you - and then the charges are either dropped, or you go to court and are found not guilty or guilty. In any case, there's more paper showing the outcome.

There isn't any legal outcome for allegations.

I blame the people who wrote the legislation without first considering a mechanism for keeping the data clean (and therefore useful). If you let it fill up with allegations, the data is next to useless, and countless people have their lives ruined.

So, is your objection to the degree to which the list is public? What crosses the line in terms of making the information public?

I am assuming you don't object per se to police keeping track of arrests or other such record-keeping.

They need to keep track of such things...but Joe the Plumber (ha, first and last time I will ever invoke that laughable image) doesn't need to be able to access said list from the public library just because he's the one running background checks for some charity.

They need to keep track of such things...but Joe the Plumber (ha, first and last time I will ever invoke that laughable image) doesn't need to be able to access said list from the public library just because he's the one running background checks for some charity.

1. I don't think the index is that public:

To aid law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes information from the Child Abuse Central Index available, including notices of new child abuse investigation reports involving the same reported suspects and/or victims. Information also is provided to designated social welfare agencies to help screen applicants for licensing or employment in child care facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background checks for other possible child placements, and adoptions. Dissemination of Index information is restricted and controlled by the Penal Code.


2. Why wouldn't it be relevant to a social welfare agency seeking to license a foster home whether or not the family has had prior reports of child abuse? Doesn't keeping such a list and using it for some purposes have merit?

1. I don't think the index is that public:

To aid law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes information from the Child Abuse Central Index available, including notices of new child abuse investigation reports involving the same reported suspects and/or victims. Information also is provided to designated social welfare agencies to help screen applicants for licensing or employment in child care facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background checks for other possible child placements, and adoptions. Dissemination of Index information is restricted and controlled by the Penal Code.


2. Why wouldn't it be relevant to a social welfare agency seeking to license a foster home whether or not the family has had prior reports of child abuse? Doesn't keeping such a list and using it for some purposes have merit?

Only if the allegations are proven to be true.

There has to be some investigation and status to the allegations.

1. I don't think the index is that public:

To aid law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes information from the Child Abuse Central Index available, including notices of new child abuse investigation reports involving the same reported suspects and/or victims. Information also is provided to designated social welfare agencies to help screen applicants for licensing or employment in child care facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background checks for other possible child placements, and adoptions. Dissemination of Index information is restricted and controlled by the Penal Code.


2. Why wouldn't it be relevant to a social welfare agency seeking to license a foster home whether or not the family has had prior reports of child abuse? Doesn't keeping such a list and using it for some purposes have merit?

This is where the issue grays a little bit. While releasing information to the public of this nature would likely be highly prejudicial and contrary to due process, on the other hand, actually hosting foster children isn't a right, and the state does have a legitimate state interest in ensuring children go to safe homes. I think it's OK if a state agency declines to place a child with someone who has been deemed more likely than not to be an abuser. I don't really have a problem with that.

But it has to be more than just an accusation. I'd favor some sort of internal civil or administrative process, if the state wants to cull someone from the rolls of eligible foster parents, it has to prove, based on preponderance, that he or she is a risk to children.

I think when placing children is involved, I'm comfortable with internal agencies requiring less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. But at least some degree should be required.

1. I don't think the index is that public:

To aid law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes information from the Child Abuse Central Index available, including notices of new child abuse investigation reports involving the same reported suspects and/or victims. Information also is provided to designated social welfare agencies to help screen applicants for licensing or employment in child care facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background checks for other possible child placements, and adoptions. Dissemination of Index information is restricted and controlled by the Penal Code.


2. Why wouldn't it be relevant to a social welfare agency seeking to license a foster home whether or not the family has had prior reports of child abuse? Doesn't keeping such a list and using it for some purposes have merit?
What possible merit can it have if it is never updated? Those people where cleared of wrongdoing and declared factually innocent and that the allegations were not true. Why were they on the list at all? I am not satisfied that this particular list exists for a good purpose, it seems pretty clear that the people compiling it and (not) updating it have no business doing so. As it functions now, it seems to be nothing but a witchhunt stimulator.

2. Why wouldn't it be relevant to a social welfare agency seeking to license a foster home whether or not the family has had prior reports of child abuse? Doesn't keeping such a list and using it for some purposes have merit?

NO. To keep listings of unsubstantiated allegations helps no one; it creates only fear and distrust of the authorities among the general public, and allows the actual abusers to slip through the system due to information overload.

I have always been fundamentally against maintaining public lists of accused ANYTHING. As a matter of law, unless and until you are proven guilty in a court of law, you are innocent of any and all charges against you. To publicly list people as "suspected" or "accused" child abusers that have not had their guilt proven beyond all reasonable doubt is a clear violation of their civil rights.

I agree 100%. If does nothing but stigmatize and make pariahs of people who, for all we know, could be totally innocent.

Humiliation, I have never felt, was a just deteriant.

Here where I live we have a central registry, but it is possible to get your name removed. I actually represented someone and had it done. You must first go through an administrative proceeding with DHS. If, at the conclusion of the hearing there the ALJ determines your name is to remain you can appeal to circuit court where you are entitled to a de novo bench trial. If the judge finds at that trial by a preponderance of the evidence that there is "no credible evidence" to support the allegations (what a dumb way to structure the proof burden too, but . . .) that resulted in your name being placed on the central registry he can order your name removed and the DHS records permanently sealed and destroyed.

I can't believe CA. doesn't have a similar procedural safeguard to protect those victimized by false allegations in place. That is completely mind blowing to me and for once I agree wholeheartedly with the 9th Circuit.

i have always been fundamentally against maintaining public lists of accused anything. As a matter of law, unless and until you are proven guilty in a court of law, you are innocent of any and all charges against you. To publicly list people as "suspected" or "accused" child abusers that have not had their guilt proven beyond all reasonable doubt is a clear violation of their civil rights.
qft